31878 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

15BACM must be implemented no later than four

years from the date of reclassification.

16 If certain conditions are met, EPA may extend

this attainment deadline to no later than December

31, 2006. CAA section 188 (e).

17See footnote 5.

18EPA’s policy for an exceedance caused by a

natural event is explained in a memorandum

entitled ‘‘Areas Affected by PM–10 Natural Events’’

from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air

and Radiation, to the EPA Regional offices, May 30,

1996. The State is responsible for establishing a

clear casual relationship between the exceedance

and the natural event and submitting the

documentation to EPA within 180 days of the

exceedance, and, at a minimum, developing a

Natural Events Action Plan within 18 months of the

exceedances.

19Memorandum from John Calcagni to Regional

Office Air Directors, ‘‘Procedures for Processing

Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment,’’

September 4, 1992.

control measures (BACM)15 and a major

source definition of 70 tons per year.

The SIP must also, among other things,

provide for attainment of the PM–10

NAAQS by December 31, 2001.16 See

CAA sections 188 (c) (2) and 189 (b).

EPA has provided specific guidance on

developing serious area PM–10 SIP

revisions. See 59 FR 41998 (August 16,

1994).

Data from the most recent three year

period (1998–2000) indicates the

proposed Coso Junction and Indian

Wells Valley NAs exceeded the PM–10

24-hour NAAQs. The proposed Coso

Junction NA recorded two exceedance

in March, 1998, and the proposed

Indian Wells Valley NA recorded an

exceedance March, 1998. In their May 4,

2001 letter 17 to EPA, CARB indicated

that it is investigating whether the

exceedance in Indian Wells Valley was

caused by a natural event.18 Because of

these exceedances, the proposed Coso

Junction and Indian Wells Valley NAs

do not qualify for redesignation at this

time. In order for a nonattainment area

to be redesignated to attainment, the

area must have three years of clean data

and meet the redesignation

requirements of section 107 (b) (3) (E) of

the CAA.19

VI. Summary of Today’s Proposals

In today’s action, EPA is proposing to

divide the Searles Valley NA into three,

newly created NAs: Coso Junction,

Indian Wells Valley, and Trona. EPA is

also proposing to find that the proposed

Coso Junction and Indian Wells Valley

NAs did not attain the 24-hour and

annual PM–10 NAAQS.

VII. Request for Public Comment

The EPA is requesting comment on

any or all aspects of today’s proposals.

As indicated at the outset of this notice,

EPA will consider any comments

received by August 13, 2001.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget.

Under section 188(b)(2) of the CAA,

findings of failure to attain are based

solely upon air quality considerations

and the subsequent nonattainment area

reclassification must occur by operation

of law in light of those air quality

conditions. These actions do not, in and

of themselves, impose any new

requirements on any section of the

economy. In addition, because the

statutory requirements are clearly

defined with respect to the differently

classified areas, and because these

requirements are automatically triggered

by classifications that, in turn, are

triggered by air quality values, findings

of failure to attain and reclassification

cannot be said to impose a materially

adverse impact on State, local, or tribal

governments or communities. The

proposed splitting of the Searles Valley

NA into three new, separate NAs with

a moderate classification will not

impose any new requirements on any

sectors of the economy because the area

is already classified as moderate.

Accordingly, the Administrator

certifies that this proposed rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

These proposed actions do not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–4) for the following

reasons: (1) The proposed finding of

failure to attain is a factual

determination based on air quality

considerations; (2) the resulting

reclassification must occur by operation

of law and will not impose any federal

intergovernmental mandate; and (3) the

proposed splitting of the Searles Valley

NA into three, new and separate NAs

with a moderate classification will not

impose any new requirements on any

sectors of the economy. For the same

reason, this proposed rule also does not

have a substantial direct effect on one or

more Indian tribes, on the relationship

between the Federal Government and

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). For

these same reasons, these proposed

actions will not have substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government, as

specified in Executive Order 13132 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999). These

proposed actions are also not subject to

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,

April 23, 1997). because they are not

economically significant. Finally, for

these same reasons, the requirements of

section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not

apply.

