**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WC Docket No. 08-171         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Implementation of the NET 911    | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Improvement Act of 2008          | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

REPORT and order

**Adopted: October 21, 2008 Released: October 21, 2008**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein,
Tate, and McDowell issuing

separate statements.

Table of Contents

Para.

I. introduction 1

II\. background 2

A. NET 911 Act 3

B. NET 911 Notice 5

C. 911 and E911 Network Architectures 6

D. Entities That Own or Control Interconnected VoIP 911 or E911
Capabilities 14

III\. Discussion 20

A. Access to 911 and E911 Capabilities 21

B. Rates, Terms, and Conditions 30

C. Technical, Network Security, and Information Privacy Requirements 35

IV\. procedural matters 40

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis 40

B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 41

C. Congressional Review Act 42

D. Accessible Formats 43

V. ordering clauses 44

APPENDIX A -- List of Commenters

APPENDIX B -- Final Rules

APPENDIX C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# introduction

1.  In this Order, we adopt rules implementing certain key provisions of
    the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET
    911 Act), which was enacted on July 23, 2008.[^1] Congress directed
    the Commission to issue rules implementing certain key provisions of
    the NET 911 Act no later than October 21, 2008.[^2] In particular,
    to effectuate the statutory requirement that providers of
    interconnected voice over Internet Protocol (interconnected VoIP)
    service provide 911 and enhanced 911 (E911) service in full
    compliance with our rules, Congress mandated that the Commission
    issue regulations in this time frame that, among other things,
    ensure that interconnected VoIP providers have access to any and all
    capabilities they need to satisfy that requirement.[^3] Today, we
    fulfill that duty and take steps to ensure that interconnected VoIP
    providers will, in fact, use the capabilities they gain as a result
    of this Order to provide 911 and E911 service without exception.
    Specifically, we issue rules that give interconnected VoIP providers
    rights of access to any and all capabilities necessary to provide
    911 and E911 service from entities that own or control those
    capabilities. We also take steps to ensure that the nation's E911
    network remains secure as an expanded number of entities are granted
    rights to access this system.

# background

2.  As communications technology develops, new challenges and
    opportunities emerge for the E911 system. Congress recognized this
    in 1999 when it passed the Wireless 911 Act, which encouraged the
    construction and operation of seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable 911
    networks for wireless devices.[^4] On July 23, 2008, the President
    signed into law the NET 911 Act, which amends the Wireless 911 Act,
    to promote and enhance public safety by facilitating the rapid
    deployment of interconnected VoIP 911 and E911 services, encourage
    the Nation's transition to a national IP-enabled emergency network,
    and improve 911 and E911 access to those with disabilities.[^5]

## NET 911 Act

3.  The NET 911 Act explicitly imposes on each interconnected VoIP
    provider the obligation to provide 911 and E911 service in
    accordance with Commission existing requirements.[^6] The NET 911
    Act also grants each interconnected VoIP provider rights with
    respect to "capabilities" to provide 911 and E911 services.[^7]
    Specifically, section 101 of the NET 911 Act adds a new section 6 to
    the Wireless 911 Act that states in relevant part:

    \(a\) DUTIES. -- It shall be the duty of each IP-enabled voice
    service provider to provide 9--1--1 service and enhanced 9--1--1
    service to its subscribers in accordance with the requirements of
    the Federal Communications Commission, as in effect on the date of
    enactment of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act
    of 2008 and as such requirements may be modified by the Commission
    from time to time.

    \(b\) PARITY FOR IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE PROVIDERS.---An IP-enabled
    voice service provider that seeks capabilities to provide 9--1--1
    and enhanced 9--1--1 service from an entity with ownership or
    control over such capabilities, to comply with its obligations under
    subsection (a), shall, for the exclusive purpose of complying with
    such obligations, have a right of access to such capabilities,
    including interconnection, to provide 9--1--1 and enhanced 9--1--1
    service on the same rates, terms, and conditions that are provided
    to a provider of commercial mobile service . . . , subject to such
    regulations as the Commission prescribes under subsection (c).

    \(c\) REGULATIONS.---The Commission---

    \(1\) within 90 days after the date of enactment of the \[NET 911
    Act\] shall issue regulations implementing such Act, including
    regulations that---

> \(A\) ensure that IP-enabled voice service providers have the ability
> to exercise their rights under subsection (b);
>
> \(B\) take into account any technical, network security, or
> information privacy requirements that are specific to IP-enabled voice
> services; and

\(C\) provide, with respect to any capabilities that are not required to
be made available to a commercial mobile service provider but that the
Commission determines under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph or
paragraph (3)[^8] are necessary for an IP-enabled voice service provider
to comply with its obligations under subsection (a), that such
capabilities shall be available at the same rates, terms, and conditions
as would apply if such capabilities were made available to a commercial
mobile service provider.

\(2\) shall require IP-enabled voice service providers to which the
regulations apply to register with the Commission and to establish a
point of contact for public safety and government officials relative to
9--1--1 and enhanced 9--1--1 service and access; and

\(3\) may modify such regulations from time to time, as necessitated by
changes in the market or technology, to ensure the ability of an
IP-enabled voice service provider to comply with its obligations under
subsection (a) and to exercise its rights under subsection (b).[^9]

4.  The "requirements of the Federal Communications Commission, as in
    effect on the date of enactment of the \[NET 911 Act\]"[^10]
    referenced in the legislation are set forth in Part 9 of the
    Commission's rules and the Commission's *VoIP 911 Order*.[^11] In
    that order, the Commission required providers of "interconnected
    VoIP service" -- referred to as "IP-enabled voice services" in the
    NET 911 Act -- to provide E911 service using the existing wireline
    911 infrastructure. Congress has specified that "\[n\]othing in the
    \[NET 911 Act\] shall be construed as altering, delaying, or
    otherwise limiting the ability of the Commission to enforce the
    Federal actions taken or rules adopted obligating an IP-enabled
    voice service provider to provide 9--1--1 or enhanced 9--1--1
    service as of the date of the enactment of the \[NET 911
    Act\]."[^12]

## NET 911 Notice

5.  We released a notice of proposed rulemaking on August 25, 2008
    seeking comment regarding the specific duties imposed by the NET 911
    Act and the regulations that we are required to adopt.[^13] We
    sought comment, for example, on what 911 and E911 capabilities must
    be made available to interconnected VoIP providers, and how such
    capabilities could be made available on the same rates, terms, and
    conditions afforded to wireless providers.[^14] We also sought
    comment on what technical, network security, or information privacy
    requirements regarding 911 and E911 calls are specific to
    interconnected VoIP service.[^15]

## 911 and E911 Network Architectures

6.  We begin by describing the nation's 911 network architecture with
    particular focus on interconnected VoIP services. As the design and
    operation of 911 architectures have developed on a localized basis,
    there is substantial variation in how these systems are built and
    operated.[^16] Throughout this Order, we attempt to describe typical
    network architectures in broad enough fashion so as to include these
    many variations, but we recognize that there may be local variations
    not included by our descriptions. We nonetheless intend for our
    rules to address those variations, as explained in more detail
    below.[^17]

7.  As the Commission indicated in the *VoIP 911 Order*, 911 service
    generally falls into two categories -- basic and enhanced. Basic 911
    service delivers 911 calls to an appropriate PSAP or public safety
    agency without the information regarding the caller's location or,
    in some cases, a call back number.[^18] E911 service expands basic
    911 service by not only delivering 911 calls to an appropriate PSAP,
    or public safety agency, but also providing the call taker with the
    caller's call back number, referred to as Automatic Numbering
    Identification (ANI), and location information --- a capability
    referred to as Automatic Location Identification (ALI).[^19] Most
    areas of the country have now implemented E911 service.[^20] 911
    calls and E911 service are processed and delivered over a dedicated
    network architecture that is separate from but interconnected with
    the PSTN. Below, we describe the typical Wireline, Wireless, and
    interconnected VoIP E911 networks.

8.  *Wireline E911 Network*. The core of the nation's 911 system is a
    dedicated, redundant, highly reliable wireline network (Wireline
    E911 Network).[^21] The Wireline E911 Network generally has been
    constructed, operated, and maintained by a subset of incumbent local
    exchange carriers (LECs).[^22] Network designs vary from carrier to
    carrier and jurisdiction to jurisdiction.[^23] The Wireline E911
    Network includes Selective Routers, which receive 911 calls
    transmitted over dedicated trunks from competitive and incumbent LEC
    central offices.[^24] The Selective Router in turn queries a
    Selective Router Database (SR Database), which typically is owned
    and operated by the incumbent LEC, to determine which PSAP serves
    the caller's geographic area.[^25] The Selective Router will then
    forward the 911 call along with the caller's phone number (*i.e.*,
    ANI) to that PSAP. The PSAP in turn then forwards the caller's ANI
    over dedicated circuits to an Automatic Location Identification
    database (ALI Database),[^26] again typically under control of the
    incumbent LEC. The ALI Database returns to the PSAP the caller's
    street address (that previously has been verified by comparison to a
    separate database known as the MSAG as part of an initial data entry
    process).[^27] The Wireline E911 Network also includes a Database
    Management System (DBMS), which provides a method for competitive
    and incumbent LECs to enter customer data into both the SR Database
    and the ALI Database.[^28] The Wireline E911 Network thus typically
    includes: the Selective Router; the trunk line(s) between the
    Selective Router and the PSAP(s); the ALI Database; the SR Database;
    the DBMS; ESNs; the MSAG; the data circuits connecting these
    elements; and the network elements, features, processes, and
    agreements necessary to enable the use of these elements.[^29]

9.  *Wireless E911* *Network.* Under the Commission's wireless E911
    rules, wireless carriers must provide the telephone number of the
    originator of a 911 call (*i.e.*, ANI) and information regarding the
    caller's location (*i.e.*, ALI) to any PSAP that has requested that
    such information be delivered with 911 calls.[^30] As explained in
    the *VoIP 911 Order*, the mobile nature of wireless technology and
    service presents significant obstacles to making E911 effective --
    in particular, the provision to PSAPs of accurate ALI.[^31]
    Specifically, the mobility of wireless service precludes the use of
    permanent street addresses as a location indicator and may require
    the provision of real-time location updates to the PSAP. In
    addition, the caller's phone number (*i.e.*, the ANI information)
    may be not be usable by the Selective Router for PSAP routing
    purposes within the specific geographic region in which the mobile
    911 call was placed. To overcome this mobility problem, wireless
    carriers have developed various techniques to provision ANI and ALI
    to the PSAP that involve enhancements or "add-ons" to the existing
    Wireline E911 Network.[^32]

10. In a typical wireless E911 network construct, the wireless 911 call
    is received by a base station, which in turn sends the call to a
    Mobile Switching Center (MSC). The MSC essentially serves the same
    function as the competitive and incumbent LEC central office
    described above for wireline E911 calls.[^33] The MSC sends the call
    record information associated with the call (*e.g*., the actual call
    back number) as well as the cell site or sector to a Mobile
    Positioning Center (MPC). The MPC in turn sends back to the MSC a
    "pseudo-ANI" or "p-ANI" number. The term "p-ANI" refers to a number
    consisting of the same number of digits as ANI, that, unlike
    standard ANI, is not a North American Numbering Plan telephone
    number but may be used in place of ANI to convey special meaning to
    the Selective Router, PSAP, and other elements of the 911
    system.[^34] Wireless 911 systems use p-ANI because Selective
    Routers are not generally capable of properly routing calls from
    telephone numbers that are not local, or "native" to the geographic
    area that they service.

11. The MPC then simultaneously takes the call record information, along
    with location information, and populates a "shell record"[^35]
    associated with that p-ANI, which has been previously provisioned
    within ALI Database. Based on the p-ANI provided, the MSC then
    routes the call along with the p-ANI to the appropriate Selective
    Router. The Selective Router queries the SR Database to determine
    the ESN, which in turn identifies the PSAP that serves the wireless
    911 caller's location based upon the p-ANI number,[^36] and routes
    the call accordingly. The PSAP accesses the ALI Database using the
    p-ANI and is provided with the information in the shell record
    associated with that p-ANI.[^37] Thus, the elements of the wireless
    911 systems that are additional to the Wireline E911 Network are
    p-ANI, mobile switching center capabilities, mobile positioning
    center capabilities, and shell records. The wireless 911 systems
    also may include additional data circuits, network elements,
    features, processes, and agreements necessary to enable the use of
    these additional elements.

12. *Interconnected VoIP E911 Network.* Under the Commission's rules,
    interconnected VoIP providers must provide E911 service to their
    customers.[^38] As with wireless technology and services,
    interconnected VoIP technology and service present challenges in
    making E911 effective. Interconnected VoIP service may enable
    customers to place calls from various geographic locations which, as
    explained above,[^39] may necessitate the use of p-ANI for routing
    911 calls. Furthermore, given the state of current technology to
    determine automatically the location from which an interconnected
    VoIP call is made, the Commission required providers of
    interconnected VoIP services to obtain location information, called
    "Registered Location," from their customers.[^40]

13. Under the Commission's rules, interconnected VoIP providers must
    forward all 911 calls made over their interconnected VoIP service,
    as well as a call back number and the caller's Registered Location
    for each call, to the appropriate PSAP.[^41] These calls must be
    routed through the use of ANI and, if necessary, and similar to
    wireless carriers, p-ANI,[^42] via the dedicated Wireline E911
    Network, and the caller's Registered Location must be available from
    or through the ALI Database.[^43] Interconnected VoIP providers may
    comply with the Commission's rules by interconnecting indirectly
    through a third party such as a competitive LEC, interconnecting
    directly with the Wireline E911 Network, or through any other
    solution that allows the provider to offer E911 service.[^44]

## Entities That Own or Control Interconnected VoIP 911 or E911 Capabilities 

14. As discussed in the *VoIP 911 Order*, E911 capabilities vary from
    network to network and location to location. A variety of entities
    own or control these capabilities.[^45] Some capabilities used to
    provide E911 service are owned by different types of entities in
    different areas of the country.[^46]

15. *Incumbent LECs*. As described above, it is common for several of
    the capabilities of the E911 system to be owned or controlled by the
    incumbent LEC serving the area. These capabilities include
    interconnection to the Selective Router.[^47] Often, incumbent LECs
    control p-ANI.[^48] Incumbent LECs also sometimes own or control
    certain of the databases described above, such as the ALI Database,
    the SR Database, and the DBMS.[^49] Incumbent LECs also frequently
    control certain E911 processes, such as providing access to ESNs and
    shell records.[^50]

16. *CMRS Providers*. Mobile wireless providers own or control several
    of the capabilities described above, including those held at MSCs
    and MPCs.

17. *States, Localities, and PSAPs*. States, localities, or PSAPs often
    own or control other E911 capabilities. The MSAG, for example, is
    frequently owned by local authorities.[^51] Other databases, such as
    the ALI Database, also may be sometimes owned or controlled by local
    authorities.[^52] And localities or PSAPs maintain control over
    certain processes, such as "certifying" providers to send 911 calls
    to a particular PSAP, testing that capability, and sometimes
    entering into agreements that address how 911 calls are handled in a
    particular locality.[^53]

18. *Third-Party Commercial Providers*. Certain third-party commercial
    providers of communications services also own or control
    capabilities. For example, Intrado and TCS are major providers of
    VoIP positioning center (VPC) services -- these are essentially the
    same services provided by an MPC in the wireless E911 context, only
    here they are provided in the VoIP context -- which route E911 calls
    to the appropriate PSAP based on the interconnected VoIP customers'
    Registered Locations and often include elements such as transport
    and p-ANI.[^54] Some competitive LECs provide interconnection to
    Selective Routers, access to p-ANI, and other E911 capabilities on a
    wholesale basis to interconnected VoIP providers.[^55]

19. *Interim RNA*. The Interim Routing Number Authority (Interim RNA), a
    contractor to the Commission, controls some p-ANI.[^56]

# Discussion

20. In this part, we turn first to our obligation under section 6(c)(1)
    of the Wireless 911 Act to issue regulations ensuring that
    interconnected VoIP providers can exercise their rights of access to
    any and all "capabilities" they need to be able to provide 911 and
    E911 service in full compliance with our rules from "an entity with
    ownership or control over such capabilities."[^57] Congress did not
    define key terms of these provisions, such as the "capabilities" to
    which interconnected VoIP providers have a right of access, or an
    "entity" with ownership or control over capabilities, but left the
    elucidation of these terms to the Commission. We interpret these
    terms, examining the statutory language itself, its legislative
    history, and the record. We next discuss the "rates, terms and
    conditions" that apply to that access. Then, we impose certain
    security requirements to protect the integrity of the 911 system.

