*Pages 1--56 from  Microsoft Word - 23895.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  With  Enhanced  911 
 Emergency  Calling  Systems 
 Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  25  to  Implement  the  Global  Mobile  Personal  Communications  by 
 Satellite  (GMPCS)  Memorandum  of  Understanding  and  Arrangements;  Petition  of  the 
 National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration  to  Amend  Part  25  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules  to  Establish  Emissions  Limits  for  Mobile  and  Portable  Earth  Stations 
 Operating  in  the  1610-  1660.  5  MHz  Band 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 ) 


 CC  Docket  No.  94-  102 
 IB  Docket  No.  99-  67 


 Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking 
 Adopted:  December  11,  2002  Released:  December  20,  2002 
 Comment  Date:  February  3,  2003  Reply  Comment  Date:  February  28,  2003 


 By  the  Commission:  Commissioner  Adelstein  not  participating. 
 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Paragraph 
 I.  INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................  1 
 II.  BACKGROUND  ......................................................................................................................  3 
 III.  DISCUSSION  ........................................................................................................................  11 
 A.  General  Criteria.................................................................................................................  12 
 B.  Individual  Voice  Services  and  Devices  ...........................................................................  16 
 1.  Mobile  Satellite  Service  (MSS)........................................................................  17  2.  Telematics  Services  .........................................................................................  57 


 3.  Multi-  Line  Telephone  Systems  .......................................................................  81  4.  Resold  Cellular  and  PCS  Service  ....................................................................  92 
 5.  Pre-  paid  Calling  ...............................................................................................  98  6.  Disposable  Phones  .........................................................................................  103 
 7.  Automated  Maritime  Telecommunications  Systems  (AMTS)  ......................  107  8.  Emerging  Voice  Services  and  Devices  ..........................................................  111 


 IV.  PROCEDURAL  INFORMATION  ......................................................................................  116 
 V.  ORDERING  CLAUSES  .......................................................................................................  125 
 VI.  APPENDIX  A 
 VII.  APPENDIX  B 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 2 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  Over  the  last  four  decades,  access  to  911  service  has  dramatically  improved  the  ability  of  emergency  personnel  to  respond  quickly  to  people  in  distress.  1  Efforts  by  the  telecommunications 
 industry,  state  and  local  governments,  and  the  federal  government  have  resulted  in  wireline  911  service  being  available  to  approximately  98  percent  of  the  population.  2  Congress  found  911  service  to  be  of  such 
 importance  that  it  enacted  a  statute  codifying  9-  1-  1  as  the  national  emergency  telephone  number.  3 
 2.  We  here  initiate  a  reevaluation  of  the  scope  of  communications  services  that  should  provide  access  to  emergency  services.  4  Today,  wireline  local  exchange  carriers  provide  911  services  generally 
 pursuant  to  state  or  local  provisions.  Most  CMRS  licensees  are  providing  basic  and  enhanced  911  service  pursuant  to  Commission  rules.  In  this  Further  Notice,  we  examine  and  seek  comment  on  the  need  to 
 require  compliance  with  our  basic  and  enhanced  911  (E911)  rules,  or  similar  requirements,  by  various  other  mobile  wireless  and  certain  wireline  voice  services.  We  consider  whether  existing  services  such  as 
 telematics  or  voice  service  provided  by  multi-  line  systems  should  be  required  to  provide  access  to  911  service.  5  We  also  consider  whether  some  new  services  should  be  subject  to  any  E911  requirements.  We 
 seek  comment  throughout  this  Further  Notice  on  the  impact  that  exclusion  of  these  services  and  devices  from  our  911  rules  may  have  on  consumers,  as  well  as  the  technological  and  cost  issues  involved  in 
 providing  E911,  all  in  the  context  of  the  expectation  of  consumers  for  911  service  when  they  use  these  services  and  devices.  In  initiating  this  Further  Notice,  we  are  mindful  of  the  need  to  balance  the 
 expectations  of  consumers  to  have  access  to  911  service  with  the  need  to  continue  to  foster  growth  and  competition  in  the  telecommunications  marketplace. 


 II.  BACKGROUND 
 3.  In  1994,  the  Commission  initiated  this  proceeding  by  proposing  to  amend  its  rules  to  address  issues  raised  by  the  provision  of  911  and  enhanced  911  services  through  certain  telecommunications 
 technologies.  6  The  Commission  initially  sought  comment  on  rules  that  would  require  certain  mobile 
 1  In  1965,  AT&  T  first  announced  its  plans  to  make  the  three-  digit  number  911  available  nationally  as  a  number  for 
 accessing  emergency  personnel.  See  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  With  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling  Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  9  FCC  Rcd.  6170,  6172 


 para.  3  (1994).  2 
 See  Implementation  of  911  Act,  The  Use  of  N11  Codes  and  Other  Abbreviated  Dialing  Arrangements,  CC  Docket  No.  92-  105,  WT  Docket  No.  00-  110,  Fifth  Report  and  Order,  First  Report  and  Order,  and  Memorandum  Opinion 


 and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  16  FCC  Rcd  22,  264,  22,  267  para  7  (2001)  (Fifth  Report  and  Order).  3 
 Wireless  Communications  and  Public  Safety  Act  of  1999,  Pub.  L.  No.  106-  81,  113  Stat.  1286  (codified  at    222  and  251(  e))  (911  Act). 


 4  See  47  U.  S.  C.    615  note. 
 5  Telematics  can  be  generally  defined  as  the  integrated  use  of  location  technology  and  wireless  communications  to 
 enhance  the  functionality  of  motor  vehicles.  Additionally,  we  use  the  phrase  multi-  line  telecommunications  system  (or  multi-  line  system)  to  describe  a  set  of  phone  systems  that  include:  a  private  branch  exchange  (PBX),  a  Centrex 


 telephone  system,  a  key  telephone  systems,  and  a  hybrid  telephone  system.  A  private  branch  exchange  is  an  electronic  telephone  switching  exchange  that  acts  as  a  branch  of  a  central  office  for  the  private  use  of  an  organization.  See  A. 
 Michael  Noll,  INTRODUCTION  TO  TELEPHONES  AND  TELEPHONE  SYSTEMS  at  196  (1998).  Centrex  is  the  use  of  the  switching  system  at  the  local  central  office  as  if  it  were  a  PBX.  Id.  at  198.  Key  telephone  systems  serve  a  small 
 number  of  extensions;  to  access  a  line,  a  key  is  depressed  and  a  light  indicates  whether  the  particular  line  is  available.  Id.  A  hybrid  telephone  system  is  a  system  with  PBX  and  key  telephone  system  features. 
 6  See  generally  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  With  Enhanced  911  Emergency 
 Calling  Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  9  FCC  Rcd.  6170  (1994). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 3 
 wireless  licensees  to  ensure  that  their  networks  included  features  that  would  make  enhanced  911  service  available  to  their  subscribers.  7  In  addition,  the  Commission  sought  comment  on  amending  its  Part  68 
 rules  to  ensure  the  compatibility  of  private  branch  exchanges  (PBXs)  and  other  dispersed  multi-  line  telephone  systems  with  enhanced  911  services.  8 


 4.  On  June  12,  1996,  the  Commission  adopted  an  order  requiring  certain  mobile  wireless  licensees  to  implement  basic  911  and  enhanced  911  (E911)  services.  9  The  E911  First  Report  and  Order 
 represented  the  culmination  of  efforts  by  the  public  safety  community,  the  wireless  telecommunications  industry,  and  the  Commission  to  improve  the  quality  and  reliability  of  911  services  to  wireless  customers 
 nationwide.  In  the  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  specified  criteria  for  determining  which  licensees  should  be  subject  to  its  E911  requirements.  It  required  compliance  by  those  licensees  (1) 
 that  offered  real-  time,  two-  way  switched  voice  service,  interconnected  with  the  public  switched  network,  either  on  a  stand-  alone  basis  or  packaged  with  other  telecommunications  services;  (2)  whose  customers 
 clearly  expected  access  to  911  and  E911;  (3)  that  competed  with  analog  and  broadband  PCS  providers;  and  (4)  where  it  is  technically  and  operationally  feasible  to  provide  enhanced  911  service.  10  Based  on 
 these  criteria,  the  Commission  determined  that  cellular  licensees,  broadband  Personal  Communications  Service  (PCS)  licensees,  and  certain  Specialized  Mobile  Radio  (SMR)  licensees,  11  collectively  covered 
 carriers,  would  be  required  to  meet  basic  and  enhanced  911  service  requirements  for  completing  emergency  calls,  including  forwarding  all  911  calls  without  delay  12  and  relaying  a  callers  Automatic 
 Number  Identification  (ANI)  and  Automatic  Location  Information  (ALI)  to  the  appropriate  Public  Safety  Answering  Point  (PSAP).  13 


 5.  The  Commission  exempted  certain  other  two-  way  voice  services  from  its  E911  requirements.  For  example,  the  Commission  exempted  Air-  to-  Ground  (Part  22,  Subpart  G)  14  and  Public  Coast  Stations 
 (Part  80,  Subpart  J)  15  because  passengers  and  crew  using  these  services  did  not  rely  on  ground-  based  emergency  services  such  as  911  or  E911.  16  The  Commission  deferred  a  decision  on  whether  to  require 


 7  See  id. 
 8  See  id.  para  1. 
 9  See  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  With  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling 
 Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Report  and  Order  and  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  11  FCC  Rcd.  18676  (1996)  (E911  First  Report  and  Order). 


 10  Id.  at  18716-  18  paras.  80-  84. 
 11  The  Commissions  E911  requirements  covered  only  SMR  licensees  that  held  either  licenses  or  authorizations  to 
 operate  800  MHz  or  900  MHz  service.  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  18676,  18716-  18  at  paras.  80-  84.  Covered  SMR  also  included  those  800/  900  MHz  SMR  licensees  that  offered  real-  time,  two-  way  switched  voice 


 service  that  was  interconnected  with  the  public  switched  network,  either  on  a  stand-  alone  basis  or  packaged  with  other  telecommunications  services.  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  18676,  18716-  18  at  paras.  80-  84. 
 12  See  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18692-  97  paras.  29-  42  (requiring  covered  carriers  to  transmit  all 
 911  calls  without  subjecting  them  to  any  call  validation  procedures).  13 
 E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  18676,  18689-  18722  paras.  24-  91.  Recognizing  the  need  for  vigorous  implementation  of  the  E911  requirements,  the  Commission  adopted  a  phased  implementation  plan  for  the  covered 


 carriers.  Phase  I  implementation,  which  requires  a  covered  carrier  to  transmit  a  911  callers  call-  back  number  and  cell  site  to  the  appropriate  PSAP,  began  on  April  1,  1998.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  d).  Phase  II  implementation, 
 which  requires  a  covered  carrier  to  transmit  a  911  callers  location  information  to  the  appropriate  PSAP,  began  on  October  1,  2001.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18  (e),  (h). 
 14  47  C.  F.  R.  pt.  20,  subpart  G. 
 15  47  C.  F.  R.  pt.  80,  subpart  J. 
 16  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  18676,  18717-  18  para.  82.  In  the  Fifth  Report  and  Order,  the 
 Commission  required  VPC  licensees,  to  the  extent  that  they  offers  a  land-  based  real-  time,  two-  way  switched  voice  (continued....) 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 4 
 compliance  with  its  enhanced  911  rules  by  multi-  line  systems,  17  but  has  continued  to  refresh  the  record  on  multi-  line  systems.  18 
 6.  In  addition,  the  Commission  concluded  that  given  technological  impediments  and  the  coordination  of  international  standards,  MSS  should  not  be  required,  at  that  time,  to  provide  appropriate 
 access  to  emergency  services.  19  The  Commission  did  indicate  that  it  would  consider  adopting  requirements  at  a  later  time  for  MSS,  and  urged  MSS  providers  to  continue  to  cooperate  with  public 
 safety  agencies  in  the  development  of  mutually  acceptable  means  of  accessing  emergency  services.  20  The  Commission,  however,  noted  that  it  expected  that  MSS  providers  would  eventually  need  to  comply  21  and 
 provide  appropriate  access  to  emergency  services.  .  .  .  22 
 7.  The  Commission  again  addressed  the  subject  of  emergency-  call  service  for  MSS  users  in  IB  Docket  No.  99-  67,  which  primarily  concerns  adoption  of  rules  to  facilitate  and  promote  international 
 circulation  of  customer-  operated  satellite  earth  terminals  used  for  Global  Mobile  Personal  Communications  by  Satellite  (GMPCS).  In  the  initial  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  in  that  proceeding, 
 issued  in  1999,  the  Commission  also  sought  comment  as  to  whether,  in  light  of  recent  technological  developments,  it  should  require  MSS  providers  to  implement  911  features,  subject  to  transitional 
 measures  to  avert  adverse  impact  on  systems  already  in  operation  or  at  an  advanced  stage  of  development.  23  The  Commission  received  30  comments  and  16  replies  in  response  to  the  GMPCS 
 NPRM,  representing  34  entities.  Of  these,  18  parties  filed  comments  and/  or  replies  regarding  the  911  issues.  24 


 8.  In  the  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  that  proposed  licensing  and  service  rules  for  the  2  GHz  MSS,  the  Commission  inquired  whether  it  should  require  licensees  in  this  service  to  implement  basic 
 and/  or  enhanced  911  capabilities.  25  In  the  2  GHz  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  acknowledged  that  911  services  can  save  lives  and  that  significant  strides  had  been  made  in  developing  location  technology, 
 but  found  that  the  information  in  the  record  was  insufficient  to  support  adoption  of  specific  911 


 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  service  that  is  interconnected  with  the  public  switched  network,  to  comply  with  the  Commissions  wireless  E911 
 rules.  See  Implementation  of  911  Act,  The  Use  of  N11  Codes  and  Other  Abbreviated  Dialing  Arrangements,  CC  Docket  No.  92-  105,  WT  Docket  No.  00-  110,  Fifth  Report  and  Order,  First  Report  and  Order,  and  Memorandum 
 Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  16  FCC  Rcd  22,  264  (2001)  (Fifth  Report  and  Order).  17 
 E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18678  n.  1.  18 
 See  Common  Carrier  Bureau  Seeks  Comment  on  Telidents  Enhanced  911  Part  68  Recommendations,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Public  Notice,  11  FCC  Rcd.  22,475  (1996);  see  also  Common  Carrier  Bureau  Seeks  Comment  on 


 Enhanced  911  Wireless  Consensus  Agreement,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Public  Notice,  12  FCC  Rcd.  24,323  (1997).  19 
 See  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18718  para.  83.  20 
 Id.  See  also  Wireless  E911  Recon  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd.  22,  665  at  para.  88.  21 
 See  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18718  para.  83.  22 
 Wireless  E911  Recon  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd.  22,  665  at  para.  88.  23 
 Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  25  to  Implement  the  Global  Mobile  Personal  Communications  by  Satellite  (GMPCS)  Memorandum  of  Understanding  and  Arrangements;  Petition  of  the  National  Telecommunications  and  Information 


 Administration  to  Amend  Part  25  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Establish  Emissions  Limits  for  Mobile  and  Portable  Earth  Stations  Operating  in  the  1610-  1660.5  MHz  Band,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  14  FCC  Rcd  5871  (1999), 
 at  98.  (GMPCS  NPRM).  24 
 See  Appendix  A  for  a  listing  of  the  commenting  parties.  25 
 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,  4885  para.  94  (1999)  (2  GHz  NPRM). 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 5 
 requirements  in  the  2  GHz  MSS  service  rules  proceeding.  26  Therefore,  the  Commission  decided  that  it  would  address  issues  concerning  911  requirements  for  2  GHz  MSS  in  the  more  general  911  inquiry 
 conducted  in  the  GMPCS  proceeding.  27  To  that  end,  the  Commission  directed  the  International  Bureau  to  issue  a  public  notice  in  the  GMPCS  proceeding  to  request  additional  information  regarding  the 
 technological,  regulatory,  and  international  aspects  of  Basic  911  and  E911  for  satellite  services.  28  Accordingly,  in  December  2000,  the  International  Bureau  released  a  public  notice,  and  received  10 
 comments  and  six  replies,  accounting  for  a  total  of  11  parties.  29  A  subsequent  informal  meeting  held  between  Bureau  staff  and  several  satellite  licensees  regarding  currently  used  emergency  call  procedures 
 provided  additional  information  in  this  docket.  30  The  record  developed  thus  far  31  provides  a  basis  for  proposing  emergency  call  procedure  requirements,  in  particular  the  establishment  of  operator-  staffed 
 emergency  service  bureaus  or  call  centers.  Based  on  these  various  records,  we  also  now  seek  comment  on  more  detailed  questions  concerning  how  MSS  should  provide  access  to  911  service.  32 


 9.  In  1997,  the  Commission  narrowed  its  definition  of  covered  SMR  to  include  only  those  SMR  licensees  that  will  directly  compete  with  cellular  and  PCS  in  providing  comparable  public  mobile 
 interconnected  service.  33  By  its  action,  the  Commission  removed  from  its  requirements  those  SMR  licensees  that  primarily  offer  dispatch  service.  34  As  a  means  of  distinguishing  which  SMR  licensees 
 remained  under  its  E911  obligations,  the  Commission  found  that  only  those  SMR  licensees  that  have  in-network  switching  capabilities  should  be  so  obligated.  35  The  Commission  further  recognized,  however, 
 that  certain  SMR  licensees  that  had  an  in-  network  switching  capability  may  also  offer  their  customers  dispatch  capability.  The  Commission,  therefore,  concluded  that  covered  SMR  licensees  that  offer 
 dispatch  to  customers  may  meet  their  E911  obligations  to  their  dispatch  customers  by  providing  either 


 26  Establishment  of  Policies  and  Service  Rules  for  the  Mobile  Satellite  Service  in  the  2  GHz  Band,  IB  Docket  No. 
 99-  81,  Report  and  Order,  15  FCC  Rcd  16127  at  para.  125  (2000)  (2  GHz  Report  and  Order).  27 
 Id.  While  the  Commission  declined  to  adopt  any  911  requirements  for  2  GHz  MSS,  it  did  require  that  any  handset  used  for  2  GHz  MSS  that  does  not  have  access  to  basic  911  or  E911  clearly  indicate  the  lack  of  these  functions  with 


 a  label  or  sticker  affixed  to  the  handsets.  This  labeling  requirement  remains  in  effect  until  the  Commission  adopts  an  order  in  the  GMPCS  proceeding.  Id.  at  para.  126. 
 28  Id.  at  para.  125. 
 29  International  Bureau  Invites  Further  Comment  Regarding  Adoption  of  911  Requirements  for  Satellite  Services,  IB 
 Docket  No.  99-  67,  Public  Notice,  16  FCC  Rcd.  3780  (2000)  (Satellite  911  Public  Notice).  30 
 Ex  Parte  Meeting  in  IB  Docket  No.  99-  67,  Memorandum  from  Arthur  Lechtman,  Satellite  and  Radiocommunication  Division,  International  Bureau,  Federal  Communications  Commission  to  William  F.  Caton, 


 Acting  Secretary,  February  22,  2002  (Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo).  31 
 In  making  the  proposals  and  raising  the  questions  contained  in  this  Further  Notice,  we  consider  the  comments  received  in  both  IB  Docket  No.  99-  81  (Establishment  of  Policies  and  Service  Rules  for  the  Mobile  Satellite  Service 


 in  the  2  GHz  Band)  and  IB  Docket  No.  99-  67  (both  the  GMPCS  NPRM  and  the  Satellite  911  Public  Notice).  See  Appendix  A. 
 32  See  infra  paras.  17-  56. 
 33  See  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling 
 Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  22665,  22703-  05  paras.  78-  83  (1997)  (Wireless  E911  First  Recon  Order). 


 34  Id. 
 35  Id.  at  22703-  04  para.  78.  The  Commission  chose  this  network  capability  because  in-  network  switching  allows 
 for  seamless  hand  off  of  calls  and  allows  for  frequency  reuse,  thus  allowing  the  SMR  licensees  to  accommodate  a  larger  group  of  customers,  which  enables  the  SMR  licensee  to  compete  directly  with  cellular  and  PCS.  Id. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 6 
 direct  911  dialing  or,  alternatively,  by  routing  dispatch  customers  emergency  calls  through  a  dispatcher.  36 
 10.  In  1999,  Congress  established  911  as  the  universal  emergency  service  number.  37  Through  the  911  Act,  Congress  sought  to  facilitate  the  prompt  deployment  .  .  .  of  a  seamless,  ubiquitous,  and 
 reliable  end-  to-  end  infrastructure  for  communications,  including  wireless  communications,  to  meet  the  Nations  public  safety  .  .  .  needs.  38 


 III.  DISCUSSION 
 11.  In  this  proceeding,  we  are  seeking  comment  on  whether  providers  of  various  services  and  devices  not  currently  within  the  scope  of  our  911  rules  should,  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  be 
 required  to  provide  access  to  emergency  services.  We  also  ask  what  type  of  information,  such  as  call-back  and  location  should  be  delivered  to  PSAPs  on  a  service-  by-  service  basis.  We  begin  by  setting  out 
 and  seeking  comment  on  the  general  criteria  that  we  want  commenters  to  use  in  analyzing  whether  the  enumerated  services  and  devices  should  be  included  within  the  scope  of  services  that  offer  911  service.  39 
 We  then  turn  to  the  individual  services  and  devices  on  which  we  seek  comment  and  raise  additional  questions  where  needed.  For  example,  in  each  of  the  sections  below  we  ask  commenters  to  address  the 
 Commissions  legal  authority  over  either  the  entity  that  manufactures  the  device  or  that  provides  the  service  to  the  general  public.  We  seek  comment  on  those  services  and  devices  that  offer  voice 
 communications  to  their  end  users. 
 A.  General  Criteria 
 12.  We  begin  by  seeking  comment  on  the  criteria  the  Commission  should  use  in  analyzing  whether  a  particular  class  of  providers  should  be  required  to  comply  with  our  basic  and  enhanced  911 
 requirements,  or  with  similar  requirements.  We  recognize  that  we  are  reviewing  services  and  devices  that  vary  greatly  over  technologies  and  are  at  different  stages  of  development.  We  believe  that  by  establishing 
 criteria  of  general  applicability,  the  Commission  will  be  able  to  provide  a  transparent  methodology  for  determining  which  classes  of  services  and  devices  may  be  expected  to  comply  with  our  E911  rules. 
 Moreover,  by  establishing  a  list  of  general  criteria,  we  provide  commenters  a  basis  on  which  to  make  their  arguments  for  or  against  inclusion  of  providers  of  a  particular  service  or  device. 


 13.  We  thus  seek  comment  on  our  proposed  analysis  of  different  types  of  services  and  devices  starting  with  the  criteria  that  guided  our  decision  in  the  E911  First  Report  and  Order.  40  Based  on  those 
 criteria,  we  propose  analyzing  each  service  or  product  based  on  whether:  (1)  it  offer  real-  time,  two-  way  voice  service  that  is  interconnected  to  the  public  switched  network  on  either  a  stand-  alone  basis  or 
 packaged  with  other  telecommunications  services;  (2)  the  customers  using  the  service  or  device  have  a  reasonable  expectation  of  access  to  911  and  E911  services;  (3)  the  service  competes  with  traditional 
 CMRS  or  wireline  local  exchange  services;  and  (4)  it  is  technically  and  operationally  feasible  for  the  service  or  device  to  support  E911.  41  Underlying  the  Commissions  earlier  decisions  on  911  service  was 
 an  understanding  that  the  customers  of  public  telephone  services  expect  access  to  911  and  E911  services.  42  So,  for  example,  in  the  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  the  Commission  required  CMRS, 


 36  Id.  at  22704  para.  79. 
 37  See  Wireless  Communications  and  Public  Safety  Act  of  1999. 
 38  See  Wireless  Communications  and  Public  Safety  Act  of  1999. 
 39  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18716-  18  paras.  80-  84. 
 40  Id. 
 41  Id.  at  18716  para.  81. 
 42  Id.  at  18716  para.  80. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 7 
 Broadband  PCS  and  certain  SMR  providers  to  comply  with  our  basic  911  and  E911  requirements,  while  it  excluded  Air-  To-  Ground  (Part  22,  Subpart  M)  and  Public  Coast  Stations  (Part  80,  Subpart  J)  providers,  in 
 part  because  their  customers  would  not  expect  to  access  911  services  in  the  event  of  an  emergency.  The  Commission  noted  that  users  of  Air-  To-  Ground  and  Public  Coast  service  providers  likely  would  seek 
 emergency  service  using  established  radio  communications  channels. 
 14.  We  note  we  have  required  access  to  emergency  services  for  TTY  devices  in  the  context  of  the  requirements  of  Title  II  of  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  and  Section  255  of  the 
 Telecommunications  Act  of  1996.  43  TTY,  which  enables  persons  with  speech  and  hearing  disabilities  to  communicate  with  others,  however,  fits  the  general  criteria  in  that  it  is  a  voice  equivalent.  We  seek 
 comment  on  how  the  various  services  discussed  herein  relate  to  the  provision  of  access  to  emergency  services  for  persons  with  disabilities. 


 15.  We  also  ask  commenters,  as  they  address  the  various  services,  to  consider  as  part  of  their  analysis  the  abilities  of  PSAPs  to  handle  calls  and  information  related  to  those  services.  Some  of  these 
 services  may  raise  new  technical  and  other  implementation  issues. 
 B.  Individual  Voice  Services  and  Devices 
 16.  In  this  section,  we  seek  more  specific  comment  on  whether  particular  voice  services  and  devices  should  be  required  to  comply  with  our  basic  or  enhanced  911  rules.  Recognizing  that  our  E911 
 rules  were  based  on  CMRS  architecture,  we  also  seek  comment  on  possible  mechanisms  other  than  those  of  our  specific  mobile  wireless  E911  rules  to  provide  consumers  with  access  to  emergency  services.  We 
 note,  for  example,  that  different  accuracy  requirements  may  be  needed  depending  on  the  type  of  service.  Commenters  are  reminded  that  in  analyzing  whether  a  particular  service  should  be  required  to  provide 
 access  to  911  services,  we  ask  that  they  consider,  at  a  minimum,  the  general  criteria  that  we  set  out  above.  44 


 1.  Mobile  Satellite  Service  (MSS) 
 17.  Introduction.  We  first  seek  comment  on  911  services  in  connection  with  MSS  systems.  As  noted  above,  the  issue  of  MSS  emergency  call  procedures  has  been  under  consideration  in  a  number  of 
 proceedings,  and,  although  the  Commission  has  refrained  from  requiring  MSS  to  comply  with  any  911  requirements,  the  record  developed  in  these  proceedings  provides  the  basis  for  the  proposals  and  detailed 
 questions  that  follow.  We  first  propose  that  all  MSS  licensees  providing  real-  time,  two-  way,  switched  voice  service  that  is  interconnected  with  the  public  switched  network  establish  national  call  centers  to 
 which  all  subscriber  emergency  calls  are  routed.  Call  center  personnel  would  then  determine  the  nature  of  the  emergency  and  forward  the  call  to  an  appropriate  PSAP.  We  also  seek  to  develop  further  the 
 record  on  implementation  of  enhanced  911  for  satellite  carriers  in  order  to  determine  whether  and  when  such  service  can  reasonably  be  implemented. 


