[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 15 (Thursday, January 23, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3214-3220]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-1458]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 94-102; IB Docket No. 99-67; FCC 02-326]


Basic and Enhanced 911 Provision by Currently Exempt Wireless and 
Wireline Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document initiates a reevaluation of the scope of 
communications services that should provide access to basic and 
enhanced emergency services. The action is needed to establish a record 
on which to decide whether remains appropriate to continue to exempt 
certain wireless and wireline service providers from 911 and Enhanced 
911 (E911) regulations and requirements.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 3, 2003. Reply Comments 
are due on or before February 28, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory W. Guice, Attorney Advisor, 
Policy Division, (202) 418-0095; David Siehl, Attorney Advisor, Policy 
Division, (202) 418-1313; Arthur Lechtman, Attorney Advisor, Policy 
Branch, (202) 418-1465.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, (FNPRM) released December 20, 
2002 (FCC 02-326). The full text of the FNPRM available for inspection 
and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete 
text also may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor. 
Copies may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, 
Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC, telephone (202) 863-2893, facsimile (202) 863-2898, or 
via e-mail [email protected]. Additionally, the complete item is 
available on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov/wtb.

Synopsis of the FNPRM

    1. In this FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether providers 
of various services and devices not currently within the scope of the 
Commission's 911 rules should, consistent with the public interest, be

[[Page 3215]]

required to provide access to emergency services. The Commission also 
asks what type of information, such as call-back and location should be 
delivered to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) on a service-by-
service basis.
    2. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the general 
criteria that it wants commenters to use in analyzing whether the 
enumerated services and devices should be included within the scope of 
services that offer 911 service. The Commission proposes analyzing each 
service or product based on whether: (1) It offers real-time, two-way 
voice service that is interconnected to the public switched network on 
either a stand-alone basis or packaged with other telecommunications 
services; (2) the customers using the service or device have a 
reasonable expectation of access to 911 and E911 services; (3) the 
service competes with traditional CMRS or wireline local exchange 
services; and (4) it is technically and operationally feasible for the 
service or device to support E911.
    3. The FNPRM then turns to the individual services on which the 
Commission seeks comment and raises additional questions where needed. 
The enumerated services are mobile satellite service, telematics 
service, multi-line telephone systems, resold cellular and PCS service, 
pre-paid calling, disposable mobile phones, automated maritime 
telecommunications systems, and other emerging services and devices, 
such as IP telephony.

Administrative Matters

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    4. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission 
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities of the proposals 
suggested in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Written 
public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed 
in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this 
FNPRM, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them 
as responses to the IRFA. This is a summary of the full text of the 
IRFA. The full text of the IRFA may be found at Appendix B of the full 
text of the FNPRM.
    5. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA), 
the Commission has prepared this 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 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), CC 
Docket No. 94-102 and IB Docket No. 99-67. 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 Further 
Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Further Notice, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the Further 
Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    6. The Further Notice initiates a reevaluation of the scope of 
communications services that should provide access to emergency 
services. The Further Notice examines and seeks comment on the need to 
require compliance with the Commission's basic and enhanced 911 (E911) 
rules, or similar requirements, by various other mobile wireless and 
certain wireline voice and data services. The Further Notice considers 
whether existing services such as telematics or voice service provided 
by multi-line systems should be required to provide access to 911 
service. The Further Notice also considers whether certain new services 
should be subject to any E911 requirements. The Further Notice 
additionally seeks comment on the impact that exclusion of these 
services and devices from the Commission's 911 rules may have on 
consumers, as well as the technological and cost issues involved in 
providing E911, taking into account the expectations of consumers for 
911 service when they use these services and devices. The Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also seeks comment on a proposal to 
require mobile satellite service (MSS) providers (in particular, MSS 
providers offering real-time, interconnected two-way voice service) to 
establish emergency call centers to answer 911 emergency calls.

