3960 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1 ‘‘PSAP’’ is a point that has been designated to

receive 911 calls and route them to emergency

service personnel. A ‘‘Designated PSAP’’ is a PSAP

that is designated by the local or state entity that

has the authority and responsibility to designate the

PSAP to receive wireless 911 calls. We use the term

in this notice to refer to any local facility

performing such functions, whether or not pursuant

to a state-government mandate. See 47 CFR 20.3.

B. Proposed Effective Dates

These regulations are proposed to

apply to elections occurring on or after

the date final regulations are published

in the Federal Register; however, it is

also proposed that taxpayers may elect

to apply the amendments retroactively.

Special Analyses

It has been determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in Executive Order 12866. It also has

been determined that section 533(b) of

the Administrative Procedures Act (5

U.S.C. chapter 5) does not apply to these

regulations, and because these

regulations do not impose a collection

of information on small entities, the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

chapter 6) does not apply. Pursuant to

section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue

Code, this notice of proposed

rulemaking will be submitted to the

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration for comment

on its impact on small business.

Comments and Requests for a Public

Hearing

Before these proposed regulations are

adopted as final regulations,

consideration will be given to any

written comments (a signed original and

eight (8) copies) that are submitted

timely to the IRS. Alternatively,

taxpayers may submit comments

electronically via the Internet by

selecting the ‘‘Tax Regs’’ option on the

IRS Home Page, or by submitting

comments directly to the IRS Internet

Site at http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/tax—

regs/comments.html. All comments will

be available for public inspection and

copying. The Treasury Department and

IRS specifically request comments on

the clarity of the proposed regulations

and how they may be made easier to

understand. A public hearing may be

scheduled if requested in writing by any

person that timely submits written

comments. If a public hearing is

scheduled, notice of the date, time, and

place for the hearing will be published

in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal authors of these

proposed regulations are David J. Sotos,

and Jeanne M. Sullivan of Associate

Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special

Industries). However, other personnel

from the Treasury Department and IRS

participated in their development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 301

Employment taxes, Estate taxes,

Excise taxes, Gift taxes, Income taxes,

Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Proposed Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 301 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 301—PROCEDURE AND

ADMINISTRATION

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 301 continues to read in part as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 301.7701–3 is

amended as follows:

1. Redesignating the text of paragraph

(g)(2) as paragraph (g)(2)(i) and adding

a heading for paragraph (g)(2)(i).

2. Adding a new paragraph (g)(2)(ii).

3. Revising the first sentence of

paragraph (g)(4).

The addition and revision read as

follows:

§ 301.7701–3 Classification of certain

business entities.

* * * * *

(g) * * *

(2) Effect of elective changes—(i) In

general. ***

* * * * *

(ii) Adoption of plan of liquidation.

For purposes of satisfying the

requirement of adoption of a plan of

liquidation under section 332, unless a

formal plan of liquidation that

contemplates the election to be

classified as a partnership or to be

disregarded as an entity separate from

its owner is adopted on an earlier date,

the making, by an association, of an

election under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this

section to be classified as a partnership

or to be disregarded as an entity

separate from its owner is considered to

be the adoption of a plan of liquidation

immediately before the deemed

liquidation described in paragraph

(g)(1)(ii) or (iii) of this section. This

paragraph (g)(2)(ii) applies to elections

effective on or after the date these

regulations are published as final

regulations in the Federal Register.

Taxpayers may apply this paragraph

(g)(2)(ii) retroactively to elections filed

before these regulations are published as

final regulations in the Federal Register

if the corporate owner claiming

treatment under section 332 and its

subsidiary making the election take

consistent positions with respect to the

Federal tax consequences of the

election.

* * * * *

(4) Effective date. Except as otherwise

provided in paragraph (g)(2)(ii) of this

section, this paragraph (g) applies to

elections that are filed on or after

November 29, 1999. * * *

* * * * *

Robert E. Wenzel,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Service.

[FR Doc. 01–272 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket 99–67; DA 00–2826]

911 Requirements for Satellite

Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed

rulemaking.

