Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 00-110         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Implementation of 911 Act        | ) | CC Docket No. 92-105         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| The Use of N11 Codes and Other   | * |                              |
| Abbreviated                      |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Dialing Arrangements             | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**FIFTH REPORT AND ORDER**

**CC Docket No. 92-105**

**FIRST REPORT AND ORDER**

**WT Docket No. 00-110**

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**CC Docket No. 92-105 and WT Docket No. 00-110**

**Adopted:** November 29, 2001 **Released:** December 11, 2001

By the Commission: Commissioner Abernathy issuing a statement.

paragraph

I. Introduction And Executive Summary 1

II\. Background [2](#background)

III\. Fifth Report and Order, CC Docket No. 92-105 --- Transition To
Universal Emergency Number

A. Responsibility For Establishment Of Maximum Transition Periods 4

B. Transition Periods For Nationwide Conversion To 911 As The Universal
Emergency Telephone Number 10

C. Implementation and Enforcement of Transition Period Deadlines 40

IV\. First Report and Order, WT Docket No. 00-110 --- Support Of
Comprehensive State Emergency Plans 46

V. Memorandum Opinion And Order On Reconsideration 53

VI\. Procedural Issues

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement 63

B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 64

C. *Ex Parte* Presentations 66

D. Further Information 67

VII\. Ordering Clauses 68

Appendix A --- List of Commenters

Appendix B --- Rules Sections

Appendix C --- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Appendix D --- List of Counties Without Full Implementation of Basic 911

# introduction and executive summary

1.  Today, we take further steps to implement the provisions in the
    Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (911 Act),
    enacted by Congress to promote public safety through the deployment
    of a seamless, nationwide emergency communications infrastructure
    that includes wireless communications services.[^1] Specifically,
    we:

-   Adopt a maximum period, generally ending nine months after the
    release of this Order, for carriers to transition to routing 911
    calls to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) in areas where one
    has been designated or, in areas where a PSAP has not yet been
    designated, either to an existing statewide established default
    point, if one exists, or, if not, to an appropriate local emergency
    authority;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Address steps the Commission will take to encourage and support
    States in their efforts to develop and implement end-to-end
    emergency communications infrastructure and programs for the
    improved delivery of emergency services to the public; and,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Clarify that VHF Public Coast Station (VPC) licensees are not
    required to use 911 dialing for accessing emergency services to the
    extent that they are providing maritime services.

We take these actions to ensure that the Congressional goals of the 911
Act for an expanded and improved nationwide emergency communications
system are implemented effectively and efficiently. These actions will
make emergency dialing for consumers traveling across the country
simpler, will assist carriers in delivering 911 calls more promptly, and
thus, will improve the response of public safety entities and emergency
services personnel in their efforts to save lives.

# background

2.  On August 24, 2000, we adopted the Fourth Report and Order and Third
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No. 92-105 and the Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 00-110.[^2] Pursuant to the
    911 Act, the *Fourth Report and Order* designated 911 as the
    universal emergency assistance number for both wireline and wireless
    service for reporting an emergency to, and requesting assistance
    from, appropriate authorities.[^3] The designation became effective
    upon the release of the *Fourth Report and Order* on August 29,
    2000.

3.  The *Notice* sought comment on appropriate transition periods for
    areas in which 911 is not currently in use as an emergency number.
    It also sought comment on how the Commission should facilitate
    States' efforts to deploy comprehensive end-to-end emergency
    communications systems. The Commission initiated these steps as part
    of a comprehensive process for ensuring that the Congressional goals
    of the 911 Act for an expanded and improved nationwide emergency
    communications system are implemented expeditiously, effectively,
    and efficiently. In response to the *Notice*, 11 parties filed
    comments and 3 parties filed reply comments.[^4] In this Order, we
    consider the various issues raised in these comments.

# FIFTH REPORT AND ORDER, CC DOCKET No. 92-105 \-- transition to universal emergency number

## Responsibility for Establishment of Maximum Transition Periods

4.  **[Background]{.underline}**. In the *Notice*, we sought comment on
    the appropriate transition periods for implementation of 911 dialing
    where it is not currently in use. In response to the *Notice*,
    BellSouth and Verizon raise the preliminary issue of whether the
    Commission is the appropriate entity to establish transition
    periods.[^5] BellSouth and Verizon recommend that the Commission
    allow carriers, States and localities to establish the transition
    periods, because these parties are most familiar with the particular
    circumstances faced by their particular communities.[^6] APCO, CTIA,
    SCC, and Wireless Consumers Alliance disagree, generally supporting
    the position that the Commission should establish transition
    periods.[^7] Washington State E911 Program maintains that the
    Commission should be the lead federal agency to encourage
    partnerships among public safety organizations and federal and state
    government organizations in the overall implementation regarding
    911.[^8]

5.  **[Discussion]{.underline}**. We conclude that the Commission should
    establish the 911 transition periods for carriers to implement 911
    dialing where it is not currently in use, rather than allowing
    carriers and States/localities to develop 911 transition
    implementation schedules on a case-by-case basis in the first
    instance.

6.  In this context, we find first that establishing nationwide
    standards for maximum transition periods will best achieve the
    statutory goals. We also find that establishing nationwide standards
    will avoid multiple, inconsistent transition periods that might be
    set by the States. We further find that, because improving public
    safety on a national basis is the primary objective of the 911 Act,
    the Commission is best suited to coordinate a consistent
    implementation of universal 911.[^9] We agree with Washington State
    E911 that a transition to universal 911 warrants a comprehensive
    approach.[^10] The comments of public safety groups generally
    endorse an active Commission role.[^11] We further find in this
    instance that such an approach is a better way to fulfill the 911
    Act's intent for an expeditious implementation of 911 as the
    universal emergency telephone number.[^12]

7.  As set forth below, however, we are adopting a flexible approach
    that establishes maximum periods for certain technical and
    operational aspects of the transition and recommends steps to ensure
    the prompt delivery of emergency calls across the nation. Our
    approach highlights the important role of States and localities in
    their continuing efforts to improve emergency services. The
    Commission recognizes that the use of 911 has increased
    significantly since AT&T first designated 911 as an abbreviated
    dialing code to be used to reach emergency services in the late
    1960s.[^13] Recent statistics show that a large majority of
    communities have made significant progress in the deployment of 911.
    NENA reports that close to 98% of the United States population has
    access to wireline 911 while approximately 94% of the territory of
    the United States is geographically covered by the service.[^14] As
    noted in the *Fourth Report and Order*, State and local authorities
    have worked with telecommunications carriers to use the 911
    abbreviated dialing code to provide access to increasingly advanced
    and effective emergency services capabilities, such as wireline
    Enhanced 911 (E911).[^15] In fact, most large metropolitan areas are
    served by E911. Similarly, on the wireless side, the Commission has
    put in place a set of rules requiring wireless carriers to provide
    wireless E911 beginning as early as October 1, 2001.[^16] By the
    actions we take today, we do not intend to delay or deter the
    deployment of any form of 911 service, including operation of and
    plans for E911, in communities that have already implemented the 911
    abbreviated dialing code or are planning to do so shortly. Rather,
    we establish a maximum transition period to the use of 911 as the
    emergency number in communities and areas that have not yet
    implemented that abbreviated dialing code.

8.  We also find that taking this approach in this context will help us
    ensure that the transition to 911 dialing occurs on a timely basis.
    The approach we adopt should allow carriers to coordinate 911
    implementation with a locality establishing a new centralized
    emergency response service so as to ensure that the
    telecommunications facilities and services are in place when the
    locality is prepared to begin 911 service.[^17] We conclude that
    continuing to exercise our statutory authority with respect to our
    jurisdiction over numbering administration will serve to achieve a
    more prompt implementation of the 911 Act consistent with the
    objective of ubiquitous deployment of 911 as the universal emergency
    assistance number throughout the United States.[^18]

9.  We further find that, by assuming oversight over the transition to
    the use of 911, we will facilitate our role in realizing the
    remaining goals of the 911 Act. [^19] The 911 Act contemplates a
    proactive Commission role in encouraging and assisting the States in
    overcoming barriers to the implementation of end-to-end emergency
    communications networks[^20] that include advanced safety systems
    such as "the coordination and integration of emergency
    communications with traffic control and management systems"[^21] and
    crash notification systems.[^22] Our ability to monitor effectively
    a flexible transition framework may have the collateral benefit of
    assisting us with our responsibility under the 911 Act to facilitate
    the efforts of the States in the development of end-to-end
    communications systems.[^23]

## Transition Periods for Nationwide Conversion to 911 as the Universal Emergency Telephone Number

10. **[Background]{.underline}**. The *Notice* sought comment on the
    various technical and operational issues that we should consider to
    ensure that we allow carriers sufficient time to effectuate a
    transition to the use of 911.[^24] In addition, the *Notice* sought
    comment on the steps carriers need to undertake to convert to the
    use of 911 and the suggested timeframes that will permit carriers to
    achieve transition as expeditiously as possible.[^25]

11. In general, commenters appear to agree that the technical steps
    necessary to achieve the basic capability to translate 911 should
    take approximately six months.[^26] Commenters also assert that
    additional time may be needed to account for other factors, such as
    coordination with PSAPs or answering points,[^27] consumer
    education,[^28] and conversion of state highway signs that inform
    motorists of the change to 911.[^29] Commenters do not, however,
    focus on whether possible operational and technical differences
    between wireless and wireline carriers would necessitate a longer
    transition period for wireless carriers.[^30]

12. The *Notice* also tentatively concluded that carriers should have no
    obligation to transmit 911 calls to a particular local agency or
    similar destination in areas where State and local authorities have
    not established a PSAP or other established answering point.[^31] We
    sought comment on this tentative conclusion.[^32] The comments
    divide into two groups. NENA and Wireless Consumers Alliance
    generally assert that this approach overlooks the objective of the
    911 Act for all 911 calls to be routed to some destination, *i.e*.,
    to "appropriate authorities," in accordance with section 3(a) of the
    911 Act.[^33] CTIA, BellSouth, and Verizon agree with the tentative
    conclusion, based on their view that carriers are not the entities
    best suited to determine the appropriate emergency answering point
    in the event there is none designated by State and local
    authorities.[^34]

13. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We conclude that we should adopt a
    flexible transition approach that reflects the different technical
    and operational measures that carriers need to undertake and that
    provides carriers the flexibility necessary for them to effectuate
    transition to 911 expeditiously. Initially, we note that the
    transition period adopted herein does not apply to those carriers
    who currently route 911 calls to PSAPs in their service areas.

14. Before turning to the specific transition scheme, we recognize that
    some localities may not yet have officially designated a PSAP. Until
    a PSAP is so designated, there may be some entity that for all
    practical purposes is performing the same dispatch function as a
    PSAP in receiving and relaying emergency calls.[^35] In this
    context, we address the meaning of the statutory term "appropriate
    authorities" to which calls should be delivered.[^36] We find that,
    although the 911 Act does not explicitly define "appropriate
    authorities,"[^37] this term encompasses a broad range of emergency
    services personnel, including PSAP and other entities that provide a
    similar emergency response. The 911 Act itself defines the term,
    "PSAP," as ". . . a facility that has been designated to receive 911
    calls and route them to emergency services personnel."[^38] The
    statute also provides a definition for "emergency dispatch
    providers," which ". . . shall include governmental and
    non-governmental providers of emergency dispatch services."[^39] In
    addition, the findings of the Act explicitly refer to the importance
    of "end-to-end communications infrastructure\[s\]"[^40] and
    "critical communications links"[^41] among ". . . emergency dispatch
    providers, public safety, fire service and law enforcement
    officials, transportation officials, and hospital emergency and
    trauma care facilities."[^42] Other sections of the 911 Act
    reiterate a similar list of authorities and those sections include
    the term PSAP with those authorities.[^43] Taking together the above
    statutory definitions, sections, and list of emergency services
    personnel in the 911 Act, we find it reasonable to interpret the
    statutory term, "appropriate authorities," as used in the 911 Act to
    include emergency answering points such as county sheriff offices
    (*i.e.*, governmental entities), volunteer fire departments (*i.e*.,
    non-governmental entities), or other similar points that are
    effectively functioning as PSAPs for purposes of receiving emergency
    calls, and, if necessary, relaying the calls to other emergency
    service providers, for the purpose of responding to emergencies.

15. Where carriers do not currently route 911 calls to officially
    designated PSAPs, we establish a nine-month transition period for
    each of the particular circumstances carriers will face. Where a
    PSAP has been designated, we adopt a maximum period, running from
    the release of this Order and expiring nine months later, for
    carriers to deliver all 911 calls to that PSAP. Similarly, in areas
    where no PSAP has been designated, we adopt the following
    requirement designed to ensure the completion of 911 calls: within
    nine months of the release of this Order, carriers must begin
    delivering 911 calls: (a) to a statewide established default
    point; (b) if none exists, to an appropriate local emergency
    authority, such as the police or county sheriff, selected by an
    authorized State or local entity; or, finally, (c) as a matter of
    last resort and to avoid the blocking of 911 calls, if no PSAP has
    been designated and neither a statewide default answering point nor
    an appropriate local emergency authority has been selected, to an
    appropriate local emergency authority, based on the exercise of the
    carrier's reasonable judgment, following initiation of contact with
    the State Governor's designated entity under section 3(b) of the 911
    Act. Although we believe carrier selection of an appropriate local
    emergency authority is a superior policy to blocked calls, we
    understand and appreciate carriers' reluctance to decide how these
    calls are routed. Thus, we also take this opportunity to again
    strongly encourage State and local authorities to designate the
    appropriate emergency response points. We believe these governmental
    agencies, as the primary safety and security agencies, should decide
    the routing of 911 calls. For these reasons, once a carrier has been
    made aware that no appropriate local emergency authority has been
    selected, the carrier should notify the Governor's designated entity
    as soon as practicable of that matter and allow at least 15 days for
    a response from the Governor's designated entity before proceeding
    to select an answering point on its own initiative.

16. Further, as discussed below, in transitioning to the use of 911,
    carriers must implement a permissive dialing period, during which
    emergency calls will be routed to the appropriate emergency response
    point using either 911 or the seven- or ten-digit number to allow
    time for the education of consumers as to the transition to the use
    of 911.[^44] We require carriers to continue to deliver both 911
    calls and emergency calls made using a seven- or ten-digit number
    under a permissive dialing scheme until the State or local
    jurisdiction determines to phase out the use of the seven- or
    ten-digit number entirely. Once a determination has been made to end
    a permissive dialing period, we require carriers to furnish a
    standard intercept message, in accordance with accepted industry
    practices and guidelines, to further educate callers about the
    dialing code change.