As required by section 3 of Executive

Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7,

1996), in issuing these proposed actions,

EPA has taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. These proposed

actions do not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: June 5, 2001.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–14902 Filed 6–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[CC Docket No. 94–102; FCC 01–175]

Wireless E911 Compatibility; Call Back

Capability

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This document solicits

comment regarding the Commission’s

options with respect to providing public

safety answering points (PSAPs) with

the ability to call back to obtain further

information from 911 calls made from

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31879

non-service-initialized mobile wireless

phones. The document is precipitated

by a request for further consideration

filed by several public safety entities

and the Commission’s recognition that

the absence of call back capability is an

important public safety issue. The

document seeks comment on whether

several possible solutions for wireless

phones lacking call back capability, or

some technical solution applicable to all

non-initialized handsets, will further

the goals of the Commission’s 911 rules,

are technically feasible, and costeffective.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

July 9, 2001, and reply comments are

due on or before August 8, 2001. Public

comments on the information

collections are due August 13, 2001, and

comments by the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) are due October 11,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and reply

comments to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Washington, DC 20554. In addition to

filing comments with the Secretary, a

copy of any comments on the

information collections contained

herein should be submitted to Judy

Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, Room 1–C804, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or

via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to

Ed Springer, OMB Desk Officer, 10236

NEOB, 725–17th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20503 or via the

Internet to

Edward.Springer@omb.eop.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane

Phillips, 202–418–1310. For further

information concerning the information

collection contained in this Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, contact

Judy Boley, Federal Communications

Commission, 202–418–0214, or via the

Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Further

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

(FNPRM) in CC Docket No. 94–102; RM

8143; FCC 01–175, adopted May 23,

2001, and released May 25, 2001. The

complete text of this FNPRM is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Information Center,

Courtyard Level, 445 12th Street, SW.,

Washington, DC, and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, International Transcription

Services (ITS, Inc.), CY–B400, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC.

Synopsis of the FNPRM

1. This FNPRM originated in the

Commission’s earlier decision in this

proceeding, which regards wireless

enhanced 911 (E911) service, requiring

wireless carriers to forward all 911 calls

regardless of their service subscription

status and limiting carriers obligations

for 911 calls lacking call back capability

to delivering the call to the PSAP. (See

the Report and Order at 61 FR 40348,

August 2, 1996, and Memorandum

Opinion and Order at 63 FR 02631,

January 16, 1998.) These calls include

those from non-service initialized

phones (noninitialized phones) issued

through donor programs, and those from

911 only phones that limit usage to

outgoing 911 calls and are incapable of

receiving any incoming calls. PSAP call

back capability can be critical in

wireless E911 situations, where the

location of a mobile phone may not be

available and the caller may not know

his or her precise location or may omit

to provide location information to the

PSAP.

2. The Commission recently invited

comment on this issue in a Public

Notice (65 FR 3560, June 5, 2000) in

response to a request for further

consideration filed by several public

safety entities. Conflicting assertions

regarding technological constraints on

call back capability for noninitialized

phones and the importance of the issue

from a public safety perspective lead the

Commission to conclude that additional

information is necessary for an informed

decision on this matter. The FNPRM,

therefore, solicits comments on possible

technical solutions and on several of the

Commission’s alternatives, including

requirements that all carrier-donated

handsets be initialized on a limited

basis to enable call back by a PSAP and

labeled accordingly, and that all 911-

only handsets permit call back by the

PSAP and be labeled accordingly.

3. A third category of phones exists:

noninitialized phones for which the

service subscription has lapsed that are

retained by the owner or given to

friends or family members for

emergency use. The FNPRM tentatively

concludes that nothing can be done to

correct the call back problem for such

phones in the absence of a general

technical solution to the call back

problem because the Commission has

no authority to bar the use of such

phones or to mandate public education

with respect to their limitations. The

FNPRM therefore concludes that carrier

publicity concerning the problems

inherent in the use of noninitialized

phones, including those received from

friends and family, is the best means of

addressing this issues and should be

encouraged.

