Federal Communications Commission.
This document responds to a petition for clarification and/or declaratory ruling by amending the Commission's rules to clarify what constitutes a valid Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) request for Enhanced 911 (E911) service so as to trigger a wireless carrier's obligation to implement E911 within the six-month period following the date of the request. If challenged by the wireless carrier, the request will be deemed valid if the PSAP making the request demonstrates E911-readiness as provided in the amended rule. This action is taken to ensure the continuing clarity of E911 obligations and thus avoid the possibility of confusion leading to delays in critically important emergency services. The decision is adopted to respond to the petition for clarification and/or declaratory ruling filed by the City of Richardson, Texas.
This document contains revised information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of this amendment. Public comment on the information collections are due January 2, 2002.
A copy of any comments on the information collection 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 email@example.com.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jane Phillips, 202-418-1310. For further information concerning the information collection contained in this document, contact Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at firstname.lastname@example.org.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
This is a summary of the Commission's Order in CC Docket No. 94-102, FCC No. 01-293, adopted October 2, 2001, and released October 17, 2001. The complete text of this Order 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, Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Copies of the full text of this decision may also be found at the Commission's Internet site at www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis of the Order
1. The Commission responds to a petition for clarification and/or declaratory ruling filed by the city of Richardson, Texas. The Commission amends its rules to clarify what constitutes a valid Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) request so as to trigger a wireless carrier's obligation to provide enhanced 911 (E911) service to that PSAP. Specifically, the Order finds that a wireless carrier must implement E911 within the six-month period following the date of the PSAP's request and that, if challenged by the wireless carrier, the request will be deemed valid if the PSAP making the request demonstrates that: (1) A mechanism is in place by which the PSAP will recover its costs of the facilities and equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements; (2) the PSAP has ordered the equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data and the equipment will be installed and capable of receiving and utilizing that data no later than six months following its request; and (3) the PSAP has made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange carrier (LEC) for the necessary trunking and other facilities to enable the E911 data to be transmitted to the PSAP. In the alternative, a PSAP may demonstrate that a funding mechanism is in place, that it is E911-capable using a Non-call Associated Signaling (NCAS) technology, and that it has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC to upgrade the Automatic Location Identification (ALI) database.
2. The Commission established periods for public comment and replies to those comments upon receiving the Richardson petition. (See the document at 66 FR 19781, April 17, 2001, and a second document at 66 FR 36989, July 16, 2001.) Both representatives of PSAPs and of wireless carriers have participated in the record established during the comment periods, and these Start Printed Page 55619comments are discussed in paragraphs 11-30 of the full text of the Order. The Commission believes that the criteria adopted in the Order represent a fair balance between the interests of both PSAPs and carriers.
3. The first alternative that PSAPs may choose to demonstrate their E911-capability, if challenged by a carrier, is a three tiered approach discussed in paragraphs 14 through 16 of the full Order. In this approach, the PSAP must demonstrate that a funding mechanism exists for recovering its costs of facilities and equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements to be supplied by the carrier. Citation to or a copy of the relevant finding legislation is sufficient to satisfy this demonstration. As part of this approach, a qualified PSAP must also demonstrate that it has ordered the equipment necessary to fulfill its E911 obligations. This substantiation could take the form of a listing of the necessary facilities and equipment and copies of the relevant vendor purchase orders as well as commitments that the vendor perform under the agreement within the six-month period following the date of the PSAP's request for service. The last element of the three-tier approach requires that a PSAP demonstrate that it has made a timely request to the proper LEC for facilities and equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements requested. Evidence in this regard could consist of the letter of request, as well an any other pertinent correspondence between the PSAP and the LEC.
4. Alternatively, a PSAP, could satisfy the E911-capability requirement by demonstrating that funding mechanism is in place, that it has made a timely request to the LEC for upgrades to the ALI database, and that it is E911-capable using an NCAS technology, as detailed in paragraph 17 of the full text of the Order.
5. The Commission believes that the criteria adopted in the Order will be sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubts about a PSAP's capability of receiving and utilizing the E911 data elements by the end of the six-month period established for carrier compliance. The Commission declines to adopt more restrictive criteria, such as those proposed by commenters in response to the two documents, because it finds that more restrictive criteria would be unnecessary, would countermand the Commission's determination to leave the specifics of Phase I and Phase II compliance to the parties, and could interfere with the negotiation process, ultimately delaying Phase I and Phase II implementation.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
6. This contains a revised information collection. The Commission has requested emergency approval from the Office of Management and Budget for the revised information collection. As part of the Commission's continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, the Commission invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this Order, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due January 2, 2002. Comments should address: (a) Whether the revised collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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: 3060-0813.