17. The transition approach we adopt here will fulfill the intent of the
    911 Act that 911 be implemented expeditiously throughout the United
    States.[^45] We further find that setting a maximum length for the
    transition period takes into account the legislative intent that
    "the transition periods should be determined by service
    area-specific circumstances and capabilities, rather than a single
    transition period applied to all regions."[^46] In addition,
    providing for a transition period in areas where there is no PSAP
    and an additional transition period once a PSAP has been designated
    should be sufficiently flexible to ensure access to 911 dialing as
    expeditiously as possible without adversely affecting prior,
    ongoing, and future State and local efforts to implement E911
    service, as well as implementation of the Commission's wireless E911
    rules.

18. *Transition for Areas Where A PSAP Exists or Once a PSAP Is
    Designated.* For areas in which States or localities have
    established a PSAP, we require that carriers complete within nine
    months of the release of this Order all technical and operational
    measures necessary to deliver 911-dialed emergency calls to the
    PSAP, regardless of the seven- or ten-digit number that is used by
    that PSAP. We emphasize that carriers may immediately commence, if
    they have not already, this transition. Further, as addressed below,
    we require carriers to provide an additional period of permissive
    dialing in which both 911 and any other emergency dialing code or
    number that has been in use for emergency purposes may be used by
    consumers to reach emergency services.

19. Some commenters argue that only a short -- or no -- transition
    period is required where a PSAP exists. Because some PSAPs may still
    be using a seven- or ten-digit number for local emergency calls, we
    conclude that a transition is necessary in this circumstance. Where
    a seven- or ten-digit number is in use by a PSAP, carriers must
    prepare and modify switches to "translate" the three-digit 911
    dialed emergency calls at the appropriate network points to the
    seven- or ten-digit emergency number in use by those PSAPs, and,
    subsequently, route the calls to them. As noted above, commenters
    generally concur that the technical measures to achieve translation
    for basic 911 can be readily implemented within a period of
    approximately six months.[^47] The record shows that translation
    entails mostly software changes that are relatively simple for
    carriers to make.[^48]

20. The record shows that the transition to 911 will entail more than
    translation, and thus, may require more than six months to complete.
    We agree with CTIA's contention that carriers also may need time to
    coordinate with local entities or authorities to ensure the
    appropriate routing and delivery of 911 calls and make database
    updates.[^49] For example, CTIA asserts that there may be PSAPs for
    local police, county sheriff, and the state highway patrol, or other
    emergency authority, all within a single area.[^50] Although we
    believe that this type of situation may occur infrequently, in such
    an event, carriers will need to coordinate with PSAPs, and
    State/local authorities, as necessary, on which PSAP should receive
    the 911 call.[^51] We find that although CTIA's comments refer to a
    situation faced by CMRS carriers who provide service to a single
    cell sector that contains multiple PSAP jurisdictions, wireline
    carriers may encounter similar situations.[^52] This and other
    routing problems that carriers may encounter are dependent on the
    service area circumstances that each carrier faces.[^53]
    Accordingly, we allow carriers additional time within which to
    coordinate and resolve any routing problems that are critical to the
    proper routing of 911 calls and provide a total period of nine
    months for carriers to complete the transition to 911.

21. Additionally, we recognize that there are few remaining areas where
    no PSAP is currently designated.[^54] Although we address the
    transition to the use of 911 in such areas below, we note that once
    a State or locality designates a PSAP, carriers must commence the
    transition to 911 immediately following that designation. As in
    areas where PSAPs have been designated as of the release date of
    this Order, we establish a similar nine month transition period for
    carriers to accomplish the necessary translation and routing work.
    Thus, carriers must deliver 911 calls to the PSAP within nine months
    of the designation.

22. *Transition for Areas Where There Is Currently No PSAP.* On the
    basis of the discussion of issues below, we conclude that for areas
    in which States/localities have not designated a PSAP, within nine
    months of release of this Order, carriers must complete the work
    necessary to send 911 calls to the default answering point in the
    State, if a State has established one. If a statewide default
    answering point does not exist, we encourage the State or locality
    to determine an appropriate local emergency authority best suited to
    receive 911 calls in that particular area. In that case, we provide
    that carriers have nine months from the date of the request by the
    State or local entity to deliver 911 calls to the selected
    appropriate local emergency authority. Finally, if no PSAP has been
    designated and neither a statewide default answering point nor an
    appropriate local emergency authority has been selected, as a matter
    of last resort and to avoid the blocking of 911 calls, we require
    carriers to identify an appropriate local emergency authority, based
    on the exercise of reasonable judgment after the initiation of
    contact with the State Governor's designated entity under section
    3(b) of the 911 Act,[^55] and to complete all translation and
    routing necessary to deliver 911 calls to such authority no later
    than nine months from the release date of this Order. With regard to
    the foregoing situations, we encourage the parties to work
    cooperatively in making the determination as to where calls should
    be delivered so as to avoid the imposition of unnecessary burdens on
    carriers and the disruption that could result from multiple,
    successive transition periods.

23. We emphasize the substantial and overriding public interest in
    having an emergency answering point to which a 911 call can be
    delivered. We agree with NENA that if a community has been using
    means other than 911 to handle emergency calls and that method
    provides an emergency response, then for all practical purposes, an
    emergency dispatch service does exist, similar to that performed by
    a "PSAP," and a 911 call should be accordingly routed in that
    area.[^56] Moreover, we also agree with NENA and Wireless Consumers
    Alliance that in those few remaining areas where a PSAP has not been
    designated, the emergency calls should be routed to some
    destination. The record indicates that there still are instances in
    which a wireless carrier is unable to determine an appropriate
    answering point for 911 calls. In such instances, carriers are
    furnishing intercept messages alerting callers that the emergency
    call cannot be completed,[^57] callers are receiving a recorded
    announcement that a non-working number has been reached, or the
    emergency call may be blocked.[^58] The requirements we adopt in
    this Order seek to eliminate or lessen those occurrences to the
    extent feasible and ensure that persons traveling across the country
    have access to emergency services. Moreover, the requirements to
    route 911 calls to a default point are consistent with the
    objectives of our current rules requiring the transmission of basic
    911 calls.[^59]

24. Therefore, until a PSAP is designated, we adopt a requirement that
    within nine months of the release date of this Order, carriers
    deliver calls to the established statewide emergency default
    answering point, if one exists.[^60] For example, in California, all
    wireless 911 calls are routed to the State Highway Traffic
    Agency.[^61] Based on record evidence of the time necessary for
    translation where a PSAP currently exists, we find that carriers
    should be capable of performing any necessary translation or routing
    to an existing statewide default answering point within the same
    nine month time frame.

25. In the event a State has not established such a default answering
    point, we find that consistent with the purpose of the 911 Act and
    language of section 3(a), as addressed above, 911 calls must
    nonetheless be routed to an "appropriate authority."[^62] Thus, we
    adopt a requirement that if there is no statewide default answering
    point as of the release date of this Order, carriers shall begin
    delivering 911 calls to an appropriate local emergency authority,
    for example, the existing local law enforcement authority.

26. We note that a State or locality should have a significant interest
    in selecting the appropriate local emergency authority to serve as
    the emergency response point it deems best suited for a particular
    area. We further realize that States or localities may prefer a
    particular default point \-- *e.g.*, police, county sheriff, local
    emergency medical services provider, or fire department. We also
    recognize that the selection of an appropriate local emergency
    authority could be an interim part of a comprehensive State approach
    under the 911 Act.[^63] Thus, we defer to the States and localities
    and require carriers to deliver 911 calls to the appropriate local
    emergency authority selected by an authorized State or local entity.
    Carriers must do so within nine months of the date of the State or
    local request to route the 911 calls to a particular point.

27. While we fully expect States and localities to designate appropriate
    local emergency authorities to receive 911 calls in virtually all
    areas in accordance with one of the above procedures, we cannot
    preclude the possibility of areas where there is no PSAP, no
    statewide default answering point, and the State or local
    authorities have not selected an appropriate local emergency
    authority. As a last resort, in order to avoid the blocking of 911
    calls in those areas, we require carriers to make a reasonable
    judgment as where to deliver 911calls,[^64] and complete all
    translation and routing necessary to deliver 911 calls to such
    authority no later than nine months from the release date of this
    Order. We find that this requirement is consistent with section 3(a)
    of the 911 Act, which requires us to provide an appropriate period
    for transition to the use of 911 in those areas where it is not in
    use as an emergency number on the date of enactment of the 911 Act,
    and with the concerns expressed by Congress concerning the ability
    of emergency services personnel to respond quickly and effectively,
    particularly in rural areas.[^65] To assist carriers in this
    determination, we require them to initiate contact with the entity
    to be designated by the State's Governor pursuant to section 3(b) of
    the 911 Act. We also encourage carriers to notify the Governor's
    designated entity as soon as practicable once they are aware that no
    appropriate local emergency authority has been selected and to allow
    at least 15 days for a response before proceeding to select an
    answering point. Discussions with public safety organizations such
    as NENA and APCO also may be appropriate. Finally, Commission staff
    will assist carriers in resolving unanticipated difficulties, to the
    extent proper and necessary. Thus, due to the overriding public
    interest for all emergency calls to be completed and not dropped for
    any reason,[^66] this requirement will ensure that there is a
    destination to which emergency calls can be delivered.

28. Further, we note that if multiple emergency service providers
    operate in a particular area, for example, police, fire and
    emergency services all operating in a particular area where a PSAP
    has not been designated, carriers are not required to deliver such
    911 calls to more than one such entity in that local area. On the
    other hand, where a specific wireless cell site serves a large area
    in which multiple emergency services jurisdictions operate, wireless
    carriers serving that area may be required to deliver 911 calls to
    each appropriate local area jurisdiction. We strongly encourage
    wireless carriers and State and local authorities to work together
    to identify the appropriate authority or authorities to whom 911
    calls should be routed from a given cell site.

29. Because we recognize that a relatively small number of jurisdictions
    have yet to designate a PSAP,[^67] we find that the overall,
    foregoing transition approach should neither be burdensome nor
    result in substantial costs to carriers. BellSouth asserts that the
    provision of 911 in the United States has been increasing.[^68] The
    record also shows that currently relatively few areas of the nation
    do not have at least basic 911 service.[^69] As noted earlier,
    available data indicates substantial progress had occurred in the
    provision of 911 service by the time of the enactment of the 911
    Act.[^70] Thus, we find that the requirements we adopt here should
    not impose an undue burden on carriers, including small or rural
    carriers, yet will further the goals of the 911 Act. Many carriers
    already are working with jurisdictions throughout the States on
    911-related activities, or in their effort to comply with Commission
    wireless E911 requirements.[^71] In addition, for a few years, NENA
    has made available to many wireless carriers information on how they
    may identify PSAPs associated with their service areas in their
    effort to comply with the current requirement in the Commission's
    rules to transmit all wireless 911 calls as a part of basic 911
    service.[^72] Indeed, for most carriers, fulfilling the requirements
    adopted in this Order will be a continuation of efforts they already
    have underway.[^73]

30. We note that the requirements we adopt in this Order require
    modification of the Commission's current rule requiring wireless
    licensees to ". . . transmit all wireless 911 calls . . . to a
    \[PSAP\] . . . ."[^74] We find these rule modifications reasonable
    in light of the clear mandate of the 911 Act to ensure a transition
    to the use of 911as the emergency number in those areas where 911
    was not in use at the time of enactment of the legislation and the
    substantial public interest in delivering all 911 calls, not just
    those that can be delivered to a PSAP. Moreover, the record
    responding to our request for comments regarding the scope of the
    carriers' obligation to direct calls to emergency response points
    other than a PSAP demonstrates a substantial need, consistent with
    the 911 Act, to refine sections 20.3 and 20.18(b) to reflect the new
    transition requirements. We have weighed the comments both for and
    against the Commission's initial tentative conclusion not to impose
    carrier obligations in those circumstances and find an overriding
    public interest that warrants the particular requirements we adopt
    today, that is, to deliver 911 calls to local appropriate emergency
    authorities.[^75] Accordingly, we are modifying those rule sections
    by including the terms "appropriate local emergency authority" and
    "state default answering point," as addressed above, in addition to
    the term PSAP.

31. Finally, we reiterate that by this Order, we are not requiring
    States and localities to establish a centralized emergency point or
    PSAP. Indeed, in the *Fourth Report and Order,* we noted that the
    911 Act does not require a State or locality to establish emergency
    service or otherwise impose obligations on States or
    localities.[^76] In light of the substantial public interest in
    having ubiquitous access to emergency service, we encourage State
    and local authorities to coordinate with carriers to eliminate any
    gaps in the delivery of emergency calls and we require carriers to
    deliver 911 calls in the manner described above.[^77] We find that
    the requirements we adopt today will minimize the risk that
    emergency calls will not get through to an emergency answering
    point, until the time when a State or locality designates a PSAP.

32. *Consumer Education, Permissive Dialing*, *and Intercept Messages*.
    The *Notice* sought comment on other factors that might affect the
    time frame for a transition.[^78] Wireless Consumers Alliance
    contends that the primary factor to consider in establishing
    transition periods is the education of consumers.[^79] As such,
    Wireless Consumers Alliance suggests that the transition period
    should include sufficient time for carriers to provide billing
    inserts that would inform consumers of the change to 911 and when it
    would occur.[^80] NENA asserts that the Commission should consider
    the time necessary for State and local jurisdictions to install or
    change highway signs showing that 911 is now the universal emergency
    assistance number.[^81] Further, because more than 20 abbreviated
    emergency numbers were in use throughout the country prior to
    enactment of the 911 Act, Wireless Consumers Alliance argues that
    there is a need to allow the use of both 911 and other current
    abbreviated emergency numbers during a transition.[^82]

33. We agree with both Wireless Consumers Alliance and NENA that an
    additional period of time is needed, before carriers no longer route
    non-911 emergency calls to PSAPs. However, in emphasizing prompt,
    rapid deployment of 911 as the universal emergency number,[^83]
    Congress sought to minimize subscriber confusion over the
    appropriate emergency number to dial, without requiring States and
    localities to establish 911 as the exclusive emergency number.[^84]
    We clarify that, until such time as States and localities
    voluntarily phase out the use of other seven- and ten-digit
    emergency telephone numbers, we expect carriers to continue to route
    non-911 emergency calls to PSAPs. Accordingly, upon completion of
    the transition period to deliver 911 calls to a PSAP, carriers must
    offer permissive dialing.