Procedural Matters

4. Pursuant to applicable procedures

set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the

Commission’s Rules, interested parties

may file comments in response to the

FNPRM in CC Docket No. 94–102 and

RM–8143 on or before July 9, 2001, and

reply comments on or before August 8,

2001. Comments and reply comments

should be filed in CC Docket No. 94–102

and should include a separate heading

to identify the comments for the Docket

Number. All relevant and timely

comments will be considered by the

Commission before final action is taken

in this proceeding. To file formally,

interested parties must file an original

and four copies of all comments, reply

comments, and supporting comments. If

interested parties want each

Commissioner to receive a personal

copy of their comments, they must file

an original plus nine copies. Interested

parties should send comments and reply

comments to the Office of the Secretary,

Federal Communications Commission,

Room TW–A325, 445 Twelfth Street,

SW., Washington, DC 20554, with

copies to Jane Phillips, Policy Division,

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at

445 Twelfth Street, SW., Washington,

DC 20554.

5. Comments also may be filed using

the Commission’s Electronic Comment

Filing System (ECFS). Comments filed

through the ECFS can be sent as an

electronic file via the Internet to http:/

/www.fcc.gov/e-mail/ecfs.html.

Generally, only one copy of an

electronic submission must be filed. In

completing the transmittal screen,

commenters should include their full

name, Postal Service mailing address,

and the applicable docket or rulemaking

numbers. Parties also may submit an

electronic comment by Internet E-Mail.

To obtain filing instructions for E-Mail

comments, commenters should send an

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should

include the following words in the body

of the message, ‘‘get form <your E-Mail

address>.’’ A sample form and

directions will be sent in reply.

6. Comments and reply comments

will be available for public inspection

during regular business hours at the

FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257,

at the Federal Communications

Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20554. Copies of

comments and reply comments are

available through the Commission’s

duplicating contractor: International

Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS, Inc.),

1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC

20037, (202) 857–3800.

31880 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Analysis

7. The actions contained in this

FNPRM have been analyzed with

respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 and found to impose a new

reporting requirement or burden on the

public. Implementation of this new

reporting requirement will be subject to

approval by the Office of Management

and Budget, as prescribed by the Act.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis—

Further NPRM

8. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA) (See 5 U.S.C. 603.

The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., has

been amended by the Contract with

America Advancement Act of 1996,

Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 847

(1996) (CWAA).) Title II of the CWAA

is the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

(SBREFA). The Commission has

prepared this Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the

possible significant economic impact on

small entities by the policies and rules

proposed in this Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), CC

Docket No. 94–102. 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

FNPRM. This is a summary of the IRFA.

The full text of the IRFA may be found

in Appendix B of the full text of the

FNPRM.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the

FNPRM

9. The FNPRM solicits additional

comment regarding enhanced 911

(E911) service to wireless phones

without call back capability, including

non-service initialized phones issued

through donor programs and 911-only

phones that limit usage to outgoing 911

calls and are incapable of receiving any

incoming calls. Conflicting assertions

regarding technological constraints on

call back capability for noninitialized

phones and the importance of a

responsive E911 system in general and

of facilitating PSAP response to E911

calls leads the Commission to conclude

that additional information is necessary

for an informed decision on this matter.

B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules

10. 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, 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

11. 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. The RFA

generally defines the term ‘‘small

entity’’ as having the same meaning as

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’

under Section 3 of the Small Business

Act, unless the Commission has

developed one or more definitions that

are appropriate for its activities. 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). A small

organization is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently

owned and operated and is not

dominant in its field.’’ Nationwide, as of

1992, there were approximately 275,801

small organizations.

12. The definition of ‘‘small

governmental entity’’ is one with

populations of fewer than 50,000. Of the

85,006 governmental entities in the

United States, the Commission

estimates that ninety-six percent, or

about 81,600, are small entities that may

be affected by our rules.