 18.  Legal  Authority.  In  other  sections  of  this  item,  we  seek  comment  on  the  Commissions  general  authority  to  impose  911  and  E911  requirements  on  non-  traditional  classes  of  providers.  As 
 demonstrated  in  the  above,  the  Commission  has  determined  previously  that  MSS  is  subject  to  911  requirements,  but  has  not  imposed  such  requirements  for  other  policy  reasons.  When  the  Commission 
 adopted  the  E911  rules  in  1996,  it  observed  that  adding  specific  regulatory  requirements  to  [the  Mobile  Satellite  Service]  may  impede  the  development  of  the  service  in  ways  that  might  reduce  its  ability  to  meet 


 43  See  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18699-  703  paras.  47-  53 
 44  See  supra  paras.  12-  14. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 8 
 public  safety  needs.  45  Still,  the  Commission  has  stated  that  the  public  interest  is  likely  to  require  that  all  CMRS  real  time  two-  way  voice  communications  services  provide  reasonable  and  effective  access  to 
 emergency  services,  [and]  we  expect  that  CMRS  voice  MSS  will  eventually  provide  appropriate  access  to  emergency  services,  either  voluntarily  or  pursuant  to  Commissions  rules.  46  Although  we  believe  that 
 we  do  not  need  to  revisit  the  issue  of  the  Commissions  authority  to  require  satellite  carrier  compliance  with  911  requirements,  we  invite  comment  on  the  matter  in  light  of  the  general  criteria  for  basic  and 
 enhanced  911  compliance  proposed  above.  47 
 (i)  Call  Centers 
 19.  Background.  We  seek  comment  on  the  use  of  call  centers  as  a  method  for  providing  basic  911  service  while  we  further  develop  the  record  on  E911  implementation  for  satellite  systems.  We 
 required  covered  terrestrial  wireless  carriers  to  provide  basic  911  as  a  preliminary  step  before  implementing  E911.  48  Basic  911  service  is  the  automatic  transmission  of  all  wireless  911  calls,  without 
 respect  to  call  validation  processes,  to  a  PSAP,  or  where  no  PSAP  has  been  designated,  to  a  statewide  default  answering  point  or  appropriate  local  emergency  authority.  49  As  the  International  Bureau  observed 
 in  the  Satellite  E911  Public  Notice,  cellular  carriers  interconnect  with  local  wireline  carriers  at  many  points  throughout  their  service  areas,  enabling  them  to  make  use  of  existing  facilities  to  route  911  calls 
 directly  to  appropriate  local  PSAPs  in  the  areas  where  the  calls  are  placed.  50  By  contrast,  satellite  systems  have  only  a  small  number  of  (or  just  one)  public  switched  network  interconnection  points  in  the  United 
 States  and  do  not  interconnect  directly  with  most  local  wireline  carriers.  ICO  Services  Limited  and  Inmarsat  noted  that  this  lack  of  interconnection  points  makes  even  basic  911  service  difficult  for  satellite 
 carriers.  51 
 20.  Recognizing  that  MSS  licensees  face  some  unique  infrastructure  considerations  (relative  to  wireless  and  wireline  carriers),  the  International  Bureau  also  asked  whether  it  would  be  possible  for  MSS 
 operators  to  route  emergency  calls  to  central  emergency-  call  bureau  operators,  who  could  redirect  the  calls  to  the  appropriate  PSAP  in  the  callers  area.  52  A  number  of  commenters  express  support  for  this 
 concept,  including  satellite  licensees  and  public  safety  organizations.  53  Inmarsat,  on  the  other  hand, 
 45  E911  First  Report  and  Order  at  para.  83  (noting  the  expectation  that  CMRS  voice  MSS  will  eventually  be 
 required  to  provide  appropriate  access  to  emergency  services).  See  also  Wireless  E911  First  Recon  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  22665  at  paras.  87-  88. 


 46  Wireless  E911First  Recon  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  22665  at  para.  88. 
 47  See  supra  paras.  12-  14. 
 48  See  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  18676  at  para.  29-  46;  Wireless  E911First  Recon  Order,  12  FCC 
 Rcd  22665  at  paras.  25-  41;  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  b).  49 
 See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  b).  50 
 Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  3.  51 
 Inmarsat  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  4  (arguing  that  basic  911  should  not  be  required  for  MSS  due  to  the  small  number  of  interconnection  points);  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  n.  13. 


 52  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  3,  5. 
 53  See,  e.  g.,  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  6-  7  (observing  that  several  MSS  carriers  already  use  their  own 
 form  of  a  call  center,  and  suggesting  that  call  centers  might  be  a  good  interim  solution  for  the  MSS  industry,  until  global  standards  are  achieved);  NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  5-  6  (suggesting  that  the  Commission 


 investigate  the  utility  of  requiring  call  centers  for  first  generation  MSS  systems,  due  to  the  potential  high  cost  of  enhanced  911);  APCO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2  (suggesting  using  live  operators  as  an  interim 
 measure  (even  though  the  organization  prefers  automatic  location  information),  but  pointing  out  that  callers  may  not  be  able  to  describe  their  precise  location,  especially  to  a  national  operator  unfamiliar  with  the  area  in 
 question). 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 9 
 dismisses  as  prohibitively  expensive  the  Commissions  suggestion  that  a  national  PSAP  database  could  correlate  a  callers  location  with  the  nearest  PSAP,  since  an  MSS  system  would  need  to  have  ALI  (which 
 Inmarsat  currently  does  not  have).  54  Using  operators  instead  of  a  PSAP  database  poses  the  same  problem  for  Inmarsat  because  doing  so  still  requires  caller  location  information.  55  Other  satellite  licensees, 
 however,  already  provide  emergency  calling  services  to  their  subscribers.  For  example,  subscribers  of  Mobile  Satellite  Ventures  Subsidiary  LLC  (  MSV)  can  dial  911  on  their  handsets  for  emergency 
 assistance.  56  Trained  operators  at  the  MSV  Reston  call  center  request  the  callers  phone  number  and  location,  then  cross  reference  the  location  information  with  a  national  PSAP  database  to  determine  which 
 PSAP  should  be  connected  to  the  caller.  57 
 21.  Globalstar  customers  dial  911  or  any  of  a  number  of  international  emergency  dial  codes  (such  as  112)  to  access  emergency  assistance  (the  Emergency  Call  Assistance  Service,  or  ECAS).  58  Dialing  any 
 of  these  codes  connects  the  caller  first  to  a  recording  and  then  (within  20  to  40  seconds)  to  a  vendor-operated  call  center  located  in  Canada.  59  Trained  operators  first  ask  for  the  callers  phone  number,  then 
 instruct  the  caller  how  to  use  the  handset  to  obtain  his/  her  latitude  and  longitude  coordinates,  which  the  Globalstar  system  can  determine  to  within  10  kilometers,  90%  of  the  time  (sometimes  the  accuracy  may 
 be  higher  or  lower).  60  The  operator  enters  the  coordinates  into  a  national  PSAP  database  that  finds  the  most  appropriate  PSAP  based  on  the  callers  location.  61  Globalstar  argues  that  ECAS,  not  terrestrial 
 wireless  variety  E911,  is  the  more  appropriate  model  for  MSS  emergency  calling,  and  expresses  support  for  the  routing  of  emergency  satellite  calls  to  central  operators.  62 


 22.  Discussion.  We  recognize  that  satellite  carriers  face  unique  technical  difficulties  (vis  a  vis  terrestrial  carriers)  in  implementing  both  basic  and  enhanced  63  911  features.  The  inability  of  satellite 
 carriers  to  provide  even  basic  911  service  at  the  present  time  convinces  us  that  emergency  call  centers  would  be  an  appropriate  first  step  for  satellite  carriers.  Globalstar  informed  staff  that  it  receives  an 
 average  of  12  satellite  911  calls  per  month.  64  We  believe  that  low  satellite  911  call  volume  further  justifies  a  call  center  requirement,  rather  than  E911,  at  this  time.  We  did  not  obtain  similar  data  from 
 MSV,  and  it  appears  that  other  carriers  currently  do  not  offer  emergency  services.  However,  we  suspect  that  those  MSS  systems  that  offer  emergency  service  likely  process  a  small  volume  of  emergency  calls 
 because  they  often  have  no  more  than  hundreds  of  thousands  of  subscribers.  For  this  reason,  we  believe  that  an  interim  measure  is  warranted  while  we  develop  a  more  thorough  (and  updated)  record  on  E911. 
 To  that  end,  we  propose  that  all  GMPCS  licensees  providing  real-  time,  two-  way,  switched  voice  service  that  is  interconnected  with  the  public  switched  network  establish  national  call  centers  to  which  all 
 subscriber  emergency  calls  are  routed.  We  seek  comment  on  the  call  center  approach  as  a  requirement  to  be  effective  one  year  after  adoption  and  until  E911  rules  are  adopted  for  all  GMPCS  systems. 


 54  Inmarsat  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  4. 
 55  Inmarsat  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  4-  5. 
 56  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2. 
 57  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2. 
 58  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2;  see  also  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2. 
 59  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2. 
 60  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2;  see  also  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  20. 
 61  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2. 
 62  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2. 
 63  The  technical  obstacles  to  provision  of  enhanced  911  are  discussed  in  more  detail  below  in  paras.  28-  41. 
 64  In  July  2001,  Globalstar  achieved  a  high  of  22  satellite  911  calls.  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 10 
 23.  We  envision  each  carrier  having  one  or  more  call  centers  to  which  911  emergency  calls  would  be  routed.  65  Subscribers  (located  in  the  United  States,  including  Puerto  Rico  and  the  U.  S.  Virgin 
 Islands)  would  reach  the  call  center  by  dialing  9-  1-  1  on  their  handsets.  This  would  be  consistent  with  the  911  Act,  which  mandates  that  the  Commission  designate  911  as  the  universal  emergency  telephone 
 number  within  the  United  States  for  reporting  an  emergency.  .  .  .  66  Inmarsat  points  out  that  its  terminals  (approximately  250,000  are  currently  in  use)  are  incapable  of  the  three  digit  dialing  needed  to  provide  911 
 service.  67  Even  if  Inmarsats  mobile  terminals  in  a  given  country  cannot  make  short  code  calls  to  emergency  services  in  that  country,  68  we  do  not  see  this  as  an  impediment  to  using  short  code  dialing  to 
 access  a  carriers  own  call  center.  The  ability  of  mobile  earth  terminals  to  access  call  centers  by  means  of  three  digit  dialing  has  been  demonstrated  by  Globalstar  and  MSV. 


 24.  We  find  that  Globalstars  and  MSVs  method  of  having  live  operators  ask  the  caller  for  his  or  her  location  and  callback  number  (in  the  event  of  a  disconnection)  is  sound  in  the  context  of  typical  MSS 
 services  already  deployed  and  anticipate  that  other  carriers  will  follow  this  model.  While  we  do  not  believe  a  rule  is  warranted  at  this  time  to  mandate  call  center  answering  protocols  and  procedures,  we 
 invite  comment  on  the  matter.  We  find  merit  in  Globalstars  use  of  a  national  PSAP  database  that  operators  use  to  determine  which  PSAP  is  nearest  to  the  caller.  We  seek  comment  on  whether  there  are 
 any  issues  concerning  the  availability  or  accuracy  of  PSAP  databases,  for  purposes  of  MSS  call  centers,  that  warrant  Commission  attention  at  this  time.  For  instance,  we  seek  comment  whether  guidelines  would 
 be  useful  in  ensuring  database  accuracy.  Globalstars  customers,  if  calling  911  from  locations  in  the  Caribbean  and  Mexico,  cannot  access  the  ECAS  call  center;  rather,  the  caller  hears  a  recorded  message 
 saying  that  the  network  cannot  process  the  call.  69  The  reason  given  for  this  is  that  Globalstar  does  not  have  a  PSAP  database  for  these  regions,  and  therefore  would  be  incapable  of  connecting  a  subscriber  to  a 
 PSAP.  70  The  success  of  an  emergency  call  center  is  dependent  on  complete  PSAP  information  and  therefore  the  Commission  believes  that  carriers,  for  service  within  the  United  States,  have  an  obligation  to 
 obtain  or  create  a  PSAP  database  that  covers  the  United  States,  including  Puerto  Rico  and  the  U.  S.  Virgin  Islands.  71 


 65  We  agree  with  NSARC  that  the  dialing  of  911  from  a  satellite  handset  should  be  a  two  step  process  (i.  e.,  dialing 
 the  access  number  then  pressing  <send>)  to  minimize  false  calls  that  could  result  from  one-  touch  dialing.  NSARC  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  2.  The  USCG  also  expressed  concern  about  minimizing  hoax  calls.  USCG  GMPCS 


 NPRM  comments  at  6.  66 
 911  Act  at  Section  3.  See  also  47  U.  S.  C.    251(  e)(  3);  Implementation  of  911  Act;  The  Use  of  N11  Codes  and  Other  Abbreviated  Dialing  Arrangements,  CC  Docket  No.  92-  105,  WT  Docket  No.  00-  110,  Fourth  Report  and 


 Order  and  Third  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  15  FCC  Rcd  17,  079  (2000)  (implementing  this  mandate). 
 67  Inmarsat  Ventures  plc  ex  parte  at  2.  Inmarsat  points  out  that  its  terminals  use  the  country  code  870,  giving  them 
 the  ability  to  roam  globally  without  using  any  one  countrys  national  numbering  scheme.  As  we  understand  it,  a  call  to  an  Inmarsat  terminal,  even  if  located  in  the  callers  country,  is  nevertheless  an  international  call  because  the  870 


 access  code  must  be  dialed  first.  Calls  made  from  an  Inmarsat  terminal  must  also  be  preceded  by  a  recognized  country  code;  thus  a  user  cannot  dial  simply  a  national  number  (including  short  codes  for  emergency  calls,  e.  g., 
 911,  112,  999).  Id.  at  2.  68 
 Inmarsat  Ventures  plc  ex  parte  at  2.  Inmarsat  does  say  that  users  of  its  terminals  can  access  a  local  PSAP  provided  the  phone  number  and  country  code  are  known,  although  we  find  that  dialing  these  numbers  (even  if 


 known)  would  be  cumbersome  in  a  bona  fide  emergency.  69 
 Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2.  70 
 Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2.  71 
 But  see  discussion  regarding  completion  of  911  calls  when  no  PSAP  has  been  designated  by  the  state  or  local  authorities,  at  para.  25  below.  That  situation  is  much  different  from  when  a  carrier  cannot  complete  a  911  call 


 because  of  an  incomplete  PSAP  database. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 11 
 25.  Several  commenters  have  pointed  out  that  MSS  callers  are  likely  to  be  located  in  remote  areas  where  no  PSAP  may  be  available.  72  In  these  instances,  a  database  of  local  PSAPs  would  not  provide  a 
 basis  for  connecting  the  caller  with  emergency  personnel.  We  addressed  this  issue  in  the  context  of  our  proceeding  to  implement  the  911  Act,  where  we  stated  that,  in  areas  where  no  PSAP  has  been  designated, 
 carriers  still  have  an  obligation  not  to  block  911  calls.  73  Specifically,  by  September  11,  2002  we  required  that,  in  areas  where  no  PSAP  has  been  designated,  carriers  must  begin  delivering  911  calls: 


 (a)  to  a  statewide  established  default  point;  (b)  if  none  exists,  to  an  appropriate  local  emergency  authority,  such  as  the  police  or  county  sheriff,  selected  by  an  authorized  State  or  Local  entity; 
 or,  finally,  (c)  as  a  matter  of  last  resort  and  to  avoid  the  blocking  of  911  calls,  .  .  .  to  an  appropriate  local  emergency  authority,  based  on  the  exercise  of  the  carriers  reasonable 
 judgment,  following  initiation  of  contact  with  the  State  Governors  designated  entity  under  section  3(  b)  of  the  911  Act.  74 


 In  taking  these  measures,  we  intended  to  eliminate  or  reduce  occurrences  of  wireless  carriers  furnishing  intercept  messages  alerting  callers  that  the  emergency  call  cannot  be  completed  or  is  otherwise 
 blocked.  75  We  believe  that  satellite  carriers  should  comply  with  the  same  requirements.  However,  we  appreciate  that  a  satellite  carrier,  having  national  coverage  and  the  responsibility  to  determine  appropriate 
 emergency  personnel  for  its  entire  nationwide  footprint,  may  experience  more  difficulty  than  a  locally-deployed  wireless  carrier  in  determining  to  which  entity  to  send  emergency  calls  in  the  absence  of  a 
 PSAP.  Thus  we  seek  comment  on  whether  GMPCS  carriers  should  have  an  extended  period  within  which  to  comply  with  this  requirement.  For  example,  if  the  call  center  requirement  becomes  effective  one 
 year  after  adoption,  should  a  licensee  be  responsible,  as  of  the  effective  date,  for  delivering  911  calls  for  all,  or  only  a  portion  of,  areas  lacking  PSAPs?  What  would  be  a  reasonable  time  frame  for  requiring  a 
 satellite  carrier  to  route  all  911  calls  from  subscribers?  The  International  Bureau  has  suggested  that  in  some  cases,  public  safety  needs  may  best  be  met  by  routing  MSS  emergency  calls  to  someone  other  than 
 a  local  PSAP,  for  instance  to  the  Coast  Guard.  76  NENA  agrees  that  calls  from  coastal  waters  and  certain  other  waterways  might  be  better  routed  to  the  Coast  Guard,  but  stresses  that  the  call,  while 
 originating  from  water,  should  still  use  911  as  the  dial  code.  77  We  are  interested  in  learning  if  additional  parties  support  this  proposal.  We  note  that  vessels  at  sea  already  have  access  to  the  Global  Maritime 
 Distress  and  Safety  System  (  GMDSS)  for  distress  and  safety  needs,  78  and  therefore  persons  at  sea  may  not  have  an  expectation  of  911  service  with  satellite  handset  phones. 


 26.  We  recognize  that  MSS  call  centers  are  not  PSAPs  themselves,  but  rather  serve  as  an  intermediary  that  refers  emergency  calls  to  PSAPs.  Our  inquiries  regarding  the  intermediary  role  of 
 telematics  call  centers  are  thus  applicable  to  MSS  call  centers  as  well.  79  As  we  observe  in  our  discussion 
 72  See  APCO  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  2;  NSARC  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  2.  LGA,  in  its  GMPCS  NPRM 
 comments  at  18,  noted  that  MSS  will  provide  coverage  in  areas  where  9-  1-  1  service  may  not  exist.  .  .  .  Constellation  noted  that  its  MSS  system  will  cover  the  entire  country,  including  large  unpopulated  areas  where 


 there  may  not  be  a  designated  agency  to  respond  to  emergency  calls.  Constellation  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  13. 
 73  See  Fifth  Report  and  Order  at  para.  15. 
 74  Fifth  Report  and  Order  at  para.  15. 
 75  Fifth  Report  and  Order  at  para.  23. 
 76  Satellite  E911  Public  Notice  at  3-  4. 
 77  National  Emergency  Number  Association  (NENA)  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  3. 
 78  See  47  C.  F.  R.    80  Subpart  W. 
 79  See,  e.  g.,  paras.  66-  69. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 12 
 below  of  telematics,  we  are  concerned  about  delays  that  might  result  when  call  centers  forward  calls  to  PSAPs.  80  Globalstar  indicates  that  it  establishes  a  conference  call  link  between  a  911  caller  and  a  PSAP 
 without  the  use  of  trunks  to  selective  routers.  81  We  seek  comment  regarding  how  other  currently  operating  MSS  call  centers  approach  this  issue,  and  whether  any  problems  have  been  encountered. 


 27.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  a  satellite  systems  inherent  location  determination  capabilities  should  be  used  to  obtain  a  911  callers  location  and  whether  that  information  should  be 
 automatically  transmitted  to  the  call  center,  if  technically  feasible.  As  described  above,  callers  using  Globalstar  can  use  their  handsets  to  determine  their  approximate  coordinates,  then  read  this  information  to 
 the  emergency  operator,  who  then  uses  it  to  ascertain  the  appropriate  PSAP.  The  Iridium  system,  while  not  currently  providing  emergency  call  assistance,  is  capable  of  determining  the  location  of  a  caller  within 
 an  accuracy  of  approximately  10  to  20  kilometers.  82  Clearly,  the  availability  of  latitude  and  longitude  information  can  enhance  the  ability  of  a  call  center  to  match  the  correct  PSAP,  particularly  when  callers 
 are  lost  or  otherwise  do  not  know  where  they  are  and  cannot  provide  an  address.  We  seek  comment  on  the  benefit  to  be  gained  in  requiring  satellite  systems  that  are  capable  of  determining  caller  locations  to 
 automatically  transmit  that  information  to  the  call  center,  either  as  the  911  number  is  dialed  or  shortly  after  the  connection  is  made  to  the  call  center,  if  additional  time  is  necessary  for  the  handset  to  see  enough 
 satellites  to  determine  location.  The  National  Search  and  Rescue  Committee  (  NSARC)  acknowledges  that  MSS  systems  do  not  have  the  same  location  precision  as  terrestrial  wireless  ones,  but  is  nonetheless 
 confident  that  improvements  are  forthcoming,  and  believes  that  any  ALI  requirement  for  MSS  systems  should  be  based  on  their  inherent  capabilities.  83  We  are  interested  in  learning  if  other  public  safety 
 organizations  share  NSARCs  view.  We  recognize  that  the  ability  of  satellite  communications  networks  to  determine  a  callers  precise  location  is  constrained  and  cannot  (with  current  equipment)  reliably  reach 
 the  level  of  accuracy  that  the  Commission  has  set  for  handset  and  network-  based  solutions  for  terrestrial  wireless.  84  However,  the  public  interest  may  best  be  served  by  utilizing  all  resources  available  in  aiding 
 callers  in  an  emergency.  If  we  were  to  require  carriers  to  relay  automatically  available  location  information  to  emergency  call  centers,  we  also  seek  comment  on  reasonably  achievable  accuracy 
 standards  we  could  establish  for  this  location  information. 
 (ii)  Enhanced  911 
 28.  In  this  section,  we  seek  to  develop  further  the  record  on  implementation  of  enhanced  911  for  satellite  carriers.  The  record  generated  thus  far  in  the  GMPCS  and  2  GHz  MSS  proceedings  illustrates  a 
 fundamental  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  requiring  E911  for  MSS  is  appropriate  at  this  time.  Satellite  licensees  generally  oppose  adoption  of  a  rule  requiring  E911  for  MSS,  claiming  it  is  premature 
 and/  or  not  economically  and  technically  feasible,  while  public  safety  entities  support  E911,  claiming  it  is  in  the  publics  interest.  85  NTIA  argues  that  E911  is  especially  important  for  MSS  terminals  for  callers 


 80  See  para.  69  infra. 
 81  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2. 
 82  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  3.  As  a  big  LEO  licensee,  Iridium  is  required  to  be  capable  of  locating  the  position  of 
 users  of  mobile  transceivers  in  an  effort  to  prevent  interference  with  the  radio  astronomy  service.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    25.  213. 


 83  NSARC  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  3. 
 84  For  network-  based  technologies,  we  require  Phase  II  location  accuracy  to  be  within  100  meters  for  67  percent  of 
 calls  and  300  meters  for  95  percent  of  calls.  For  handset-  based  technologies,  we  require  Phase  II  location  accuracy  to  be  within  50  meters  for  67  percent  of  calls  and  150  meters  for  95  percent  of  calls.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  h). 


 85  For  satellite  licensee  and  manufacturer  comment,  see,  e.  g.,  Inmarsat  Ltd.  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  9-  10,  SIA 
 GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  1,  Motorola  GMPCS  NPRM  reply  at  13,  Iridium  LLC  GMPCS  NPRM  reply  at  13,  ICO  Global  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  3,  TMI  GMPCS  NPRM  reply  at  7-  8,  Constellation  GMPCS  NPRM  comments 


 at  15,  AMSC  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  16-  17,  LGA  GMPCS  NPRM  reply  at  19,  Comsat  GMPCS  NPRM  (continued....) 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 13 
 located  in  areas  not  served  by  terrestrial  wireless  networks  or  callers  who  cannot  otherwise  identify  their  location.  86  Licensees,  such  as  Inmarsat,  respond  that  E911  features  are  too  expensive  and  technically 
 difficult  to  implement,  and  that  the  existence  of  a  satellite  handset  (and  the  ability  to  use  it  anywhere)  is  a  public  benefit  in  and  of  itself.  87  While  the  Inmarsat  position  may  be  valid  to  a  certain  extent,  we  believe 
 that,  if  the  technology  and  cost  permit,  consumer  expectations  and  the  public  interest  support  a  requirement  that  MSS  provide  E911  services  comparable  to  those  of  terrestrial  wireless.  However,  the 
 record  thus  far  demonstrates  that  E911  requirements  for  satellite  systems  may  be  premature  at  this  time,  particularly  with  regard  to  the  gateway  architecture  of  satellite  networks.  In  this  section  we  intend  to 
 develop  further  the  record  for  MSS  enhanced  911  rules  since  we  anticipate  their  eventual  adoption.  We  also  seek  information  regarding  whether  network  technology  has  improved  in  any  significant  way  since 
 comments  were  last  filed  on  these  issues.  We  also  seek  information  relevant  to  comparing  the  MSS  and  terrestrial  wireless  contexts,  including  with  respect  to  the  two  phases  in  which  we  required  terrestrial 
 wireless  carriers  to  implement  enhanced  911  the  first  phase  consisting  of  Automatic  Number  Information  (  ANI)  and  second  phase  consisting  of  Automatic  Location  Identification  (  ALI).  These  inquiries  are 
 also  relevant  to  our  request  for  comment  in  paragraph  55  below  concerning  basic  and  enhanced  911  compliance  in  the  event  satellite  carriers  are  permitted  to  offer  an  ancillary  terrestrial  component  to  their 
 satellite  service. 
 (a)  Network  Design  and  LEC  Interconnection 
 29.  Background.  The  Satellite  E911  Public  Notice  sought  comment,  generally,  on  whether  there  would  be  any  need  for  special  regulatory  policies  with  regard  to  MSS  licensee  coordination  with  local 
 exchange  carriers  (LECs)  and  PSAPs.  88  In  the  terrestrial  wireless  context,  the  Commission  left  the  resolution  of  technical  and  operational  decisions  necessary  for  implementing  E911  to  the  interested 
 parties,  including  wireless  and  wireline  carriers,  PSAPs,  state  and  local  governments,  manufacturers,  and  standard-  setting  groups.  89  This  approach  stemmed  from  a  Commission  belief  that  it  should  determine 
 only  the  capabilities  that  must  be  achieved,  rather  than  promulgate  extensive  technical  standards.  90  We 
 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  comments  at  13,  Motient  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  1,  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2, 
 Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  generally.  The  2  GHz  NPRM  record  contains  similar  comments  on  this  subject:  see,  e.  g.,  Boeing  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  19,  ICO  USA  Service  Group  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at 
 43,  Constellation  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  26,  TMI  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  10,  Globalstar,  L.  P.  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  40,  ICO  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  19,  SIA  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  2.  However,  satellite  licensee 
 Celsat  supported  E911  for  2  GHz  MSS  (see  Celsat  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  30),  and  suggested  in  its  reply  that  the  development  of  E911  rules  should  be  deferred  to  a  separate  proceeding  (Celsat  2  GHz  NPRM  reply  at  27-  28). 
 Celsat  did  not  file  comments  in  response  to  the  Satellite  911  Public  Notice.  For  public  safety  comment  and  other  entities  supporting  satellite  E911,  see,  e.  g.,  NTIA  GMPCS  NPRM  reply  at  8,  APCO  GMPCS  NPRM  comments 
 throughout,  NSARC  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  2,  USCG  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  throughout,  NENA  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  2,  APCO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2,  NENA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice 
 comments  at  1,  SCC  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2,  Washington  State  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2,  APCO  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  2,  Bellsouth  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  6,  NTIA  2  GHz  NPRM 
 comments  at  16,  and  USCG  2  GHz  NPRM  comments  at  4-  5.  86 
 NTIA  GMPCS  NPRM  reply  at  8.  87 
 Inmarsat  GMPCS  NPRM  reply  at  9;  see  also  ORBCOMM  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  15;  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  9;  Inmarsat  Ventures  plc  ex  parte  at  2. 


 88  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  6. 
 89  See  Wireless  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18712-  14;  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to 
 Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling  Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Second  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  20850  at  para.  93  (1999)  (  Wireless  E911  Second  Recon  Order). 


