####### Before the {#before-the .unnumbered}

**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 |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER AND THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**CC Docket No. 92-105**

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**WT Docket No. 00-110**

**Adopted: August 24, 2000 Released: August 29, 2000**

Comment Date: October 16, 2000

**Reply Comment Date: November 15, 2000**

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Paragraph Number

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY [3](#introduction-and-summary)

II\. background [3](#background)

III\. Fourth Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed rulemaking IN
cc dOCKET nO. 92-105
[5](#fourth-report-and-order-and-third-notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-in-cc-docket-no.-92-105)

A. Order Establishing Universal Emergency Telephone Number
[5](#order-establishing-universal-emergency-telephone-number)

B. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Transition Periods for Areas in
Which 911 Is Not in Use as an Emergency Telephone Number
[8](#notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-on-transition-periods-for-areas-in-which-911-is-not-in-use-as-an-emergency-telephone-number)

IV\. notice of proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No. 00-110
[9](#notice-of-proposed-rulemaking-in-wt-docket-no.-00-110)

A. Commission Efforts to Encourage and Support Deployment of
Comprehensive End-to-End Emergency Communications Infrastructure and
Programs
[9](#commission-efforts-to-encourage-and-support-deployment-of-comprehensive-end-to-end-emergency-communications-infrastructure-and-programs)

V. procedural issues [11](#procedural-issues)

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement
[11](#final-regulatory-flexibility-act-statement)

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
[12](#initial-regulatory-flexibility-analysis)

C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis [12](#paperwork-reduction-analysis)

*D.* *Ex Parte* Presentations [12](#ex-parte-presentations)

E. Comment Filing Dates and Procedures
[13](#comment-filing-dates-and-procedures)

F. Further Information [13](#further-information)

VI\. ordering clauses [14](#ordering-clauses)

Appendix A [1](#__RefHeading___Toc531610590)

Appendix B [1](#__RefHeading___Toc531610591)

Appendix A -- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Third Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92-105

Appendix B -- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 00-110

# INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

1.  Today, we take important steps to implement the Wireless
    Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (911 Act), enacted on
    October 26, 1999.[^1] The purpose of the 911 Act is to enhance
    public safety by encouraging and facilitating the prompt deployment
    of a nationwide, seamless communications infrastructure for
    emergency services that includes wireless communications.[^2] To
    ensure a comprehensive approach to emergency service throughout the
    country, the 911 Act directs us to make 911 the universal emergency
    number for wireline and wireless telephone service and to establish
    appropriate transition periods for areas in which 911 is not in use
    as an emergency telephone number on the date of enactment of the 911
    Act. It further directs us to encourage and support the States in
    developing comprehensive emergency communications throughout the
    United States so that all jurisdictions offer seamless networks for
    prompt emergency service.

2.  We initiate this proceeding to address the provisions of the 911 Act
    and to fulfill the Congressional mandates set forth therein.
    Specifically, we:

-   Designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone number within the
    United States for reporting an emergency to appropriate authorities
    and requesting assistance, effective upon the release of this Order.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Seek comment on appropriate transition periods for areas in which
    911 is not currently in use as an emergency number, including
    service area-specific circumstances and capabilities that we should
    address before carriers can deploy 911 as the uniform emergency
    number.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Seek comment on how we should facilitate States' efforts to deploy
    comprehensive emergency communications systems, such as through
    guidelines, meetings, or other information-sharing measures, in a
    manner that does not impose obligations or costs on any person.

3.  In taking these steps, we seek to ensure that the Congressional
    goals for an expanded and improved nationwide emergency
    communications system are implemented expeditiously, effectively,
    and efficiently. Picking up the telephone is usually the first and
    most important thing to do when an emergency strikes. Making 911 the
    universal emergency number for both wireline and wireless services
    and promoting the use of technologies that help emergency service
    providers locate wireless 911 callers will improve the nation's
    emergency 911 communications systems and save lives.

# background

4.  The overall purpose of the 911 Act is to encourage and facilitate
    the prompt deployment throughout the United States of a seamless,
    ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end infrastructure for emergency
    communications, including wireless communications, to meet the
    nation's public safety and other emergency communications needs.[^3]
    Congress found that the establishment of a network that provided for
    the rapid, efficient deployment of emergency services would result
    in many public benefits.[^4] These benefits include faster delivery
    of emergency care with reduced fatalities and severity of injuries,
    and improved service in rural areas.

5.  In our increasingly mobile society, Congress noted the increased
    reliance on wireless phones in emergency situations and the problems
    wireless 911 callers experience in obtaining prompt, reliable aid to
    the same extent as wireline 911 callers.[^5] According to
    Congressional reports accompanying the enactment of the 911 Act,
    more than 74 million Americans subscribe to wireless telephone
    service to supplement or replace wireline telephone service, and
    more than 36 million calls are placed to 911 on wireless phones
    annually.[^6] On the roadways, consumers are using these phones to
    call for help for themselves, to report accidents or injuries to
    other drivers, and to report erratic or aggressive drivers before
    others are injured. Congress was concerned that, although deaths
    from motor vehicle crashes have been declining in recent years,
    deaths at the scene prior to receiving emergency medical care have
    doubled in the past 20 years to more than 20,000 per year.[^7]

6.  The Commission has adopted rules requiring certain wireless carriers
    to provide both Basic 911 service, which connects the caller to a
    Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), and, over time, Enhanced 911
    (E911) service, which provides certain information to assist the
    PSAP in locating the caller.[^8] The wireless carriers subject to
    the rules are those categories of carriers engaged in CMRS that
    provide established telephone services with access to emergency
    services and that offer real-time, two-way switched voice
    service.[^9] Congress found that, despite the important steps taken
    by the Commission, few areas in the country were served by wireless
    systems operating under our E911 requirements and that E911 service
    currently is not deployed on many wireless systems.[^10]
    Accordingly, in the 911 Act, Congress included several provisions to
    achieve improvements in the wireless emergency communications system
    provided by the wireless carriers covered by our rules.[^11]

7.  Below, we address the designation of 911 as the universal emergency
    services number for both wireline and wireless services, appropriate
    transition periods, and how this Commission can encourage and
    support the States in their deployment of comprehensive emergency
    communications systems. We also find that the liability protection
    provisions of the 911 Act are self-executing and that we do not need
    to adopt rules or otherwise seek comment on those provisions of the
    911 Act. Section 4 of the 911 Act confers liability protection on
    wireless carriers as defined by the 911 Act, users of wireless 911,
    and PSAPs engaged in wireless 911 that is not less than that of
    wireline carriers, users of wireline 911, and PSAPs engaged in
    wireline 911 under applicable law.[^12] We find that, by its terms,
    Section 4 conferred those immunity provisions as of the effective
    date of the 911 Act - October 26, 1999. Furthermore, we defer
    consideration of two additional provisions in Section 5 of the 911
    Act. These provisions amend Section 222 of the Communications Act,
    which addresses customer proprietary network information (CPNI) and
    subscriber list information.[^13] We find that these provisions are
    better addressed in our current CPNI and subscriber list information
    proceedings and, accordingly, we do not discuss them here.

# Fourth Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed rulemaking IN cc dOCKET nO. 92-105 

## Order Establishing Universal Emergency Telephone Number

8.  **[Background.]{.underline}** Section 251(e) of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (1996
    Act), gives the Commission exclusive jurisdiction over numbering
    administration, and over those portions of the North American
    Numbering Plan (NANP) that pertain to the United States.[^14] This
    section also provides that the Commission may delegate all or part
    of its numbering administration authority to State commissions or
    other entities.[^15] The 911 Act further amends this section by
    directing the Commission to designate 911 "as the universal
    emergency telephone number within the United States for reporting an
    emergency to appropriate authorities and requesting
    assistance."[^16]

9.  911 has a long history of use as the wireline emergency access
    number in a large portion of the country. AT&T initially designated
    911 for wireline access to emergency services in the late 1960's. In
    the *N11 First Report and Order*, the Commission found that the 911
    designation for emergency services served the public interest and
    should not be disturbed.[^17] In fact, the Commission found the use
    of 911 was virtually ubiquitous and of long-standing nationwide
    status as the wireline national code for quick and easy access to
    emergency services.[^18] State and local authorities have worked
    with telecommunications carriers to use the 911 abbreviated dialing
    code to access increasingly advanced and effective emergency service
    capabilities.[^19]

10. In the *N11 First Report and Order* relating to the use of N11
    codes, the Commission authorized incumbent local exchange carriers
    (LECs), States, and the administrator of the NANP to continue to
    perform N11 code administrative functions that they were performing
    at the time of enactment of the 1996 Act. [^20] In the *N11 First
    Report and Order*, the Commission also assigned 311 to be used for
    access to non-emergency police services.