13. This FNPRM could result in rule

changes that, if adopted, would affect

small entities that currently are or may

become licensees in the cellular,

broadband Personal Communications

Services (PCS), or Specialized Mobile

Radio Services.

14. Cellular Equipment

Manufacturers. A labeling requirement,

if adopted, would affect manufacturers

of cellular equipment. The Commission

does not know how many cellular

equipment manufacturers are in the

current market. The 1994 County

Business Patterns Report of the Bureau

of the Census estimates that there are

920 companies that make

communications subscriber equipment.

This category includes not only cellular

equipment manufacturers, but television

and AM/FM radio manufacturers as

well. Thus, the number of cellular

equipment manufacturers is

considerably lower than 920. Under

SBA regulations, a ‘‘communications

equipment manufacturer,’’ which

includes not only U.S. cellular

equipment manufacturers but also firms

that manufacture radio and television

broadcasting and other communications

equipment, must have a total of 750 or

fewer employees in order to qualify as

a small business concern. Census

Bureau data from 1992 indicate that at

that time there were an estimated 858

such U.S. manufacturers and that 778

(91%) of these firms had 750 or fewer

employees and would therefore be

classified as small entities. The

Commission estimates that the current

action may affect approximately 837

small cellular equipment manufacturers.

15. Cellular Radiotelephone Service.

Neither the Commission nor the SBA

has developed a definition of small

entities specifically for cellular

licensees. Therefore, the applicable

definition of small entity is the

definition under the SBA rules

applicable to radiotelephone

communications. This provides that a

small entity is a radio telephone

company employing no more than 1,500

persons. According to the Bureau of the

Census, only twelve radiotelephone

firms from a total of 1,178 such firms,

which operated during 1992, had 1,000

or more employees. Therefore, even if

all twelve of these firms were cellular

telephone companies, nearly all cellular

carriers were small businesses under the

SBA’s definition. In addition, we note

that there are 1,758 cellular licenses;

however, a cellular licensee may own

several licenses. According to the most

recent Telecommunications Industry

Revenue data, 808 carriers reported that

they were engaged in the provision of

either cellular service or PCS, which are

combined in the data. The Commission

estimates that there are no more than

808 small cellular service carriers that

may be affected by these proposals, if

adopted.

16. Broadband Personal

Communications Service (PCS). The

broadband PCS spectrum is divided into

six frequency blocks designated A

through F, and the Commission has held

auctions for each block. The

Commission defined ‘‘small entity’’ for

Blocks C and F as an entity that has

average gross revenues of less than $40

million in the three previous calendar

years. For Block F, an additional

classification for ‘‘very small business’’

was added and is defined as an entity

that, together with their affiliates, has

average gross revenues of not more than

$15 million for the preceding three

calendar years. These regulations

defining ‘‘small entity’’ in the context of

broadband PCS auctions have been

approved by the SBA. The Commission

concludes that the number of small

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31881

broadband PCS licensees will include

the 90 winning C Block bidders, the 93

qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F

blocks, and the 48 winning bidders in

the reauction, for a total of

approximately 231 small entity PCS

providers as defined by the SBA and the

Commission’s auction rules. In addition,

the Commission estimates that the

number of additional C & F Block

broadband PCS licensees that may

ultimately be affected by these

proposals could be as many as 422.

17. Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR).

Pursuant to 47 CFR 90.814(b)(1), the

Commission has defined ‘‘small

business’’ for purposes of auctioning

900 MHz SMR licenses, 800 MHz SMR

licenses for the upper 200 channels, and

800 MHz SMR licenses for the lower

230 channels on the 800 MHz band as

a firm that has had average annual gross

revenues of $15 million or less in the

three preceding calendar years. The

SBA has approved this small business

size standard for the 800 MHz and 900

MHz auctions. The auction of the 1,020

SMR geographic area licenses for the

900 MHz SMR band began on December

5, 1995, and was completed on April 15,

1996. Sixty winning bidders for

geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz

band qualified as small businesses

under the $15 million size standard.

