[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 28 (Wednesday, February 11, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6595-6600]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-2125]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 20, 25, 64 and 68

[CC Docket No. 94-102, IB Docket No. 99-67; FCC 03-290]


Scope of Enhanced 911 Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on issues 
pertaining to expanding the scope of its enhanced 911 (E911) rules to 
cover mobile satellite service providers that have an ancillary 
terrestrial component. The Commission also seeks comment on 
recordkeeping and reporting proposals in connection with mobile 
satellite service providers' implementation of 911 emergency call 
centers. Further, the Commission considers whether multi-line telephone 
systems (MLTS) should be required to provide access to enhanced 911 
service and questions whether the Commission should adopt revisions to 
its rules. As many citizens, elected representatives, and public safety 
personnel recognize, 911 service is critical to our Nation's ability to 
respond to a host of crises and this document enhances the Nation's 
ability to do so.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before March 29, 2004. Reply 
comments are due April 26, 2004. To file formally in this proceeding, 
interested parties must file an original plus six copies of all 
comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If parties filing 
comments want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of the 
comments, the parties must file an original plus eleven copies. Written 
comments on the proposed information collection(s) must be submitted by 
the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested 
parties on or before April 12, 2004.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be addressed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
Secretary, a copy of any Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) comments on the 
information collection(s) contained herein should be submitted to 
Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to [email protected], and to Kristy L. LaLonde, OMB Desk Officer, Room 
10234 NEOB, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503 via the Internet 
to [email protected] or by fax to 202-395-5167.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Arthur Lechtman, Satellite Division, 
International Bureau, at (202) 418-1465, or Marcy Greene, Competition 
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-2410. For 
additional information concerning the information collection(s) 
contained in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at

[[Page 6596]]

202-418-0214, or via the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, adopted on November 13, 2003, and 
released on December 1, 2003 in connection with the Report and Order 
adopted in the same proceeding (and published separately in the Federal 
Register). The full text of the Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking is available for public inspection and copying during 
regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. This 
document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 20554, telephone 202-863-2893, facsimile 
202-863-2898, or via e-mail [email protected]. This NPRM contains 
proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under the PRA. OMB, 
the general public and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on 
the proposed information collections contained in this proceeding.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This NPRM contained proposed new information collection(s). The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection(s) contained in 
this NPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, 
Public Law No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due April 12, 
2004. PRA comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the Commission, including whether the information shall have 
practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden 
estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.
    OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
    Title: Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility 
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Amendment of parts 2 and 
25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite 
(GMPCS), Memorandum of Understanding.
    Form No.: N/A.
    Type of Review: New collection.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Number of Respondents: 25 respondents; 75 responses.
    Estimated Time Per Response: 1-2 hours.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion, annual and other reporting 
requirements, recordkeeping requirement, and third party disclosure 
requirement.
    Total Annual Burden: 75 hours.
    Total Annual Costs: $8,000.
    Needs and Uses: The Commission proposes that Mobile Satellite 
Service (MSS) carriers subject to the call center requirement should 
prepare and submit a report on their plans for implementing call 
centers no later than three months prior to the call center's effective 
date (i.e., 12 months after Federal Register publication of the E911 
Scope proceeding.) These advance reports would assist FCC efforts to 
monitor call center development and provide the public with valuable 
information about MSS emergency services.

I. Overview

    1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Commission addresses the obligation of mobile satellite services (MSS) 
and multi-line telephone systems (MLTS) to provide enhanced 911 
capabilities. Its analysis includes a discussion of (a) 911 obligations 
for MSS providers that have an ancillary terrestrial component to their 
service and (b) recordkeeping and reporting proposals in connection 
with implementation of MSS emergency call centers (see Report and 
Order, FCC 03-290, rel. December 1, 2003). It also seeks comment on the 
Commission's role in requiring multi-line telephone systems to deliver 
call-back and location information, and seeks comment on the value of a 
national approach where states have failed to act.