## Access to 911 and E911 Capabilities

21. *Need for Rules in General.* We turn first to the scope of the
    Commission's obligation to "issue regulations implementing the \[NET
    911\] Act, including regulations that . . . ensure that IP-enabled
    voice service providers have the ability to exercise their rights
    \[to access\]."[^58] We conclude that having rules establishing
    standards for access to capabilities best fulfills the Commission's
    obligations and the goals of the NET 911 Act. Congress clearly
    intended for the Commission to implement regulations more specific
    than the statutory language itself. In section 6(c), Congress
    specifically directed the Commission to conduct this rulemaking to
    assure interconnected VoIP providers' rights under section (6)(b),
    taking into account specific factors, such as "any technical,
    network security, or information privacy requirements that are
    specific to IP-enabled voice services."[^59] If Congress had not
    intended the Commission to implement rules more detailed than the
    statute itself, it would not have instructed the Commission to take
    certain things into account; it would have left the statutory
    language as sufficient and self-effectuating.[^60] We therefore
    disagree with commenters that suggest that no specific rules are
    needed, or that any rules can simply parrot the statutory
    language.[^61]

22. We also decline to issue highly detailed rules listing capabilities
    or entities with ownership or control of those capabilities.[^62] As
    recognized above and explained further in this part, the nation's
    911 system varies from locality to locality, and overly specific
    rules would fail to reflect these local variations.[^63]
    Furthermore, as Congress recognized, the nation's 911 system is
    evolving from its origins in the circuit-switched world into an
    IP-based network.[^64] Our rules should be sufficiently flexible to
    accommodate this ongoing process. Indeed, Congress specifically
    prohibited the Commission from "issu\[ing\] regulations that require
    or impose a specific technology or technological standard,"[^65]
    which specific, invariable rules could do. We therefore adopt rules
    that establish standards for determining to what capabilities
    interconnected VoIP providers have a right of access and from which
    entities, and we explain in this Order what capabilities and
    entities would typically (but not necessarily) be encompassed in
    today's architecture.

23. *Standard for Right of Access to Capabilities.* Consistent with the
    approach just described, here we adopt rules establishing a standard
    for determining to what capabilities interconnected VoIP providers
    have a right of access, and also providing examples of the
    capabilities that will typically be required in most local 911 and
    E911 architectures.[^66] We explain in later parts of this Order
    that capabilities may only be used for the provision of 911 and E911
    service.[^67]

24. First, we begin with the statutory language. While the statute does
    not define the term "capabilities," it does provide that
    interconnected VoIP providers have a right of access to capabilities
    on the same "rates, terms, and conditions that are provided to a
    provider of commercial mobile service."[^68] Pursuant to our
    authority under the NET 911 Act, we issue rules to grant
    interconnected VoIP providers a right of access to the capabilities
    CMRS providers use to provide E911 service equal to the access
    rights made available to CMRS providers.[^69] Congress clearly
    recognized a commonality between the capabilities needed by
    interconnected VoIP providers and those already used by CMRS
    providers. Indeed, if an owner or controller of a capability used to
    provide E911 service made it available to a CMRS provider at a
    certain rate but refused to grant interconnected VoIP providers
    access to that same capability, that interconnected VoIP provider
    would not "*have a right of access to such capabilities* . . . to
    provide \[E911\] service on the same rates, terms, and conditions
    that are provided to a provider of \[CMRS\]."[^70] We also find
    support for this position in the context in which this legislation
    was enacted.[^71] As explained above,[^72] the capabilities used by
    interconnected VoIP providers -- particularly those providing a
    nomadic or mobile service -- to provide E911 service are similar to
    those used by CMRS providers; interpreting the statute to mean that
    interconnected VoIP providers have a right of access to those
    capabilities used by CMRS providers furthers Congress's goal of
    "ensur\[ing\] that consumers using Voice over Internet Protocol
    (VoIP) service can access enhanced 911 (E-911) emergency services by
    giving VoIP providers access to the emergency services
    infrastructure."[^73]

25. Second, with respect to any capabilities that are not provided to
    CMRS providers for their provision of E911 service, we interpret the
    NET 911 Act as granting interconnected VoIP providers a right of
    access if the capability is necessary for the interconnected VoIP
    provider to provide E911 service in compliance with the Commission's
    rules. For reasons similar to those outlined in the previous
    paragraph, we believe that the right of an interconnected VoIP
    provider to certain rates, terms, and conditions necessarily
    includes a right of access to such capability.[^74] Section
    6(c)(1)(C) of the Wireless 911 Act provides that "with respect to
    any capabilities that are not required to be made available to a
    \[CMRS\] provider but that the Commission determines . . . are
    *necessary* for an \[interconnected VoIP\] provider to comply with
    its obligations \[to provide E911 service in accordance with the
    Commission's rules\], that such capabilities shall be available at
    the same rates, terms, and conditions as would apply if such
    capabilities were made available to a \[CMRS\] provider."[^75] We
    also find that this text limits interconnected VoIP providers' right
    of access to such capabilities to those that are *necessary* to
    provide E911 service in compliance with the Commission's rules.

26. Third, regardless whether a capability is used by a CMRS provider or
    not, for any capability an interconnected VoIP provider gets
    pursuant to rights granted in the NET 911 Act and our implementing
    rules, such capability may be used by that provider *only* for the
    purpose of providing E911 service in accordance with the
    Commission's rules.[^76] The NET 911 Act explicitly mandates this
    limit on interconnected VoIP providers' statutory access rights with
    respect to capabilities CMRS providers use to provide E911
    service.[^77] We recognize that the statute does not expressly
    contain a similar limitation in section 6(c)(1)(C), which grants
    interconnected VoIP providers a right to access the capabilities
    they need to provide E911 service even if they are not capabilities
    CMRS providers use to provide E911 service.[^78] Nevertheless, our
    interpretation of the NET 911 Act is informed by the legislative
    history[^79] as well as Congress's overarching purpose in enacting
    the provisions at issue here. Both with respect to capabilities that
    are used by CMRS providers and those that are not, the NET 911 Act
    is clear that its purpose is to facilitate interconnected VoIP
    providers' ability to provide E911 service in compliance with the
    Commission's rules, without granting access rights to additional
    capabilities. This overarching purpose indicates that Congress
    intended that *any* capabilities to which access is gained pursuant
    to the NET 911 Act may be used exclusively for the purpose of
    providing E911 service. In addition, the record indicates that CMRS
    providers use most of the capabilities interconnected VoIP providers
    need to provide E911 service.[^80] We do not find any reason to
    believe that Congress would have granted interconnected VoIP
    providers more expansive rights with respect to the relatively small
    subset of capabilities that are not used by CMRS providers to
    provide E911 service than those capabilities that are. Therefore, we
    believe it is reasonable to require that interconnected VoIP
    providers use all capabilities that they obtain pursuant to the NET
    911 Act and this Order exclusively for the provision of E911 service
    in compliance with our rules.[^81]

27. *Typical Capabilities.* The record reflects general consensus as to
    what capabilities are used by CMRS providers today and what
    capabilities are not used by CMRS providers but are "necessary" for
    interconnected VoIP providers to comply with our rules.[^82] As AT&T
    explains, CMRS providers have been offering E911 services for many
    years and even interconnected VoIP providers have been providing
    such services since 2005.[^83] We therefore interpret "capabilities"
    to include all those items described in part II of this Order that
    are used by wireless providers today or that are not used by
    wireless providers but are necessary to interconnected VoIP
    providers' compliance with our rules. Thus, in a typical local
    architecture, "capabilities" will include: the Selective Router; the
    trunk line(s) between the Selective Router and the PSAP(s); the ALI
    Database; the SR Database; the DBMS, the MSAG; p-ANIs;[^84] ESNs;
    mobile switching center capabilities; mobile positioning center
    capabilities; shell records; the data circuits connecting these
    elements; and the network elements, features, processes, and
    agreements necessary to enable the use of these elements.

28. *Entities with Ownership or Control of Capabilities*. We conclude
    that interconnected VoIP providers are entitled to access to
    capabilities from *any* entity that owns or controls such
    capabilities. Again, we find this interpretation to be the most
    natural reading of the statutory language. Section 6(b) grants
    interconnected VoIP providers a right to access "such
    capabilities,"[^85] with "such" referring back to the "capabilities
    \[an interconnected VoIP seeks\] to provide 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1
    service from an entity with ownership or control over such
    capabilities."[^86] Congress's use of the term "an entity" instead
    of "the entity" strongly suggests that Congress understood that
    capabilities might be available from multiple sources and intended a
    broad interpretation of the scope of "entities" obligated to provide
    access to capabilities. We therefore interpret the NET 911 Act to
    impose obligations of access on each of the entities described in
    part II.D of this Order, including in typical E911 architectures:
    incumbent LECs, PSAPs and local authorities, VPCs, CMRS providers,
    competitive carriers, and the Interim RNA to the extent any of these
    entities has "ownership or control" over any capabilities to which
    interconnected VoIP providers have a right of access.

29. We recognize that in some instances, multiple entities may have
    ownership or control of similar capabilities in the same local area.
    We see nothing in the NET 911 Act to suggest that only certain of
    those entities would have the obligation to provide access. Indeed,
    if some but not all entities had that obligation, disputes would
    certainly arise over which entities were subject to the Act, causing
    delays in granting interconnected VoIP providers access and
    thwarting Congress's ultimate goal of "facilitating the rapid
    deployment of IP-enabled 911 and E911 services."[^87] Finally, we
    recognize that we do not normally regulate some of the entities we
    describe in this part, such as PSAPs and VPCs. Yet Congress has
    imposed a duty on them and instructed this Commission to issue
    regulations to "ensure that IP-enabled voice service providers have
    the ability to exercise their rights under subsection (b)."[^88] As
    Congress has instructed the Commission to take these actions, it has
    also given the Commission the authority it needs to do so.[^89]

## Rates, Terms, and Conditions

30. The NET 911 Act also mandates that the rates, terms, and conditions
    under which access to 911 and E911 capabilities is provided are to
    be the same as made available to CMRS providers. Under the rules we
    issue today, interconnected VoIP providers may exercise these rights
    to fulfill their obligation to provide 911 and E911 in full
    compliance with our rules.

31. As a threshold matter, we find that issuing rules of general
    applicability regarding rates, terms, and conditions best fulfills
    the goals of the NET 911 Act. The rules we adopt today are specific
    enough to bring market certainty and clear direction while also
    being flexible enough to ensure that Congress's aims are met in a
    wide variety of circumstances. Contrary to the approach advocated by
    some commenters, we find no indication that Congress intended the
    Commission to issue detailed regulations regarding the pricing
    methodology under which E911 capabilities must be made
    available.[^90] Instead, we find it sufficient to specify that those
    rates, terms, and conditions must *in all instances be
    reasonable*.[^91] One indicia of reasonableness will be whether the
    rates, terms, and conditions under which E911 capabilities are made
    available to interconnected VoIP providers are the same as the
    rates, terms, and conditions made available to CMRS providers.[^92]

32. First, we consider the case where a capability is in fact provided
    to CMRS carriers, such that the owner or controller of that
    capability must grant interconnected VoIP providers access to that
    capability. In that case, the statute is clear on its face that the
    capability must be made available "on the same rates, terms, and
    conditions that are provided to" a CMRS provider.[^93] We interpret
    the term "provided" as used in this provision as encompassing not
    only those capabilities that are actually provisioned to a CMRS
    provider as well as the rates, terms, and conditions under which
    they are provisioned, but also those capabilities that are currently
    offered to a CMRS provider as well as the rates, terms, and
    conditions under which they are offered. We interpret "provided"
    broadly to ensure that interconnected VoIP providers are able to
    access the same capabilities that CMRS providers may access on the
    same rates, terms, and conditions that are available to CMRS
    providers.

33. In addition, if an owner or controller of a capability does not
    provide a capability to CMRS providers but is required under part
    III.A above to grant interconnected VoIP providers access to such
    capability, such access must be provided on the rates, terms, and
    conditions that would be offered to a CMRS provider.[^94] We do not
    believe that Congress intended for us, within the 90-day timeframe
    we have to adopt rules implementing the NET 911 Act, to conduct
    detailed pricing proceedings to determine, for each such capability
    offered by each type of provider in various localities around the
    country, what the exact price for each capability would be if it
    were offered to CMRS providers. Congress clearly did intend,
    however, for this Commission to provide guidance as to how the
    rates, terms, and conditions for these capabilities should be
    determined.[^95] To further that intent, minimize disputes over
    these rates, terms, and conditions, and help achieve Congress's
    ultimate goal "\[t\]o promote and enhance public safety by
    facilitating the rapid deployment of IP-enabled 911 and E-911
    services,"[^96] we provide further guidance.[^97] Specifically, if
    an owner or controller does not provide a capability to CMRS
    providers but is required under part III.A of this Order to give
    interconnected VoIP providers access to such capability, such access
    must be made available on the same rates, terms, and conditions that
    are offered to other telecommunications carriers or any other
    entities. We believe such rates, terms, and conditions are a
    reasonable proxy for the rates, terms and conditions that would be
    provided to a CMRS provider.[^98] To the extent an owner or
    controller of a capability used to provide E911 service provides a
    single capability to more than one CMRS provider or other entity, an
    interconnected VoIP provider that requests access to such capability
    is entitled to the rates, terms and conditions provided to any such
    single other provider.[^99]

34. If an owner or controller of a capability required to be made
    available does not currently make that capability available to any
    other entities, the rates, terms and conditions under which that
    owner or controller must provide access to a requesting
    interconnected VoIP provider must be reasonable, and should be
    reached through commercial negotiation.[^100] Given the industry's
    track record in working diligently and on an accelerated time table
    to implement the *VoIP 911 Order* and the importance all industry
    participants attach to having a reliable and effective 911 and E911
    network,[^101] we believe that the capability owner or controller
    and the interconnected VoIP provider will be able to expeditiously
    negotiate reasonable rates, terms, and conditions for that
    capability. We clarify that in granting interconnected VoIP
    providers new contractual rights, we do not abrogate any existing
    commercial agreements that interconnected VoIP providers may already
    have reached for access to capabilities for the provision of E911
    service.[^102] Finally, we emphasize that all rights to capabilities
    that the NET 911 Act grants to an interconnected VoIP provider are
    "for the exclusive purpose of complying with . . . its obligations
    under subsection (a) \[*i.e.* the Commission's existing E911
    rules\]."[^103] The NET 911 Act does not grant, and our rules do not
    grant, access to capabilities beyond what interconnected VoIP
    providers need to provide 911 and E-911 service, nor does the
    statute or our rules grant access to capabilities for any purpose
    other than compliance with our 911 and E911 rules.

## Technical, Network Security, and Information Privacy Requirements

35. To protect the security and reliability of the E911 network,
    interconnected VoIP providers may obtain access to E911 capabilities
    only in compliance with the specific criteria set forth below. The
    safety of our nation's citizens vitally depends upon protecting the
    emergency services network from security threats. In this Order, as
    required by the NET 911 Act, we grant interconnected VoIP providers
    access to E911 capabilities.[^104] Expanding the range of entities
    that have access to the E911 network raises new challenges. As NENA
    has said, VoIP technology "presents new challenges and security
    issues \[for 911 service\] as it breaks the bond between access and
    service provider characteristics of legacy networks and at this time
    lacks the legislative and regulatory requirements that apply to more
    conventional telephone services."[^105]

36. Although Congress has granted interconnected VoIP providers
    additional rights to access E911 capabilities, in most cases, we do
    not anticipate significant deviation from current practices.
    Commenters agree that interconnected VoIP providers today are
    successfully using numbering partners and other 911 service
    providers to deliver E911 calls to the appropriate PSAP.[^106] For
    example, Vonage reports that for "98.45% of its customers, Vonage
    \[currently\] provides the full suite of E911 service" pursuant to
    NENA's standard and is in the process of obtaining the capabilities
    it needs to provide E911 service for most of the remainder of its
    customers.[^107]

37. NENA has developed national VoIP E911 requirements, referred to as
    NENA's i2 standard, that are "designed to ensure that VoIP 9-1-1
    calls are routed and presented in a wireline equivalent
    manner."[^108] We believe that any interconnected VoIP provider that
    is in compliance with this standard already is coordinating its
    efforts with the other organizational entities responsible for
    providing E911 service.

