*Pages 1--74 from Microsoft Word - 33872* Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Memorandum of Understanding and Arrangements; Petition of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to Amend Part 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Emissions Limits for Mobile and Portable Earth Stations Operating in the 1610- 1660. 5 MHz Band ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CC Docket No. 94- 102 IB Docket No. 99- 67 REPORT AND ORDER AND SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: November 13, 2003 Released: December 1, 2003 Comments date: [45 days from publication in the Federal Register] Reply Comments date: [75 days from publication in the Federal Register] By the Commission: Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Copps, Martin, and Adelstein issuing separate statements. Paragraph No. I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................. 4 III. LEGAL AUTHORITY.................................................................................................................. 12 IV. SERVICE- BY- SERVICE DECISIONS ........................................................................................ 18 A. Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) ........................................................................................ 20 B. Multi- Line Telephone Systems......................................................................................... 49 C. Telematics......................................................................................................................... 64 D. Resold and Pre- paid Calling ............................................................................................. 91 E. Disposable Phones and Personal Data Assistants ........................................................... 101 F. Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems ...................................................... 105 V. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING ........................................... 107 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 4 culmination of efforts by the public safety community, the wireless telecommunications industry, and the Commission to improve the quality and reliability of 911 services to wireless customers nationwide. In the E911 First Report and Order, the Commission specified criteria for determining which licensees should be subject to its E911 requirements. It required compliance by those licensees (1) that offered real- time, two- way switched voice service, interconnected with the public switched network, either on a stand- alone basis or packaged with other telecommunications services; (2) whose customers clearly expected access to 911 and E911; (3) that competed with analog and broadband PCS providers; and (4) where it is technically and operationally feasible to provide enhanced 911 service. 8 Based on these criteria, the Commission determined that cellular licensees, broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS) licensees, and certain Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees, 9 collectively “covered carriers,” would be required to meet basic and enhanced 911 service requirements for completing emergency calls, including forwarding all 911 calls without delay 10 and relaying a caller’s Automatic Number Identification (ANI) and Automatic Location Information (ALI) to the appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). 11 The Commission deferred a decision on whether to require compliance with its enhanced 911 rules by multi- line systems, 12 but has continued to refresh the record on multi- line systems. 13 6. MSS. In addition, the Commission concluded that MSS should not be required, at that time, to provide appropriate access to emergency services (neither basic nor enhanced 911), given technological impediments and the coordination of international standards. 14 The Commission did indicate that it would consider adopting requirements at a later time for MSS, and urged MSS providers to continue to cooperate with public safety agencies in the development of mutually acceptable means of accessing emergency services. 15 The Commission, however, noted that it expected that MSS providers would eventually need to comply 16 and “provide appropriate access to emergency services. . . .” 17 8 Id. at 18716- 18, paras. 80- 84. 9 The Commission’s E911 requirements covered only certain SMR licensees that held either licenses or authorizations to operate 800 MHz or 900 MHz service. E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18716- 18, paras. 80- 84. “Covered SMR” also included those 800/ 900 MHz SMR licensees that offered real- time, two- way switched voice service that was interconnected with the public switched network, either on a stand- alone basis or packaged with other telecommunications services. Id. 10 See E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18692- 97, paras. 29- 42 (requiring covered carriers to transmit all 911 calls without subjecting them to any call validation procedures). 11 E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18689- 18722, paras. 24- 91. Recognizing the challenges of implementation of E911 requirements, the Commission adopted a phased implementation plan for the covered carriers. Phase I implementation, which requires a covered carrier to transmit a 911 caller’s call- back number and cell site to the appropriate PSAP, began on April 1, 1998. See 47 C. F. R. § 20. 