 90  The  issues  the  Commission  left  to  interested  parties  to  resolve  included  standards  necessary  to  implement  and 
 enable  widespread  wireless  access  to  emergency  communications  and  services,  the  specification  of  a  required  grade  (continued....) 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 14 
 continue  to  believe  that  this  approach  is  preferred,  although  the  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  recently  initiated  an  inquiry  into  ongoing  E911  implementation  issues  concerning  LEC  and  PSAP 
 readiness.  91  As  we  observed  above  in  our  call  center  discussion,  satellite  network  architecture,  by  design,  has  few  public  switched  network  interconnection  points,  making  the  automatic  routing  of  even  basic  911 
 calls  to  PSAPs  difficult. 
 30.  The  record  shows  that  high  costs  are  associated  with  modifying  satellite  network  infrastructures  to  accommodate  enhanced  emergency  call  information  and  route  it  to  appropriate  PSAPs. 
 Some  carriers  argue  that  network  modifications  are  necessary  to  forward  ANI  and  ALI  data,  such  as  retrofitting  switches  throughout  the  network  and  making  costly  private  trunking  arrangements  between 
 earth  stations  and  PSAPs.  92  ICO  suggests  that  the  retrofit  costs  could  be  reduced  if  (i)  a  single,  central  emergency  call  service  could  receive  calls  for  the  nation  or  (ii)  each  of  the  50  states  has  a  single  point  of 
 emergency  contact.  93  In  addition,  without  a  nationally-  coordinated  PSAP  program,  MSS  operators  must  work  with  the  PSAPs  on  a  state-  by-  state,  locality-  by-  locality  basis,  which  would  create  enormous 
 administrative  costs.  .  .  .  94 
 31.  Discussion.  We  seek  comment  whether  E911  requirements  for  satellite  carriers  should  be  delayed  until  these  network  issues  are  resolved.  We  seek  comment  on  alternative  methods  of  facilitating 
 LEC  interconnection  and  PSAP  routing.  For  example,  call  centers  might  be  capable  of  receiving  ANI  and  ALI  information,  which  operators  could  forward,  along  with  the  emergency  call,  to  the  appropriate  PSAP. 
 While  ICOs  proposal  for  the  establishment  of  national  PSAP  referral  center  or  central  PSAP  office  for  each  of  the  50  states  may  resolve  coordination  issues,  we  believe  that  states  and  localities  are  best 
 equipped  to  design  PSAP  infrastructure.  In  the  terrestrial  wireless  E911  proceeding,  the  Commission  recognized  that  because  selective  routing  of  wireless  911  calls  to  the  appropriate  PSAP  is  complicated  by 
 the  fact  that  the  caller  is  often  moving,  carriers  would  need  to  coordinate  with  state  and  local  governments  to  determine  the  PSAPs  that  are  appropriate  to  receive  wireless  911  calls.  95  The  Commission  indicated 
 that  until  a  state  or  local  governmental  entity  develops  a  routing  plan  for  wireless  911  calls  within  its  jurisdiction,  covered  carriers  could  comply  with  the  E911  rules  by  continuing  to  route  911  calls  to  the 


 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  of  service  [in  terms  of  call  blocking  probability],  the  mapping  required  to  develop  the  coordinates  of  latitude  and 
 longitude  necessary  for  location  identification,  and  the  exact  interface  between  the  several  components  of  the  total  network  (i.  e.,  signaling  and  switching  capabilities).  E911  First  Report  and  Order  at  para.  73.  We  note  that  the 
 Commission  had  a  fair  degree  of  confidence  that  the  relevant  parties  would  resolve  these  matters,  since  many  were  part  of,  or  represented  on,  a  Consensus  Agreement  on  E911  issues  between  several  public  safety  and  wireless 
 industry  entities.  The  Commission  required  the  signatories  to  the  Consensus  Agreement,  PCIA,  and  the  Consumers  First  and  the  Ad  Hoc  Alliance  for  Public  Access  to  911  to  submit  status  reports  to  the  Commission  at  regular 
 intervals.  See  E911  First  Report  and  Order  at  para.  75.  91 
 See  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Seeks  Comment  on  Report  on  Technical  and  Operational  Wireless  E911  Issues,  WT  Docket  No.  02-  46,  Public  Notice,  DA  02-  2666  (rel.  Oct.  16,  2002). 


 92  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  3-  4.  ICO  maintains  that  if  E911  is  adopted,  the  costs  to  modify  its 
 handsets  and  network  would  be  enormous.  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  7.  See  also  discussion  of  Globalstars  need  for  an  American  National  Standards  Institute  ISDN  User  Part  connection  to  the  PSTN  in  para.  33 


 infra.  Globalstar  says  automatic  routing  of  basic  911  calls  would  be  cost  prohibitive  unless  PSAPs  themselves  are  financially  responsible  for  the  distance-  sensitive  trunk  connections  between.  .  .  gateways  and  the  many  LEC 
 selective  routers  nationwide  and  also  notes  that  due  to  its  few  number  of  gateways,  PSAPs  would  need  to  interconnect  not  only  with  LECs,  but  with  interstate  and  international  carriers  as  well  to  receive  911  calls. 
 Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  23.  93 
 ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  6.  94 
 ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  7.  95 
 Wireless  E911  First  Recon  Order  at  paras.  98-  99. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 15 
 PSAPs  designated  by  local  authorities  to  answer  wireless  911  calls.  96  We  encourage  satellite  carriers  to  confer  with  state  governments  regarding  their  designated  wireless  PSAPs.  97 
 32.  We  seek  further  comment  on  costs  to  transport  enhanced  call  information.  ICO  and  Globalstar  note  that  PSAPs  would  need  to  make  modifications  to  their  equipment  in  order  to  receive  E911 
 call  data  from  a  satellite  network,  and  both  express  uncertainty  whether  the  PSAPs  have  begun  making  these  modifications.  98  We  seek  comment  on  this  issue,  particularly  whether  a  PSAP  that  is  configured  to 
 receive  terrestrial  wireless  E911  data  can  also  receive  E911  data  from  a  satellite  licensee,  or  whether  PSAPs  would  have  to  make  additional  modifications.  We  seek  additional  comment  on  the  need  (as 
 Globalstar  and  ICO  assert)  for  costly  trunk  arrangements  for  transporting  enhanced  911  calls  from  satellite  gateway  stations  to  PSAPs.  As  noted  above,  Globalstars  emergency  service  does  not  use  such 
 trunks  when  forwarding  calls  from  the  call  center  to  PSAPs.  99 
 (b)  Provision  of  Automatic  Number  Identification 
 33.  Background.  In  the  Satellite  E911  Public  Notice,  the  International  Bureau  asked  whether  the  Commission  should  implement  ANI  for  satellite  911  calls,  and  if  so  what  would  be  an  appropriate 
 implementation  schedule.  100  The  International  Bureau  also  asked  whether  provision  of  ANI  would  be  more  problematic  for  MSS  providers  than  for  covered  wireless  providers.  101  Public  safety  entities  such  as 
 the  Coast  Guard  and  NENA  support  ANI  for  satellite  carriers,  102  but  the  limited  record  on  this  issue  reflects  that  the  infrastructure  of  some  currently  operational  carriers,  including  AMSC  and  Iridium,  is  not 
 capable  of  receiving  and  transmitting  ANI  information.  103  Globalstar  maintains  that  its  gateway  stations  are  incapable  of  accepting  ANI  information,  and  moreover  Globalstar  is  unsure  whether  PSAP  and  LEC 


 96  Wireless  E911  First  Recon  Order  at  para.  99.  See  also  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  3  (defining  a  PSAP  as  a  [  p]  oint  that  has 
 been  designated  to  receive  911  calls  and  route  them  to  emergency  service  personnel).  97 
 See,  e.  g.,  Fifth  Report  and  Order,  16  FCC  Rcd  22264  at  para.  27  (addressing  the  need  for  carriers  to  contact  the  entity  to  be  designated  by  the  States  Governor  pursuant  to  section  3(  b)  of  the  911  Act). 


 98  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  6-  7;  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  17. 
 99  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2.  NENA  observes  that  Globalstars  ability  to  route  911  calls  from  its  call  center  to 
 PSAPs  refutes  Inmarsats  argument  that  MSS  systems  cannot  use  existing  facilities  to  route  calls  to  PSAPs.  NENA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  3. 


 100  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  5. 
 101  We  require  terrestrial  wireless  licensees  to  provide  ANI  to  PSAPs  as  Phase  I  of  enhanced  911  service.  ANI 
 consists  of  the  callers  telephone  number  and  the  location  of  the  cell  site  or  base  station  that  received  the  911  call.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  d).  In  the  satellite  context,  we  understand  that  lack  of  terrestrial  base  stations  (other  than  the 


 small  number  of  gateway  stations)  limits  ANI  to  the  callers  telephone  number.  Also,  we  recognize  that  requiring  satellite  carriers  to  implement  ANI  prior  to  ALI  (as  Section  20.  18  requires  for  covered  terrestrial  carriers)  may  be 
 impractical,  because  a  satellite  911  call  cannot  be  automatically  routed  to  a  PSAP  without  first  determining  a  callers  precise  location.  See  infra  para.  83. 


 102  NENA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  2-  3;  USCG  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  6.  The  Coast 
 Guard  also  argues  that  having  the  callback  number  will  assist  in  tracking  down  hoax  callers.  Due  to  the  costs  involved  in  investigating  calls  that  are  revealed  to  be  hoaxes  (as  the  Coast  Guard  has  demonstrated),  we  are 


 persuaded  that  identification  and  prosecution  of  hoax  callers  provides  additional  basis  for  an  ANI  requirement.  103 
 In  response  to  the  more  general  inquiries  of  the  GMPCS  NPRM,  Motorola  observes  that  [  d]  ue  to  differences  in  telephone  and  radio  system  dialing  protocols,  it  is  not  yet  feasible  to  provide  ANI  on  the  Iridium  system.  Motorola 


 GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  n.  33.  AMSC  similarly  notes  that  its  network  could  not  (as  of  1999)  provide  ANI  or  ALI,  and  that  reconfiguring  the  network  would  cost  approximately  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars.  AMSC  GMPCS 
 NPRM  comments  at  16-  17. 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 16 
 trunking  facilities  (including  those  in  Canada)  can  transport  the  ANI.  104  Globalstar  estimates  that  the  cost  of  the  necessary  equipment  to  provide  ANI  (i.  e.,  an  American  National  Standards  Institute  ISDN  User 
 Part  connection  to  the  PSTN)  would  be  $1,000,000,  exclusive  of  trunking  costs.  105  Globalstar  argues  that  the  cost  of  establishing  trunks  between  its  gateways  and  each  PSAP  would  be  prohibitive,  and  that  given 
 the  low  number  of  911  calls  over  [Globalstars  satellite  network],  the  costs  of  imposing  a  Phase  I  [i.  e.,  Phase  I  as  defined  in  the  terrestrial  wireless  rules]  ANI  obligation  are  not  justified.  106 


 34.  Discussion.  We  agree  with  commenters  such  as  NENA  and  the  Coast  Guard  that  the  availability  of  the  callers  number  will  serve  the  public  interest  by  enabling  PSAPs  to  reconnect  to  callers 
 in  the  event  of  a  disconnection  and  to  track  down  hoax  callers.  Accordingly,  we  seek  further  comment  regarding  the  feasibility  of  transmitting  a  callers  phone  number  to  the  PSAP.  For  example,  we  seek 
 comment  whether  satellite  network  technology  has  improved  in  the  time  since  comments  were  last  filed,  thus  enabling  the  generation  of  ANI  data.  Are  Globalstars  concerns  regarding  LEC  and  PSAP  readiness 
 well-  founded,  especially  as  these  entities  work  to  accommodate  ALI  and  ANI  from  terrestrial  wireless  carriers?  Do  other  currently  operational  MSS  licensees  face  hurdles  similar  to  Globalstars  with  regard  to 
 network  retrofits?  What  costs  do  other  carriers  anticipate  incurring  to  reprogram  current  equipment  or  acquire  new  equipment?  Could  accommodation  of  ANI  be  facilitated  if  imposed  on  future  generations  of 
 systems  currently  operating?  We  welcome  comment  from  all  interested  parties  on  these  matters. 
 (c)  Provision  of  Automatic  Location  Information 
 35.  Background.  In  the  Satellite  E911  Public  Notice,  the  Bureau  sought  input  on  a  variety  of  issues  pertaining  to  satellite  system  provision  of  ALI.  In  particular,  the  Bureau  asked  if  implementation 
 of  handset-  based  ALI  for  MSS  licensees  would  be  any  more  problematic  than  it  has  been  for  terrestrial  wireless  carriers.  107  The  Bureau  also  asked  if  technologies  already  developed  for  terrestrial  purposes 
 would  be  readily  adaptable  to  MSS,  or  at  least  be  available  at  prices  comparable  to  those  charged  to  terrestrial  carriers.  108  The  Bureau  solicited  comment  on  the  costs  associated  with  implementing  handset-based 
 ALI,  both  with  regard  to  handsets  and  any  other  related  expenses.  As  an  alternative,  the  Bureau  asked  whether  ALI  can  be  achieved  without  the  need  for  GPS  receivers  in  handsets,  and  if  so  what  level 
 of  accuracy  could  be  attained,  and  at  what  cost.  109 
 36.  We  received  a  range  of  comments  on  the  feasibility  of  providing  accurate  location  information  for  MSS  subscribers.  Several  licensees  indicated  that  their  constellations  are  incapable  of 
 ascertaining  a  callers  position,  rendering  only  GPS  as  an  ALI  solution.  110  Some  carriers  can  and  do 
 104  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  17. 
 105  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  17-  18. 
 106  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  18. 
 107  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  5.  The  terrestrial  wireless  Phase  II  accuracy  standards  for  handset-  based 
 technologies  are  50  meters  for  67  percent  of  calls  and  150  meters  for  95  percent  of  calls  and  for  network-  based  technologies  are  100  meters  for  67  percent  of  calls  and  300  meters  for  95  percent  of  calls.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  h). 


 108  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  5-  6. 
 109  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  6. 
 110  See,  e.  g.,  Inmarsat  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  3  (Inmarsats  use  of  a  four  GSO  satellite  network 
 makes  it  impossible  to  provide  ALI  without  including  GPS  components  in  the  handset);  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  3-  4  (ICOs  MSS  network  uses  12  satellites  with  large  spot  beams  to  cover  the  entire  United 


 States,  with  all  calls  routed  to  a  single  gateway  station.  ICO  asserts  that  this  architecture  makes  provision  of  ALI  too  difficult,  leaving  GPS  as  the  only  viable  option.);  Motient  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  3  (Motient 
 says  that  its  network  consists  of  five  beams,  each  covering  thousands  of  square  miles,  but  adds  that  these  beams  cannot  determine  a  callers  position  with  the  accuracy  required  by  Section  20.18). 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 17 
 ascertain  a  callers  position  but  the  degree  of  accuracy  is  not  commensurate  with  our  terrestrial  wireless  standards,  and  they  too  submit  that  only  GPS  would  meet  the  terrestrial  wireless  Phase  II  standards.  111 
 The  Coast  Guard  urges  the  Commission  to  require  an  ALI  standard  for  GMPCS  that  is  at  least  as  accurate  as  the  125-  meter  RMS  [root  mean  square]  standard  contained  in  the  then-  current  terrestrial 
 wireless  rule  (the  125-  meter  RMS  standard  was  later  replaced  with  differing  standards  for  handset-  based  and  network-  based  solutions).  112  The  Coast  Guard  says  that  terrestrial  wireless  Phase  II-  type  location 
 accuracy  is  mandatory  because  otherwise  rescue  delays  will  inevitably  occur,  and  knowledge  of  the  callers  location  will  assist  in  the  identification  and  prosecution  of  hoax  callers.  113 


 37.  Public  safety  advocates  generally  believe  that  GPS  components  can  be  integrated  into  MSS  handsets,  but  carriers  are  less  optimistic.  SCC  Corp.  recognizes  the  technical  limitations  faced  by  satellite 
 carriers,  and  argues  that  GPS  technology  offers  an  independent  and  proven  means  of  meeting  Phase  II  location  standards.  .  .  .  114  Inmarsat  and  ICO  argue  that  the  use  of  GPS  chipsets  adds  too  much  expense 
 to  the  cost  of  handsets;  ICO  in  particular  notes  that  the  per  unit  cost  for  incorporating  GPS  into  one  of  its  handsets  is  $30.  115  With  regard  to  other  GPS  technical  considerations,  ICO  comments  that  GPS  hardware 
 would  reduce  a  handsets  battery  life  from  180-  200  hours  to  about  20  hours.  116  NTIA  points  out  that  filters  with  an  extremely  steep  roll-  off  would  be  required  for  GPS  and  MSS  components  to  work 
 simultaneously,  due  to  band  proximity.  117  Globalstar  maintains  that  its  network  and  GPS  transmit/  receive  functions  cannot  operate  simultaneously  because  of  interference  issues.  118  NTIA  observes  that 
 simultaneous  operation  problems  could  be  minimized  through  time-  sharing,  e.  g.,  [the]  GPS  receiver  is  turned  off  while  [the]  MSS  handset  is  transmitting.  119 


 38.  Discussion.  While  we  recognize  the  value  in  establishing  strict  accuracy  standards,  as  the  Coast  Guard  advocates,  we  are  persuaded  based  on  the  existing  record  that  presently  the  only  way  of 
 achieving  such  standards  is  via  GPS.  In  the  terrestrial  wireless  proceeding,  we  stressed  the  importance  of  maintaining  technical  neutrality  in  the  selection  of  ALI  technology  120  and  we  intend  to  continue  that 
 policy  with  satellite  systems.  Thus  we  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  allow  ALI  to  be  provided  by 
 111  See  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  12  (10  kilometer  accuracy  90%  of  time);  Feb.  22  Ex 
 Parte  Memo  at  3  (Iridium  Satellite  can  determine  the  location  of  a  caller  with  an  accuracy  of  10  to  20  kilometers).  Orbcomm,  a  Little  LEO  licensee,  estimates  that  its  system  can  ascertain  the  location  of  a  stationary  user  terminal 


 within  10  minutes  with  500-  meter  accuracy  95%  of  the  time,  using  calculations  based  on  Doppler  variations  in  the  signals  received  from  its  low-  orbit  satellites.  Additional  time  will  allow  more  satellite  passes  and  thus  refined 
 accuracy  (approximately  350  meters  within  30  minutes).  ORBCOMM  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  12-  13.  112 
 USCG  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  6-  8.  113 
 Id.  114 
 SCC  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  3-  4.  115 
 Inmarsat  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  3-  4;  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  4-  5.  116 
 ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  4.  117 
 NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  10.  118 
 Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  19.  Globalstar  also  points  out  that  handset-  based  ALI  solutions  have  network  infrastructure  consequences,  including  the  need  for  a  switch-  based  network  component  that  may  not 


 be  readily  interposed  on  an  MSS  gateway  facility  and  gateway  upgrades  to  provide  network  assistance  to  the  handset,  requiring  additional  servers  (a  significant  undertaking).  Id.  at  19-  20. 
 119  NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  10. 
 120  Wireless  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18714  (emphasizing  the  intention  to  adopt  general  criteria 
 rather  than  technical  standards);  Wireless  E911  First  Recon  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  22665,  22724-  5  (in  setting  deadlines  and  benchmarks  for  ALI,  Commission  policy  has  been  to  be  technologically  and  competitively  neutral); 


 Wireless  E911  Third  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  17388  at  para.  14. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 18 
 a  carriers  inherent  capabilities,  or  whether  we  should  require  all  satellite  carriers  to  implement  a  handset-based  solution  that  incorporates  GPS.  If  we  were  to  allow  licensees  to  choose  their  technology,  would  the 
 public  interest  be  served  by  allowing  a  relaxed  accuracy  standard  for  network-  based  solutions  (e.  g.,  a  theoretically  best  accuracy  of  1  kilometer,  90  percent  of  the  time  121  )?  We  seek  comment  on  acceptable 
 alternative  location  accuracy  standards.  Particularly,  we  are  interested  in  whether  carriers  that  can  pinpoint  caller  location  to  within  10  to  20  kilometers  (such  as  Iridium  and  Globalstar)  should  be  required 
 to  convey  those  coordinates  to  a  PSAP  when  connecting  911  calls.  We  seek  comment  on  the  public  benefit  of  using  existing/  inherent  satellite  location  technology  to  determine  the  appropriate  PSAP  to  call 
 and  whether  to  transmit  the  callers  coordinates  to  the  PSAP.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  other  technology  is  available  or  will  be  available  in  the  near  future  that  MSS  carriers  can  use  to  provide  similar 
 or  better  ALI  data  as  compared  to  GPS.  If  relaxed  standards  are  unacceptable,  should  we  delay  implementation  of  a  GPS  solution  until  costs  and  engineering  issues  have  been  resolved  substantially,  or 
 would  a  relaxed  standard  suffice  until  such  time  as  issues  with  a  GPS  solution  are  resolved? 
 39.  We  understand  from  the  Coast  Guard  that  inaccurate  coordinates  may  be  of  limited  value  when  conducting  maritime  searches,  but  we  seek  comment  from  other  entities  whether  available  location 
 technology,  in  concert  with  information  gleaned  from  callers  themselves,  still  serves  the  public  interest.  If  not,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  implementation  of  wireless-  comparable  ALI  standards  should  be 
 delayed  for  MSS  until  economies  of  scale  exist  that  bring  costs  down  to  levels  proportional  to  those  that  wireless  carriers  have  achieved  (recognizing  that  such  a  delay  might  add  several  years  to  satellite  E911 
 becoming  effective). 
 40.  We  also  seek  comment  on  certain  interference  issues.  Globalstar  maintains  that  its  transceiver  units,  if  equipped  with  GPS  functions,  cannot  transmit  and  receive  at  the  same  time  due  to 
 interference  issues.  122  We  recognize  this  limitation  as  a  valid  concern  and  thus  seek  further  comments  on  ways  to  mitigate  this  interference,  and  also  whether  this  is  an  issue  other  MSS  operators  will  encounter. 
 In  addition,  we  seek  comment  on  non-  simultaneous  use  of  the  transceiver  unit  for  transmitting  and  receiving  a  GPS  signal.  123  Further,  we  seek  comment  on  the  impact  the  non-  simultaneous  functions 
 would  have  on  GPS  acquisition  time  (i.  e.,  the  time  interval  to  synchronize  the  mobile  transceiver  with  the  GPS  constellation)  and  position  determination  of  the  transceiver.  We  also  seek  comment  on  call  set-  up 
 time  for  such  non-  simultaneous  uses.  Globalstar  notes  that  a  GPS  receiver  in  a  handset  could  take  several  minutes  to  successfully  access  the  GPS  satellites  to  determine  its  position,  which  contrasts  with 
 the  few  seconds  needed  to  establish  a  Globalstar  call.  124  At  the  time  Globalstar  prepared  its  comments,  we  believe  Globalstar  was  correct  in  its  assessment;  however,  based  on  current  GPS  technology  we 
 believe  this  is  no  longer  the  case.  We  invite  comment  on  the  use  of  adequate  filtering,  as  suggested  by  NTIA,  as  a  way  of  minimizing  interference.  125  We  believe  that  proper  filtering  will  address  interference 
 concerns,  but  we  are  interested  in  comment  on  the  estimated  costs  of  such  a  solution. 
 41.  We  acknowledge  the  fact  (as  ICO  and  Inmarsat  point  out)  that  incorporating  GPS  technology  into  handsets  may  alter  the  weight,  size  and  power  consumption  of  the  mobile  transceiver  unit  and  also 


 121  See  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  20. 
 122  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  19. 
 123  NTIA  in  its  comments  proposes  non-  simultaneous  use  of  the  transceiver  unit  as  a  means  for  avoiding 
 interference  to  the  receive  GPS  signal  on  an  MSS  transceiver  equipped  with  GPS  receive  capability.  NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  10. 


 124  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  19. 
 125  NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  10  (suggesting  that  in  order  for  MSS  handsets  to  transmit 
 simultaneously  during  GPS  operation,  filters  with  an  extremely  steep  roll-  off  would  be  required,  with  impractical  cost,  weight,  and  power  concerns). 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 19 
 increase  the  cost  per  unit.  However,  based  on  our  understanding  of  the  current  trends  in  technology,  in  particular  ALI  using  GPS  technology,  we  believe  that  the  record  before  us  is  somewhat  stale  and  that 
 costs  and  battery  size  have  come  down  somewhat.  Therefore,  we  seek  updated  information  on  the  costs  associated  with  weight,  size  and  power  consumption  of  these  terminals  when  equipping  mobile  satellite 
 transceiver  units  with  GPS  technology.  We  also  seek  comment  on  the  cost  associated  with  upgrading  current  satellite  networks  to  accommodate  that  transmission  of  GPS  data,  and  the  costs  associated  with 
 incorporating  GPS  into  the  designs  of  future  MSS  networks,  in  particular  information  pertaining  to  routing  and  processing  of  E911  calls.  We  seek  input  regarding  whether  advances  made  thus  far  in  the 
 provision  of  E911  for  terrestrial  wireless  are  in  any  way  applicable  to  satellite  networks. 
 (d)  Implementation  Schedules 
 42.  Discussion.  We  believe  the  record  would  benefit  from  additional  information  concerning  implementation  schedules  for  satellite  E911.  A  variety  of  factors  distinguish  satellite  E911 
 implementation  from  its  terrestrial  counterpart.  First,  due  to  network  architecture,  an  MSS  gateway  requires  the  specific  location  of  the  caller  first  in  order  to  connect  the  call  to  a  PSAP.  Knowledge  of  the 
 callers  specific  location  constitutes  ALI,  and  without  this  information  a  satellite  call  cannot  be  routed  to  a  PSAP.  Therefore,  unlike  terrestrial  wireless,  where  implementation  of  ANI  preceded  implementation  of 
 ALI,  we  do  not  believe  that  ANI  can  be  implemented  prior  to  ALI  for  MSS.  We  seek  comment  on  whether,  instead  of  phasing  in  ANI  and  ALI  separately,  we  should  require  satellite  carriers  to  provide 
 ANI  and  ALI  simultaneously.  If  we  should  proceed  with  a  unified  ANI/  ALI  requirement,  how  soon  after  adoption  of  this  requirement  should  currently  operational  and  design-  stage  carriers  become  compliant? 
 Can  design-  stage  MSS  systems  be  re-  engineered  and  compliant  with  E911  requirements  upon  inception  of  service?  For  example,  we  invite  comment  concerning  the  ability  of  a  licensee  that  has  already  met  its 
 first  milestone  (e.  g.,  by  entering  a  non-  contingent  contract  for  the  manufacture  of  the  first  satellite  in  the  system)  at  the  time  any  E911  requirements  become  effective  to  comply  with  those  requirements.  With 
 respect  to  currently  operational  systems,  we  seek  comment  whether  ANI/  ALI  services  should  be  required  for  second  or  third  generation  satellite  systems.  Conversely,  if  provision  of  ANI/  ALI  services  demands 
 modifications  in  handsets  and  gateway  stations,  rather  than  satellites,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  E911  is  feasible  with  the  current  satellite  generation.  We  seek  comment  on  the  predicted  costs  of  implementing 
 ANI/  ALI  and  solicit  input  on  possible  subscribership  levels  that  we  could  set  as  triggers  for  compliance  with  any  such  rule.  126  While  SCC  Corp.  asks  that  the  Commission  establish  firm  deployment 
 schedules,  127  we  are  not  prepared  to  do  so  without  additional  information. 
 43.  Several  satellite  carriers  have  pointed  out  that  they  have  relatively  few  customers  in  comparison  to  terrestrial  wireless  companies,  and  as  a  result  are  unable  to  distribute  the  costs  of  enhanced 
 911  services  as  easily  to  subscribers.  128  If  MSS  systems  can  only  recover  the  costs  of  enhanced  911  services  through  additional  charges  to  their  existing  subscribers,  they  likely  will  be  forced  to  increase 
 their  subscriber  rates  by  a  substantial  amount.  Such  increased  rates  may  decrease  the  demand  for  their  services,  which  means  that  fewer  potential  subscribers  will  purchase  MSS  services,  whether  or  not  it 
 offers  E911  features.  Therefore,  we  request  comment  on  whether  an  E911  requirement  should  be  triggered  only  when  a  licensee  has  achieved  a  certain  benchmark  in  subscribership. 