11. **[Discussion.]{.underline}** In this Order, consistent with the
    statutory mandate, we designate 911 as the national emergency
    telephone number to be used for reporting emergencies and requesting
    emergency assistance. [^21] The 911 abbreviated dialing code shall
    be deployed ubiquitously by carriers throughout the United States
    for use with both wireline and wireless telecommunications services
    that provide access to local emergency service providers. Based on
    the statutory requirement that 911 be designated as the universal
    emergency telephone number, wireline and wireless carriers must make
    911 available to their subscribers as the number to call in an
    emergency after the effective date of the designation and the end of
    appropriate transition periods. We note that the 911 Act does not
    require a State or locality to establish an emergency service.[^22]
    As a result, in designating 911 pursuant to the 911 Act, we are not
    requiring States and localities to implement 911 as the emergency
    assistance number where they do not have 911 service.

12. Adopting a nationwide emergency number will improve prompt
    notification of emergency services and will improve public
    safety.[^23] A nationwide emergency number is particularly helpful
    for travelers and new residents. It will eliminate the need for
    wireless telephone users to know or remember different telephone
    numbers or alternate abbreviated dialing arrangements in an
    emergency situation. It will also eliminate the need to learn a new
    emergency number upon moving across the community or across the
    country.

13. We note that the 911 Act provides that 911 is "for reporting an
    emergency to appropriate authorities and requesting assistance." The
    911 Act's definitions for PSAP and wireless 911 service are
    consistent with established definitions of 911 emergency
    services.[^24] We conclude, therefore, that the 911 Act did not
    alter either the established distinctions between the purposes of
    311 and 911, respectively, or the ability of localities to use 311
    as the designated national code for access to non-emergency police
    and other government services. Moreover, insofar as non-emergency
    numbers are concerned, we encourage the industry to continue to make
    innovative and effective use of alternate abbreviated dialing
    arrangements for non-emergency uses until we earmark them for
    specific purposes. For example, there may be localities that use
    such arrangements as "\*77" to access roadside assistance in a
    non-emergency situation. We find that such uses are consistent with
    the designation of 911 as the universal emergency telephone number
    and, indeed, may assist emergency services personnel in better
    responding to emergency situations.

14. In making this designation of 911 as the universal emergency
    telephone number, we reaffirm Congress' goal of providing telephone
    users of wireline and wireless services access to emergency services
    with the same immediate contact, using 911, throughout the United
    States in localities that have such services. Designating 911 as the
    national emergency number will serve the public interest by
    minimizing consumer confusion over the number to call in an
    emergency.[^25] Nationwide implementation of the 911 abbreviated
    dialing code will further the Commission's commitment to maintain
    911 for access to emergency services. This designation shall be
    effective upon release of this Order.

## Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Transition Periods for Areas in Which 911 Is Not in Use as an Emergency Telephone Number

15. **[Background]{.underline}**. The 911 Act provides that the
    Commission shall designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone
    number within the United States for both wireline and wireless
    telephone service. It further directs the Commission, in designating
    911, to "provide appropriate transition periods for areas in which
    911 is not in use as an emergency telephone number."[^26]

16. The deployment of 911 emergency service as it is generally known in
    this country has two primary components. First, all
    telecommunications carriers' equipment (including switching and
    signaling equipment) must recognize the abbreviated dialing code
    "911" and direct such calls along with certain other necessary
    signaling and location information to the pre-designated or
    specified location where personnel are available to receive reports
    of emergencies. Second, equipment and personnel must exist to
    receive 911 calls. Generally, such equipment and personnel are
    located in PSAPs, which are established and maintained by State and
    local authorities.

17. We recognize that communities throughout the United States are at
    differing points relative to implementation of 911. Many State and
    local authorities already have implemented access via 911 to PSAPs
    that can dispatch the appropriate emergency personnel for the
    particular emergency situation. On the opposite end of the spectrum,
    some communities may not use 911 or any other abbreviated dialing
    code, may not have PSAPs in place, and may provide access to police,
    fire, ambulance, and other emergency services by dialing a seven or
    ten-digit telephone number. Between these two ends of the spectrum,
    we recognize that a variety of conditions exist, including
    communities that use PSAPs but provide access to them via seven or
    ten-digit telephone numbers or abbreviated dialing code other
    than 911. In addition, there are communities that provide access to
    some emergency services via an abbreviated dialing code but have not
    established PSAPs. Implementation of the 911 abbreviated dialing
    code should recognize the varying conditions that exist in
    communities throughout this country.

18. **[Discussion]{.underline}**. The transition to the nationwide use
    of 911 as the emergency service number will involve the coordinated
    efforts of the States and localities, PSAPs, telecommunications
    service providers, and other entities. The 911 Act provides for
    reasonable transition periods for those areas where 911 is not
    currently the emergency number. A transition period will provide
    wireline and wireless carriers the necessary time to implement the
    technical modifications to their networks. In addition, such a
    period will permit translation of 911 at the appropriate network
    points into the emergency number in use by the PSAPs in a particular
    jurisdiction. The legislative history accompanying the 911 Act also
    indicates an intent that these transition periods should be
    determined by service area-specific circumstances and
    capabilities.[^27]

19. We seek comment on the technical and operational issues that should
    be taken into account in adopting transition periods that will allow
    carriers sufficient time to transition to the use of 911 as an
    emergency telephone number. For example, carriers' transition to the
    911 emergency number may require, among other things, development
    and operation of database systems, certain network modifications to
    current emergency dialing patterns, and hardware or software
    purchases and upgrades. We seek comment on all of the steps that
    carriers must undertake to transition to the use of 911 and
    suggested timeframes that will allow carriers to complete those
    steps as expeditiously as possible.[^28] In addition, we seek
    comment on the particular technical and operational issues presented
    by a requirement that the carriers offer 911 service to their
    subscribers, regardless of whether a PSAP is in place to receive 911
    calls.

20. We also seek comment on whether certain telecommunications service
    providers will need more time to transition to the use of 911 than
    other service providers. For example, we seek comment on whether
    wireless carriers would require a longer transition period and if
    so, the unique circumstances applicable to wireless carriers that
    justify a longer transition period.[^29] We seek specific input on
    what factors will affect the transition periods required by
    different categories of carriers and what timeframes would be
    necessary to accommodate such factors. Further, we seek comment on
    any other factors that may affect the timeframe in which a carrier
    will be able to transition to the use of 911 in areas currently
    using another emergency telephone number. We also seek comment on
    measures we may take to encourage cooperative efforts by all
    affected parties during the transition to universal 911 usage.[^30]

21. Furthermore, where a locality has no PSAP or centralized emergency
    service program, we seek comment on the scope of carriers'
    obligation to direct 911 calls to a local fire, police, or other
    emergency service provider in such areas. We recognize that in this
    type of situation various logistical difficulties are presented and
    observe that PSAPs were established precisely to deal with the
    problem of ensuring the proper routing of 911 calls. Because of the
    logistical difficulties we believe carriers would face, we
    tentatively conclude that we should not impose any particular
    obligation on carriers to transmit 911 calls to a particular local
    agency or similar destination in areas where State or local
    authorities have not established a PSAP or other answering point to
    which such calls can be routed. We seek comment on this tentative
    conclusion and any matter related to it that is relevant in
    establishing appropriate transition periods.

22. To enable us to evaluate the progress made during the transition
    periods, we tentatively conclude that it would be useful and
    appropriate to monitor the progress of carriers in transitioning to
    the universal usage of 911 as the emergency telephone number. To
    assist us in our monitoring effort, we seek comment on whether we
    should require carriers to file transition reports and, if so, the
    nature, extent, and timing of the information to be provided.