34. We require carriers to continue to deliver both 911 calls and
    emergency calls made using a seven- or ten-digit number under a
    permissive dialing scheme until the State or local jurisdiction
    determines to phase out the use of the seven- or ten-digit number
    entirely. Based on our reading of the language of the statute and
    its legislative history, Congress did not prohibit States or
    localities from using a seven- or ten-digit emergency telephone
    number. Instead, Congress placed the obligation on carriers to
    deliver all calls made using the 9-1-1 abbreviated dialing code,
    regardless of whether emergency service personnel have already
    converted to the use of 911.[^85] Thus, if we established a specific
    end-point to permissive dialing, the Commission would -- in effect
    -- be mandating the adoption of 911 by a State or locality by that
    date certain. We do not take that step here. Instead, we recommend
    that communities support permissive dialing until local residents
    are sufficiently educated to the use of 911 that it can be made the
    exclusive emergency number and alternative numbers for reaching a
    PSAP can be discontinued.[^86] SCC and other commenters assert that
    a phase-in from one number or numbers to 911 should and can occur
    within a relatively short time, especially for public safety
    reasons.[^87]

35. We decline to adopt two additional requirements suggested by
    Wireless Consumers Alliance. Specifically, Wireless Consumers
    Alliance suggests where an abbreviated dialing code other than 911
    is in use, for example #77, the Commission require carriers to
    notify the agency using such a number that it may not continue to do
    so after the transition period.[^88] We conclude such an explicit
    requirement is unnecessary, in light of the coordination we require
    carriers to undertake with State and local authorities. In addition,
    continued use of some non-911 abbreviated dialing codes may be
    appropriate in certain circumstances and is not, in our view,
    prohibited by the 911 Act.

36. Furthermore, we do not agree with Wireless Consumers Alliance that
    carriers should be required to provide billing inserts to customers
    to apprise them of the conversion to 911 as the universal emergency
    telephone number. We recognize, however, that billing inserts may be
    one appropriate means, among others, to ensure customer awareness of
    the availability of or change to a new abbreviated dialing
    code.[^89] We have previously recognized that stakeholders in
    abbreviated dialing code changes can also take other measures to
    ensure that consumers are informed of the dialing code change and
    have the incentive to pursue a course of education and
    outreach.[^90] Similarly, we encourage carriers, States and
    localities, and other parties with an interest in publicizing the
    transition to 911 to take other steps as part of their role in
    promoting the public safety. We urge the dissemination of
    information about the transition to 911 as the single emergency
    number across the United States through such means as the mainstream
    media, including newspaper, radio, and television advertisements,
    and, also, public safety announcements on billboards, road signs,
    and exclusive traffic radio channels.[^91] Carriers may consider the
    foregoing approaches as options, and we encourage them to work with
    States and localities in determining an efficient educational
    approach for an expeditious transition.

37. However, we do find that in the interests of public safety, after a
    State or locality chooses to discontinue a permissive dialing
    period, carriers must provide an intercept message when a call is
    made using the discontinued seven- or ten-digit emergency telephone
    number.[^92] This requirement is consistent with the intent of the
    911 Act to improve emergency service, especially in those areas
    where residents are accustomed to dialing a local seven- or
    ten-digit number or an abbreviated dialing code other than 911 for
    emergency service. Moreover, we have previously required a standard
    intercept message where a dialing pattern change has occurred,
    pursuant to our exclusive numbering jurisdiction under section
    251(e)(1).[^93] We find that a similar approach is warranted here.
    Thus, following the conclusion of a permissive dialing period,
    carriers must offer a standard intercept message.[^94] Carriers must
    determine the appropriate message based on the circumstances in the
    particular area. For example, the message could instruct the caller
    to hang up and dial 911 to access emergency service. Alternatively,
    the message could inform the caller of the dialing code change and
    instruct the caller to stay on the line while the call is
    transferred to emergency services personnel. [^95]

38. In the *Fourth Report and Order,* and as noted above, we indicated
    that some States or localities may want to continue certain
    abbreviated dialing code arrangements for non-emergency
    purposes.[^96] For example, State or local arrangements to use 311
    or, in other cases, \# or \* combined with a two digit number, may
    help prevent 911 call centers from being overwhelmed by
    non-emergency calls.[^97] Such arrangements may have the effect of
    improving the promptness of delivering 911 emergency service.[^98]
    Nothing in this Order is intended to impede continued use of these
    non-emergency dialing codes. We urge States and localities to
    continue to educate consumers, however, as to the transition to 911
    throughout the United States and to distinguish between 911
    emergency dialing and dialing codes for non-emergency purposes. The
    combined efforts of all interested parties to ensure that the public
    is informed as quickly as possible as to the use of 911 is critical
    to a successful and efficient transition.

39. In sum, we conclude that the foregoing approach for transition to
    911 fulfills the purposes of the 911 Act and provides substantial
    benefits to the public by facilitating prompt deployment of an
    emergency communications infrastructure throughout the United
    States.[^99] This transition scheme remains consistent with our
    current rules by ensuring delivery of 911 calls to existing PSAPs.
    [^100] Recognizing that much of the groundwork for transition has
    been already accomplished, the approach provides carriers the
    flexibility necessary to address service-area-specific circumstances
    and specific State or local factors.[^101] In addition, we find that
    the obligations that we impose on carriers reflect a related
    responsibility to coordinate with the State or locality ensuring
    that any area where 911 has not been in use will have 911 calls
    routed to an appropriate local emergency authority. For the reasons
    set forth above, we conclude that these requirements and measures
    constitute reasonable means of achieving the objectives of the 911
    Act and meeting the public safety concerns that Congress intended to
    be resolved through the designation of 911 as the universal
    emergency assistance number.

## Implementation and Enforcement of Transition Period Deadlines

40. **[Background]{.underline}**. The *Notice* sought comment on whether
    as part of a monitoring effort to evaluate the progress made to
    convert to 911 as the universal emergency assistance number, the
    Commission should require carriers to file transition reports.[^102]
    The Commission further requested comment on the nature, extent, and
    timing of the information to be provided.[^103]

41. With the exception of APCO, most commenters generally oppose a
    requirement that carriers file transition reports. APCO asserts that
    carriers may be in the best position to provide accurate information
    concerning the areas not served by 911 and the Commission should
    consider requiring them to include such information in periodic
    transition reports. BellSouth and CTIA, contend, on the other hand,
    that State and local agencies, PSAPs or public safety agencies are
    the entities that are best able to provide that information.[^104]
    CTIA refers to NENA's preparation of a "Report Card to the Nation,"
    which will identify "areas where 9-1-1 service is basic or enhanced,
    and where no service yet exists," in support of its claims that
    PSAPs and other State and local agencies are in the best position to
    provide the Commission with information regarding the transition.
    [^105] Wireless Consumers Alliance concurs with BellSouth and CTIA
    that carriers should not be required to file status reports on the
    transition;[^106] instead, carriers should be allowed to file
    requests for waiver to show why they have been unable to initiate
    911 service.[^107]

42. **[Discussion]{.underline}**.[^108] In view of the statutory mandate
    of section 3(a) of the 911 Act to ensure an expeditious transition
    to 911 dialing throughout the Nation, we find that Commission
    monitoring of the transition is warranted. We find that the filing
    of transition reports on a limited basis, principally focused on
    those areas of the country in which 911 is not currently in use,
    will assist the Commission in accomplishing the goals of the Act
    while avoiding unnecessary burden on carriers.

43. Specifically, we require carriers to file two transition reports
    covering the following geographic areas, as identified by NENA and
    found in Appendix D hereto: (1) those counties where there is no 911
    service; (2) those counties in the process of implementing 911;
    and (3) those counties that have basic 911 service only in some
    parts.[^109] The first transition report must be filed three months
    following the release of this order. The second transition report
    must be filed 15 calendar days following the end of the transition.
    Carrier transition reports must be filed with the Chiefs of the
    Common Carrier Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20554.[^110] We encourage carriers to file their
    transition reports electronically to the appropriate dedicated
    mailbox that has been established by each bureau. For ease of
    accessibility, a link to these reports will be placed on the
    Commission's E911 website. Depending upon whether the carrier's
    service is wireline or wireless, please email the report to either
    911transitionreport-ccb@fcc.gov or 911transitionreport-wtb@fcc.gov.
    In addition to the information identified below, we delegate
    authority to the Chiefs of the Common Carrier Bureau and the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau authority to require additional
    information, as necessary, to evaluate the carriers' progress in
    achieving the transition and their compliance with the transition
    requirements set forth in this Order.

44. The first transition report is aimed at ensuring that carriers have
    commenced the transition where 911 is not currently in use and at
    identifying any initial problems carriers have encountered so that
    the Commission might assist carriers in resolving them at an early
    point in the process. This report must include the following
    information: (a) pertinent carrier identification information,
    including the name of the individual or individuals filing the
    report and contact information; (b) an identification of the local
    areas covered by the report; (c) whether the carrier has identified
    the point to which 911 calls must be delivered in each such local
    area; and (d) the status of the carrier's progress in completing the
    translation and other work necessary to route the 911 calls to the
    identified emergency response point. Carriers also must inform the
    Commission in this report of any problems encountered in identifying
    the proper point to which calls should be routed and of any
    operational problems encountered in the initial stage of the
    transition. To the extent carriers experience problems in
    identifying where 911 calls should be directed, carriers must
    describe the efforts they have made at coordinating with public
    safety agencies and State and local authorities, including the State
    Governor's designated entity under section 3(b) of the Act.

45. The second transition report is aimed at ensuring that the
    transition has been completed in all relevant areas in a timely
    fashion consistent with the Commission's rules. In this second
    transition report, carriers must include the following
    information: (a) pertinent carrier identification information,
    including the name of the individual or individuals filing the
    report and contact information; (b) an identification of the local
    areas covered by the report; and (c) a certification that the
    carrier has completed the technical and routing elements of the
    transition in the local areas covered by the report**.** To
    consolidate reporting and eliminate redundant reports for a specific
    county, carriers may, at their option, collectively file both
    reports.

# Report and order, wt docket no. 00-110 \-- support of comprehensive state emergency plans

46. **[Background]{.underline}**. In accordance with the 911 Act, the
    Commission sought comment on what measures it should take to
    encourage and support efforts by the States to deploy comprehensive
    emergency communications systems based on each State's coordinated
    plan.[^111] In the *Notice,* the Commission specifically sought
    comment on its tentative conclusions with regard to engaging in a
    variety of information-sharing measures of a nature that would not
    interfere with the balance of responsibilities between this
    Commission and the States,[^112] as well as the usefulness of
    carrier information concerning deployment.[^113] In addition, the
    Commission requested that States and localities provide suggestions
    as to the types of technical and other information that would be
    most useful for us to provide on our E911 website.[^114] We also
    sought comment on the value of developing a "model" state plan and
    on any other support, in general, the Commission could provide to
    States in their development of state plans.[^115]

47. We received comments from nine parties in response to our requests.
    Only one State, Washington, provided information about the plan it
    had adopted for the implementation of the 911 Act
    requirements.[^116] Comments from American Samoa License, Inc.
    provided significant input on, among other things, the unique
    circumstances of their situation and why a "one-size-fits-all" model
    plan would not address their particular needs.[^117] On the basis of
    the record before us, we develop procedures to assist States and
    localities with implementation of their 911 Act obligations.

48. **[Discussion]{.underline}**. Section 3(b) of the 911 Act addresses
    the Commission's role in fostering the implementation of advanced
    emergency response systems. The purpose of the legislation, as
    stated in the House Report, "is to encourage investment in emergency
    communications systems and other public safety initiatives, so that
    emergency organizations of States and localities are equipped with
    21^st^ Century technology to address the public safety challenges
    they currently face."[^118] Congress recognized that, although
    technology may provide the key, developing comprehensive delivery
    systems would require "significant cooperation amongst the
    stakeholder parties, and significant leadership by all levels of
    government, . . . Federal, State and local."[^119] To further that
    cooperation, Congress assigned the FCC a leading role in performing
    such tasks as "identifying and seeking solutions to overcome
    barriers for the implementation of end-to-end emergency
    communications systems."[^120]

49. As directed by Congress, therefore, we assume a leadership role to
    encourage and support States' efforts to deploy comprehensive
    emergency communications networks by pursuing the approaches
    outlined in the *Notice*.[^121] We recognize and commend the
    tremendous efforts put forth by a large number of States and
    localities in developing "state of the art" emergency response
    systems, including systems that utilize wireless E911. We concur
    with those commenters who note that efforts to develop integrated
    comprehensive emergency communications systems would benefit
    nonetheless from the leadership of both the Commission and the State
    Governors,[^122] in light of the significant coordination and
    participation of representatives from transportation, emergency
    medical services (EMS), 911 and industry groups needed to implement
    ubiquitous deployment of an end-to-end emergency communications
    network.[^123] As ComCARE states, because the wireless environment
    is best served by planning at a larger state or regional
    level,[^124] and most, if not all, States lack such an inclusive
    planning mechanism, the parties will be able to play a more
    effective role if brought together under our leadership jointly with
    the State Governors.[^125] In addition, the Washington State E911
    Program states that the Commission can play a crucial role in
    facilitating the cooperation of local exchange carriers with
    wireless carriers despite differences in the geographic areas they
    serve or the capacity of their facilities.[^126]

50. Consistent with the record before us, we find that the informal
    approaches suggested in the Notice and by commenters, rather than
    the adoption of specific rules, will accomplish the objective that
    we support and encourage the States in their efforts without
    violating the 911 Act's directive not to impose any burden on the
    States and localities.[^127] Specifically, the Commission will
    maintain an ongoing dialog with State and local officials, through
    interactions with, for example, the National Governors' Association,
    the National Conference of State Legislators, and the National
    Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. The Commission also
    will make presentations on 911-related issues at conferences of
    various associations, including those of NENA and APCO, hold
    roundtable discussions, and provide an information clearinghouse
    function through its E911 website.[^128] We also will explore
    participation in NENA's "critical issues forums,"[^129] providing a
    website "link" for NENA's Report Card to the Nation and updates to
    that report,[^130] and assisting in the establishment of state-level
    clearinghouses.[^131]

51. Most commenters favored the suggestion in the *Notice* that we
    create a "Model" state plan.[^132] Recognizing the limitations on
    our resources, ComCARE suggests that we seek out a limited number of
    States interested in assistance and focus on them.[^133] We find
    that ComCARE's suggestion has merit and will work with the State
    Governors' designated entities to identify specific states that
    would be interested in creating such a plan for their State that
    could later be used as a "model" state plan. In the meantime, as
    NENA suggests, the Commission will work with the States and public
    safety organizations to formulate a checklist that could be used to
    develop a "coordinated state plans" using information from those
    States that are furthest along in the process as examples for
    others.[^134] In addition, we encourage States to share information
    with the Commission -- in our role as an information clearinghouse
    -- as to particular 911 solutions they have found to problems faced
    by many.[^135] We will continue to keep States and localities
    informed as to our activities in encouraging and supporting the
    States by means of the Commission's website and public notices.

52. The informal approach we adopt in this Order will allow us greater
    flexibility to support the State and local authorities with respect
    to specific areas of difficulty and to respond to specific requests
    for assistance. In particular, this approach will enable the
    Commission to be more responsive to the particular circumstances
    faced by States and localities as they progress in expanding the
    capabilities of their emergency response systems and in
    incorporating the latest location technologies, consistent with the
    vision of the 911 Act.

