[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 213 (Friday, November 2, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55618-55623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-27605]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 94-102; FCC 01-293]


Wireless E911 Service, Petition of City of Richardson, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document responds to a petition for clarification and/or 
declaratory ruling by amending the Commission's rules to clarify what 
constitutes a valid Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) request for 
Enhanced 911 (E911) service so as to trigger a wireless carrier's 
obligation to implement E911 within the six-month period following the 
date of the request. If challenged by the wireless carrier, the request 
will be deemed valid if the PSAP making the request demonstrates E911-
readiness as provided in the amended rule. This action is taken to 
ensure the continuing clarity of E911 obligations and thus avoid the 
possibility of confusion leading to delays in critically important 
emergency services. The decision is adopted to respond to the petition 
for clarification and/or declaratory ruling filed by the City of 
Richardson, Texas.

DATES: This document contains revised information collection 
requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date of this amendment. Public 
comment on the information collections are due January 2, 2002.

ADDRESSES: A copy of any comments on the information collection 
contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal 
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane Phillips, 202-418-1310. For 
further information concerning the information collection contained in 
this document, contact Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, 
202-418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order 
in CC Docket No. 94-102, FCC No. 01-293, adopted October 2, 2001, and 
released October 17, 2001. The complete text of this Order 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, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Copies of the full text of this 
decision may also be found at the Commission's Internet site at 
www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis of the Order

    1. The Commission responds to a petition for clarification and/or 
declaratory ruling filed by the city of Richardson, Texas. The 
Commission amends its rules to clarify what constitutes a valid Public 
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) request so as to trigger a wireless 
carrier's obligation to provide enhanced 911 (E911) service to that 
PSAP. Specifically, the Order finds that a wireless carrier must 
implement E911 within the six-month period following the date of the 
PSAP's request and that, if challenged by the wireless carrier, the 
request will be deemed valid if the PSAP making the request 
demonstrates that: (1) A mechanism is in place by which the PSAP will 
recover its costs of the facilities and equipment necessary to receive 
and utilize the E911 data elements; (2) the PSAP has ordered the 
equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data and the 
equipment will be installed and capable of receiving and utilizing that 
data no later than six months following its request; and (3) the PSAP 
has made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange carrier 
(LEC) for the necessary trunking and other facilities to enable the 
E911 data to be transmitted to the PSAP. In the alternative, a PSAP may 
demonstrate that a funding mechanism is in place, that it is E911-
capable using a Non-call Associated Signaling (NCAS) technology, and 
that it has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC to upgrade the 
Automatic Location Identification (ALI) database.
    2. The Commission established periods for public comment and 
replies to those comments upon receiving the Richardson petition. (See 
the document at 66 FR 19781, April 17, 2001, and a second document at 
66 FR 36989, July 16, 2001.) Both representatives of PSAPs and of 
wireless carriers have participated in the record established during 
the comment periods, and these

[[Page 55619]]

comments are discussed in paragraphs 11-30 of the full text of the 
Order. The Commission believes that the criteria adopted in the Order 
represent a fair balance between the interests of both PSAPs and 
carriers.
    3. The first alternative that PSAPs may choose to demonstrate their 
E911-capability, if challenged by a carrier, is a three tiered approach 
discussed in paragraphs 14 through 16 of the full Order. In this 
approach, the PSAP must demonstrate that a funding mechanism exists for 
recovering its costs of facilities and equipment necessary to receive 
and utilize the E911 data elements to be supplied by the carrier. 
Citation to or a copy of the relevant finding legislation is sufficient 
to satisfy this demonstration. As part of this approach, a qualified 
PSAP must also demonstrate that it has ordered the equipment necessary 
to fulfill its E911 obligations. This substantiation could take the 
form of a listing of the necessary facilities and equipment and copies 
of the relevant vendor purchase orders as well as commitments that the 
vendor perform under the agreement within the six-month period 
following the date of the PSAP's request for service. The last element 
of the three-tier approach requires that a PSAP demonstrate that it has 
made a timely request to the proper LEC for facilities and equipment 
necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements requested. 
Evidence in this regard could consist of the letter of request, as well 
an any other pertinent correspondence between the PSAP and the LEC.
    4. Alternatively, a PSAP, could satisfy the E911-capability 
requirement by demonstrating that funding mechanism is in place, that 
it has made a timely request to the LEC for upgrades to the ALI 
database, and that it is E911-capable using an NCAS technology, as 
detailed in paragraph 17 of the full text of the Order.
    5. The Commission believes that the criteria adopted in the Order 
will be sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubts about a PSAP's 
capability of receiving and utilizing the E911 data elements by the end 
of the six-month period established for carrier compliance. The 
Commission declines to adopt more restrictive criteria, such as those 
proposed by commenters in response to the two documents, because it 
finds that more restrictive criteria would be unnecessary, would 
countermand the Commission's determination to leave the specifics of 
Phase I and Phase II compliance to the parties, and could interfere 
with the negotiation process, ultimately delaying Phase I and Phase II 
implementation.