SUMMARY: In this public notice, the

Chief of the FCC’s International Bureau

invites public comment in answer to a

series of questions pertaining to

implementation of emergency-calling

services for people using commercial

mobile radio services provided via

satellite. The purpose for issuing the

public notice is to elicit information that

will help the Commission determine

whether it would serve the public

interest to adopt rules to require or

facilitate provision of such services to

mobile satellite-service customers.

DATES: Comments due on or before

February 19, 2001. Reply Comments due

on or before March 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Bell, Satellite Policy Branch,

(202) 418–0741.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In 1996, the Commission adopted

rules for the provision of basic and

Enhanced 911 (E911) service by

terrestrial commercial mobile radio

service (CMRS) carriers. Basic 911 is the

delivery of emergency 911 calls to a

Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).1

E911 includes additional features,

including automatically reporting the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3961

2Section 1 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.

151.

3Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure

Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency

Calling Systems (First Report and Order and

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking), 11 FCC

Rcd 18676 (1996), 61 FR 40374 and 40348 (August

2, 1996) (‘‘Wireless E911 Order’’), on recon., 12 FCC

Rcd 22665 (1997), 63 FR 2631 (January 16, 1998)

(‘‘Wireless E911 Recon Order’’), on further recon.,

14 FCC Rcd 20850 (1999), 64 FR 72951 (December

29, 1999) (‘‘Wireless E911 Second Recon Order’’).

See, also, Second Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd

10954 (1999), 64 FR 34564 (June 8, 1999); and Third

Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17388 (1999), 64 FR

60126 (November 4, 1999), on recon. FCC 00–326,

released Sept. 8, 2000, 65 FR 58657 (October 2,

2000). For further information on the wireless 911

proceeding and rules, see www.fcc.gov/e911.

4Wireless E911 Order at paragraph 83; Wireless

E911 Recon Order at paragraph 87.

5Wireless E911 Recon Order at paragraph 88.

6Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act

of 1999, 113 Stat 1286, amending 47 U.S.C. 222 and

251(e); see also Implementation of 911 Act (Fourth

Report and Order and Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking), FCC 00–327, 65 FR 56751 (September

19, 2000).

7Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act

of 1999, at Section 4.

8Amendment 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

Commission’s Rules to Establish Emissions Limits

for Mobile and Portable Earth Stations Operating in

the 1610–1660.5 MHz Band, 14 FCC Rcd 5871

(1999), at paragraph 98.

9Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for

the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, 14

FCC Rcd 4843, 4885 (1999), paragraph 94 (‘‘2 GHz

NPRM’’).

10Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for

the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band,

Report and Order, 1B Docket No. 99–81, paragraph

125, FCC 00–302, (rel. Aug. 25, 2000), 65 FR 59140

(October 4, 2000) (‘‘2 GHz Report and Order’’).

11 Id. Paragraph 125.

caller’s location and telephone number.