B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules

    7. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 
201, 202, 208, 214, 222(d)(4)(A)-(C), 222(f), 222(g), 222(h)(1)(A), 
222(h)(4)-(5), 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 157, 
160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 222(d)(4)(A)-(C), 222(f), 222(g), 
222(h)(1)(A), 222(h)(4)-(5), 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), 310.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    8. 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. 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.
    9. The definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction'' 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.
    10. Individual voice services and devices that are examined as to 
appropriateness for 911 and E911 service provision include: mobile 
satellite service, telematics service, multi-line telephone systems, 
resold cellular and personnel communications service, pre-paid calling, 
disposable phone, automated maritime telecommunications systems, and 
emerging services and devices.
    11. We have included small incumbent LECs 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

[[Page 3216]]

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 LECs are not dominant 
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not 
``national'' in scope. We have therefore included small incumbent LECs 
in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no 
effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-
RFA contexts.
    12. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for 
providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable 
size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report 
data, 1,329 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,329 
carriers, an estimated 1,024 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have 
more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we estimate that the majority 
of providers of local exchange service are small entitles that may be 
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    13. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 
the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for 
providers of competitive local exchange services. The closest 
applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's 
Telephone Trends Report data, 532 companies reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services 
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 532 companies, 
an estimated 411 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 121 have more than 
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of providers of competitive local exchange service are small 
entities that may be affected by the rules.
    14. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a specific size standard for competitive access 
providers (CAPS). The closest applicable standard under the SBA rules 
is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the 
FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 532 CAPs or competitive local 
exchange carriers and 55 other local exchange carriers reported that 
they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access 
provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of 
these 532 competitive access providers and competitive local exchange 
carriers, an estimated 411 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 121 have 
more than 1,500 employees. Of the 55 other local exchange carriers, an 
estimated 53 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 2 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
small entity CAPS and the majority of other local exchange carriers may 
be affected by the rules.
    15. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard 
for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends 
Report data, 134 companies reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of local resale services. Of these 134 companies, an 
estimated 131 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 3 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
local resellers may be affected by the rules.
    16. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard 
for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends 
Report data, 576 companies reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of toll resale services. Of these 576 companies, an estimated 
538 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 38 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
toll resellers may be affected by the rules.
    17. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically 
applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest 
applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's 
Telephone Trends Report data, 229 carriers reported that their primary 
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange 
services. Of these 229 carriers, an estimated 181 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 48 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we 
estimate that a majority of IXCs may be affected by the rules.
    18. Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically 
applicable to operator service providers. The closest applicable size 
standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 22 
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator 
services. Of these 22 companies, an estimated 20 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of local resellers may be affected 
by the rules.
    19. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a size 
standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications 
Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends 
Report data, 32 companies reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these 32 companies, an estimated 
31 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of prepaid 
calling providers may be affected by the rules.
    20. Mobile Satellite Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor 
the U.S. Small Business Administration has developed a small business 
size standard specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The 
appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite 
Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they 
have $12.5 million or less in annual revenues. Currently, nearly a 
dozen entities are authorized to provide voice MSS in the United 
States. We have ascertained from published data that four of those 
companies are not small entities according to the SBA's definition, but 
we do not have sufficient information to determine which, if any, of 
the others are small entities. We anticipate issuing several licenses 
for 2 GHz mobile earth stations that would be subject to the 
requirements we are adopting here. We do not know how many of those 
licenses will be held by small entities, however, as we do not yet know 
exactly how many 2 GHz mobile-earth-station licenses will be issued or 
who will receive them. The Commission

[[Page 3217]]