The auction of the 525 800 MHz SMR

geographic area licenses for the upper

200 channels began on October 28,

1997, and was completed on December

8, 1997. Ten winning bidders for

geographic area licenses for the upper

200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band

qualified as small businesses under the

$15 million size standard.

18. The lower 230 channels in the 800

SMR band are divided between General

Category channels (the upper 150

channels) and the lower 80 channels.

The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR

geographic area licenses (1,050–800

MHz licenses for the General Category

channels, and 3–800 MHz licenses for

the upper 200 channels from a previous

auction) for the General Category

channels began on August 16, 2000, and

was completed on September 2, 2000.

At the close of the auction, 1,030

licenses were won by bidders. Eleven

winning bidders for geographic area

licenses for the General Category

channels in the 800 MHz SMR band

qualified as small businesses under the

$15 million size standard. The auction

of the 2,800 800 MHz SMR geographic

area licenses for the lower 80 channels

in the 800 MHz SMR service began on

November 1, 2000, and was completed

on December 5, 2000. Nineteen winning

bidders for geographic area licenses for

the lower 80 channels in the 800 MHz

SMR band qualified as small businesses

under the $15 million size standard. In

addition, there are numerous incumbent

site-by-site SMR licensees on the 800

and 900 MHz bands. The Commission

awards bidding credits in auctions for

geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz

SMR licenses to firms that had revenues

of no more than $15 million in each of

the three previous calendar years.

19. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II

Licensees. The Phase II 220 MHz service

is a new service, and is subject to

spectrum auctions. The Commission has

adopted criteria for defining small

businesses and very small businesses for

purposes of determining their eligibility

for special provisions such as bidding

credits and installment payments. The

Commission has defined a small

business as an entity that, together with

its affiliates and controlling principals,

has average gross revenues not

exceeding $15 million for the preceding

three years. Additionally, a very small

business is defined as an entity that,

together with its affiliates and

controlling principals, has average gross

revenues that are not more than $3

million for the preceding three years.

The SBA has approved these

definitions. The Commission has held

two auctions for Phase II licenses for the

220 MHz band. Fifty-three (53) winning

bidders qualified as small or very small

entities.

D. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

20. If certain options discussed in the

FNPRM are adopted, all carrier-donated

handsets would be required to be

initialized on a limited basis to enable

call back by a PSAP and labeled

accordingly. Furthermore, all 911-only

handsets could be required to permit

call back by PSAPs and be labeled

accordingly. In both instances, this

would involve assigning the handsets a

phone number and accompanying

software upgrades. Details of these

proposed requirements are discussed in

paragraphs 7 through 19 of the full

FNPRM, supra. As noted in the FNPRM,

the compliance requirements for the

various technical alternatives are not

fully known. The FNPRM invites

comments on alternatives to these

options for addressing the call-back

issue, and any possible compliance

burdens associated with the

alternatives.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and

Significant Alternatives Considered

21. 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. See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).

22. The critical nature of the E911

proceeding in general and in particular

of providing PSAPs with the flexibility

to contact the caller in an emergency

situation limits the Commission’s ability

to provide small carriers with a less

burdensome set of E911 regulations than

those 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 importance of PSAP

call back capability in wireless E911

situations is that, in the excitement of a

crisis situation, the caller could easily

forget to provide the PSAP with location

information, and the PSAP might not be

able to trace the location of a wireless

phone because the individual could be

moving from place to place, and may

not be able to call the handset user back

to verify a location. The PSAP would, at

worst, be unable to respond, or would

respond on a delayed basis.

23. PSAPs and the majority of

wireless carriers who commented on the

call-back issue represent two different

perspectives on the issue. (See

paragraph 5 of the FNPRM.) PSAPs,

who initially asked that the Commission

‘‘take additional comment and revisit

the call back number issues to

determine if any further Commission

action is necessary or appropriate,’’

express concern that noninitialized

phones provide either no call back

information or outdated or inaccurate

information when used in areas where

E911 services have been implemented.