18( d). Phase II implementation, which requires a covered carrier to transmit a 911 caller’s location information to the appropriate PSAP, began on October 1, 2001. See 47 C. F. R. § 20. 18 (e), (h). 12 E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18678 n. 1. 13 See Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on Telident’s Enhanced 911 Part 68 Recommendations, CC Docket No. 94- 102, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 22, 475 (1996); see also Common Carrier Bureau Seeks Comment on Enhanced 911 Wireless Consensus Agreement, CC Docket No. 94- 102, Public Notice, 12 FCC Rcd 24323 (1997). 14 See E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18718, para. 83. 15 Id. See also Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94- 102, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22665 at para. 88 (1997) (Wireless E911 First Recon Order). 16 See First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18718, para. 83. 17 Wireless E911 Recon Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22665, para. 88. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 5 7. The Commission again addressed the subject of emergency- call service for MSS users in IB Docket No. 99- 67, which primarily concerns adoption of rules to facilitate and promote international circulation of customer- operated satellite earth terminals used for Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS). In the initial Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in that proceeding, issued in 1999, the Commission also sought comment as to whether, in light of recent technological developments, it should require MSS providers to implement 911 features, subject to transitional measures to avert adverse impact on systems already in operation or at an advanced stage of development. 18 The Commission received 30 comments and 16 replies in response to the GMPCS NPRM, representing 34 entities. Of these, 18 parties filed comments and/ or replies regarding the 911 issues. 19 8. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposed licensing and service rules for the 2 GHz MSS, the Commission inquired whether it should require licensees in this service to implement basic and/ or enhanced 911 capabilities. 20 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. 21 Therefore, the Commission decided that it would address issues concerning 911 requirements for 2 GHz MSS in the more general 911 inquiry conducted in the GMPCS proceeding. 22 To that end, the Commission directed the International Bureau to issue a public notice in the GMPCS proceeding to request additional information “regarding the technological, regulatory, and international aspects of Basic 911 and E911 for satellite services.” 23 Following the December 2000 release of such public notice, 24 an informal meeting held between Bureau staff and several satellite licensees regarding currently used emergency call procedures provided additional information in this docket. 25 9. Enhanced 911 Scope Proceeding. In 1999, Congress established 911 as the universal emergency service number. 26 Through the 911 Act, Congress sought to “facilitate the prompt 18 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, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 5871 (1999), at para. 98 (1999) (GMPCS NPRM). 19 See Appendix A for a listing of the commenting parties. 20 See Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No. 99- 81, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 4843, 4885, para. 94 (1999) (2 GHz NPRM). 21 See Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No. 99- 81, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16127, 16185, para. 125 (2000) (2 GHz Report and Order). 22 Id. While the Commission declined to adopt any 911 requirements for 2 GHz MSS, it did require that any handset used for 2 GHz MSS that does not have access to basic 911 or E911 clearly indicate the lack of these functions with a label or sticker affixed to the handsets. This labeling requirement remains in effect until the Commission adopts an order in the GMPCS proceeding. Id. at para. 126. 23 Id. at para. 125. 24 International Bureau Invites Further Comment Regarding Adoption of 911 Requirements for Satellite Services, IB Docket No. 99- 67, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 3780 (2000) (Satellite 911 Public Notice). 25 Ex Parte Meeting in IB Docket No. 99- 67, Memorandum from Arthur Lechtman, Satellite and Radiocommunication Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, February 22, 2002 (Feb. 22 Ex Parte Memo). 26 See Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106- 81, 113 Stat. 1286 (codified at 47 USC §§ 222, 251( e)) (Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999). 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 6 deployment . . . of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end- to- end infrastructure for communications, including wireless communications, to meet the Nation’s public safety . . . needs.” 27 10. In 2002, the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (E911 Scope NPRM) that recognized the need to inquire about the scope of the obligation to provide access to 911 and enhanced 911 services. 