A. Integration of Ancillary Terrestrial Component

    2. Discussion. The Commission believes for those calls that utilize 
only the ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) of an MSS system, the 
carrier should provide access to the same 911 services as terrestrial 
CMRS providers. Including 911 features in the design stage of ATC 
systems will prevent potentially costly and complicated retrofitting at 
a later date. The Commission seeks additional comment, however, 
concerning whether transition periods for compliance are warranted, and 
if so what an appropriate schedule would be. The Commission also seeks 
comment whether MSS carriers with integrated ATC will be able to comply 
with the location accuracy standards (for both network-based and 
handset-based solutions) of Sec. 20.18, and if they cannot, why. The 
Commission directs the rechartered Network Reliability and 
Interoperability Council (NRIC) to study whether hand-off of calls 
between terrestrial and satellite network components will be a factor 
and if so what the impact will be on 911 service.

B. MSS Carriers' Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    3. Background and Discussion. The call center rule requires MSS 
carriers to deploy call centers 12 months after publication of the 
Report and Order (FCC 03-290, released December 1, 2003). The 
Commission seeks comment whether MSS carriers subject to the call 
center requirement should prepare and submit a report on their plans 
for implementing call centers no later than three (3) months prior to 
the call center rule's effective date. The report would have to include 
basic information concerning the carrier's call center plans, including 
staffing and site considerations and the public safety answering point 
(PSAP) database to be used. The Commission expects that the reports 
would assist its efforts to monitor call center development and then 
take any necessary actions to ensure that the implementation deadline 
is met. The reports would also provide the public with valuable 
information about MSS emergency services.
    4. The Commission also seeks comment on recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements post-call center deployment. The Commission is interested 
in collecting data on MSS call center use, including the volume of 
calls that the call centers receive. The Commission would find other 
call data useful as well, such as the number of calls that required 
forwarding to a local PSAP and the success rate in handing off calls to 
the proper PSAP. The Commission seeks comment on whether MSS carriers 
should record and store this information themselves, subject to 
inspection by the Commission at any time, or whether MSS carriers 
should file the information in the form of a report once a year with 
the Commission or another entity. Collection of call data would allow 
the Commission to monitor compliance with the call center

[[Page 6597]]

requirement and track usage trends. The Commission also seeks comment 
on sunset provisions for any recordkeeping or reporting requirements, 
and requests information about appropriate sunset timeframes.

C. Multi-Line Telephone Systems

    5. Through this Notice, the Commission seeks further comment on its 
role in requiring multi-line systems to deliver call-back and location 
information, and specifically seeks comment on the value of a national 
approach where states have failed to act. While the Commission 
continues to study the need for federal action, it expects states to 
work quickly to adopt legislation to reduce any gaps in this area. The 
Commission notes that if state action proves uniformly effective, 
further action by the Commission may not be necessary.
    6. As an initial matter, the Commission seeks to refresh the record 
on the prevalence of MLTS and on the status of E911 implementation for 
those systems. The Commission seeks comment on the number of lines that 
are served by multi-line systems, and the full range of operators who 
manage them. The Commission encourages commenters to provide as 
comprehensive a picture as possible of the status of MLTS deployment, 
but to also note particular variations by location or type of user. The 
Commission seeks comment on how the growth of Internet-protocol 
telephony will affect the manufacture and deployment of new MLTS 
equipment and its use for 911/E911 calls. Does this development affect 
the policy question of whether MLTS E911 standards should be uniform 
nationally, or instead can be set on state by state basis? With regard 
to MLTS manufacturers, the Commission seeks comment as to whether E911 
features represent an opportunity for manufacturers to improve the 
value of their equipment. If so, is the value added by these 
improvements worth the increased costs to their customers? If the 
status of MLTS E911 implementation has changed over time, the 
Commission seeks comment on the application of the four criteria 
discussed in the Report and Order.
    7. The Commission also seeks updated comment on its authority to 
require compliance with E911 rules it may adopt, on all of the affected 
parties: carriers, manufacturers, PSAPs, and MLTS operators. In 
particular, the Commission asks commenters to focus on the nature of 
the Commission's jurisdiction over MLTS operators, in light of the 
Commission's earlier interpretations of section 4(i) authority and its 
prior statement that ``the reliability of 911 service is integrally 
related to our responsibilities under section 1 of the Act, which 
include `promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire 
and radio communication.' '' To the extent that parties ask the 
Commission to adopt rules in this area, the Commission also seeks 
comment on whether any such rules would have a disproportionate impact 
on small entities. The Commission also seeks comment generally on steps 
that it can take to ensure that small entities are not 
disproportionately impacted, if any such steps are necessary.
    8. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on NENA's proposed new 
section to our part 64 rules requiring that LEC central offices be 
provisioned to permit connection of MLTS equipment for E911 purposes 
``in any accepted industry standard format, as defined by the FCC, 
requested by the MLTS operator.'' In connection with this 
recommendation, the Commission seeks comment on NEC's recommendation 
that the Commission adopt the ANSI T1.628-2000 ISDN network interface 
standard as an ``accepted industry standard,'' thereby requiring LECs 
to enable MLTS operators to use a more efficient means of interfacing 
with the network than is currently available in most instances.