Procedural Matters

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    6. This contains a revised information collection. The Commission 
has requested emergency approval from the Office of Management and 
Budget for the revised information collection. As part of the 
Commission's continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the 
Commission invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget to take this opportunity to comment on the information 
collections contained in this Order, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments 
are due January 2, 2002. Comments should address: (a) Whether the 
revised 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; (3) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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.
    OMB Approval Number: 3060-0813.
    Title: Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility 
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems.
    Form No.: N.A.
    Type of Review: Revision of an existing information collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for profit; government entities.
    Number of Respondents: 42,324.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.
    Total Annual Burden: 198,200 hours.
    Cost to Respondents: 0.
    Needs and Uses: The demonstration of E911 capability will be 
required only when a requesting PSAP's E911 capability is challenged by 
the wireless carrier and will be used by the carrier to verify that the 
requesting PSAP is in reality capable of receiving and using E911 data 
and that the carrier must therefore provide E911 service.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

    7. This is a summary of the Commission's Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis. The full text of the Analysis may be found in 
Appendix C of the Order.
    8. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities was incorporated in the second 
document in CC Docket No. 94-102 (the second document). The Commission 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the second document, 
including comments on the IRFA. The comments received are discussed in 
this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA 
conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
    9. The rule amendment mandated by this Order is meant to clarify 
the process by which a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) whose 
request for Enhanced 911 (E911) service is challenged by a wireless 
carrier may demonstrate E911 capability. This information will ensure 
that PSAPs and carriers are working with the same knowledge, thus 
avoiding delays in implementing E911 service or unnecessary or 
premature investments due to confusion over the PSAP's preparedness. 
Specifically, for purposes of resolving a challenge to a PSAP request 
for E911 service, a wireless carrier must implement E911 within the 
six-month period following the date of the PSAP's request if the PSAP 
making the request demonstrates that: (a) A mechanism is in place by 
which the PSAP will recover its costs of the facilities and equipment 
necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements; (b) the PSAP 
has ordered the equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 
data and the equipment will be installed and capable of receiving and 
utilizing that data no later than six months following its request; and 
(c) the PSAP has made a timely request to the appropriate local 
exchange carrier (LEC) for the necessary trunking and other facilities 
to enable the E911 data to be transmitted to the PSAP. In the 
alternative, a challenged PSAP may demonstrate that a funding mechanism 
is in place, that it is Phase I-capable using a Non-call Associated 
Signaling (NCAS) technology, and that it has made a timely request to 
the appropriate LEC for the upgrade to the ALI database necessary to 
enable the PSAP to receive the Phase II data.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA
    10. The Commission received two direct responses to the IRFA. 
First, the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) argues that the IRFA in 
this proceeding is deficient, in that it ignores the possible impact on 
small and rural wireless carriers, and instead focuses only on the 
possible impact of the proposed rules on PSAPs. RCA also contends that 
the

[[Page 55620]]