# Memorandum opinion and order on reconsideration

53. **[Background]{.underline}**. On September 28, 2000, Maritel, Inc.
    (Maritel) filed a Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification of
    the *Fourth Report and Order* (Maritel Petition).[^136] In its
    petition Maritel asserts that, in the *E911 First Report and Order*,
    the Commission exempted VHF Public Coast Station (VPC) licensees
    from its 911 rules and therefore these licensees are not subject to
    the 911 Act.[^137] Maritel seeks clarification that such licensees
    are not required to provide emergency service through the use
    of 911. NENA opposes the Maritel Petition.[^138] Maritel has filed a
    Reply.[^139]

54. As a Part 80 maritime licensee, Maritel must comply with both
    domestic and international distress and emergency regulations unique
    to the maritime industry.[^140] These regulations generally require
    Maritel to route emergency calls to one of the United States Coast
    Guard's (Coast Guard) forty-five Search and Rescue Coordination
    Centers.[^141] Maritel contends that routing emergency calls in a
    different manner would, in most cases, delay assistance to the
    caller, because land-based emergency dispatch personnel are not
    necessarily as well-trained to respond to emergencies on the high
    seas or inland waterways as the Coast Guard. Maritel states that the
    boating, commercial shipping, and fishing industries have been
    familiar with Coast Guard distress and emergency transmission
    requirements on the high seas and inland waterways for years and
    that requiring these mariners to use 911 to seek emergency services
    will lead to confusion and delay in the deployment of emergency
    services.[^142]

55. **[Discussion]{.underline}**. We clarify, to the extent described
    below, that VPC licensees are not required to provide emergency
    service through the use of 911. We find that, contrary to the
    arguments of some parties, the language of the 911 Act and its
    legislative history do not require a different result.

56. We conclude, first, that the statutory language itself is ambiguous
    on the question of whether VPC licensees are covered by section 3(a)
    of the Act. NENA argues that the statutory terms "wireless telephone
    service" and "within the United States" encompass the operations of
    VPC licensees and therefore, mandate that Maritel and other VPC
    licensees be subject to the 911 Act.[^143] NENA interprets the
    statute's phrase "wireless telephone service" as applying to all
    wireless services. Maritel argues that nowhere in the Senate report
    accompanying the 911 legislation is there an indication that the 911
    Act would apply to the maritime industry or VPC services.[^144]
    Furthermore, nothing in the 911 Act indicates that regulations
    derived from this legislation are to preempt or overrule any other
    FCC rules or requirements,[^145] including the Part 80 emergency and
    distress calling systems.[^146]

57. We find no such mandate as suggested by NENA in the language or
    legislative history of the 911 Act. The 911 Act does not define the
    term "wireless telephone service."[^147] Thus, under
    well-established principles of statutory construction, where a
    "statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue,
    the question . . . is whether the agency's answer is based on a
    permissible construction of the statute."[^148]

58. Since 1996, extending through the enactment of the 911 Act in
    October 1999, all Part 80 Licensees have been exempted from
    compliance with the Commission's 911 requirements.[^149] The
    pertinent rulemaking explains, however, that for various wireless
    services, changing circumstances may warrant the Commission
    revisiting the exemptions accorded.[^150] Because of the overriding
    public interest in ensuring that all 911 calls are delivered to
    emergency service providers who can assist in quickly and
    effectively dispatching assistance, we find that to the extent a VPC
    licensee offers its customers, a land-based "real-time, two-way
    switched voice service that is interconnected with the public
    switched network,"[^151] the exemption would not apply and the VPC
    licensee would be subject to the Commission's wireless E911 rules.
    On this basis, we specifically limit the exemption granted to VPC
    licensees to the extent that they offer maritime service.

59. We agree with Maritel that the statutory language and the
    legislative history accompanying the 911 Act does not address the
    question of whether the 911 Act applies to the maritime industry or
    VPC services.[^152] Furthermore, nothing in the 911 Act indicates
    that regulations derived from this legislation are to preempt or
    overrule any other FCC rules or requirements relating to those
    services,[^153] including the Part 80 emergency and distress calling
    systems.[^154] We also agree that imposing a 911 requirement across
    the board to VPC licensees will not improve the effectiveness of
    emergency response to land-based 911 callers, but would lead to
    confusion among users of the specialized maritime radio service. The
    maritime users of VPC services already have a well-established
    emergency response system in place. Such users are familiar with and
    comply with internationally mandated maritime communications safety
    standards: mariners in the United States waters know that emergency
    calls using their VPC radio service are initiated by a "MAYDAY" call
    on VHF marine channel 16 or other designated emergency channel,
    which is monitored by other mariners as well as the Coast
    Guard.[^155] Commission rules, which codify international
    agreements, specify actions that mariners must take upon hearing a
    distress call.[^156] Requiring VPC licensees to use 911 to request
    emergency service would lead to confusion by these radio users and
    potentially delay deployment of emergency services.[^157]

60. Moreover, we disagree with NENA's view that application of the
    statute to VPC licensees' maritime services is necessary to further
    the explicit purposes of the 911 Act. A chief goal of the 911 Act is
    to promote and enhance public safety through the use of 911as the
    universal emergency assistance number.[^158] The 911 Act also
    identifies this goal as one requirement for the rapid, efficient
    deployment of emergency telecommunications service.[^159] Further,
    the Senate and House Reports to the 911 Act conclude that this lack
    of a consistent number hampers the usefulness of wireless telephones
    in emergency situations, fosters confusion and uncertainty for those
    who need assistance and delays the arrival of emergency medical care
    often making the critical difference in saving lives.[^160] By
    limiting the scope of the exemption to our rules to VPC licensees'
    maritime services only, and not to any land-based services provided
    by those entities, we find that the policy goals of the 911 Act are
    not implicated.[^161]

61. NENA also suggests that the Coast Guard rescue facilities could
    function as a PSAP in that upon receiving the 911 signal, the Coast
    Guard would dispatch the appropriate emergency response.[^162] While
    we encourage cooperation among the Coast Guard and PSAPs in
    responding to emergencies, we find that NENA's suggestion does not
    take account of the complexity and specialized resources and skills
    often necessary for maritime rescues and the well-established
    interoperable modes of communication used for these purposes.[^163]
    We find no practical advantage to require VPC licensees, to the
    extent they offer maritime services exclusively, to use 911 as their
    emergency dialing number.

62. In sum, we conclude that the narrow exemption we affirm here is
    consistent with the public interest and the policy goals of the 911
    Act. For these reasons, we grant Maritel's Petition for
    Reconsideration or Clarification.[^164]

# Procedural Issues

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement

63. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^165] an
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in
    the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and the Third NPRM (Third
    NPRM) in this proceeding.[^166] The Commission sought written public
    comment on the proposals in the NPRM and the Third NPRM, including
    comment on both IRFAs. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^167]

## Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

64. The Fifth Report and Order contains a modified information
    collection. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork
    burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management
    and Budget ("OMB") to take this opportunity to comment on the
    information collection contained in this Report and Order, as
    required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.[^168] Public and
    agency comment are due 60 days from the date of publication of this
    Fifth Report and Order in the Federal Register; OMB comments are due
    120 days from the date of publication of this Fifth Report and Order
    in the Federal Register. The Commission will submit a request to OMB
    for emergency approval of the PRA burdens contained in this order.
    Once approval is received, the Commission will place an announcement
    in the Federal Register. Comments should address:

-   Whether the modified collection of information is necessary for the
    proper performance of the function of the Commission, including
    whether the information shall have practical utility.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
    collected.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques of
    other forms of information technology.

65. Written comments by the public on the information collections are
    due 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register.
    Written comments must be submitted by the OMB on the information
    collections on or before 120 days after the date of publication in
    the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the
    Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections
    contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal
    Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and
    to Ed Springer, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 New Executive Office
    Building, 725 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or
    via the Internet to Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.

## *Ex Parte* Presentations

66. Section IV of this item, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 00-110 \--
    Support of Comprehensive State Emergency Plans, continues as a
    permit-but-disclose proceeding. Members of the public, therefore,
    are advised that *ex parte* presentations are permitted, except
    during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed under
    the Commission's rules.[^169]

## Further Information

67. For further information concerning the proceedings addressed herein,
    contact David Siehl or Susan Kimmel, Policy Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau at (202) 418-1310, or Cheryl Callahan of
    the Network Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau at (202)
    418-2320.

# ordering clauses

68. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j),
    7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,
    154(i), 154(j), 157, 160, 210, 202, 208, 214, 251(e), 301, 303, 308,
    309(j), and 310, the FIFTH REPORT AND ORDER in CC Docket No. 92-105
    is hereby ADOPTED.

69. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, Part 64, new Subpart Z, of the
    Commission's rules IS ADOPTED to require wireline and wireless
    licensees to complete the transition to 911 as the universal
    emergency assistance number, as set forth in Appendix B, and WILL
    BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication in the Federal Register,
    provided however, that Part 64 of the Commission's rules, new
    Subpart Z, section 64.2503, AS ADOPTED HEREIN, concerning the
    provision of translation software WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE UPON
    approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

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

71. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7,
    10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310 of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,
    154(i), 154(j), 157, 160, 210, 202, 208, 214, 251(e), 301, 303, 308,
    309(j), and 310, the FIRST REPORT AND ORDER in WT Docket No. 00-110
    is hereby ADOPTED.

72. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration or
    Clarification of the Fourth Report and Order, in CC Docket No.
    92-105, filed by Maritel, Inc. on September 28, 2000, IS GRANTED to
    the extent described herein.

73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that authority is hereby delegated to the
    Chiefs of the Common Carrier Bureau and the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau to require additional information, as
    necessary, to evaluate carriers progress in achieving the transition
    to the use of 911 and their compliance with the transition
    requirements set forth in this Order.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas
>
> Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**LIST OF PARTIES**

American Automobile Association

American Samoa License, Inc.

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials

ATX Technologies, Inc.

BellSouth Corporation

The ComCare Alliance

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association

Maritel, Inc.

National Emergency Number Association

SCC Communications Corp.

The Verizon Telephone Companies

Washington State E911 Program

Wireless Consumers Alliance

AAA

American Samoa License

APCO

ATX

BellSouth

ComCare

CTIA

Maritel

NENA

SCC

Verizon

Washington State E911

Wireless Consumers Alliance

Appendix B

For the reasons discussed in the accompanying *Fifth Report and Order*,
parts 20 and 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:

PART 20 -- COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

1\. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless otherwise
noted.

2\. Section 20.3 is amended by adding definitions of "appropriate local
emergency authority" and "statewide default answering point" in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

**§ 20.3 Definitions.**

\*\*\*\*\*

*Appropriate local emergency authority*. An emergency answering point
that has not been officially designated as a Public Safety Answering
Point (PSAP), but has the capability of receiving 911 calls and either
dispatching emergency services personnel or, if necessary, relaying the
call to another emergency service provider. An appropriate local
emergency authority may include, but is not limited, to an existing
local law enforcement authority, such as the police, county sheriff,
local emergency medical services provider, or fire department.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) *Statewide default answering point*. An emergency answering point
designated by the State to receive 911 calls for either the entire State
or those portions of the State not otherwise served by a local PSAP.

\* \* \* \* \*

3\. Section 20.18(b) is amended to read as follows:

**§ 20.18 911 Service.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) [Basic 911 Service]{.underline}. Licensees subject to this section
must transmit all wireless 911 calls without respect to their call
validation process to a Public Safety Answering Point, or, where no
Public Safety Answering Point has been designated, to a designated
statewide default answering point or appropriate local emergency
authority pursuant to § 64.2502 of this chapter, provided that \"all
wireless 911 calls\" is defined as \"any call initiated by a wireless
user dialing 911 on a phone using a compliant radio frequency protocol
of the serving carrier.\"

**Part 64 -- MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS**

4\. The authority citation for part 64 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 47 U.S.C. 225, 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(1), 151, 154,
201, 202, 205, 218-220, 254, 302, 303, and 337 unless otherwise noted.
Interpret or apply sections 201, 218, 225, 226, 227, 229, 332, 48 Stat.
1070, as amended. 47 U.S.C. 201-204, 208, 225, 226, 227, 229, 332, 501
and 503 unless otherwise noted.

5\. The table of contents and part 64 are amended by adding subpart Z to
read as follows:

**Subpart Z -- Universal Emergency Telephone Number**

Sec. 64.2501. Definitions.

Sec. 64.2502. Obligation to transmit 911 calls.

Sec. 64.2503. Transition to 911 as the universal emergency telephone
number.

Sec. 64.2504 Obligation for providing a permissive dialing period.

Sec. 64.2505 Obligation for providing an intercept message.

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 160, 210, 202, 208,
214, 251(e), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310.

\* \* \* \* \*

**Subpart Z -- Universal Emergency Telephone Number**

**§ 64.2501 Definitions.**

\(a\) *911 call*. Any call initiated by an end user by dialing 911 for
the purpose of accessing an emergency service provider. For wireless
carriers, all 911 calls include those they are required to transmit
pursuant to section 20.18 of the Commission's rules.

\(b\) *Appropriate local emergency authority*. An emergency answering
point that has not been officially designated as a Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP), but has the capability of receiving 911 calls
and either dispatching emergency services personnel or, if necessary,
relaying the call to another emergency service provider. An appropriate
local emergency authority may include, but is not limited to, an
existing local law enforcement authority, such as the police, county
sheriff, local emergency medical services provider, or fire department.

\(c\) *Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)*. A facility that has been
designated to receive 911 calls and route them to emergency services
personnel.

*Statewide default answering point*. An emergency answering point
designated by the State to receive 911 calls for either the entire State
or those portions of the State not otherwise served by a local PSAP.

**§ 64.2502 Obligation to transmit 911 calls.** All telecommunications
carriers shall transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, to a designated
statewide default answering point, or to an appropriate local emergency
authority as set forth below.

**§ 64.2503 Transition to 911 as the universal emergency telephone
number.** As of December 11, 2001, except where 911 is already
established as the exclusive emergency number to reach a PSAP within a
given jurisdiction, telecommunications carriers shall comply with the
transition periods set forth below:

\(a\) Where a PSAP has been designated, telecommunications carriers
shall complete all translation and routing necessary to deliver 911
calls to a PSAP no later than August 11, 2002**.**

\(b\) Where no PSAP has been designated, telecommunications carriers
shall complete all translation and routing necessary to deliver 911
calls to the statewide default answering point no later than August 11,
2002**.**

\(c\) Where neither a PSAP nor a statewide default answering point has
been designated, telecommunications carriers shall complete the
translation and routing necessary to deliver 911 calls to an appropriate
local emergency authority, within nine months of a request by the State
or locality.

\(d\) Where no PSAP nor statewide default answering point has been
designated, and no appropriate local emergency authority has been
selected by an authorized state or local entity, telecommunications
carriers shall identify an appropriate local emergency authority, based
on the exercise of reasonable judgment, and complete all translation and
routing necessary to deliver 911 calls to such appropriate local
emergency authority no later than August 11, 2002**.**

\(e\) Once a PSAP is designated for an area where none had existed as of
December 11, 2001, telecommunications carriers shall complete the
translation and routing necessary to deliver 911 calls to that PSAP
within nine months of that designation.