# notice of proposed rulemaking in WT Docket No. 00-110 

## Commission Efforts to Encourage and Support Deployment of Comprehensive End-to-End Emergency Communications Infrastructure and Programs

23. **[Background]{.underline}.** The 911 Act seeks to achieve a
    coordinated, nationwide emergency communications network that
    integrates the latest technologies and ensures improved and prompt
    delivery of emergency services.[^31] To facilitate this goal,
    section 3(b) of the 911 Act directs the Commission to "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
    911 service."[^32] The Commission is directed to "encourage each
    State to develop and implement coordinated statewide deployment
    plans, through an entity designated by the governor, and to include
    representatives" of various relevant organizations and other
    stakeholders in the development and implementation of such
    plans.[^33] Although the 911 Act requires the Commission to "consult
    and cooperate with State and local officials" in our role of
    encouraging and supporting such deployment, the Commission is not
    authorized to "impose obligations or costs on any person."[^34]

24. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** As a general matter, we seek comment
    on what measures we should undertake to encourage and support
    efforts by the States to deploy comprehensive emergency
    communications networks based on each State's coordinated plan. At
    the outset of this discussion, we find that section 3(b) reflects a
    careful balance between the need for federal and state leadership
    and the responsibilities of local jurisdictions and others to
    provide 911 emergency services.[^35] Congress recognized that most
    of the key decisions in this area are not made by the federal
    government, but by the private sector and State and local
    governments, and that implementation of 911 systems is carried out
    at the local level. We find, therefore, that the framework for
    implementation of the state plans and statewide emergency systems
    envisioned by the 911 Act should rely on the cooperation and
    coordination of all the interested parties.[^36] We tentatively
    conclude that, under section 3(b), we may adopt provisions that
    facilitate the States' efforts through guidelines, fact sheets,
    meetings, or other information-sharing measures that do not impose
    obligations or costs or otherwise interfere with the careful balance
    of responsibilities. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion.

25. Initially, we could satisfy our obligation to consult and cooperate
    with the listed parties in the development of state plans by
    convening a forum or other meetings to develop and disseminate
    information on 911 issues. We believe that a record developed in
    such meetings might be useful in providing consultation and
    cooperation among the interested parties.[^37] As an initial matter,
    these meetings could be useful to discuss our current 911 rules,
    including our cost recovery rules adopted last year.[^38] Further,
    such an approach also could entail coordination among designated
    entities from different States that share problems particular to
    their region and perhaps from specific rural or urban areas that
    overlap state boundaries. We could invite, for example, attendance
    by representatives of the groups listed in the 911 Act, as well as
    other interested organizations or representatives. We seek comment
    on these tentative suggestions and any other approaches, such as a
    "Round Table" meeting on technical matters, which would provide
    effective means for consulting about or monitoring state plans.[^39]
    To enable the Commission to monitor technical developments that may
    assist the States in their efforts, we also seek comment on whether
    carriers are the best source of information on the status of
    deployment of statewide 911 services, and how such information might
    be gathered and shared.

26. In addition, we could perform the function of a "clearinghouse,"
    both with regard to reporting information gathered at the meetings
    or elsewhere and indicating problems encountered in implementation
    of 911 infrastructures and programs, including the progress of the
    States in developing end-to-end systems and establishing their state
    plans, as well as the entities designated to develop statewide
    systems. In such a capacity, we might gather information on the
    status of implementation of 911 across the country, and thus serve
    as a resource for entities designated by the governors, perhaps in
    conjunction with representative associations. Information about
    emerging technologies, including Automatic Crash Notification and
    other advance safety systems, could in this way be shared among the
    States and incorporated in the statewide plans. In addition, it may
    be useful to use our current E911 web site to make available 911
    technical and implementation information, including information
    about other sources that may assist States and localities in
    developing their plans.[^40] We seek comment on these proposals,
    including what information we should put on the Commission's E911
    web site that would assist interested parties.

27. We also seek comment on what other forms of information the
    Commission could assist in providing that would be useful. For
    example, a "model" state plan could be developed. We seek comment on
    the process by which a "model" state plan could be developed in a
    manner that does not impose costs or obligations on any person.
    Finally, as a general matter, we request comment on what additional
    steps the States view as necessary to their development of state
    plans and on what kinds of support the States need from the
    Commission in order to achieve the statutory objectives of section
    3(b).

# procedural issues

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement

28. The action taken in the Fourth Report and Order portion of this
    decision is not the result of a notice and comment proceeding, but
    is mandated by Congress in the Wireless Communications and Public
    Safety Act of 1999.[^41] The Commission is therefore not bound by
    the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and has not
    prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

29. **[Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No.
    92-105.]{.underline}** As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    (RFA), Appendix A sets forth the Commission's Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) regarding the policies and rules
    proposed in the Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket No.
    92-105. We request written public comments on the analysis. Comments
    must be separately identified with a heading to indicate they are in
    response to this IRFA. The comments must be filed in accordance with
    the deadlines for the filing of comments in response to the Third
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission will send a copy of
    the Third Notice of Proposed , including the IRFA, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

30. **[Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No.
    00-110.]{.underline}** As required by the RFA, Appendix B sets forth
    the Commission's IRFA regarding the policies and rules proposed in
    the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 00-110. We
    request written public comments on the analysis. Comments must be
    separately identified with a heading to indicate they are in
    response to this IRFA. The comments must be filed in accordance with
    the deadlines for the filing of comments in response to the Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission will send a copy of the
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the IRFA, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

## Paperwork Reduction Analysis

31. The Fourth Report and Order does not contain any new or modified
    information collection. Therefore, it is not subject to the
    requirements for a paperwork reduction analysis, and the Commission
    has not performed one.

32. The actions proposed in the Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
    CC Docket No.92-105 and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT
    Docket No. 00-110 contain proposed or 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 collections contained separately in the Third Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as
    required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public and agency
    comments are due 60 days after publication of these documents, or
    summaries thereof, in the Federal Register. OMB comments are due 120
    days from the date of publication of these Notices in the Federal
    Register. Comments must be separately identified with a heading to
    indicate they are in response to the particular Notice.

33. Comments should address: (1) whether the proposed information
    collections are necessary for the proper performance of the
    functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall
    have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Commission's burden
    estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
    the information collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of
    the collection of information on the respondents, including the use
    of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
    technology.

## *Ex Parte* Presentations

34. 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
    permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking proceedings.
    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.[^42]

## Comment Filing Dates and Procedures

35. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and
    1.419 of the Commission's Rules,[^43] interested parties may file
    comments in response to the Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
    CC Docket No. 92-105 and the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT
    Docket No. 00-110 on or before **October 16, 2000** and reply
    comments on or before **November 15, 2000**. Comments and reply
    comments should be filed in combined CC Docket No. 92-105 and WT
    Docket No. 00-110 and should include a separate heading to identify
    the comments for each Docket Number. All relevant and timely
    comments will be considered by the Commission before final action is
    taken in this proceeding. To file formally, interested parties must
    file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments,
    and supporting comments. If interested parties want each
    Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, they must
    file an original plus nine copies. Interested parties should send
    comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, Room TW-A325, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20554, with copies to David Siehl, Policy Division,
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and to Cheryl Callahan, Network
    Services Division, Common Carrier Bureau, at 445 Twelfth Street,
    S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

36. Comments also may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment
    Filing System (ECFS).[^44] Comments filed through the ECFS can be
    sent as an electronic file via the Internet to
    <http://www.fcc.gov/e-mail/ecfs.html>. Generally, only one copy of
    an electronic submission must be filed. In completing the
    transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name,
    Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
    rulemaking numbers. Parties also may submit an electronic comment by
    Internet E-Mail. To obtain filing instructions for E-Mail comments,
    commenters should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should
    include the following words in the body of the message, "get form
    \<your E-Mail address\>." A sample form and directions will be sent
    in reply.

37. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection
    during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Center, Room
    CY-A257, at the Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth
    Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of comments and reply
    comments are available through the Commission's duplicating
    contractor: International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.),
    1231 20^th^ Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037, (202)857-3800.

## Further Information

38. For further information concerning this rulemaking proceeding,
    contact David Siehl of the 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

39. 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, 201, 202, 208, 214, 251(e)(3), 301, 303,
    308, 309(j), and 310, the FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER AND THIRD NOTICE
    OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING in CC Docket No. 92-105 is hereby ADOPTED.

40. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7,
    10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 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, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and
    310; and U.S.C.A. § 615, the NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING in WT
    Docket No. 00-110 is ADOPTED.

41. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 251(e)(3) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(3), 911
    is ASSIGNED as a national abbreviated dialing code to be used
    exclusively for access to emergency police and other government
    services, upon the release date of this FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER.