IRFA failed to assess adequately the impact of imposing readiness 
criteria, as opposed to an actual readiness requirement. RCA further 
denies that an amendment to the rule, clarifying when and how a PSAP 
will be considered E911-capable, would benefit small/rural carriers by 
making confirmation of a PSAP's readiness less burdensome. RCA asserts 
that the burden on small carriers can be minimized by maintaining the 
application of the Commission's existing rule.
    11. In its response to the IRFA, the National Telephone Cooperative 
Association (NTCA) maintains that small carriers may waste limited 
resources providing a service that a PSAP may not be ready to utilize, 
unless the Commission requires that a PSAP be actually capable of 
receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the service 
at the time it requests the service. NTCA further argues that the 
burden placed on a small PSAP by the requirement that PSAPs be able to 
utilize the information prior to requiring such information from a 
carrier would be ``nonexistent.''
    12. The Commission responds to this criticism in detail in 
paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Order. Section C of the IRFA describing the 
number of small entities affected by the proposed rules, emphasized 
that the IRFA was drafted at early point in the process when the 
Commission acknowledged it was premature to quantify the specific 
impact of the suggested action on any of the affected entities, and 
specifically invited comment on this issue. Section E of the IRFA noted 
that leaving the rule as it now stands was an option and was considered 
with the other alternatives mentioned in the IRFA before the second 
document was issued. The IRFA concentrated on analyzing the effect of a 
rule amendment on small PSAPs rather than small carriers because the 
burden of preparing any type of demonstration would fall on PSAPs and 
the burden on small carriers would not change. The key issue under 
discussion in the IRFA was how to make it easier for carriers of all 
sizes to determine when to provide a PSAP with E911 service without 
running the financial risk of offering service to a PSAP that is 
unprepared to use the service. Regardless of whether the Commission 
elected to maintain the existing rule or change it in some way to 
require a demonstration of E911 capability, the burden of proof of 
capability would fall on PSAPs, and the effect on carriers would either 
remain the same or, the Commission believed at the time of the IRFA and 
still believes, might even reduce the burden on carriers by possibly 
reducing the time carriers invest in verifying that a PSAP is E911 
qualified. No convincing evidence was presented to the Commission to 
contradict this viewpoint. However, the Commission has determined that 
a showing would be appropriate only if a carrier decides to challenge a 
PSAP's request for service.
    13. The Commission also received comments not in direct response to 
the IRFA, but regarding matters of interest to small entities. In its 
comments, the Rural Companies Group contends that the second document 
to assess adequately the impact of imposing readiness criteria, as 
opposed to an actual readiness requirement, on small and rural 
carriers. Further, the Rural Companies Group argues that allowing a 
carrier to wait until a PSAP has full technological capability may 
enable smaller carriers to take advantage of less-costly technological 
innovations or of cheaper prices, as existing technologies become less 
costly.
    14. In its reply comments, Dobson Communications Corporation argues 
that the current rule provides the appropriate certainty for carriers 
and does not hinder the deployment of Phase II E911 services. Dobson 
therefore urges the Commission to not amend or clarify the existing 
rule.
    15. Because small carriers lack large customer bases to absorb 
their E911 implementation costs, a primary concern exists that small 
and mid-sized carriers are more vulnerable to delays in implementation 
if a PSAP shows an inability to receive and utilize the E911 data 
supplied by these smaller carriers. Likewise, there is a concern that 
smaller carriers may be forced to devote time and resources to some 
PSAPs that prove to be incapable of receiving E911 service, to the 
detriment of those PSAPs that have current capability.
    16. Taking these concerns into account, the Commission finds that 
the amendments to the rule, as described in the Order, will in fact 
reduce the vulnerability of the smaller carriers, as they will be 
working along with the PSAPs to ensure implementation of E911 service 
on a timely basis, and will better be able to plan their progression 
and allocation of resources during the implementation process. The 
Commission also finds that the rule amendments will make confirmation 
of a PSAP's readiness for E911 service less burdensome for all 
carriers, as the onus is placed on the PSAPs to demonstrate readiness 
as described in the Order, and because the showing will only be 
required to settle a challenge to the PSAP's preparedness.
    17. The Commission finds unpersuasive the assertion that smaller 
carriers may be able to benefit from less-costly technological 
innovations by waiting to provide service. While it is possible that 
smaller carriers will pay less the longer they wait to provide service, 
the Commission finds that without the amendments to the existing rule, 
the smaller PSAPs will be unduly burdened, and will be more vulnerable, 
if required to be fully capable of receiving E911 service, without 
their providers' having to even begin the process of supplying the 
service.
    18. Considering the potential burdens placed on all small entities, 
the Commission finds that the institution of objective criteria by rule 
amendment will benefit all PSAPs and carriers, including small 
entities, by more clearly defining E911 readiness, thus reducing the 
potential for misunderstanding between parties, and by reducing 
instances of delay in E911 implementation. In turn, this will reduce 
the likelihood that any PSAP or carrier, including all small entities, 
will have to expend its limited capital resources prematurely and/or 
improvidently.
    19. Finally, as discussed in paragraph 29 of the Order, the 
Commission is sympathetic to the concerns of all small entities, 
carriers and PSAPs. In reaching its decision in the Order, the 
Commission attempted to balance these interests with critical interests 
at stake in this proceeding. The Commission believes that the approach 
taken in the Order will, ultimately, provide carriers of all sizes, 
including small carriers, with the tools they need to determine whether 
a PSAP will, in reality, be E911 capable, while not placing an 
unnecessarily onerous burden on PSAPs, 96 percent of whom qualify as 
small entities. Again, the showing will only be necessary when a PSAP's 
request for E911 service is challenged on the basis of preparedness.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
    20. 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