**§ 64.2504 Obligation for providing a permissive dialing period.** Upon
completion of translation and routing of 911 calls to a PSAP, a
statewide default answering point, to an appropriate local emergency
authority, or, where no PSAP nor statewide default answering point has
been designated and no appropriate local emergency authority has been
selected by an authorized state or local entity, to an appropriate local
emergency authority, identified by a telecommunications carrier based on
the exercise of reasonable judgment, the telecommunications carrier
shall provide permissive dialing between 911 and any other seven- or
ten-digit emergency number or an abbreviated dialing code other than 911
that the public has previously used to reach emergency service providers
until the appropriate State or local jurisdiction determines to phase
out the use of such seven- or ten-digit number entirely and use 911
exclusively.

**§ 64.2505 Obligation for providing an intercept message.** Upon
termination of permissive dialing, as provided under § 64.2504 of this
part, telecommunications carriers shall provide a standard intercept
message announcement that interrupts calls placed to the emergency
service provider using either a seven- or ten-digit emergency number or
an abbreviated dialing code other than 911 and informs the caller of the
dialing code change.

[Effective Date Note:]{.smallcaps} these rules will be effective 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register except for § 64.2503 which
contains information collection and record keeping requirements and will
become effective upon approval by the Office of Management and Budget.

APPENDIX C --- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^170] Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA) were
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) [^171]and the
Third NPRM (Third NPRM) in this proceeding.[^172] The Commission sought
written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM and the Third NPRM,
including comment on both IRFAs. This present Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^173]

## NEED FOR, AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION AND FIFTH REPORT AND ORDER

In this Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Report
and Order (Fifth R&O) in CC Docket No. 92-105, and First Report and
Order (First R&O), collectively referred to as Order, in WT Docket No.
00-110, the Commission takes further steps to implement the provisions
in the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (911 Act),
enacted by Congress to promote public safety through the deployment of a
seamless, nationwide emergency communications infrastructure that
includes wireless communications services. The actions adopted in the
First R&O and Fifth R&O are intended to ensure that the Congressional
goals of the 911 Act for an expanded and improved nationwide emergency
communications system are implemented effectively and efficiently. These
actions will make emergency dialing for consumers traveling across the
country more simple and more accessible, will assist carriers in
delivering 911 calls more promptly, and thus, will improve the response
of public safety entities and emergency providers in their efforts to
save lives.

## SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES RAISED BY PUBLIC COMMENTS IN RESPONSE TO THE IFRAs

No comments were filed in direct response to the IRFAs. However, the
Commission received comments regarding several issues affecting small
entities. For example, the Commission sought comment on the appropriate
transition periods for implementation of universal 911 dialing. As
discussed in paragraphs 4-9 of the Fifth R&O, two commenters questioned
whether the Commission is the appropriate entity to establish transition
periods, arguing that the Commission should allow carriers and States
and localities to establish the transition periods because these parties
are most familiar with the particular circumstances faced by their
particular communities. The Commission disagrees, finding that to
delegate the responsibility for establishing transition periods to
carriers, States and localities could result in multiple, conflicting
transition periods. The Commission's approach is supported by the
comments of public safety groups and fulfills the 911 Act's intent for
an expeditious implementation of 911 as the universal emergency
telephone number. The Commission also sought comment on whether, as part
of a monitoring effort to evaluate the progress made to convert to 911,
we should require carriers to file transition reports. As discussed in
Paragraphs 42-45 of the Fifth Report and Order, most commenters
generally oppose such a requirement. However, the Commission believes
that the filing of transition reports, only on a limited basis, will
help the Commission to satisfy its statutory obligation to ensure an
expeditious transition to 911 dialing throughout the nation. The
requirement, as adopted, would be limited and less burdensome to
carriers then the transition report requirement suggested in the NPRM
because only two reports will need to be filed and only those carriers
providing service in areas where 911 has not been implemented as the
emergency number will be affected by this burden. This requirement is
discussed in more depth in the FRFA section considering steps taken to
minimize the significant economic impact on small entities and
alternatives considered.

Paragraphs 48-52 of the First R&O discusses ways in which the Commission
can comply with its obligation to offer support of comprehensive state
emergency plans. Although the Commission received only nine comments on
this issue, one comment, for American Samoa License, Inc., in
particular, provided significant input on, among other things, the
unique circumstances of their situation and way a "one-size-fits-all"
model plan would not address their particular needs. In response to such
comment, the Commission adopts an informal leadership approach to its
responsibilities in this regard, for example participating in
organizational meetings setup by interested parties, and placing details
of information-sharing measures by means of our website and public
notice, which we hope will encourage increased participation to which we
can add our support.

## DESCRIPTION AND ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES TO WHICH 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 adopted in this action.[^174] The RFA
generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as
the terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
governmental jurisdiction."[^175] In addition, the term "small business"
has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the
Small Business Act.[^176] 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
Small Business Administration (SBA).[^177]

A small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field."[^178] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^179] The definition of "small governmental
jurisdiction" generally means "governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts with
populations of fewer than 50,000." [^180] There are 85,006 governmental
jurisdictions in the nation.[^181] 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 50,000. However, this number includes 38,978 counties,
cities and towns, and of those, 37,556, or 96 percent, have populations
of fewer than 50,000.[^182] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio
is approximately accurate for all government entities. Thus, of the
85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 96 percent, or about
81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules.

The following list includes categories that at present may not be
subject to the 911 Act rules. At present, covered carriers include all
cellular licensees, broadband PCS licensees, and certain carriers of
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees.[^183] The SMR providers that
are presently covered include "only licensees that offer real-time,
two-way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public
switched network, either on a stand-alone basis or packaged with other
telecommunications services."[^184] For those carriers that presently do
not need to comply with the 911 requirements, such as Mobile Satellite
Service (MSS) carriers,[^185] the Commission acknowledges that, at some
point in the future, they may be required to provide appropriate access
to emergency services.

Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed definitions for small
providers of the specific industries affected. Therefore, throughout our
analysis, the Commission uses the closest applicable definition under
the SBA rules, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
standards for "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications" and
"Wired Telecommunications Carriers." [^186] According to these
standards, a small entity is one with no more than 1,500 employees. To
determine which of the affected entities in the effected services fit
into the SBA definition of small business, the Commission has
consistently referred to Table 5.3 in *Trends in Telephone Service*
(*Trends*) a report published annually by the Commission's Common
Carrier Bureau. [^187]

**Local Exchange Carriers.** According to the most recent *Trends* data,
1,335 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of local exchange services. We do not have data specifying the
number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of
operations, or are not independently owned. However *Trends* indicates
that 1,037 local exchange carriers report that, in combination with
their affiliates, they have 1,500 or fewer employees, and would thus be
considered small businesses as defined by NAICS.

We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA
analysis. As noted above, a \"small business\" under the RFA is one
that, *inter alia*, meets the pertinent small business size standard
(*e.g.*, a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer
employees), and \"is not dominant in its field of operation.\"[^188] The
SBA\'s Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small
incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance is not \"national\" in scope.[^189]
We have therefore included small incumbent carriers in this RFA
analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on
the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

Also included in the number of Local Exchange Carriers is the rural
radio telephone service. A significant subset of the Rural
Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems
(BETRS).[^190] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of them qualify
as small entities under the NAICS definition.

**Competitive Access Providers and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers
(CAPs and CLECs).** *Trends* indicates that 349 CAPs and CLECs, 87 local
resellers, and 60 other local exchange carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of competitive local exchange services. We do
not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not
independently owned and operated, however, *Trends* states that 297 CAPs
and CLECs, 86 local resellers, and 56 other local exchange carriers
report that, in combination with their affiliates, they have 1,500 or
fewer employees for a total of 439 such entities qualified as small
entities.

**Fixed Local Service Providers and Payphone Providers.** *Trends*
reports that there are 1,831 fixed local service providers and 758
payphone providers. Using the NAICS standard for small entity of fewer
than 1,500 employees, *Trends* estimates that 1,476 fixed local service
providers, in combination with affiliates have 1,500 or few employees
and thus qualify as small entities. In addition, 755 payphone providers
report that, in combination with their affiliates, they employ 1,500 or
fewer individuals.

**Wireless Telephone Including Cellular, Personal Communications Service
(PCS) and SMR Telephony Carriers.** There are 806 entities in this
category as estimated in *Trends,* and 323 such licensees in combination
with their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees and thus qualify
using the NAICS guide, as small businesses.

**Other Mobile Service Providers.** *Trends* estimates that there are 44
providers of other mobile services, and again using the NAICS standard,
43 providers of other mobile services in combination with their
affiliates hire 1,500 or fewer employees and thus may be considered
small entities.

**Toll Service Providers.** *Trends* calculates that there are 738 toll
service providers, including 204 interexchange carriers, 21 operator
service providers, 21 pre-paid calling card providers, 21 satellite
service carriers, 454 toll resellers, and 17 carriers providing other
toll services. *Trends* further estimates that 656 toll service
providers with their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees and thus
qualify as small entities as defined by NAICS. This figure includes 163
interexchange carriers, 20 operator service providers, 20 pre-paid
calling card providers, 16 satellite service carriers, 423 toll
resellers, and 15 carriers providing other toll services.

**Offshore Radiotelephone Service.** This service operates on several TV
broadcast channels that are not otherwise used for TV broadcasting in
the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. At present,
there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is
unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would
qualify as small entities under the SBA definition for radiotelephone
communications. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this FRFA, that
all of the 55 licensees are small entities, as that term is defined by
NAICS.

## DESCRIPTION OF PROJECTED REPORTING, RECORDKEEPING, AND OTHER COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

The Commission adopts a flexible approach of basic requirements based on
maximum periods for certain technical and operational aspects of a
transition and recommends steps to ensure the prompt delivery of
emergency calls across the nation. Paragraphs 10-21of the Fifth R&O
consider transition periods for areas where there is a designated public
safety answering point (PSAP) or once a PSAP is designated. For areas in
which State or local authorities have established a PSAP, the Commission
adopts a maximum nine-month transition period that runs from the release
date of the Fifth R&O, for carriers to deliver all 911 calls to that
PSAP. Subsequent to the transition period, in areas where currently
there is a PSAP, or once one is designated, the Commission establishes a
permissive dialing period that will provide carriers with times to
educate consumers on the transition. The Commission also encourages such
carriers, following the permissive dialing period to furnish a standard
intercept message. (*See* paragraphs 16 and 34 of the Fifth R&O).

Also, as detailed in paragraphs 22-31 of the Fifth R&O, in areas where
there is no PSAP, the Commission adopts the following requirements:
within nine months of the effective date of this Fifth R&O, carriers
must begin delivering 911 calls to either a statewide established
default point or, if none exists, to an appropriate local emergency
authority, such as the police or country sheriff. If a State or local
authority prefers that carriers deliver 911 calls to some other local
default point, the Commission provides that carriers will have to begin
delivering 911 calls to such a default point no later than nine months
from the date of the request by the local authority or appropriate State
entity. Once a State or local authority has formally designated a PSAP
for an area, a carrier will have a nine-month period to deliver 911
calls to that PSAP. Paragraph 27 of the Fifth R&O establishes a
requirement that carriers operating in areas where no appropriate local
emergency authority has been selected to contact, as soon as possible,
the entity designated by the governor to assist in implementation of
911, and to allow 15 days for a response. If none is forthcoming, then
carriers should exercise reasonable judgement in determining where to
deliver 911 calls.

Paragraphs 43-45 of the Fifth R&O consider implementation and
enforcement of transition period deadlines. In this regard, the
Commission adopts a limited transition report requirement which would
provide that carriers serving areas where 911 is not in use as the
emergency number on the date of enactment of the law file two reports at
detailed in paragraphs 43-45 of the Fifth R&O. Also, in this regard, the
Commission indicates that a party use the section 208 complaint process
to pursue a claim against a carrier for violating the 911 Act or the
Commission's rules.

## 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 and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) any exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.[^191]

The Commission is limited in establishing less stringent requirements
for small entities in this proceeding by the critical public safety
issues of concern and by legislative mandate. The results of delayed or
insufficient response to wireless 911 calls can be equally fatal whether
the carrier involved is a large or small entity. When given alternatives
which do not compromise the public safety goals of this proceeding but
offer all entities the flexibility to carry out their responsibilities
in a way that is tailored to their individual locality and its needs,
the Commission, in the Fifth R&O and First R&O, has chosen the more
flexible option. For example, in areas where there is neither a PSAP nor
a statewide default answering point, many of which are served by small
carriers or are governed by small entities, an existing local law
enforcement agency such as a country sheriff could serve as the local
emergency authority.

On the other hand, several carrier-commenters recommend that the
Commission allow carriers and States and localities to establish
transition periods for implementation of 911 dialing. As discussed in
paragraphs 4-9 of the Fifth R&O, the Commission declines to adopt this
proposal finding that to delegate such authority to carriers and PSAPs
could result in multiple, conflicting transition periods and create
confusion in critical emergency situations as travelers move from one
locality to another. Further, the Commission finds that delegating the
authority to establish 911 transition periods to carriers and PSAPS
could hinder the Commission 's ability to ensure that the transition to
911 dialing occurs on a timely basis and could hinder the Commission's
overall ability to monitor the transition to 911 as the nationwide
emergency number. If the Commission had authorized carriers, States and
localities to establish 911 transition periods, it would place the
responsibility and burden for this obligation on the entities, many of
whom are small. It should be noted, however, that the Commission
recognized the need for a transition period, noting the fluid nature of
technology, and provided the flexible transition period adopted in the
Fifth R&O. The transition period will allow both large and small
carriers time not only to complete the technological updates and
coordination which may be necessary to provide 911 service, but will
also provide carriers with time to educate the public regarding 911
service. Also, in establishing flexible transition periods, the
Commission recognizes that individual service areas face different
technical and operational measures thus providing, for example, a
different timetable for carriers operating where there is currently no
PSAP than for those who already have a designated PSAP.

#  {#section .unnumbered}

In this regard, as discussed in paragraphs 32-39, the Commission elects
not to require that carriers educate the public about 911 transition,
but simply encourages carriers to plan and provide time in the
transition period for planning and executing a public education program.
Several commenters suggest additional requirements regarding educating
the public, which the Commission found to be unnecessary and burdensome,
particularly on small entities. One commenter, for example, proposed a
requirement that carriers service areas that currently use non 911
abbreviated numbers for emergency purposes, notify the agency using such
numbers that they will not be available after the transition period. The
same commenter recommended requirements for carriers to provide billing
inserts apprising customers of the conversion to 911 as the universal
emergency assistance number. The Commission encourages such public
education efforts, but after the permissive dialing period is
discontinued, requires the carriers to intercept calls made via non-911
emergency numbers with an announcement to the caller to dial 911 if the
call is an emergency. This offers all carriers, including small
carriers, the flexibility to design the appropriate public education
program that best satisfies the need for 911 education within the
individual service area, while offering the carrier come control over
expenditures in this area.