42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER AND THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN
    CC Docket No. 92-105 AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING IN WT Docket
    No. 00-110, including the associated Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc531610590 .anchor}Appendix A

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

**Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- CC Docket No. 92-105**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^45] the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in this Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third
Notice), CC Docket No. 92-105. Written public comments are requested on
this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must
be filed by the deadlines for comments on the Third Notice as provided
above in paragraph 35. The Commission will send a copy of the Third
Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the
Third Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
[Federal Register]{.underline}. *See id.*

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

The Third Notice is an important step toward implementation of the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (911 Act). Section
3(a) of the 911 Act amends the exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission
in Section 251(e) of the Communications Act over numbering
administration and those portions of the North American numbering plan
that pertain to the United States by directing the Commission to
designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone number for wireline
and wireless telephone service.[^46] The 911 Act amendment to Section
251(e) further directs the Commission to provide appropriate transition
periods for areas in which 911 is not in use as an emergency telephone
number on the date of enactment of the 911 Act.[^47] A transition period
will provide wireline and wireless carriers the necessary time to
implement the technical modifications to their networks and permit
translation of 911 at the appropriate network points into the emergency
number in use by Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in a particular
jurisdiction. The Third Notice seeks comment on the technical and
operational issues that should be taken into account in adopting
transition periods that will allow carriers sufficient time to
transition to the use of 911 as an emergency telephone number. Thus, we
intend for the Third Notice to stimulate participation by interested
parties in our effort to provide for reasonable transition periods.

B.  **Legal Basis for Proposed Rules**

The proposed action is authorized under 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, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 157, 160,
201, 202, 208, 214, 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), 310.

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

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^48] The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
"small business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^49] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under Section 3 of the
Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more
definitions that are appropriate for its activities.[^50] Under the
Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).[^51] A small organization is
generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its field."[^52] Nationwide, as of
1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^53]

The definition of "small governmental entity" is one with populations of
fewer than 50,000.[^54] There are 85,006 governmental entities in the
nation.[^55] 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 ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer
than 50,000.[^56] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is
approximately accurate for all government entities. Thus, of the 85,006
governmental entities, we estimate that ninety-six percent, or about
81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules.

**Common Carrier Services and Related Entities.** The most reliable
source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common
carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of
commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission
publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service* report.[^57] According to
data in the most recent report, there are 4,144 interstate
carriers.[^58] These carriers include, *inter alia*, local exchange
carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange
carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay
telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of
telephone exchange service, and resellers.

The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing "Radiotelephone
Communications" and "Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone" to
be small businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees.[^59]
Below, we discuss the total estimated number of telephone companies
falling within the two categories and the number of small businesses in
each, and we then attempt to refine further those estimates to
correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly
used under our rules.

We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As
noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, *inter alia*,
meets the pertinent small business size standard (*e.g.*, a telephone
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not
dominant in its field of operation." [^60] The SBA's Office of Advocacy
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not "national"
in scope.[^61] We have therefore included small incumbent LEC's is this
IRFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect
on FCC analyses and determinations in other non-RFA contexts.

**Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected.** The U.S. Bureau of the
Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were
3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein,
for at least one year.[^62] This number contains a variety of different
categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange
carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile
service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators,
covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers. It seems
certain that some of these 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify
as small entities or small ILECs because they are not "independently
owned and operated."[^63] For example, a reseller that is affiliated
with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not
meet the definition of a small business. It is reasonable to conclude
that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone
service firms or small ILECs that may be affected by the actions
proposed in this Third Notice.

**Wireline Carriers and Service Providers.** The SBA has developed a
definition of small entities for telephone communications companies
except radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports
that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least
one year at the end of 1992.[^64] According to the SBA\'s definition, a
small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is
one employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^65] All but 26 of the 2,321
non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported
to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295
non‑radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or
small ILECs. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers
that are not independently owned and operated, and thus are unable at
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline
carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business
concerns under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that
fewer than 2,295 small telephone communications companies other than
radiotelephone companies are small entities or small ILECs that may be
affected by the actions proposed in this Third Notice.

**Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers, Competitive
Local Exchange Carriers.** Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small providers of local exchange service,
competitive access providers, or competitive local exchange carriers.
The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone
communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)
companies.[^66] According to the most recent telecommunications industry
revenue data, 1,348 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of incumbent local exchange services, and 212 carriers
reported that they were providing competitive access or competitive
local exchange services.[^67] We do not have data specifying the number
of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, or have
more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate
with greater precision the number of providers and carriers that would
qualify as small business concerns under the SBA\'s definition.
Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,560 providers of local
exchange service, or of competitive access or competitive local exchange
services are small entities or small entities that may be affected by
the actions proposed in this Third Notice.

**Interexchange Carriers.** Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies
other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^68] According to the
most recent *Trends in Telephone Service* data, 171 carriers reported
that they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services.[^69]
We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not
independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and
thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
number of IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under the
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than
171 small entity IXCs that may be affected by the actions proposed in
this Third Notice.

**A-Block LMDS Providers.** The total number of A-block LMDS licenses is
limited to 493, one for each Basic Trading Area.[^70] The Commission has
held auctions for all 493 licenses, in which it defined "very small
business" (average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not
more than \$15 million), "small business" (more than \$15 million but
not more than \$40 million), and "entrepreneur" (more than \$40 but not
more than \$75 million) bidders.[^71] There have been 99 winning bidders
that qualified in these categories in these auctions all of which may be
affected by the actions proposed in this Third Notice.

**220 MHz Radio Service \-- Phase I Licensees.** The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by
lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such
non‑nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently
authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such
incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such
licensees that are small businesses, we apply the definition under the
SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone Communications companies. This
definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company
employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^72] According to the Bureau of
the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such
firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.[^73]
Therefore, if this general ratio continues in 1999 in the context of
Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees
are small businesses under the SBA\'s definition.

**220 MHz Radio Service \-- Phase II Licensees.** The Phase II 220 MHz
service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the
*220 MHz Third Report and Order*, we adopted criteria for defining small
businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their
eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments.[^74] We have defined a small business as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the
preceding three years.[^75] The SBA has approved these definitions.[^76]
The Commission has held two auctions for Phase II licenses for the 220
MHz band. Fifty-three (53) winning bidders qualified as small or very
small entities.

**Private and Common Carrier Paging.** The Commission has proposed a
two-tier definition of small businesses in the context of auctioning
licenses in the Common Carrier Paging and exclusive Private Carrier
Paging services. Under the proposal, a small business will be defined as
either (1) an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of
not more than \$3 million, or (2) an entity that, together with
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding calendar years of not more than \$15 million.
Because the SBA has not yet approved this definition for paging
services, we will utilize the SBA\'s definition applicable to
radiotelephone companies, *i.e*., an entity employing no more than 1,500
persons.[^77] At present, there are approximately 24,000 Private Paging
licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the
most recent *Carrier Locator Interstate Service Providers* data, 303
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of paging and
messaging.[^78] We do not have data specifying the number of these
carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than
1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of paging carriers that would qualify as
small business concerns under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we
estimate that there are fewer than 303 small paging carriers that may be
affected by the rules. We estimate that the majority of private and
common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under
the SBA definition.

**Mobile Service Carriers.** Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
mobile service carriers, such as paging companies. As noted above in the
section concerning paging service carriers the closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules is that for radiotelephone (wireless)
companies,[^79] and the most recent *Carrier Locator Interstate Service
Providers* data shows that 142 carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of SMR dispatching and "other mobile" services.[^80]
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 142 small mobile
service carriers that may be affected by the proposed rules.

**Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS).** The broadband PCS
spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F,
and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission
defined "small entity"for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average
gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the three previous calendar
years.[^81] For Block F, an additional classification for "very small
business" was added and is defined as an entity that, together with
their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than \$15
million for the preceding three calendar years.[^82] These regulations
defining "small entity" in the context of broadband PCS auctions have
been approved by the SBA.[^83] No small businesses within the
SBA-approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B.
There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the
Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders
won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F.[^84]
Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small
broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and
the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183
small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission\'s
auction rules.

**Narrowband PCS.** The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional
licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30 regional
licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have sufficient
information to determine whether any of these licensees are small
businesses within the SBA-approved definition for radiotelephone
companies. At present, there have been no auctions held for the major
trading area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses.
The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA
licenses will be awarded by auction. Such auctions have not yet been
scheduled, however. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have
no more than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number
of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be made, we assume,
for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to
small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

**Rural Radiotelephone Service.** The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service.[^85] A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems.[^86] We will use the
SBA\'s definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, *i.e*., an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^87] 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
SBA\'s definition.

**Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.** The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service.[^88] Accordingly, we will use the SBA\'s definition applicable
to radiotelephone companies, *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than
1,500 persons.[^89] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of
them qualify as small under the SBA definition.

**Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR).** The Commission awards bidding
credits in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses
to firms that had revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the
three previous calendar years.[^90] In the context of both 800 MHz and
900 MHz SMR, this regulation defining "small entity" has been approved
by the SBA; and the Commission has also received approval concerning 800
MHz SMR.

The proposed rules in the Third Notice apply to SMR providers in the 800
MHz and 900 MHz bands that hold CMRS licenses. We do not know how many
firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service as CMRS
operators, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no
more than \$15 million. One firm has over \$15 million in revenues. We
assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the remaining existing
SMR authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined
by the SBA. For geographic area licensees in the 900 MHz SMR band there
are 60 who qualified as small entities.

**Offshore Radiotelephone Service.** This service operates on several
UHF TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the
coastal area of the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico.[^91] At
present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are
unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would
qualify as small under the SBA\'s definition for radiotelephone
communications.

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

The Third Notice invites comment on a number of issues pertaining to the
implementation of 911 as the universal emergency number in the United
States, and the transition to 911 by carriers that provide emergency
communication services but are not currently using 911. A certain amount
of regulation or compliance requirements may be inherent in ensuring the
smooth, efficient transition to 911. For example, telecommunications
carriers' equipment must recognize the dialing code 911, and direct such
calls along with certain other signaling and location information to the
pre-designated location where personnel are available to receive reports
of emergencies. A carriers' transition to the 911 emergency number may
require development and operation of database systems, certain network
modifications to current emergency dialing patterns, and upgrades in
software and hardware. The Third Notice seeks comment on all of the
steps that carriers must undertake for that transition and suggested
timeframes to complete those steps expeditiously. Further, the
Commission conceivably could adopt a mechanism for monitoring the
progress of this transition. One possibility is a requirement that
carriers file transition reports with the Commission.

The Commission is hopeful that the Third Notice will attract clearly
developed comments that will suggest suitable means for achieving
ubiquitous, efficient transition to 911 with as little regulatory burden
on all parties as possible. In this effort, the Commission, in
cooperation with all interested parties, seeks a reliable, efficient way
to improve critical 911 service in light of the varying current
conditions in communities throughout the country. The expeditious
transition to universal 911 usage is an important step in reaching this
goal.

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

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification
, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting
requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.[^92]

The purpose of the 911 Act is to encourage and facilitate the prompt
deployment throughout the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and
reliable end-to-end infrastructure for emergency communications,
including wireless communications.[^93] Congress found that the
establishment of a network that provided for the rapid, efficient
deployment of emergency services would result in many public
benefits,[^94] including faster delivery of emergency care with reduced
fatalities and severity of injuries, and improved service in rural
areas. Because of the critical life and death nature of the issues at
stake in implementing 911 as a national emergency number, it is
important that all parties involved, large or small, participate in the
creation of this emergency infrastructure. Therefore, it is imperative
that all entities participate in this rulemaking proceeding in order
that the opinions about and the effect of the proposed rules on all
entities be reflected in the comments filed herein. Thus, the Commission
is limited in affording exceptions or providing benefits to small
entities. Wherever possible, we have afforded maximum flexibility and
minimum burden on all affected parties. For example, in paragraphs
17-21, *supra*, the Commission makes it clear that it is aware that
localities across the nation are currently at different stages of
transitioning to 911, and that service-area specific circumstances and
capabilities will serve to determine what the transition periods should
be. In recognition of such diverse conditions, the Third Notice further
seeks specific input on what factors will affect the transition periods
required by different categories of carriers and what timeframes would
be necessary to accommodate such factors. In addition, where a locality
has no PSAP or centralized emergency service program, because of the
various logistical difficulties present in such a situation, we
tentatively conclude that we should not impose any particular obligation
on carriers to transmit 911 calls in such localities or areas. The Third
Notice seeks comment on this tentative conclusion.

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

None.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc531610591 .anchor}Appendix B

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

**Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- WT Docket No. 00-110**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^95] the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), WT
Docket No. 00-110. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the NPRM as provided above in paragraph
35. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
*See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the [Federal Register]{.underline}. *See
id.*

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

The NPRM initiates a proceeding to address issues that are involved in
implementing the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999
(911 Act).[^96] The 911 Act seeks to achieve a coordinated, nationwide
emergency communications network that integrates the latest technologies
and ensures improved and prompt delivery of emergency services.[^97]
Section 3(b) of the 911 Act directs the Commission to encourage and
support efforts by the States to deploy comprehensive end-to-end
emergency communications infrastructure and programs, based on
coordinated statewide plans.[^98] The NPRM seeks comment on what
measures the Commission should adopt to encourage and support those
state efforts. The NPRM also seeks comment on how the Commission should
satisfy its obligation to consult and cooperate with various
stakeholders in the development of state plans. The Commission
recognizes that it must balance its mandate of encouraging and
supporting parties in their efforts with its Congressional directive not
to impose obligations or costs on any person. The NPRM is intended to
ensure that the Congressional goals for an expanded and improved
nationwide emergency communications system are implemented
expeditiously, effectively, and efficiently, thus saving and improving
lives.

B.  **Legal Basis for Proposed Rules**

The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10, 201,
202, 208, 214, 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201,
202, 208, 214, 251(e)(3), 301, 303, 308, 309(j), 310; and 47 U.S.C.A. §
615.

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

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^99] The RFA generally
defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms
"small business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^100] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under Section 3 of the
Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more
definitions that are appropriate for its activities.[^101] Under the
Small Business Act, a "small business concern" is one that: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).[^102] A small organization is
generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its field."[^103] Nationwide, as of
1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^104]

The definition of "small governmental entity" is one with populations of
fewer than 50,000.[^105] There are 85,006 governmental entities in the
nation.[^106] 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 ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer
than 50,000.[^107] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is
approximately accurate for all government entities. Thus, of the 85,006
governmental entities, we estimate that ninety-six percent, or about
81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules.

**Common Carrier Services and Related Entities.** The most reliable
source of information regarding the total numbers of certain common
carrier and related providers nationwide, as well as the number of
commercial wireless entities, appears to be data the Commission
publishes in its *Trends in Telephone Service* report.[^108] According
to data in the most recent report, there are 4,144 interstate
carriers.[^109] These carriers include, *inter alia*, local exchange
carriers, wireline carriers and service providers, interexchange
carriers, competitive access providers, operator service providers, pay
telephone operators, providers of telephone toll service, providers of
telephone exchange service, and resellers.

The SBA has defined establishments engaged in providing "Radiotelephone
Communications" and "Telephone Communications, Except Radiotelephone" to
be small businesses when they have no more than 1,500 employees.[^110]
Below, we discuss the total estimated number of telephone companies
falling within the two categories and the number of small businesses in
each, and we then attempt to refine further those estimates to
correspond with the categories of telephone companies that are commonly
used under our rules.

We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As
noted above, a "small business" under the RFA is one that, *inter alia*,
meets the pertinent small business size standard (*e.g.*, a telephone
communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not
dominant in its field of operation." [^111] The SBA's Office of Advocacy
contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent LECs are not dominant
in their field of operation because any such dominance is not "national"
in scope.[^112] We have therefore included small incumbent LEC's is this
IRFA analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect
on FCC analyses and determinations in other non-RFA contexts.

**Total Number of Telephone Companies Affected.** The U.S. Bureau of the
Census (Census Bureau) reports that, at the end of 1992, there were
3,497 firms engaged in providing telephone services, as defined therein,
for at least one year.[^113] This number contains a variety of different
categories of carriers, including local exchange carriers, interexchange
carriers, competitive access providers, cellular carriers, mobile
service carriers, operator service providers, pay telephone operators,
covered specialized mobile radio providers, and resellers. It seems
certain that some of these 3,497 telephone service firms may not qualify
as small entities or small ILECs because they are not "independently
owned and operated."[^114] For example, a reseller that is affiliated
with an interexchange carrier having more than 1,500 employees would not
meet the definition of a small business. It is reasonable to conclude
that fewer than 3,497 telephone service firms are small entity telephone
service firms or small ILECs that may be affected by the actions
proposed in this Third Notice.