Title: Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems.
Form No.: N.A.
Type of Review: Revision of an existing information collection.
Respondents: Business or other for profit; government entities.
Number of Respondents: 42,324.
Estimated Time Per Response: 1 hour.
Total Annual Burden: 198,200 hours.
Cost to Respondents: 0.
Needs and Uses: The demonstration of E911 capability will be required only when a requesting PSAP's E911 capability is challenged by the wireless carrier and will be used by the carrier to verify that the requesting PSAP is in reality capable of receiving and using E911 data and that the carrier must therefore provide E911 service.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
7. This is a summary of the Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The full text of the Analysis may be found in Appendix C of the Order.
8. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities was incorporated in the second document in CC Docket No. 94-102 (the second document). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the second document, including comments on the IRFA. The comments received are discussed in this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Order
9. The rule amendment mandated by this Order is meant to clarify the process by which a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) whose request for Enhanced 911 (E911) service is challenged by a wireless carrier may demonstrate E911 capability. This information will ensure that PSAPs and carriers are working with the same knowledge, thus avoiding delays in implementing E911 service or unnecessary or premature investments due to confusion over the PSAP's preparedness. Specifically, for purposes of resolving a challenge to a PSAP request for E911 service, a wireless carrier must implement E911 within the six-month period following the date of the PSAP's request if the PSAP making the request demonstrates that: (a) A mechanism is in place by which the PSAP will recover its costs of the facilities and equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data elements; (b) the PSAP has ordered the equipment necessary to receive and utilize the E911 data and the equipment will be installed and capable of receiving and utilizing that data no later than six months following its request; and (c) the PSAP has made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange carrier (LEC) for the necessary trunking and other facilities to enable the E911 data to be transmitted to the PSAP. In the alternative, a challenged PSAP may demonstrate that a funding mechanism is in place, that it is Phase I-capable using a Non-call Associated Signaling (NCAS) technology, and that it has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC for the upgrade to the ALI database necessary to enable the PSAP to receive the Phase II data.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
10. The Commission received two direct responses to the IRFA. First, the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) argues that the IRFA in this proceeding is deficient, in that it ignores the possible impact on small and rural wireless carriers, and instead focuses only on the possible impact of the proposed rules on PSAPs. RCA also contends that the Start Printed Page 55620IRFA failed to assess adequately the impact of imposing readiness criteria, as opposed to an actual readiness requirement. RCA further denies that an amendment to the rule, clarifying when and how a PSAP will be considered E911-capable, would benefit small/rural carriers by making confirmation of a PSAP's readiness less burdensome. RCA asserts that the burden on small carriers can be minimized by maintaining the application of the Commission's existing rule.
11. In its response to the IRFA, the National Telephone Cooperative Association (NTCA) maintains that small carriers may waste limited resources providing a service that a PSAP may not be ready to utilize, unless the Commission requires that a PSAP be actually capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the service at the time it requests the service. NTCA further argues that the burden placed on a small PSAP by the requirement that PSAPs be able to utilize the information prior to requiring such information from a carrier would be “nonexistent.”
12. The Commission responds to this criticism in detail in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the Order. Section C of the IRFA describing the number of small entities affected by the proposed rules, emphasized that the IRFA was drafted at early point in the process when the Commission acknowledged it was premature to quantify the specific impact of the suggested action on any of the affected entities, and specifically invited comment on this issue. Section E of the IRFA noted that leaving the rule as it now stands was an option and was considered with the other alternatives mentioned in the IRFA before the second document was issued. The IRFA concentrated on analyzing the effect of a rule amendment on small PSAPs rather than small carriers because the burden of preparing any type of demonstration would fall on PSAPs and the burden on small carriers would not change. The key issue under discussion in the IRFA was how to make it easier for carriers of all sizes to determine when to provide a PSAP with E911 service without running the financial risk of offering service to a PSAP that is unprepared to use the service. Regardless of whether the Commission elected to maintain the existing rule or change it in some way to require a demonstration of E911 capability, the burden of proof of capability would fall on PSAPs, and the effect on carriers would either remain the same or, the Commission believed at the time of the IRFA and still believes, might even reduce the burden on carriers by possibly reducing the time carriers invest in verifying that a PSAP is E911 qualified. No convincing evidence was presented to the Commission to contradict this viewpoint. However, the Commission has determined that a showing would be appropriate only if a carrier decides to challenge a PSAP's request for service.