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    9. 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 Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further 
Notice), IB Docket No. 99-67 and 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 for comments 
on the Second Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the 
Second 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 Second Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will be published in the Federal Register.

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

    10. The Second Further Notice continues a reevaluation of the scope 
of communications services that should provide access to emergency 
services that was initiated with the Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 94-102 and IB Docket No. 99-67. The Second 
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 mobile satellite service (MSS) providers, 
including MSS providers having an ancillary terrestrial component 
(ATC). The Second Further Notice also seeks comment on a proposal to 
require mobile satellite service (MSS) providers to comply with 
reporting and recordkeeping requirements in connection with emergency 
call center implementation. Further, the Second Further Notice 
considers whether multi-line telephone systems (MLTS) should be 
required to provide access to enhanced 911 (E911) service and questions 
whether the Commission should adopt revisions to its part 64 rules.

B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules

    11. 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

    12. 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 adopted 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.''
    13. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in

[[Page 6598]]

this present 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.
    14. 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, 1,337 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of local exchange services. Of these 1,337 
carriers, an estimated 1,032 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 entities that may be 
affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    15. 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, 609 companies reported that they were 
engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services 
or competitive local exchange carrier services. Of these 609 companies, 
an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 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.
    16. 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, 609 CAPs or competitive local 
exchange carriers and 35 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 609 competitive access providers and competitive local exchange 
carriers, an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 have 
more than 1,500 employees. Of the 35 other local exchange carriers, an 
estimated 34 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has 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.
    17. 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, 133 companies reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of local resale services. Of these 133 companies, an 
estimated 127 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 6 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
local resellers may be affected by the rules.
    18. 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, 625 companies reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of toll resale services. Of these 625 companies, an estimated 
590 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 35 have more than 1,500 
employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
toll resellers may be affected by the rules.
    19. 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, 261 carriers reported that their primary 
telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange 
services. Of these 261 carriers, an estimated 223 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 38 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we 
estimate that a majority of interexchange carriers may be affected by 
the rules.
    20. 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, 23 
companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator 
services. Of these 23 companies, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of local resellers may be affected 
by the rules.
    21. 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, 37 companies reported that they were engaged in the 
provision of prepaid calling cards. Of these 37 companies, an estimated 
36 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.
    22. 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 notes that small businesses are 
not

[[Page 6599]]

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.
    23. 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, 92 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of 
``Other Toll Services.'' Of these 92 carriers, an estimated 82 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and ten have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of ``Other Toll 
Carriers'' may be affected by the rules.
    24. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a size 
standard for small businesses within the two separate categories of 
Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications and Paging. Under these 
standards, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,387 companies 
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless service. 
Of these 1,387 companies, an estimated 945 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 442 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

    25. 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 
Legal Authority, for example, in paragraphs 12-17 of the Report and 
Order) 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 111-112 of the Second Further Notice seek comment on 
proposals that all Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) licensees subject to 
the emergency call center requirement both (a) submit implementation 
progress reports prior to the effective date of the call center 
requirement and (b) record data on call center operations for possible 
reporting purposes.
    26. The Second Further Notice, in paragraphs 113-117, 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 Second Further 
Notice suggests if the Commission decides that multi-line telephone 
systems should provide these services include technical standards as 
discussed in paragraph 117. Paragraphs 114-116 seek comment on the 
scope of deployment of MLTS and on the Commission's jurisdiction over 
all parties involved in the provision of E911 over MLTS, including 
carriers, MLTS manufacturers, PSAPs, and MLTS operators.
    27. Other regulations and requirements are possible for those 
services discussed in the Second 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 Second Further 
Notice and would be designed to meet the consumer needs and licensee 
situations in each service and service area.