**Wireline Carriers and Service Providers.** The SBA has developed a
definition of small entities for telephone communications companies
except radiotelephone (wireless) companies. The Census Bureau reports
that there were 2,321 such telephone companies in operation for at least
one year at the end of 1992.[^115] According to the SBA\'s definition, a
small business telephone company other than a radiotelephone company is
one employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^116] All but 26 of the 2,321
non-radiotelephone companies listed by the Census Bureau were reported
to have fewer than 1,000 employees. Thus, even if all 26 of those
companies had more than 1,500 employees, there would still be 2,295
non‑radiotelephone companies that might qualify as small entities or
small ILECs. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers
that are not independently owned and operated, and thus are unable at
this time to estimate with greater precision the number of wireline
carriers and service providers that would qualify as small business
concerns under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we estimate that
fewer than 2,295 small telephone communications companies other than
radiotelephone companies are small entities or small ILECs that may be
affected by the actions proposed in this Third Notice.

**Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers, Competitive
Local Exchange Carriers.** Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition for small providers of local exchange service,
competitive access providers, or competitive local exchange carriers.
The closest applicable definition under the SBA rules is for telephone
communications companies other than radiotelephone (wireless)
companies.[^117] According to the most recent telecommunications
industry revenue data, 1,348 carriers reported that they were engaged in
the provision of incumbent local exchange services, and 212 carriers
reported that they were providing competitive access or competitive
local exchange services.[^118] We do not have data specifying the number
of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated, or have
more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate
with greater precision the number of providers and carriers that would
qualify as small business concerns under the SBA\'s definition.
Consequently, we estimate that fewer than 1,560 providers of local
exchange service, or of competitive access or competitive local exchange
services are small entities or small entities that may be affected by
the actions proposed in this Third Notice.

**Interexchange Carriers.** Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
providers of interexchange services (IXCs). The closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules is for telephone communications companies
other than radiotelephone (wireless) companies.[^119] According to the
most recent *Trends in Telephone Service* data, 171 carriers reported
that they were engaged in the provision of interexchange services.[^120]
We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not
independently owned and operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and
thus are unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the
number of IXCs that would qualify as small business concerns under the
SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than
171 small entity IXCs that may be affected by the actions proposed in
this Third Notice.

**A-Block LMDS Providers.** The total number of A-block LMDS licenses is
limited to 493, one for each Basic Trading Area.[^121] The Commission
has held auctions for all 493 licenses, in which it defined "very small
business" (average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not
more than \$15 million), "small business" (more than \$15 million but
not more than \$40 million), and "entrepreneur" (more than \$40 but not
more than \$75 million) bidders.[^122] There have been 99 winning
bidders that qualified in these categories in these auctions all of
which may be affected by the actions proposed in this Third Notice.

**220 MHz Radio Service \-- Phase I Licensees.** The 220 MHz service has
both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by
lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such
non‑nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently
authorized to operate in the 220 MHz band. The Commission has not
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to such
incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such
licensees that are small businesses, we apply the definition under the
SBA rules applicable to Radiotelephone Communications companies. This
definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company
employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^123] According to the Bureau of
the Census, only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such
firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.[^124]
Therefore, if this general ratio continues in 1999 in the context of
Phase I 220 MHz licensees, we estimate that nearly all such licensees
are small businesses under the SBA\'s definition.

**220 MHz Radio Service \-- Phase II Licensees.** The Phase II 220 MHz
service is a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the
*220 MHz Third Report and Order*, we adopted criteria for defining small
businesses and very small businesses for purposes of determining their
eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments.[^125] We have defined a small business as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a very small business is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the
preceding three years.[^126] The SBA has approved these
definitions.[^127] The Commission has held two auctions for Phase II
licenses for the 220 MHz band. Fifty-three (53) winning bidders
qualified as small or very small entities.

**Private and Common Carrier Paging.** The Commission has proposed a
two-tier definition of small businesses in the context of auctioning
licenses in the Common Carrier Paging and exclusive Private Carrier
Paging services. Under the proposal, a small business will be defined as
either (1) an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of
not more than \$3 million, or (2) an entity that, together with
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding calendar years of not more than \$15 million.
Because the SBA has not yet approved this definition for paging
services, we will utilize the SBA\'s definition applicable to
radiotelephone companies, *i.e*., an entity employing no more than 1,500
persons.[^128] At present, there are approximately 24,000 Private Paging
licenses and 74,000 Common Carrier Paging licenses. According to the
most recent *Carrier Locator Interstate Service Providers* data, 303
carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of paging and
messaging.[^129] We do not have data specifying the number of these
carriers that are not independently owned and operated or have more than
1,500 employees, and thus are unable at this time to estimate with
greater precision the number of paging carriers that would qualify as
small business concerns under the SBA\'s definition. Consequently, we
estimate that there are fewer than 303 small paging carriers that may be
affected by the rules. We estimate that the majority of private and
common carrier paging providers would qualify as small entities under
the SBA definition.

**Mobile Service Carriers.** Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a definition of small entities specifically applicable to
mobile service carriers, such as paging companies. As noted above in the
section concerning paging service carriers the closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules is that for radiotelephone (wireless)
companies,[^130] and the most recent *Carrier Locator Interstate Service
Providers* data shows that 142 carriers reported that they were engaged
in the provision of SMR dispatching and "other mobile" services.[^131]
Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 142 small mobile
service carriers that may be affected by the proposed rules.

**Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS).** The broadband PCS
spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F,
and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission
defined "small entity"for Blocks C and F as an entity that has average
gross revenues of less than \$40 million in the three previous calendar
years.[^132] For Block F, an additional classification for "very small
business" was added and is defined as an entity that, together with
their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than \$15
million for the preceding three calendar years.[^133] These regulations
defining "small entity" in the context of broadband PCS auctions have
been approved by the SBA.[^134] No small businesses within the
SBA-approved definition bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B.
There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small entities in the
Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business bidders
won approximately 40% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and
F.[^135] Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small
broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and
the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183
small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission\'s
auction rules.

**Narrowband PCS.** The Commission has auctioned nationwide and regional
licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30 regional
licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have sufficient
information to determine whether any of these licensees are small
businesses within the SBA-approved definition for radiotelephone
companies. At present, there have been no auctions held for the major
trading area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA) narrowband PCS licenses.
The Commission anticipates a total of 561 MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA
licenses will be awarded by auction. Such auctions have not yet been
scheduled, however. Given that nearly all radiotelephone companies have
no more than 1,500 employees and that no reliable estimate of the number
of prospective MTA and BTA narrowband licensees can be made, we assume,
for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to
small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

**Rural Radiotelephone Service.** The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service.[^136] A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems.[^137] We will use the
SBA\'s definition applicable to radiotelephone companies, *i.e*., an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.[^138] 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
SBA\'s definition.

**Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.** The Commission has not adopted a
definition of small entity specific to the Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Service.[^139] Accordingly, we will use the SBA\'s definition applicable
to radiotelephone companies, *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than
1,500 persons.[^140] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all of
them qualify as small under the SBA definition.

**Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR).** The Commission awards bidding
credits in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licenses
to firms that had revenues of no more than \$15 million in each of the
three previous calendar years.[^141] In the context of both 800 MHz and
900 MHz SMR, this regulation defining "small entity" has been approved
by the SBA; and the Commission has also received approval concerning 800
MHz SMR.

The proposed rules in the Third Notice apply to SMR providers in the 800
MHz and 900 MHz bands that hold CMRS licenses. We do not know how many
firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service as CMRS
operators, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of no
more than \$15 million. One firm has over \$15 million in revenues. We
assume, for purposes of this IRFA, that all of the remaining existing
SMR authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined
by the SBA. For geographic area licensees in the 900 MHz SMR band there
are 60 who qualified as small entities.

**Offshore Radiotelephone Service.** This service operates on several
UHF TV broadcast channels that are not used for TV broadcasting in the
coastal area of the States bordering the Gulf of Mexico.[^142] At
present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. We are
unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would
qualify as small under the SBA\'s definition for radiotelephone
communications.