38. We require interconnected VoIP providers to comply with all
    applicable industry network security standards to the same extent as
    traditional telecommunications carriers when they access
    capabilities traditionally used by carriers. We recognize the
    security of the nation's emergency services network depends on many
    interlocking measures that collectively preserve the integrity of
    the 911 system from unauthorized access and use. For instance, in
    addition to the security concerns discussed above, the network
    elements used to provide 911 service must be kept physically secure.
    The E911 network must also be kept secure against unauthorized
    electronic access, such as through hacking. NENA reports that
    "\[t\]he existing Emergency services network provides a relatively
    high degree of security for correctness of information, integrity,
    and authorization of access, authenticity/secrecy, and accuracy of
    information."[^109] By requiring interconnected VoIP providers to
    comply with the same standards as carriers, we are able to expand
    access to the E911 system without compromising network
    security.[^110]

39. Finally, our rules contemplate that incumbent LECs and other owners
    or controllers of 911 or E911 infrastructure will acquire
    information regarding interconnected VoIP providers and their
    customers for use in the provision of emergency services. We fully
    expect that these entities will use this information only for the
    provision of E911 service. To be clear, no entity may use customer
    information obtained as a result of the provision of 911 or E911
    services for marketing purposes.[^111]

# procedural matters

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

40. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 ("RFA"),[^112]
    the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    ("FRFA") relating to this Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth in
    Appendix C.

## Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

41. This document contains new information collection requirements
    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 section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general
    public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new
    or modified information collection requirements adopted in this
    Order.

## Congressional Review Act 

42. The Commission will include a copy of this Report and Order in a
    report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability
    Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C.
    801(a)(1)(A).

## Accessible Formats

43. To request information in accessible formats (computer diskettes,
    large print, audio recording, and Braille), send an e-mail to
    fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental
    Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This
    document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format
    ("PDF") at: http://www.fcc.gov.

# ordering clauses

44. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to sections 1, 4(i)--(j),
    251(e) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)--(j), 251(e), 303(r), and section 101 of the
    NET 911 Act, the Report and Order in WC Docket No. 08-171 IS
    ADOPTED, and that Part 9 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part
    9, IS AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B. The Order shall become
    effective 30 days after notice of it is published in the Federal
    Register subject to OMB approval for new information collection
    requirements.

45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch

    Secretary

###  {#section .unnumbered}

### APPENDIX A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}

List of Commenters

**Comments in WC Docket No. 08-171**

  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **[Comments]{.underline}**                   **[Abbreviation]{.underline}**

  9-1-1 Association of Central Oklahoma        911 Association of Central
  Governments                                  Oklahoma Governments

  AT&T Inc.                                    AT&T

  Comcast Corporation                          Comcast

  City of Oklahoma City                        Oklahoma City

  District of Columbia Office of Unified       D.C. Office of Unified
  Communications                               Communications

  Illinois Commerce Commission                 Illinois Commission

  Intrado Inc. and Intrado Communications      Intrado

  National Emergency Numbering Association and NENA
  Association of Public-Safety Communications  
  Officials-International                      

  Oklahoma Municipal League                    Oklahoma Municipal League

  Oklahoma Statewide 911 Advisory Board        Oklahoma Statewide 911 Advisory
                                               Board

  Qwest Communications International Inc.      Qwest

  Sprint Nextel Corporation                    Sprint

  T-Mobile USA, Inc.                           T-Mobile

  TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.              TCS

  The Texas 9-1-1 Alliance and Texas           Texas 911 Alliance
  Commission on State Emergency Communications 

  The VON Coalition                            The VON Coalition

  United States Telecom Association            USTelecom

  Verizon                                      Verizon

  Vonage Holdings Corp.                        Vonage

  Washington State E911 Program                Washington State E911 Program
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

**Reply Comments in WC Docket No. 08-171**

  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **[Reply Comments]{.underline}**             **[Abbreviation]{.underline}**

  AT&T Inc.                                    AT&T

  Cincinnati Bell Wireless LLC                 Cincinnati Bell Wireless

  Comcast Corporation                          Comcast

  CTIA -- The Wireless Association             CTIA

  Intrado Inc. and Intrado Communications      Intrado

  King County E911 Program                     King County

  Level 3 Communications LLC                   Level 3

  National Emergency Numbering Association and NENA
  Association of Public-Safety Communications  
  Officials-International                      

  National Cable & Telecommunications          NCTA
  Association                                  

  People of the State of California and        California Commission
  California Public Utilities Commission       

  RNK Communications                           RNK

  T-Mobile USA, Inc.                           T-Mobile

  TeleCommunication Systems, Inc.              TCS

  United States Telecom Association            USTelecom

  Verizon                                      Verizon

  Verizon Wireless                             Verizon Wireless

  Vixxi Solutions Inc.                         Vixxi

  Vonage Holdings Corp.                        Vonage
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

APPENDIX B

Final Rules

Part 9 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended to read
as follows:

**PART 9 -- INTERCONNECTED VOICE OVER INTERNET PROTOCOL SERVICES**

1\. The authority citation for Part 9 is amended to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 251(e), 303(r), and 615a-1 unless
otherwise noted.

2\. § 9.1 is amended to read as follows.

**[§ 9.1 Purposes]{.underline}.**

The purposes of this part are to set forth the 911 and E911 service
requirements and conditions applicable to interconnected Voice over
Internet Protocol service providers, and to ensure that those providers
have access to any and all 911 and E911 capabilities they need to comply
with those 911 and E911 service requirements and conditions.

3\. § 9.3 is amended by adding in alphabetical order definitions of
"ALI" and "CMRS" to read as follows.

**[§ 9.3 Definitions]{.underline}.**

[Automatic Location Information (ALI)]{.underline}. Information
transmitted while providing E911 service that permits emergency service
providers to identify the geographic location of the calling party.

[CMRS]{.underline}. Commercial Mobile Radio Service, as defined in §
20.9 of this chapter.

4\. § 9.7 is added to read as follows.

**[§ 9.7 Access to 911 and E911 Service Capabilities]{.underline}.**

\(a\) [Access]{.underline}. Subject to the other requirements of this
part, an owner or controller of a capability that can be used for 911 or
E911 service shall make that capability available to a requesting
interconnected VoIP provider as set forth in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section.

> \(1\) If the owner or controller makes the requested capability
> available to a CMRS provider, the owner or controller must make that
> capability available to the interconnected VoIP provider. An owner or
> controller makes a capability available to a CMRS provider if the
> owner or controller offers that capability to any CMRS provider.
>
> \(2\) If the owner of controller does not make the requested
> capability available to a CMRS provider within the meaning of
> paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the owner or controller must make
> that capability available to a requesting interconnected VoIP provider
> only if that capability is necessary to enable the interconnected VoIP
> provider to provide 911 or E911 service in compliance with the
> Commission's rules.

\(b\) [Rates, Terms, and Conditions]{.underline}. The rates, terms, and
conditions on which a capability is provided to an interconnected VoIP
provider under paragraph (a) of this section shall be reasonable. For
purposes of this paragraph, it is evidence that rates, terms, and
conditions are reasonable if they are: (1) the same as the rates, terms,
and conditions that are made available to CMRS providers, or (2) in the
event such capability is not made available to CMRS providers, the same
rates, terms, and conditions that are made available to any
telecommunications carrier or other entity for the provision of 911 or
E911 service.

\(c\) [Permissible Use]{.underline}. An interconnected VoIP provider
that obtains access to a capability pursuant to this section may use
that capability only for the purpose of providing 911 or E911 service in
accordance with the Commission's rules.

**APPENDIX C**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^113] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
    incorporated in the *NET 911* *Notice* in WC Docket 08-171.[^114]
    The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the
    *Net 911* *Notice*, including comment on the IRFA.[^115] We received
    no comments on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^116]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Rules 

46. In this Report and Order (Order), we adopt rules implementing
    certain key provisions of the New and Emerging Technologies 911
    Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act). The NET 911 Act, signed into
    law on July 23, 2008, is designed to "promote and enhance public
    safety by facilitating the rapid deployment of IP-enabled 911 and
    E911 services, encourage the Nation's transition to a national
    IP-enabled emergency network, and improve 911 and enhanced 911
    (E911) access to those with disabilities." Congress directed the
    Commission to issue rules implementing certain key provisions of the
    NET 911 Act no later than October 21, 2008. In particular, to
    effectuate the requirement that providers of interconnected voice
    over Internet Protocol (interconnected VoIP) service provide 911 and
    enhanced 911 (E911) service without exception, Congress mandated
    that the Commission issue regulations in this time frame that, among
    other things, ensure that interconnected VoIP providers have access
    to any capabilities they need to satisfy that requirement. Today, we
    fulfill that duty and take steps to ensure that interconnected VoIP
    providers will use the capabilities they gain as a result of this
    Order to provide 911 and E911 in complete accord with our rules.

47. Specifically, in this Order we issue rules that give interconnected
    VoIP providers rights of access to any and all capabilities
    necessary to provide E911 from any entity that owns or controls
    those capabilities. We establish a standard to determine the rates,
    terms, and conditions that will apply to that access and also
    restrict interconnected VoIP provider's access to capabilities for
    the sole purpose of providing 911 or E911 service. Finally,
    interconnected VoIP providers must comply with all applicable
    industry network security standards to the same extent as
    traditional telecommunications carriers when they access
    capabilities traditionally used by carriers.

## Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA

48. No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA.

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

49. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the rules adopted herein.[^117] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction."[^118] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under the Small Business Act.[^119] A small business concern is one
    which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant
    in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
    established by the SBA.[^120]

50. *Small Businesses*. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately
    22.4 million small businesses according to SBA data.[^121]

51. *Small Organizations*. Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6
    million small organizations.[^122]

52. *Small Governmental Jurisdictions*. The term "small governmental
    jurisdiction" is defined generally as "governments of cities, towns,
    townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
    population of less than fifty thousand."[^123] Census Bureau data
    for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental
    jurisdictions in the United States.[^124] We estimate that, of this
    total, 84,377 entities were "small governmental
    jurisdictions."[^125] Thus, we estimate that most governmental
    jurisdictions are small.

### Telecommunications Service Entities

#### Wireline Carriers and Service Providers

53. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) in
    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."[^126] 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.[^127] We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this
    RFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no
    effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA
    contexts.

54. *Incumbent LECs.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    small business size standard specifically for incumbent LECs. The
    appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^128]
    According to Commission data,[^129] 1,311 carriers have reported
    that they are engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange
    services. Of these 1,311 carriers, an estimated 1,024 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and 287 have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
    incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be
    affected by our action.

55. *Competitive LECs, Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
    "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers."* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    small business size standard specifically for these service
    providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
    category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
    standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^130] According to Commission data,[^131] 1,005 carriers
    have reported that they are engaged in the provision of either
    competitive access provider services or competitive LEC services. Of
    these 1,005 carriers, an estimated 918 have 1,500 or fewer employees
    and 87 have more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 16 carriers have
    reported that they are "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and all 16
    are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 89
    carriers have reported that they are "Other Local Service
    Providers," and all 89, have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently,
    the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
    exchange service, competitive access providers, "Shared-Tenant
    Service Providers," and "Other Local Service Providers" are small
    entities.

56. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^132] According to Commission data,[^133] 151
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    local resale services. Of these, an estimated 149 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local
    resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

57. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^134] According to Commission data,[^135] 815
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 787 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and 28 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

58. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs)*. Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^136] According to Commission data,[^137] 526
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    payphone services. Of these, an estimated 524 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers
    are small entities that may be affected by our action.

59. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard
    under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications
    Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it
    has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^138] According to Commission
    data,[^139] 300 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the
    provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 268 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and 32 have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are
    small entities that may be affected by our action.

60. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^140] According to Commission data,[^141] 28
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    operator services. Of these, an estimated 27 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities
    that may be affected by our action.

61. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under
    SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^142] According to Commission data,[^143] 88
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    prepaid calling cards. Of these, 85 are estimated to have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and three have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that all or the majority of
    prepaid calling card providers are small entities that may be
    affected by our action.

62. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.*[^144] These toll-free
    services fall within the broad economic census category of
    Telecommunications Resellers. This category "comprises
    establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity
    from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and
    reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except
    satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
    industry resell telecommunications; they do not operate transmission
    facilities and infrastructure."[^145] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category, which is: all such firms
    having 1,500 or fewer employees.[^146] Census Bureau data for 2002
    show that there were 1,646 firms in this category that operated for
    the entire year.[^147] Of this total, 1,642 firms had employment of
    999 or fewer employees, and four firms had employment of 1,000
    employees or more.[^148] Thus, the majority of these firms can be
    considered small. Additionally, it may be helpful to know the total
    numbers of telephone numbers assigned in these services. Commission
    data show that, as of December 2007, the total number of 800 numbers
    assigned was 7,860,000, the total number of 888 numbers assigned was
    5,210,184, the total number of 877 numbers assigned was 4,388,682,
    and the total number of 866 numbers assigned was 7,029,116.[^149]

#### International Service Providers

63. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard
    specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate
    size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census
    categories of "Satellite Telecommunications" and "All Other
    Telecommunications."

64. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
    telecommunications services to other establishments in the
    telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
    receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
    reselling satellite telecommunications."[^150] For this category, a
    business is small if it has \$15.0 million or less in average annual
    receipts. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total
    of 371 firms under this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^151] Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under
    \$10 million, and 26 firms had receipts of \$10 million to
    \$24,999,999.[^152] Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
    Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be
    affected by our action.

65. The second category of All Other Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized
    telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking,
    communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or
    (2) providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
    operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
    systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or
    receiving telecommunications from satellite systems."[^153] For this
    category, a business is small if it has \$25.0 million or less in
    average annual receipts. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that for
    this category there were a total of 332 firms that operated for the
    entire year.[^154] Of this total, 259 firms had annual receipts of
    under \$10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of \$10 million
    to \$24,999,999.[^155] Consequently, we estimate that the majority
    of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might
    be affected by our action.

#### Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers

66. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a
    general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
    businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
    the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
    Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless,
    in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues
    are implicated.

67. *Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)*. The SBA
    has developed a small business size standard for wireless firms
    under the broad category of "Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
    (except Satellite)."[^156] Under this category, a wireless business
    is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because the data
    currently available were gathered under previous NAICS codes, the
    discussion in the remainder of this section tracks these formerly
    used categories.

68. Under its prior categories, the SBA categorized wireless firms
    within the two broad economic census categories of "Paging"[^157]
    and "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^158] For the
    former census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
    that there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^159] Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees
    or more.[^160] Thus, under this category and associated small
    business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered
    small. For the former census category of Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were
    1,397 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^161] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or
    fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^162] Thus, under this second category and size standard, the
    majority of firms can, again, be considered small.

69. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
    category "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^163]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
    that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^164] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999
    or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
    or more.[^165] Thus, under this category and size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to
    Commission data, 434 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
    provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service
    (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services, which
    are placed together in the data.[^166] We have estimated that 222 of
    these are small under the SBA small business size standard.[^167]

70. *Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
    the broad economic census category of "Paging."[^168] Under this
    category, the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
    there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^169] Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
    employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
    more.[^170] In addition, according to Commission data,[^171] 281
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    "Paging and Messaging Service." Of this total, we estimate that 279
    have 1,500 or fewer employees, and two have more than 1,500
    employees. Thus, in this category the majority of firms can be
    considered small.

71. We also note that, in the *Paging Second Report and Order*, the
    Commission adopted a size standard for "small businesses" for
    purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions
    such as bidding credits and installment payments.[^172] In this
    context, a small business is an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
    not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^173] The
    SBA has approved this definition.[^174] An auction of Metropolitan
    Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on February 24, 2000, and
    closed on March 2, 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were
    sold.[^175] Fifty-seven companies claiming small business status won
    440 licenses.[^176] An auction of MEA and Economic Area (EA)
    licenses commenced on October 30, 2001, and closed on December
    5, 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold.[^177]
    One hundred thirty-two companies claiming small business status
    purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874
    licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of
    the 51 MEAs commenced on May 13, 2003, and closed on May 28, 2003.
    Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status
    won 2,093 licenses. [^178] We also note that, currently, there are
    approximately 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses.