 126  See  also  supra  para.  24. 
 127  See  SCC  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  ex  parte  letter  (April  10,  2001). 
 128  For  example,  ICO  noted  that  (as  of  1999),  MSS  subscribership  numbered  approximately  500,000,  whereas 
 wireless  subscribership  was  44  million  when  the  Commission  adopted  E911  rules  in  1996  (and  by  1999  subscribership  reached  approximately  86  million).  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  6.  The  Commission  has 


 said  that  CMRS  carriers  are  not  subject  to  rate  regulation,  and  may  adjust  their  rates  to  reflect  the  cost  of  providing  E911  services  without  [Commission]  intervention.  Wireless  E911  Second  Recon  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  20850  at 
 para.  49  (1999). 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 20 
 44.  Grandfathering.  The  terrestrial  wireless  rules  provide  equipment  phase-  in  schedules  for  handset-  based  location  technologies.  129  Inmarsat  argues  that  in  the  event  that  the  Commission  adopts  a 
 location  monitoring  requirement  for  MSS,  these  requirements  [should]  be  applicable  on  a  prospective  basis  only  and  that  existing  terminals  be  grandfathered  against  such  requirements.  130  Inmarsat  maintains 
 that  even  though  it  intends  to  incorporate  GPS  into  its  next  generation  of  MSS  earth  stations,  it  currently  serves  approximately  200,  000  user  terminals  worldwide.  131  Do  MSS  licensees  other  than  Inmarsat  have  a 
 significant  number  of  mobile  earth  terminals  that  would  be  costly  to  retrofit?  We  are  concerned  about  this  issue  as  well  and  seek  comment  whether  pre-  existing  mobile  terminals  in  use  at  the  time  any  E911 
 rules  are  adopted  and  effective  should  be  grandfathered  from  compliance.  In  order  to  determine  the  impact  of  a  grandfathering  provision,  we  also  seek  comment  concerning  whether  satellite  licensees  expect 
 significant  terminal  churn  with  regard  to  current  customers.  132 
 (e)  Carriers  and  Services  Required  to  Offer  E911 
 45.  Background.  In  the  Satellite  911  Public  Notice,  the  Bureau  asked  if  911  rules  for  satellite  services  should  be  limited  to  the  same  extent  the  rules  are  limited  for  terrestrial  wireless  carriers  (i.  e.,  to 
 carriers  that  provide  real-  time,  two-  way  switched  voice  service  that  is  interconnected  to  the  PSTN).  The  International  Bureau  also  asked  whether  any  MSS  services  are  analogous  to  the  maritime  and  aeronautical 
 services  that  are  exempt  from  the  terrestrial  wireless  911  rules.  133  The  Commission  excluded  maritime  and  aeronautical  services  from  the  terrestrial  wireless  911  rules,  despite  their  being  two-  way  voice 
 services,  because  passengers  and  crews  of  ships  at  sea  rely  on  Global  Maritime  Distress  and  Safety  System  (  GMDSS)  for  emergency  and  distress,  while  passengers  and  crews  of  airplanes  use  other 
 radiocommunication  channels  for  emergency  assistance.  134 
 46.  The  record  reflects  a  range  of  positions  concerning  carriers  that  should  be  subject  to  911  requirements.  ORBCOMM,  a  little  LEO  licensee,  and  NTIA  argue  that  E911  requirements  should  not  be 
 imposed  on  non-  voice  MSS  systems.  135  NTIA  believes  that  the  911  Act  requires  only  telephony  services,  i.  e.,  the  transmission  of  voice  over  a  communications  network,  to  provide  911,  thereby 
 excluding  non-  voice  MSS.  136  NENA  suggests  that  the  911  Act  requires  maritime  MSS  to  provide  911  access,  while  the  Washington  State  E911  Program  office  asserts  that  a  Washington  911  statute  makes  no 
 operational  distinctions  when  mandating  enhanced  911,  statewide  and  therefore  any  telephone  system  (including  GMPCS)  must  be  designed  to  interface  to  existing  E911  systems  if  it  is  to  meet  the  intent  of 
 [sic]  Washington  statute.  137  Boeing  argues  that  nothing  in  the  911  Acts  legislative  history  indicates  that 


 129  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  g). 
 130  Inmarsat  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  4. 
 131  Inmarsat  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  3. 
 132  We  note  that  replacement  phones  accounted  for  23  percent  of  the  terrestrial  wireless  handset  market  in  2001.  See 
 Is  Nokia  Missing  an  Important  Call?  While  the  No.  1  Wireless  Handset  Maker  Dawdles,  its  Rivals  are  Rolling  Out  Advanced  Models  in  the  U.  S.,  Roger  O.  Crocket,  BusinessWeek  Online  (March  27,  2002). 


 133  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  4  (citing  E911  First  Report  and  Order  at  para.  82). 
 134  E911  First  Report  and  Order  at  para.  82;  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.    80,  Subpart  W. 
 135  ORBCOMM  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  12;  FA/  ORBCOMM  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2; 
 NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  11-  12.  See  also  NENA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  4  (concurring  with  ORBCOMMs  position). 


 136  NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  11-  12. 
 137  NENA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  3  and  reply  at  4;  Washington  State  Satellite  911  Public  Notice 
 comments  at  1.  NENA  maintains  that  although  Congress  ordained  the  use  of  these  digits  [i.  e.,  911]  for  all  wireless  (continued....) 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 21 
 the  Congress  intended  the  statute  to  apply  to  MSS  or  aeronautical  services.  138 
 47.  Discussion.  We  tentatively  conclude  that  only  GMPCS  carriers  providing  real-  time,  two-  way  switched  voice  service  that  is  interconnected  to  the  PSTN  should  be  required  to  provide  E911  services. 
 This  is  consistent  with  our  approach  to  terrestrial  wireless  services.  We  also  tentatively  conclude  that  maritime  and  aeronautical  MSS  services  should  be  excluded  from  any  911  requirements,  for  the  same 
 reasons  they  are  excluded  from  the  terrestrial  wireless  requirements.  While  the  Commission  has  found  no  public  safety  need  for  E911  on  terrestrial  two-  way,  non-  voice  services,  139  the  Coast  Guard  argues  that  any 
 E911  requirements  should  apply  to  all  two-  way  voice  and  data  systems  which  fall  under  the  classification  of  GMPCS.  140  Although  we  are  not  inclined  to  extend  any  satellite  911  requirements  to 
 non-  voice  systems,  we  welcome  additional  comment  on  the  Coast  Guards  proposal.  ORBCOMM  indicated  in  1999  that  it  recognizes  that  some  subscribers  will  want  to  use  their  communicators  to  send 
 911-  type  messages,  and  ORBCOMM  intends  to  address  the  needs  of  these  potential  users  by  providing  the  appropriate  PSAP  with  information  necessary  to  respond.  141  If  ORBCOMM  and/  or  any  other  non-voice 
 systems  currently  provide  this  sort  of  emergency  service,  we  seek  comment  regarding  its  implementation  and  use. 


 48.  We  agree  with  Globalstar  that  we  must  reject  Washington  States  implication  that  all  GMPCS  providers  must  provide  911  service  to  comply  with  a  Washington  statute.  142  The  Commission  observed  in 
 the  wireless  E911  proceeding  that  state  actions  that  are  incompatible  with  the  policies  and  rules  adopted  in  this  Order  are  subject  to  preemption.  143  Moreover,  the  Commission  stated  that  Federal  preemption  of 
 state  E911  regulation  may  be  necessary  to  ensure  the  achievement  of  various  inseverable,  nationwide  aspects  of  E911  operations,  including  nationwide  E911  operational  compatibility.  144  These  principles 
 are  as  applicable  to  satellite  CMRS  as  they  are  to  terrestrial  CMRS.  The  only  911  requirements  satellite  carriers  must  follow  are  those  that  the  Commission  adopts,  to  the  extent  it  adopts  any. 


 (iii)  International  Issues 
 49.  Background.  Rules  requiring  satellite  carriers  to  provide  emergency  call  centers  and  E911  services  raise  international  issues,  including  the  use  of  different  emergency  access  codes  across  the 
 globe  145  and  differing  standards  for  the  transmission  and  routing  of  enhanced  call  information.  Iridium 


 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  telephone  calls  originating  in  the  U.  S.,  the  911  Act  tolerates  exemption  for  aeronautical  MSS.  NENA  Satellite 
 911  Public  Notice  reply  at  2-  4.  138 
 Boeing  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  1-  2.  139 
 E911  First  Report  and  Order  at  para.  82.  140 
 USCG  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  8.  The  Coast  Guard  also  proposes  that  store-  and-  forward  systems  use  the  International  Maritime  Organizations  Criteria  for  Use  when  Providing  Inmarsat  Shore-  based  Facilities  to  address 


 the  reliability  of  delivering  emergency  messages.  See  USCG  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  8-  9.  141 
 ORBCOMM  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  16.  142 
 Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  7  (noting  that  Washington  State  seems  to  imply  that  its  state  law  somehow  supersedes  the  Commissions  rules). 


 143  See  E911  First  Report  and  Order  at  paras.  104-  105. 
 144  See  E911  First  Report  and  Order  at  para.  104. 
 145  By  way  of  example,  the  emergency  dial  code  for  many  European  countries  is  112;  Argentina  uses  101  for 
 ambulance  and  police  and  107  for  fire;  Brazil  uses  192  for  ambulance,  190  for  police,  and  193  for  fire;  China  uses  120  for  ambulance,  110  for  police,  and  119  for  fire;  Japan  uses  119  for  ambulance  and  fire  and  110  for  police.  See 


 http://  www.  globaltelecom.  org/  telecom.  htm  (visited  5/  14/  02). 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 22 
 LLC  points  to  the  existence  of  competing  access  codes  as  evidence  of  the  need  for  an  international  forum  to  establish  standards  to  adopting  any  E911  rules  for  satellite.  146  A  variety  of  commenters  urge  that  all 
 international  issues  be  resolved  on  the  international  stage,  such  as  through  the  International  Telecommunication  Union-  Radiocommunication  Bureau  (  ITU-  R).  147 


 50.  Discussion.  When  the  Commission  initially  declined  to  require  MSS  licensees  to  comply  with  any  911  rules,  it  identified  the  need  to  coordinate  with  international  standards  bodies  for  completion 
 of  international  calls  as  one  of  the  several  factors  distinguishing  MSS  from  covered  CMRS  carriers.  148  In  the  Satellite  911  Public  Notice,  the  International  Bureau  asked  if  the  public  safety  community  and  MSS 
 industry  participants  had  done  anything  to  continue  their  efforts  to  develop  and  establish  standards  [for  emergency  calling]  along  with  the  international  standards  bodies.  149  The  comments  received  in  response 
 to  this  inquiry  did  not  differ  substantially  from  the  comments  received  nearly  a  year  and  half  earlier  in  response  to  the  GMPCS  NPRM.  In  both  cases,  commenters  stress  the  need  to  develop  standards  on  the 
 international  stage  prior  to  adoption  of  any  E911  rules,  but  do  not  indicate  that  any  progress  had  been  made  in  this  regard.  150  We  seek  comment  as  to  whether  resolution  of  international  standards  issues 
 should  in  any  way  further  delay  adoption  of  a  call  center  requirement  or  E911  rules. 
 51.  NTIA  suggests  that  the  ITU-  R  would  be  an  effective  forum  for  developing  global  standards,  particularly  under  the  aegis  of  a  new  Study  Group  8  question  developed  by  the  U.  S.  Coast 
 Guard,  NTIA,  and  MSS  participants.  151  This  question  addresses  a  number  of  issues  critical  to  global  implementation  of  emergency  services,  including  the  preferred  capabilities  of  MSS  systems,  preferred 
 requirements  for  automatic  location  determination,  aspects  of  routing  MSS  emergency  calls  that  must  be  compatible  with  international  routing  procedure,  and  the  enhanced  information  to  be  forwarded  with 
 emergency  calls.  152  NTIA  reports  that  no  comments  were  submitted  in  the  Study  Group  8  question  during  the  study  cycle  preparing  for  the  2003  World  Radio  Conference.  153  We  understand  that  to  date  no 
 recommendation  has  resulted  from  this  question.  We  agree  with  NTIA  that  technical  studies  that  are  performed  in  response  to  this  question  can  be  used  as  the  basis  for  developing  ITU-  R 
 Recommendations.  154  We  strongly  encourage  all  licensees,  equipment  manufacturers,  public  safety  organizations,  and  any  other  interested  parties  to  participate  in  the  discussion  of  ITU-  R  Question  227/  8. 
 We  are  concerned  that  carriers  have  often  cited  the  need  to  develop  international  standards  for  emergency  calling  as  a  prelude  to  rule  adoption,  but  apparently  fail  to  initiate  or  participate  in  the  necessary  global 


 146  Iridium  LLC  GMPCS  NPRM  reply  at  14. 
 147  See  ICO  Global  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  6-  7;  SIA  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  and  reply  at  5;  Comsat 
 GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  14;  USCG  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  9-  10;  Ministry  of  Posts  and  Telecommunications  of  Japan  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  1  (emphasizing  that  the  use  of  ALI  for  emergency 


 purposes  should  first  be  studied  at  the  ITU-  R  ).  See  also  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2;  NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  8. 
 148  E911  First  Report  and  Order  at  para.  83. 
 149  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  7,  citing  Wireless  E911  First  Recon  Order  at  para.  89. 
 150  See,  e.  g.,  Iridium  LLC  GMPCS  NPRM  reply  at  14;  ICO  Global  GMPCS  NPRM  comment  at  6-  7;  SIA  GMPCS 
 NPRM  reply  at  2;  Ministry  of  Posts  and  Telecommunications  of  Japan  GMPCS  NPRM  comment  at  1.  Comment  in  response  to  the  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  on  this  issue  was  similar.  See,  e.  g.,  ICO  Satellite  911  Public  Notice 


 comments  at  8;  Inmarsat  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  2. 
 151  NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  8.  The  question  is  identified  as  ITU-  R  227/  8,  Technical  and 
 Operational  Characteristics  of  Emergency  Communications  in  the  Mobile  Satellite  Service.  152 
 NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  8.  153 
 NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  9.  154 
 NTIA  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  reply  at  8. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 23 
 discussions. 
 52.  We  seek  comment  on  issues  raised  by  use  of  emergency  access  codes  other  than  911.  We  understand  that  Globalstar  has  programmed  its  handsets  to  recognize  a  variety  of  emergency  access  codes 
 (such  as  Europes  112),  and  connects  all  such  calls  to  an  ECAS  operator.  155  This  suggests  that  resolution  of  at  least  some  standards  in  the  international  arena  is  unnecessary,  as  a  result  of  software  modifications. 
 While  network  recognition  of  multiple  emergency  numbers  would  facilitate  subscriber  access  to  call  centers,  we  appreciate  that  inconsistent  international  standards  with  regard  to  ALI  and  ANI  may  cause 
 more  significant  implementation  issues  (e.  g.,  PSAPs  in  different  nations  may  use  incompatible  equipment  for  processing  E911  data).  We  invite  comment  on  other  methods  for  promoting  satellite  service 
 emergency  access  without  first  resolving  international  standards  concerns. 
 53.  We  also  seek  comment  on  liability  issues  in  connection  with  recognition  of  multiple  emergency  access  codes.  Globalstar  notes  its  liability  concerns  stemming  from  the  fundamental 
 differences  between  its  global  system  and  localized  terrestrial  wireless  systems.  156  The  911  Act  requires  that  911  serve  as  the  universal  emergency  telephone  number  within  the  United  States.  Wireless  carriers 
 providing  911  emergency  service  are  afforded  liability  protection  to  the  same  extent  as  that  which  wireline  carriers  receive  on  911  calls.  157  If  a  satellite  carrier  allows  subscribers  to  dial  112  (or  any  other 
 emergency  code)  in  the  United  States  in  order  to  place  an  emergency  call,  that  carrier  is  arguably  in  violation  of  the  911  Act  and  might  be  excluded  from  the  liability  protection  that  the  statute  provides  (at 
 least  with  regard  to  emergency  calls  placed  by  dialing  codes  other  than  911).  Furthermore,  unless  the  satellite  handset  is  programmed  to  recognize  all  international  emergency  access  codes,  a  probability  exists 
 that  a  non-  U.  S.  citizen  using  a  handset  in  the  United  States  may  dial  his  or  her  native  emergency  code  and  will  be  unable  to  reach  a  call  center  or  PSAP  because  the  particular  code  is  not  known.  We  seek 
 comment  concerning  whether  the  capability  of  satellite  systems  to  recognize  a  multitude  of  emergency  dial  codes  violates  provisions  of  the  911  Act.  In  this  regard,  we  ask  whether,  if  software  in  a  handset 
 converts  any  internationally  recognized  emergency  access  code  into  911  at  the  moment  the  call  is  initiated,  the  carrier  would  preserve  its  liability  protection  under  the  911  Act  because  the  phone  would  be 
 dialing  911  regardless  of  the  users  number  selection.  We  seek  comment  concerning  possible  methods  of  protecting  satellite  carriers  from  liability  in  the  event  that  a  non-  911  code  is  dialed  in  an  emergency,  and 
 how  we  could  implement  them. 
 54.  In  the  Satellite  911  Public  Notice,  the  International  Bureau  asked  a  number  of  questions  concerning  the  specific  effects,  if  any,  that  adoption  of  E911  rules  would  have  on  the  international 
 compatibility  of  terminal  equipment.  We  hereby  incorporate  by  reference  that  section  of  the  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  for  the  purpose  of  collecting  new  information.  158 


 (iv)  Integration  of  Ancillary  Terrestrial  Component 
 55.  Discussion.  The  Commission  initiated  IB  Docket  No.  01-  185  to  consider  whether  to  allow  flexibility  in  the  delivery  of  MSS  communications  in  the  2  GHz,  L-  band,  and  Big  LEO  bands.  The 
 Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  in  that  docket  largely  explores  issues  concerning  MSS  licensees  integration  of  an  ancillary  terrestrial  component  (  ATC)  with  their  networks  using  assigned  MSS 
 frequencies.  We  do  not  intend  to  pre-  judge  here  any  of  the  myriad  issues  involved  with  provision  of  ATC.  We  recognize  that  the  issues  raised  in  the  ATC  proceeding  could  have  an  effect  on  satellite 


 155  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  2. 
 156  Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo  at  3. 
 157  911  Act  at  Section  4. 
 158  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  7. 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 24 
 carriers  ability  to  implement  both  basic  and  enhanced  911  (e.  g.,  MSS  carriers  with  ATC  would  likely  have  access  to  ground-  based  interconnection  points  in  a  manner  similar  to  that  of  cellular  and  PCS 
 licensees,  critical  to  routing  911  calls  to  the  nearest  PSAP).  We  seek  comment  on  whether  implementation  of  ATC  would  affect  the  Commissions  analysis  of  MSS  under  its  proposed  general 
 criteria  for  compliance  with  basic  and  enhanced  911  requirements.  For  example,  we  seek  comment  concerning  consumer  expectations  for  emergency  services  associated  with  a  satellite  service  having  a 
 terrestrial  component.  We  seek  comment  on  how  the  network  architecture  of  an  MSS  system  with  an  ancillary  terrestrial  component  may  change  the  analysis  of  MSS  deployment  of  E911  services  consistent 
 with  our  rules.  We  seek  comment  generally  concerning  how  any  form  of  ATC  would  affect  implementation  of  E911  for  MSS,  including  technology  considerations  and  roll-  out  schedules. 


 (v)  Other  Issues 
 56.  Background  and  Discussion.  The  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  sought  comment  on  several  additional  issues,  and  we  take  this  opportunity  to  seek  additional  comment  on  them.  159  For  example, 
 Globalstar  noted  that  while  it  routes  911  calls  from  all  users    authorized  or  unauthorized  to  its  call  center,  it  cannot  route  calls  from  non-  initialized  phones  since  they  lack  an  identifiable  international 
 mobile  subscriber  identity.  160  We  invite  comment  concerning  whether  other  carriers  have  or  would  have  similar  capabilities  and  limitations,  and  whether  we  should  consider  treating  satellite  and  terrestrial 
 wireless  carriers  differently  as  a  result.  161  We  also  remain  interested  in  consumer  expectations  concerning  the  emergency  call  features  of  satellite  phones.  162  We  invite  comment  concerning  measures  that  carriers 
 may  take,  such  as  labeling,  to  communicate  these  features  to  subscribers.  163  We  also  invite  comment  concerning  any  other  issues  that  interested  parties  find  relevant  to  implementation  of  911  services  for 
 mobile  satellite  services. 
 2.  Telematics  Service 
 57.  Summary.  Currently,  there  are  approximately  two  and  a  half  million  vehicles  with  telematics  systems  on  the  Nations  highways.  164  Trade  press  reports  predict  that  by  2006,  there  will  be  over  20 
 million  telematics-  enabled  cars  and  light  trucks  in  the  United  States,  165  and  by  2008,  approximately  42  percent  of  all  vehicles  sold  will  have  telematics  systems.  166  In  view  of  the  current  installed  base  of 
 telematics  equipment  and  the  expectation  for  future  growth,  we  seek  comment  generally  on  the 
 159  See  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  6-  7. 
 160  Globalstar  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  comments  at  13. 
 161  See,  e.  g.,  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling 
 Systems;  Non-  initialized  Phones,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  Report  and  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  8481  (2002);  Order,  DA  02-  2423  (rel.  Sept.  30,  2002)  (granting  a  stay  of  the  effective  date  of  rules  adopted  in  the  Report  and  Order). 


 162  See  Satellite  911  Public  Notice  at  7. 
 163  The  Coast  Guard,  for  example,  supports  a  labeling  requirement  for  equipment  that  cannot  be  used  for  emergency 
 purposes.  USCG  GMPCS  NPRM  comments  at  11.  164 
 See  P.  Hansen,  Special  Report  on  Telematics  Content  and  Services,  as  reported  in  Telematics  Update  Magazine  (July  15,  2002),  http://  www.  telematicsupdate.  com,  visited  Nov.  5,  2002.  Ex  Parte  Presentation  of  ATX 


 Technologies,  Inc.  (ATX),  WT  Docket  No.  01-  108  (July  9,  2002),  at  p.  4  (enclosure  of  ATX  Comments  in  ET  Docket  No.  02-  135,  submitted  to  Commission  staff  in  response  to  Public  Notice  of  the  Spectrum  Task  Force). 
 165  See  P.  Leroux,  Creativity,  Reliability  to  Drive  Telematics,  ZDNet  (Aug.  20,  2002)  http://  zdnet.  com.  com/  2100- 
 1007-  954488.  htm,  visited  Sept.  26,  2002.  166 
 J.  Wrolstad,  IBM  Teams  with  Honda  on  Telematics,  Wireless  NewsFactor  (July  29,  2002)  http://  wireless.  newsfactor.  com/  perl/  printer/  1879,  visited  Sept.  26,  2002  (attributing  forecast  to  Phil  Magney  of 


 Telematics  Research  Group). 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 25 
 Commissions  current  regulatory  approach  to  such  services  and  possible  future  approaches.  167 
 58.  Background.  Telematics  can  be  generally  defined  as  the  integrated  use  of  location  technology  and  wireless  communications  to  enhance  the  functionality  of  motor  vehicles.  168  Telematics 
 services  provide  a  number  of  automotive  and  mobile  applications  including  safety  and  concierge  services  through  integrated  vehicle  communications  and  navigation  systems  that  employ  Global  Positioning 
 System  (GPS)  technology  to  provide  directions,  to  track  a  vehicles  location,  and  to  obtain  emergency  assistance  in  the  event  of  an  accident.  169  Telematics  systems  may  include  automatic  crash  notification 
 (ACN)  systems  that  have  the  capability  to  automatically  call  an  emergency  services  dispatcher  for  help  in  the  event  of  a  car  accident.  170 


 59.  In  offering  these  services,  telematics  providers  rely  on  the  service  of  mobile  wireless  providers  by  contracting  with  them  for  minutes  of  mobile  telephony  use.  The  particular  services  provided 
 may  vary,  depending  on  the  package  or  level  of  service  that  the  car  owner  purchases,  and  may  also  include  voice  CMRS  that  is  resold  as  an  additional  or  premium  service  option  to  the  customer.  171  A 
 majority  of  telematics  services,  including  the  resold  voice  service,  currently  rely  on  analog  cellular  systems  deploying  the  Advanced  Mobile  Phone  Service  (AMPS)  compatibility  standard.  Some  digital 
 systems  are  being  either  deployed  or  developed.  172 
 60.  Telematics  providers  may  offer  their  services  using  original  equipment  manufacturer  (OEM)  equipment  embedded  in  new  vehicles.  Auto  manufacturers  may  contract  with  various  equipment  or 
 platform  vendors  in  offering  telematics  services  to  purchasers,  and  aftermarket  equipment  or  accessories  are  becoming  available.  173 


 167  We  note  at  the  outset  that  OnStar  Corporation  (OnStar)  recently  filed  a  petition  for  a  ruling  that  in-  vehicle, 
 embedded  telematics  devices  operating  on  wireless  carrier  networks  utilizing  handset-  based  911  Phase  II  solutions  are  not  handsets  as  that  term  is  used  in  current  Commission  rules  adopted  in  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102.  See  Ex  Parte 


 Submission,  In  the  Matter  of  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling  Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  from  K.  Enborg,  Vice  President  and  General  Counsel,  OnStar, 
 to  T.  Sugrue,  Chief,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau,  Federal  Communications  Commission  (Dec.  3,  2002)  (also  petitioning  for  ruling  that  those  devices  are  not  included  in  the  carrier  subscriber  base  referenced  in  the  orders 
 in  that  proceeding).  Comment  will  be  sought  on  the  specific  issue  raised  in  this  ex  parte  petition  in  a  separate  Public  Notice  in  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102.  OnStar  is  a  member  of  the  National  Emergency  Number  Associations  (NENA) 
 Non-  Traditional  Technical  Committee  and  that  committees  Automatic  Crash  Notification  (ACN)  subcommittee.  168 
 In  the  Matter  of  Year  2000  Biennial  Regulatory  Review    Amendment  of  Part  22  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Modify  or  Eliminate  Outdated  Rules  Affecting  the  Cellular  Radiotelephone  Service  and  other  Commercial  Mobile 


 Radio  Services,  WT  Docket  No.  01-  108,  Report  and  Order,  FCC  02-  229  (rel.  Sept.  24,  2002)  (Biennial  Review  Report  and  Order),  at  para.  18,  n.  56. 


 169  Seventh  Wireless  Competition  Report,  at  13061-  62.  See  also,  Biennial  Review  Report  and  Order,  at  para.  18, 
 n.  56. 


 170  See  Biennial  Review  Report  and  Order,  at  para.  18,  n.  56. 
 171  See,  e.  g.,  OnStar,  What  is  OnStar:  Services,  http://  www.  onstar.  com/  visitors/  html/  ao_  features.  htm,  visited  Sept. 
 13,  2002.  172 
 E.  g.,  the  Ford  Vehicle  Communications  Systems  (VCS)  requires  a  service  contract  with  Sprint  PCS.  Daimler-Chrysler  is  developing  a  telematics  offering  that  is  based  on  WLAN  technology  that  does  not  require  reliance  on  the 


 public  switched  telephone  network  (PSTN).  173 
 Virtual  Wave,  Airbiquity  Offer  Wireless  Location-  Based  Services,  CTIA  Daily  News  (Sept.  19,  2002)  (attributing  report  to  Instant  Messaging  Planet)  ctiadailynews+  647290.  51471663.  1@  reply.  wow-  com.  com.  See 


 www.  roadstargps.  com. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 26 
 61.  Provision  of  Emergency  Services  through  Telematics  Services.  Telematics  service  providers  generally  process  emergency  calls  from  vehicle  occupants  in  two  ways.  First,  customers  can  make 
 emergency  calls  by  pressing  a  hot  button  installed  in  the  vehicle  or  in  the  handset  associated  with  the  vehicles  telematics  unit.  174  Pressing  the  hot  button  is  not  the  same  as  dialing  911  to  make  an 
 emergency  call.  A  telematics-  based  emergency  communication,  or  hot  button  call,  is  routed  over  the  network  of  the  underlying  carrier  to  a  national  call  center  operated  by  the  telematics  service  provider.  If 
 available,  location  data  from  a  satellite-  based  GPS  capability  integrated  with  the  telematics  equipment  in  the  vehicle  can  be  transferred  to  the  call  center,  where  the  callers  location  can  be  computed. 