28 The E911 Scope NPRM sought comment on whether providers of new and emerging services that are not currently required to provide enhanced 911 service should be required to do so. The E911 Scope NPRM sought comment, for example, on whether telematics providers should be required to connect their “hot button” calls directly to the appropriate PSAP. 29 The E911 Scope NPRM also sought comment on whether mobile satellite services should have an obligation and if so how that obligation should be fulfilled. 30 11. In the E911 Scope NPRM, the Commission indicated that the record on MSS 911 issues justified proposing emergency service rules for satellite services. Therefore, we sought comment on a requirement that MSS carriers establish operator- staffed emergency service bureaus or call centers to answer customer 911 calls and forward them to appropriate local emergency personnel. 31 In light of our long- standing intention that MSS comply with E911 rules, we also sought comment on more detailed questions concerning how MSS should provide access to enhanced 911 service. 32 We also asked how integration of an ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) into an MSS network might affect the analysis of MSS deployment of E911 services, consistent with our rules. 33 III. LEGAL AUTHORITY 12. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we asked for comment on the Commission’s general authority to impose 911 and E911 requirements on the service providers. We noted, for example, that the Commission previously determined that that MSS would eventually be subject to 911 requirements, but had not imposed such requirements for other policy reasons. Still, the Commission has stated that “the public interest is likely to require that all CMRS real time two- way voice communication services provide reasonable and effective access to emergency services.” 34 In light of the general criteria for basic and enhanced 911 compliance proposed in the E911 Scope NPRM, we invited comment on our legal authority to impose 911 requirements on the various service providers. 35 In each section of the E911 Scope NPRM, we sought comment on our legal authority based on sections 1, 4( i), and Title III of the Communications Act. We also sought comment on our jurisdiction based on the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999.” 36 13. We find that Congress has given the Commission broad authority to deal with public safety concerns in wire and radio communications. In Section 1 of the Communications Act, Congress gave the 27 See Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. 28 See E911 Scope NPRM , 17 FCC Rcd at 25601, paras. 61- 63. 29 See E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25600- 02, paras. 58- 68. 30 See generally, E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25582- 99, paras. 17- 56 . 31 See E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25584- 87, paras. 22- 27. 32 See E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25587- 96, paras. 28- 48. 33 See E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25598- 99, para. 55. 34 Wireless E911First Recon Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22665 at para. 88. 35 E911 Scope NPRM at para. 18. 36 See 47 USC § 615 note. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 7 Commission authority to regulate interstate wire and radio to make available “a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world- wide wire radio and radio communication service with adequate facilities… for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.” 37 In recognition of the value of 911 service to the promotion of that goal, Congress passed the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, which among other things made 9- 1- 1 the universal emergency telephone number for the nation. 38 Congress took this step because it had found that “improved public safety remains an important public health objective of Federal, State, and local governments and substantially facilitates interstate and foreign commerce.” 39 In recognition of the role we are to play, along with the states and local governments, we find we have jurisdiction to adopt 911 rules for both wire and radio communications. 14. Moreover, in section 4( i) of the Communications Act, Congress made clear that it intended to give the Commission broad authority to act where its jurisdiction is appropriately asserted. 40 Section 4( i) provides the Commission authority to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to fulfill its duties under the Act. 41 Similarly, section 303 reaffirms that authority specifically as it applies to radio communications. 42 It is, therefore, clear that Congress has, from the inception of the Federal Communications Commission through to the present day, recognized our role in ensuring that the public safety needs of Americans are met to the extent that those needs must be transmitted by wire or radio communications to emergency service personnel. 15. Finally, the definition of “wireless carrier” contained in the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 leaves to the Commission the discretion to determine which wireless providers should be covered by its 911 rules. Pursuant to that definition, “wireless carriers” are providers of commercial mobile services, as well as providers of “any other radio communications services that the Federal Communications Commission requires to provide wireless 9- 1- 1 service.” 