[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3960-3963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1087]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 3961]]

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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.
    \2\ Section 1 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 151.
    \3\ Revision 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 two-way 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Wireless E911 Order at paragraph 83; Wireless E911 Recon 
Order at paragraph 87.
    \5\ Wireless E911 Recon Order at paragraph 88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Wireless 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).
    \7\ Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, at 
Section 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Establishment 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'').
    \10\ Establishment 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 3962]]

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 handset-based 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Comments 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Specific Issues

    Scope. The 911 rules for terrestrial wireless systems apply only to 
commercial mobile radio service involving provision of ``real-time, 
two-way 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, non-cellular system configuration'' \16\ apply to any MSS 
providers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 47 CFR 20.18(a).
    \15\ Wireless E911 Order, at paragraph 82.
    \16\ Id. at paragraph 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See 47 CFR 20.18(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In earlier comments, The Association of Public-Safety 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ ANI, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ ALI, i.e., Automatic Location Identification, means 
automatic transmission of information specifying the caller's 
location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 3963]]

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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Orbcomm, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Would it serve the public interest to adopt a flexible rule 
requiring MSS providers to make their systems ALI-capable 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?
    <bullet> Call priority (discussed in Wireless E911 Order at 
paragraphs 117-19)
    <bullet> Calls from unauthorized and unidentified users (see 
Wireless E911 Recon Order at paragraphs 13-41)
    <bullet> ALI interoperability (see Wireless E911 Third Report and 
Order at paragraphs 59-61)
    <bullet> 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)
    <bullet> 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).
    <bullet> TTY access
    <bullet> Waivers (see Wireless E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and 
Order \23\ at paragraphs 42-45)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ FCC 00-326 (released September 8, 2000) 65 FR 58657 
(October 2, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    <bullet> Cooperation with the Coast Guard.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ The 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 
emergency-calling 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Compare 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Wireless E911 Recon Order, at paragraph 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceeding, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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