[[Page 55621]]

developed one or more definitions that are appropriate for its 
activities. Nationwide, there are 4.44 million small business firms, 
according to SBA reporting data.
    21. 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.
    22. The definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is one 
with populations of fewer than 50,000. There are 85,006 governmental 
jurisdictions 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 50,000. 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, the Commission estimates that ninety-
six percent, or about 81,600, are small entities that may be affected 
by our rules.
    23. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed definitions 
for small providers of the specific industries affected. Therefore, 
throughout our analysis, the Commission uses the closest applicable 
definition under the SBA rules, the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) standards for ``Cellular and Other 
Wireless Telecommunications'' and ``Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers.'' According to this standard, a small entity is one with no 
more than 1,500 employees. To determine which of the affected entities 
in the affected services fit into the SBA definition of small business, 
the Commission has consistently referred to Table 5.3 in Trends in 
Telephone Service (Trends), a report published annually by the 
Commission's Common Carrier Bureau.
    24. The Commission has included small incumbent local exchange 
carriers in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' 
under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small 
business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business 
having 1,500 or fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of 
operation.'' The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA 
purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in 
their field of operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' 
in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent 
carriers in this RFA analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that 
this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and 
determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
    25. Local Exchange Carriers. According to the most recent Trends 
data, 1,335 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of local exchange services. The Commission does not have data 
specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in 
their field of operations, or are not independently owned. However, 
Trends indicates that 1,037 local exchange carriers report that, in 
combination with their affiliates, they have 1,500 or fewer employees, 
and would thus be considered small businesses as defined by NAICS.
    26 Also included in the number of local exchange carriers is the 
rural radio telephone service. A significant subset of the Rural 
Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems 
(BETRS). There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural 
Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of 
them qualify as small entities under the NAICS definition.
    27. Competitive Access Providers and Competitive Local Exchange 
Carriers (CAPs and CLECs). Trends indicates that 349 CAPs and CLECs, 87 
local resellers, and 60 other local exchange carriers reported that 
they were engaged in the provision of competitive local exchange 
services. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of 
these carriers that are not independently owned and operated. However, 
Trends states that 297 CAPs and CLECs, 86 local resellers, and 56 other 
local exchange carriers report that, in combination with their 
affiliates, they have 1,500 or fewer employees, for a total of 439 such 
entities qualified as small entities.
    28. Fixed Local Service Providers and Payphone Providers. Trends 
reports that there are 1,831 fixed local service providers and 758 
payphone providers. Using the NAICS standard for small entity of fewer 
than 1,500 employees, Trends estimates that 1,476 fixed local service 
providers, in combination with affiliates, have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and thus qualify as small entities. In addition, 755 payphone 
providers report that, in combination with their affiliates, they 
employ 1,500 or fewer individuals.
    29. Wireless Telephone Including Cellular, Personal Communications 
Service (PCS) and SMR Telephony Carriers. There are 806 entities in 
this category as estimated in Trends, and 323 such licensees in 
combination with their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 
thus qualify, using the NAICS guide, as small businesses.
    30. Other Mobile Service Providers. Trends estimates that there are 
44 providers of other mobile services, and again using the NAICS 
standard, 43 providers of other mobile services utilize with their 
affiliates 1,500 or fewer employees, and thus may be considered small 
entities.
    31. Toll Service Providers. Trends calculates that there are 738 
toll service providers, including 204 interexchange carriers, 21 
operator service providers, 21 pre-paid calling card providers, 21 
satellite service carriers, 454 toll resellers, and 17 carriers 
providing other toll services. Trends further estimates that 656 toll 
service providers with their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees 
and thus qualify as small entities as defined by NAICS. This figure 
includes 163 interexchange carriers, 20 operator service providers, 20 
pre-paid calling card providers, 16 satellite service carriers, 423 
toll resellers, and 15 carriers providing other toll services.
    32. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on 
several TV broadcast channels that are not otherwise used for TV 
broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of 
Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this 
service. The Commission is unable at this time to estimate the number 
of licensees that would qualify as small entities under the SBA 
definition for radiotelephone communications. The Commission assumes, 
for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the 55 licensees are small 
entities, as that term is defined by NAICS.
    33. Public Safety Answering Points. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to PSAPs. 
In order to give a numerical quantification of the number of PSAPs that 
are small entities affected by the rule modifications, it appears there 
are approximately 10,000 PSAPs nationwide. For purposes of this FRFA, 
The Commission assumes that all of the PSAPs are small entities, and 
may be affected by the rule amendments.