 62.  In  the  event  the  telematics-  based  emergency  communication  is  disconnected,  the  call  center  representative  can  call  back  the  vehicle  to  get  more  information  about  the  emergency.  The  call  center 
 advisor  also  can  orally  relay  pertinent  emergency  information,  including  location  and  call-  back  number,  to  a  PSAP  or  other  appropriate  local  emergency  authority,  such  as  a  sheriffs  office.  Further,  the  call 
 center  also  has  the  capability  to  contact  and  request  the  dispatch  of  emergency  assistance  from  various  emergency  authorities.  175 


 63.  For  those  telematics  customers  who  also  subscribe  to  a  jointly  packaged  mobile  voice  service,  the  customer  can  choose  to  dial  911,  rather  than  using  the  telematics-  based  emergency  communication 
 option.  The  911  call  then  is  routed  over  the  network  of  the  underlying  wireless  carrier  and  is  delivered  directly  to  a  PSAP  or  other  appropriate  local  emergency  authority,  consistent  with  current  requirements  of 
 Commission  rules.  176  The  telematics  system  will  not  block  transmission  of  the  call-  back  number  information.  However,  location  information  on  direct-  dialed  911  calls  is  only  available  if  the  underlying 
 wireless  carrier  employs  a  network-  based  ALI  system,  because  the  GPS  tracking  used  by  telematics  is  a  satellite-  based  transmission  that  requires  coordinated  processing  of  data  between  the  installed  unit,  the 
 GPS  satellites,  and  the  telematics  call  center. 
 64.  Discussion.  We  begin  our  inquiry  by  asking  what,  if  anything,  should  be  required  of  telematics  services  in  light  of  their  hot  button  and  resold  CMRS  service  capabilities.  We  then  ask  what 
 expectations  customers  have  with  regard  to  emergency  services  offered  through  telematics  systems.  We  also  ask  about  current  technical  issues  related  to  the  provision  of  emergency  services  through  telematics 
 services.  Commenters  are  also  asked  to  address  matters  associated  with  Automatic  Crash  Notification  (ACN).  Finally,  we  seek  comment  on  the  Commissions  legal  authority  to  address  telematics  providers 
 and  equipment  manufacturers. 
 65.  Appropriate  Model  for  Access  to  Emergency  Services  via  Telematics  Systems  and  Customer  Expectations.  In  addition  to  911  calls  placed  through  a  jointly  packaged  mobile  voice  service,  telematics 
 services  currently  provide  access  to  PSAPs  through  an  intermediary:  the  telematics  call-  center  advisor.  The  Commissions  rules  currently  contemplate  situations  in  which  CMRS  customers  receive  service 
 through  an  intermediary,  specifically,  a  dispatcher.  177  In  light  of  the  specific  nature  of  telematics  services 


 174  Older  telematics  units  place  the  hot  button  feature  in  the  wireless  handset.  In  newer,  built-  in  units,  the  hot 
 button  is  usually  placed  in  the  dashboard  or  overhead  near  the  rear  view  mirror  in  the  vehicle.  The  hot  button  typically  displays  a  symbol  (e.  g.,  Red-  Cross  shaped  character)  or  letters  (e.  g.,  SOS)  that  signify  that  the  button 


 is  to  be  pressed  in  case  of  emergency.  See  http://  www.  onstar.  com/  visitors/  html/  ao_  emergency.  htm;  http://  www.  lincolnvehicles.  com/  vehicles/  interior/  asp?  sVehi=  LS. 
 175  OnStar,  What  is  OnStar:  Services  (visited  Sept.  13,  2002) 
 <http://  www.  onstar.  com/  visitors/  html/  ao_  features.  htm>.  176 
 See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  b);  47  C.  F.  R.    64.  3001,  64.  3002.  177 
 47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  k)  (stating  that  a  service  provider  covered  by  [Section  20.  18]  who  offers  dispatch  service  to  customers  may  meet  the  requirements  of  this  section  by  either  complying  with  the  requirements  set  forth  in 


 paragraphs  (b)  through  (e)  of  this  section  or  by  routing  the  customers  emergency  calls  through  a  dispatcher.  If  the  (continued....) 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 27 
 and  the  expectations  of  its  purchasers,  should  some  form  of  this  model  (i.  e.,  emergency  service  through  an  intermediary  accessible  through  a  telematics  hot  button)  be  the  primary  manner  in  which  emergency 
 services  are  offered  to  users  of  telematics  systems? 
 66.  We  note  that  this  approach  may  well  provide  certain  benefits  to  PSAPs  by  taking  advantage  of  the  ability  of  such  call  centers  to  act  as  an  information  filter  to  address  a  variety  of  circumstances  and 
 information  needs.  For  instance,  with  the  capability  of  call  center  representatives  to  call  back  the  vehicle,  call  centers  may  serve  as  a  screen  for  non-  emergency  calls,  thus  alleviating  the  burdens  that  PSAPs  face 
 in  administratively  handling  their  increasing  wireless  emergency  call  volume.  178  This  call-  back  capability  also  allows  call  centers  to  screen  for  the  particular  type  of  emergency  faced  or  type  of  assistance  needed. 
 Thus,  they  can  aid  in  determining  the  appropriate  response  and  emergency  services  provider  to  be  deployed,  based  on  the  circumstances  of  each  incident. 


 67.  In  addition  to  acting  as  a  filter  for  non-  emergency  calls,  telematics  services  also  have  the  potential  to  offer  additional  information  to  PSAPs  that  would  not  be  available  through  a  typical  911 
 call.  For  example,  there  are  programs  currently  being  tested  on  a  regional  or  local  basis  that  entail  a  relay  of  the  information  electronically  from  the  telematics  units  to  a  PSAP  and/  or  emergency  service 
 providers.  179  These  programs  depend  on  the  capability  of  some  call  centers  to  pass  the  geographic  location  information  to  another  message  processing  unit  operated  by  some  emergency  authority  or 
 provider.  180  We  seek  comment  on  plans  for  the  integration  of  the  systems  of  PSAPs  and  telematics  providers.  We  seek  comment  on  these  and  other  possible  advantages  telematics  providers  may  provide  to 
 PSAPs. 
 68.  Certain  issues  do  arise,  however,  using  the  dispatch  model  for  emergency  service  access.  For  instance,  call  centers  would  decide  to  which  PSAP,  local  emergency  authority,  or  emergency  service 
 provider  they  route  the  emergency  information.  We  seek  comment  on  how  we  might  address  issues  arising  from  this  role,  particularly  with  regard  to  relaying  or  routing  information,  including  callback  and 
 location  information.  We  also  seek  comment  on  the  relationships  between  telematics  providers,  their  call  centers,  PSAPs,  emergency  service  providers,  and  state  and  local  law  enforcement  agencies. 


 69.  Another  issue  would  be  the  timeliness  of  the  delivery  of  calls  to  a  PSAP  or  other  appropriate 
 (...  continued  from  previous  page)  service  provider  chooses  the  latter  alternative,  it  must  make  every  reasonable  effort  to  explicitly  notify  its  current 
 and  potential  dispatch  customers  and  their  users  that  they  are  not  able  to  directly  reach  a  PSAP  by  dialing  911  and  that,  in  the  event  of  an  emergency,  the  dispatcher  should  be  contacted.)  Paragraph  (b)  covers  basic  911  Service 
 requirements;  paragraph  (c),  TTY  access  to  911  services;  paragraph  (d)  Phase  I  E911  requirements;  and  paragraph  (e),  Phase  II  E911  requirements.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  b)-(  e). 
 178  See  CTIAs  1994  Wireless  9-  1-  1  and  Distress  Calls  Statistics;  NENA,  Statistics  for  Year  Ending  Dec.  31,  1999, 
 Report  Card  to  the  Nation  (Sept.  11,  2001).  179 
 For  example,  an  Integrated  ITS  (Intelligent  Transportation  System)  Public  Safety  System  is  currently  being  deployed  in  Virginias  Shenandoah  Valley  that  automates  and  coordinates  the  interactive  responses  of  technology 


 providers,  public  safety  and  medical  professionals,  emergency  service  personnel,  and  transportation  experts  to  vehicle  accidents.  This  system  uses  an  Intelligent  Message  Broker  (IMB)  that  integrates  geographic  information 
 and  routes  data  based  on  operational  rules  to  which  participating  agencies  have  agreed  in  advance.  See  John  Erich,  EMS  Magazine,  Information  Integration:  Virginia  Crash  Response  System,  (visited  Sept.  6,  2002) 
 http://  www.  comcare.  org/  research/  news/  comcare_  inthenews//  020607emsmagazine.  htm  (Virginia  IITS  Public  Safety  System). 
 180  See,  e.  g.,  Virginia  IITS  Public  Safety  System;  Intrado,  Ford  and  the  Greater  Harris  County,  Texas,  9-  1-  1 
 Emergency  Network  Join  Forces,  Telematics  Update  Magazine,  Sept.  9,  2002  (visited  Sept.  9,  2002,  http://  wwwtelematicesupdate.  com/  print.  asp?/  news+  31649  (concerning  Harris  County,  Texas  ACN/  telematics 


 program  for  police  vehicles). 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 28 
 local  emergency  authority.  The  delivery  of  the  call-  back  number  to  a  PSAP  may  be  affected,  because  even  though  the  call-  back  number  is  displayed  on  the  call  centers  terminal  screen  for  oral  relay,  that 
 number  may  not  be  delivered  directly  to  a  PSAP.  Achieving  such  capability  may  not  be  technically  feasible  in  terms  of  modifying  the  systems  that  telematics  providers  are  currently  deploying.  We 
 therefore  seek  comment  on  these  aspects  regarding  the  timely  provision  of  emergency  services  to  telematics  users. 


 70.  Another  issue  of  concern  is  notice  to  consumers  regarding  the  manner  in  which  hot  button  calls  are  processed.  Section  20.18(  k)  of  the  Commissions  rules  currently  require  that  if  emergency  calls 
 are  routed  through  a  dispatcher,  then  the  system  must  make  every  reasonable  effort  to  explicitly  notify  its  .  .  .  customers  .  .  .  that  they  are  not  able  to  directly  reach  a  PSAP  .  .  .  .  181  Commenters  should  address 
 what  may  be  reasonable  notification  in  the  context  of  a  telematics  hot  button  call,  compared  to  a  911  dialed  call.  In  that  regard,  we  invite  comment  on  what  approaches  would  be  most  useful  for  telematics 
 providers  to  give  notice  to  their  customers  through  equipment  labels,  instruction  manuals,  etc.  of  any  current  limitations  of  telematics  service  in  directly  transmitting  emergency  information  to  a  PSAP.  182 


 71.  In  light  of  the  above  observations  and  questions,  we  seek  comment  on  how  we  might  amend  Section  20.18(  k)  to  account  for  telematics  systems. 
 72.  We  also  seek  comment  on  implementation  issues  that  may  apply  to  the  provision  of  emergency  services  information  through  telematics  services.  For  example,  some  telematics  providers  are, 
 or  will  soon  be,  planning  and  deploying  a  transition  from  an  underlying  analog-  based  system  to  a  digital  one.  183  We  seek  comment  on  the  impact  that  this  transition  might  have  on  the  implementation  of  any 
 potential  requirements  or  guidelines.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  the  pace  of  deployment  among  PSAPs  in  requesting  E911  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  capability  from  wireless  carriers  would  have  any  effect  on 
 approaches  we  might  take  were  we  to  impose  those  requirements  on  telematics  providers.  Further,  we  invite  comment  on  how  life  cycle  development  factors  for  both  vehicles  and  the  telematics  systems  to  be 
 installed  may  affect  any  implementation  time  frames  to  be  considered.  Commenters  should  address  whether  general  time  frames  proposed  above  should  apply  or  whether  we  would  need  to  modify  them 
 significantly  to  account  for  the  lead-  in  times  due  to  life  cycle  development.  184 
 73.  Finally,  we  seek  comment  on  what,  if  any,  emergency  service  can  be  requested  from  a  non-service  initialized  telematics  device.  For  vehicle  owners  who  have  let  their  telematics  subscriptions  lapse 
 or  who  are  driving  vehicles  with  telematics  units  that  have  not  been  activated  by  the  automobile  dealer,  will  emergency  assistance  be  available  over  a  hot  button  or  through  the  resold  CMRS  voice  service? 


 181  47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  k). 
 182  For  example,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  there  should  be  labels  to  indicate  that  dialing  911  will  connect  the 
 caller  to  a  PSAP  or  other  local  emergency  authority  rather  than  the  telematics  providers  call  center  or  advisor.  183 
 See  generally,  Biennial  Review  Report  and  Order,  at  paras.  18-  20  (discussing  the  elimination  of  the  analog  cellular  compatibility  standard  in  regard  to  telematics  providers  and  concluding  that  a  five  year  transition  period  of 


 the  requirement  is  sufficient  for  telematics  providers  to  be  able  to  deploy  their  service  offerings  on  carriers  digital  networks). 
 184  For  example,  the  development  life  cycle  for  automobiles  may  be  5-  7  years,  but  for  telematics  systems  that  are 
 integrated,  the  life  cycle  planning  involved  may  be  3  years  before  the  model  is  launched.  Such  systems  may  also  be  affected  by  considerations  of  potential  technological  obsolescence.  See,  e.  g.,  S.  Bhagavatula,  The  Bigger  Picture   


 How  Important  Is  Telematics  for  Moving  the  Auto  Industry  as  a  Whole,  Telematics  Systems  2002,  Gothenburg  Sweden,  TelematicsUpdate  Magazine,  www.  telematicsupdate.  com.  See  also,  Biennial  Review  Report  and  Order,  at 
 paras.  18-  20  (addressing  significant  impacts,  e.  g.,  development  cycles  of  vehicles,  hardware  and  technology  programs,  which  would  be  mitigated  by  reasonable  transition  period  of  five  years  for  elimination  of  Commission 
 requirement  for  analog  compatibility  standard). 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 29 
 74.  Automatic  Crash  Notification  (ACN).  ACN  functionality  allows  for  the  transmission  of  crash  information  (i.  e.,  whether  the  vehicle  rolled  over,  the  measured  deceleration  of  the  vehicle  at  the  time  of 
 the  crash,  the  principal  direction  of  force)  to  the  telematics  provider,  and  possibly  to  emergency  responders.  We  seek  comment  on  what,  if  any,  role  the  Commission  should  play  regarding  delivery  of 
 ACN  data  from  telematics  providers.  We  note  that  requiring  delivery  of  ACN  to  PSAPs  may  pose  significant  problems  of  technical  feasibility  and  implementation  not  only  with  regard  to  the  current  state 
 of  ACN,  but  also  with  regard  to  the  current  capability  of  many  PSAPs  that  are  not  yet  even  ready  to  handle  and  process  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  data.  We  seek  comment  on  these  technical  difficulties. 


 75.  In  addition,  with  the  latest  ACN  technologies  yet  to  occur,  we  realize  that  direct  delivery  of  emergency  location  and  other  information  may  be  achieved  only  after  affected  parties  agree  it  is 
 technically  and  operationally  feasible.  The  prospect  of  Advanced  Automatic  Crash  Notification  (AACN)  in  the  near  term  also  may  pose  additional  issues  that  we  need  to  consider.  185  We  seek  comment  on  all 
 aspects  of  potentially  extending  our  E911  rules  to  include  required  delivery  of  ACN  data  by  telematics  providers  to  PSAPs. 


 76.  Legal  Authority.  We  ask  commenters  to  address  the  legal  authority  of  the  Commission  to  place  basic  and  enhanced  911  requirements,  or  similar  requirements,  on  telematics  service  providers,  both 
 for  telematics-  based  emergency  communication  services  and  resold  mobile  voice  service.  We  also  invite  comment  on  the  Commissions  authority  to  impose  requirements  needed  to  deliver  enhanced  911  service 
 on  equipment  manufacturers. 
 77.  We  seek  comment  on  the  particular  application  of  the  statutory  authority  on  telematics  providers.  186  Specifically,  the  authority  the  Commission  has  pursuant  to  section  201(  b)  of  the 
 Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  Act),  187  extends  to  commercial  mobile  services  by  operation  of  section  332  of  the  Act.  188  Commercial  mobile  service  is  defined  as  any  mobile  service 
 (as  defined  in  section  (3)  that  is  provided  for  profit  and  makes  interconnected  service  available  (A)  to  the  public  or  (B)  to  such  class  of  eligible  users  as  to  be  effectively  available  to  a  substantial  portion  of  the 
 public.  189  Therefore,  at  least,  insofar  as  telematics  service  providers  offer  a  mobile  service  to  the  public  for  profit  or  offer  a  functionally  equivalent  service  to  the  public,  it  appears  that  they  are  to  be  treated  as  a 
 commercial  mobile  service  provider.  190  Currently,  the  Commissions  rules  require  licensees  to  comply  with  its  E911  requirements.  191  We  ask  commenters  to  address  whether  we  should  extend  these 
 requirements  to  telematics  services  providers  and  what  criteria  we  should  adopt  to  apply  them. 
 78.  We  next  seek  comment  on  whether  the  911  Act  can  be  read  to  include  telematics  service 


 185  In  the  Matter  of  Year  2000  Biennial  Regulatory  Review    Amendment  of  Part  22  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to 
 Modify  or  Eliminate  Outdate  Rules  Affecting  the  Cellular  Radiotelephone  Service  and  other  Commercial  Mobile  Radio  Services,  WT  Docket  No.  01-  108,  Ex  Parte  Letter  to  M.  Dortch,  Secretary,  Federal  Communications 


 Commission  from  J.  Cooney  et  al.,  General  Motors  Safety  Communications  (Aug.  1,  2002)  (concerning  the  planned  deployment  of  AACN,  based  on  AMPS,  in  selected  OnStar  equipped  2004  model  vehicles). 
 186  See  infra  Resold  Cellular  and  PCS  Service,  III.  B.  4  (para.  96). 
 187  47  U.  S.  C.    201(  b)  (providing  that  the  Commission  may  prescribe  such  rules  and  regulations  as  it  deems 
 necessary  in  carrying  out  the  provisions  of  [the  Telecommunications]  Act.).  188 
 47  U.  S.  C.    332  (stating  that  providers  of  commercial  mobile  services  are  to  be  treated  as  common  carriers  for  purposes  of  section  201). 


 189  47  U.  S.  C.    332(  d)(  1). 
 190  See  infra  Resold  Cellular  and  PCS  Service,  III.  B.  4  (para.  96). 
 191  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18  (b)-(  i). 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 30 
 providers.  192  In  the  911  Act,  Congress  stated  that  its  purpose  in  adopting  the  Act  was  to  encourage  and  facilitate  the  prompt  deployment  of  a  seamless,  ubiquitous,  and  reliable  end-  to-  end  infrastructure  for 
 communications  to  meet  the  Nations  public  safety  and  other  communications  needs.  193  Congress  found  that  emerging  technologies  could  be  a  critical  component  of  such  an  end-  to-  end  infrastructure.  194  We 
 seek  comment  on  whether  the  911  Act  provides  a  jurisdictional  basis  for  requiring  compliance  with  our  E911  rules  or  other  similar  requirements  by  telematics  service  providers. 


 79.  Concerning  equipment  manufacturers,  we  note  that  the  Commission  has  previously  used  the  authority  granted  by  Sections  151  and  154  of  Act  to  regulate  telecommunications  equipment 
 manufacturers.  195  To  the  extent  that  either  embedded  or  aftermarket  telematics  equipment  are  customer  premises  equipment,  the  Commission  has  jurisdiction  to  regulate  such  instrumentalities  based  on 
 sections  151  and  154.  196  We  seek  comment  on  our  jurisdictional  basis  for  requiring  manufacturers  of  such  equipment  to  comply  with  our  E911  rules,  by  requiring  them,  for  example,  to  ensure  that  their 
 equipment  is  capable  of  delivering  call-  back  and  location  information  to  the  appropriate  PSAP.  197 
 80.  In  addition,  we  seek  comment  on  what  limitations  might  exist  on  the  Commissions  authority  to  impose  requirements  (1)  on  telematics  service  providers  for  the  purpose  of  ensuring  that  their 
 subscribers  can  have  either  911-  dialed  calls  or  telematics-  based  emergency  communications  delivered  to  the  appropriate  local  emergency  authority,  and  (2)  for  ensuring  compliance  with  the  requirements  of  the 
 Commissions  E911  Phase  I  and  Phase  II  Rules. 
 3.  Multi-  Line  Telephone  Systems 
 81.  Summary.  Below,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  require  multi-  line  systems,  including  wireline,  wireless  and  Internet  Protocol-  based  systems,  to  deliver  call-  back  and  location 
 information.  In  this  regard,  we  seek  comment  on  the  appropriate  role  for  the  Commission  in  this  matter.  We  then  seek  comment  on  various  proposals  that  have  been  brought  to  our  attention  by  interested  parties. 


 82.  Background.  A  key  feature  of  multi-  line  systems  is  that  they  allow  multi-  line  businesses  and  multi-  tenant  building  managers  to  align  their  external  telecommunications  traffic  needs  with  demand  from 
 their  internal  users,  which  eliminates  the  need  for  an  external  line  for  each  telephone  within  their  operation.  As  such,  while  each  telephone  within  the  organization  has  a  unique  telephone  number  that  the 
 multi-  line  systems  recognizes  for  directing  internal  traffic  and  inbound  external  calls,  outbound  external  calls  may  not  have  a  unique  telephone  number  since  they  would  be  carried  over  lines  capable  of  being 
 used  by  any  telephone  set  within  the  multi-  line  systems.  198  Over  time  these  systems  have  developed  to  include  wireless  systems  and  IP-  based  private  networks. 


 83.  The  Commission  initially  sought  comment  on  whether  to  require  multi-  line  systems  to 


 192  911  Act,  Pub.  L.  No.  106-  81,  113  Stat.  1286. 
 193  47  U.  S.  C.    615  note  (emphasis  added). 
 194  See  id. 
 195  47  U.  S.  C.  151(  a).  47  U.  S.  C.  154  (i).  See  e.  g.,  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  68. 
 196  See  infra  Multi-  Line  Telephone  Systems,  III.  B.  3  (para.  91). 
 197  We  also  note  that  Section  255  requires  that  customer  premises  equipment  be  accessible  and  usable  by  individuals 
 with  disabilities,  if  readily  achievable.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    255(  b).  198 
 Calls  made  from  outside  the  multi-  line  systems  to  persons  in  the  multi-  line  systems  are  made  to  the  unique  number  assigned  to  that  person  in  the  multi-  line  systems  and  are  directed  accordingly. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 31 
 comply  with  our  Part  68  rules  in  1994.  199  In  the  1994  Notice,  the  Commission  sought  comment  on  a  range  of  issues,  including: 
 (1)  the  multi-  line  systems  technical  standards  needed  to  ensure  compatibility  with  the  E911  network; 
 (2)  the  extent  to  which  each  telephone  station  should  be  capable  of  being  identified;  (3)  whether  attendant  notification  capability  should  be  required  of  each  multi-  line 
 system;  (4)  whether  verification  procedures  are  needed  to  ensure  the  proper  functioning  of  a 
 multi-  line  systems  owners  E911  capability;  (5)  whether  current  database  management  arrangements  concerning  the  accuracy  and 
 timely  transmission  of  ALI  are  adequate;  (6)  whether  standards  are  needed  for  information  transmitted  to  be  displayed  on  a 
 PSAP  attendants  screen;  (7)  whether  standards  are  needed  regarding  direct  multi-  line  systems  access  to  the  ALI 
 database;  (8)  what  services  should  incumbent  LECs  provide  to  ensure  multi-  line  systems 
 connection  with  the  E911  network;  (9)  privacy  and  liability  issues;  and 
 (10)  issues  regarding  access  for  people  with  disabilities. 
 84.  As  the  Commission  discussed  in  the  1994  Notice,  some  state  and  local  governments  have  passed  regulations  and  ordinances  that  require  multi-  line  systems  equipment  to  be  compatible  with  the 
 911  systems  deployed  in  the  given  state  or  locality.  200  Based  on  an  informal  staff  survey  of  state  regulations,  it  appears  that  seven  states  or  similar  jurisdictions  have  regulations  requiring  the  delivery  of 
 call  back  and  location  information  by  multi-  line  systems.  201  Eleven  states  have  passed  legislation  that  provides  municipalities  with  authority  to  adopt  specific  E911  requirements.  202  We  note,  however,  that  a 
 large  number  of  states  apparently  have  yet  to  adopt  E911  regulations  for  multi-  line  systems. 
 85.  Organizations  such  as  National  Emergency  Number  Association  (NENA)  have  provided  critical  support  to  assist  manufacturers,  states,  and  telecommunications  providers  develop  best  practices 
 and  technical  standards  to  assist  in  developing  E911-  capable  multi-  line  systems.  203  Furthermore,  manufacturers  such  as  Proctor,  Teltronics,  and  Truecomm  have  developed  equipment  that  is  capable  of 
 providing  some  form  of  call-  back  or  location  information  through  either  new  PBXs  or  add-  ons  to  retrofit  existing  PBXs.  204  These  private  associations  and  entities  have  fostered  the  development  of  a  market  for 
 multi-  line  systems  that  provide  critical  E911  callback  and  location  information  in  the  absence  of  a  federal 


 199  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  with  Enhanced  911  Emergency  Calling  Systems, 
 Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  9  FCC  Rcd  6170  (1994)  (1994  Notice).  More  specifically,  in  that  Notice  the  Commission  only  considered  PBX  systems.  We  seek  comment  on  the  broader  category  of  multi-  line  systems  in  this 


 proceeding  to  address  these  similarly-  situated  services.  200 
 1994  Notice,  9  FCC  Rcd.  at  6177  para  11.  201 
 The  following  states  have  adopted  legislation  that  requires  some  form  of  callback  and  location  information  requirements  for  multi-  line  telephone  systems:  Colorado,  Illinois,  Kentucky,  Mississippi,  Texas,  Vermont,  and 


 Washington.  Our  count  of  the  number  of  states  with  regulations  includes  the  District  of  Columbia  and  Puerto  Rico.  202 
 These  states  are:  Alabama,  Alaska,  Idaho,  Kansas,  Maine,  Mississippi,  Missouri,  Nevada,  New  Hampshire,  New  Jersey,  and  Washington. 


 203  See  <http://  www.  nena.  org>  (visited  Oct.  2,  2002). 
 204  See  <http://  www.  proctronic.  com>  (visited  Oct.  2,  2002);  <http://  www.  teltronic.  com>  (visited  Oct.  2,  2002); 
 <http://  www.  truecom.  com>  (visited  Oct.  2,  2002). 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 32 
 directive. 
 86.  Discussion.  We  reiterate  here  our  previous  conclusion  that  the  delivery  of  accurate  location  information  and  callback  numbers  is  vital  for  a  local  emergency  response  service  to  be  effective  and  is 
 clearly  in  the  public  interest.  We  are  aware  that  public  safety  representatives  have  concerns  that  callback  and  individual  station  location  information  is  not  automatically  available  today  when  911  calls  are  made 
 from  behind  multi-  line  systems  and  from  individual  stations  in  IP-  based  private  network.  In  the  absence  of  requirements  from  either  federal,  state,  or  local  governments,  however,  some  entities  may  opt  not  to 
 deploy  the  updates  to  their  multi-  line  systems  necessary  to  provide  the  prompt  delivery  of  accurate  callback  and  location  information.  There  also  may  well  be  technical  issues  involved  in  providing  such 
 information  from  IP-  based  private  networks.  We  are  seeking  comment  both  specifically  and  generally  on  whether  the  Commission  should  be  taking  action  on  these  issues. 