72. *Wireless Communications Services*. This service can be used for
    fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting
    satellite uses. The Commission established small business size
    standards for the wireless communications services (WCS) auction. A
    "small business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$40
    million or less for each of the three preceding years, and a "very
    small business" is an entity with average gross revenues of \$15
    million or less for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has
    approved these small business size standards.[^179] The Commission
    auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In the
    auction, there were seven winning bidders that qualified as "very
    small business" entities, and one that qualified as a "small
    business" entity.

73. *Wireless Telephony*. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal
    communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR)
    telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications" services.[^180] Under that SBA small business
    size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^181] According to Commission data, 434 carriers reported
    that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony.[^182]
    We have estimated that 222 of these are small under the SBA small
    business size standard.

74. *Broadband Personal Communications Service*. The broadband Personal
    Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency
    blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions
    for each block. The Commission defined "small entity" for Blocks C
    and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of \$40 million
    or less in the three previous calendar years.[^183] For Block F, an
    additional classification for "very small business" was added and is
    defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
    gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
    calendar years.[^184] These standards defining "small entity" in the
    context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the
    SBA.[^185] No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small
    business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
    and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small
    entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small
    business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses
    for Blocks D, E, and F.[^186] On March 23, 1999, the Commission
    re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small
    business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission
    completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in
    Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
    qualified as "small" or "very small" businesses. Subsequent events,
    concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations,
    resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available
    for grant.

75. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* The Commission held
    an auction for Narrowband PCS licenses that commenced on July 25,
    1994, and closed on July 29, 1994. A second auction commenced on
    October 26, 1994 and closed on November 8, 1994. For purposes of the
    first two Narrowband PCS auctions, "small businesses" were entities
    with average gross revenues for the prior three calendar years of
    \$40 million or less.[^187] Through these auctions, the Commission
    awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four
    small businesses.[^188] To ensure meaningful participation by small
    business entities in future auctions, the Commission adopted a
    two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second
    Report and Order.[^189] A "small business" is an entity that,
    together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average
    gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than \$40
    million.[^190] A "very small business" is an entity that, together
    with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross
    revenues for the three preceding years of not more than \$15
    million.[^191] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^192] A third auction commenced on October 3, 2001 and
    closed on October 16, 2001. Here, five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan
    Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses.[^193] Three of these claimed
    status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses.

76. *220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase I Licensees.* The 220 MHz service
    has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was
    conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately
    1,515 such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees
    currently authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission
    has not developed a small business size standard for small entities
    specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees.
    To estimate the number of such licensees that are small businesses,
    we apply the small business size standard under the SBA rules
    applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    companies. This category provides that a small business is a
    wireless company employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^194] For the
    census category Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications,
    Census Bureau data for 1997 show that there were 977 firms in this
    category, total, that operated for the entire year.[^195] Of this
    total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an
    additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^196]
    Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of
    firms can, again, be considered small. Assuming this general ratio
    continues in the context of Phase I 220 MHz licensees, the
    Commission estimates that nearly all such licensees are small
    businesses under the SBA's small business size standard. In
    addition, limited preliminary census data for 2002 indicate that the
    total number of cellular and other wireless telecommunications
    carriers increased approximately 321 percent from 1997 to
    2002.[^197]

77. *220 MHz Radio Service -- Phase II Licensees.* The 220 MHz service
    has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service
    is a new service and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the *220
    MHz Third Report and Order*, we adopted a small business size
    standard for "small" and "very small" businesses for purposes of
    determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
    credits and installment payments.[^198] This small business size
    standard indicates that a "small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years.[^199] A "very small business" is an entity that, together
    with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
    revenues that do not exceed \$3 million for the preceding three
    years. The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^200] Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on
    September 15, 1998, and closed on October 22, 1998.[^201] In the
    first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three different-sized
    geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional Economic
    Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of
    the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold.[^202] Thirty-nine small
    businesses won licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. The second
    auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses.
    Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158
    licenses.[^203]

78. *800 MHz and 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Licenses*. The
    Commission awards "small entity" and "very small entity" bidding
    credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic
    area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that had
    revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the three previous
    calendar years, or that had revenues of no more than \$3 million in
    each of the previous calendar years, respectively.[^204] These
    bidding credits apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
    bands that either hold geographic area licenses or have obtained
    extended implementation authorizations. The Commission does not know
    how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR
    service pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how
    many of these providers have annual revenues of no more than \$15
    million. One firm has over \$15 million in revenues. The Commission
    assumes, for purposes here, that all of the remaining existing
    extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities,
    as that term is defined by the SBA. The Commission has held auctions
    for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR bands.
    There were 60 winning bidders that qualified as small or very small
    entities in the 900 MHz SMR auctions. Of the 1,020 licenses won in
    the 900 MHz auction, bidders qualifying as small or very small
    entities won 263 licenses. In the 800 MHz auction, 38 of the 524
    licenses won were won by small and very small entities.

79. *700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.* In the *700 MHz Guard Band Order*,
    we adopted a small business size standard for "small businesses" and
    "very small businesses" for purposes of determining their
    eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
    installment payments.[^205] A "small business" as an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years. Additionally, a "very small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the preceding
    three years. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses
    commenced on September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21,
    2000.[^206] Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to
    nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a
    total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band
    licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on February
    21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three
    bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a total
    of two licenses.[^207]

80. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a
    size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service.[^208] A significant subset of the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System
    (BETRS).[^209] The Commission uses the SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^210] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are
    1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
    herein.

81. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted
    a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service.[^211] We will use SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^212] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
    Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all
    of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard.

82. *Aviation and Marine Radio Services.* Small businesses in the
    aviation and marine radio services use a very high frequency (VHF)
    marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency
    position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency
    locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small
    business size standard specifically applicable to these small
    businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the
    SBA small business size standard for the category "Cellular and
    Other Telecommunications," which is 1,500 or fewer employees.[^213]
    Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals.
    Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees and 131,000 aircraft
    station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the
    radio carriage requirements of any statute or treaty. For purposes
    of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that there are up
    to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or
    individuals) under the SBA standard. In addition, between December
    3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an auction of 42
    VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship
    transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For
    purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a "small" business
    as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, had average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$15 million dollars. In addition, a "very small"
    business is one that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, had average gross revenues for the preceding three years
    not to exceed \$3 million dollars.[^214] There are approximately
    10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast Service, and the Commission
    estimates that almost all of them qualify as "small" businesses
    under the above special small business size standards.

83. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several
    UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television
    broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of
    Mexico.[^215] There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this
    service. We are unable to estimate at this time the number of
    licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business
    size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    services.[^216] Under that SBA small business size standard, a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^217]

84. *39 GHz Service.* The Commission created a special small business
    size standard for 39 GHz licenses -- an entity that has average
    gross revenues of \$40 million or less in the three previous
    calendar years.[^218] An additional size standard for "very small
    business" is: an entity that, together with affiliates, has average
    gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
    calendar years.[^219] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^220] The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on
    April 12, 2000 and closed on May 8, 2000. The 18 bidders who claimed
    small business status won 849 licenses. Consequently, the Commission
    estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities that
    may be affected by the rules and polices adopted herein.

85. *Wireless Cable Systems.* Wireless cable systems use 2 GHz band
    frequencies of the Broadband Radio Service ("BRS"), formerly
    Multipoint Distribution Service ("MDS"),[^221] and the Educational
    Broadband Service ("EBS"), formerly Instructional Television Fixed
    Service ("ITFS"),[^222] to transmit video programming and provide
    broadband services to residential subscribers.[^223] These services
    were originally designed for the delivery of multichannel video
    programming, similar to that of traditional cable systems, but over
    the past several years licensees have focused their operations
    instead on providing two-way high-speed Internet access
    services.[^224] We estimate that the number of wireless cable
    subscribers is approximately 100,000, as of March 2005. Local
    Multipoint Distribution Service ("LMDS") is a fixed broadband
    point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way
    video telecommunications.[^225] As described below, the SBA small
    business size standard for the broad census category of Cable and
    Other Program Distribution, which consists of such entities
    generating \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts, appears
    applicable to MDS, ITFS and LMDS.[^226] Other standards also apply,
    as described.

86. The Commission has defined small MDS (now BRS) and LMDS entities in
    the context of Commission license auctions. In the 1996 MDS
    auction,[^227] the Commission defined a small business as an entity
    that had annual average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in
    the previous three calendar years.[^228] This definition of a small
    entity in the context of MDS auctions has been approved by the
    SBA.[^229] In the MDS auction, 67 bidders won 493 licenses. Of the
    67 auction winners, 61 claimed status as a small business. At this
    time, the Commission estimates that of the 61 small business MDS
    auction winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to
    the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are
    approximately 392 incumbent MDS licensees that have gross revenues
    that are not more than \$40 million and are thus considered small
    entities.[^230] MDS licensees and wireless cable operators that did
    not receive their licenses as a result of the MDS auction fall under
    the SBA small business size standard for Cable and Other Program
    Distribution. Information available to us indicates that there are
    approximately 850 of these licensees and operators that do not
    generate revenue in excess of \$13.5 million annually. Therefore, we
    estimate that there are approximately 850 small entity MDS (or BRS)
    providers, as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules.

87. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small
    entities; however, the Commission has not created a specific small
    business size standard for ITFS (now EBS).[^231] We estimate that
    there are currently 2,032 ITFS (or EBS) licensees, and all but 100
    of the licenses are held by educational institutions. Thus, we
    estimate that at least 1,932 ITFS licensees are small entities.

88. In the 1998 and 1999 LMDS auctions,[^232] the Commission defined a
    small business as an entity that has annual average gross revenues
    of less than \$40 million in the previous three calendar
    years.[^233] Moreover, the Commission added an additional
    classification for a "very small business," which was defined as an
    entity that had annual average gross revenues of less than \$15
    million in the previous three calendar years.[^234] These
    definitions of "small business" and "very small business" in the
    context of the LMDS auctions have been approved by the SBA.[^235] In
    the first LMDS auction, 104 bidders won 864 licenses. Of the 104
    auction winners, 93 claimed status as small or very small
    businesses. In the LMDS re-auction, 40 bidders won 161 licenses.
    Based on this information, we believe that the number of small LMDS
    licenses will include the 93 winning bidders in the first auction
    and the 40 winning bidders in the re-auction, for a total of 133
    small entity LMDS providers as defined by the SBA and the
    Commission's auction rules.

89. *Local Multipoint Distribution Service.* Local Multipoint
    Distribution Service (LMDS) is a fixed broadband point-to-multipoint
    microwave service that provides for two-way video
    telecommunications.[^236] The auction of the 1,030 LMDS licenses
    began on February 18, 1998 and closed on March 25, 1998. The
    Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS
    licensees as an entity that has average gross revenues of less than
    \$40 million in the three previous calendar years.[^237] An
    additional small business size standard for "very small business"
    was added as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has
    average gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the
    preceding three calendar years.[^238] The SBA has approved these
    small business size standards in the context of LMDS auctions.[^239]
    There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in
    the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business
    bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block
    licenses. On March 27, 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161
    licenses; there were 40 winning bidders. Based on this information,
    we conclude that the number of small LMDS licenses consists of the
    93 winning bidders in the first auction and the 40 winning bidders
    in the re-auction, for a total of 133 small entity LMDS providers.

90. *218-219 MHz Service.* The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum
    resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594 Metropolitan
    Statistical Area (MSA) licenses. Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won
    by entities qualifying as a small business. For that auction, the
    small business size standard was an entity that, together with its
    affiliates, has no more than a \$6 million net worth and, after
    federal income taxes (excluding any carry over losses), has no more
    than \$2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two
    years.[^240] In the *218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, we established a small business size standard
    for a "small business" as an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an
    entity and their affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not
    to exceed \$15 million for the preceding three years.[^241] A "very
    small business" is defined as an entity that, together with its
    affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an
    entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not to
    exceed \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^242] We cannot
    estimate, however, the number of licenses that will be won by
    entities qualifying as small or very small businesses under our
    rules in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum.

91. *24 GHz -- Incumbent Licensees.* This analysis may affect incumbent
    licensees who were relocated to the 24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band
    and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band. The
    applicable SBA small business size standard is that of "Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications" companies. This category provides
    that such a company is small if it employs no more than 1,500
    persons.[^243] According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
    977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire
    year.[^244] Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
    employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000
    employees or more.[^245] Thus, under this size standard, the great
    majority of firms can be considered small. These broader census data
    notwithstanding, we believe that there are only two licensees in the
    24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18 GHz band, Teligent[^246]
    and TRW, Inc. It is our understanding that Teligent and its related
    companies have less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in
    the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only one incumbent
    licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity.

92. *24 GHz -- Future Licensees.* With respect to new applicants in the
    24 GHz band, the small business size standard for "small business"
    is an entity that, together with controlling interests and
    affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three
    preceding years not in excess of \$15 million.[^247] "Very small
    business" in the 24 GHz band is an entity that, together with
    controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues not
    exceeding \$3 million for the preceding three years.[^248] The SBA
    has approved these small business size standards.[^249] These size
    standards will apply to the future auction, if held.

### Cable and OVS Operators

93. *Cable Television Distribution Services.* Since 2007, these services
    have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
    "This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
    operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and
    infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of
    voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications
    networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single
    technology or a combination of technologies."[^250] The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for this category, which
    is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small
    business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use
    current census data that are based on the previous category of Cable
    and Other Program Distribution and its associated size standard;
    that size standard was: all such firms having \$13.5 million or less
    in annual receipts.[^251] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
    there were a total of 1,191 firms in this previous category that
    operated for the entire year.[^252] Of this total, 1,087 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of
    \$10 million or more but less than \$25 million.[^253] Thus, the
    majority of these firms can be considered small.

94. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed its
    own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
    regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable company" is
    one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.[^254] Industry
    data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but
    eleven are small under this size standard.[^255] In addition, under
    the Commission's rules, a "small system" is a cable system serving
    15,000 or fewer subscribers.[^256] Industry data indicate that, of
    7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000
    subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999
    subscribers.[^257] Thus, under this second size standard, most cable
    systems are small

95. *Cable System Operators*. The Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
    operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an
    affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
    subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
    entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
    exceed \$250,000,000."[^258] The Commission has determined that an
    operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a
    small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total
    annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed \$250 million
    in the aggregate.[^259] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
    operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size
    standard.[^260] We note that the Commission neither requests nor
    collects information on whether cable system operators are
    affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250
    million,[^261] and therefore we are unable to estimate more
    accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify
    as small under this size standard.

96. *Open Video Systems (OVS).* In 1996, Congress established the open
    video system (OVS) framework, one of four statutorily recognized
    options for the provision of video programming services by local
    exchange carriers (LECs).[^262] The OVS framework provides
    opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than
    through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription
    services,[^263] OVS falls within the SBA small business size
    standard of Cable and Other Program Distribution Services, which
    consists of such entities having \$13.5 million or less in annual
    receipts.[^264] The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with
    some now providing service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are
    currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or
    local OVS franchises.[^265] As of June, 2005, BSPs served
    approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.5 percent of
    all MVPD households.[^266] Affiliates of Residential Communications
    Network, Inc. (RCN), which serves about 371,000 subscribers as of
    June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and 14th largest
    MVPD.[^267] RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New York
    City, Boston, Washington, D.C. and other areas. The Commission does
    not have financial information regarding the entities authorized to
    provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. We thus
    believe that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small
    entities.

### Internet Service Providers

97. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs "provide
    clients access to the Internet and generally provide related
    services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or
    software consulting related to Internet connectivity."[^268] Under
    the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average
    annual receipts of \$23 million or less.[^269] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that
    operated for the entire year. [^270] Of these, 2,437 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 47 firms
    had receipts of between \$10 million and \$24, 999,999.
    Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

### Other Internet-Related Entities

98. *Web Search Portals.* Our action pertains to VoIP services, which
    could be provided by entities that provide other services such as
    email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant
    messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services. The Commission
    has not adopted a size standard for entities that create or provide
    these types of services or applications. However, the Census Bureau
    has identified firms that "operate web sites that use a search
    engine to generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet
    addresses and content in an easily searchable format. Web search
    portals often provide additional Internet services, such as e-mail,
    connections to other web sites, auctions, news, and other limited
    content, and serve as a home base for Internet users."[^271] The SBA
    has developed a small business size standard for this category; that
    size standard is \$6.5 million or less in average annual
    receipts.[^272] According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were
    342 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.[^273]
    Of these, 303 had annual receipts of under \$5 million, and an
    additional 15 firms had receipts of between \$5 million and
    \$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
    firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.