Comments filed by public service

interests assert that a technical solution

to the call back issue either exists or can

be easily devised to allow PSAPs to

identify noninitialized E911 calls and to

return the calls if necessary. A majority

of wireless service providers, on the

other hand, disagree, noting that no

viable technical solution has been

identified or endorsed by the Wireless

E911 Implementation Ad Hoc group.

24. As indicated in paragraph five of

the FNPRM, suggestions of record for

resolving the problem range from

assigning a prescribed series of numbers

31882 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

or letters to noninitialized phones to

notify the PSAP that no call back is

possible, to assigning a temporary call

back number or emergency service

routing key that permits call back. A

majority of wireless carriers, in

particular, advocate education and

labeling requirements to alert

consumers to the limitations of E911-

only and other noninitialized handsets.

25. In the absence of sufficient

information supporting a general

technical solution, the Commission is

considering several possible solutions to

the call-back problem, including a

requirement that all carrier-donated

handsets be initialized on a limited

basis to enable call back by a PSAP and

be labeled as such, and a requirement

that all 911-only handsets permit call

back by a PSAP and bear a label

apprising users of their limitations.

26. Paragraphs 9 through 12 of the

FNPRM discuss options regarding

carrier donated handsets. The most

obvious alternative would be for the

Commission to decline to adopt any

regulation regarding their distribution.

The Commission rejects this option as a

preliminary matter because it would

effectively nullify the benefits of E911

where the PSAP is unable to ascertain

the location or needs of an E911 caller.

Another alternative would be for the

Commission to adopt a regulation

merely requiring that donors label

donated handsets and provide

associated guidance to donees regarding

their handset’s lack of call back

capability. The labeling option would

focus the user on the urgency of the

E911 caller’s providing location

information immediately upon

contacting the PSAP, and would be

easier and less expensive for carriers

than a limited initialization solution.

However, the Commission has concerns

that a labeling requirement may be

inadequate, by itself, to satisfy the needs

of the populace in question. The final

option, a limited initialization solution,

could exacerbate the scarcity of phone

numbering resources and could deter

carriers from participating in donor

programs. However, the public safety

benefits offered by a limited

initialization solution appear to

outweigh the possible negative

repercussions. Thus, the Commission

solicits comment on a requirement that

carrier-donors initialize service on a

limited basis by assigning donated

handsets a call back number for the

limited purpose of permitting call back

by PSAPs. The Commission seeks

comment on the effects of such a

requirement on small businesses, and

on the extent of the burden of updating

software to accommodate PSAP call

back capability on donated handsets.

27. Paragraphs 13 through 17 of the

FNPRM consider alternative solutions to

the call back problems of 911-only

phones, which limit out-going calls to

911 and presently are incapable of

receiving any incoming calls. Again, the

option of taking no action is

unacceptable. Alternatively, the

Commission could require all

manufacturers of 911-only phones to

encode a standardized non-service

initialized ‘‘telephone number’’ that

would provide notice to PSAPs that the

handset used for a E911 call lacks call

back capability. On the positive side,

this alternative would put the PSAP on

notice that location information must be

obtained quickly from the E911 caller as

call back is impossible. On the other

hand, this alternative would apply only

prospectively and would not cover

previously marketed handsets. It could

also raise the price of 911-only

handsets, providing only limited service

to those who can afford them. A third

alternative would require that

manufacturers of 911-only phones label

the handsets and educate consumers

regarding the absence of call back

capability. The Commission is

concerned that, while a labeling and

education requirement would be easier

and less expensive to implement than a

limited initialization requirement, the

requirement would not cover handsets

previously marketed by manufacturers

and would be insufficient to reduce the

threat to public safety that a lack of vital

information concerning the caller’s

location or specific emergency needs

represents.