 87.  We  first  seek  comment  on  whether  actions  by  state  and  local  governments,  associations,  and  private  entities  have  adequately  developed  regulations,  best  practices,  and  devices  that  are  capable  of 
 providing  callback  and  location  information  for  multi-  line  systems.  If  commenters  believe  that  state  and  local  governments  and  the  private  sector  actions  are  not  sufficient,  we  ask  that  they  propose  actions  that 
 this  Commission  could  take  to  facilitate  the  deployment  of  multi-  line  systems  that  are  capable  of  delivering  call-  back  and  location  information  to  PSAPs.  If  commenters  contend  that  a  lack  of  uniformity 
 in  state  regulations  presents  a  problem  that  must  be  solved  by  overlaying  a  federal  standard,  we  seek  specific  comment  on  how  best  to  clarify  such  a  federal  standard.  205  As  the  Commission  has  noted  in  other 
 proceedings,  because  of  the  local  nature  of  a  majority  of  emergency  calls,  states  and  localities  have  an  important  role  to  play  in  developing  policies  concerning  911  calls.  206  Individual  state  and  local 
 communities  may  be  better  able  to  determine  their  E911  needs  and  tailor  their  laws  to  better  reflect  the  needs  of  the  particular  communities  that  they  affect.  207  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  there  are  any 
 workplace  safety  regulations  or  regulations  of  other  agencies,  state  or  federal,  that  should  affect  our  consideration  of  access  to  emergency  services  from  multi-  line  systems.  Commenters  can  also  address  the 
 Model  Legislation  proposed  by  NENA;  as  well  as  a  consensus  proposal  put  forward  by  the  E911  Consensus  Group.  208 


 88.  NENA  Model  Legislation:  NENA  has  proposed  model  legislation  that  would  allow  states,  through  state  legislation,  to  adopt  many  of  the  standards  and  protocol  associated  with  delivering  E911 
 services  through  multi-  line  systems.  209  Their  proposal  recognizes  that  states  should  establish  their  own  E911  standards  to  accommodate  the  introduction  of  new  technologies.  210  NENAs  model  legislation 
 would  have  the  Commission  modify  portions  of  its  Part  68  rules  to  codify  certain  changes  and  encourage 


 205  See  e.  g.,  GE  Comments  at  13-  14. 
 206  Policies  and  Rules  Concerning  Operator  Service  Providers,  CC  Docket  No.  90-  313,  Report  and  Order,  6  FCC 
 Rcd.  2744  para.  69  (1991)  (TOCSIA).  207 
 We  note  that  in  the  TOCSIA  proceeding  the  Commission  ultimately  adopted  a  minimum  federal  standard  that  it  limited  by  explicitly  stating  that  the  standard  was  not  intended  to  preempt  any  state  requirements.  TOCSIA  ,  6  FCC 


 Rcd.  at  2744  para.  69.  208 
 The  E911  Consensus  Group  consist  of  representatives  from  National  Emergency  Number  Association  (NENA),  Association  of  Public-  Safety  Communications  Officials    International,  Inc.  (APCO),  National  Association  of  State 


 9-  1-  1  Administrators,  Ad  Hoc  Telecommunications  Users  Committee,  and  MultiMedia  Telecommunications  Association. 
 209  See  NENA  Technical  Information  Document  on  Model  Legislation:  Enhanced  9-  1-  1  Multi-  line  Telephone 
 Systems,  available  at  <http://  www.  nena.  org>  (visited  Oct.  2,  2002)  (NENA  Model  E911  Legislation).  210 
 See  id.  at    6. 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 33 
 industry  to  develop  generally  applicable  standards  for  states  to  adopt.  211  We  welcome  comment  on  the  specific  aspects  of  the  NENA  Model  Legislation.  In  considering  their  proposal,  we  encourage 
 commenters  to  discuss  the  technical  and  operational  feasibility  of  multi-  line  systems  being  able  to  comply  with  their  proposal.  We  also  encourage  commenters  to  address  the  implementation  schedule  as  set  out  in 
 the  NENA  Model  Legislation. 
 89.  E911  Consensus  Group  Proposal:  In  April  1997,  the  Commission  sought  comment  on  a  consensus  proposal  regarding  multi-  line  systems  and  delivery  of  call-  back  and  location  information  to  an 
 appropriate  PSAP.  212  Three  commenters  responded,  only  one  of  which  was  not  part  of  the  E911  Consensus  Group.  213  While  the  commenters  agreed  that  the  Consensus  Proposal  was  a  reasonable 
 approach,  we  seek  to  refresh  the  record  of  that  proceeding  and  below  outline  the  contents  of  that  proposal.  214 


 90.  The  E911  Consensus  Group  put  forth  a  comprehensive  plan  that  would  require  multi-  line  systems  operators  to  comply  with  certain  requirements  for  the  delivery  of  ANI  and  ALI  to  an  appropriate 
 PSAP.  The  Consensus  Proposal,  if  adopted,  would  be  implemented  by  the  Commission  and  would  preempt  inconsistent  state  and  local  regulations.  215  The  proposal  recognizes  the  different  uses  for  multi-line 
 systems,  such  as  business  multi-  line  systems,  shared  residential  multi-  line  systems,  and  hotels  and  motels  and  proposes  differing  requirements  for  these  systems.  216  The  proposal  also  addresses  issues 
 concerning  compliance  dates,  technical  capabilities,  exemptions,  waivers,  and  dialing  patterns.  We  welcome  comment  on  the  specific  aspects  of  the  Consensus  Proposal,  not  necessarily  mentioned  here, 
 e.  g.,  requirements  for  assigning  a  unique  ANI/  ALI  for  each  40,000  square  feet  in  a  building  and  implementation  schedules.  217 


 91.  Legal  Authority:  We  also  seek  comment,  generally,  on  the  Commissions  authority  to  require  compliance  with  its  E911  rules  by  manufacturers  of  multi-  line  systems.  Section  151  of  the  Act  grants  the 
 Commission  broad  authority  to  regulate  the  facilities  used  in  conjunction  with  providing  interstate  communications  and  enumerates  specifically  that  such  authority  extends  to  regulation  of  these  facilities 
 for  the  purpose  of  promoting  safety  of  life  and  property  through  the  use  of  wire  and  radio  communications.  218  Moreover,  section  154  states  that  the  Commission  may  perform  any  and  all  acts, 
 make  such  rules  and  regulations,  and  issue  such  orders,  not  inconsistent  with  this  Act,  as  may  be  necessary  in  the  execution  of  its  functions.  219  We  note  that  the  Commission  has  previously  used  the 


 211  See  id.  at    6.  Illinois  has  adopted  a  statute  that  appears  to  be  modeled  on  the  NENA  proposal.  50  Ill.  Comp. 
 Stat.    750.  212 
 See  Letter  from  James  S.  Blaszak,  Counsel  for  the  Ad  Hoc  Telecommunications  Users  Group,  to  William  F.  Caton,  Acting  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission  (Apr.  1,  1997)  (Consensus  Proposal).  The 


 Consensus  Agreement  is  available  on  the  Commissions  website  at  <http://  gullfoss2.  fcc.  gov/  prod/  ecfs/  comsrch_  v2.  cgi>.  See  also  NENA  Technical  Information  Document  on  Model 
 Legislation:  Enhanced  9-  1-  1  Multi-  line  Telephone  Systems,  available  at  <http://  www.  nena.  org>  (visited  Oct.  2,  2002)  (NENA  Model  E911  Legislation). 
 213  See  comments  of  Lucent  Technologies  Inc. 
 214  See  comments  of  Lucent  Technologies  Inc.  at  2. 
 215  See  Consensus  Proposal  at  2,  5. 
 216  See  generally  Consensus  Proposal.  For  example,  some  business  users  have  converted  their  multi-  line  systems  to 
 IP  telephony-  enabled  systems.  217 
 See  supra  n.  212.  218 
 47  U.  S.  C.    151(  a).  219 
 47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i). 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 34 
 authority  granted  by  these  sections  to  regulate  telecommunications  equipment  manufacturers.  220  Additionally,  to  the  extent  that  multi-  line  systems  are  customer  premises  equipment,  the  Commission 
 has  jurisdiction  to  regulate  such  instrumentalities  based  on  sections  151  and  154.  221  We  seek  comment  on  our  jurisdictional  basis  for  possibly  requiring  telecommunications  equipment  manufacturers  to  comply 
 with  our  E911  rules  (e.  g.,  requiring  manufacturers  of  multi-  line  systems  to  ensure  that  their  equipment  is  capable  of  delivering  call-  back  and  location  information  to  the  appropriate  PSAP). 


 4.  Resold  Cellular  and  PCS  Service 
 92.  Summary.  We  next  seek  comment  on  any  issues  that  arise  when  consumers  buy  service  from  carriers  and  other  service  providers  that  resell  minutes  of  use  on  facilities-  based  wireless  carriers 
 networks.  In  particular,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  impose  our  911  requirements  or  similar  requirements,  on  resellers.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  impose  a  more  express 
 obligation  on  either  the  reseller  or  the  underlying  licensee  to  ensure  compliance  with  our  E911  rules  in  these  situations. 


 93.  Background.  Resellers  offer  wireless  voice  service  to  consumers  by  purchasing  airtime  at  wholesale  rates  from  facilities-  based  providers  and  reselling  it  at  retail  prices.  222  The  Commissions  E911 
 rules  do  not  apply  directly  to  resellers,  rather  they  only  directly  apply  to  licensees.  Thus,  in  a  resale  situation,  the  underlying  facilities-  based  licensee  is  obligated  to  deploy  E911  capabilities  in  the  network 
 used  by  the  reseller.  As  of  2001,  the  resale  sector  accounted  for  approximately  five  percent  of  all  mobile  telephone  subscribers.  223 


 94.  Discussion.  We  seek  comment  on  whether  resellers  meet  the  general  criteria  we  set  out  above  and  therefore  should  be  required  to  provide  access  to  E911.  224  We  also  seek  comment  on  possible 
 obstacles  that  resellers  face  in  ensuring  the  delivery  of  basic  and  E911  services. 
 95.  We  also  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  impose  a  more  express  obligation  on  either  the  reseller  or  the  underlying  licensee  to  ensure  compliance  with  our  E911  rules  in  these  situations.  Currently 
 our  rules  squarely  place  E911  compliance  on  the  licensee.  When  the  Commission  had  in  place  rules  governing  resale  of  CMRS,  it  refrained  from  imposing  specific  obligations  concerning  the  agreements 


 220  See  e.  g.,  47  C.  F.  R.  pt.  68.  See  also  Revision  of  the  Commissions  Rules  to  Ensure  Compatibility  With  Enhanced 
 911  Emergency  Calling  Systems,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102,  RM  8143,  Second  Report  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd.  10954  (1999)  (requiring  handset  manufacturers  to  incorporate  procedures  into  the  handset  to  recognize  when  a  9-  1-  1  call  is 


 made  and  to  override  any  programming  in  the  mobile  unit  that  may  prevent  that  call  from  being  carried  by  another  carrier)  (codified  at  47  C.  F.  R.    22.  921). 
 221  Section  151  states  that  the  Commission  is  to  exercise  its  authority  to  promote  safety  of  life  and  property  through 
 the  use  of  wire  and  radio  communications.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    151.  Section  153  (33)  defines  radio  communication  as  transmission  by  radio  of  writing,  signs,  signals,  pictures  and  sounds  of  all  kinds,  including  all  instrumentalities, 


 facilities,  apparatus,  and  services    incidental  to  such  transmission.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  33).  Section  153  (52)  defines  wire  communication  as  transmission  of  writing,  signs,  signals,  pictures  and  sounds  of  all  kinds  by  aid  of 
 wire,  cable,  or  other  like  connection  between  the  points  of  origin  and  reception  of  such  transmission,  including  all  instrumentalities,  facilities,  apparatus,  and  services    incidental  to  such  transmission.  See  47  U.  S.  C.    153(  52). 
 See  also,  Computer  and  Communications  Industry  Association  v.  FCC,  693  F.  2d  198,  213  (D.  C.  Cir.  1982),  cert.  denied  Louisiana  Public  Service  Commission  v.  FCC,  461  U.  S.  938  (1983)  (holding  that  the  Commission  had 
 ancillary  jurisdiction  over  customer  premises  equipment  based  on  151  and  the  definition  of  wire  and  radio  communication). 
 222  See  Seventh  Report  on  Wireless  Competition  at  40. 
 223  See  id. 
 224  See  supra  para.  13. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 35 
 between  resellers  and  facilities-  based  CMRS  providers.  Rather,  the  Commission  only  required  that  similarly  situated  customers  receive  similar  pricing,  terms,  and  conditions,  and  that  the  facilities-  based 
 CMRS  provider  not  directly  or  indirectly  restrict  resale.  225  We  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  require  the  reseller  of  cellular  and  PCS  service  to  ensure  compliance  with  our  basic  and  enhanced  911 
 rules  should  we  decide  to  extend  our  rules  to  these  providers.  Alternatively,  we  could  require  the  underlying  facilities-  based  licensee  to  ensure  that  its  resellers  offer  basic  and  E911  service  compatible 
 with  its  method  of  providing  these  services.  In  discussing  upon  whom  the  obligation  should  be  placed,  commenters  are  encouraged  to  discuss  operational  issues  that  may  arise.  For  example,  if  the  obligation  is 
 placed  on  the  underlying  facilities-  based  licensee,  and  that  licensee  has  chosen  to  meet  its  obligation  through  deploying  a  handset-  based  solution,  should  the  resellers  handsets  be  counted  towards  the 
 licensees  compliance  obligations  as  detailed  in  our  rules?  226  Moreover,  commenters  should  discuss  how  these  issues  are  currently  resolved  between  the  parties.  For  example,  does  the  underlying  licensee  require 
 the  reseller  to  inform  its  customers  that  it,  the  reseller,  is  wholly  responsible  for  providing  E911  service? 
 96.  Legal  Authority  and  Implementation  Issues.  We  next  seek  comment  on  our  authority  to  require  compliance  with  the  E911  rules  by  wireless  resellers.  The  Commission  has  jurisdiction  over 
 interstate  telecommunications  and  the  providers  of  such  services.  227  Specifically,  section  201(  b)  provides  that  the  Commission  may  prescribe  such  rules  and  regulations  as  it  deems  necessary  in  carrying  out  the 
 provisions  of  [the  Communications]  Act.  228  Such  authority  extends  to  commercial  mobile  services  by  operation  of  section  332  of  the  Act.  229  That  section  states  that  providers  of  commercial  mobile  services 
 are  to  be  treated  as  common  carriers  for  purposes  of  section  201,  and  section  332  prohibits  the  Commission  from  specifying  any  provision  of  section  201  as  inapplicable.  230  Further,  as  the  definition  of 
 private  mobile  wireless  indicates,  even  private  mobile  service  providers  are  to  be  treated  as  commercial  mobile  service  providers  to  the  extent  that  the  services  they  offer  fit  within  the  definition  of  commercial 
 mobile  service.  231  Commercial  mobile  service  is  defined  as  any  mobile  service  (as  defined  in  section  3)  that  is  provided  for  profit  and  makes  interconnected  service  available  (A)  to  the  public  or  (B)  to  such 
 class  of  eligible  users  as  to  be  effectively  available  to  a  substantial  portion  of  the  public.  232  Therefore,  to  the  extent  that  wireless  resellers  offer  their  mobile  service  to  the  public  for  profit  or  offer  a  functionally 
 equivalent  service  to  the  public,  they  are  to  be  treated,  as  section  332(  c)(  1)  requires,  as  a  common  carrier.  As  such,  the  Commission  has  jurisdiction  to  require  compliance  with  our  E911  rules.  We  seek  comment 
 on  this  analysis  of  our  jurisdictional  basis  for  possibly  requiring  wireless  resellers  of  CMRS  to  comply  with  our  E911  rules.  We  also  note  that  currently  our  rules  clearly  state  that  licensees  are  required  to 
 comply  with  our  E911  requirements.  233  Should  the  Commission  extend  these  requirements  to  resellers  as  well? 


 97.  Lastly,  we  seek  comment  on  developing  appropriate  time  frames  for  compliance  should  we 
 225  See  Interconnection  and  Resale  Obligations  Pertaining  to  Commercial  Mobile  Radio  Services,  First  Report  and 
 Order,  CC  Docket  No.  94-  54,  11  FCC  Rcd  18455,  58-  59  paras.  12-  14.  226 
 47  C.  F.  R.    20.18(  g).  227 
 47  U.  S.  C.    201.  228 
 47  U.  S.  C.    201(  b).  229 
 47  U.  S.  C.    332.  230 
 47  U.  S.  C.    332(  c)(  1).  231 
 47  U.  S.  C.    332(  d)(  3).  Private  mobile  service  is  defined  as  any  service  that  is  not  a  commercial  mobile  service  or  its  functional  equivalent. 


 232  47  U.  S.  C.    332(  d)(  1). 
 233  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18  (b)-(  i). 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 36 
 decide  to  include  resellers  in  our  E911  rules.  Given  the  fact  that  many,  if  not  all,  resellers  currently  offer  some  level  of  911  service  to  their  customers,  and  that  their  service  offerings  to  the  public  rely  on  the 
 network  of  licensees  that  are  required  to  comply  with  our  E911  rules,  we  believe  that  should  we  decide  to  impose  requirements  on  resellers  to  comply  with  our  rules,  only  a  short  transition  appears  necessary.  We 
 also  recognize,  however,  that  a  resellers  ability  to  comply  with  our  rules  is  directly  related  to  the  underlying  licensees  compliance.  We  therefore  seek  comment  on  whether  it  would  be  more  appropriate 
 for  the  Commission  to  clarify  that  while  resellers  are  obligated  to  provide  E911  service  to  their  customers,  they  are  only  obligated  to  the  extent  that  the  underlying  licensee  has  met  its  obligation. 


 5.  Pre-  paid  Calling 
 98.  Summary.  In  this  section,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  there  is  any  need  to  impose  any  new  requirements  to  access  to  emergency  services  by  consumers  of  pre-  paid  offerings.  As  with  resold  service, 
 the  underlying  licensee  is  subject  to  our  basic  and  enhanced  911  rules.  234  We  seek  comment  on  whether  we  should  impose  E911  requirements  directly  on  pre-  paid  calling  providers  that  are  not  also  licensees, 
 and  whether  the  underlying  licensee  should  be  required  to  ensure  compliance  with  our  E911  rules  by  the  pre-  paid  calling  provider. 


 99.  Background.  Pre-  paid  service,  in  contrast  to  post-  paid  service,  requires  customers  to  pay  for  a  fixed  amount  of  wireless  service  minutes  prior  to  making  calls.  235  There  are  two  sets  of  providers  in  this 
 arrangement,  CMRS  providers  primarily  offering  post-  paid  calling  plans;  and  independent  third  parties.  For  example,  Verizon  Wireless  offers  both  a  post-  paid  option  and  a  pre-  paid  option.  236  Additionally, 
 independent  third  parties  offer  customers  pre-  paid  calling  cards  for  use  on  the  wireless  networks  of  Sprint  PCS,  AT&  T,  and  Verizon,  for  example,  through  retail  locations  such  as  7-  11.  Analysts  estimate  that 
 approximately  8  to  10  percent  of  wireless  phone  users  in  the  U.  S.  subscribed  to  pre-  paid  plans  in  2001.  237 
 100.  Discussion.  The  same  issues  that  arise  in  the  context  of  resold  cellular  and  PCS  service  also  relate  to  pre-  paid  calling,  and  we  encourage  commenters  to  address  those  issues.  For  example,  as 
 with  resellers,  independent  pre-  paid  calling  providers  offer  service  over  an  underlying  licensees  network.  We  first  ask  commenters  to  inform  our  understanding  of  how  the  provision  of  access  to  911  service  is 
 currently  resolved  between  the  parties.  Therefore,  the  question  also  arises  in  this  context  as  to  how  best  to  structure  the  obligation  to  ensure  compliance  with  our  rules:  do  we  obligate  the  provider  of  the  pre-  paid 
 calling  plan  or  the  underlying  licensee.  We  also  ask  commenters  generally  about  how  best  to  structure  E911  obligations  in  this  context.  In  addition,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  we  need  to  address  these 
 issues  any  differently  when  the  pre-  paid  calling  provider  is  the  underlying  licensee  or  affiliate,  as  opposed  to  an  independent  entity. 


 101.  Legal  Authority  and  Implementation  Issues.  As  with  resellers,  many  independent  pre-paid  calling  service  providers  offer  some  level  of  911  service  to  their  customers,  and  their  service 
 offerings  rely  on  the  network  of  carriers  that  are  required  to  comply  with  our  E911  rules.  Moreover,  the  ability  of  a  pre-  paid  calling  service  provider  to  comply  with  our  rules  is  directly  related  to  the  underlying 
 facilities-  based  licensees  compliance.  We  therefore  seek  comment  on  whether  it  would  be  more  appropriate  for  the  Commission  to  clarify  that  while  independent  pre-  paid  calling  service  providers  are 
 obligated  to  provide  E911  service  to  their  customers,  they  are  only  obligated  to  the  extent  that  the  underlying  licensee  has  met  its  obligation. 


 234  See  47  C.  F.  R.  20.  18(  a). 
 235  Seventh  Report  on  Wireless  Competition  at  30.  In  addition  there  is  typically  a  need  to  obtain  a  handset  that  is 
 compatible  with  a  particular  pre-  paid  calling  providers  service.  236 
 See  <http://  www.  freeup.  com/>  (visited  Nov.  12,  2002).  237 
 Id. 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 37 
 102.  Finally,  we  seek  comment  on  developing  appropriate  time  frames  for  compliance  should  we  decide  to  include  pre-  paid  calling  service  providers  in  our  E911  rules.  As  with  resellers,  we  believe 
 that  should  we  decide  to  require  pre-  paid  calling  service  providers  to  comply  with  our  rules,  only  a  short  transition  appears  necessary. 


 6.  Disposable  Phones 
 103.  Summary.  We  next  seek  comment  on  the  provision  of  access  to  emergency  services  by  consumers  who  purchase  disposable  mobile  handsets.  As  a  new  product  offering,  the  Commission  has 
 little  information  on  these  devices  and  below  we  encourage  commenters,  among  other  things,  to  provide  us  information  on  these  handsets  and  the  services  they  use. 


 104.  Background.  Disposable  mobile  handsets  are  low  cost  and  either  recyclable,  rechargeable  or  disposable  once  the  allotted  airtime  is  used.  238  The  lower  cost  and  simplicity  of  use  are 
 achieved  by  limiting  the  features  available  on  the  handset,  for  instance  the  Hop-  On  disposable  phone  offers  voice  recognition  dialing  instead  of  keypad  dialing.  239  Some  of  these  phones  will  only  offer 
 outbound  calling,  while  others  will  allow  customers  to  receive  calls  as  well.  240  The  voice  service  on  these  phones,  in  some  instances,  will  be  resold  service.  241  Estimates  are  that  companies  will  offer  the  handsets 
 with  approximately  60  minutes  of  airtime  for  approximately  $30.  242  Some  marketing  material  on  Hop-Ons  website  indicates  that  they  will  distribute  their  phones  through  retail  outlets,  and  will  offer  volume 
 discounts  to  encourage  their  use  as  gifts  at,  for  example,  trade  shows  and  corporate  functions.  243  Apparently,  however,  such  phones  are  not  currently  being  offered  on  a  widespread  basis.  244 


 105.  Discussion.  We  begin  by  asking  commenters  to  provide  us  with  estimates  on  when  these  handsets  may  become  available  to  consumers.  245  We  next  ask  whether  these  phones,  like  resold  offerings, 
 are  subscribed  to  a  licensees  service.  We  also  ask  commenters  to  inform  our  technical  understanding  of  this  product.  For  example,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  the  disposable  mobile  handsets  that  are  coming 
 to  market  will  be  capable  of  providing  callback  information.  Commenters  should  also  address  whether  such  handsets  will  be  able  to  provide  location  information.  If  callback  and  location  information  are  not 
 currently  part  of  the  design  of  these  handsets,  we  ask  commenters  to  address  the  technical  and  economic  feasibility  of  requiring  disposable  mobile  handsets  to  comply  with  these  rules.  In  discussing  the 
 economics  of  compliance,  we  also  encourage  commenters  to  address  whether  the  public  interest  in  having  E911-  capable  handsets  is  outweighed  by  the  utility  of  such  devices,  should  it  be  economically  infeasible 
 for  them  to  comply  with  our  rules.  246  Additionally,  we  encourage  commenters  to  address  whether  disposable  phones  should  fall  within  the  scope  of  our  all-  calls  rule,  which  requires  the  forwarding  of  all 


 238  See  Jay  Wrolstad,  Start-  up  Pitches  Disposable  Mobile  Phones,  Wireless  NewsFactor, 
 <http://  www.  wirelessnewsfactor.  com/  perl/  story/  8181.  html>  (visited  July  29,  2002).  On  July  25,  2002,  the  Commission  approved  Hop-  Ons  CDMA-  compatible  disposable  phone  for  use. 


 239  See  <http://  www.  hoponwireless.  com/  index.  html>  (visited  Nov.  19,  2002). 
 240  See  id.  (visited  Nov.  19,  2002). 
 241  See  supra  para.  93.  See  also  <http://  www.  hoponwireless.  com/  index.  html>  (visited  Nov.  19,  2002). 
 242  See  Jay  Wrolstad,  Start-  up  Pitches  Disposable  Mobile  Phones,  Wireless  NewsFactor, 
 <http://  www.  wirelessnewsfactor.  com/  perl/  story/  8181.  html>  (visited  July  29,  2002).  243 
 See  <  http://  www.  hoponwireless.  com/  businessops.  html>  (visited  Nov.  12,  2002).  244 
 See  Michelle  Singletary,  The  Color  of  Money,  Washington  Post,  Nov.  7,  2002,  at  E3  (indicating  that  disposable  phone  offerings  have  been  delayed  due  to  technical  changes  and  production  problems). 


 245  Id. 
 246  See  generally,  E911  First  Report  and  Order,  11  FCC  Rcd  at  18676. 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 38 
 911  calls  to  a  PSAP,  regardless  of  whether  the  handset  has  a  subscription  with  a  mobile  wireless  carrier.  247 
 106.  Legal  Authority  and  Implementation  Issues.  We  also  ask  commenters  to  address  the  legal  authority  of  the  Commission  to  place  basic  and  enhanced  911  requirements  on  manufacturers  of 
 disposable  mobile  handsets.  In  particular,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  requiring  mobile  wireless  service  providers  to  ensure  that  the  handsets  used  to  access  their  networks  comply  with  our  rules  is  sufficient  or 
 whether  we  should  place  an  affirmative  duty  on  the  manufacturers  of  these  handsets.  248  Should  we  determine  that  the  service  provider  should  be  required  to  comply  with  our  rules,  we  seek  comment  on 
 whether,  as  we  discussed  above,  the  reseller  or  the  licensee,  should  be  required  to  ensure  compliance.  249  In  addition,  to  the  extent  that  these  handsets  are  capable  of  delivering  callback  and  location  information, 
 we  seek  comment  on  how  best  to  establish  time  frames  for  compliance  with  our  E911  rules. 
 7.  Automated  Maritime  Telecommunications  Systems  (AMTS) 
 107.  Summary.  We  next  seek  comment  on  whether  AMTS  licensees  should  be  required,  like  VHF  Public  Coast  Carrier  licensees,  to  comply  with  our  basic  and  enhanced  911  rules  to  the  extent  that 
 they  offer  land-  based  real-  time  two-  way  switched  voice  service  that  is  interconnected  to  the  public  switched  network.  250 


 108.  Background.  An  AMTS  is  a  specialized  system  of  coast  stations  providing  integrated  and  interconnected  marine  voice  and  data  communications,  somewhat  like  a  cellular  phone  system,  for  tugs, 
 barges,  and  other  vessels  on  waterways.  251  In  1997,  the  Commission  adopted  an  Order  that  permitted  VHF  Public  Coast  licensees,  including  AMTS  licensees,  to  provide  land-  based  users  with  more  services 
 so  that  they  would  be  better  able  to  compete  against  other  CMRS  providers,  such  as  cellular,  PCS,  and  SMR.  252  At  that  time,  the  Commission  did  not  address  whether  these  licensees  should  be  included 
 within  the  scope  of  our  E911  rules.  253 
 109.  Discussion.  We  first  seek  comment  on  whether  the  customers  of  AMTS  carriers  have  an  expectation  of  being  able  to  reach  911  emergency  service  personnel.  In  this  regard,  we  seek  comment  on 
 whether,  as  we  did  in  deciding  that  VHF  Public  Coast  Station  licensees  must  comply  with  our  911  rules,  we  should  limit  such  a  requirement  to  the  land-  based  portion  of  AMTS  providers  two-  way  switched 
 voice  service  offerings,  as  there  may  be  a  clearer  expectation  with  regards  to  land-  based  services.  254  In 
 247  See  47  C.  F.  R.    20.  18(  b). 
 248  See  supra  para.  91. 
 249  See  supra  para.  95. 
 250  See  Implementation  of  911  Act,  The  Use  of  N11  Codes  and  Other  Abbreviated  Dialing  Arrangements,  Fifth 
 Report  and  Order,  CC  Docket  No.  92-  105,  First  Report  and  Order,  WT  Docket  No.  00-  110,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  on  Reconsideration,  CC  Docket  No.  92-  105,  WT  Docket  No.  00-  110,  16  FCC  Rcd.  22264  (2001). 


 251  See  Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  80  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Applicable  to  Automated  Maritime 
 Telecommunications  Systems  (AMTS),  First  Report  and  Order,  RM-  5712,  6  FCC  Rcd  437  para.  3  (1991).  252 
 See  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Concerning  Maritime  Communications,  Second  Report  and  Order  and  Second  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  PR  Docket  No.  92-  257,  12  FCC  Rcd  16949,  16964-  65  paras. 