[[Page 55622]]

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements
    34. As indicated in paragraph 1 of the Order, if a PSAP's request 
for E911 service is challenged by a wireless carrier, the PSAP must 
make a demonstration to the carrier, as detailed in Section A, in this 
FRFA. In the alternative, the PSAP may demonstrate that a funding 
mechanism is in place, that it is Phase I-capable, using a Non-Call 
Associated Signaling (NCAS) technology, and that it has made a timely 
request to the appropriate LEC for the upgrade to the ALI database 
necessary to enable the PSAP to receive the Phase II data. Once the 
showing is made, the carrier must implement E911 within six months of 
the date of the PSAP's request.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
    35. The Commission is severely limited in this proceeding as to 
minimizing the burden on small entities. The proceeding is intended to 
provide all Americans with the most reliable, responsive emergency 
services that are 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 caused by a large 
entity.
    36. Several commenters have asserted the possibility that small 
carriers may expend monies prematurely and/or improvidently if the 
PSAPs request E911 service, but are not fully capable of receiving and 
utilizing it within six months. The alternative adopted herein is 
intended to minimize the possibility of this situation's developing by 
providing criteria that PSAPS and carriers may use to determine if a 
PSAP, whose E911 capability is challenged, is in reality prepared to 
use the service within six months of the request. Commenters who 
maintain that small carriers are at risk, ignore the fact that smaller 
carriers relying on smaller customer bases will likely be dealing with 
PSAPs that are themselves small governmental entities facing similar 
financial constraints. It would therefore be inequitable and short-
sighted to require a small governmental entity to fund fully its share 
of the E911 costs, while allowing a small business entity to wait 
several months before funding its own share.
    37. The Commission considered several alternatives before reaching 
its final decision in the Order. First, the Commission could have left 
the existing rule as it stands with regard to small entities. The 
Commission believes, however, that this would inevitably lead to more 
delays due to confusion as to when a PSAP has made a valid E911 service 
request. The Commission could also amend the rule to remove 
demonstration burdens and criteria on PSAPs. This alternative would 
seem to have a greater chance of negatively impacting small carriers 
though, particularly in terms of risking financial losses when a PSAP 
requesting E911 service claims to be fully E911 capable but isn't. In 
this case, carriers could provide the service prematurely and diminish 
the value of their financial investment until the PSAP is ``in 
actuality'' E911 capable. Finally, the Commission could amend the rule 
to place a more burdensome demonstration requirement on PSAPs, a course 
favored by several carrier commenters. As discussed in paragraphs 18 
through 20 of the Order, the Commission finds that this alternative 
would not be beneficial for any of the involved parties. Not only would 
this place an unnecessarily oppressive burden on PSAPs, most of whom 
are small entities, but small carriers would need to spend more time 
and resources reviewing and evaluating the submission.
    38. Commenters encouraged the Commission to require small 
governmental entities to fund fully their share of the E911 costs and 
establish a fully functional system before requiring small carriers to 
provide the requisite service. This alternative, while it relieves, for 
a while, the burden on small carriers, places the burden on small 
governmental entities. In addition, this alternative places all of the 
risk and uncertainty on the PSAPs, most of whom are small entities, and 
could delay the implementation of this vital public safety service for 
several months. The alternative adopted seeks to balance the burden 
between small carriers and small governmental entities by providing 
that the showing is only required when a PSAP's claim of E911 
capability is challenged by a carrier. Therefore, no demonstration is 
required of the PSAP unless a carrier elects to set the newly adopted 
process in motion by challenging a PSAP's E911 capability. The PSAP 
