DA 01-1623

July 10, 2001

**WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU SEEKS FURTHER COMMENT ON THE
COMMISSION'S RULES CONCERNING PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT REQUESTS FOR
PHASE II ENHANCED 911**

**CC DOCKET NO. 94-102**

**COMMENTS DUE: July 25, 2001**

**REPLIES DUE: August 1, 2001**

By a Public Notice released on April 5, 2001,[^1] the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau ("the Bureau") sought comment on a petition
filed April 5, 2001, by the City of Richardson, Texas ("Richardson")
seeking clarification and/or a declaratory ruling concerning the process
by which a Public Safety Answering Point ("PSAP") makes a valid request
for Phase II enhanced 911 ("E911") service from a wireless carrier as
provided for in Section 20.18(j) of the Commission's rules, 47
C.F.R.§20.18(j). Specifically, Richardson seeks clarification or a
declaratory ruling that a PSAP makes a valid request for Phase II E911
service by informing the carrier that the necessary equipment upgrades
for Phase II service will be finalized prior to the delivery of the
service by the carrier, and by having an adequate cost recovery
mechanism in place to bring its equipment to the level necessary to
receive Phase II data. Richardson asserts that a carrier receiving such
a request is required to deliver Phase II service within six months
after receiving such a request or by October 1, 2001, whichever is
later, so that the service is available to the PSAP when its equipment
upgrades are completed.

Eleven comments and eight reply comments were filed in response to the
April 5 Public Notice. Some parties argue that the rule requires PSAPs
to be capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements associated
with the service at the time they request service. In support of that
position they contend that a PSAP may believe at the time of the request
that it will be capable of implementing Phase II within the six-month
period, but subsequent events outside its control may prevent the PSAP
from implementing Phase II within that period, or for other reasons the
PSAP's expectations concerning the timing of its eventual Phase II
readiness may not be realized.[^2] Other parties, in contrast, support
Richardson's position, arguing that the rule only requires the PSAP to
inform the carrier that the necessary equipment upgrades will be
finalized prior to the delivery of service by the carrier, and to have
an adequate cost recovery mechanism in place.[^3] Based on the language
of the rule itself, the Commission's orders addressing the rule and the
comments and reply comments of interested parties, it appears that the
rule as written may be capable of more than one interpretation.
Accordingly, the Bureau seeks additional comment on whether the rule
should be amended to clarify its meaning and/or adopt some criteria
between the two extremes mentioned here.

Specifically, WTB seeks comment on what objective criteria a PSAP could
be required to meet to demonstrate at the time it makes a request that
it has taken sufficient steps to assure that it will be able to receive
and utilize the E911 data prior to the delivery of service by the
carrier. For example, what kinds of identifiable, measurable criteria
could be put in place that would reasonably predict for the Commission,
carrier, and PSAP whether a PSAP will be ready to receive and utilize
Phase II information within six months of a request? Would it be
sufficient for the PSAP to show (1) that it has the necessary funding
available; (2) that it has purchase orders with vendors that will
install the necessary facilities with obligations that the vendors must
perform within the 6 month period; and (3) that it has made arrangements
with local exchange carriers to supply the necessary trunking, the ALI
database, and any other necessary facilities or capabilities in a timely
fashion? Would it be sufficient if the PSAP shows that it has
implemented Phase I using a Non-Call Path Associated Signalling (NCAS)
capability? Would it also be necessary for the PSAP to have a
state-of-the-art mapping capability versus a less sophisticated plotting
mechanism, or is that a matter of the efficiency of the PSAP's handling
the information, not its capability to use it?

This matter is incorporated into the ongoing rulemaking proceeding in CC
Docket No. 94-102 and the comments and reply comments filed in response
to the April 5, 2001 are hereby incorporated by reference. Parties
interested in filing comments in response to this Public Notice may do
so on or before July 25, 2001. Reply comments are due on or before
August 1, 2001. All comments shall reference the docket number of this
proceeding. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed
through ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
[http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html.](http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html)
In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include their
full name, postal service mailing address, ands the docket number of
this proceeding. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and four copies of each filing with the Commission's Secretary
(Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12^th^ Street S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554) and a
diskette copy to the Commission's copy contractor (International
Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS)), CY-B400, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington D.C. 20554). In
addition, parties should submit one copy to Peter G. Wolfe, Policy
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, Room 3-A101, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554. Filings and comments are also available for inspection and
copying in the Reference Information Center, Federal Communications
Commission, Room CY-A257, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. or
may be purchased from ITS.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. §603, WTB
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible impact on small entities of the policies and rules suggested in
this Public Notice. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. Written public
comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in
accordance with the same filing deadlines for comments on this Public
Notice, and they must have a separate and distinct heading designating
them as responses to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The
Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center,
will send a copy of this Public Notice, including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. *See* 5 U.S.C. §603(a).

Pursuant to Section 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. Section
1.1206, this proceeding will be conducted as a permit-but-disclose
proceeding in which *ex parte* communications are permitted subject to
disclosure.

For further information, contact Peter G. Wolfe, (202))418-1310.

-FCC-

APPENDIX A

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^4] the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities by the rule amendments suggested in this Public Notice
(PN) in CC Docket No. 94-102. Written public comments are requested on
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must
be filed by the deadlines for comments on the PN as provided above. The
Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center
will send a copy of the PN, including the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.[^5] In addition, the PN
and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the [Federal
Register]{.underline}.[^6]

**Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

The PN is needed to ascertain whether and to what extent the Commission
should amend 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j) to clarify the process by which a
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) makes a valid request for Phase II
E911 service. The suggested rule amendment is meant to ensure that all
parties involved in providing critical E911 services are aware of their
responsibilities in this regard. If the Commission adopts a requirement
that PSAPs demonstrate compliance with specified criteria, the purpose
will be to enable affected carriers to verify a PSAP's capability to
receive and act on Phase II data, thus avoiding costly delays in
response time.