13. The Commission also received comments not in direct response to the IRFA, but regarding matters of interest to small entities. In its comments, the Rural Companies Group contends that the second document to assess adequately the impact of imposing readiness criteria, as opposed to an actual readiness requirement, on small and rural carriers. Further, the Rural Companies Group argues that allowing a carrier to wait until a PSAP has full technological capability may enable smaller carriers to take advantage of less-costly technological innovations or of cheaper prices, as existing technologies become less costly.
14. In its reply comments, Dobson Communications Corporation argues that the current rule provides the appropriate certainty for carriers and does not hinder the deployment of Phase II E911 services. Dobson therefore urges the Commission to not amend or clarify the existing rule.
15. Because small carriers lack large customer bases to absorb their E911 implementation costs, a primary concern exists that small and mid-sized carriers are more vulnerable to delays in implementation if a PSAP shows an inability to receive and utilize the E911 data supplied by these smaller carriers. Likewise, there is a concern that smaller carriers may be forced to devote time and resources to some PSAPs that prove to be incapable of receiving E911 service, to the detriment of those PSAPs that have current capability.
16. Taking these concerns into account, the Commission finds that the amendments to the rule, as described in the Order, will in fact reduce the vulnerability of the smaller carriers, as they will be working along with the PSAPs to ensure implementation of E911 service on a timely basis, and will better be able to plan their progression and allocation of resources during the implementation process. The Commission also finds that the rule amendments will make confirmation of a PSAP's readiness for E911 service less burdensome for all carriers, as the onus is placed on the PSAPs to demonstrate readiness as described in the Order, and because the showing will only be required to settle a challenge to the PSAP's preparedness.
17. The Commission finds unpersuasive the assertion that smaller carriers may be able to benefit from less-costly technological innovations by waiting to provide service. While it is possible that smaller carriers will pay less the longer they wait to provide service, the Commission finds that without the amendments to the existing rule, the smaller PSAPs will be unduly burdened, and will be more vulnerable, if required to be fully capable of receiving E911 service, without their providers' having to even begin the process of supplying the service.
18. Considering the potential burdens placed on all small entities, the Commission finds that the institution of objective criteria by rule amendment will benefit all PSAPs and carriers, including small entities, by more clearly defining E911 readiness, thus reducing the potential for misunderstanding between parties, and by reducing instances of delay in E911 implementation. In turn, this will reduce the likelihood that any PSAP or carrier, including all small entities, will have to expend its limited capital resources prematurely and/or improvidently.
19. Finally, as discussed in paragraph 29 of the Order, the Commission is sympathetic to the concerns of all small entities, carriers and PSAPs. In reaching its decision in the Order, the Commission attempted to balance these interests with critical interests at stake in this proceeding. The Commission believes that the approach taken in the Order will, ultimately, provide carriers of all sizes, including small carriers, with the tools they need to determine whether a PSAP will, in reality, be E911 capable, while not placing an unnecessarily onerous burden on PSAPs, 96 percent of whom qualify as small entities. Again, the showing will only be necessary when a PSAP's request for E911 service is challenged on the basis of preparedness.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply
20. 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 Start Printed Page 55621developed one or more definitions that are appropriate for its activities. Nationwide, there are 4.44 million small business firms, according to SBA reporting data.
21. 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-for-profit 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.
22. The definition of “small governmental jurisdiction” is one with populations of fewer than 50,000. There are 85,006 governmental jurisdictions in the nation. This number includes such entities as states, counties, cities, utility districts and school districts. There are no figures available on what portion of this number has populations of fewer than 50,000. However, this number includes 38,978 counties, cities and towns, and of those, 37,556, or ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all government entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, the Commission estimates that ninety-six percent, or about 81,600, are small entities that may be affected by our rules.
23. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed definitions for small providers of the specific industries affected. Therefore, throughout our analysis, the Commission uses the closest applicable definition under the SBA rules, the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) standards for “Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications” and “Wired Telecommunications Carriers.” According to this standard, a small entity is one with no more than 1,500 employees. To determine which of the affected entities in the affected services fit into the SBA definition of small business, the Commission has consistently referred to Table 5.3 in Trends in Telephone Service (Trends), a report published annually by the Commission's Common Carrier Bureau.