The Commission concluded that

requiring wireless carriers to provide

these 911 services helped implement its

statutory mandate to ‘‘promot[e] safety

of life and property through the use of

wire and radio communication.’’ 2

Specifically, the Commission adopted

rules requiring cellular licensees,

broadband PCS licensees, and other

terrestrial wireless carriers providing

two-way voice communication via

interconnection with the public

switched telephone network to offer

basic 911 and E911 under a phased

schedule.3

In the 1996 Order, the Commission

exempted providers of Mobile Satellite

Service (MSS) from these rules. While

the Commission expressed its belief that

the public interest will ordinarily

require that providers of real time twoway voice services offer emergency

service, it reasoned that adding specific

regulatory requirements to MSS at that

time might impede development of a

service then in early development

stages.4 Further, the Commission agreed

with commenters who maintained that

emergency-service requirements for

global MSS systems should be

developed in an international forum in

the first instance. The Commission

stated that it expected that CMRS voice

MSS carriers would eventually provide

appropriate access to emergency

services, however, and it urged carriers

and other interested parties to do so as

soon as feasible.5

In 1999, Congress enacted the

Wireless Communications and Public

Safety Act of 1999, with the purpose of

‘‘facilitat[ing] the prompt deployment

* * * of a seamless, ubiquitous, and

reliable end-to-end infrastructure for

communications, including wireless

communications, to meet the Nation’s

public safety * * * needs.’’ To

implement parts of this Act, the

Commission has designated 911 as the

universal emergency telephone number

in the United States for both wireline

and wireless telephone service and

requested comment, inter alia, on what

actions to take to encourage and support

coordinated statewide deployment

plans for wireless emergency

communications networks that include

E911 service.6 The Act also contains

provisions granting liability protection

or immunity to wireless carriers, and to

users of wireless 911 services, not less

than that granted to providers and users

of wireline services.7

The Commission revisited the subject

of emergency-call service for MSS users

in the current rulemaking 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 last year, the

Commission 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.8

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

proposing licensing and service rules for

the 2 GHz MSS, the Commission more

narrowly inquired as to whether it

should require licensees in that

particular MSS service to implement

basic and/or enhanced 911 capabilities.9

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 requirements in the 2 GHz

MSS service rules proceeding.

Therefore, the Commission decided that

it would be better to address issues

concerning 911 requirements for 2 GHz

MSS in the more-general 911 inquiry

conducted in the GMPCS proceeding.10

To that end, the Commission directed

the International Bureau to issue a

public notice in the GMPCS proceeding

requesting additional information

‘‘regarding the technological, regulatory,

and international aspects of Basic 911

and E911 for satellite services.’’ 11

Request for Further Comment

In accordance with the Commission’s

instruction in the 2 GHz Report and

Order, and in order to obtain a more

substantial record, we seek additional

comment from interested parties and

members of the general public in

response to the following questions. We

also encourage commenters to identify

and discuss any other issues relevant to

the implementation of 911 services by

MSS licensees.

General Considerations

The general issues on which we seek

comment and information are: first,

whether it would improve public safety

and promote the overall public interest

to eliminate the exception allowed to

MSS carriers under the wireless 911

rules and require MSS carriers to

provide 911 emergency services; and,

second, if rules are warranted, what the

terms of those rules should be,

including relevant implementation time

frames.

We recognize that there are

operational differences between MSS

systems and terrestrial wireless systems

that may have a bearing on resolution of

these issues. MSS can provide voice

service at locations where no terrestrial

service is available, for instance, such as

in maritime environments and remote

areas. Cellular carriers interconnect

with local wireline carriers at many

points throughout their service areas

and can generally make use of existing

facilities to route 911 calls directly to

local PSAPs in the areas where the calls

are placed. MSS carriers, on the other

hand, interconnect with the public

switched telephone network at only a

few points in the United States and do

not interconnect directly with most

local wireline carriers. Routing

emergency MSS calls to the appropriate

local emergency service providers may

therefore present special challenges. To

route MSS calls automatically to the

3962 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules

12The Global Position System (GPS) is a network

of U.S. government satellites that transmit signals

that can be used to calculate the location of

receivers. 13Comments of National Emergency Number

Association in IB Docket No. 99–67, filed May 3,

1999 at page 2; Reply Comments of the National

Telecommunications and Information

Administration in IB Docket No. 99–67, filed July

21, 1999, at page 10.

14 47 CFR 20.18(a).

15Wireless E911 Order, at paragraph 82.

16 Id. at paragraph 81.

17Although the Coast Guard has provided

information on these points in previous comments,

we would welcome additional comments in this

regard, particularly from service providers. See

Comments of the United States Coast Guard in IB

Docket No. 99–67, Attachment 1 (‘‘Search and

Rescue Disaster Support MSS Capabilities

Comparison Developed by the ISCAR CMSS

Working Group’’), filed June 21, 1999.

18See 47 CFR 20.18(b).

19 In earlier comments, The Association of PublicSafety Communications Officials International, Inc.

(APCO) and the National Emergency Number

Association (NENA) have acknowledged that

development of a national PSAP database is

necessary to enable GMPCS licensees to provide

911 services. In reply comments filed in July 1999

NENA reported that it was compiling a national

PSAP database but had not finished the task.