**B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules**

The suggested action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(j), 7(a), 301,
303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 308, and 309(j) of the Communications
Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(j),157(a), 301, 303(c), 303(f),
303(g), 303(r), 308, and 309(j).

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

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^7] The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
"small business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction." In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under Section 3 of the
Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more
definitions that are appropriate for its activities.[^8] Under the Small
Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).[^9] A small organization is
generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its field."[^10] Nationwide, as of
1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^11]

The definition of "small governmental entity" is one with populations of
fewer than 50,000.[^12] There are 85,006 governmental entities in the
nation.[^13] This number includes such entities as states, counties,
cities, utility districts and school districts. There are no figures
available on what portion of this number has populations of fewer than
50,00. However, this number includes 38,978 counties, cities and towns,
and of those, 37,556, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer
than 50,000.[^14] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is
approximately accurate for all government entities. Thus, of the 85,006
governmental entities, we estimate that ninety-six percent, or about
81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules.

Nationwide, there are 4.44 million small business firms, according to
SBA reporting data.[^15] The applicable definition of small entity is
the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone
(wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity is a
radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^16]
According to the a report issued by the Federal Communications
Commission's Common Carrier Bureau in December 2000, of the 1,495
current wireless service providers, 989 employ l,500 or fewer workers,
and 506 employ more than 1,500 workers.[^17]

The Commission is unable at this time to precisely quantify the specific
impact of the suggested actions on these entities at this early point in
the proceeding, but invites comment on this issue. The impact will
depend on what type of demonstration and criteria (if any) the
Commission ultimately adopts. If a demonstration and criteria are
adopted, small carriers would find it less burdensome to confirm that a
PSAP is indeed capable of participating in E911 service provision. The
Commission is acutely aware of its responsibility to balance the needs
of the PSAPs, who presumably would need to comply with any demonstration
requirement adopted. Therefore, the Commission will carefully consider
the affects in time and money on PSAPs of any demonstration requirement
or inherent criteria before adopting final rule amendments.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

The reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements will
depend on what format the demonstration requirement, if adopted,
ultimately takes and on what criteria, if any, are adopted. The PN is
inviting public comment on this issue and is open to any suggestions
submitted in this regard. All comments will be carefully considered
before final rules are adopted.

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

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives: (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; (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.

The Commission is severely limited in this proceeding as to minimizing
the burden on small entities. The proceeding originates in Congressional
mandate with the intention of ultimately offering the most reliable,
responsive emergency services technologically possible. The critical
nature of this goal demands that all entities involved, regardless of
size, bear the same responsibility for complying with requirements
adopted to expedite reaching this goal. A delay in response caused by a
small entity could result in the same fatal consequences as a delay
cased by a large entity. However, if the rule is amended as suggested in
the PN is adopted, all entities will benefit as indicated in criteria 2
cited above, the clarification of compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule. The alternatives at this early point in the proceeding
seem to be to leave the rule as it stands, to amend the rule without
placing a demonstration burden and criteria on PSAPs, or, if the
Commission finds after reviewing the comments filed in response to the
PN that the benefits of amending the rule and adopting criteria and a
demonstration requirement outweigh the additional onus placed on PSAPs,
whether a detailed demonstration of compliance or a more general
demonstration will suffice to verify PSAP capability to participate in
Phase II of the Commission's E911 program. For example, if the rule is
amended and PSAPs are asked to demonstrate their compliance with certain
criteria, the Commission could allow PSAPs the flexibility to comply
with this requirement in whatever manner they believe best demonstrates
their capability. This alternative would place a minimal additional
reporting burden on PSAPs, but small carriers may find this an
inadequate means for determining capability. On the other hand, the
Commission could adopt a requirement that clearly states what a
satisfactory demonstration must include, thus increasing the reporting
burden on PSAPs but allowing no room for confusion over when a PSAP may
be considered E911 capable. These are issues on which the PN invites
comment from all sources.

**F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules**

None.

The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information
Center, will send a copy of the PN including the IRFA to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of
this PN, including the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be
published in the [Federal Register]{.underline}. *See* 5 U.S.C. §
604(b).

[^1]: Public Notice, "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment
    on Request for Clarification or Declaratory Ruling Concerning Public
    Safety Answering Point Requests for Phase II Enhanced 911", CC
    Docket No. 94-102, DA 01-886 (Apr. 5, 2001).

[^2]: *See* VoiceStream Comments at 10-11; Sprint Comments at 2; Qwest
    Comments at 4.

[^3]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Comments at 3-5.

[^4]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 *et. seq.*,
    has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAA). Title II of
    the CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^5]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(a)

[^6]: *See* id.

[^7]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^8]: *Id*. § 601(3).

[^9]: *Id*. § 632.

[^10]: *Id*. § 601(4).

[^11]: Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic
    Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to Office
    of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^12]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^13]: 1992 Census of Governments, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce.

[^14]: *Id*.

[^15]: *See* 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration.

[^16]: 13 C.F.R. 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^17]: FCC Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
    *Statistical Trends in Telephony*, Table 5.3 (December 2000).