In one area, however, the Commission, faced with its legislative mandate
to monitor the progress of carriers in the transition to 911, adopted a
requirement that would particularly impact on rural and small carriers.
As indicated in paragraphs 42-45 of the Fifth R&O, the Commission adopts
a limited requirement for transition reports. In the NPRM, the
Commission proposed a broader approach to transition reports that would
affect all carriers and would be filed on a more regular basis than the
requirement adopted in the Fifth R&O. The adopted requirement states
that only those carriers providing service in areas where 911 is not in
use as the emergency number on the date of enactment of the law file two
reports. The filing of the reports will be limited to those counties
where there is no 911 service; those counties that are in the process of
implementing 911; and those counties that have basic 911 service only in
some parts. The first report is to be filed March 11, 2002 and the
second report 15 calendar days after the end of the transition period.
Although the actual regulation is less burdensome overall on all
carriers, it is likely which do not yet offer 911 service would be small
entities as defined by the SBA. In addition, as described in paragraph
27 of the Fifth R&O, the Commission adopts a requirement that carriers
servicing areas where no PSAP or appropriate local emergency authority
has been established must initiate contact with the entity designated by
the governor before exercising reasonable judgment as to where to
deliver 911 calls.

The Commission recognizes that the burden for making progress towards
911 implementation will fall, during the transition period, mainly on
small and rural entities because they are most likely to have the most
progress to make in implementing 911. (They may cover larger, less
populated areas with fewer medical or law enforcement facilities who may
face funding problems and who may have farther to go in achieving the
expensive technological advances which facilities servicing more urban
areas have had access to for some time. By the same token, however,
these same disadvantages that many such small carriers and State or
local governments face, also dictate a more drastic need for optimum 911
emergency service as quickly as possible.) The Commission has tried to
make compliance with 911 rules and implementation dates as fair as
possible to small entities by, for example, establishing flexible
transition periods. In establishing the limited transition report
requirement, the Commission provided the carriers might, at their
option, consolidate reporting and eliminate redundant reports by filing
the two transition reports collectively, thus saving the affected
carriers time and finances. It is intended that the transition reports
will provide the Commission with information leading to solutions to the
unique problems faced by small entities in the implementation of 911
service. In addition, the Commission hopes the reporting process will
generate a cooperative dialogue regarding how entities with similar
problems can resolve such issues.

The Commission, instead of establishing a proposed program that would
require carriers, and PSAPS, large and small, to provide information to
each other or to the Commission regarding problems exclusive to their
locality establishes an informal program in which the Commission would
serve as a clearinghouse for such information. Further, instead of
establishing a coordination requirement forcing PSAPs and carriers to
meet to discuss intra-locality issues, the Commission emphasizes the
importance of assuming a leadership rule in providing coordination and
technical assistance and endorses the joint leadership of the Commission
and State Governors in this area to assist parties involved with
integrated comprehensive emergency communications systems. (Paragraphs
46-52 of the First R&O.)

# **[Report to Congress]{.underline}: The Commission will send a copy of this decision, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(a). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of this decision and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. 604(b).**  {#report-to-congress-the-commission-will-send-a-copy-of-this-decision-including-this-frfa-in-a-report-to-be-sent-to-congress-pursuant-to-the-small-business-regulatory-enforcement-fairness-act-of-1996-5-u.s.c.-801a1a.-in-addition-the-commission-will-send-a-copy-of-the-order-including-this-frfa-to-the-chief-counsel-for-advocacy-of-the-small-business-administration.-a-copy-of-this-decision-and-frfa-or-summaries-thereof-will-also-be-published-in-the-federal-register.-see-5-u.s.c.-604b. .unnumbered}

APPENDIX D[^192]\-- List of Counties Without Full Implementation of
Basic 911

I. COUNTIES WHERE THERE IS NO 911 SERVICE

+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| **COUNTY NAME**                     | **STATE NAME**       | **     |
|                                     |                      | FIPS** |
|                                     |                      |        |
|                                     |                      | **CO   |
|                                     |                      | DE**[^ |
|                                     |                      | 193]** |
|                                     |                      | ^\*^** |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 1.  Greene                          | Alabama              | 01063  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 2.  Anchorage                       | Alaska               | 02020  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 3.  Lake and Peninsula              | Alaska               | 02164  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 4.  Matanuska-Susitna               | Alaska               | 02170  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 5.  Nome                            | Alaska               | 02180  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 6.  Southeast Fairbanks             | Alaska               | 02240  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 7.  Wade Hampton                    | Alaska               | 02270  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 8.  Cleveland                       | Arkansas             | 05025  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 9.  Johnson                         | Arkansas             | 05071  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 10. Scott                           | Arkansas             | 05127  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 11. San Juan                        | Colorado             | 08111  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 12. Atkinson                        | Georgia              | 13003  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 13. Baker                           | Georgia              | 13007  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 14. Berrien                         | Georgia              | 13019  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 15. Bleckley                        | Georgia              | 13023  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 16. Calhoun                         | Georgia              | 13037  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 17. Candler                         | Georgia              | 13043  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 18. Chattahoochee                   | Georgia              | 13053  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 19. Clay                            | Georgia              | 13061  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 20. Clinch                          | Georgia              | 13065  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 21. Cook                            | Georgia              | 13075  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 22. Crawford                        | Georgia              | 13079  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 23. Dooly                           | Georgia              | 13093  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 24. Irwin                           | Georgia              | 13155  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 25. Johnson                         | Georgia              | 13167  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 26. Lanier                          | Georgia              | 13173  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 27. Macon                           | Georgia              | 13193  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 28. Marion                          | Georgia              | 13197  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 29. McIntosh                        | Georgia              | 13191  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 30. Pike                            | Georgia              | 13231  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 31. Quitman                         | Georgia              | 13239  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 32. Randolph                        | Georgia              | 13243  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 33. Schley                          | Georgia              | 13249  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 34. Stewart                         | Georgia              | 13259  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 35. Talbot                          | Georgia              | 13263  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 36. Taliaferro                      | Georgia              | 13265  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 37. Taylor                          | Georgia              | 13269  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 38. Telfair                         | Georgia              | 13271  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 39. Warren                          | Georgia              | 13301  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 40. Webster                         | Georgia              | 13307  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 41. Wheeler                         | Georgia              | 13309  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 42. Alexander                       | Illinois             | 17003  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 43. Brown                           | Illinois             | 17009  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 44. Calhoun                         | Illinois             | 17013  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 45. Clay                            | Illinois             | 17025  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 46. Edwards                         | Illinois             | 17047  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 47. Fayette                         | Illinois             | 17051  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 48. Greene                          | Illinois             | 17061  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 49. Hamilton                        | Illinois             | 17065  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 50. Hardin                          | Illinois             | 17069  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 51. Henderson                       | Illinois             | 17071  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 52. Iroquois                        | Illinois             | 17075  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 53. Jefferson                       | Illinois             | 17081  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 54. Jersey                          | Illinois             | 17083  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 55. La Salle                        | Illinois             | 17099  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 56. Menard                          | Illinois             | 17129  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 57. Moultrie                        | Illinois             | 17139  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 58. Pope                            | Illinois             | 17151  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 59. Putnam                          | Illinois             | 17155  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 60. Schuyler                        | Illinois             | 17169  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 61. Shelby                          | Illinois             | 17173  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 62. Stark                           | Illinois             | 17175  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 63. Wayne                           | Illinois             | 17191  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 64. Martin                          | Indiana              | 18101  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 65. Parke                           | Indiana              | 18121  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 66. Elk                             | Kansas               | 20049  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 67. Wallace                         | Kansas               | 20199  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 68. Cumberland                      | Kentucky             | 21057  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 69. Gallatin                        | Kentucky             | 21077  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 70. Lewis                           | Kentucky             | 21135  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 71. Owsley                          | Kentucky             | 21189  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 72. Pendleton                       | Kentucky             | 21191  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 73. Robertson                       | Kentucky             | 21201  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 74. Catahoula                       | Louisiana            | 22025  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 75. La Salle                        | Louisiana            | 22059  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 76. Red River                       | Louisiana            | 22081  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 77. St. Helena                      | Louisiana            | 22091  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 78. Tensas                          | Louisiana            | 22107  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 79. Aroostook                       | Maine                | 23003  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 80. Washington                      | Maine                | 23029  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 81. Gogebic                         | Michigan             | 26053  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 82. Keweenaw                        | Michigan             | 26083  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 83. Ontonagon                       | Michigan             | 26131  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 84. Schoolcraft                     | Michigan             | 26153  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 85. Choctaw                         | Mississippi          | 28019  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 86. Clay                            | Mississippi          | 28025  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 87. Tallahatchie                    | Mississippi          | 28135  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 88. Barry                           | Missouri             | 29009  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 89. Bates                           | Missouri             | 29013  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 90. Benton                          | Missouri             | 29015  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 91. Bollinger                       | Missouri             | 29017  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 92. Carroll                         | Missouri             | 29033  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 93. Carter                          | Missouri             | 29035  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 94. Chariton                        | Missouri             | 29041  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 95. Clark                           | Missouri             | 29045  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 96. Dade                            | Missouri             | 29057  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 97. Douglas                         | Missouri             | 29067  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 98. Hickory                         | Missouri             | 29085  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 99. Iron                            | Missouri             | 29093  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 100. Knox                           | Missouri             | 29103  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 101. Lewis                          | Missouri             | 29111  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 102. McDonald                       | Missouri             | 29119  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 103. Oregon                         | Missouri             | 29149  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 104. Osage                          | Missouri             | 29151  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 105. Ozark                          | Missouri             | 29153  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 106. Putnam                         | Missouri             | 29171  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 107. Randolph                       | Missouri             | 29175  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 108. Reynolds                       | Missouri             | 29179  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 109. Ripley                         | Missouri             | 29181  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 110. Schuyler                       | Missouri             | 29197  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 111. Scotland                       | Missouri             | 29199  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 112. Shannon                        | Missouri             | 29203  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 113. St. Clair                      | Missouri             | 29185  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 114. Vernon                         | Missouri             | 29217  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 115. Washington                     | Missouri             | 29221  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 116. Wayne                          | Missouri             | 29223  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 117. Worth                          | Missouri             | 29227  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 118. Logan                          | Nebraska             | 31113  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 119. Nemaha                         | Nebraska             | 31127  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 120. Pawnee                         | Nebraska             | 31133  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 121. Perkins                        | Nebraska             | 31135  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 122. Red Willow                     | Nebraska             | 31145  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 123. Rock                           | Nebraska             | 31149  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 124. Hamilton                       | New York             | 36041  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 125. Schoharie                      | New York             | 36095  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 126. Seneca                         | New York             | 36099  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 127. Steuben                        | New York             | 36101  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 128. Carroll                        | Ohio                 | 39019  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 129. Columbiana                     | Ohio                 | 39029  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 130. Harrison                       | Ohio                 | 39067  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 131. Meigs                          | Ohio                 | 39105  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 132. Monroe                         | Ohio                 | 39111  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 133. Noble                          | Ohio                 | 39121  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 134. Washington                     | Ohio                 | 39167  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 135. Cimarron                       | Oklahoma             | 40025  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 136. Coal                           | Oklahoma             | 40029  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 137. Cotton                         | Oklahoma             | 40033  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 138. Dewey                          | Oklahoma             | 40043  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 139. Grant                          | Oklahoma             | 40053  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 140. Haskell                        | Oklahoma             | 40061  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 141. Kingfisher                     | Oklahoma             | 40073  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 142. McIntosh                       | Oklahoma             | 40091  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 143. Murray                         | Oklahoma             | 40099  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 144. Nowata                         | Oklahoma             | 40105  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 145. Osage                          | Oklahoma             | 40113  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 146. Roger Mills                    | Oklahoma             | 40129  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 147. Wagoner                        | Oklahoma             | 40145  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 148. Dewey                          | South Dakota         | 46041  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 149. Gregory                        | South Dakota         | 46053  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 150. Haakon                         | South Dakota         | 46055  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 151. Harding                        | South Dakota         | 46063  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 152. Jackson                        | South Dakota         | 46071  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 153. Jones                          | South Dakota         | 46075  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 154. Todd                           | South Dakota         | 46121  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 155. Ziebach                        | South Dakota         | 46137  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 156. Grainger                       | Tennessee            | 47057  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 157. Lake                           | Tennessee            | 47095  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 158. Alleghany                      | Virginia             | 51005  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 159. Appomattox                     | Virginia             | 51011  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 160. Bland                          | Virginia             | 51021  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 161. Lee                            | Virginia             | 51105  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 162. Grant                          | West Virginia        | 54023  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 163. Randolph                       | West Virginia        | 54083  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 164. Ritchie                        | West Virginia        | 54085  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 165. Bayfield                       | Wisconsin            | 55007  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 166. Forest                         | Wisconsin            | 55041  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 167. Iron                           | Wisconsin            | 55051  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+
| 168. Menominee                      | Wisconsin            | 55078  |
+-------------------------------------+----------------------+--------+

II\. COUNTIES IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING 911 SERVICE

+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| **COUNTY NAME**                      | **STATE NAME**        | **F   |
|                                      |                       | IPS** |
|                                      |                       |       |
|                                      |                       | **C   |
|                                      |                       | ODE** |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 1.  Pike                             | Alabama               | 01109 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 2.  Bond                             | Illinois              | 17005 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 3.  Adair                            | Missouri              | 29001 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 4.  Atchison                         | Missouri              | 29005 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 5.  Lewis                            | New York              | 36049 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 6.  Vinton                           | Ohio                  | 39163 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 7.  Saluda                           | South Carolina        | 45081 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 8.  Dickenson                        | Virginia              | 51051 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 9.  Hardy                            | West Virginia         | 54031 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+

III\. COUNTIES WHERE THERE IS PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION OF BASIC SERVICE

+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| **COUNTY NAME**                      | **STATE NAME**        | **F   |
|                                      |                       | IPS** |
|                                      |                       |       |
|                                      |                       | **C   |
|                                      |                       | ODE** |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 1.  Adair                            | Oklahoma              | 40001 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 2.  Blaine                           | Oklahoma              | 40011 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 3.  Garvin                           | Oklahoma              | 40049 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 4.  Okfuskee                         | Oklahoma              | 40107 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 5.  Washita                          | Oklahoma              | 40149 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+
| 6.  Woodward                         | Oklahoma              | 40153 |
+--------------------------------------+-----------------------+-------+

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY**

***In re: Implementation of 911 Act, The Use of N11 Codes and Other
Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, WT Docket No. 00-110, CC Docket No.
92-105, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Report
and Order.***

Today's order is a significant step towards establishing 911 as the
universal emergency number throughout the United States. As Congress
directed us through the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of
1999, the Commission has crafted a set of flexible rules to govern the
transition process for those areas of the country that do not currently
utilize 911. This process is, by necessity, a cooperative one. The
Commission must work with state governments, the public safety
community, carriers, and the public to ensure a seamless and efficient
transition. The Commission is committed to serving a key role as a
convenor for the key constituencies, a clearinghouse for information and
technical expertise, and, if necessary as an enforcer of our rules.
However, we cannot do this alone. Carriers must ensure that 911 calls
are routed properly and always result in contact with public safety
personnel. Perhaps most importantly, this process relies on state and
local governments to designate or create public safety answering points
or other emergency authorities that will field new 911 calls. It is my
strong preference that carriers be told by state and local governments
where to route 911 emergency calls. This is by no means a simple
process. Many areas of the country have multiple police, fire and rescue
jurisdictions; many wireless cell sites cover multiple municipalities,
counties, or even states. Moreover, many of the areas that do not yet
have 911 services are sparsely populated with public safety services
located tens of miles away. These are all daunting challenges, but as a
result of meeting them the American people will soon enjoy the safety
and security of knowing that anytime of day, anywhere across the USA,
help is only three digits away.