would then need to make a demonstration that it is E911 capable. To 
satisfy this requirement, a PSAP may use the three-tier option by 
demonstrating that a cost recovery mechanism is in place, that the 
equipment needed to receive and utilize the E911 data has been ordered 
and will be installed and capable of receiving and utilizing E911 data 
no later than six months after its request for E911 service and that 
the PSAP has made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange 
carrier for the encessary trunking and other facilities to enable the 
E911 data to be transmitted to the PSAP. This three-tier option is more 
fully described in paragraphs 14-16 of the Order. Alternatively, as 
described in paragraph 17 of the Order, the PSAP may demonstrate that a 
funding mechanism is in place, that it is Phase I-capable, and that it 
has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC for the upgrade to the 
ALI database necessary to enable the PSAP to receive the Phase II data.
    39. As noted in paragraph 11 of the Order, as well as in several of 
the comments, the process of implementing E911 services must be a joint 
and concerted effort between the carriers and the PSAPs. Neither side 
can perform the necessary functions required to implement timely and 
effective E911 service without working with the other. While the 
Commission has taken into account the concerns of small carriers, it 
cannot do so to the detriment of small PSAPs. This alternative balances 
the concerns of all parties, including those that may be small 
entities, and encourages all parties to work together to minimize 
delays and financial risk. In light of the critical nature of our E911 
rules and the need for ubiquitous, reliable emergency services, all 
entities involved, regardless of size, must comply with those rules.
    40. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of this 
Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant 
to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In 
addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Order, including this 
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

Ordering Clauses

    41. The Petition filed by the City of Richardson is granted as 
provided in the Order.
    42. This document contains revised information collection 
requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date of this rule amendment. Public 
comment on the information collections are due January 2, 2002.

[[Page 55623]]

    43. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order, including the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carrier, Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.

Rule Changes

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

    1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless 
otherwise noted.

    2. Section 20.18 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 20.18 911  Service.

* * * * *
    (j) Conditions for enhanced 911 services. The requirements set 
forth in paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section shall be applicable 
only if the administrator of the designated Public Safety Answering 
Point has requested the services required under those paragraphs and is 
capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with 
the service, and a mechanism for recovering the Public Safety Answering 
Point's costs of the enhanced 911 service is in place. A Public Safety 
Answering Point will be deemed capable of receiving and utilizing the 
data elements associated with the service requested if it can 
demonstrate that it has ordered the necessary equipment and has 
commitments from suppliers to have it installed and operational within 
the six-month period specified in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this 
section, and can demonstrate that it has made a timely request to the 
appropriate LEC for the necessary trunking and other facilities. In the 
alternative, a Public Safety Answering Point will be deemed capable of 
receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with Phase II 
service if it is Phase I-capable using an NCAS methodology, and if it 
can demonstrate that it has made a timely request to the appropriate 
LEC for the ALI database upgrade necessary to receive the Phase II 
information.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-27605 Filed 11-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P