28. The Commission is considering a

requirement that these phones be

modified to allow a return call by the

PSAP. The requirement would apply

only prospectively and would not cover

previously marketed handsets. The

disadvantages of this approach include

the possibility that the additional costs

of implementing such a solution could

be a disincentive to the manufacturers

of 911-only handsets, thus eventually

removing them from the marketplace or

driving the cost up. Additionally, the

assignment of unique handset numbers

to such phones could exacerbate the

numbering shortage.

29. Finally, the Commission, as

discussed in paragraphs 18 and 19 of

the FNPRM, has identified a third

category of noninitialized phones, i.e.

noninitialized phones for which the

service subscription has usually lapsed,

which have been given to friends or

family members. At least one comment

advocates permitting a user’s

noninitialized handsets to be

reprogrammed to the same ESN as the

user’s service-initialized handset. The

Commission concludes that this option

would not solve the call back problem

for this category of users, and could, in

fact, create new opportunities for delay

and confusion for the PSAP trying to

locate the caller. In such cases, the

PSAP attempting to call back could

easily reach a phone other than the one

from which the E911 call was made,

because several phones would have not

only the same call back number but the

same ESN, and the network would be

unable to distinguish between them. It

appears that the Commission has no

means available to it to bar the use of

such phones or to mandate public

education with respect to their

limitations and that carrier publicity

concerning the disadvantages of relying

on noninitialized phones, including

those received from friends or family,

would be most efficacious in alleviating

the call-back problem with respect to

these phones.

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed

Rules

30. None.

Paperwork Reduction Act

31. The FNPRM proposes a new

paperwork collection. As part of its

continuing effort to reduce paperwork

burdens, the Commission invites the

general public and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to take

this opportunity to comment on the

information collections contained in

this FNPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,

Public Law 104–13. Public and agency

comments are due August 13, 2001.

OMB comments are due October 11,

2001. Comments should address (1)

Whether the proposed collection of

information is necessary for the proper

performance of the functions of the

Commission, including whether the

information shall have practical utility;

(2) the accuracy of the Commission’s

burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance

the quality, utility, and clarity of the

information collected; and (4) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of

information on the respondents,

including the use of automated

collection techniques or other forms of

information technology.

OMB Approval Number: None.

Title: Transition to 911 Emergency

Service: Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

Form No.: None.

Type of Review: New information

collection.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31883

1The date was later extended to September 1,

2004. 65 FR 46628.

2 Volkswagen also stated in its petition that it

supported the petition for reconsideration of the

final rule submitted by the Alliance of Automobile

Continued

Respondents: Business or other for

profit and non-profit.

Number of Respondents: 807.

Estimated Time Per Response: 30

minutes.

Total Annual Cost Burden: 0.

Total Annual Burden: 4031⁄2 hours.

Needs and Uses: The proposed

labeling requirements would serve to

educate consumers as to the capabilities

and limitations of their handsets thus

avoiding confusion resulting in delay in

responding to E911 calls.

Ordering Clauses

32. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 7,

10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 303, 308,

309(j), and 310 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,

154(i), 154(j), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208,

214, 301, 303, 308, 309(j), and 310, this

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

is adopted.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–14926 Filed 6–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

49 CFR Part 571

[Docket No. NHTSA–2001–9816]

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety

Standards; Child Restraint Anchorage

Systems

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration (NHTSA),

Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for

reconsideration.

SUMMARY: The Federal motor vehicle

safety standard on child restraint

anchorage systems requires vehicle

manufacturers to install child restraint

anchorage systems in passenger motor

vehicles. The standard specifies

‘‘marking and conspicuity’’

requirements for the lower bars of a

child restraint anchorage system to help

users locate and use the bars and to

inform or remind them that the

anchorage system is present. The

standard was amended to permit

manufacturers to meet these

requirements, for a limited period, by

installing at least one anchorage bar so

that it is visible, or by installing a

guidance fixture or one seat marking

feature that is visible to a person

installing a child restraint test fixture.

Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen of

America, Inc. (Volkswagen) petitioned

for reconsideration of the rule.