[^1]: Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. No.
    106-81, enacted Oct. 26, 1999, 113 Stat. 1286, amending the
    Communications Act of 1934, §§ 222, 251 (911 Act).

[^2]: Implementation of the 911 Act, The Use of N11 Codes and other
    Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, CC Docket No. 92-105 and WT Docket
    No. 00-110*, Fourth Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 17079
    (2000) (*Fourth Report and Order*). *The Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* in CC Docket No. 92-105 and the *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* in WT Docket No. 00-110 are referred to collectively
    (*Notice*).

[^3]: Section 3 of the 911 Act, amending § 251(e) of the Act, provides
    as follows:

    > The Commission and any agency or entity to which the Commission
    > has delegated authority under this subsection shall designate
    > 9-1-1 as the universal emergency telephone number within the
    > United States for reporting an emergency to appropriate
    > authorities and requesting assistance. The designation shall apply
    > to both wireline and wireless telephone service. In making the
    > designation, the Commission (and any such agency or entity) shall
    > provide appropriate transition periods for areas in which 9-1-1 is
    > not in use as an emergency telephone number on the date of
    > enactment of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of
    > 1999.

[^4]: A list of parties filing comments and reply comments in response
    to the notices, along with short title references used to cite to
    commenting parties, appears in Appendix A. We note that we also
    received two *ex parte* filings from AAA and ATX, which are a part
    of the record in WT Docket No. 00-110. We do not, however, address
    those *ex parte* comments and other comments insofar as they raise
    issues concerning telematics, because we consider those issues
    outside the scope of this proceeding. In this regard, we deny WCA's
    "petition for rulemaking" that was included as part of its comments.
    *See* WCA Comments at 12-14. We do not intend our treatment here to
    be dispositive of how the AAA and ATX comments are treated in GEN
    Docket No. 00-185, concerning our pending inquiry into high-speed
    access to the internet over cable and other facilities.

[^5]: BellSouth Comments at 7; Verizon Comments at 2.

[^6]: BellSouth Comments at 7; Verizon Comments at 2.

[^7]: *See*, *e.g.*, Association of Public-Safety Communications
    Officials (APCO) Comments at 2; Cellular Telecommunications and
    Internet Association (CTIA) Comments at 2-3; SCC Communications
    Corp. (SCC) Comments at 2-3; Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at
    9-12.

[^8]: *See* Washington State E911 Program (Washington State E911)
    Comments at 3.

[^9]: *See* APCO Comments at 2 (submitting that current uncertainty in
    number and location of areas where basic 911 does not exist results
    in difficulty to determine approaches to achieve universal 911).

[^10]: *See* Washington State E911 Comments at 3 (suggesting need for
    implementation to be done in a comprehensive manner, *e.g.*,
    regarding transition in number usage); *see also*, House Report at
    13 (1999) (noting that expeditious implementation of section 3(a)
    will serve to increase public safety by minimizing subscriber
    confusion over the appropriate emergency number to call).

[^11]: *See generally*, APCO Comments; NENA Comments and Reply Comments;
    Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments.

[^12]: *See* NENA Reply Comments at 1 (emphasizing that transition to
    911 must not be protracted in any area where some form of emergency
    response can be generated by dialing a telephone number).

[^13]: *Fourth Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17084 (para. 9).

[^14]: National Emergency Number Association, Report Card to the Nation,
    Congressional Summary 3, 8 (2001) (NENA RCN) (also reporting that
    231 counties have neither wirelines nor wireless 911 service). *Cf.*
    [[http://www.nena.org/PressRoom_Publications/9-1-1_facts.htm]{.underline}](http://www.nena.org/)
    (indicating that close to 97.8% of the U.S. population has access to
    911 (visited Nov. 28, 2001) (site updated Sept. 13, 2001).

[^15]: *See* *Fourth Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17084 (para. 9),
    citing *E911 First Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 18678 (paras.
    1-2).

[^16]: Phase I: 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.18(d), (j); Phase II: 47 C.F.R §§
    20.18(e)-(h), (j).

[^17]: *See*, *e.g.*, Verizon Comments at 2 (indicating that as States
    or communities continue to establish emergency programs, it is
    Verizon's practice to coordinate with a community before initiating
    911service).

[^18]: *See* 911 Act (preamble paragraph stating that the statute is an
    act "\[t\]o promote and enhance public safety through use of 9-1-1
    as the universal emergency assistance number, further deployment of
    wireless 9-1-1 service, . . . , encouragement of . . . operation of
    . . . ubiquitous . . . networks for personal wireless services, and
    for other purposes.) *See also* 911 Act at section 2(b).

[^19]: *See*, *e.g.*, 911 Act at section 2(a)(2) (stating that the
    rapid, efficient deployment of emergency telecommunications service
    requires, among other things, the designation of 911 as the
    emergency number throughout the Nation); 911 Act at section 2(a)(5)
    (referring to emergency care systems, particularly in rural areas of
    the Nation); *see also*, 911 Act at section 2(a)(6); House Report at
    13-14.

[^20]: *See* House Report, at 7-8.

[^21]: 911 Act § 2(a)(2).

[^22]: 911 Act § 2(a)(5).

[^23]: *See* 911 Act at section 3(b); Senate Report at 6; *see infra*
    Section IV, paras. 46-52.

[^24]: *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17086-87 (para. 19).

[^25]: *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17086-87 (para. 19).

[^26]: *See* SCC Comments at 2; Verizon Comments at 1-2 (estimating six
    months for basic 911 service and eighteen to twenty-four months for
    complex E911 systems); *see also*, CTIA Reply Comments at 2 (making
    technical changes to translate 911 calls will not be time
    consuming). *Cf.* Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 10
    (referring to period of less than thirty days to reprogram mobile
    switching centers (MSCs)).

[^27]: *See* CTIA Comments at 2-3.

[^28]: SCC Comments at 3; Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 9-11.

[^29]: *See* NENA Comments at 3.

[^30]: *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17087 (para. 20). We find outside the
    scope of this proceeding the assertions of APCO and Washington State
    E911 that wireless carriers may encounter problems in relaying
    location information through wireline carriers who possess the
    original connection to a PSAP. APCO Comments at 3; Washington State
    E911 Comments at 3-4. *See* Letter from Marlys R. Davis, E911
    Program Manager, King County, Washington E911 Program Office,
    Department of Information and Administrative Services, to Thomas J.
    Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission, dated May 25, 2000, *recon. pending*.

[^31]: *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17087 (para. 21).

[^32]: *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17087 (para. 21).

[^33]: NENA Comments at 4-5; Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at
    6-7.

[^34]: CTIA Comments at 4; BellSouth Comments at 7-8; Verizon Comments
    at 2. *See also*, APCO Comments at 2 (asserting that requiring
    carriers to do their part to make 911 possible is of little benefit
    in the absence of a PSAP to route calls to the appropriate emergency
    response agency),

[^35]: For example, there may exist an emergency response center or
    emergency dispatch provider that may act like a PSAP, *i.e.* a fire
    station may call the county sheriff (or local police) where the
    emergency falls within the latter's jurisdiction.

[^36]: 911 Act at section 3(a), 47 U.S.C. § 251(e) (mandating that the
    Commission designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone
    numbers "for reporting an emergency to appropriate authorities . . .
    ." and ". . . provide appropriate transition periods for areas in
    which 9-1-1 is not in use . . . .").

[^37]: *See* Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 6 (asserting that
    section 2(a)(6) of the 911 Act "delineates" the term, appropriate
    authorities). *Cf.* 911 Act at section 2(a)(6).

[^38]: 911 Act at section 6(3), 47 U.S.C. §615(b).

[^39]: 911 Act at section 6(7).

[^40]: 911 Act at section 2(a)(1).

[^41]: 911 Act at section 2(a)(6).

[^42]: 911 Act at section 2(a)(6); *see also*, 911 Act at section
    2(a)(1) for the inclusion of the same entities.

[^43]: *See* Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 5-6 (citing the 911
    Act at sections 4(a) (parity) and 5 (consumer proprietary network
    information)).

[^44]: A permissive dialing period allows the use of either 911 or the
    other current emergency dialing number since both are routed to the
    same PSAP. We note that the permissive dialing period will commence
    immediately for carriers who are currently providing the delivery of
    emergency calls to PSAPs via 911 and other current emergency dialing
    numbers, as these carriers have already completed the translation to
    911.

[^45]: *See* 911 Act at section 2(a)(2). *See also*, House Report at 13.

[^46]: House Report at 13-14.

[^47]: *See* *supra* at para. 11 and n.26.

[^48]: CTIA Comments at 2; NENA at 2; SCC Comments at 2; Wireless
    Consumers Alliance Comments at 9-10 (asserting that wireless
    carriers can quickly program their mobile switching centers (MSCs),
    and add 911 to them (MSCs) without disrupting the connection of
    emergency calls using other abbreviated numbers); *see* Verizon
    Comments at 1-2 (referring to a minimum of six months for the
    simplest 911 service); CTIA Reply Comments at 2-3 (generally
    concurring with comments of NENA and Wireless Consumers Alliance);
    NENA Reply Comments at 1.

[^49]: *See* CTIA Comments at 2-3.

[^50]: CTIA Comments at 3.

[^51]: *See* CTIA Comments at 3.

[^52]: *See generally*, Verizon Comments at 1 n.3 (noting that comments
    address issues relating to implementation of 911 by local Verizon
    wireline telephone companies).

[^53]: Such problems may also involve the provision of transport for 911
    service across LATA boundaries for purposes of routing emergency
    calls. *See generally*, Washington State E911 Comments at 4.

[^54]: NENA RCN at 3, 8.

[^55]: *See supra* para. 15.

[^56]: NENA Comments at 4.

[^57]: CTIA Reply Comments at 4.

[^58]: BellSouth Comments at 8; *see also*, CTIA Reply Comments at 4.

[^59]: Sections 20.18(b) and 22.921 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R.
    § 20.18(b) (requiring CMRS carriers to transmit all 911 calls to a
    PSAP); 47 C.F.R. § 22.921 (concerning call completion requirements
    for dual mode and analog phones).

[^60]: *See* In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to
    Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22665, 22713-14 (1997)
    (paras. 98-99) (requiring 911 calls to be routed to incumbent PSAPs
    until "appropriate" or "designated" PSAP is determined by State or
    local entity) (*E911 First Reconsideration Order*).

[^61]: *See* *E911 First Reconsideration Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22713
    n.255 (noting the routing of wireless emergency calls in
    California). *See* *Ex Parte* Memorandum from D. Siehl, WTB Policy
    Division, to M. Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
    April 11, 2001 (noting that Maine routes all wireless calls to one
    of four regional State Police communications centers; other States
    may have default routing for a part of the state).

[^62]: 911 Act at section 3(a).

[^63]: *See infra* Section IV (addressing Commission support of State
    emergency plans deploying end-to-end communications infrastructures,
    pursuant to § 3(b) of the 911 Act).

[^64]: In instances where carriers may encounter a refusal by a local
    law enforcement or other local authority to act as a default point
    due to, *e.g.*, lack of adequate staffing, carriers should initiate
    discussions with the appropriate State authorities and the entity to
    be designated by each State's governor under section 3(b) of the 911
    Act, to coordinate on what the default point should be for each
    locality. Commission staff will assist in resolving unexpected
    difficulties.

[^65]: *See* House Report at 4-5 (expressing concern over the generally
    longer response time for emergency personnel in rural areas as
    compared to urban areas).

[^66]: *See* *supra* para. 23.

[^67]: NENA and APCO Comments at 1 (citing CTIA's statement that, as of
    March, 2001, there are approximately 6,500 PSAPs in the United
    States). *Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems*, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6512561506.

[^68]: BellSouth Comments at 4.

[^69]: APCO Comments at 2.

[^70]: *See supra* para. 7. *See also*, BellSouth Comments at 4 and n.2
    (citing "The Development of 9-1-1," NENA,
    http://www.nena9-1-1.org/PressRoom_Publications/9-1-1_facts.htm).

[^71]: "911 Cell Phone Calls May Be Tracked, Plan in Works to Locate
    Emergencies from Cellular Lines," The Detroit News, Jan. 24, 2001
    (referring to work of Verizon Wireless on 911 efforts throughout
    Michigan). In addition, our transition approach for universal 911
    dialing is not meant to affect the continuing and prospective
    contractual processes between carriers and States, localities, or
    PSAPs that concerns the provision of any 911 service.

[^72]: *See supra*, n.49.

[^73]: *See supra* at para. 20 and n.49; *see also*, Verizon Comments at
    1; *see generally* CTIA Comments at 3.

[^74]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(b).

[^75]: *See supra* at paras. 15, 23. *Cf. Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17087
    (para. 22). Moreover, we find that the provisions of the 911 Act and
    our evaluation of the record in this proceeding show the need to
    revise our previous reconsideration of the term PSAP. *See E911
    Reconsideration Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22713-14 (paras. 98-99).

[^76]: *Fourth Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17085 (para. 11) (citing
    House Report at 13).

[^77]: We note that in the record here, public service organizations
    continue to make available their assistance to the small number of
    local governments that have not implemented 911 service. *See* APCO
    Comments at 2; NENA Comments at 5 n.2.

[^78]: *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17087 (para. 20).

[^79]: Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 11-12.

[^80]: Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 12.

[^81]: *See* NENA Comments at 3.

[^82]: Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 11.

[^83]: *See* 911 Act at sections 2(a)(2), 2(b).

[^84]: *See* House Report at 13.

[^85]: *Id*.

[^86]: Once a PSAP is served by a selective router, the network performs
    more efficiently when the PSAP is accessed using 911 rather than
    other dialing codes. In addition, some of the enhanced features may
    only be available if 911 has been dialed.

[^87]: *See* SCC Comments at 2-3; NENA Comments at 3; Wireless Consumers
    Alliance Comments at 10.