24. The Commission has included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its field of operation.” The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in scope. The Commission has therefore included small incumbent carriers in this RFA analysis, although the Commission emphasizes that this RFA action has no effect on the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.
25. Local Exchange Carriers. According to the most recent Trends data, 1,335 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are either dominant in their field of operations, or are not independently owned. However, Trends indicates that 1,037 local exchange carriers report that, in combination with their affiliates, they have 1,500 or fewer employees, and would thus be considered small businesses as defined by NAICS.
26 Also included in the number of local exchange carriers is the rural radio telephone service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio Systems (BETRS). There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as small entities under the NAICS definition.
27. Competitive Access Providers and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CAPs and CLECs). Trends indicates that 349 CAPs and CLECs, 87 local resellers, and 60 other local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of competitive local exchange services. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these carriers that are not independently owned and operated. However, Trends states that 297 CAPs and CLECs, 86 local resellers, and 56 other local exchange carriers report that, in combination with their affiliates, they have 1,500 or fewer employees, for a total of 439 such entities qualified as small entities.
28. Fixed Local Service Providers and Payphone Providers. Trends reports that there are 1,831 fixed local service providers and 758 payphone providers. Using the NAICS standard for small entity of fewer than 1,500 employees, Trends estimates that 1,476 fixed local service providers, in combination with affiliates, have 1,500 or fewer employees and thus qualify as small entities. In addition, 755 payphone providers report that, in combination with their affiliates, they employ 1,500 or fewer individuals.
29. Wireless Telephone Including Cellular, Personal Communications Service (PCS) and SMR Telephony Carriers. There are 806 entities in this category as estimated in Trends, and 323 such licensees in combination with their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees, and thus qualify, using the NAICS guide, as small businesses.
30. Other Mobile Service Providers. Trends estimates that there are 44 providers of other mobile services, and again using the NAICS standard, 43 providers of other mobile services utilize with their affiliates 1,500 or fewer employees, and thus may be considered small entities.
31. Toll Service Providers. Trends calculates that there are 738 toll service providers, including 204 interexchange carriers, 21 operator service providers, 21 pre-paid calling card providers, 21 satellite service carriers, 454 toll resellers, and 17 carriers providing other toll services. Trends further estimates that 656 toll service providers with their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees and thus qualify as small entities as defined by NAICS. This figure includes 163 interexchange carriers, 20 operator service providers, 20 pre-paid calling card providers, 16 satellite service carriers, 423 toll resellers, and 15 carriers providing other toll services.
32. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several TV broadcast channels that are not otherwise used for TV broadcasting in the coastal area of the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. At present, there are approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is unable at this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small entities under the SBA definition for radiotelephone communications. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this FRFA, that all of the 55 licensees are small entities, as that term is defined by NAICS.
33. Public Safety Answering Points. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to PSAPs. In order to give a numerical quantification of the number of PSAPs that are small entities affected by the rule modifications, it appears there are approximately 10,000 PSAPs nationwide. For purposes of this FRFA, The Commission assumes that all of the PSAPs are small entities, and may be affected by the rule amendments.Start Printed Page 55622
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
34. As indicated in paragraph 1 of the Order, if a PSAP's request for E911 service is challenged by a wireless carrier, the PSAP must make a demonstration to the carrier, as detailed in Section A, in this FRFA. In the alternative, the PSAP may demonstrate that a funding mechanism is in place, that it is Phase I-capable, using a Non-Call Associated Signaling (NCAS) technology, and that it has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC for the upgrade to the ALI database necessary to enable the PSAP to receive the Phase II data. Once the showing is made, the carrier must implement E911 within six months of the date of the PSAP's request.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
35. The Commission is severely limited in this proceeding as to minimizing the burden on small entities. The proceeding is intended to provide all Americans with the most reliable, responsive emergency services that are technologically possible. The critical nature of this goal demands that all entities involved, regardless of size, bear the same responsibility for complying with requirements adopted to expedite reaching this goal. A delay in response caused by a small entity could result in the same fatal consequences as a delay caused by a large entity.
36. Several commenters have asserted the possibility that small carriers may expend monies prematurely and/or improvidently if the PSAPs request E911 service, but are not fully capable of receiving and utilizing it within six months. The alternative adopted herein is intended to minimize the possibility of this situation's developing by providing criteria that PSAPS and carriers may use to determine if a PSAP, whose E911 capability is challenged, is in reality prepared to use the service within six months of the request. Commenters who maintain that small carriers are at risk, ignore the fact that smaller carriers relying on smaller customer bases will likely be dealing with PSAPs that are themselves small governmental entities facing similar financial constraints. It would therefore be inequitable and short-sighted to require a small governmental entity to fund fully its share of the E911 costs, while allowing a small business entity to wait several months before funding its own share.