43 In order to provide a basis for its decisions, the Commission developed the four criteria enumerated in the E911 First Report and Order and carried through to this proceeding. The underlying intent of those criteria is to only place E911 obligations on those services that are similar to CMRS or wireline services, which are clearly required to comply. 16. As detailed below, the decisions we make are consistent with the Congressional directive giving the Commission authority to apply 911 requirements to wireline services, commercial mobile services, and those services that offer substantially similar wireline and wireless alternatives. We, therefore, find that the requirements we adopt below are within the purview of the Commission’s jurisdiction as granted by Congress. 44 17. Finally, in the E911 Scope NPRM, we sought comment on the applicability of section 255 obligations to the services and devices included in that notice to ensure that, consistent with section 255, persons with disabilities would have access to emergency services through the services and devices involved. While no one provided comments, we reiterate here that under section 255 and the 37 47 USC § 151 (emphasis added). 38 47 USC 251( e). 39 47 USC § 615 note (emphasis added). 40 47 USC § 154( i). 41 Id. 42 47 USC § 303. 43 47 USC § 615( b)( 4). 44 47 USC §§ 151, 154, 201, 251, 303. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 8 Commission’s order adopting rules, telecommunications service providers and telecommunications equipment manufacturers have an obligation to ensure that their services and devices are accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities, if readily achievable. 45 We raise this point to make certain that the entities implicated in this Order, as well as all telecommunications equipment manufacturers and service providers, are aware of their other obligations in providing telecommunications services and devices to the public. IV. SERVICE- BY- SERVICE DECISIONS 18. We next begin our analysis of the various services and devices that are currently offered to consumers. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we sought comment on four criteria to help inform our analysis of whether certain services should be subject to the E911 rules. We proposed analyzing each service based on whether: 1) it offers real- time, two- way voice service that is interconnected to the public switched network on either a stand- alone basis or packaged with other telecommunications services; 2) the customers using the service or device have a reasonable expectation of access to 911 and E911 services; 3) the service competes with traditional CMRS or wireline local exchange service; and 4) it is technically and operationally feasible for the service or device to support E911. 46 19. While most commenters supported our use of these criteria for purposes of analysis, some urged the Commission to not make them per se determinative of the outcome. 47 As one commenter noted, however, the four criteria can be extremely useful in ensuring technological and competitive neutrality. 48 In the following sections, we use these criteria in our analysis, but we also consider other factors to inform our decision. A. Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) 20. Introduction. In this section we address 911 services in connection with MSS systems. As noted above, the issue of MSS emergency call procedures has been under consideration in a number of proceedings, and we believe the record developed in response to the E911 Scope NPRM and GMPCS Proceeding justifies adopting certain requirements at this time. We conclude that all MSS carriers providing real- time, two- way, switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network must establish call centers to which all subscriber emergency calls are routed and then forwarded to an appropriate PSAP. We view MSS emergency call centers as the equivalent of basic 911 service for terrestrial wireless carriers. 49 The MSS call center requirement will remain effective until such time that an appropriate E911 implementation schedule can be determined. To that end, we refer a number of E911 technical issues associated with MSS to the rechartered Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (NRIC) for further study. Finally, in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of this item, we seek comment regarding transition periods for compliance with Section 20. 18 of our rules for those MSS carriers that offer an ancillary terrestrial component. We also seek comment on potential 45 47 USC § 255. See also Implementation of Sections 255 and 251( a)( 2) of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Access to Telecommunications Services, Telecommunications Equipment, and Customer Premises Equipment by Persons with Disabilities, WT Docket No. 96- 198, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 6417 (1999). 46 See E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25581 para. 13. 47 See TIA comments at 5; T- Mobile comments at 2- 4. 48 See AT& T Wireless comments at 2. 49 “Basic 911 service” in the terrestrial wireless context is the automatic transmission of all wireless 911 calls, without respect to call validation processes, to a PSAP, or where no PSAP has been designated, to a statewide default answering point or appropriate local emergency authority. See 47 C. F. R. § 20. 18( b). 