 24-  26  (1997);  see  also  47  C.  F.  R.    80.  123.  253 
 See  also,  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Concerning  Maritime  Communications,  Second  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order  and  Fifth  Report  and  Order,  PR  Docket  No.  92-  257,  17  FCC  Rcd.  6685,  6703  n.  171  (2002) 


 (stating  [  n]  either  the  Fifth  R&  O  nor  the  present  item  addresses  whether  our  911  and  enhanced  911  (E911)  requirements  apply  or  should  apply  to  AMTS  operations). 
 254  VHF  Memorandum  Opinion,  16  FCC  Rcd  at  22286  para.  59. 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 39 
 the  VHF  Memorandum  Opinion,  the  Commission  relied  on  the  fact  that  for  maritime  services,  both  VPC  and  AMTS,  there  exists  well-  established  emergency  response  systems  that  user  of  maritime  services  are 
 familiar  with  and  that  comply  with  internationally  mandated  maritime  communications  safety  standards.  255 


 110.  Lastly,  assuming  we  decide  to  require  compliance  by  AMTS  carriers,  we  seek  comment  on  the  general  time  frames  for  deployment  of  E911  capabilities.  In  this  regard,  we  ask  commenters  to 
 address  the  technical  and  operational  capabilities  of  these  providers  to  deliver  callback  and  location  information. 


 8.  Emerging  Services  and  Devices 
 111.  We  seek  comment  generally  on  emergency  access  issues  with  respect  to  any  other  voice  services  and  devices  that  are  not  mentioned  above. 


 112.  We  are  currently  aware  that  carriers  have  begun  marketing  Personal  Data  Assistants  (PDA)  with  voice  capabilities.  To  the  extent  that  these  devices  function  as  CMRS  carrier  handsets,  we 
 see  no  reason  why  such  devices  would  not  be  required  to  comply  with  the  Commissions  911  and  E911  rules.  Nor  do  we  see  any  reason  why  purchasers  of  these  devices  would  not  expect  to  have  access  to  911 
 and  E911  services.  We  seek  comment  on  any  obstacles  CMRS  providers  may  confront  with  assuring  these  devices  provide  access  to  911  service. 


 113.  We  also  seek  comment  on  other  new  technological  platforms.  For  example,  services  such  as  IP  Telephony  are  not  widely  deployed,  but  may  ultimately  be  relevant  to  our  E911  policies.  The 
 Commission  recently  received  an  independent  report  prepared  by  Dale  Hatfield  on  various  technical  issues  related  to  the  deployment  of  E911.  256  As  part  of  that  report,  Dr.  Hatfield  identifies  potential 
 technical  issues  that  may  arise  with  voice  delivered  using  the  Internet  Protocol  (VoIP)  communicating  the  necessary  call-  back  and  location  information  to  PSAPs.  We  seek  comment  on  the  extent  to  which 
 significant  issues  exist  with  regard  to  the  access  to  911  and  E911  capabilities  by  consumers  using  newly  developing  communications  platforms  such  as  IP  Telephony,  and  what,  if  any,  role  the  Commission 
 should  take  regarding  any  such  issues.  257  In  this  regard,  we  appreciate  the  many  benefits  that  new  technologies  bring  to  the  public  in  terms  of  increased  access  and  opportunities  for  all  Americans.  Our 
 regulatory  policies  are  designed  to  continue  to  encourage  the  development  of  these  capabilities,  while  also  enhancing  public  safety. 


 114.  We  also  ask  commenters  to  discuss  the  potential  for  these  and  other  devices  to  act  as  a  means  of  providing  access  to  emergency  services  for  individuals  with  speech  and  hearing  disabilities. 
 115.  Finally,  we  seek  comment  on  whether  and  how  the  Commission  could  structure  its  E911  rules  or  similar  requirements  to  encourage  entry  for  these  and  other  new  devices,  while  taking  into 
 account  the  important  public  safety  concerns  relevant  to  our  E911  policies.  We  encourage  commenters  to  consider  whether  a  rapidly  evolving  telecommunications  market  is  best  served  by  periodic  rulemakings 
 focused  on  a  service-  by-  service  analysis  such  as  the  one  detailed  above,  or  whether  such  markets  could  benefit  from  rules  of  more  general  applicability  with  parties  seeking  relief  through  other  Commission 


 255  See  id.  See  also  Liz  Chapman,  Coast  Guards  Rescue  21  System  to  be  Maritime  911,  available  at 
 <http://  www.  bangornews.  com/  editorialnews/  article.  cfm?  ID=  74350&  byline=  LizChapman&  cname=  Statewide&  section=  Hancock&  tt=  10AM>  (visited  Oct.  11.  2002). 


 256  See  generally  Dale  N.  Hatfield,  A  Report  on  Technical  and  Operations  Issues  Impacting  the  Provision  of 
 Wireless  Enhanced  E911  Services,  Public  Notice,  DA  02-  2666  (Hatfield  Report).  257 
 See  Comments  of  NENA,  APCO,  and  NASNA  on  Hatfield  Report  at  6. 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 40 
 procedures  such  as  waivers  or  petitions  for  clarification. 
 IV.  PROCEDURAL  INFORMATION 
 A.  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis 
 116.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    603,  the  Commission  has  prepared  an  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (  IRFA)  of  the  possible  significant  economic  impact 
 on  small  entities  of  the  proposals  suggested  in  this  Further  Notice.  The  IRFA  is  set  forth  in  Appendix  B.  Written  public  comments  are  requested  on  the  IRFA.  These  comments  must  be  filed  in  accordance  with 
 the  same  filing  deadlines  as  comments  filed  in  this  Further  Notice,  and  must  have  a  separate  and  distinct  heading  designating  them  as  responses  to  the  IRFA. 


 B.  Paperwork  Reduction  Analysis 
 117.  This  Further  Notice  contains  potential  new  or  revised  information  collections.  As  part  of  the  Commissions  continuing  effort  to  reduce  paperwork  burdens,  we  will  establish,  through  Federal 
 Register  publication,  a  period  for  public  comment  on  these  burdens,  as  required  by  the  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995  258  when  the  final  rules  are  adopted  and  more  specific  data  is  available  as  to  which 
 services  will  be  affected  by  what  regulations.  The  Commission  will  consider  these  comments  before  the  final  rules  become  effective  and  before  the  Commission  seeks  OMB  approval  for  these  burdens. 


 C.  Ex  Parte  Presentations 
 118.  This  is  a  permit-  but-  disclose  notice  and  comment  rule  making  proceeding.  Members  of  the  public  are  advised  that  ex  parte  presentations  are  permitted,  except  during  the  Sunshine  Agenda 
 period,  provided  they  are  disclosed  under  the  Commission's  Rules.  259 
 D.  Comment  Dates 
 119.  Pursuant  to  Sections  1.415  and  1.419  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.415  and  1.419,  interested  parties  may  file  comments  on  or  before  February  3,  2003  and  reply  comments  on  or 
 before  February  28,  2003.  Comments  may  be  filed  using  the  Commission's  Electronic  Comment  Filing  System  (ECFS)  or  by  filing  paper  copies. 


 120.  Comments  filed  through  the  ECFS  can  be  sent  as  an  electronic  file  via  the  Internet  to  http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  e-  file/  ecfs.  html.  Generally,  only  one  copy  of  an  electronic  submission  must  be  filed. 
 If  multiple  docket  or  rulemaking  numbers  appear  in  the  caption  of  this  proceeding,  however,  commenters  must  transmit  one  electronic  copy  of  the  comments  to  each  docket  or  rule  making  number  referenced  in 
 the  caption.  In  completing  the  transmittal  screen,  commenters  should  include  their  full  name,  U.  S.  Postal  Service  mailing  address,  and  the  applicable  docket  or  rulemaking  number.  Parties  may  also  submit  an 
 electronic  comment  by  Internet  e-  mail.  To  get  filing  instructions  for  e-  mail  comments,  commenters  should  send  an  E-  mail  to  ecfs@  fcc.  gov,  and  should  including  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. 
 121.  Parties  who  choose  to  file  by  paper  must  file  an  original  and  four  copies  of  each  filing.  If  more  than  one  docket  or  rule  making  number  appear  in  the  caption  of  this  proceeding,  commenters  must 
 submit  two  additional  copies  for  each  additional  docket  or  rule  making  number.  Filings  can  be  sent  by  hand  or  messenger  delivery,  by  commercial  overnight  courier,  or  by  first-  class  or  overnight  U.  S.  Postal 


 258  See  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  13. 
 259  See  generally  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1202,  1.  1203,  1.  1206(  a). 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 41 
 Service  mail  (although  we  continue  to  experience  delays  in  receiving  U.  S.  Postal  Service  mail).  The  Commissions  contractor,  Vistronix,  Inc.,  will  receive  hand-  delivered  or  messenger-  delivered  paper 
 filings  for  the  Commissions  Secretary  at  236  Massachusetts  Avenue,  N.  E.,  Suite  110,  Washington,  DC  20002.  The  filing  hours  at  this  location  are  8:  00  a.  m.  to  7:  00  p.  m.  All  hand  deliveries  must  be  held 
 together  with  rubber  bands  or  fasteners.  Any  envelopes  must  be  disposed  of  before  entering  the  building.  Commercial  overnight  mail  (other  than  U.  S.  Postal  Service  Express  Mail  and  Priority  Mail)  must  be  sent 
 to  9300  East  Hampton  Drive,  Capitol  Heights,  MD  20743.  U.  S.  Postal  Service  first-  class  mail,  Express  Mail,  and  Priority  Mail  should  be  addressed  to  445  12  th  Street,  SW,  Washington,  DC  20554.  All  filings 
 must  be  addressed  to  the  Commissions  Secretary,  Office  of  the  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission.  Comments  and  reply  comments  will  be  available  for  public  inspection  during  regular 
 business  hours  in  the  FCC  Reference  Center  of  the  Federal  Communications  Commission,  Room  TW-A306,  445  12th  Street,  S.  W.,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554. 


 122.  Parties  who  choose  to  file  by  paper  should  also  submit  their  comments  on  diskette.  These  diskettes  should  be  submitted  to  the  Commission's  Secretary,  Marlene  H.  Dortch,  Office  of  the  Secretary, 
 Federal  Communications  Commission.  The  Commissions  contractor,  Vistronix,  Inc.,  will  receive  hand-delivered  or  messenger-  delivered  diskette  filings  for  the  Commissions  Secretary  at  236  Massachusetts 
 Avenue,  N.  E.,  Suite  110,  Washington,  DC  20002.  The  filing  hours  at  this  location  are  8:  00  a.  m.  to  7:  00  p.  m.  All  hand  deliveries  must  be  held  together  with  rubber  bands  or  fasteners.  Any  envelopes  must  be 
 disposed  of  before  entering  the  building.  Commercial  overnight  mail  (other  than  U.  S.  Postal  Service  Express  Mail  and  Priority  Mail)  must  be  sent  to  9300  East  Hampton  Drive,  Capitol  Heights,  MD  20743. 
 U.  S.  Postal  Service  first-  class  mail,  Express  Mail,  and  Priority  Mail  should  be  addressed  to:  445  12  th  Street,  SW,  Washington,  DC  20554.  All  filings  must  be  addressed  to  the  Commissions  Secretary, 
 Office  of  the  Secretary,  Federal  Communications  Commission.  Such  a  submission  should  be  on  a  3.5-  inch  diskette  formatted  in  an  IBM  compatible  format  using  Word  for  Windows  or  compatible  software. 
 The  diskette  should  be  accompanied  by  a  cover  letter  and  should  be  submitted  in  "read  only"  mode.  The  diskette  should  be  clearly  labeled  with  the  commenter's  name,  the  docket  number  of  this  proceeding,  type 
 of  pleading  (comment  or  reply  comment),  date  of  submission,  and  the  name  of  the  electronic  file  on  the  diskette.  The  label  should  also  include  the  following  phrase  "Disk  Copy  -  Not  an  Original."  Each 
 diskette  should  contain  only  one  party's  pleading,  preferably  in  a  single  electronic  file.  In  addition,  commenters  must  send  diskette  copies  to  the  Commission's  copy  contractor,  Qualex  International,  Portals 
 II,  445  12th  Street,  S.  W.,  Room  CY-  B402,  Washington,  D.  C.  20554. 
 123.  Accessible  formats  (computer  diskettes,  large  print,  audio  recording  and  Braille)  are  available  to  persons  with  disabilities  by  contacting  Brian  Millin,  of  the  Consumer  &  Governmental 
 Affairs  Bureau,  at  (202)  418-  7426,  TTY  (202)  418-  7365,  or  at  bmillin@  fcc.  gov.  This  Further  Notice  can  be  downloaded  in  ASCII  Text  format  at:  http://  www.  fcc.  gov/  wtb. 


 E.  Further  Information 
 124.  For  further  information  concerning  this  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  contact:  Gregory  W.  Guice,  Attorney  Advisor,  Policy  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau,  at  (202) 
 418-  0095;  David  Siehl,  Attorney  Advisor,  Policy  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau,  at  (202)  418-  1313;  or  Arthur  Lechtman,  Attorney  Advisor,  Policy  Branch,  Satellite  Division,  International 
 Bureau,  at  (202)  418-  1465. 
 V.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 125.  IT  IS  ORDERED,  that  pursuant  to  Sections  1,  4(  i),  7,  10,  201,  202,  208,  214,  222(  d)(  4)(  A)-(  C),  222(  f),  222(  g),  222(  h)(  1)(  A),  222(  h)(  4)-(  5),  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),  157,  160,  201,  202,  208,  214,  222(  d)(  4)(  A)-(  C),  222(  f),  222(  g),  222(  h)(  1)(  A),  222(  h)(  4)-(  5),  251(  e)(  3),  301,  303,  308,  309(  j),  310,  this 
 Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  is  hereby  ADOPTED. 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 42 
 126.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  that  the  Commission's  Consumer  and  Governmental  Affairs  Bureau,  Reference  Information  Center,  SHALL  SEND  a  copy  of  this  Further  Notice  of  Proposed 
 Rulemaking,  including  the  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration. 


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 A-  1 
 APPENDIX  A 
 LIST  OF  PARTIES 


 I.  IB  Docket  No.  99-  81  260 
 Comments  Aeronautical  Radio,  Inc. 
 Association  of  Public-  Safety  Communications  Officials-  International,  Inc.  (  APCO)  Association  of  American  Railroads 
 BellSouth  Corporation  Boeing  Company  (  Boeing) 
 Bosch  Telecom,  Inc.  Celsat  America,  Inc.  (  Celsat) 
 Century  OCN  Programming,  Inc.  Constellation  Communications,  Inc. 
 Fixed  Wireless  Communications  Coalition  Globalstar,  L.  P. 
 Hughes  Communications  Galaxy,  Inc.  and  Hughes  Communications,  Inc.  ICO  Services  Limited  (  ICO) 
 ICO  USA  Service  Group  (BT  North  America  Inc.,  Hughes  Telecommunications  and  Space  Company,  Telecomunicaciones  de  Mexico,  TRW  Inc.)  (  ICO  USA) 
 Inmarsat  Ltd.  Iridium  LLC 
 Lynch,  Timothy  H.  Mobile  Communications  Holdings,  Inc. 
 National  Academies  Committee  on  Radio  Frequencies  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration  (  NTIA) 
 PanAmSat  Corporation  Pegasus  Development  Corporation 
 Personal  Communications  Industry  Association  Satellite  Industry  Association  (  SIA) 
 SBC  Communications  Inc.  Society  of  Broadcast  Engineers,  Inc. 
 TMI  Communications  and  Company,  Limited  Partnership  (  TMI)  United  States  Coast  Guard  (  USCG) 
 UTC,  The  Telecommunications  Association  WinStar  Communications,  Inc. 
 Wireless  Communications  Association  International,  Inc. 
 Reply  Comments  American  Petroleum  Institute 


 Association  of  American  Railroads  Association  for  Maximum  Service  Television,  Inc.  and  the  National  Association  of  Broadcasters 
 BellSouth  Corporation  Boeing  Company 


 260  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  (1999)  (  2  GHz  NPRM).  Not  all  parties  filing  comments  in  response  to  the  2  GHz  NPRM  addressed  911  issues. 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 A-  2 
 Celsat  America,  Inc.  Constellation  Communications,  Inc. 
 European  Union/  Delegation  of  the  European  Commission  Fixed  Wireless  Communications  Coalition 
 GE  American  Communications,  Inc.  Globalstar,  L.  P. 
 Hughes  Communications  Galaxy,  Inc.  and  Hughes  Communications,  Inc.  ICO  Services  Limited 
 ICO  USA  Service  Group  (BT  North  America  Inc.,  Hughes  Telecommunications  and  Space  Company,  Telecomunicaciones  de  Mexico,  TRW  Inc.) 
 Inmarsat  Ltd.  Iridium  LLC 
 KaStar  Satellite  Communications  Corp.  Mobile  Communications  Holdings,  Inc. 
 National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration  PanAmSat  Corporation 
 Satellite  Industry  Association  Society  of  Broadcast  Engineers,  Inc. 
 Titan  Wireless  United  Telecom  Council  (formerly  UTC,  The  Telecommunications  Association) 
 WinStar  Communications,  Inc.  Wireless  Communications  Association  International,  Inc. 


 Supplemental  Comments  Association  for  Maximum  Service  Television,  Inc.  and  the  National  Association  of  Broadcasters 
 Boeing  Company  Celsat  America,  Inc. 
 Constellation  Communications  Holding,  Inc.  (formerly  Constellation  Communications,  Inc.)  Fixed  Wireless  Communications  Coalition 
 Globalstar,  L.  P.  ICO  Services  Limited 
 ICO  USA  Service  Group  (BT  North  America  Inc.,  Telecomunicaciones  de  Mexico,  TRW  Inc.) 
 Inmarsat  Ltd.  Iridium  LLC 


 Mobile  Communications  Holdings,  Inc.  TMI  Communications  and  Company,  Limited  Partnership 
 United  Telecom  Council  (formerly  UTC,  The  Telecommunications  Association) 
 Ex  Parte  Presentations  Association  for  Maximum  Service  Television,  Inc.  and  the  National  Association  of  Broadcasters 


 AT&  T  Wireless  Services,  Inc.  BellSouth  Corporation 
 Boeing  Company  Celsat  America,  Inc. 
 Department  of  Defense  Final  Analysis  Inc. 
 Fixed  Wireless  Communications  Coalition  Globalstar,  L.  P. 
 ICO  Services  Limited  Eagle  River  Investments  LLC 
 ICO  USA  Service  Group  Inmarsat  Ltd. 
 Iridium  LLC 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 A-  3 
 Mobile  Communications  Holdings,  Inc.  STM  Wireless,  Inc. 
 Teledesic  LLC  Wireless  Communications  Association  International,  Inc. 


 II.  IB  Docket  No.  99-  67 
 A.  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  261 
 Comments 
 Aeronautical  Radio,  Inc.  AMSC  Subsidiary  Corporation  (  AMSC) 
 The  Association  of  Public-  Safety  Communications  Officials-  International,  Inc.  (  APCO)  The  Boeing  Company  (  Boeing) 
 COMSAT  Corporation  Constellation  Communications,  Inc. 
 Hughes  Network  Systems  ICO  Global  Communications  (Holdings)  Limited  (  ICO  Global) 
 Inmarsat  Ltd.  Iridium  LLC 
 Iridium  North  America  Leo  One  USA  Corporation 
 L/  Q  Licensee,  Globalstar,  L.  P.,  and  Airtouch  Satellite  Services  U.  S.,  Inc.  (  LGA)  LSC,  Inc. 
 Ministry  of  Posts  and  Telecommunication  of  Japan  Motorola,  Inc. 
 The  National  Academies  National  Emergency  Number  Association  (  NENA) 
 National  Search  and  Rescue  Committee  (  NSARC)  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration  (  NTIA) 
 Norcom  Networks  Corporation  Orbital  Communications  Corporation  (  ORBCOMM) 
 Rockwell  Collins,  Inc.  RTCA,  Inc. 
 The  Satellite  Industry  Association  (  SIA)  Skybridge,  LLC  (late  filed) 
 Sea-  Land  Service,  Inc.  Teledesic  LLC 
 The  U.  S.  GPS  Industry  Council  United  States  Coast  Guard  (  USCG) 


 Reply  Comments 
 AMSC  Subsidiary  Corporation 
 261  See  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  (1999)  (  GMPCS  NPRM).  Not  all  parties  filing  comments  in  response  to  the 


 GMPCS  NPRM  addressed  911  issues. 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 A-  4 
 Chamber  of  Shipping  of  America  (late-  filed)  Constellation  Communications,  Inc. 
 Cornell  University  Global  VSAT  Forum  (request  for  extension  to  file  reply) 
 Inmarsat  Ltd.  Iridium  LLC 
 L/  Q  Licensee,  Globalstar,  L.  P.,  and  Airtouch  Satellite  Services  U.  S.,  Inc.  Motorola,  Inc. 
 National  Emergency  Number  Association  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration 
 Norcom  Networks  Corporation  The  Satellite  Industry  Association 
 Teledesic  LLC  TMI  Communications  and  Company,  L.  P. 
 The  U.  S.  GPS  Industry  Council 
 Ex  Parte  Presentations 
 L/  Q  Licensee,  Globalstar,  L.  P.,  and  Airtouch  Satellite  Services  U.  S.,  Inc.  LSC,  Inc. 


 B.  Public  Notice  262 
 Comments 
 Association  of  Public-  Safety  Communications  Officials-  International,  Inc.  (  APCO)  The  Boeing  Company  (  Boeing) 
 Final  Analysis  Communication  Services,  Inc.  and  Orbital  Communications  Corporation  (  FA/  ORBCOMM) 
 Globalstar  USA,  Inc.;  Globalstar,  L.  P.;  L/  Q  Licensee,  Inc.;  Qualcomm  Incorporated  (  Globalstar)  ICO  Services  Limited  (  ICO) 
 Inmarsat  Ltd.  (  Inmarsat)  Motient  Services  Inc.  (  Motient) 
 National  Emergency  Number  Association  (  NENA)  SCC  Communications  Corp.  (  SCC) 
 Washington  State  E911  Program  (  Washington  State) 
 Reply  Comments 
 The  Boeing  Company  Globalstar  USA,  Inc.;  Globalstar,  L.  P.;  L/  Q  Licensee,  Inc.;  Qualcomm  Incorporated 
 ICO  Services  Limited  National  Emergency  Number  Association 
 National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administrations  (  NTIA)  (late-  filed,  April  11,  2001)  SCC  Communications  Corp. 


 262  International  Bureau  Invites  Further  Comment  Regarding  Adoption  of  911  Requirements  for  Satellite  Services, 
 Public  Notice,  16  FCC  Rcd.  3780  (2000)  (Satellite  911  Public  Notice). 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 A-  5 
 Ex  Parte  Presentations  and  Other  Filings 
 SCC  Communications  Corp.  (April  10,  2001  ex  parte  letter)  Ex  Parte  Meeting  in  IB  Docket  No.  99-  67,  Memorandum  from  Arthur  Lechtman,  Satellite  and 
 Radiocommunication  Division,  International  Bureau,  Federal  Communications  Commission  to  William  F.  Caton,  Acting  Secretary,  February  22,  2002  (Feb.  22  Ex  Parte  Memo). 
 Inmarsat  Ventures  plc  (May  28,  2002  ex  parte  letter)  (  Inmarsat) 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 B-  1 
 APPENDIX  B 
 Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking 
 CC  Docket  No.  94-  102 
 127.  As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act,  as  amended  (RFA),  263  the  Commission  has  prepared  this  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  (IRFA)  of  the  possible  significant  economic  impact 
 on  a  substantial  number  of  small  entities  by  the  policies  and  rules  proposed  in  this  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  (Further  Notice),  CC  Docket  No.  94-  102  and  IB  Docket  No.  99-  67.  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  Further  Notice.  The  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the 
 Further  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  Further  Notice  and  IRFA  (or  summaries  thereof) 
 will  be  published  in  the  Federal  Register.  264 
 A.  NEED  FOR,  AND  OBJECTIVES  OF,  THE  PROPOSED  RULES 
 128.  The  Further  Notice  initiates  a  reevaluation  of  the  scope  of  communications  services  that  should  provide  access  to  emergency  services.  The  Further  Notice  examines  and  seeks  comment  on  the 
 need  to  require  compliance  with  the  Commissions  basic  and  enhanced  911  (E911)  rules,  or  similar  requirements,  by  various  other  mobile  wireless  and  certain  wireline  voice  and  data  services.  The  Further 
 Notice  considers  whether  existing  services  such  as  telematics  or  voice  service  provided  by  multi-  line  systems  should  be  required  to  provide  access  to  911  service.  265  The  Further  Notice  also  considers 
 whether  certain  new  services  should  be  subject  to  any  E911  requirements.  The  Further  Notice  additionally  seeks  comment  on  the  impact  that  exclusion  of  these  services  and  devices  from  the 
 Commissions  911  rules  may  have  on  consumers,  as  well  as  the  technological  and  cost  issues  involved  in  providing  E911,  taking  into  account  the  expectations  of  consumers  for  911  service  when  they  use  these 
 services  and  devices.  The  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  also  seeks  comment  on  a  proposal  to  require  mobile  satellite  service  (MSS)  providers  (in  particular,  MSS  providers  offering  real-  time, 
 interconnected  two-  way  voice  service)  to  establish  emergency  call  centers  to  answer  911  emergency  calls. 
 B.  Legal  Basis  for  Proposed  Rules 


 129.  The  proposed  action  is  authorized  under  Sections  1,  4(  i),  7,  10,  201,  202,  208,  214,  222(  d)(  4)(  A)-(  C),  222(  f),  222(  g),  222(  h)(  1)(  A),  222(  h)(  4)-(  5),  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),  157,  160,  201,  202,  208,  214,  222(  d)(  4)(  A)-(  C),  222(  f),  222(  g),  222(  h)(  1)(  A),  222(  h)(  4)-(  5),  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 


 130.  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.  266  The  RFA  generally 


 263  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603.  The  RFA,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    601-  612.,  has  been  amended  by  the  Small  Business  Regulatory 
 Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA),  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  121,  Title  II,  110  Stat.  857  (1996)  (CWAA).  264 
 See  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  a)  265 
 See  infra  n.  5.  266 
 See  5  U.  S.  C.    603(  b)(  3). 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 B-  2 
 defines  the  term  small  entity  as  having  the  same  meaning  as  the  terms  small  business,  small  organization,  and  small  governmental  jurisdiction.  267  In  addition,  the  term  small  business  has  the 
 same  meaning  as  the  term  small  business  concern  under  Section  3  of  the  Small  Business  Act.  268  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).  269  A  small  organization  is  generally  any  not-  for-  profit  enterprise  which  is  independently  owned  and  operated  and  is  not  dominant  in  its  field.  270  Nationwide,  as 


 of  1992,  there  were  approximately  275,801  small  organizations.  271 
 131.  The  definition  of  small  governmental  jurisdiction  is  one  with  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  272  There  are  85,006  governmental  entities  in  the  nation.  273  This  number  includes  such  entities  as 
 states,  counties,  cities,  utility  districts  and  school  districts.  There  are  no  figures  available  on  what  portion  of  this  number  has  populations  of  fewer  than  50,00.  However,  this  number  includes  38,978  counties, 
 cities  and  towns,  and  of  those,  37,556,  or  ninety-  six  percent,  have  populations  of  fewer  than  50,000.  274  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. 


 132.  Individual  voice  services  and  devices  that  are  examined  as  to  appropriateness  for  911  and  E911  service  provision  include:  mobile  satellite  service,  telematics  service,  multi-  line  telephone  systems, 
 resold  cellular  and  personnel  communications  service,  pre-  paid  calling,  disposable  phone,  automated  maritime  telecommunications  systems,  and  emerging  services  and  devices. 


 133.  We  have  included  small  incumbent  LECs  in  this  RFA  analysis.  As  noted  above,  a  "small  business"  under  the  RFA  is  one  that,  inter  alia,  meets  the  pertinent  small  business  size  standard  (e.  g.,  a 
 telephone  communications  business  having  1,500  or  fewer  employees),  and  "is  not  dominant  in  its  field  of  operation."  275  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.  276  We  have 
 267  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  6). 