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

The NPRM seeks comment on what measures may be necessary to implement
the provisions of section 3(b) of the 911 Act, and on the Commission's
tentative conclusion that it may adopt measures that facilitate the
efforts of the States in their deployment of comprehensive emergency
communications networks. Actual reporting, recordkeeping, and compliance
requirements will depend on what the Commission ultimately adopts. Based
on the proposals contained in the NPRM, the Commission finds several
possible compliance requirements. First, the 911 Act mandates that each
State "develop and implement coordinated statewide deployment
plans...."[^143] It may thus be necessary for various involved parties,
including the carriers and the PSAPs, to communicate regularly both
orally and in person. The Commission might assist in these cooperative
efforts by scheduling round table discussions or acting as a
clearinghouse for information. The parties may be asked to participate
by providing, for example, available information on the status of the
implementation of 911 infrastructures and programs, and by contributing
to a process in which the Commission could assist in providing
information, possibly for the development of a "model" state plan. Also,
to ensure compliance with the statutory objectives of section 3(b), the
Commission could conceivably request that these plans be submitted to
the Commission for review. These issues are discussed in paragraphs
24-27 of the NPRM.

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

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives: (1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification
, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting
requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.[^144]

Because of the critical life and death nature of the issues at stake in
implementing 911 as a national emergency number, it is important that
all parties involved, large or small, participate equally in the 911
program. The NPRM takes note, however, of Congressional recognition that
most of the key decisions in improving 911 service are not made by the
Federal government but by the private sector and State and local
governments, and implementation of 911 systems is carried out at the
local level. Therefore, instead of proposing that the Commission play a
strong regulatory role in 911 implementation, the NPRM seeks comment on
different measures that could possibly be taken as part of a framework
for deployment of comprehensive emergency systems based on statewide
plans and that are based on the cooperation and coordination of all the
interested parties, with the encouragement and support of the
Commission.

Rather than proposing that the various parties coordinate among
themselves and report back to the Commission with the result of their
efforts, the NPRM, as indicated in paragraph 25, seeks comment on
whether the Commission could satisfy its obligation to consult and
cooperate by convening a forum or other meetings to develop and
disseminate information on 911 issues. The Commission believes that this
could help the coordination process by bringing together the designated
entities from different States that share problems particular to their
region and perhaps from specific rural or urban areas that overlap state
boundaries. Also, paragraph 26 sets forth, the Commission proposes that
it could perform a "clearinghouse" function, providing a common point
for locating necessary information and indicating the problems
encountered and the progress made. Finally, as a general matter, the
NPRM solicits comment on steps the States view as necessary to their
development of state plans and what kinds of support they need from the
Commission in order to achieve the statutory objectives of section 3(b).

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

None.

[^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, 47 U.S.C. §§ 222, 251. (911 Act).

[^2]: 911 Act at Section 2(b). The wireless communications in the 911
    Act are those provided by a wireless carrier that the 911 Act
    defines as "a provider of commercial mobile services or any other
    radio communications service that the Federal Communications
    Commission requires to provide wireless 911 service." 911 Act at
    Section 6(3). As discussed below, those providers are at present
    limited to certain commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) carriers.
    *See* below, at para. 6.

[^3]: 911 Act at Section 2(b).

[^4]: 911 Act at Section 2(a).

[^5]: H.R. Rep. No. 106-25, at 5-9 (1999) (House Report); S. Rep. No.
    106-138, at 1-2 (1999) (Senate Report).

[^6]: House Report at 8; Senate Report at 1. These figures have
    increased significantly in the latest update of statistics provided
    by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA).
    According to CTIA's survey, the annual figures for 1999 indicate a
    total of 86 million subscribers that placed more than 43 million
    distress, or 911, calls. Currently, the total number of subscribers
    has increased to more than 101million. CTIA website,
    [http://www.wow-com.com](http://www.wow-com.com/) (Aug. 24, 2000).

[^7]: House Report at 5.

[^8]: Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    RM-8143, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 9 FCC Rcd 6170 (1994)
    (*E911 NPRM*); Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 18676 (1996) (*E911 First Report and Order*)
    (adopting 47 C.F.R. § 20.18); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC
    Rcd 22665 (1997) (*E911 First Reconsideration Order*); Second Report
    and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10954 (1999) (*E911 Second Report and Order*);
    Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17388 (1999) (*E911 Third Report
    and Order)*; Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20850
    (1999) (*E911 Second Reconsideration Order*); Third Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1144 (2000) (*E911 Third
    Reconsideration Order*).

[^9]: These carriers are licensees of Broadband Personal Communications
    Services, Cellular Radio Telephone Service, and wide-area
    Specialized Mobile Radio Services. 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(a). We declined
    to impose specific regulatory requirements on those classes of CMRS
    licensees with evolving real-time, two-way voice communications that
    have not fully developed their commercial services, such as Mobile
    Satellite Services, and expected that they would coordinate efforts
    with public safety agencies as they develop to achieve acceptable
    emergency access services. *E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd
    at 18716-18 (paras. 80-84), *E911 First Reconsideration Order*, 12
    FCC Rcd at 22706-08 (paras. 87-89). We are examining whether to
    impose our wireless 911 rules on certain satellite licensees. The
    Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite
    Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No. 99-81, Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 4843, 4884-86 (1999), Report and Order, FCC
    00-302, adopted Aug. 14, 2000, released Aug. 25, 2000; Amendment of
    Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal
    Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding and
    Arrangements, IB Docket No. 99-67, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14
    FCC Rcd 5871, 5907-08 (1999).

[^10]: House Report at 7-8; Senate Report at 8.

[^11]: *See* above at para. 6 n.9.

[^12]: 911 Act at Section 4.

[^13]: 911 Act at Section 5 (amending section 222 by, inter alia, adding
    new sections 47 U.S.C. § 222(d)(4), (f) \[concerning CPNI\] and 47
    U.S.C § 222(g) \[concerning subscriber information, both listed and
    unlisted\]). We also note that in redesignating former section 47
    U.S.C. § 222(f) as section 47 U.S.C. § 222(h), the 911 Act amended
    or added definitions. 47 U.S.C. § 222(h)(1)(A), (h)(4)-(7).

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1). The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub.
    L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (amending the Communications Act of
    1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151 *et. seq*.).

[^15]: 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(1). The section also required the Commission
    to designate an impartial entity to administer telecommunications
    numbering. Subsequently, we established rules and procedures to
    govern administration functions under a neutral third-party North
    American Numbering Plan Administrator. 47 C.F.R. §§ 52.7 *et seq.*

[^16]: 911 Act at Section 3(a), 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(3).

[^17]: The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements,
    CC Docket No. 92-105, First Report and Order and Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 5572, 5586 (para. 23) and 5595
    (para. 36) (1997) (*N11 First Report and Order*).

[^18]: *Id.* at 5586 (para. 23).

[^19]: *E911 First Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 18678 (paras. 1-2).

[^20]: *N11 First Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 5572, 5579 (para. 13).

[^21]: Petition filed by the United States Department of Transportation
    for Assignment of an Abbreviated Dialing Code (N11) to Access
    Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Services Nationwide,
    NSD-L-99-24; Request by the Alliance of Information and Referral
    Systems, United Way of America, United Way 211 (Atlanta, GA), United
    Way of Connecticut, Florida Alliance of Information & Referral
    Services, and the Texas I&R Network for assignment of 211 Dialing
    Code, NSD L-98-80; The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated
    Dialing Arrangements, CC Docket No. 92-105, Third Report and Order
    and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 00-256, adopted July 21, 2000,
    released July 31, 2000, at para. 43 (stating that once the
    Commission designates N11 for national use, essentially all that
    remains to do is to implement that assignment and monitor the use of
    the N11 codes).

[^22]: In the legislative history accompanying the 911 Act, Congress
    stated that, in our implementation of the requirement that wireless
    and wireline carriers offer 911 as the number to call in an
    emergency, "\[n\]othing in this section is intended to impose an
    obligation on States or localities." House Report at 13.

[^23]: Senate Report at 5; House Report at 2.

[^24]: 911 Act at Section 6.

[^25]: House Report at 13.

[^26]: 911 Act at Section 3(a), 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(3).

[^27]: *See* House Report at 13-14.

[^28]: *See* House Report at 13.

[^29]: Because wireless carriers covered by the 911 Act are subject to
    our E911 rules that require their transmission of all 911 calls,
    they generally would translate 911 calls into any non-911 number a
    locality may be using for emergency services and it is not clear
    that any longer implementation period is necessary. Also, it is
    worth noting that Congress expressed concern about making 911
    available to wireless customers.

[^30]: House Report at 14.

[^31]: 911 Act at Section 2(a)(1)-(6).

[^32]: 911 Act at Section 3(b). We address our obligations under section
    3(b) in a new wireless rulemaking docket separate from CC Docket No.
    92-105, to focus on the wireless issues emphasized in the 911 Act
    statutory mandate and to keep numbering issues distinctly within CC
    Docket No. 92-105.

[^33]: *Id*.