[^88]: Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 11 (asserting that such a
    requirement will enable the agencies to change road signs and take
    other measures to notify the populace of the change in the emergency
    number). *See infra* para. 36.

[^89]: *See* The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing
    Arrangements, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 92-105, 15 FCC
    Rcd 15,188, 15, 217 (para. 62) (2000) (*N11 Second Report and
    Order*) (referring also 911 public safety campaign by the State of
    Maryland); *see* *also*, Telecommunications Relay Services and
    Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech
    Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98-67, *Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 15 FCC Rcd 5140, 5184-85 (paras.
    103-104) (2000) (*Improved TRS Order*).

[^90]: *N11 Second Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 15,217 (para. 62).

[^91]: *See id*.

[^92]: Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 10, 12.

[^93]: *See* *Carrier Identification Codes Order on Reconsideration*, 12
    FCC Rcd at 17892 (para. 26).

[^94]: This change may be for any current emergency dialing code,
    regardless of the number of digits (3, 7, or 10).

[^95]: *See* *Carrier Identification Codes Order on Reconsideration*, 12
    FCC Rcd at 17892 (para. 26).

[^96]: State Commissions may allow carriers to continue to use
    abbreviated dialing arrangements for non-emergency purposes until we
    earmark them for a specific purpose. *See* *Fourth Report and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17085 (para. 13).

[^97]: *Id*.

[^98]: The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements,
    *Third Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration*, CC Docket No.
    92-105, 15 FCC Rcd 16,753, 16,768 (para. 25) (2000).

[^99]: 911 Act at section (2)(b).

[^100]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(b). *See also*, NENA Comments at 2 (submitting
    that pursuant to section 20.18(b) of the Commission's rules,
    wireless carriers are already required to transmit 911 dialed
    calls).

[^101]: For example, the flexible requirements we adopt allow localities
    that do not currently have a PSAP to retain permissive dialing for
    an extended period of time, including during a transition period
    that begins upon designation of a PSAP.

[^102]: *Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17087 (para. 22).

[^103]: *Id*.

[^104]: BellSouth Comments at 8-9; CTIA Reply Comments at 5 (asserting
    that PSAPs or public safety agencies are the entities that have
    traditionally chosen a particular emergency number).

[^105]: CTIA Reply Comments at 5-6 (citing NENA Comments at n.2).

[^106]: BellSouth Comments at 8-9; CTIA Comments at 4; Wireless
    Consumers Alliance Comments at 10.

[^107]: Wireless Consumers Alliance Comments at 10-11.

[^108]: *Fourth Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rec. 17087 (para. 22).

[^109]: Data in Appendix D, supplied by NENA, is the most currently
    available as of December 4, 2001. *See* Memorandum from D. Siehl and
    S. Kimmel, WTB Policy Division, to M. Salas, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, submitting record of *ex parte*
    communications with J. Hobson, Counsel for NENA, A. M. Batt,
    Operations and Resource Manager, NENA, and M. Foster, Project
    Specialist, NENA (December 5, 2001).

[^110]: If a carrier chooses to file in hard copy, an original and one
    copy of transition reports should be submitted to the Secretary's
    office to the attention of CCB or WTB.

[^111]: Section 3(b) of the 911 Act provides as follows:

    > The Federal Communications Commission shall encourage and support
    > efforts by States to deploy comprehensive end-to-end emergency
    > communications infrastructure and programs, based on coordinated
    > statewide plans, including seamless, ubiquitous, reliable wireless
    > telecommunications networks and enhanced wireless 9-1-1 service.
    > In encouraging and supporting that deployment, the Commission
    > shall consult and cooperate with State and local officials
    > responsible for emergency services and public safety, the
    > telecommunications industry (specifically including the cellular
    > and other wireless telecommunications service providers), the
    > motor vehicle manufacturing industry, emergency medical service
    > providers and emergency dispatch providers, transportation
    > officials, special 9-1-1 districts, public safety, fire service
    > and law enforcement officials, consumer groups, and hospital
    > emergency and trauma care personnel (including emergency
    > physicians, trauma surgeons, and nurses). The Commission shall
    > encourage each State to develop and implement coordinated
    > statewide deployment plans, through an entity designated by the
    > governor, and to include representatives of the foregoing
    > organizations and entities in development and implementation of
    > such plans. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
    > authorize or require the Commission to impose obligations or costs
    > on any person.

[^112]: *Notice* at 17088 (para. 24).

[^113]: *Notice* at 17088-89 (para. 25).

[^114]: *Notice* at 17089 (para. 26).

[^115]: *Notice* at 17089 (para. 27).

[^116]: Washington State E911 Comments at 1-2.

[^117]: ASLI Comments at 3-5.

[^118]: House Report at 8.

[^119]: House Report at 7.

[^120]: House Report at 8.

[^121]: *Notice* at 17088-89 (paras. 24-27).

[^122]: ComCARE Comments at para. 1. See also CTIA Comments at 5
    (recommending that the Commission begin a series of state-by-state
    meetings of this type), SCC Comments at 3, Washington State E911
    Comments at 3.

[^123]: 911 Act at section 2(a)(2) (noting that \"the rapid, efficient
    deployment of emergency telecommunications service requires \[*inter
    alia*\] *statewide coordination* of the efforts of local public
    safety officials, fire service and law enforcement official,
    emergency dispatch providers and transportation officials . . . .\"
    (emphasis added)).

[^124]: ComCARE Comments at para. 1 (emphasizing that for wireless
    systems, even the physics of the network favors planning at a
    larger, regional scale).

[^125]: ComCARE Comments at para. 2-3a. *See also* NENA Comments at 7.

[^126]: SCC Comments at 3-4, Washington State E911 Comments at 3, 4
    (noting that the Commission should make efforts to be lead federal
    agency to enable carriers to do their part to make 911 possible,
    such as streamlining the ordering process for connections necessary
    for E911 service provisioning between carrier types. Also, the
    Commission should encourage carriers to implement changes to order
    processing systems which would enhance the capability of 911 service
    specialists to write service orders that are comprehensive without
    regard to LATA or other regulatory service boundaries because
    restrictions exist with in LECs order processing systems that
    preclude ordering of services crossing LATA boundaries violating FCC
    rules).

[^127]: See e.g., NENA Comments at 7. CTIA Comments at 6, n.14
    (explicitly supporting the tentative conclusion to utilize
    guidelines, fact sheets, meetings and any other information-sharing
    measures to facilitate States' efforts). NENA has suggested that we
    mandate that highway signs be changed to instruct motorists to dial
    911 as the emergency number during the transition period, stating
    that such a requirement does not rise to the level of a "burden" on
    States and localities. NENA Comments at 3. We conclude that such a
    requirement would violate § 3(b)'s prohibition on costs and burdens.

[^128]: NENA Comments at 3.

[^129]: NENA Comments at 7.

[^130]: NENA Comments at 8 (describing the RCNs as containing
    information on the implementation of E911, particularly wireless
    calling). See also, ComCARE Comments at para. 3 (supporting such an
    action), NENA Comments at 7 (highlighting that the NENA website
    offers "tutorials" on 911 implementation. In addition, 27 of the 46
    NENA chapters also have websites. On NENA's website, the "Wireless
    911 Web Page," there is an implementation checklist for PSAPs
    developed from earlier forums.)

[^131]: BellSouth Comments at 9-10 (noting that state-level
    clearinghouses would serve as resource centers providing access to
    state-specific information that may not be available at the national
    level. This information could include information essential to
    carriers such as a centralized database listing telephone numbers
    and addresses for the local police, fire, and other emergency
    service providers in a particular state. Carriers, particularly new
    entrants, frequently have no other means of identifying and locating
    the relevant PSAP or other central answering point in a region so
    that the establishment of such a database would facilitate
    coordination among stakeholders and minimize delay in implementing
    911. However, the contact data should not include the
    unlisted/unpublished routing numbers that carriers use to route E911
    calls).

[^132]: BellSouth Comments at 10, CTIA Comments at 5-6, APCO Comments at
    4 (urging that the concept could only be accomplished with active
    participation of public safety interests, but warning that the
    creation of an "advisory committee" might have FACA implications),
    ASLI Comments at 5 (noting that these plans should only be model and
    not mandatory because each jurisdiction is unique), ComCare Comments
    at 4 (suggesting that there should be several models to avoid the
    implication that the Commission's objectives are to endorse a single
    method of deployment rather than create a sense of safety benefits,
    government savings and commercial cooperation).

[^133]: ComCARE Comments at para. 3a.

[^134]: NENA Comments at 7 (noting that Virginia and North Carolina that
    have moved toward central administration, might serve as appropriate
    models).

[^135]: Washington State E911 Comments at 1 (providing the example of
    their solutions for improved E911 location and information
    capabilities for Multi-Line Telephone Systems and wireless
    telecommunications services in addressing issues such as misuse of
    911 for non-emergency calls and 911 system reliability assurance).

[^136]: *Fourth Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17082-83 n. 9
    (declining to impose 911 regulations on "those classes of CMRS
    licensees with evolving real-time, two-way voice communications that
    have not fully developed their commercial services" citing Mobile
    Satellite Services in particular, but failing to mention VHF Public
    Coast Station Licensees).

[^137]: Maritel Petition at 3.

[^138]: Comments of NENA on Maritel Petition, November 14, 2000 (NENA
    Petition Opposition).

[^139]: Reply of Maritel, Inc*.*, November 29, 2000 (Maritel Petition
    Reply).

[^140]: Maritel Petition at 5.

[^141]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.311-333.

[^142]: Maritel Petition at 6.

[^143]: NENA Opposition to Maritel Petition at 1-2. *See* *supra*
    excerpt of text of 911 Act at n.3.

[^144]: Maritel Petition at 3-4 and Maritel Petition Reply at 3. *See
    also*, H. Rep. No. 106-25 at 5-9 (1999) (likewise omitting any
    reference to maritime services) (House Report).

[^145]: Maritel Petition at 4.

[^146]: Maritel Petition at 5 and n. 5 (citing In the Matter of
    Technology for Communications International, DA 99-2015, 14 FCC Rcd
    16173, 16178-79 (para. 11) (1999)).

[^147]: *Id*.

[^148]: *Chevron USA v. National Resources Defense Council,* 467 U.S.
    837, 843 (1984) (upholding the regulation on the basis that "the
    Administrator's interpretation represents a reasonable accommodation
    of manifestly competing interests and is entitled to deference: the
    regulatory scheme is technical and complex, the agency considered
    the matter in details and reasoned fashion, and the decision
    involved reconciling conflicting policies." (at 865)).

[^149]: In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18717-18 (paras. 82, 83) (1996)
    (*E911 First Report and Order*). As set forth in the *E911 First
    Report and Order*, VPC licensees are not required to provide
    emergency services via 911 dialing because, as Public Coast Stations
    (Part 80, Subpart J) providing service to United States coastal and
    inland waterways, the passengers and crews of ships on these
    waterways do not rely on ground-based rescue operations. Instead,
    they rely on internationally approved emergency regulations.

[^150]: *Id.*, at 1817-18 (paras. 82-83).

[^151]: Current rule section, § 80.123, governs VPC service. 47 C.F.R. §
    80.123. We note, however, that this Order only applies to VHF Public
    Coast Stations and is not determinative of the applicability of the
    911 Act to other Part 80 licensees including AMTS Public Coast
    Stations.

[^152]: Maritel Petition at 3-4 and Maritel Petition Reply at 3. *See
    also*, H. Rep. No. 106-25 at 5-9 (1999) (likewise omitting any
    reference to maritime services) (House Report).

[^153]: Maritel Petition at 4.

[^154]: Maritel Petition at 5 and n. 5 (citing In the Matter of
    Technology for Communications International, DA 99-2015, 14 FCC Rcd
    16173, 16178-79 (para. 11) (1999)).

[^155]: Maritel Petition Reply at 5-6.

[^156]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.311-80.333.

[^157]: Of course, customers seeking emergency assistance by using a
    cellular or PCS telephone on a waterway, rather than a VHF marine
    radio, would dial 911, just as they would while they are on land.

[^158]: *See* 911 Act (preamble) (emphasis added).

[^159]: 911 Act at section 2(a)(2).

[^160]: S. Rep. No. 106-138 at 2 (1999) (noting that as many as 20
    different emergency numbers are used by wireless carriers across the
    United States) (Senate Report); House Report at 6-7 (1999)
    (specifying the problems encountered by motorists travelling across
    the country who do not have one, ubiquitous number to call for
    emergency medical care).

[^161]: In any event, assuming, *arguendo*, that the statute did apply
    to VPC licensees, we believe that this might be an appropriate case
    for waiver.

[^162]: NENA Opposition to Maritel Petition at 3-4. NENA does not
    mention how Coast Guard stations would be treated as PSAPs with
    regard to the Commission's E911 requirements and Phase I and Phase
    II implementations.

[^163]: *See* Maritel Petition Reply at 5-6.

[^164]: As a result of our decision on the Maritel Petition, Maritel's
    comments in response to both the *Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* in CC Docket No. 92-105 and the *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* in WT Docket No. 00-110 are considered moot.

[^165]: *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) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^166]: 15 FCC Rcd 17079, 17093, 17103.

[^167]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^168]: *See* Pub. L. No. 104-13.

[^169]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).

[^170]: *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) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^171]: 15 FCC Rcd 17103.

[^172]: 15 FCC Rcd 17093.

[^173]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^174]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^175]: *Id*. § 601(6).

[^176]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    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 term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^177]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^178]: *5 U.S.C.* § 601(4).

[^179]: 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).

[^180]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^181]: 1992 Census of Governments, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce.

[^182]: *Id*.

[^183]: *E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18682, 18716
    (paras. 10, 81).

[^184]: *E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18716-17 (para.
    81).

[^185]: *E911 First Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 18716-18 (paras.
    81-83).

[^186]: North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes
    513322 and 51331.

[^187]: FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, *Trends
    in Telephone* Service, Table 5.3 (December 2000). Estimates of
    entities employing 1,500 or fewer employees are based on gross
    revenues information filed April 1, 2000, combined with employment
    information obtained from ARMIS and Securities and Exchange
    Commission filings as well as industry employment estimates
    published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The estimates do not
    reflect affiliates that do not provide telecommunications services
    or that operate only in foreign countries.

[^188]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^189]: *See* Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy,
    SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC, dated 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* 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.
    13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b). Since 1996, out of an abundance of caution,
    the Commission has included small incumbent LECs in its regulatory
    flexibility analyses. *See*, *e.g*., *Implementation of the Local
    Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996*, CC
    Docket, 96-98, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 16144‑45
    (1996).

[^190]: BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission\'s Rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757, 22.759.

[^191]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)

[^192]: ^\*^ Data supplied by the National Emergency Number Association
    (NENA). (December 4, 2001)

[^193]: ^\*\*^ Counties and Equivalent Entities of the United States,
    Its Possessions, and Associated Areas, FIPS (Federal Information
    Processing Standards) PUB 6-4, August 31, 1990.