 268  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3)  (incorporating  by  reference  the  definition  of  small  business  concern  in  the  Small  Business 
 Act,  15  U.  S.  C.    632).  Pursuant  to  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3),  the  statutory  definition  of  a  small  business  applies  unless  an  agency,  after  consultation  with  the  Office  of  Advocacy  of  the  Small  Business  Administration  and  after  opportunity 


 for  public  comment  ,  establishes  one  or  more  definitions  of  such  term  which  are  appropriate  to  the  activities  of  the  agency  and  publishes  such  definitions(  s)  in  the  Federal  Register. 


 269  15  U.  S.  C.    632. 
 270  Id.    601(  4). 
 271  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).  272 
 5  U.  S.  C.    601(  5).  273 
 1992  Census  of  Governments,  U.  S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce.  274 
 Id.  275 
 5  U.  S.  C.    601(  3).  276 
 See  Letter  from  Jere  W.  Glover,  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy,  SBA,  to  Chairman  William  E.  Kennard,  FCC  (May  27,  1999).  The  Small  Business  Act  contains  a  definition  of  "small  business  concern,"  which  the  RFA 


 incorporates  into  its  own  definition  of  "small  business."  See  5  U.  S.  C.    632(  a)  (Small  Business  Act);  5  U.  S.  C.  601(  3)  (RFA).  SBA  regulations  interpret  "small  business  concern"  to  include  the  concept  of  dominance  on  a 
 national  basis.  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  102(  b). 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 B-  3 
 therefore  included  small  incumbent  LECs  in  this  RFA  analysis,  although  we  emphasize  that  this  RFA  action  has  no  effect  on  the  Commission's  analyses  and  determinations  in  other,  non-  RFA  contexts. 
 134.  Incumbent  Local  Exchange  Carriers.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  SBA  has  developed  a  specific  small  business  size  standard  for  providers  of  incumbent  local  exchange  services.  The 
 closest  applicable  size  standard  under  the  SBA  rules  is  for  Wired  Telecommunications  Carriers.  Under  that  standard,  such  a  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  277  According  to  the  FCCs  Telephone 
 Trends  Report  data,  1,  329  incumbent  local  exchange  carriers  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  local  exchange  services.  278  Of  these  1,329  carriers,  an  estimated  1,024  have  1,500  or  fewer 
 employees  and  305  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  279  Consequently,  we  estimate  that  the  majority  of  providers  of  local  exchange  service  are  small  entitles  that  may  be  affected  by  the  rules  and  policies  adopted 
 herein. 
 135.  Competitive  Local  Exchange  Carriers.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  SBA  has  developed  a  specific  small  business  size  standard  for  providers  of  competitive  local  exchange  services. 
 The  closest  applicable  size  standard  under  the  SBA  rules  is  for  Wired  Telecommunications  Carriers.  Under  that  standard,  such  a  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  280  According  to  the  FCC's 
 Telephone  Trends  Report  data,  532  companies  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  either  competitive  access  provider  services  or  competitive  local  exchange  carrier  services.  281  Of  these  532 
 companies,  an  estimated  411  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  121  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  282  Consequently,  the  Commission  estimates  that  the  majority  of  providers  of  competitive  local  exchange 
 service  are  small  entities  that  may  be  affected  by  the  rules. 
 136.  Competitive  Access  Providers.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  SBA  has  developed  a  specific  size  standard  for  competitive  access  providers  (CAPS).  The  closest  applicable  standard  under  the 
 SBA  rules  is  for  Wired  Telecommunications  Carriers.  Under  that  standard,  such  a  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  283  According  to  the  FCC's  Telephone  Trends  Report  data,  532  CAPs  or 
 competitive  local  exchange  carriers  and  55  other  local  exchange  carriers  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  either  competitive  access  provider  services  or  competitive  local  exchange  carrier 
 services.  284  Of  these  532  competitive  access  providers  and  competitive  local  exchange  carriers,  an  estimated  411  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  121  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  285  Of  the  55 
 other  local  exchange  carriers,  an  estimated  53  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  2  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  286  Consequently,  the  Commission  estimates  that  the  majority  of  small  entity  CAPS  and  the 
 majority  of  other  local  exchange  carriers  may  be  affected  by  the  rules. 
 137.  Local  Resellers.  The  SBA  has  developed  a  specific  size  standard  for  small  businesses 
 277  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513310. 
 278  FCC,  Wireline  Competition  Bureau,  Industry  Analysis  and  Technology  Division,  Trends  in  Telephone  Service, 
 at  Table  5.3,  p  5-  5  (May  2002)  (Telephone  Trends  Report).  279 
 Id.  280 
 13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513310.  281 
 Telephone  Trends  Report,  Table  5.3.  282 
 Id.  283 
 13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513310.  284 
 Telephone  Trends  Report,  Table  5.3.  285 
 Id.  286 
 Id. 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 B-  4 
 within  the  category  of  Telecommunications  Resellers.  Under  that  standard,  such  a  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  287  According  to  the  FCC's  Telephone  Trends  Report  data,  134  companies 
 reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  local  resale  services.  288  Of  these  134  companies,  an  estimated  131  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  3  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  289  Consequently, 
 the  Commission  estimates  that  the  majority  of  local  resellers  may  be  affected  by  the  rules. 
 138.  Toll  Resellers.  The  SBA  has  developed  a  specific  size  standard  for  small  businesses  within  the  category  of  Telecommunications  Resellers.  Under  that  SBA  definition,  such  a  business  is 
 small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  290  According  to  the  FCC's  Telephone  Trends  Report  data,  576  companies  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  toll  resale  services.  291  Of  these  576 
 companies,  an  estimated  538  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  38  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  292  Consequently,  the  Commission  estimates  that  a  majority  of  toll  resellers  may  be  affected  by  the  rules. 


 139.  Interexchange  Carriers.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  SBA  has  developed  a  specific  size  standard  for  small  entities  specifically  applicable  to  providers  of  interexchange  services.  The  closest 
 applicable  size  standard  under  the  SBA  rules  is  for  Wired  Telecommunications  Carriers.  Under  that  standard,  such  a  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  293  According  to  the  FCCs 
 Telephone  Trends  Report  data,  229  carriers  reported  that  their  primary  telecommunications  service  activity  was  the  provision  of  interexchange  services.  294  Of  these  229  carriers,  an  estimated  181  have 
 1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  48  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  295  Consequently,  we  estimate  that  a  majority  of  IXCs  may  be  affected  by  the  rules. 


 140.  Operator  Service  Providers.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  SBA  has  developed  a  specific  size  standard  for  small  entities  specifically  applicable  to  operator  service  providers.  The  closest 
 applicable  size  standard  under  the  SBA  rules  is  for  Wired  Telecommunications  Carriers.  Under  that  standard,  such  a  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  296  According  to  the  FCC's  Telephone 
 Trends  Report  data,  22  companies  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  operator  services.  297  Of  these  22  companies,  an  estimated  20  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  two  have  more 
 than  1,500  employees.  298  Consequently,  the  Commission  estimates  that  a  majority  of  local  resellers  may  be  affected  by  the  rules. 


 141.  Prepaid  Calling  Card  Providers.  The  SBA  has  developed  a  size  standard  for  small  businesses  within  the  category  of  Telecommunications  Resellers.  Under  that  size  standard,  such  a 


 287  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513330. 
 288  Telephone  Trends  Report,  Table  5.3. 
 289  Id. 
 290  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513330. 
 291  Telephone  Trends  Report,  Table  5.3. 
 292  Id. 
 293  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513310. 
 294  Telephone  Trends  Report,  Table  5.  3. 
 295  Id. 
 296  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513310. 
 297  Telephone  Trends  Report,  Table  5.3. 
 298  Id. 
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 B-  5 
 business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  299  According  to  the  FCC's  Telephone  Trends  Report  data,  32  companies  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  prepaid  calling  cards.  300  Of  these 
 32  companies,  an  estimated  31  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  one  has  more  than  1,500  employees.  301  Consequently,  the  Commission  estimates  that  a  majority  of  prepaid  calling  providers  may 
 be  affected  by  the  rules. 
 142.  Mobile  Satellite  Service  Carriers.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  U.  S.  Small  Business  Administration  has  developed  a  small  business  size  standard  specifically  for  mobile  satellite  service 
 licensees.  The  appropriate  size  standard  is  therefore  the  SBA  standard  for  Satellite  Telecommunications,  which  provides  that  such  entities  are  small  if  they  have  $12.5  million  or  less  in  annual  revenues.  302 
 Currently,  nearly  a  dozen  entities  are  authorized  to  provide  voice  MSS  in  the  United  States.  We  have  ascertained  from  published  data  that  four  of  those  companies  are  not  small  entities  according  to  the  SBAs 
 definition,  303  but  we  do  not  have  sufficient  information  to  determine  which,  if  any,  of  the  others  are  small  entities.  We  anticipate  issuing  several  licenses  for  2  GHz  mobile  earth  stations  that  would  be  subject  to 
 the  requirements  we  are  adopting  here.  We  do  not  know  how  many  of  those  licenses  will  be  held  by  small  entities,  however,  as  we  do  not  yet  know  exactly  how  many  2  GHz  mobile-  earth-  station  licenses 
 will  be  issued  or  who  will  receive  them.  304  The  Commission  notes  that  small  businesses  are  not  likely  to  have  the  financial  ability  to  become  MSS  system  operators  because  of  high  implementation  costs, 
 including  construction  of  satellite  space  stations  and  rocket  launch,  associated  with  satellite  systems  and  services.  Still,  we  request  comment  on  the  number  and  identity  of  small  entities  that  would  be 
 significantly  impacted  by  the  proposed  rule  changes. 
 143.  Other  Toll  Carriers.  Neither  the  Commission  nor  the  SBA  has  developed  a  specific  size  standard  for  small  entities  specifically  applicable  to  "Other  Toll  Carriers."  This  category  includes  toll 
 carriers  that  do  not  fall  within  the  categories  of  interexchange  carriers,  operator  service  providers,  prepaid  calling  card  providers,  satellite  service  carriers,  or  toll  resellers.  The  closest  applicable  size  standard 
 under  the  SBA  rules  is  for  Wired  Telecommunications  Carriers.  Under  that  standard,  such  a  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  305  According  to  the  FCC's  Telephone  Trends  Report  data,  42 


 299  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513330. 
 300  Telephone  Trends  Report,  Table  5.3. 
 301  Id. 
 302  13  C.  F.  R.    121.  201,  North  American  Industry  Classification  System  (  NAICS)  code  51740,  formerly  NAICS 
 code  513340  303 
 Comsat  Corporation,  Globalstar  USA,  Honeywell  International,  Inc.,  and  Mobile  Satellite  Ventures  Subsidiary  LLC  (  MSVS)  each  holds  one  of  the  current  licenses  for  1.  6  GHz  mobile  satellite  stations.  Comsat  Corporation 


 reported  annual  revenue  of  $618  million  in  its  most  recent  annual  report  to  the  U.  S.  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (  SEC).  Globalstar  USA  (formerly  AirTouch  Satellite  Services)  is  a  wholly-  owned  subsidiary  of 
 Vodaphone  Group  Plc.  In  an  annual  report  filed  with  the  SEC,  Vodaphone  reported  revenue  of  15  billion  pounds  sterling  for  the  year  ending  March  31,  2001.  In  another  annual  report  filed  with  the  SEC,  Honeywell  International 
 Inc.  reported  receiving  sales  revenue  of  $23.  7  billion  in  2001.  MSVS  is  wholly  owned  by  a  limited  partnership  that  is  48.  1%  owned  by  Motient  Corporation  and  39.  9%  owned  by  a  limited  partnership  controlled  by  a  wholly-  owned 
 subsidiary  of  BCE,  Inc.  In  an  annual  report  filed  with  the  SEC,  Motient  reported  revenue  of  $93.  3  billion  for  calendar  year  2001.  BCE,  Inc.  reports  in  its  corporate  website,  www.  bce.  ca/  en/  investors/  corporate/  fast/,  that  it 
 received  $21.1  billion  of  revenue  in  2001.  304 
 The  Commission  has  issued  space-  station  licenses  for  eight  Mobile  Satellite  Service  systems  that  would  operate  with  2  GHz  mobile  earth  stations.  Although  we  know  the  number  and  identity  of  the  space-  station  licensees, 


 neither  the  number  nor  the  identity  of  future  2  GHz  mobile-  earth-  station  licensees  can  be  determined  from  that  data.  305 
 13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513310. 
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 B-  6 
 carriers  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the  provision  of  "Other  Toll  Services."  306  Of  these  42  carriers,  an  estimated  37  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  five  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  307 
 Consequently,  the  Commission  estimates  that  a  majority  of  Other  Toll  Carriers"  may  be  affected  by  the  rules. 


 144.  Wireless  Service  Providers.  The  SBA  has  developed  a  size  standard  for  small  businesses  within  the  two  separate  categories  of  Cellular  and  Other  Wireless  Telecommunications  or 
 Paging.  Under  that  standard,  such  a  business  is  small  if  it  has  1,500  or  fewer  employees.  308  According  to  the  FCC's  Telephone  Trends  Report  data,  1,761  companies  reported  that  they  were  engaged  in  the 
 provision  of  wireless  service.  309  Of  these  1,761  companies,  an  estimated  1,175  have  1,500  or  fewer  employees  and  586  have  more  than  1,500  employees.  Consequently,  we  estimate  that  a  majority  of 
 wireless  service  providers  may  be  affected  by  the  rules. 
 D.  Description  of  Projected  Reporting,  Recordkeeping,  and  Other  Compliance  Requirements  for  Small  Entities. 


 145.  The  reporting,  recordkeeping,  or  other  compliance  requirements  ultimately  adopted  will  depend  on  the  rules  adopted  and  the  services  subject  to  those  rules.  First,  any  and  all  of  the  affected 
 entitites  who  the  Commission  finds  appropriate  to  provide  911  and  E911  services  (See  General  Criteria,  for  example,  in  paragraphs  12-  15  of  the  Further  Notice)  would  need  to  comply  with  the  Commissions 
 basic  or  enhanced  911  rules.  This  would  involve  a  schedule  for  implementing  911  and  E911  service,  and  possibly  regulations  mandating  the  provision  of  automatic  number  identification  (ANI),  possible  software 
 modification  to  assist  in  recognition  of  single  or  multiple  emergency  numbers,  and  provision  of  automatic  location  information  (ALI)  and  interference  precautions  as  well  as  regulations  specific  to  individual 
 services.  Additionally,  paragraphs  17-  27  of  the  Further  Notice  propose  that  all  Mobile  Satellite  Service  (MSS)  licensees  provide  real-  time,  two-  way,  switched  voice  service  that  is  interconnected  with  the  public 
 switched  network  establish  national  call  centers  to  which  all  subscriber  emergency  calls  are  routed.  Call  center  personnel,  and  would  then  determine  the  nature  of  the  emergency  and  forward  the  call  to  an 
 appropriate  Public  Safety  Answering  Point  (PSAP).  As  noted  in  paragraph  14  of  the  Further  Notice,  the  Commission  invites  comment  on  how  the  various  services  at  issue,  i.  e.  individual  voice  services  and 
 devices,  relate  to  the  provision  of  access  to  emergency  services  for  persons  with  disabilities.  (Paragraph  14  of  the  Further  Notice.) 


 146.  The  Further  Notice,  in  paragraphs  57-  80,  considers  possible  911  and  E911  regulation  for  the  telematics  service.  Telematics  can  be  generally  defined  as  the  integrated  use  of  location  technology 
 and  wireless  communication  to  enhance  the  functionality  of  motor  vehicles.  In  that  regard,  paragraphs  65-  73  of  the  Further  Notice  analyzes  the  plus  and  minuses  and  prospective  regulations  associated  with 
 telematics  systems  providing  access  to  PSAPs  through  an  intermediary  or  jointly  packaged  mobile  voice  service.  Paragraph  70,  suggests  that  telematics  systems  give  notice  to  consumers  regarding  any  current 
 limitations  of  telematics  service  in  directly  transmitting  emergency  information  to  a  PSAP.  Paragraphs  74-  75  suggest  a  requirement  that  telematics  providers  deliver  automatic  crash  notification  data  to  PSAPs 
 This  requirement  raises  possible  issues  of  technical  modifications  and  coordination  between  telematics  providers  and  PSAPs. 


 147.  The  Further  Notice,  in  paragraphs  81-  91,  examines  whether  to  require  multi-  line  telephone  systems,  including  wireline,  wireless,  and  Internet  Protocol-  based  systems,  to  deliver  call-  back 


 306  Telephone  Trends  Report,  Table  5.3. 
 307  Id. 
 308  13  C.  F.  R.    121.201,  NAICS  code  513322. 
 309  Telephone  Trends  Report,  Table  5.  3. 
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 B-  7 
 and  location  information.  Possible  requirements  that  the  Further  Notice  suggests  if  the  Commission  decides  that  multi-  line  telephones  systems  should  provide  these  services  include  technical  standards  as 
 discussed  in  paragraphs  86-  90  of  the  Further  Notice.  Paragraphs  92-  97  of  the  Further  Notice  discuss  issues  that  arise  when  consumers  buy  service  from  carriers  and  other  service  providers  that  resell  minutes 
 of  use  on  facilities-  based  wireless  carriers  networks.  In  that  regard,  the  Further  Notice  raises  the  possibility  of  requiring  the  underlying  facilities-  based  licensee  to  ensure  that  its  resellers  offer  basic  and 
 E911  service  compatible  with  its  method  of  providing  these  services,  or  whether  the  resellers  should  be  held  accountable.  Similarly,  paragraphs  98-  102  seek  comment  on  whether  the  Commission  should 
 impose  E911  requirements  directly  on  pre-  paid  calling  providers  that  are  not  also  licensees  or  whether  the  underlying  licensee  should  be  required  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  E911  rules  by  the  pre-  paid  calling 
 provider. 
 148.  Paragraphs  103-  106  of  the  Further  Notice  discuss  the  possibility  of  access  to  emergency  service  by  consumers  who  purchase  disposable  mobile  handsets.  In  this  case,  the  Further  Notice  notes 
 that  disposable  handsets  are  a  new  product  offering  and  as  such,  the  Commission  has  little  information  on  these  devices.  However,  the  Further  Notice  invites  comment  on  whether,  if  disposable  phone  service  is 
 determined  to  be  appropriate  for  offering  911  and  E911  services,  requiring  mobile  wireless  service  providers  to  ensure  that  the  handsets  used  to  access  their  networks  comply  with  the  911  and  E911  rules  is 
 sufficient  or  whether  the  Commission  should  place  the  burden  for  compliance  on  manufacturers  of  these  handsets.  If  it  is  also  determined  that  these  handsets  do  not  provide  PSAPs  with  an  opportunity  to  contact 
 the  handset  user  for  further  critical  location  information  if  necessary,  some  time  of  regulatory  solution,  such  as  a  readily  identifiable  code  to  notify  the  PSAP  that  the  incoming  call  is  placed  from  a  handset 
 which  does  not  offer  call-  back  capability,  could  be  adopted.  The  Further  Notice  also  seeks  comment  on  whether  to  extend  911  and  E911  regulation  to  automated  maritime  telecommunications  systems 
 (paragraphs  107-  110)  and  to  emerging  voice  services  and  devices  (paragraphs  111-  115). 
 149.  Other  regulations  and  requirements  are  possible  for  those  services  discussed  in  the  Further  Notice  found  suitable  for  911  and  E911  service.  Such  rules  and  requirements  could  be  found 
 appropriate,  based  on  comment  filed  in  response  to  the  Further  Notice  and  would  be  designed  to  meet  the  consumer  needs  and  licensee  situations  in  each  service  and  service  area. 


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


 150.  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  (among  others):  (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.  310 
 151.  The  critical  nature  of  the  911  and  E911  proceedings  limit  the  Commissions  ability  to  provide  small  carriers  with  a  less  burdensome  set  of  E911  regulations  than  that  placed  on  large  entities.  A 
 delayed  or  less  than  adequate  response  to  an  E911  call  can  be  disastrous  regardless  of  whether  a  small  carrier  or  a  large  carrier  is  involved.  The  various  licensees  scrutinized  in  the  Further  Notice  have  been 
 exempt  to  date  from  the  Commissions  911  and  E911  regulations  as  the  Commission  sought  information  from  which  to  judge  the  appropriateness  of  requiring  that  those  services  provide  911  and  E911  service. 
 The  Further  Notice  continues  this  examination  and  reflects  the  Commissions  concern  that  only  those 


 310  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603. 
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 B-  8 
 entities  that  can  reasonably  be  expected  to  provide  emergency  services,  financially  and  otherwise,  be  asked  to  provide  this  service.  The  Further  Notice  affords  small  entities  another  opportunity  to  comment 
 on  the  appropriateness  of  the  affected  services  providing  emergency  services  and  on  what  the  Commission  can  due  to  minimize  the  regulatory  burden  on  those  entities  who  meet  the  Commissions 
 criteria  for  providing  such  service. 
 152.  Throughout  the  Further  Notice,  the  Commission  tailors  its  request  for  comment  to  devise  a  prospective  regulatory  plan  for  the  affected  entities,  emphasizing  the  individual  needs  of  the  service 
 providers  and  manufacturers  as  well  as  the  critical  public  safety  needs  at  the  core  of  this  proceeding.  The  Commission  will  consider  all  of  the  alternatives  contained  not  only  in  the  Further  Notice,  but  also  in  the 
 resultant  comments,  particularly  those  relating  to  minimizing  the  effect  on  small  businesses. 
 153.  The  most  obvious  alternatives  raised  in  the  Further  Notice  are  whether  the  services  under  discussion  should  be  required  to  comply  with  the  Commissions  basic  and  enhanced  911  rules  or  whether 
 the  Commission  should  continue  to  exempt  these  entities  from  providing  this  service.  The  Further  Notice,  to  assist  in  this  discussion,  suggests,  in  paragraphs  12-  15,  criteria  to  determine  the  appropriateness 
 of  each  service  under  consideration  to  provide  emergency  services.  These  criteria  are  open  for  comment  and  this  provides  an  excellent  opportunity  for  small  entity  commenters  and  others  concerned  with  small 
 entity  issues.  Again,  we  seek  comment  to  determine  the  appropriate  service  groups  to  provide  critical  services. 


 154.  Along  these  lines,  discussion  of  criteria  and  alternatives  could  focus  on  implementation  schedules.  In  discussing  each  of  the  prospective  entities  and  soliciting  further  information,  throughout  the 
 Further  Notice  the  Commission  invites  comment  on  the  schedule  for  implementing  911  and  E911  services  which  best  meets  the  abilities,  technically  and  financially  suitable  to  the  individual  entities.  In 
 the  past,  the  Commission  has  best  been  able  to  offer  affected  small  and  rural  entities  some  relief  from  E911  by  providing  small  entities  with  longer  implementation  periods  than  larger,  more  financially  flexible 
 entities  that  are  better  able  to  buy  the  equipment  necessary  to  successful  911  and  E911  implementation  and  to  first  attract  the  attention  of  equipment  manufacturers. 


 155.  In  its  discussion  of  MSS,  the  Further  Notice  recognizes  that  satellite  carriers  face  unique  technical  difficulties  in  implementing  both  basic  and  enhanced  911  features.  Thus,  in  paragraphs  22-  26, 
 the  Further  Notice  examines  the  use  of  call  centers  in  response  to  this  problem.  Paragraph  25  of  the  Further  Notice  notes  that  several  commenters,  thus  far,  have  indicated  that  MSS  callers  tend  to  be  located 
 in  remote  areas  where  no  PSAP  may  be  available.  The  Further  Notice  suggests  alternative  solutions  to  this  problem  noting  that,  in  the  context  of  the  911  Act  proceeding,  stating  that  in  areas  where  no  PSAP 
 has  been  designated,  carriers  still  have  an  obligation  not  to  block  911  calls  and  clarifying  where  such  calls  can  be  directed  when  no  designated  PSAP  exists.  There  are  a  number  of  alternatives  raised  in  the  Further 
 Notice  in  discussing  the  specifics  of  the  calling  center  alternative.  For  example,  should  the  Commission  require  carriers  to  relay  automatically  available  location  information  to  emergency  call  centers,  and  what 
 reasonably  achievable  accuracy  standards  could  be  established  for  this  location  information? 
 156.  Paragraphs  30-  32  of  the  Further  Notice  recognize  that  high  costs  are  associated  with  modifying  satellite  network  infrastructures  to  accommodate  E911  emergency  call  information  and  route  it 
 to  appropriate  PSAPs.  These  paragraphs  discuss  alternate  solutions  suggested  in  the  comments  to  date,  and  request  further  comment  aimed  at  reducing  such  costs.  For  example,  some  carriers  argue  that 
 network  modifications  are  necessary  to  forward  ANI  and  ALI  data,  such  as  retrofitting  switches  throughout  the  network  and  making  costly  private  trunking  arrangements  between  earth  stations  and 
 PSAPs.  One  commenter  suggested  that  the  retrofit  costs  could  be  reduced  if  (1)  a  single,  central  emergency  call  service  could  receive  calls  for  the  nation,  or  (2)  each  of  the  50  states  has  a  single  point  of 
 emergency  contact.  Additionally,  in  paragraphs  35-  41,  the  Further  Notice  considers  alternatives  for  providing  ALI.  The  Further  Notice  discusses  a  Coast  Guard  recommendation  that  the  Commission 
 require  strict  ALI  accuracy  standards  for  GMPCS.  There  are  a  number  of  issues  and  alternatives  relating 
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  02-  326 
 B-  9 
 to  the  need  for  GPS  that  could  conceivably  impact  small  entities. 
 157.  The  Further  Notice,  in  paragraphs  49-  54,  discusses  international  issues  connected  to  MSS.  The  Further  Notice  seeks  comment  on  a  number  of  related  alternatives,  including  whether 
 resolution  of  international  standards  should  in  any  way  further  delay  adoption  of  a  call  center  requirement  or  E911  rules  for  MSS,  and  on  liability  issues  in  connection  with  recognition  of  multiple  emergency 
 access  codes.  Finally,  in  regards  to  possible  MSS  emergency  service  requirements,  the  Further  Notice,  in  paragraph  55,  considers  integration  of  the  Ancillary  Terrestrial  Component. 


 158.  In  considering  possible  911  and  E911  regulation  for  telematics  systems,  the  Further  Notice,  in  paragraphs  64-  71,  questions  whether  a  telematics  call-  center  approach  to  911  calls  might  be 
 more  appropriate  that  an  approach  based  solely  on  911  calls  placed  through  a  jointly  packaged  mobile  voice  service.  Paragraphs  74-  75  of  the  Further  Notice  weigh  the  benefits  and  costs  involved  in  requiring 
 telematics  providers  to  deliver  automatic  crash  notification  data  to  PSAPs.  Further,  paragraph  80  of  the  Further  Notice  considers  whether  the  Commissions  legal  authority  might  lead  it  to  impose  requirements 
 directly  on  telematics  providers  or  equipment  manufacturers. 
 159.  The  Further  Notice,  in  paragraphs  81-  91,  examines  potential  911  and  E911  requirements  for  multi-  line  telephone  systems.  In  that  regard,  the  Commission  considers  whether  to  impose  such 
 regulations  on  a  national  basis  or  whether  it  is  sufficient  to  rely  on  actions  by  state  and  local  governments,  associations,  and  private  entities  to  ensure  reliable  coverage.  The  National  Emergency  Number 
 Association,  for  example,  has  proposed  model  legislation  what  would  allow  states,  through  state  legislation,  to  adopt  many  of  the  standards  and  protocol  associated  with  delivering  E911  services  through 
 multi-  line  systems.  Paragraph  89  of  the  Further  Notice  looks  at  an  E911  consensus  group  proposal  regarding  multi-  line  systems  and  delivery  of  call-  back  and  location  information  to  an  appropriate  PSAP. 
 The  Further  Notice  again  questions  whether  it  would  be  more  appropriate  to  regulate  equipment  manufacturers  in  the  multi-  line  context. 


 160.  In  considering  possible  basic  and  enhanced  911  requirements  for  resold  cellular  and  personal  communications  services,  the  Further  Notice,  in  paragraphs  92-  97,  weighs  whether  to  impose  a 
 more  express  obligation  on  either  the  reseller  or  the  underlying  licensee  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  E911  rules. 


 F.  Federal  Rules  that  Overlap,  Duplicate,  or  Conflict  with  the  Proposed  Rules 
 161.  None. 
56