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 9 record- keeping and reporting requirements in connection with call centers. 1. Call Centers 21. Background. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we recognized that satellite carriers face unique technical difficulties (vis a vis terrestrial wireless carriers) in implementing both basic and enhanced 911 features. 50 Cellular carriers interconnect with local wireline carriers at many points throughout their service areas, enabling them to make use of existing facilities to route 911 calls directly to appropriate local PSAPs in the areas where the calls are placed. 51 By contrast, satellite systems have only a small number of (or just one) public switched network interconnection points (i. e., at gateway stations) in the United States and do not interconnect directly with most local wireline carriers. 52 The lack of local interconnection points makes basic 911 service more difficult for satellite carriers than terrestrial wireless carriers. 53 Still, we were encouraged that some MSS providers had established their own emergency call centers to answer 911 calls. Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (“ MSV”) subscribers can dial 911 on their handsets for emergency assistance. 54 Trained operators at MSV’s Reston, Virginia call center request the caller’s phone number and location, then cross reference the location information with a national PSAP database to determine which PSAP should be connected to the caller. 55 Similarly, Globalstar customers can dial 911 (and certain other internationally recognized emergency codes) in order to access an emergency call center located in Canada. Trained operators first ask for the caller’s phone number, then instruct the caller how to use the handset to obtain his/ her latitude and longitude coordinates, which the Globalstar system can determine to within an average of 10 kilometers, 90% of the time. 56 The operator enters the coordinates into a national PSAP database that finds the most appropriate PSAP based on the caller’s location. 57 22. Believing that a call center requirement might accelerate the delivery of emergency service to MSS industry- wide, we proposed that all GMPCS licensees providing real- time, two- way, switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network establish national call centers to which all subscriber emergency calls are routed. With few exceptions, the call center proposal elicited support from both satellite and public safety communities. MSV believes that it is economically and technically feasible for any MSS provider to comply with a call center requirement within one year of adopting a requirement. 58 ICO supports the call center requirement for real time, two- way switched voice service, 59 50 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25584, para. 22. 51 Satellite 911 Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 3782. 52 In order to place a satellite telephony call, an “outbound” communication from an MSS mobile phone is transmitted up to the satellite, using “service link” frequencies. The satellite then retransmits the signal back down to the earth, using “feeder link” frequencies, to a gateway ground station, where the call is interconnected with terrestrial networks, such as the PSTN. The return or “inbound” communication works the exact opposite way. The communication from the terrestrial network is transmitted from the gateway earth station up to the satellite, and then retransmitted by the satellite back down to the MSS mobile telephone. In systems with inter- satellite links, the inbound and outbound communications may be transmitted through multiple satellites in order to complete the connection between the originating mobile telephone and the receiving gateway ground station. 53 Inmarsat Satellite 911 Public Notice comments at 4 (arguing that basic 911 should not be required for MSS due to the small number of interconnection points); ICO Satellite 911 Public Notice comments at n. 13. 54 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25584, para. 20. 55 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25584, para. 20. 56 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25584, para. 21. 57 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25584, para. 21. 58 MSV comments at 8. 59 ICO comments at 6- 7. 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 10 as does Globalstar. 60 Intrado believes that the call center proposal “appears to strike a fair balance.” 61 The limitations, according to Intrado, include delays that could result when a call center conferences in a PSAP and the lack of automatic relay of the caller’s number when the emergency call is conferenced to the PSAP. 62 Intrado would prefer call centers to deliver callback number and location information to the PSAP, but in the interim suggests that public safety and industry field test new solutions rather than have the FCC set “regulatory mandates.” 63 Benton County believes that MSS customers have 911 expectations, acknowledges technical difficulties in locating callers and transferring calls to PSAPs automatically, and finds call centers an appropriate solution for now. 64 23. Inmarsat and Iridium argue that call centers are not warranted, albeit for different reasons. Inmarsat says that due to the nature of its network and the relationships it has with the entities (land earth station operators, or LESOs) that provide service to end users, emergency call centers are not feasible. 