20ANI, i.e., Automatic Number Identification, in

this context, means automatic transmission of a

callback number that a call-handler at a PSAP could

dial to re-establish contact with a 911 caller in the

event of a broken connection. See 47 CFR 20.3.

21ALI, i.e., Automatic Location Identification,

means automatic transmission of information

specifying the caller’s location.

most appropriate PSAP may require

location information for each call and a

national database to correlate callers’

geographic positions with the service

areas of local PSAPs and identify

locations where no PSAP operates.

Alternatively, emergency MSS calls

might be routed to central operators,

who could redirect the calls to the

appropriate emergency response

agencies in the caller’s area. 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.

For terrestrial wireless emergency 911

calls, several technologies are being

developed to identify the caller’s

location, including solutions that

employ equipment in the wireless

network and technologies employing

upgraded handsets, with features such

as Global Positioning System (GPS)

capability.12 Location solutions relying

on facilities in terrestrial networks may

not be available for MSS providers,

however, and incorporation of handsetbased position determination might

affect MSS providers and terrestrial

services differently with regard to such

matters as handset performance, bulk,

weight, battery life, cost, and price.

The National Telecommunications

and Information Administration (NTIA)

and the National Emergency Number

Association (NENA) have recommended

that we seek input on these issues from

an ad hoc fact-finding committee. We

request comment on this suggestion

and, if this approach appears useful,

how it might best be implemented.13 For

example, would it be more productive

to postpone consideration of

information gathered from this Public

Notice until after such a group has

provided a report to the Commission

identifying or addressing relevant

issues? We note that a Consensus

Agreement that helped form the basis of

the wireless 911 rules was developed by

a voluntary ad hoc group with

representatives of both the public safety

and the wireless communities.

Specific Issues

Scope. The 911 rules for terrestrial

wireless systems apply only to

commercial mobile radio service

involving provision of ‘‘real-time, twoway switched voice service * * *

utiliz[ing] an in-network switching

facility which enables the subscriber to

reuse frequencies and accomplish

seamless handoffs of subscriber

calls.’’ 14 Should 911 rules for satellite

services, if adopted, be limited to the

same extent? Are any MSS services

analogous to the maritime and

aeronautical services that are exempt

from the 911 requirements for terrestrial

wireless systems? 15 Does the rationale

for exempting ‘‘SMR licensees offering

mainly dispatch services to specialized

customers in a more localized, noncellular system configuration’’ 16 apply

to any MSS providers?

If the Commission were to adopt 911

rules for MSS, should it adopt uniform

requirements for all covered MSS, or

should it develop varying requirements

for different types of MSS systems or

services? Should the rules distinguish,

for instance, between provision of

service to callers with single-mode MSS

terminals and service to callers

equipped with dual-mode terminals

incorporating cellular or PCS

transceivers?

Are there safety needs that MSS

systems are uniquely or especially

capable of meeting? How do MSS

providers currently serve those or other

public safety needs, or plan to serve

them? 17 Are there relevant differences

in the public safety needs that different

MSS services and providers provide?

Basic 911 issues. Would it serve the

public interest to require MSS licensees

to provide basic 911 service 18 at this

time? If not, please explain in detail

why the public interest would not be

served. If so, should MSS licensees be

required to route 911 calls directly to

PSAPs in the caller’s vicinity, or should

they have the option of initially routing

the calls to special operators at central

emergency-call bureaus for relay to

PSAPs based on information obtained

from the callers? What would be the

impact, if any, of requiring basic 911

automatic routing on the cost and price

of, and demand for, MSS?

Has a nationwide database been

developed that emergency-call operators

could use to ascertain which PSAP to

contact in any given instance? If so,

does the database include long-distance

telephone numbers for contacting

emergency-call handlers at each

PSAP? 19

If the Commission were to adopt a

basic 911 requirement for MSS, how

much lead time would be needed for

compliance? How much more lead time,

if any, would MSS providers need for

achieving compliance with a rule

requiring provision of basic 911 by

automatic routing to PSAPs than with a

rule permitting implementation by

means of operator-assisted connection?