99. *Data Processing, Hosting, and Related Services*. Entities in this
    category "primarily . . . provid\[e\] infrastructure for hosting or
    data processing services."[^274] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category; that size standard is \$23
    million or less in average annual receipts.[^275] According to
    Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 6,877 firms in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^276] Of these, 6,418 had annual
    receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 251 firms had
    receipts of between \$10 million and \$24,999,999. Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
    may be affected by our action.

100. *All Other Information Services*. "This industry comprises
     establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
     services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives)."[^277]
     Our action pertains to VoIP services, which could be provided by
     entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming,
     web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other,
     similar IP-enabled services. The SBA has developed a small business
     size standard for this category; that size standard is \$6.5
     million or less in average annual receipts.[^278] According to
     Census Bureau data for 2002, there were 155 firms in this category
     that operated for the entire year.[^279] Of these, 138 had annual
     receipts of under \$5 million, and an additional four firms had
     receipts of between \$5 million and \$9,999,999. Consequently, we
     estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
     may be affected by our action.

101. *Internet Publishing and Broadcasting.* "This industry comprises
     establishments engaged in publishing and/or broadcasting content on
     the Internet exclusively. These establishments do not provide
     traditional (non-Internet) versions of the content that they
     publish or broadcast."[^280] The SBA has developed a small business
     size standard for this census category; that size standard is 500
     or fewer employees.[^281] According to Census Bureau data for 2002,
     there were 1,362 firms in this category that operated for the
     entire year.[^282] Of these, 1,351 had employment of 499 or fewer
     employees, and six firms had employment of between 500 and 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms small
     entities that may be affected by our action.

102. *Software Publishers.* These companies may design, develop or
     publish software and may provide other support services to software
     purchasers, such as providing documentation or assisting in
     installation. The companies may also design software to meet the
     needs of specific users.[^283] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard of \$25 million or less in average annual
     receipts for all of the following pertinent categories: Software
     Publishers, Custom Computer Programming Services, and Other
     Computer Related Services.[^284] For Software Publishers, Census
     Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 6,155 firms in the
     category that operated for the entire year.[^285] Of these, 7,633
     had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional 403
     firms had receipts of between \$10 million and \$24, 999,999. For
     providers of Custom Computer Programming Services, the Census
     Bureau data indicate that there were 32,269 firms that operated for
     the entire year.[^286] Of these, 31,416 had annual receipts of
     under \$10 million, and an additional 565 firms had receipts of
     between \$10 million and \$24,999,999. For providers of Other
     Computer Related Services, the Census Bureau data indicate that
     there were 6,357 firms that operated for the entire year.[^287] Of
     these, 6,187 had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an
     additional 101 firms had receipts of between \$10 million and
     \$24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of the
     firms in each of these three categories are small entities that may
     be affected by our action.

### Equipment Manufacturers

103. SBA small business size standards are given in terms of "firms."
     Census Bureau data concerning computer manufacturers, on the other
     hand, are given in terms of "establishments." We note that the
     number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
     business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
     "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
     concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical
     location for an entity is an establishment, even though that
     location may be owned by a different establishment. Thus, the
     census numbers provided below may reflect inflated numbers of
     businesses in the given category, including the numbers of small
     businesses.

104. *Electronic Computer Manufacturing*. This category "comprises
     establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing and/or assembling
     electronic computers, such as mainframes, personal computers,
     workstations, laptops, and computer servers."[^288] The SBA has
     developed a small business size standard for this category of
     manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or fewer
     employees.[^289] According to Census Bureau data, there were 485
     establishments in this category that operated with payroll during
     2002.[^290] Of these, 476 had employment of under 1,000, and an
     additional four establishments had employment of 1,000 to 2,499.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

105. *Computer Storage Device Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "computer storage devices that allow the storage and
     retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or
     magnetic/optical media."[^291] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^292] According to
     Census Bureau data, there were 170 establishments in this category
     that operated with payroll during 2002.[^293] Of these, 164 had
     employment of under 500, and five establishments had employment of
     500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
     establishments are small entities

106. *Computer Terminal Manufacturing*. "Computer terminals are
     input/output devices that connect with a central computer for
     processing."[^294] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     1,000 or fewer employees.[^295] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 71 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002, and all of the establishments had employment
     of under 1,000.[^296] Consequently, we estimate that all of these
     establishments are small entities.

107. *Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing.* Examples of
     peripheral equipment in this category include keyboards, mouse
     devices, monitors, and scanners.[^297] The SBA has developed a
     small business size standard for this category of manufacturing;
     that size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^298] According to
     Census Bureau data, there were 860 establishments in this category
     that operated with payroll during 2002.[^299] Of these, 851 had
     employment of under 1,000, and an additional five establishments
     had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we estimate that
     the majority of these establishments are small entities.

108. *Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "electronic audio and video equipment for home
     entertainment, motor vehicle, public address and musical instrument
     amplifications."[^300] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     750 or fewer employees.[^301] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 571 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002.[^302] Of these, 560 had employment of under
     500, and ten establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

109. *Electron Tube Manufacturing.* These establishments are "primarily
     engaged in manufacturing electron tubes and parts (except glass
     blanks)."[^303] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     750 or fewer employees.[^304] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 102 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002.[^305] Of these, 97 had employment of under
     500, and one establishment had employment of 500 to 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

110. *Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing.* These establishments
     are "primarily engaged in manufacturing bare (i.e., rigid or
     flexible) printed circuit boards without mounted electronic
     components."[^306] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     500 or fewer employees.[^307] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 936 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002.[^308] Of these, 922 had employment of under
     500, and 12 establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

111. *Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing.* Examples of
     manufactured devices in this category include "integrated circuits,
     memory chips, microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and
     other optoelectronic devices."[^309] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^310] According to Census
     Bureau data, there were 1,032 establishments in this category that
     operated with payroll during 2002.[^311] Of these, 950 had
     employment of under 500, and 42 establishments had employment of
     500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
     establishments are small entities.

112. *Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "electronic fixed and variable capacitors and
     condensers."[^312] The SBA has developed a small business size
     standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
     500 or fewer employees.[^313] According to Census Bureau data,
     there were 104 establishments in this category that operated with
     payroll during 2002.[^314] Of these, 101 had employment of under
     500, and two establishments had employment of 500 to 999.
     Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these establishments
     are small entities.

113. *Electronic Resistor Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "electronic resistors, such as fixed and variable
     resistors, resistor networks, thermistors, and varistors."[^315]
     The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
     category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer
     employees.[^316] According to Census Bureau data, there were 79
     establishments in this category that operated with payroll during
     2002.[^317] All of these establishments had employment of
     under 500. Consequently, we estimate that all of these
     establishments are small entities.

114. *Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing.*
     These establishments manufacture "electronic inductors, such as
     coils and transformers."[^318] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^319] According to Census
     Bureau data, there were 365 establishments in this category that
     operated with payroll during 2002.[^320] All of these
     establishments had employment of under 500. Consequently, we
     estimate that all of these establishments are small entities.

115. *Electronic Connector Manufacturing.* These establishments
     manufacture "electronic connectors, such as coaxial, cylindrical,
     rack and panel, pin and sleeve, printed circuit and fiber
     optic."[^321] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
     for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or
     fewer employees.[^322] According to Census Bureau data, there were
     321 establishments in this category that operated with payroll
     during 2002.[^323] Of these, 315 had employment of under 500, and
     three establishments had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we
     estimate that the majority of these establishments are small
     entities.

116. *Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing.*
     These are establishments "primarily engaged in loading components
     onto printed circuit boards or who manufacture and ship loaded
     printed circuit boards."[^324] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^325] According to Census
     Bureau data, there were 868 establishments in this category that
     operated with payroll during 2002.[^326] Of these, 839 had
     employment of under 500, and 18 establishments had employment of
     500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
     establishments are small entities.

117. *Other Electronic Component Manufacturing.*[^327] The SBA has
     developed a small business size standard for this category of
     manufacturing; that size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^328]
     According to Census Bureau data, there were 1,627 establishments in
     this category that operated with pay roll during 2002.[^329] Of
     these, 1,616 had employment of under 500, and eight establishments
     had employment of 500 to 999. Consequently, we estimate that the
     majority of these establishments are small entities.

118. *Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing.* These establishments manufacture
     "insulated fiber-optic cable from purchased fiber-optic
     strand."[^330] The SBA has developed a small business size standard
     for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or
     fewer employees.[^331] According to Census Bureau data, there were
     96 establishments in this category that operated with payroll
     during 2002.[^332] Of these, 95 had employment of under 1,000, and
     one establishment had employment of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently,
     we estimate that the majority or all of these establishments are
     small entities.

119. *Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing.* These
     establishments manufacture "insulated wire and cable of nonferrous
     metals from purchased wire."[^333] The SBA has developed a small
     business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that
     size standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^334] According to
     Census Bureau data, there were 356 establishments in this category
     that operated with payroll during 2002.[^335] Of these, 353 had
     employment of under 1,000, and three establishments had employment
     of 1,000 to 2,499. Consequently, we estimate that the majority or
     all of these establishments are small entities.

## Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance Requirements

120. Although we grant interconnected VoIP providers additional rights
     to access E911 capabilities in the Order, in most cases, we do not
     anticipate significant deviation from current practices. In the
     Commission's *VoIP 911 Order*, the Commission required
     interconnected VoIP providers to provide E911 service using the
     existing wireline 911 infrastructure.[^336] Under our VoIP rules,
     many interconnected VoIP providers today are successfully using
     numbering partners and other 911 service providers to deliver 911
     or E911 calls to the appropriate PSAP, designated statewide default
     answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority.[^337]

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

121. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
     that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
     include (among others) the following four alternatives: (1) the
     establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
     timetables that take into account the resources available to small
     entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification
     of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small
     entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
     standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any
     part thereof, for small entities.[^338]

122. The *NET 911 Notice* sought comment regarding the specific duties
     imposed by the NET 911 Act and the regulations that we are required
     to adopt.[^339] Specifically, in the *NET 911 Notice*, we invited
     comment on what costs and burdens any new rules might impose upon
     small entities and how they could be ameliorated.[^340] For
     instance, we specifically sought comment as to whether there are
     any issues or significant alternatives that the Commission should
     consider to ease the burden on small entities.[^341] We emphasize
     that we must assess the interests of small businesses in light of
     the NET 911 Act's goal of ensuring that interconnected VoIP
     providers have access to any and all capabilities they need to
     provide 911 and E911 service.

123. While, like the Net 911 Act, the rules we adopt today apply to all
     providers of interconnected VoIP service and any entity that owns
     or controls 911 or E911 capabilities, we attempted to minimize the
     impact of the new rules on small entities to the extent consistent
     with Congress's intent. The Commission considered several
     alternatives, and in today's Order, imposes minimal regulation on
     small entities to the extent possible. As an initial matter, as
     noted above, many interconnected VoIP providers today are
     successfully delivering E911 calls to the appropriate PSAP and we
     do not anticipate significant deviation from current practices,
     particularly from small entities.[^342] As they have done in the
     past, small interconnected VoIP providers may still offer E911
     service indirectly through a third party, such as a competitive
     LEC, or through any other solution that allows the provider to
     offer E911 service in compliance with the Commission's rules.[^343]

124. Furthermore, the Commission considered but declined to issue highly
     detailed rules listing specific capabilities or entities with
     ownership or control of those capabilities.[^344] As recognized
     above, the nation's 911 system varies from locality to locality,
     and overly specific rules would fail to reflect these local
     variations, thereby placing undue burdens on all entities,
     including any small entities, involved in providing E911 service.
     Small interconnected VoIP providers and small entities that own or
     control those capabilities will benefit from the flexibility of our
     rules, which, as noted above, will accommodate the local variations
     as well as the various technologies necessary for 911 and E911
     service.

125. The Commission also considered but declined to issue highly
     detailed rules setting forth the pricing methodology under which a
     capability would be provided to an interconnected VoIP provider.
     Our rules require that the rates, terms, and conditions shall
     be: (1) the same as the rates, terms, and conditions that are made
     available to CMRS providers, or (2) in the event such capability is
     not made available to CMRS providers, the same rates, terms, and
     conditions that are made available to any telecommunications
     carrier or other entity for the provision of 911 or E911 service;
     or (3) otherwise on the rates, terms, and conditions reached
     through commercial agreement; and (4) in any case, reasonable. The
     Commission concluded that it was important that the rates, terms,
     and conditions be consistent with Congress' intent and in all
     instances be reasonable. Thus, those small entities that seek to
     access capabilities directly will be assured they have access to
     capabilities under reasonable rates, terms, and conditions, thereby
     minimizing significant economic impact on small entities.

126. **[Report to Congress:]{.underline}** The Commission will send a
     copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
     Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the
     Congressional Review Act.[^345] In addition, the Commission will
     send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel
     for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries
     thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.[^346]

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

***Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008*, WC Docket
No. 08-171**

Today, we implement the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement
Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act). I am pleased that we further refine our rules
to support the safety of the public and the needs of our first
responders. I am concerned, however, that today's Order does not go far
enough to ensure that mobile VoIP providers comply with our rules.

As I have said before, everyone who dials 911 expects that he or she
will be connected to the local emergency operator. This reasonable
expectation exists whether that person is dialing 911 from a traditional
wireline phone, a wireless phone, or a VoIP phone. Moreover, we need to
ensure that our enhanced 911 (E911) rules provide meaningful automatic
location information that permits first responders to reliably find
callers, even when they are using mobile wireless or VoIP phones.

I am troubled that today's decision could leave mobile VoIP customers
without adequate 911 service when they roam outside their service
providers' footprint. In these instances, the service providers do not
have access to "last known cell" information that they may need to
deliver the call to the appropriate local emergency operator and to
provide accurate location information to the appropriate public safety
officials. Consistent with the rest of the Order, I would have gone
further, giving mobile VoIP providers access to "last known cell"
information so that they could comply with our rules without exception.
I am concerned that failing to require that this information be provided
to mobile VoIP providers will lead to some 911 calls not being delivered
to the appropriate local emergency operator and/or the use of call
centers that require VoIP customers to provide their exact location and
then forward the call to the local emergency operator losing precious
response time. Such a result is inconsistent with public safety's
encouragement that the Commission "grant VoIP providers reasonable and
non-discriminatory access to all capabilities that are necessary for the
deployment of E9-1-1 services." See attached letter from NENA and APCO.
For example, NENA stated that it "believes that having the ability to
route calls based on the last known location of a caller roaming on
another provider's network would provide public safety benefits. NENA
would support the Commission taking steps to address this issue." Letter
from NENA to FCC, WC Docket Nos. 04-36 and 05-196 (filed Aug. 21, 2008).

Finally, I am confused by some of my colleagues who claim that they both
wish we had addressed this issue already and that it is too early to
address it now. They claim that there is a right way and a wrong way to
address these issues and that we should have both addressed the issue
already and that we should not be locking ourselves into a particular
solution. 

Specifically, they claim not to "know if 'last known cell' or some other
technology (or perhaps some combination of approaches) will best protect
American consumers." They go on to conclude that "we should not be
locking carriers (and their customers) in to a particular technology
over the long run until we know it is the correct technology."

At the same time they claim to advocate that we should have already
addressed this issue before the mobile VoIP products were even
developed.  Specifically, they argue that the Commission should "have
addressed this question long ago, before mobile VoIP became a
marketplace reality."

I am not sure how we were to have achieved these two inconsistent goals:
both (1) addressing the issue fully "before mobile VoIP became a
reality," and (2) encouraging the development of future technology that
may best protect consumers. That is not advocating a right way or a
wrong way \-- but trying to have it both ways.  

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.666666666666667in" height="1.125in"}

cc: Commissioner Michael Copps

Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein

Commissioner Deborah Taylor Tate

Commissioner Robert McDowell

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

***Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008*, WC Docket
No. 08-171**

I am glad we establish rules today that implement the Net 911 Act.
Today's decision continues the process we began several years ago with
our first order on VoIP and E911. It improves the safety of VoIP
customers by granting their providers adequate access to E911 resources.
I especially appreciate the willingness of my colleagues to ensure that
we do not impose burdensome requirements such as certification that
would have the perverse effect of ***reducing*** VoIP providers' access
to E911 resources.