37. The Commission considered several alternatives before reaching its final decision in the Order. First, the Commission could have left the existing rule as it stands with regard to small entities. The Commission believes, however, that this would inevitably lead to more delays due to confusion as to when a PSAP has made a valid E911 service request. The Commission could also amend the rule to remove demonstration burdens and criteria on PSAPs. This alternative would seem to have a greater chance of negatively impacting small carriers though, particularly in terms of risking financial losses when a PSAP requesting E911 service claims to be fully E911 capable but isn't. In this case, carriers could provide the service prematurely and diminish the value of their financial investment until the PSAP is “in actuality” E911 capable. Finally, the Commission could amend the rule to place a more burdensome demonstration requirement on PSAPs, a course favored by several carrier commenters. As discussed in paragraphs 18 through 20 of the Order, the Commission finds that this alternative would not be beneficial for any of the involved parties. Not only would this place an unnecessarily oppressive burden on PSAPs, most of whom are small entities, but small carriers would need to spend more time and resources reviewing and evaluating the submission.
38. Commenters encouraged the Commission to require small governmental entities to fund fully their share of the E911 costs and establish a fully functional system before requiring small carriers to provide the requisite service. This alternative, while it relieves, for a while, the burden on small carriers, places the burden on small governmental entities. In addition, this alternative places all of the risk and uncertainty on the PSAPs, most of whom are small entities, and could delay the implementation of this vital public safety service for several months. The alternative adopted seeks to balance the burden between small carriers and small governmental entities by providing that the showing is only required when a PSAP's claim of E911 capability is challenged by a carrier. Therefore, no demonstration is required of the PSAP unless a carrier elects to set the newly adopted process in motion by challenging a PSAP's E911 capability. The PSAP would then need to make a demonstration that it is E911 capable. To satisfy this requirement, a PSAP may use the three-tier option by demonstrating that a cost recovery mechanism is in place, that the equipment needed to receive and utilize the E911 data has been ordered and will be installed and capable of receiving and utilizing E911 data no later than six months after its request for E911 service and that the PSAP has made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange carrier for the encessary trunking and other facilities to enable the E911 data to be transmitted to the PSAP. This three-tier option is more fully described in paragraphs 14-16 of the Order. Alternatively, as described in paragraph 17 of the Order, the PSAP may demonstrate that a funding mechanism is in place, that it is Phase I-capable, and that it has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC for the upgrade to the ALI database necessary to enable the PSAP to receive the Phase II data.
39. As noted in paragraph 11 of the Order, as well as in several of the comments, the process of implementing E911 services must be a joint and concerted effort between the carriers and the PSAPs. Neither side can perform the necessary functions required to implement timely and effective E911 service without working with the other. While the Commission has taken into account the concerns of small carriers, it cannot do so to the detriment of small PSAPs. This alternative balances the concerns of all parties, including those that may be small entities, and encourages all parties to work together to minimize delays and financial risk. In light of the critical nature of our E911 rules and the need for ubiquitous, reliable emergency services, all entities involved, regardless of size, must comply with those rules.
40. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of this Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
41. The Petition filed by the City of Richardson is granted as provided in the Order.
42. This document contains revised information collection requirements that have not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date of this rule amendment. Public comment on the information collections are due January 2, 2002. Start Printed Page 55623
43. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
- Communications common carrier
- Communications equipment
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:Start Part
PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
2. Section 20.18 is amended by revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:
(j) Conditions for enhanced 911 services. The requirements set forth in paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section shall be applicable only if the administrator of the designated Public Safety Answering Point has requested the services required under those paragraphs and is capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the service, and a mechanism for recovering the Public Safety Answering Point's costs of the enhanced 911 service is in place. A Public Safety Answering Point will be deemed capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the service requested if it can demonstrate that it has ordered the necessary equipment and has commitments from suppliers to have it installed and operational within the six-month period specified in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, and can demonstrate that it has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC for the necessary trunking and other facilities. In the alternative, a Public Safety Answering Point will be deemed capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with Phase II service if it is Phase I-capable using an NCAS methodology, and if it can demonstrate that it has made a timely request to the appropriate LEC for the ALI database upgrade necessary to receive the Phase II information.
[FR Doc. 01-27605 Filed 11-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P