65 Inmarsat says it is not involved in the routing of calls and therefore is not capable of establishing and operating call centers and thus is not able to comment on LESO issues with regard to call centers. 66 Iridium believes that the use of call centers would “result in delays and the potential for human operator error.” 67 Instead, Iridium recommends that MSS systems route emergency calls to a single number within the state where each call originated. 68 24. Discussion. We find that, on balance, the record supports adopting a call center requirement for MSS. The inability of satellite carriers to provide basic 911 service at the present time convinces us that emergency call centers are an appropriate first step for MSS carriers. The low volume of 911 calls that MSS carriers currently receive (relative to terrestrial CMRS) further justifies a call center requirement, rather than enhanced 911. 69 Some MSS carriers note that call centers can be implemented at a reasonable cost, 70 and public safety entities support a call center requirement. 71 We believe that in addition, call centers do not require significant network upgrading or retrofits and thus can be deployed relatively quickly. We disagree with Iridium’s contention that call centers will introduce human error and result in the delay of emergency response. 72 Globalstar and MSV report that they have not experienced any such problems. 73 Moreover, we find that MSS call centers, much like telematics call centers, may 60 Globalstar comments at 3. 61 Intrado comments at 7. Intrado is a “provider of sophisticated solutions that identify, manage and deliver mission critical information for telecommunications providers and public safety organizations.” Intrado comments at n. 1. 62 Intrado comments at 8. 63 Intrado comments at 8. 64 Benton County Emergency Service E911 Program (Benton County) comments at 2. 65 Inmarsat comments at 2, 4, 8. 66 Inmarsat comments at 8. 67 Iridium reply at 4. 68 Iridium reply at 4. Iridium states that it has this capability. Id. 69 Globalstar receives an average of 12 satellite 911 calls per month. Globalstar comments at 2. MSV reports that it received ten emergency calls in 2002. MSV comments at (ii). 70 MSV characterizes the call center costs as “minimal.” MSV comments at 8 and reply at 9- 10. See also Globalstar comments generally and ICO comments at 9- 10 (saying that call centers “can be implemented at greatly reduced costs”); Stratos comments at 5. 71 See Intrado comments at 7; Benton County comments at 2; National Emergency Number Association and National Association of State Nine One One Administrators (“ NENA/ NASNA”) comments at 6. 72 Iridium reply at 4. 73 Globalstar comments at 2- 3; MSV comments at 9. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 11 actually provide a benefit by filtering calls that do not require PSAP assistance. 74 Therefore, we will require that all MSS licensees providing real- time, two- way, switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network establish national call centers to which all subscriber 911 emergency calls are routed. We are pleased that MSV and Globalstar already have emergency call centers in place. We believe the time is ripe for a uniform requirement to apply to all providers of MSS voice service. This will ensure that MSS customers have access to essential emergency service and remove any potential confusion in the marketplace as the industry continues to grow. Since call centers can be implemented without substantial delay for technological or cost concerns, the call center requirement will become effective 12 months after publication of this Report and Order in the Federal Register. a. Carriers Subject to the Call Center Requirement. 25. Background. As noted, we will limit our call center requirement to those MSS carriers providing real- time, interconnected switched voice service. Some commenters ask that we clarify that any 911 MSS rules we adopt will not apply to space segment (i. e., space station) licensees and MSS resellers. 75 MSV argues that the MSS space segment licensee is not necessarily the same entity that provides MSS service to end user customers. 76 Inmarsat points out that it provides only the space segment, and has relationships with land earth station operators (LESOs) that actually provide service to end users. 77 As such, Inmarsat says that it is not involved in the routing of calls, thus rendering any 911 service, including call centers, infeasible. 78 Stratos Mobile Networks, Inc. (“ Stratos”), a distributor of MSS as both a gateway operator and reseller, argues that “only gateway operators (as opposed to MSS space station operators or non- facilities- based MSS resellers)” should be subject to 911 requirements since the gateway controls all of the MSS caller’s “call- identifying information” for routing and billing purposes. 79 MSV counters that any 911 requirements must apply to any entities providing interconnected voice MSS to end users, otherwise “wholesale voice MSS providers would be in the difficult position of having to monitor their resellers’ compliance with the 9- 1- 1 rules and to enforce these rules.” 