I also think it is important we do not codify a "last known cell"
approach before the public safety community and the FCC have looked at
the full range of options for automatically identifying the location of
mobile VoIP calls. Make no mistake, I am no friend of unnecessary delay.
As I have stated before, I wish we had addressed this question long ago,
before mobile VoIP became a marketplace reality. And I certainly look
forward to addressing it as soon as possible. But there is a right way
and a wrong way to proceed. The truth remains that today we do not know
if "last known cell" or some other technology (or perhaps some
combination of approaches) will best protect American consumers. We
should not be locking carriers (and their customers) in to a particular
technology over the long run until we know it is the correct technology.

Finally, I must respectfully disagree with the view that there is some
inconsistency between my decision on the "last known cell" issue
(discussed above) and my desire to address mobile/nomadic VoIP as soon
as possible. The facts are these:

Back in 2005, when mobile VoIP was just on the horizon, the FCC teed up
questions about how to automatically transmit caller location to 911
operators. I believed that the public safety community and the FCC were
ready to move forward at that time---even before such products were in
the marketplace---because of our long, shared experience with E911 for
traditional mobile telephones (which are also small handheld,
battery-powered devices that consumers use to call for help). And I
agree 100% with all my colleagues that every caller should have an
expectation of reaching help when they dial 911. That is why, when in
2006 I listed the top priorities for the FCC's new Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, I stated that "\[o\]n the VoIP front, we need
to move forward with our ongoing rulemaking regarding automatic location
sensing technologies."

Unfortunately, as today's item reflects, the FCC has not developed a
body of learning on the pros and cons of different approaches to mobile
VoIP autolocation. And for the reasons I've given above, until we meet
this critical prerequisite, I don't think it serves the cause of public
safety to lock in a particular technology or approach. The public safety
community does not disagree with this view---while the leading
organizations support (as do I) addressing these issues in an
appropriate proceeding, they have not suggested it must be done in the
context of the NET 911 Act.

The NET 911 Act reflects this approach and, in particular, the
conclusion that we haven't yet gathered the appropriate information.
Specifically, the Act requires other branches of the federal government
to study "location technology for nomadic devices" and issue a report on
the subject within a fixed period of time. While I certainly believe
that the FCC is capable of investigating this issue itself (and has been
capable of doing so for some time), Congress's decision strongly implies
that ***right now*** we don't have all the information we need. I hope
we remedy this expeditiously. In any event, while I certainly recognize
that reasonable minds may disagree on the difficult issue of how to move
forward here, I must join the majority in concluding that adding "last
known cell" to the list of items covered by the NET 911 Act was not
Congress's intent and would not serve the interests of American
consumers.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

***Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008*, WC Docket
No. 08-171**

With the passage of the "NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008" (NET 911 Act),
Congress made clear that consumers of interconnected VoIP services
deserve access to life saving 911 and E911 services and charged this
Commission with an active role in transitioning to an IP-enabled
emergency communications network.

In this Order we take up the Net 911 Act's directive that providers of
IP-enabled voice services comply with 911 and E911 obligations and that
these providers have access to the capabilities necessary to provide 911
and E911 services. The Order adopts a reasonable approach in its
implementation of the Net 911 Act's requirements. Consistent with the
Act, it sets out broad standards for access to E911 capabilities, and
makes clear that providers are entitled to access capabilities from any
entity that owns or controls those capabilities. I note that a number of
E911 compliance and policy questions have been raised with respect to
dual-mode mobile commercial mobile radio service/VoIP handsets that use
Wi-Fi technology. Given the tight Congressional deadline for
implementing the Act, and wide concern about limiting the development of
more robust E911 solutions, it is appropriate for the Commission to
resolve those issues in a separate proceeding.

Finally, I would like to thank the public safety community, carriers,
VoIP providers, and all interested stakeholders who have helped us to
implement this Act quickly and ensure that E911 services remain robust
and reliable. We must remain committed to making E911 a success for
these increasingly important services and for the consumers who reach
for that critical lifeline in their time of need.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

***Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008*, WC Docket
No. 08-171**

With this item, the Commission establishes rules to ensure that service
providers have the access they need to enable 911 and E911 service,
which Congress has required in the New and Emerging Technologies 911
Improvement Act of 2008. Whether we are considering rules for use of the
700 MHz D block spectrum, location accuracy for 911 calls, or service
providers' access to 911 capabilities, the Commission continues to take
steps to ensure that our citizens and public safety service providers
have the tools they need to ensure world-class emergency communications
capabilities.

I especially want to recognize Congressman Bart Gordon, Congressman Chip
Pickering, and Senator Bill Nelson for their longstanding leadership on
this issue. It is important that the Commission's implementation of all
rules in response to statutory requirements reflect the intent of
Congress and the plain language of the laws directing our activities. I
believe this item faithfully implements Congress' requirements with
regard to 911 and E911 access rules.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

***Re: Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008*, WC Docket
No. 08-171**

I am pleased to join my colleagues in implementing key provisions of the
New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act).
This Order faithfully reflects the plain language and intent of the NET
911 Act, and will further the abilities of our nation's emergency
response providers for the benefit of all Americans.

I would like to thank the Senate Commerce and House Energy and Commerce
Committees for their guidance and hard work on this issue. I also would
like to commend my colleagues and the staff for their diligence and
cooperation in ensuring that we successfully met the tight deadlines
established by the NET 911 Act.

[^1]: New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L.
    No. 110-283, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008) (NET 911 Act) (amending Wireless
    Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106-81,
    113 Stat. 1286 (1999) (Wireless 911 Act)).

[^2]: The NET 911 Act requires the Commission to issue regulations
    implementing certain provisions of the NET 911 Act within 90 days
    after its enactment date. The Commission therefore must issue
    regulations no later than October 21, 2008. *See* NET 911 Act §
    101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1).

[^3]: The NET 911 Act uses the term "IP-enabled voice service," which is
    given the same meaning as "interconnected VoIP service" as defined
    by section 9.3 of the Commission's rules. *See* NET 911 Act §
    101(3); Wireless 911 Act § 7(8). For the purposes of this Order, the
    terms "IP-enabled voice services" and "interconnected VoIP" are used
    synonymously. An interconnected VoIP service is a service that: (1)
    enables real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) requires a
    broadband connection from the user's location; (3) requires
    IP-compatible customer premises equipment; and (4) permits users
    generally to receive calls that originate on the public switched
    telephone network (PSTN) and to terminate calls to the PSTN. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 9.3.

[^4]: Wireless 911 Act, Preamble.

[^5]: NET 911 Act, Preamble.

[^6]: *See* NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(a). The
    Commission regulations imposing 911 and E911 service obligations on
    interconnected VoIP providers are codified at 47 C.F.R. §§ 9.1 *et
    seq*.

[^7]: *See* NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act §§ 6(b), 6(c)(1)(C).

[^8]: On October 8, 2008, Public Law 110-368 was enacted, which brings
    section 6(c)(3) of the Net 911 Act within the scope of the 90-day
    rulemaking requirement, rather than section 6(c)(2). *See also* H.R.
    6946, 110th Cong. § 1 (2008) ("Section 6(c)(1)(C) of \[the Wireless
    911 Act\] is amended by striking 'paragraph (2)' and inserting
    'paragraph (3)'."). We have made that correction in the text of the
    act quoted above.

[^9]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act §§ 6(a)--(c). For purposes
    of the NET 911 Act, Congress specifically defined "commercial mobile
    service" or "CMS" by reference to section 332(d)(1) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Communications Act), 47
    U.S.C. § 332(d)(1) (stating that the term "commercial mobile
    service" means any mobile service that is provided for profit and
    makes interconnected service available to the public or to such
    classes of eligible users as to be effectively available to a
    substantial portion of the public, as specified by regulation by the
    Commission). *See* *also* NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act §
    6(b). In this Order, we use the terms "CMS," "commercial mobile
    radio service" or "CMRS," and "wireless service" interchangeably.

[^10]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(a).

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. Part 9; *IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for
    IP-Enabled Service Providers*, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196, First
    Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245
    (2005) (*VoIP 911 Order*), *aff'd sub nom. Nuvio Corp. v. FCC*, 473
    F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

[^12]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(i).

[^13]: *Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008*, WC
    Docket No. 08-171, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-195 (rel.
    Aug. 25, 2008) (*NET 911 Notice*).

[^14]: *Id.* at paras. 6-10.

[^15]: *Id.* at para. 11.

[^16]: As the Commission has noted previously, there are a variety of
    situations existing in the more than 6,000 public safety answering
    points (PSAPs) across the nation, including differences in state and
    local laws and regulations governing the provision of 911 services,
    the configuration of wireless systems, the technical sophistication
    of 911 network components, and the nature of agreements between
    service providers and PSAPs. *See, e.g.*, *VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC
    Rcd at 10251, para. 14 n.34.

[^17]: *See infra* part III.

[^18]: *See VoIP 911 Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 10250-51, para. 12.

[^19]: *See id*. at 10251, para. 13.

[^20]: *See id.* at 10251, para. 12.

[^21]: *See id*. at 10251, para. 14.

[^22]: *See id.*

[^23]: *See id.* at 10252, para. 14.

[^24]: *See id*. at 10252, para. 15 n.37 (stating that "\[t\]he presence
    of and functionality provided by the Selective Router is the key
    characteristic that distinguishes basic 911 from E911 service").

[^25]: Specifically, the SR Database identifies the Emergency Service
    Number (ESN) that corresponds to the caller's location. ESNs are
    typically three to five digit numbers that represent a unique
    combination of emergency service agencies (Law Enforcement, Fire,
    and Emergency Medical Service) designated to serve a specific range
    of addresses within a particular geographical area, called an
    Emergency Service Zone (ESZ). The ESN itself is derived from the
    Master Street Address Guide (MSAG), which is a separate database of
    street addresses and corresponding ESNs. Some PSAPs require the use
    of ESNs to facilitate selective routing and selective transfer to
    the appropriate PSAP. Thus, the ESN essentially is a standardized
    identifier for the PSAP serving a specific area. *See*, *e.g.*,
    Vonage Comments at 12-14.

[^26]: *See VoIP 911 Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 10252, para. 15.

[^27]: The ALI Database may also return additional information, such as
    the name of the individual who is billed for telephone service at
    that address.

[^28]: The DBMS is typically under the control of the Emergency Services
    Network Provider, which is often but not always the incumbent LEC.

[^29]: *See VoIP 911 Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 10252, para. 15.

[^30]: *See id*. at 10252, at para. 16; 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.18(d)-(h). The
    Commission's requirements to provide location information (*i.e.*,
    ALI) are comprised of two phases. Pursuant to the Phase I rules,
    wireless carriers are required to provide a call back number for the
    handset placing the 911 call and report the locations of the cell
    tower that received the call. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(d). Under the
    Phase II rules, wireless carriers are required to provide more
    accurate 911 call location information that includes longitude and
    latitude. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(e). For a PSAP request to be
    valid, the PSAP must be "capable of receiving and utilizing the data
    elements associated with" either E911 Phase I or Phase II service.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j).

[^31]: *See VoIP 911 Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 10252, para. 17. The
    Commission currently is considering improved location accuracy
    standards for wireless E911. *See* *Comment Sought on Proposals
    Regarding Service Rules for Wireless Enhanced 911 Phase II Location
    Accuracy and Reliability*, PS Docket No. 07-114, Public Notice, DA
    08-2129 (PSHSB rel. Sept. 22, 2008).

[^32]: *See VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10252-53, para. 17.

[^33]: *See supra* para. 8.

[^34]: *See VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10253, para. 17. The special
    meaning assigned to the p-ANI is determined by agreements, as
    necessary, between the system originating the call, intermediate
    systems handling and routing the call, and the destination system.
    *See id.* at 10253, para. 17 n.45. Forms of p-ANI are also known as
    "Emergency Services Routing Key" (ESRKs), "Emergency Services Query
    Keys" (ESQKs), and "Emergency Services Routing Digits" (ESRDs). *See
    id*. at 10253, para. 17.

[^35]: Shell records are established in the ALI Database and associated
    with a given p-ANI. Shell records are created by the MPC in a manual
    process and entered into the ALI Database outside the DBMS system.
    The ALI Database administrator defines and controls this entry
    process. As explained herein, they have a generic field that is
    updated during a 911 call to provide call-specific ALI data and the
    call back number. *See, e.g.*,
    http://www.nena.org/media/files/VoIPPolicyPositions3.20.06.doc
    (visited Sept. 29, 2008).

[^36]: Typically, the MPC will assign p-ANI numbers to cell sites or
    sectors, and the ESNs that correspond to those static locations are
    known. The p-ANI typically will reside in the ALI Database along
    with a shell record that already identifies the ESN. When the base
    station assigned to that p-ANI receives a 911 call, the MPC
    populates the shell record with the caller's actual call back
    number, location, and other information.

[^37]: The shell record also will be updated with location coordinates
    in accordance with the Commission's CMRS location accuracy standard,
    which track the caller's location as opposed to the cell site or
    sector location, although not all PSAPs are capable of receiving and
    processing such information.

[^38]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 9.1 *et seq*. We note that an interconnected VoIP
    provider need only provide such call back and location information
    as a PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or
    appropriate local emergency authority is capable of receiving and
    utilizing. 47 C.F.R. § 9.5(c). Even where the PSAP is not capable of
    receiving and utilizing this information, interconnected VoIP
    providers must transmit all 911 calls to the appropriate PSAP via
    the Wireline E911 Network. *Id.*; *VoIP 911 Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at
    10269-70, para. 42.

[^39]: *See supra* para. 12.

[^40]: *VoIP 911 Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 10271, para. 46 (stating that
    "providers of interconnected VoIP services that can be utilized from
    more than one physical location must provide their end users one or
    more methods of updating information regarding their user's physical
    location"). The Commission has sought comment on whether it should
    require interconnected VoIP services to provide location information
    automatically. *See id.* at 10276-77, para. 57. We note that in the
    *Location Accuracy Notice*, the Commission tentatively concluded
    that "to the extent that an interconnected VoIP service may be used
    in more than one location, providers must employ an automatic
    location technology that meets the same accuracy standards that
    apply to those CMRS services." *See Wireless E911 Location Accuracy
    Requirements; Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; 911
    Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers*, PS Docket No.
    07-114, CC Docket No. 94-102, WC Docket No. 05-196, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 10609, 10615, para. 18 (2007)
    (*Location Accuracy Notice*); *see also supra* note Error: Reference
    source not found.

[^41]: 47 C.F.R. § 9.5(b)(2); *see also VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at
    10266, para. 37.

[^42]: Most commenters agree that ANI and p-ANI are common core
    capabilities for any interconnected VoIP 911 Network. *See, e.g.*,
    Illinois Commission Comments at 3; NENA Comments at 7-8; Vonage
    Comments at 7-9; VON Coalition Comments at 8-10.

[^43]: *VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10266, para. 37.

[^44]: *Id.* at 10246, para. 1.

[^45]: *See id.* at 10250-54, paras. 11-18.

[^46]: *See* *supra* note Error: Reference source not found; *see also*
    NENA Comments at 10 (stating that the 911 system is operated in
    different ways depending on the service providers and 911
    authorities involved).

[^47]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 6.

[^48]: *See, e.g.*, TCS Comments at 8.

[^49]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments, Attach. § 3.4; Vonage Comments at 18;
    VON Coalition Comments at 11.

[^50]: *See, e.g.*, Vonage Comments at 12; VON Coalition Comments at
    12-13; AT&T Reply at 5.

[^51]: *See, e.g.*, Oklahoma City Comments at 5.

[^52]: *See, e.g.*, Sprint Comments at 4 n.8; Vonage Comments at 18; Von
    Coalition Comments at 11.

[^53]: *See, e.g.*, Oklahoma Municipal League Comments at 2.

[^54]: *See* Intrado Comments at 2; TCS Comments at 7-8; Vixxi Reply
    at 1. Intrado offers a comprehensive solution for delivering E911
    for VoIP providers. *See*
    http://www.intrado.com/main/company/government/voipdeployment/whatisintradosrole/
    (visited Sept. 26, 2008).

[^55]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 6.