Volkswagen had been providing

guidance fixtures on an ‘‘as requested’’

basis, rather than providing them with

each new vehicle. The petitioner

requested NHTSA to defer the effective

date of the requirement for a guidance

fixture until the manufacturer could

obtain a supply of guidance fixtures

from its supplier. For the reasons

provided in this document, we have

denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

nonlegal issues: Mike Huntley, Office of

Crashworthiness Standards, Special

Vehicle and Systems Division

(telephone 202–366–0029).

For legal issues: Deirdre Fujita, Office

of the Chief Counsel (202–366–2992).

Both can be reached at the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

400 Seventh St., SW., Washington, DC

20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

NHTSA’s March 1999 Final Rule

On March 5, 1999, NHTSA published

a final rule establishing Federal Motor

Vehicle Safety Standard No. 225, ‘‘Child

Restraint Anchorage Systems’’ (49 CFR

571.225), to require motor vehicle

manufacturers to install child restraint

anchorage systems that are standardized

and independent of the vehicle seat

belts (64 FR 10786) (Docket No. 98–

3390, notice 2). Each new system has

two lower anchorages and one tether

anchorage. Each lower anchorage is a

rigid round rod or bar onto which the

connector of a child restraint system can

be snapped. The bars are located at the

intersection of the vehicle seat cushion

and seat back. The upper anchorage is

a fixture to which the tether of a child

restraint system can be hooked.

The final rule required vehicle

manufacturers to begin phasing-in the

tether anchorage of the child restraint

anchorage system in the production year

beginning September 1, 1999, with full

implementation beginning September 1,

2000. Manufacturers were required to

begin phasing-in the lower anchorages

in the production year beginning on

September 1, 2000, with full

implementation beginning September 1,

2002.

The final rule was based on technical

specifications set forth in November

1996 and June 1998 drafts of a child

restraint anchorage system standard

being developed by a working group of

the International Organization for

Standardization (ISO). The technical

specifications covered matters such as

the design and configuration of the

anchorage system, and the strength of

each component of the system. While

many concepts and requirements of the

draft ISO standard were incorporated

into the final rule on Standard No. 225,

the final rule highlighted differences

between the rule and the draft ISO

standard with regard to the strength

required of the anchorages, and well as

to the marking of the anchorages and

other requirements.

NHTSA’s August 1999 Response to

Petitions for Reconsideration

There were a number of petitions for

reconsideration suggesting revisions to

the March 1999 final rule. Most of the

petitioners were vehicle manufacturers

concerned about their ability to meet the

strength requirements of the final rule,

particularly within the given leadtime.

The vehicle manufacturers stated that

they had been designing child restraint

anchorage systems to meet the strength

requirements that were under

consideration by the ISO for the lower

anchorages and by Transport Canada for

the tether anchorage, and were prepared

to meet those requirements by the

compliance date of the rule, but not the

strength requirements that the rule had

specified. In response to this concern,

NHTSA published a final rule that

permitted vehicle manufacturers to meet

alternative requirements during an

initial several-year period (64 FR 47566,

August 31, 1999) (Docket No. 99–6160).

We specified in that document that,

from September 1, 2000 until August 31,

2002,1 manufacturers installing the

lower anchorage bars would have the

option of meeting the requirements set

forth in the March 1999 final rule, or

requirements that were very similar, but

not identical, to the June 1998 draft ISO

standard.

The March 1999 final rule had

required a permanent mark on the

vehicle seat back at the location of each

lower bar location to help

knowledgeable motorists locate and use

the bars, and to inform or remind other

motorists that the bars are present

(S9.5). The mark would not be required,

the rule had specified, if the lower bars

were visible (S9.5(b)). In a April 16,

1999 petition for reconsideration of the

rule, Volkswagen stated that a ‘‘guide

device installed onto the anchorage at

the seat bight’’ should be considered ‘‘as

a marking device or an anchorage

locator.’’ 2 In the August 31, 1999