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. 
MSS providers 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 these services provide 911 
and E911 service. The Second 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 Second 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 do to minimize the regulatory burden on 
those entities who meet the Commission's criteria for providing such 
service.
    30. Throughout the Second 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, manufacturers, and operators 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 Second 
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 Second 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.
    32. Along these lines, discussion of criteria and alternatives 
could focus on implementation schedules. In discussing the prospective 
entities and soliciting further information, throughout the Second 
Further Notice the Commission invites comment on the schedule for 
implementing 911 and E911 services which best meets the abilities, 
technically and financially, of the individual entities. In the past, 
the Commission has best been able to offer

[[Page 6600]]

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. We again seek comment 
on such possible alternatives.
    33. In its discussion of MSS, the Second Further Notice recognizes 
that although satellite carriers face unique technical difficulties in 
implementing both basic and enhanced 911 features, these difficulties 
are avoided to a larger extent when the carrier has an ancillary 
terrestrial component (ATC) to its service. Thus, in paragraphs 107-
110, the Second Further Notice examines the impact of ATC on MSS 
providers' ability to offer the same enhanced 911 service that 
terrestrial wireless carriers provide. Paragraph 108 of the Second 
Further Notice notes that several commenters, thus far, have indicated 
that MSS basic and enhanced 911 service can be improved with ATC. The 
Second Further Notice suggests alternative solutions to this problem, 
asking whether MSS providers with ATC should be allowed additional time 
(or transition periods) in order to come into compliance with 
terrestrial E911 rules, and whether they can meet the location 
identification standards of Sec. 20.18 (47 CFR 20.18). The Second 
Further Notice also directs the Network Reliability and 
Interoperability Council to study issues associated with hand-off of 
calls between satellite and terrestrial components.
    34. As mentioned, the Second Further Notice seeks comment on 
reporting and recordkeeping proposals in connection with implementation 
of the MSS emergency call center requirement. Call center 911 service 
is a new form of 911 service, and the Second Further Notice seeks 
comment on the collection of call center data, including total volume 
of calls received during a given period, the number of calls requiring 
forwarding to a PSAP, and the success rate in handing off the call to 
an appropriate PSAP. The Second Further Notice suggests alternatives 
for this data collection, seeking comment on whether the information 
should simply be retained by service providers and available upon 
Commission request, whether the information should be submitted to the 
Commission on a regular basis, or whether the information should be 
submitted to a third party for review. In addition, the Second Further 
Notice seeks comment on whether the proposed data collection/
recordkeeping requirement should be subject to sunset provisions.
    35. The Second Further Notice, in paragraphs 113-117, examines 
potential 911 and E911 requirements for multi-line telephone 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 authorities to ensure reliable coverage. 
NENA and APCO, for example, have proposed Model Legislation that would 
allow states, through legislation, to adopt many of the standards and 
protocol association with delivering E911 services through multi-line 
systems. Paragraph 117 considers adopting NENA's proposed new section 
to our part 64 rules requiring that LEC central offices be provisioned 
to permit connection of MLTS equipment for E911 purposes in any 
accepted industry standard format, as defined by the Commission, 
requested by the MLTS operator. In connection with this recommendation, 
the Second Further Notice seeks comment on NEC's recommendation that 
the Commission adopt the ANSI T1.628-2000 ISDN network interface 
standard as an ``accepted industry standard,'' thereby requiring LECs 
to enable MLTS operators to use a more efficient means of interfacing 
with the network than is currently available in most instances. 
Additionally, the Second Further Notice asked parties to comment on 
whether any rules that the Commission adopts may have a 
disproportionate impact on small entities and requested comment how it 
might ameliorate any such impacts.

F. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With the Proposed 
Rules

    36. None.

III. Ordering Clauses

    37. Pursuant to 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, 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, 310, this Report and Order is hereby adopted.
    38. The Commission's Office of Consumer and Government Affairs, 
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and 
Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 20, 25, 64, and 68

    Communications common carriers, satellite communications.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-2125 Filed 2-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P