notes that small businesses are not likely to have the financial 
ability to become MSS system operators because of high implementation 
costs, including construction of satellite space stations and rocket 
launch, associated with satellite systems and services. Still, we 
request comment on the number and identity of small entities that would 
be significantly impacted by the proposed rule changes.
    21. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has 
developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically 
applicable to ``Other Toll Carriers.'' This category includes toll 
carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange 
carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, 
satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable 
size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 
or fewer employees. According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report 
data, 42 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
``Other Toll Services.'' Of these 42 carriers, an estimated 37 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and five have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of ``Other Toll 
Carriers'' may be affected by the rules.
    22. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a size 
standard for small businesses within the two separate categories of 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications or Paging. Under that 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,761 companies 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless service. 
Of these 1,761 companies, an estimated 1,175 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 586 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we 
estimate that a majority of wireless service providers may be affected 
by the rules.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    23. The reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements 
ultimately adopted will depend on the rules adopted and the services 
subject to those rules. First, any and all of the affected entities who 
the Commission finds appropriate to provide 911 and E911 services (See 
General Criteria, for example, in paragraphs 12-15 of the Further 
Notice) would need to comply with the Commission's basic or enhanced 
911 rules. This would involve a schedule for implementing 911 and E911 
service, and possibly regulations mandating the provision of automatic 
number identification (ANI), possible software modification to assist 
in recognition of single or multiple emergency numbers, and provision 
of automatic location information (ALI) and interference precautions as 
well as regulations specific to individual services. Additionally, 
paragraphs 17-27 of the Further Notice propose that all Mobile 
Satellite Service (MSS) licensees provide real-time, two-way, switched 
voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network 
establish national call centers to which all subscriber emergency calls 
are routed. Call center personnel, and would then determine the nature 
of the emergency and forward the call to an appropriate Public Safety 
Answering Point (PSAP). As noted in paragraph 14 of the Further Notice, 
the Commission invites comment on how the various services at issue, 
i.e. individual voice services and devices, relate to the provision of 
access to emergency services for persons with disabilities. (Paragraph 
14 of the Further Notice.)
    24. The Further Notice, in paragraphs 57-80, considers possible 911 
and E911 regulation for the telematics service. Telematics can be 
generally defined as the integrated use of location technology and 
wireless communication to enhance the functionality of motor vehicles. 
In that regard, paragraphs 65-73 of the Further Notice analyzes the 
plus and minuses and prospective regulations associated with telematics 
systems providing access to PSAPs through an intermediary or jointly 
packaged mobile voice service. Paragraph 70, suggests that telematics 
systems give notice to consumers regarding any current limitations of 
telematics service in directly transmitting emergency information to a 
PSAP. Paragraphs 74-75 suggest a requirement that telematics providers 
deliver automatic crash notification data to PSAPs This requirement 
raises possible issues of technical modifications and coordination 
between telematics providers and PSAPs.
    25. The Further Notice, in paragraphs 81-91, examines whether to 
require multi-line telephone systems, including wireline, wireless, and 
Internet Protocol-based systems, to deliver call-back and location 
information. Possible requirements that the Further Notice suggests if 
the Commission decides that multi-line telephones systems should 
provide these services include technical standards as discussed in 
paragraphs 86-90 of the Further Notice. Paragraphs 92-97 of the Further 
Notice discuss issues that arise when consumers buy service from 
carriers and other service providers that resell minutes of use on 
facilities-based wireless carriers' networks. In that regard, the 
Further Notice raises the possibility of requiring the underlying 
facilities-based licensee to ensure that its resellers offer basic and 
E911 service compatible with its method of providing these services, or 
whether the resellers should be held accountable. Similarly, paragraphs 
98-102 seek comment on whether the Commission should impose E911 
requirements directly on pre-paid calling providers that are not also 
licensees or whether the underlying licensee should be required to 
ensure compliance with the E911 rules by the pre-paid calling provider.
    26. Paragraphs 103-106 of the Further Notice discuss the 
possibility of access to emergency service by consumers who purchase 
disposable mobile handsets. In this case, the Further Notice notes that 
disposable handsets are a new product offering and as such, the 
Commission has little information on these devices. However, the 
Further Notice invites comment on whether, if disposable phone service 
is determined to be appropriate for offering 911 and E911 services, 
requiring mobile wireless service providers to ensure that the handsets 
used to access their networks comply with the 911 and E911 rules is 
sufficient or whether the Commission should place the burden for 
compliance on manufacturers of these handsets. If it is also determined 
that these handsets do not provide PSAPs with an opportunity to contact 
the handset user for further critical location information if 
necessary, some time of regulatory solution, such as a readily 
identifiable code to notify the PSAP that the incoming call is placed 
from a handset which does not offer call-back capability, could be 
adopted. The Further Notice also seeks comment on whether to extend 911 
and E911 regulation to automated maritime telecommunications systems 
(paragraphs 107-110) and to emerging voice services and devices 
(paragraphs 111-115).
    27. Other regulations and requirements are possible for those 
services discussed in the Further Notice found suitable for 911 and 
E911 service. Such rules and requirements could be found appropriate, 
based on comment filed in response to the Further Notice and would be 
designed to meet the consumer needs and licensee situations in each 
service and service area.