[^56]: *See* Letter from Thomas J. Navin, Chief, Wireline Competition
    Bureau, FCC, to Thomas M. Koutsky, Chair, North American Numbering
    Council, and Ms. Amy L. Putnam, Director, Numbering Pooling
    Services, NeuStar, Inc., at 2 (Sept. 8, 2006) (p-ANI Administration
    Letter) (assigning NeuStar, Inc. to be the Interim RNA for the p-ANI
    codes used for routing emergency calls); *see also* Letter from
    Thomas J. Navin, Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, to Thomas
    M. Koutsky, Chair, North American Numbering Council, at 1 (June 28,
    2007) (designating the entity serving as the pooling administrator
    also to serve as the Routing Number Authority).

[^57]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act §§ 6(b), 6(c)(1)(A).

[^58]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1).

[^59]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1)(B).

[^60]: *See* Vonage Reply at 2 (arguing that it would be inadequate for
    the Commission to simply state that entities that provide 911
    capabilities to CMRS carriers must make such capabilities available
    to interconnected VoIP providers on the same, rates, terms, and
    conditions, as urged by USTelecom, AT&T, Verizon, Qwest and Sprint).

[^61]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 5 (stating that, "the Commission's
    role in implementing the NET 911 Act is not to reinvent the wheel by
    establishing a lengthy new list of Commission-prescribed
    capabilities that must be offered to VoIP providers"); USTelecom
    Comments at 5 (stating that there is no need for detailed
    regulations to effectuate the purposes of the NET 911 Act); Verizon
    Comments at 3 (stating that VoIP providers are already providing
    E911 service to their customers, and given the very short deadline
    for Commission action imposed by the NET 911 Act, the Commission
    should not attempt to develop detailed and prescriptive rules
    defining 911 capabilities).

[^62]: *See, e.g.*, Vonage Comments at 5-6 (stating the Commission must
    establish "a clear, non-exhaustive, and prospective definition of
    capabilities in order to allow \[interconnected VoIP providers\] the
    ability to exercise their rights under the legislation"); Illinois
    Commission at 2 (stating that the Commission should define
    capabilities in its rule); Oklahoma Municipal League Comments at 2
    (stating that the Commission should define capabilities in a rule,
    to a level of detail such that state commissions, 911 districts and
    agencies, and PSAPs who have capacity to utilize such capabilities
    are given clear authority to ensure that IP-enabled voice service
    providers comply with state and local standards related to routing,
    documentation, data formatting, carrier identification, and other
    established procedures); Texas 911 Alliance Comments at 4 (stating
    that any adopted rule should list certain core elements of the
    current 911 system); Vonage Reply at 13 (stating that the Commission
    should broadly define the parties that own or control the E911
    capabilities).

[^63]: As the VON Coalition explains:

    > \[The E911 system\] utilizes a variety of legacy technologies.
    > Equipment, network elements, databases, selective routers,
    > interfaces and facilities are unique in each region. New service
    > offerings, like VoIP, have been forced to retrofit their
    > technologies to be backward compatible with this legacy technology
    > that often varies PSAP to PSAP. . . . Network elements and
    > database access necessary in one region may not be in another.
    > Given the existence of over 6000 independently operated public
    > safety answering points (PSAPs) and over 1000 independent
    > incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs), it is impossible to
    > create an exhaustive list of necessary 9-1-1 components.

    VON Coalition Comments at 8.

[^64]: *See* NET 911 Act, Preamble ("\[t\]o encourage the Nation's
    transition to a national IP-enabled emergency network"); NET 911 Act
    § 102 (requiring the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration's E911 Implementation Coordination Office to "develop
    and report to Congress on a national plan for migrating to a
    national IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving and
    responding to all citizen-activated emergency communications").

[^65]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(e)(1).

[^66]: We decline to expand the applicability of the rights granted in
    the NET 911 Act to entities beyond those encompassed within that
    statute as some commenters have suggested. In this Order, therefore,
    we do not address whether we should modify or waive section
    52.15(g)(2)(i) of the Commission's rules to allow VPC providers that
    are neither carriers nor interconnected VoIP providers to obtain
    numbering resources. *See* TCS Comments at 4 (requesting that the
    Commission address issues raised in a TCS petition for waiver that
    is pending in CC Docket No. 99‑200). Our determination that such
    providers are not granted access rights under the NET 911 Act does
    not prejudice the Commission's ultimate decision on any pending
    petitions for waiver.

[^67]: *See infra* para. 26.

[^68]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(b).

[^69]: *E.g.,* AT&T Comments at 2 (stating that the NET 911 Act
    instructs the Commission to adopt regulations that ensure that VoIP
    providers have the ability to access 911 capabilities provided to
    CMRS providers); USTelecom Comments at 2 (arguing that Congress
    intended the existing commercial mobile service E911 system to serve
    as the template for VoIP E911 access).

[^70]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(b) (emphasis added).

[^71]: The House Report supports this interpretation, noting that
    "subsection 6(b) would give VoIP providers, when they seek access to
    the capabilities needed to provide 911 and E-911 service from any
    entity with ownership or control over those capabilities, *the same
    rights*, including rights of interconnection, and on the same rates,
    terms, and conditions as would be applicable to providers of
    commercial mobile service (also referred to herein as wireless
    service), subject to regulations promulgated by the Commission under
    new subsection 6(c)." H.R. Rep. No. 110-442 at 13 (emphasis added).

[^72]: *See supra* paras. 9-11.

[^73]: H.R. Rep. No. 110-442 at 5.

[^74]: Thus, interconnected VoIP providers have a right to access
    capabilities necessary for the provision of 911 and E911 service.

[^75]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1)(C) (emphasis
    added).

[^76]: Thus, we reject any claims that interconnected VoIP providers
    could access capabilities pursuant to the Net 911 Act and our
    implementing rules for purposes other than providing E911 service.
    *See, e.g.*, USTelecom Comments at 4.

[^77]: *See, e.g.*, NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(b)
    (providing that interconnected VoIP providers' right to
    capabilities, including interconnection, to comply with that
    provider's E911 obligations under the Commission's rules, shall be
    "for the exclusive purpose of complying with its obligations").

[^78]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1)(C).

[^79]: The House Report states that any regulations issued under section
    6(c) should "adhere to the basic tenet established in new subsection
    6(b) that the rights given to VoIP providers in \[the NET 911 Act\]
    are the for the sole purpose of transmitting, delivering, and
    completing 911 and E-911 calls and associated E-911 information and
    do not extend beyond a right of access only to the 911
    infrastructure needed to transmit, deliver, and complete 911 and
    E-911 calls and associated E-911 information." H.R. Rep. No. 110-442
    at 14.

[^80]: *See, e.g.*, Illinois Commission Comments at 3; AT&T Reply at 2.

[^81]: *See, e.g.*, USTelecom Comments at 4.

[^82]: *See, e.g.*, Comcast Comments at 4-5; Illinois Commission
    Comments at 2-3; NENA Comments at 7; Vonage Comments at 6-17; AT&T
    Reply at 2; RNK Reply at 4; T-Mobile Reply at 2.

[^83]: AT&T Reply at 2*.*

[^84]: As a result of today's Order, interconnected VoIP providers now
    have access to p-ANIs. This includes all forms of p-ANI, such as
    ESRKs, ESQKs, or ESRDs, as described above. *See supra* note Error:
    Reference source not found. Because we find that p-ANIs are
    capabilities under the NET 911 Act and our implementing rules, this
    decision requires changes to the current p‑ANI administration
    system. *See* p-ANI Administration Letter at 3. The Wireline
    Competition Bureau will provide conforming instructions to the
    Interim RNA.

[^85]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(b).

[^86]: *See id*.

[^87]: *See* NET 911 Act, Preamble.

[^88]: NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1)(A); *see also*
    Verizon Reply at 3 (explaining that entities other than incumbent
    LECs own or control various 911 capabilities, such as state or local
    governments, PSAPs, and VPC providers, and the Commission "should
    make clear that any entity that owns or controls 911 capabilities --
    and not just incumbent LECs -- must make them available to
    \[interconnected VoIP providers.\]").

[^89]: NET 911 Act § 101(2).

[^90]: We therefore reject the request of certain commenters that we
    establish a specific pricing standard for access to E911
    capabilities, such as requiring that such access must be based on
    forward-looking costs under the Commission's total element long run
    incremental cost (TELRIC) standard. *See, e.g.*, Comcast Comments at
    8 (asserting that that the Commission should obtain a reasonable
    proxy for long-run incremental costs for E911 elements); Vonage
    Comments at 22 (asserting that the Commission should establish
    cost-based pricing standards for E911 elements); Comcast Reply at 7.

[^91]: *See, e.g.*, NENA Comments at 3-4 (stating that interconnected
    VoIP providers should be granted access to all capabilities that are
    necessary for E911 services and "such access should be provided at
    rates that are just, reasonable and non-discriminatory"); Letter
    from Patrick Halley, Government Affairs Director, NENA, and Robert
    Gurss, Director, Legal and Government Affairs, APCO, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 08-171 at 1 (filed Oct. 2,
    2008) (same).

[^92]: We decline to address in this order whether the rates, terms, and
    conditions currently provided to CMRS providers are competitive. As
    an initial matter the statutory provisions at issue here do not call
    for such an evaluation. Even if they did, the record in this
    proceeding does not contain detailed information about the market
    conditions in which E911 capabilities are provided to CMRS providers
    or interconnected VoIP providers, nor could we complete such a
    review within the 90-day statutory deadline. *See, e.g.*, Intrado
    Comments at 3 ("ILECS have retained their monopolies in their
    individual operating territories for the purposes of 911/E911
    services to PSAPs"); Vonage Comments at 4 (stating that, in contrast
    to wireline and wireless carriers, interconnected VoIP providers
    "are dependent on a small handful of subcontractors to provide E911
    services to their customers"). *But see, e.g.*, USTelecom Comments
    at 4 (the Commission need not regulate prices as commercially
    negotiated agreements are made freely in the marketplace).

[^93]: NET 911 Act § 101(2), Wireless 911 Act § 6(b).

[^94]: *See* NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act §§ 6(b), (c)(1)(C)
    (instructing the Commission to issue regulations that "provide, with
    respect to any capabilities that are not required to be made
    available to a commercial mobile service provider but that the
    Commission determines . . . are necessary for an IP-enabled voice
    service provider to comply with its \[E911\] obligations . . . that
    such capabilities shall be available at the same rates, terms, and
    conditions as would apply if such capabilities were made available
    to a commercial mobile service provider"). The record indicates that
    the industry already is moving in this direction and that many
    agreements with interconnected VoIP providers for E911 capabilities
    are patterned after existing agreements with CMRS providers. *See,
    e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 4-5; Verizon Comments at 4; Verizon Reply at
    5-6.

[^95]: *See* NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c) ("The
    Commission . . . *shall issue regulations* . . . that . . . provide,
    with respect to any capabilities that are not required to be made
    available to a commercial mobile service provider but that the
    Commission determines . . . are necessary for an IP-enabled voice
    service provider to comply with its \[E911\] obligations . . . that
    such capabilities shall be available at the same rates, terms, and
    conditions *as would apply if* such capabilities were made available
    to a commercial mobile service provider.") (emphasis added).

[^96]: NET 911 Act, Preamble.

[^97]: *See* NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(c)(1)(C).
    Comcast Comments at 4; Vonage Comments at 17. *But see* AT&T
    Comments at 6 ("AT&T would expect that there should be few (if any)
    additional 911/E911 capabilities that are not currently offered to
    CMS providers in the marketplace today for which the Commission
    would find it necessary to address pursuant to section 6(c) of the
    NET 911 Act.").

[^98]: *See* AT&T Comments at 6 (arguing that the Commission should rely
    upon market-based, commercial arrangements to the extent that the
    Commission identifies capabilities needed by interconnected VoIP
    providers that are not currently offered to CMRS providers).

[^99]: We require that interconnected VoIP providers get the benefits
    and burdens associated with all of the applicable rates, terms, and
    conditions of agreements for access to the capabilities they need to
    provide E911 service, rather than getting to "pick and choose" the
    best terms from each such agreement. *Cf., e.g.*, *Review of the
    Section 251 Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange
    Carriers*, CC Docket No. 01-338, Second Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd
    13494 (2004) ), *aff'd*, *New Edge Network, Inc. v. FCC*, 461 F.3d
    1105 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (replacing the "pick and choose" rule with an
    "all or nothing" rule). We recognize, however, that many such
    agreements will address matters other than access to E911
    capabilities. Our requirement that the rates, terms, and conditions
    under which E911 capabilities are made available to interconnected
    VoIP providers be reasonable ensures that those providers are able
    to meet their obligations to provide E911 service to their
    customers, consistent with Congress's intent.

[^100]: To facilitate compliance with the requirements adopted in this
    Order, we require the owners and controllers of capabilities to
    ensure that interconnected VoIP providers have ready access to the
    rates, terms, and conditions upon which their rights are based.
    *See, e.g.*, Comcast Comments at 7 (arguing that an ability to
    determine existing rates, terms, and conditions is essential to
    ensuring compliance with the NET 911 Act); Intrado Comments at 5
    (urging the public filing of such agreements for similar reasons);
    Oklahoma City Comments at 8; Vonage Comments at 22; NCTA Reply
    Comments at 3. As the Commission previously has found, competition
    is facilitated if customers can easily find information on the
    rates, terms, and conditions for services. *See, e.g*., *Policy and
    Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace*,
    *Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of
    1934*, CC Docket No. 96-61, Second Order on Reconsideration and
    Erratum, 14 FCC Rcd 6004, 6009, para. 9 (citing *Policy and Rules
    Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace*, CC Docket No.
    96-61, Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 20730, 20745-46, para. 25
    (1996)). Nevertheless, we decline at this time to require parties to
    publish their rates, terms, and conditions or file them with the
    Commission to comply with the NET 911 Act. *See* Verizon Comments at
    4 (arguing that such rates, terms, and conditions are readily
    ascertainable from public documents). In the absence of any record
    of abuse, we believe requiring ready access is sufficient to ensure
    that the goals of the NET 911 Act are met without imposing any undue
    burdens.

[^101]: *See, e.g.*, Verizon Comments at 4; Vonage Comments at 2-3; VON
    Coalition Comments at 3 (referring to "the incredible efforts of
    \[i\]nterconnected VoIP providers and their 911 partners" in
    implementing the *VoIP 911 Order*); *see also* Washington State 911
    Program Comments at 1 (urging that the Commission encourage
    collaboration between public safety and service suppliers).

[^102]: *See* H.R. Rep. No. 110-442 at 13 (stating that the prior,
    similar version of this legislation "is not intended to abrogate
    existing commercial arrangements relating to the provision of 911
    and E-911 service entered into by VoIP providers prior to the
    enactment of \[the legislation\]); *see also, e.g.*, AT&T Comments
    at 5. Of course, any change of law provision in an existing
    agreement should be given the effect intended by the parties to the
    agreement. In addition, nothing in this Order is intended to alter
    the cost allocation for services between the PSAP and the
    interconnected VoIP provider. *See* Intrado Comments at 13; *VoIP
    911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10253, para. 18.

[^103]: *See* NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(b).

[^104]: *See supra* part III.

[^105]: *See* Interim VoIP Architecture For Enhanced 9-1-1 Services,
    NENA 08-001, Issue 1 at 58 (December 6, 2005) (NENA's i2 Standard),
    *available* *at* http://www.nena.org/media/File/08-001_20051205.pdf
    (visited Oct. 14, 2008) ("These security threats present themselves
    in a number of forms and have varying degrees of severity should
    they be exploited to their full potential. . . .  This section does
    not in itself provide solutions to these concerns."); Oklahoma City
    Comments at 9 (stating that "IP-enabled voice services provide new
    opportunity for intentional penetration and disruption of 911
    services" and offering examples of "denial of service attacks
    generated by hackers or cyber terrorists who may penetrate the IP
    network at various points" -- the risks of which are magnified to
    the extent an interconnected VoIP provider has access to the 911 and
    E911 network).

[^106]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 4-5 (arguing that given the
    success of interconnected VoIP providers in currently providing E911
    service, only limited rule changes are necessary); Verizon Comments
    at 1 (noting interconnected VoIP providers success in providing E911
    service); VON Coalition Comments at 2-3 (reporting that
    "interconnected VoIP services now provide basic or enhanced 911 to
    more than 97 percent of their subscribers -- the fastest and
    broadest onetime implementation of E911 in the history of public
    safety" (footnote omitted)).