E911 issues. Should the Commission

require MSS licensees to implement

Automatic Number Identification

(ANI) 20 for 911 calls and, if so, by what

date? Would compliance with such a

requirement be more problematic for

MSS providers than for terrestrial

wireless carriers subject to the ANI

requirement in Section 20.18(d) of the

Commission’s rules and, if so, why?

How much lead-time would be

appropriate?

Is there any reason why

implementation of handset-based

Automatic Location Identification

(ALI) 21 would be more problematic for

MSS licensees than for terrestrial

wireless carriers? Has handset-based

ALI technology been developed for

terrestrial wireless systems that is

readily adaptable for use in MSS

systems? Is it likely that such

technology would be available to MSS

licensees from competing commercial

suppliers at prices comparable to prices

charged for supplying equivalent

technology to terrestrial carriers?

To what extent would incorporation,

either internal or external (e.g., GPS), of

components for reception and

correlation of satellite radiolocation

signals affect the size, weight, battery

life, and/or per-unit cost of new MSS

handsets? What expenses, if any, aside

from additional handset costs, would

ALI implementation entail for MSS

providers? How would implementation

of ALI affect market demand for MSS

and the commercial viability of MSS?

Is it feasible for some MSS systems to

provide ALI without installing separate

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 11 / Wednesday, January 17, 2001 / Proposed Rules 3963

22Orbcomm, a Little LEO licensee, has reported

that it can automatically ascertain the location of a

user terminal that has remained stationary for ten

minutes within a 500-meter error radius 95% of the

time, using calculations based on Doppler

variations in the signals received from its low-orbit

satellites. Comments of Orbital Communications

Corporation in IB Docket No. 99–67, filed May 3,

1999. Globalstar, L.P. asserted that its Big LEO

system has inherent position-location capability

with an error radius of approximately 10 kilometers

and that it expects to improve positioning accuracy

over time. Comments of Globalstar, L.P. in IB

Docket No. 99–81, filed July, 26, 1999.

23FCC 00–326 (released September 8, 2000) 65 FR

58657 (October 2, 2000).

24The Coast Guard has recommended adoption of

a rule requiring providers of two-way mobile radio

services to furnish coverage maps on request

showing the areas where they provide emergencycalling service in order to facilitate enforcement of

certain Coast Guard regulations. Comments of the

U.S. Coast Guard in IB Docket No. 99–67, filed June

21, 1999.

25Compare Establishment of Policies and Service

Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz

Band, FCC 00–302 (released August 25, 2000) at

paragraph 126, 65 FR 59140 (October 4, 2000)

(imposing interim requirement to affix notification

stickers to 2 GHz GMPCS handsets without 911

capability) with Wireless E911 Recon Order, supra,

at paragraph 80 (allowing affected carriers to choose

among various ways of notifying dispatch

customers that their 911 calls will not be directly

routed to PSAPs).

26Wireless E911 Recon Order, at paragraph 89.

27See Electronic Filing of Documents in

Rulemaking Proceeding, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).

28See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601

et seq. seq., has been amended by the Contract With

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law No.

104–121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of

the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

29 14 FCC Rcd at 5871, paragraph 101.

satellite radiolocation receivers (e.g.,

GPS) in user terminals? 22 If so, what

degree of accuracy can be achieved by

this means, expressed in terms allowing

comparison with the accuracy

specifications for terrestrial wireless

systems in section 20.18 of the

Commission’s rules? How would the

cost of implementing ALI by this means

compare with the cost of

implementation based on reception of

satellite radionavigation signals?

Would it serve the public interest to

adopt a flexible rule requiring MSS

providers to make their systems ALIcapable and offer ALI-capable terminals

for sale or lease to customers who want

them without barring continued

provision of non-ALI-capable terminals

to customers who prefer them? How

would adoption of such a rule affect the

cost, price, and demand for MSS?

How much lead-time should the

Commission allow for meeting a flexible

or other E911 ALI requirement for MSS,

if adopted?