[[Page 3218]]

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

    28. 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 (among others): (1) 
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for 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 small 
entities.
    29. The critical nature of the 911 and E911 proceedings limit the 
Commission's ability to provide small carriers with a less burdensome 
set of E911 regulations than that placed on large entities. A delayed 
or less than adequate response to an E911 call can be disastrous 
regardless of whether a small carrier or a large carrier is involved. 
The various licensees scrutinized in the Further Notice have been 
exempt to date from the Commission's 911 and E911 regulations as the 
Commission sought information from which to judge the appropriateness 
of requiring that those services provide 911 and E911 service. The 
Further Notice continues this examination and reflects the Commission's 
concern that only those entities that can reasonably be expected to 
provide emergency services, financially and otherwise, be asked to 
provide this service. The Further Notice affords small entities another 
opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of the affected services 
providing emergency services and on what the Commission can due to 
minimize the regulatory burden on those entities who meet the 
Commission's criteria for providing such service.
    30. Throughout the Further Notice, the Commission tailors its 
request for comment to devise a prospective regulatory plan for the 
affected entities, emphasizing the individual needs of the service 
providers and manufacturers as well as the critical public safety needs 
at the core of this proceeding. The Commission will consider all of the 
alternatives contained not only in the Further Notice, but also in the 
resultant comments, particularly those relating to minimizing the 
effect on small businesses.
    31. The most obvious alternatives raised in the Further Notice are 
whether the services under discussion should be required to comply with 
the Commission's basic and enhanced 911 rules or whether the Commission 
should continue to exempt these entities from providing this service. 
The Further Notice, to assist in this discussion, suggests, in 
paragraphs 12-15, criteria to determine the appropriateness of each 
service under consideration to provide emergency services. These 
criteria are open for comment and this provides an excellent 
opportunity for small entity commenters and others concerned with small 
entity issues. Again, we seek comment to determine the appropriate 
service groups to provide critical services.
    32. Along these lines, discussion of criteria and alternatives 
could focus on implementation schedules. In discussing each of the 
prospective entities and soliciting further information, throughout the 
Further Notice the Commission invites comment on the schedule for 
implementing 911 and E911 services which best meets the abilities, 
technically and financially suitable to the individual entities. In the 
past, the Commission has best been able to offer affected small and 
rural entities some relief from E911 by providing small entities with 
longer implementation periods than larger, more financially flexible 
entities that are better able to buy the equipment necessary to 
successful 911 and E911 implementation and to first attract the 
attention of equipment manufacturers.
    33. In its discussion of MSS, the Further Notice recognizes that 
satellite carriers face unique technical difficulties in implementing 
both basic and enhanced 911 features. Thus, in paragraphs 22-26, the 
Further Notice examines the use of call centers in response to this 
problem. Paragraph 25 of the Further Notice notes that several 
commenters, thus far, have indicated that MSS callers tend to be 
located in remote areas where no PSAP may be available. The Further 
Notice suggests alternative solutions to this problem noting that, in 
the context of the 911 Act proceeding, stating that in areas where no 
PSAP has been designated, carriers still have an obligation not to 
block 911 calls and clarifying where such calls can be directed when no 
designated PSAP exists. There are a number of alternatives raised in 
the Further Notice in discussing the specifics of the calling center 
alternative. For example, should the Commission require carriers to 
relay automatically available location information to emergency call 
centers, and what reasonably achievable accuracy standards could be 
established for this location information?
    34. Paragraphs 30-32 of the Further Notice recognize that high 
costs are associated with modifying satellite network infrastructures 
to accommodate E911 emergency call information and route it to 
appropriate PSAPs. These paragraphs discuss alternate solutions 
suggested in the comments to date, and request further comment aimed at 
reducing such costs. For example, some carriers argue that network 
modifications are necessary to forward ANI and ALI data, such as 
retrofitting switches throughout the network and making costly private 
trunking arrangements between earth stations and PSAPs. One commenter 
suggested that the retrofit costs could be reduced if (1) a single, 
central emergency call service could receive calls for the nation, or 
(2) each of the 50 states has a single point of emergency contact. 
Additionally, in paragraphs 35-41, the Further Notice considers 
alternatives for providing ALI. The Further Notice discusses a Coast 
Guard recommendation that the Commission require strict ALI accuracy 
standards for GMPCS. There are a number of issues and alternatives 
relating to the need for GPS that could conceivably impact small 
entities.
    35. The Further Notice, in paragraphs 49-54, discusses 
international issues connected to MSS. The Further Notice seeks comment 
on a number of related alternatives, including whether resolution of 
international standards should in any way further delay adoption of a 
call center requirement or E911 rules for MSS, and on liability issues 
in connection with recognition of multiple emergency access codes. 
Finally, in regards to possible MSS emergency service requirements, the 
Further Notice, in paragraph 55, considers integration of the Ancillary 
Terrestrial Component.
    36. In considering possible 911 and E911 regulation for telematics 
systems, the Further Notice, in paragraphs 64-71, questions whether a 
telematics call-center approach to 911 calls might be more appropriate 
that an approach based solely on 911 calls placed through a jointly 
packaged mobile voice service. Paragraphs 74-75 of the Further Notice 
weigh the benefits and costs involved in requiring telematics providers 
to deliver automatic crash notification data to PSAPs. Further, 
paragraph 80 of the Further Notice considers whether the Commission's 
legal authority might lead it to impose requirements directly on 
telematics providers or equipment manufacturers.
    37. The Further Notice, in paragraphs 81-91, examines potential 911 
and E911 requirements for multi-line telephone