80 26. Discussion. We agree that the obligation for compliance with 911 rules should not be on the space station operator, provided that it is not also providing MSS service directly to end users, since it will not have any control over the switching of calls over the public switched telephone network (PSTN). Therefore, the entity responsible for complying with 911 requirements will be the MSS service provider (i. e., the entity providing service to the end user customer, including facilities- based resellers). We conclude that non- facilities- based resellers of interconnected switched voice MSS service to end users have an obligation to ensure access to 911 service to the extent that the underlying facilities- based licensee offers access to 911 service. This is consistent with our analysis of 911 obligations for resellers of terrestrial wireless service. 81 27. In addition, MSS will be exempt from complying with MSS 911 requirements to the extent that they provide maritime or aeronautical service. The Commission has already excluded maritime and 74 See infra para. 75. 75 Inmarsat comments at 8; MSV comments at 12. 76 MSV comments at 12- 13. 77 Inmarsat comments at 2, 4, 8. 78 Inmarsat comments at 8. 79 Stratos comments at 7- 8. 80 MSV reply at 12. 81 See Section D, infra. MSV indicates that resellers of its voice services have access to MSV’s call center for 911 calls. (MSV reply at n. 21). 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 12 aeronautical services from the terrestrial wireless 911 rules, despite the fact that they are two- way switched voice services, because passengers and crews of ships at sea rely on Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (“ GMDSS”) for emergency and distress, while passengers and crews of airplanes use other radiocommunication channels for emergency assistance. 82 We do not see any need to require MSS carriers to provide more than one form of emergency access service. 83 Maritime and aeronautical MSS users already use other forms of emergency service (such as GMDSS), and overlay of a 911 emergency system may introduce unnecessary confusion. 84 28. We will also exempt from MSS 911 requirements any service that utilizes terrestrial temporary fixed earth station terminals. Stratos and Inmarsat assert that the earth terminals used in their systems are larger than conventional handsets (laptop computer size), and can require several minutes set-up time in order to acquire the necessary satellites to establish a communications link. These devices are temporarily fixed in nature because they cannot be used while in motion. Inmarsat notes that its terrestrial terminals are not designed to be used in motion because the antenna must remain pointed at the satellite. 85 Inmarsat C terminals can be mounted in vehicles but are designed for data transmission only. 86 Based on the current technology and limited number of specialized users, we do not believe that users of these types of devices have a reasonable expectation of access to 911 service. 87 We reserve the right to revisit the temporary fixed earth station exemption in the future should the technology or consumer expectations change. b. Call Center Procedures 29. Background. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we asked whether we should mandate call center answering protocols and procedures. 88 We noted that the effectiveness of an MSS call center depends on the access to a comprehensive national PSAP database, and consequently we also asked for comment on whether carriers should be required to compile such databases and whether carriers should have an obligation to maintain database accuracy and completeness. 89 We also observed in the E911 Scope NPRM that MSS calls might originate from areas where no other communications options exist, and consequently where no PSAP has been designated. 90 In a previous proceeding, the Commission established procedures for carriers to follow in the event that a PSAP has not been designated for a caller’s area. 91 We sought comment in the E911 Scope NPRM on whether and in what time period MSS 82 E911 First Report and Order at para. 82; see also 47 C. F. R. § 80, Subpart W. 83 See MSV comments at 14; Globalstar comments at 12. 84 See Stratos comments at 3; Inmarsat comments at 5. 85 Inmarsat reply at 5 n. 10; see also Inmarsat comments at 3 and n. 3. 86 Inmarsat reply at 5 n. 10; see also Inmarsat comments at 3 and n. 3. 87 See Stratos comments at 3; Inmarsat comments at 2- 3; Telenor reply at 3. 88 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25585, para. 24. 89 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25585, para. 24. 90 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25585, para. 25. 91 Specifically, by September 11, 2002, the Commission required that, in areas where no PSAP has been designated, carriers must begin delivering 911 calls: (a) to a statewide established default point; (b) if none exists, to an appropriate local emergency authority, such as the police or county sheriff, selected by an authorized State or Local entity; or, finally, (c) as a matter of last resort and to avoid the blocking of 911 calls, . . . to an appropriate local emergency authority, based on the exercise of the carrier’s reasonable judgment, following initiation of contact with the State Governor’s designated entity under section 3( b) of the 911 Act. (continued....) 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 13 carriers would be able to comply with these same procedures in order to ensure relay of 911 calls to emergency personnel. 