[^107]: Vonage Comments at 3.

[^108]: NENA Comments at 5; King County Reply at 2 (stating that NENA's
    i2 "standards are developed through an extensive process of
    discussion and review, with participation from all parties involved
    in the provision of E911 service"); *see also* NENA's i2 Standard.

[^109]: *See* NENA's i2 Standard at 57-58.

[^110]: *See, e.g.*, Intrado Comments at 11 (stating that any entity
    that connects to 911 network needs to comply with "industry
    recommended standards that ensure interoperability between service
    providers and the 911/E911 network"); Sprint Nextel Comments at 8
    ("Sprint is not aware of any technical, network security or
    information privacy requirements that are unique to IP-enabled
    services."); Verizon Reply at 6.

[^111]: *See* Sprint Nextel Comments at 8; Texas 911 Alliance Comments
    at 9.

[^112]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 ("SBREFA"), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 847
    (1996). The SBREFA was enacted as Title II of the Contract With
    America Advancement Act of 1996 ("CWAAA").

[^113]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-12, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^114]: *See* *Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008*,
    WC Docket No. 08-171, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 08-195,
    para. 18 & Appendix (2008) (*NET 911 Notice*).

[^115]: *See* *id*.

[^116]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^117]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).

[^118]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^119]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
    § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such terms which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^120]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^121]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^122]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^123]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^124]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415.

[^125]: We assume that the villages, school districts, and special
    districts are small, and total 48,558. *See* U.S. Census Bureau,
    Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page
    273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total
    number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was
    38,967, of which 35,819 were small. *Id.*

[^126]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^127]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business
    Act contains a definition of "small-business concern," which the RFA
    incorporates into its own definition of "small business." *See* 15
    U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA). SBA
    regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the
    concept of dominance on a national basis. *See* 13 C.F.R. §
    121.102(b).

[^128]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^129]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3,
    page 5-5 (Aug. 2008) (*Trends in Telephone Service*). This source
    uses data that are current as of November 1, 2006.

[^130]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^131]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^132]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

[^133]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^134]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

[^135]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^136]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^137]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^138]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^139]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^140]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^141]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^142]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

[^143]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^144]: We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category,
    including those for 888 numbers.

[^145]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "517911
    Telecommunications Resellers" (partial definition);
    http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517911.HTM#N517911.

[^146]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.

[^147]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517310 (issued Nov. 2005). Prior
    to 2007, the subject category was numbered 517310.

[^148]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^149]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Tables 18.4-18.8.

[^150]:  U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517410 Satellite
    Telecommunications," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND517410.HTM (visited Oct.
    16, 2007).

[^151]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^152]: *Id*. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^153]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517910 Other
    Telecommunications," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND517910.HTM (visited Oct.
    16, 2007).

[^154]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^155]: *Id*. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^156]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.

[^157]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211 (changed from 513321 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^158]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (changed from 513322 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^159]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^160]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^161]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^162]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^163]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^164]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^165]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^166]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^167]: *Id.*

[^168]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^169]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^170]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^171]: *Trends in Telephone Service*, Table 5.3.

[^172]: *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, WT Docket No.
    96-18, PP Docket No. 93-235, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd
    2732, 2811-2812, paras. 178-181 (*Paging Second Report and Order*);
    *see also* *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's
    Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, WT Docket
    No. 96-18, PP Docket No. 93-235, Memorandum Opinion and Order on
    Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10085-10088, paras. 98-107
    (1999).

[^173]: *Paging Second Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 2811, para. 179.

[^174]: *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business
    Administration, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Dec. 2, 1998) (*SBA
    Dec. 2, 1998 Letter*).

[^175]: *See* *929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes*, Public Notice, 15
    FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).

[^176]: *Id.*

[^177]: *See* *Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes*, Public
    Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).

[^178]: *See* *Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Closes*, Public
    Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11154 (WTB 2003).

[^179]: *SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter*.

[^180]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^181]: *Id.*

[^182]: *Trends in Telephone Service* at Table 5.3.

[^183]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap*, WT Docket No. 96-59, Report and Order, 11 FCC
    Rcd 7824, 61 Fed. Reg. 33859 (July 1, 1996) (*PCS Order*); *see
    also* 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^184]: *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824.

[^185]: *See, e.g*., *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5332, 59 Fed. Reg. 37566 (July 22,
    1994).

[^186]: FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No.
    71744 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997); *see also Amendment of the Commission's
    Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal
    Communications Services (PCS) Licenses*, WT Docket No. 97-82, Second
    Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16436, 62 Fed. Reg. 55348 (Oct. 24,
    1997).

[^187]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding Narrowband PCS*, Third Memorandum Opinion and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 175,
    196, para. 46 (1994).

[^188]: *See* *Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of ten
    Nationwide Narrowband PCS Licenses, Winning Bids Total
    \$617,006,674*, Public Notice, PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994);
    *Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of 30 Regional
    Narrowband PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total \$490,901,787*, Public
    Notice, PNWL 94-27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994).

[^189]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, Narrowband PCS*, ET Docket No. 92-100, PP
    Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 10476, para. 40 (2000).

[^190]: *Id*.

[^191]: *Id*.

[^192]: *See* *SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter*, *supra* note 62.

[^193]: *See* *Narrowband PCS Auction Closes*, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
    18663 (WTB 2001).

[^194]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^195]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal
    Income Tax: 1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^196]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1000
    employees or more."

[^197]: *See* U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    "Information," Table 2, Comparative Statistics for the United States
    (1997 NAICS Basis): 2002 and 1997, NAICS code 513322 (issued Nov.
    2004). The preliminary data indicate that the total number of
    "establishments" increased from 2,959 to 9,511. In this context, the
    number of establishments is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence than is the number of "firms," because the
    latter number takes into account the concept of common ownership or
    control. The more helpful 2002 census data on firms, including
    employment and receipts numbers, will be issued in late 2005.

[^198]: *220 MHz Third Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70,
    paras. 291-95 (1997).

[^199]: *Id.* at 11068, para. 291.

[^200]: *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to D.
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6,
    1998).

[^201]: *See generally* *220 MHz Service Auction Closes*, Public Notice,
    14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).

[^202]: *See, e.g.*, *FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II
    220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made*, Public Notice, 14 FCC
    Rcd 1085 (1999).

[^203]: *Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes*, Public
    Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (1999).

[^204]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1).

[^205]: *See* *Service* *Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions
    to part 27 of the Commission's Rules*, WT Docket No. 99-168, Second
    Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299, 65 Fed. Reg. 17594 (2000).

[^206]: *See generally* *220 MHz Service Auction Closes*, Public Notice,
    14 FCC Rcd 605 (1998).

[^207]: *700 MHz Guard Band Auction Closes*, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
    4590 (2001).

[^208]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^209]: BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757, 22.759.

[^210]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^211]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^212]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^213]: *Id.*

[^214]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications*, PR Docket No. 92-257, Third Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).

[^215]: This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the
    Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-.1037.

[^216]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^217]: *Id*.

[^218]: *See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6
    GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands*, ET Docket No. 95-183, Report and Order
    and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 18600, 63 Fed. Reg.
    6079 (Feb. 6, 1998).

[^219]: *Id.*

[^220]: *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Kathleen
    O'Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division,
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 4, 1998).

[^221]: MDS, also known as Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service
    ("MMDS"), is regulated by Part 21 of the Commission's rules, *see*
    47 C.F.R. Part 21, subpart K, and has been renamed the Broadband
    Radio Service (BRS). S*ee* *Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101
    of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and
    Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in
    the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands; Part 1 of the Commission\'s
    Rules - Further Competitive Bidding Procedures; Amendment of Parts
    21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and the
    Instructional Television Fixed Service Amendment of Parts 21 and 74
    to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions; Amendment of Parts 21 and
    74 of the Commission\'s Rules With Regard to Licensing in the
    Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television
    Fixed Service for the Gulf of Mexico; Promoting Efficient Use of
    Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of
    Secondary Markets*, WT Docket Nos. 03-66, 03-67, 02-68, and 00-230,
    MM Docket No. 97-217, RM-10586, RM-9718, Report and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165 (2004)
    (*MDS/ITFS Order*).

[^222]: ITFS systems are regulated by Part 74 of the Commission's rules;
    *see* 47 C.F.R. Part 74, subpart I. ITFS, an educational service,
    has been renamed the Educational Broadband Service (EBS). S*ee*
    *MDS/ITFS Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 14165. ITFS licensees, however, are
    permitted to lease spectrum for MDS operation.

[^223]: *See* *Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition in the
    Market for the Delivery of Video Programming, Eleventh Annual
    Report,* 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2565, para. 131 (2006) (*2006 Cable
    Competition Report*).

[^224]: *Id*.

[^225]: *See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the
    Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band,
    to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules
    and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fix
    Satellite Services*, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report and Order,
    Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    12 FCC Rcd 12545 (1997) (*Local Multipoint Distribution Service
    Order*).

[^226]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^227]: MDS Auction No. 6 began on November 13, 1995, and closed on
    March 28, 1996. (67 bidders won 493 licenses.)

[^228]: 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).

[^229]: *See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission\'s Rules
    With Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint Distribution
    Service & in the Instructional Television Fixed Service*, MM Docket
    No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589
    (1995).

[^230]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to
    incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these
    pre-auction licenses, the applicable standard is SBA's small
    business size standards for "other telecommunications" (annual
    receipts of \$13.5 million or less). *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,
    NAICS code 517910.

[^231]: In addition, the term "small entity" under SBREFA applies to
    small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental
    jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school
    districts, and special districts with populations of less than
    50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6). We do not collect annual revenue
    data on ITFS licensees.

[^232]: The Commission has held two LMDS auctions: Auction 17 and
    Auction 23. Auction No. 17, the first LMDS auction, began on
    February 18, 1998, and closed on March 25, 1998. (104 bidders won
    864 licenses.) Auction No. 23, the LMDS re-auction, began on April
    27, 1999, and closed on May 12, 1999. (40 bidders won 161 licenses.)

[^233]: *See Local Multipoint Distribution Service Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at
    12545.

[^234]: *Id.*

[^235]: *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Daniel
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (January 6,
    1998).

[^236]: *See Local Multipoint Distribution Service Order*, 12 FCC Rcd
    12545.

[^237]: *Id.*

[^238]: *See* *id*.

[^239]: *See* Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, from Dan
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6,
    1998).

[^240]: *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act --
    Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fourth Report and Order,
    9 FCC Rcd 2330, 59 Fed. Reg. 24947 (May 13, 1994).

[^241]: *Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service*, WT Docket No.
    98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC
    Rcd 1497, 64 Fed. Reg. 59656 (Nov. 3, 1999).

[^242]: *Id.*

[^243]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^244]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
    Tax: 1997," Table 5, NAICS code 513322 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^245]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^246]: Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only
    licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose license has been
    modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band.

[^247]: *Amendments to Parts 1,2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, WT Docket No. 99-327, Report
    and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967, para. 77 (2000); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(2).

[^248]: *Amendments to Parts 1,2, 87 and 101 of the Commission's Rules
    to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz*, WT Docket No. 99-327, Report
    and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967, para. 77 (2000); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(1).

[^249]: *See* Letter from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA,
    to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (July 28, 2000).

[^250]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, "517110 Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers" (partial definition);
    http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.

[^251]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^252]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^253]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^254]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
    standard equates approximately to a size standard of \$100 million
    or less in annual revenues. *Implementation of Sections of the 1992
    Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
    Order on Reconsideration, MM Docket Nos. 92-266, 93-215, 10 FCC Rcd
    7393, 7408 (1995).

[^255]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^256]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).

[^257]: Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*,
    "U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size," page F-2 (data current as
    of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which
    classifying data were not available.

[^258]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

[^259]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); *see FCC Announces New Subscriber Count
    for the Definition of Small Cable Operator*, Public Notice, DA
    01‑158, 16 FCC Rcd 2225 (CSB 2001).

[^260]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^261]: The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case
    basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
    finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
    pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.909(b).

[^262]: 47 U.S.C. § 571(a)(3)-(4). *See* *Annual Assessment of the
    Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video
    Programming, Eleventh Annual Report,* 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2549, para.
    88 (2006) (*2006 Cable Competition Report*).

[^263]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^264]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^265]: *See 2006 Cable Competition Report*, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549, para.
    88. BSPs are newer firms that are building state-of-the-art,
    facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services
    over a single network.

[^266]: *See id*. at 2507, para. 14.

[^267]: *See 2006 Cable Competition Report*, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549, para.
    89. WideOpenWest is the second largest BSP and 16th largest MVPD,
    with cable systems serving about 292,000 subscribers as of June,
    2005. The third largest BSP is Knology, serving approximately
    170,800 subscribers as of June 2005. *Id*.

[^268]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet
    Service Providers," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM.

[^269]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518111.

[^270]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518111 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^271]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518112 Web Search
    Portals," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM.

[^272]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518112.

[^273]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518112 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^274]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518210 Data
    Processing, Hosting, and Related Services," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF518.HTM.

[^275]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518210.

[^276]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 518210 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^277]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 519190 All Other
    Information Services," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF519.HTM.

[^278]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190.

[^279]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 519190 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^280]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 516110 Internet
    Publishing and Broadcasting," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF516.HTM.

[^281]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 516110.

[^282]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 5, NAICS code 516110 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^283]: *See* U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 511210
    Software Publishers," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF511.HTM.

[^284]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 511210, 541511, and 541519.

[^285]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 511210 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^286]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4, NAICS
    code 541511 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^287]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services, "Establishment and
    Firm Size (Including Legal Form of Organization)," Table 4, NAICS
    code 541519 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^288]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334111 Electronic
    Computer Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334111.HTM#N334111.

[^289]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334111.

[^290]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Computer Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334111 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^291]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334112 Computer
    Storage Device Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334112.HTM#N334112.

[^292]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334112.

[^293]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Storage Device Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334112 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^294]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334113 Computer
    Terminal Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334113.HTM#N334113.

[^295]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334113.

[^296]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Terminal Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334113 (issued Dec. 2004). In fact, all had employment of under
    500.

[^297]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334119 Other
    Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334119.HTM#N334119.

[^298]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334119.

[^299]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Computer Peripheral Equipment Manufacturing,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334119 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^300]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334310 Audio and
    Video Equipment Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334310.HTM#N334310.

[^301]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334310.

[^302]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Audio and Video Equipment Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334310 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^303]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334411 Electron
    Tube Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334411.HTM#N334411.

[^304]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334411.

[^305]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electron Tube Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code
    334411 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^306]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334412 Bare Printed
    Circuit Board Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334412.HTM#N334412.

[^307]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334412.

[^308]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Bare Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334412 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^309]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334413
    Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334413.HTM#N334413.

[^310]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334413.

[^311]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334413 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^312]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334414 Electronic
    Capacitor Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334414.HTM#N334414.

[^313]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334414.

[^314]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Capacitor Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334414 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^315]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334415 Electronic
    Resistor Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334415.HTM#N334415.

[^316]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334415.

[^317]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Resistor Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334415 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^318]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334416 Electronic
    Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334416.HTM#N334416.

[^319]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334416.

[^320]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Coil, Transformer, and Other Inductor
    Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code 334416 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^321]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334417 Electronic
    Connector Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334417.HTM#N334417.

[^322]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334417.

[^323]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Electronic Connector Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 334417 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^324]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334418 Printed
    Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing," *available
    at* http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334418.HTM#N334418.

[^325]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334418.

[^326]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly)
    Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS code 334418 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^327]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334419 Other
    Electronic Component Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND334419.HTM#N334419.

[^328]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334419.

[^329]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Electronic Component Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334419 (issued Jan. 2005).

[^330]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "335921 Fiber Optic
    Cable Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND335921.HTM#N335921.

[^331]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 335921.

[^332]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Fiber Optic Cable Manufacturing," Table 4, NAICS
    code 335921 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^333]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "335929 Other
    Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing," *available at*
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND335929.HTM#N335929.

[^334]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 335929.

[^335]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Other Communication and Energy Wire Manufacturing,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 335929 (issued Dec. 2004).

[^336]: *See* Report and Order*, supra*, at para. 4.

[^337]: *Id.* at para. 43.

[^338]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^339]: *See NET 911 Notice*, at para. 5.

[^340]: *Id*. at para. 12.

[^341]: *Id.*

[^342]: *See* Report and Order*, supra*, para. 36.

[^343]: *See* *id*. at para. 13.

[^344]: *See id*. at para. 22.

[^345]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^346]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).