Compliance with other 911 and E911

rules and policies. If the Commission

were to adopt 911 rules for GMPCS,

would there be any need to devise

special regulatory policies regarding any

of the matters listed below, or should

uniform policies apply alike to GMPCS

and terrestrial wireless 911 services in

these respects?

• Call priority (discussed in Wireless

E911 Order at paragraphs 117–19)

• Calls from unauthorized and

unidentified users (see Wireless E911

Recon Order at paragraphs 13–41)

• ALI interoperability (see Wireless

E911 Third Report and Order at

paragraphs 59–61)

• Compliance verification (see id.

paragraphs 83–85 and OET Bulletin No.

71, Guidelines for Testing and Verifying

the Accuracy of E911 Location Systems,

http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/

bulletins)

• Coordination with LECs and PSAPs

(see Wireless E911 Second Recon Order

at paragraphs 75–103 and Public Notice,

DA 00–1875, in Docket No. 94–102

(released August 16, 2000), 65 FR 51831

(August 25, 2000).

• TTY access

• Waivers (see Wireless E911 Fourth

Memorandum Opinion and Order 23 at

paragraphs 42–45)

• Cooperation with the Coast

Guard.24

Consumer notification. Should the

Commission adopt a disclosure rule

requiring manufacturers or sellers of

GMPCS terminals that cannot be used

for 911 emergency calls or with full

E911 features to apprise users and

potential purchasers of the functional

limitations? If so, should the

Commission require the notice to be

affixed to the equipment or would

another means of notification suffice? 25

International issues. Three years ago,

the Commission urged the public safety

community and participants in the MSS

industry ‘‘to continue their efforts to

develop and establish . . . standards

[for emergency calling] along with the

international standards bodies.’’ 26 What

pertinent efforts, if any, have interested

parties put forth, and with what result?

What remains to be done, and how

might the Commission promote its

accomplishment?

What specific effect(s), if any, would

FCC adoption of 911 requirements for

MSS systems, including a requirement

allowing operator-assisted connection,

have on the use of U.S.-certified GMPCS

terminals for calling in other countries

and on the use of terminals imported

from other countries for emergency

calling in the U.S.? How likely would it

be that other countries will adopt

inconsistent emergency calling

requirements or different protocols for

ALI signals, and, if so, what issues and

difficulties would be raised? Would it

be feasible, in that event, to achieve

systemwide ALI compatibility in a

global or regional MSS system by means

of processing at the gateway stations?

How might such regulatory divergence

affect handset design and marketing and

what bearing would it have on domestic

enforcement of technical and/or legal

requirements for GMPCS handsets?

Would there be any need for special

provisions pertaining to emergency MSS

calls placed from within the U.S. but

routed via foreign gateway stations?

Procedural Matters

Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419

of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

1.415, 1.419, interested persons may file

Supplemental Comments limited to the

issues addressed in this Public Notice

no later than February 26, 2001.

Supplemental Comments should

reference IB Docket No. 99–67 and the

DA number shown on this Public

Notice. Supplemental Comments may

be filed using the Commission’s

Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS).27 Supplemental Comments filed

through the ECFS can be sent as an

electronic file via Internet to http://

www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. In

completing the ECFS transmittal screen,

parties responding should include their

full name, mailing address, and the

applicable docket number, IB Docket

No. 99–67.

The Commission presented an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, as

required by the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (RFA),28 in the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in IB Docket 99–67, 64 FR

16687 (April 6, 1999).29 If commenters

believe that the proposals discussed in

this Public Notice require additional

RFA analysis, they may state their

reasons for concluding so in their

Supplemental Comments.

For ex parte purposes, this proceeding

continues to be a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’

proceeding, in accordance with section

1.1200(a) of the Commission’s rules, and

is subject to the requirements set forth

in section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s

rules.

For further information, please

contact: William Bell, Satellite Policy

Branch, (202) 418–0741.

Federal Communications Commission.

Shirley Suggs,

Chief, Publications Group.

[FR Doc. 01–1087 Filed 1–16–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P