[[Page 3219]]

systems. In that regard, the Commission considers whether to impose 
such regulations on a national basis or whether it is sufficient to 
rely on actions by state and local governments, associations, and 
private entities to ensure reliable coverage. The National Emergency 
Number Association, for example, has proposed model legislation what 
would allow states, through state legislation, to adopt many of the 
standards and protocol associated with delivering E911 services through 
multi-line systems. Paragraph 89 of the Further Notice looks at an E911 
consensus group proposal regarding multi-line systems and delivery of 
call-back and location information to an appropriate PSAP. The Further 
Notice again questions whether it would be more appropriate to regulate 
equipment manufacturers in the multi-line context.
    38. In considering possible basic and enhanced 911 requirements for 
resold cellular and personal communications services, the Further 
Notice, in paragraphs 92-97, weighs whether to impose a more express 
obligation on either the reseller or the underlying licensee to ensure 
compliance with the E911 rules.

F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the Proposed 
Rules

    39. None.

Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    40. The FNPRM contains proposed information collections. The 
Commission will open a period for public comment in the Federal 
Register at the time a final decision on which services will no longer 
be exempt from 911 and E911 requirements. These comments will be 
considered before the final rules become effective. The Commission will 
also seek OMB approval for whatever PRA burdens are adopted as final 
rules at the same time.

Ex Parte Presentations

    41. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making 
proceeding. Members of the public are advised that ex parte 
presentations are permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, 
provided they are disclosed under the Commission's Rules. See generally 
47 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).

Comment Dates

    42. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
Rules, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on 
or before February 3, 2003 and reply comments on or before February 28, 
2003. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. 63 FR. 24121, 1998.
    43. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic 
file via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. 
Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If 
multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this 
proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of 
the comments to each docket or rule making number referenced in the 
caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should 
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get 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 .'' A sample form and directions 
will be sent in reply.
    44. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and 
four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rule making 
number appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit 
two additional copies for each additional docket or rule making number. 
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. 
Postal Service mail). The Commission's contractor, Vistronix, Inc., 
will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or 
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the 
building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, 
Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be addressed to the 
Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission. Comments and reply comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of 
the Federal Communications Commission, Room TW-A306, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    45. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their 
comments on diskette. These diskettes should be submitted to the 
Commission's Secretary, Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor, 
Vistronix, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered 
diskette filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts 
Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this 
location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together 
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of 
before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than 
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 
9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service 
first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be addressed 
to: 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission. Such a submission should be on a 
3.5-inch diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Word for 
Windows or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a 
cover letter and should be submitted in ``read only'' mode. The 
diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name, the 
docket number of this proceeding, type of pleading (comment or reply 
comment), date of submission, and the name of the electronic file on 
the diskette. The label should also include the following phrase ``Disk 
Copy--Not an Original.'' Each diskette should contain only one party's 
pleading, preferably in a single electronic file. In addition, 
commenters must send diskette copies to the Commission's copy 
contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.
    46. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio 
cassette and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by 
contacting Martha Contee at (202) 418-0260, TTY (202) 418-2555, or via 
e-mail to [email protected]. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
can also be downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov.

Ordering Clauses

    47. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is adopted, pursuant 
to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,

[[Page 3220]]

154(i), 157(a), 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 03-1458 Filed 1-22-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P