DA 01-1520

June 27, 2001

**WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU**

**SEEKS COMMENT ON PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION**

**REGARDING ALLOCATION OF COSTS OF E911 IMPLEMENTATION**

(CC Docket No. 94-102)

**Comments/Oppositions Date: July 30, 2001**

**Reply Comments Date: August 14, 2001**

On June 6, 2001, four wireless carriers[^1] operating in King County,
Washington filed a Petition for Reconsideration challenging the Bureau's
May 7, 2001 response to a letter from the E911 Program Manager for the
King County, Washington E-911 Program Office concerning the proper
allocation of E911 implementation costs.[^2]

In the May 7 letter issued by the Chief of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, the Bureau clarifies that, under section
20.18(d) of the Commission's rules requiring wireless carriers to
provide Phase I service, the proper demarcation point for allocating
costs between wireless carriers and Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs) is the input to the 911 Selective Router maintained by the
Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier. The letter explains that wireless
carriers are thus responsible for the costs of all hardware and software
components and functionalities that precede the 911 Selective Router,
including the trunk from the carrier's Mobile Switching Center (MSC) to
the 911 Selective Router, and any databases, interface devices, and
trunk lines that may be needed should a Non-Call Path Associated
Signaling or Hybrid Call Path Associated Signaling methodology for
delivering E911 Phase I data to the PSAP be selected. It further
explains that PSAPs must bear the costs of maintaining and/or upgrading
the E911 components and functionalities beyond the input to the 911
Selective Router, including the 911 Selective Router itself, the trunks
between the 911 Selective Router and the PSAP, the Automatic Location
Identification database, and PSAP customer premises equipment.

In their filing, Petitioners argue that King County's request
constituted an untimely request for reconsideration of the *Second
Memorandum Opinion and Order*[^3] issued in the ongoing E911 proceeding
and an impermissible collateral attack on the Commission's decisions in
that proceeding; that the Bureau's decision exceeds its delegated
authority because violative of Commission rules, policy and precedent;
and that the scope of the inquiry and conclusion reached require a
notice-and-comment rulemaking proceeding. Petitioners argue, in
addition, that the decision ignores significant comments from wireless
carriers contained in the record; that it is based on the erroneous
assumption that the E911 Wireline Network does not include the trunkline
from the wireless carrier's MSC to the 911 Selective Router; that it
violates the regulatory language and intent of section 20.18(j), as well
as long-standing cost-causer principles and state law; and that it
discriminates unlawfully against wireless carriers, as compared to
wireline carriers, with respect to the provision of E911 services.

The Petition is available for public inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Public Reference Room, Room CY-A257, 445 12^th^ Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200(a), this proceeding is designated as a
"permit but disclose" proceeding and subject to §1.1206 of the
Commission's Rules.[^4] Presentations to or from Commission
decision-making personnel are permissible, provided that *ex parte*
presentations are disclosed pursuant to 47 C.F.R. §1.1206(b).

Interested parties may file comments or oppositions responding to the
Petition on or before July 30, 2001 and reply comments on or before
August 14, 2001. Comments may be filed using the Commission\'s
Electronic Comment Filing System (\"ECFS\") or by filing paper
copies.[^5] Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent via the Internet
to: \<http://www.fcc/e-file/ecfs.html\>. Only one copy of an electronic
submission must be filed. In completing the transmittal screen,
commenters should include their full name, postal service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number.

Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get
filing instructions for e-mail comments, commenters should send an
e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the
body of the message, \"get form\<your e-mail address\>.\" A sample form
and directions will be sent in reply.

Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
copies of each filing. All filings must be sent to the Commission\'s
Secretary, Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554. A copy should also be sent to Jane Phillips, Room 3A-200.

For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Jane
Phillips, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at (202)
418-1310.

-FCC-

[^1]: The Petition was filed by Nextel Communications, Inc., Qwest
    Wireless, LLC, Verizon Wireless, and VoiceStream Wireless
    Corporation.

[^2]: Letter from Marlys R. Davis, E911 Program Manager, King County
    E-911 Program Office, Department of Information and Administrative
    Services, to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated May 25, 2000.

[^3]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility
    With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    RM-8143, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 20850
    (1999) (*Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. §1.1206.

[^5]: *See* *In re* *Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking
    Proceedings*, 13 FCC Rcd. 11322 (1998) (amending Parts 0 and 1 of
    the Commission's rules to allow electronic filing of comments and
    other pleadings).