[^34]: *Id*.

[^35]: House Report at 8.

[^36]: House Report at 7-8.

[^37]: We have previously found such an approach to be beneficial in
    implementing specific N11 programs. *See* Revised Public Notice On
    FCC Convenes A [Public Forum]{.underline} on 711 Access To
    Telecommunications Relay Services, CC Docket No. 92-105, DA 991170
    (June 16, 1999); *see also* Public Forum on 711 Access To
    Telecommunications Relay Services, CC Docket No. 92-105 (Sept. 8,
    1999) at http: [www.fcc.gov/711/](http://www.fcc.gov/711/).
    (transcript).

[^38]: *E911 Second Reconsideration Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 20866-80
    (paras. 38-74).

[^39]: *See*, *e.g.*, Public Notice, "Commission Announces Details of
    Technical Roundtable on Implementation of Automatic Location
    Identification for Enhanced 911 Technologies," CC Docket No. 94-102,
    DA 99-1243 (June 23, 1999) (addressing technical matters regarding
    911 Phase II Automatic Location Identification (ALI)).

[^40]: http:// www.fcc.gov//e911.

[^41]: Pub. L. No. 106-81, enacted Oct. 26, 1999.

[^42]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).

[^43]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419.

[^44]: Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 Fed.
    Reg. 24,121 (1998).

[^45]: *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).

[^46]: Pub. L. No. 106-81, enacted Oct. 26, 1999; 911 Act at Section
    3(a); 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(3).

[^47]: 911 Act at Section 3(a); 47 U.S.C. § 251(e)(3)

[^48]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^49]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6)

[^50]: *Id*. § 601(3).

[^51]: *Id*. § 632.

[^52]: *Id*. § 601(4).

[^53]: 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).

[^54]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^55]: 1992 Census of Governments, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce.

[^56]: *Id*.

[^57]: FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, *Trends
    in Telephone Service*, Table 19.3 (March 2000).

[^58]: *Id.*

[^59]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    codes 4812 and 4813. *See also* Executive Office of the President,
    Office of Management and Budget, *Standard Industrial Classification
    Manual* (1987).

[^60]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^61]: Letter *from* Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA
    *to* William E. Kennard,

[^62]: [U.S. Bureau of the Census]{.smallcaps}, [U.S. Dept. of
    Commerce,]{.smallcaps} [1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and Firm
    Size]{.smallcaps}, at Firm Size 1‑123 (1995) (*1992 Census*).

[^63]: *See generally* 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1).

[^64]: *1992 Census*, at Firm Size 1‑123.

[^65]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^66]: *Id.*

[^67]: *Carrier Locator Interstate Service Providers,* Figure 1 (January
    2000).

[^68]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^69]: FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, *Trends
    in Telephone Service*, Table 19.3 (March 2000).

[^70]: 47 CFR 101.1005, 101.1007.

[^71]: 47 CFR 101.1107(a)-(c), 101.1112.

[^72]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^73]: [U.S. Bureau of the Census]{.smallcaps}, [U.S. Dept. of
    Commerce,]{.smallcaps} [1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications, and Utilities]{.smallcaps}, UC92‑S‑1, Subject
    Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment Size of
    Firms; 1992, SIC code 4812 (issued May 1995).

[^74]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules To Provide for
    the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service, PR Docket No. 89-552; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and
    332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile
    Services, GN Docket No. 93-252; Implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act \-- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No.
    93-253, Third Report and Order; Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70 (paras. 291-95) (1997) (*220 MHz Third
    Report and Order*).

[^75]: *Id.* at 11068‑69 (para. 291).

[^76]: *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to D. Phythyon,
    Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6, 1998).

[^77]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^78]: *Carrier Locator Interstate Service Providers*, Figure 1 (January
    2000).

[^79]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^80]: *Carrier Locator Interstate Service Providers*, Figure 1 (January
    2000).

[^81]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission\'s Rules -
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59; Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership Rule, GN Docket 90-314,
    Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-52 (paras. 57-60) (1996);
    *see also* Section 24.720(b) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §24.720(b).

[^82]: *See Id.* at 7852 (para. 60).

[^83]: *See, e.g.*, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act \-- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5581-84 (paras. 114-20)
    (1994).

[^84]: FCC News, *Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes*, No.
    71744 (released Jan. 14, 1997).

[^85]: The service is defined in Section 22.99 of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^86]: BETRS is defined in Sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.

[^87]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^88]: The service is defined in Section 22.99 of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^89]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^90]: 47 C.F.R. §90.814(b)(1).

[^91]: This service is governed by subpart I of part 22 of the
    Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001‑22.1037.

[^92]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

[^93]: 911 Act at Section 2(b), 47 U.S.C.A. § 615 NOTE.

[^94]: 911 Act at Section 2(a), 47 U.S.C.A. § 615 NOTE.

[^95]: *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).

[^96]: Pub.L.No. 106-81, enacted Oct. 26, 1999, 47 U.S.C.A. § 615.

[^97]: 911 Act at Section 2(a)(1)-(6).

[^98]: 47 U.S.C.A. § 615.

[^99]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^100]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6)

[^101]: *Id*. § 601(3).

[^102]: *Id*. § 632.

[^103]: *Id*. § 601(4).

[^104]: 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).

[^105]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^106]: 1992 Census of Governments, U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S.
    Department of Commerce.

[^107]: *Id*.

[^108]: FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, *Trends
    in Telephone Service*, Table 19.3 (March 2000).

[^109]: *Id.*

[^110]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    codes 4812 and 4813. *See also* Executive Office of the President,
    Office of Management and Budget, *Standard Industrial Classification
    Manual* (1987).

[^111]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^112]: Letter *from* Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA
    *to* William E. Kennard,

[^113]: [U.S. Bureau of the Census]{.smallcaps}, [U.S. Dept. of
    Commerce,]{.smallcaps} [1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications, and Utilities: Establishment and Firm
    Size]{.smallcaps}, at Firm Size 1‑123 (1995) (*1992 Census*).

[^114]: *See generally* 15 U.S.C. § 632(a)(1).

[^115]: *1992 Census*, at Firm Size 1‑123.

[^116]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^117]: *Id.*

[^118]: *Carrier Locator Interstate Service Providers,* Figure 1
    (January 2000).

[^119]: 13 CFR 121.201, SIC code 4813.

[^120]: FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, *Trends
    in Telephone Service*, Table 19.3 (March 2000).

[^121]: 47 CFR 101.1005, 101.1007.

[^122]: 47 CFR 101.1107(a)-(c), 101.1112.

[^123]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^124]: [U.S. Bureau of the Census]{.smallcaps}, [U.S. Dept. of
    Commerce,]{.smallcaps} [1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications, and Utilities]{.smallcaps}, UC92‑S‑1, Subject
    Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment Size of
    Firms; 1992, SIC code 4812 (issued May 1995).

[^125]: Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules To Provide for
    the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service, PR Docket No. 89-552; Implementation of Sections 3(n) and
    332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile
    Services, GN Docket No. 93-252; Implementation of Section 309(j) of
    the Communications Act \-- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No.
    93-253, Third Report and Order; Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70 (paras. 291-95) (1997) (*220 MHz Third
    Report and Order*).

[^126]: *Id.* at 11068‑69 (para. 291).

[^127]: *See* Letter from A. Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to D.
    Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Jan. 6,
    1998).

[^128]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^129]: *Carrier Locator Interstate Service Providers*, Figure 1
    (January 2000).

[^130]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^131]: *Carrier Locator Interstate Service Providers*, Figure 1
    (January 2000).

[^132]: *See* Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission\'s Rules -
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59; Amendment of the
    Commission\'s Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership Rule, GN Docket 90-314,
    Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850-52 (paras. 57-60) (1996);
    *see also* Section 24.720(b) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R.
    §24.720(b).

[^133]: *See Id.* at 7852 (para. 60).

[^134]: *See, e.g.*, Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act \-- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5581-84 (paras. 114-20)
    (1994).

[^135]: FCC News, *Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes*, No.
    71744 (released Jan. 14, 1997).

[^136]: The service is defined in Section 22.99 of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^137]: BETRS is defined in Sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.

[^138]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^139]: The service is defined in Section 22.99 of the Commission\'s
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^140]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, SIC code 4812.

[^141]: 47 C.F.R. §90.814(b)(1).

[^142]: This service is governed by subpart I of part 22 of the
    Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001‑22.1037.

[^143]: S. Rep. No. 106-138, at 1-2.

[^144]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).