92 We said that a satellite carrier, having national coverage and the responsibility to determine appropriate emergency personnel for its entire nationwide footprint, may experience more difficulty than a locally- deployed wireless carrier in determining which entity to send emergency calls in the absence of a PSAP. 93 30. Among those MSS carriers supporting a call center requirement, none support establishment of specific procedural requirements. 94 MSS carriers generally oppose any requirement that they assume responsibility for compiling PSAP databases, arguing that to do so would be a complex and costly task for which they lack adequate resources. 95 The Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA) comments that call centers should transfer emergency calls to PSAPs over 911 trunks so that the PSAP computer workstations and full facilities can be utilized for analysis of ALI and ANI data. 96 BRETSA points out that a call center transfers a call to a PSAP over administrative phone lines, resulting in the loss of ANI/ ALI data, and preventing the PSAP from transferring the call to another PSAP without the assistance of an intermediary operator. 97 BRETSA says that the Commission should require the routing of all emergency calls via 911 trunks (desiring ultimately an interstate E911 backbone network). 98 31. Discussion. Given that two carriers’ call centers are already operating with apparent success, we see no reason to mandate specific procedural requirements, such as answering protocols, operator training, call center location, or multiple language requirements. 99 Rather, we will require only a few minimum functionalities, including: MSS carriers must ensure that call centers are accessed by dialing “911,” 100 call centers must ascertain the caller’s phone number and location, and the call center must transfer or forward the call to an appropriate PSAP. We encourage MSS carriers to consult with entities such as APCO and NENA/ NASNA in order to train operators to answer emergency calls. Since we are (... continued from previous page) Fifth Report and Order at para. 15. The Commission’s objective in establishing these procedures was to ensure 911 call completion. 92 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25585, para. 25. 93 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25585, para. 25. 94 See, e. g., MSV comments at 9; Globalstar comments 4- 6; ICO comments at 7- 8. 95 MSV comments at 10; ICO comments at 8. 96 BRETSA comments at 5. 97 BRETSA comments at 6. MSV indicates that its call center identifies an appropriate PSAP and its ten- digit phone number in its database based on location information obtained from the 911 caller, then initiates a conference call between that PSAP and the caller. MSV comments at 4, 9. Traditional CMRS carriers forward calls to PSAPs by means of trunk lines, whereas call centers must use administrative lines that connect over the PSTN. See also ICO comments at 7 (remarking that processing emergency calls with call centers is more manageable than E911 because calls to the PSAPs “would be handled as standard wireline calls over the PSTN”). 98 BRETSA comments at 6- 7. 99 Globalstar suggested that multiple language requirements would be expensive to implement, and asked that the Commission set limits (such as English and Spanish). (Globalstar comments at 4). We see no need to establish any foreign language requirements at this time for call centers serving domestic 911 calls. 100 We do not agree with the Washington State E911 Program’s (WSEP) argument that call centers are a form of customer service and thus should not be accessed by dialing 911. (WSEP comments at 3- 4). The call center will be the MSS customer’s means of obtaining emergency assistance. In implementing the Wireless 911 Act, the Commission designated “911 as the national emergency telephone number to be used for reporting emergencies and requesting emergency assistance.” (Implementation of the 911 Act, WT Docket No. 00- 110, The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, CC Docket No. 92- 105, Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 17079 at para. 11 (2000)). 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 14 not requiring that MSS carriers transmit ANI and ALI at this time, we do not need to require that call centers use 911 trunks to route calls to PSAPs in an effort maintain enhanced data integrity, as BRETSA requests. Moreover, we are convinced that the cost of establishing trunks to the thousands of currently existing PSAPs is not justified given the relatively small subscriber bases and level of 911 traffic currently generated by MSS systems. 101 32. We do not believe that MSS carriers should be required to compile PSAP databases, since several commercial alternatives exist. For example, MSV indicates that it uses a commercially available PSAP database, and NENA/ NASNA says that NENA’s national PSAP registry can be used by MSS carriers as a PSAP database. 102 APCO notes that cellular carriers and telematics providers have compiled and maintained PSAP databases. 103 We also believe that MSS carriers can satisfy the Commission’s requirements for the routing of 911 calls in the absence of a designated PSAP by using existing PSAP databases. Both Globalstar and MSV support this approach for MSS, provided that the contact information is clear and commercially available. 104 MSV says that its PSAP database includes information for sheriff offices and other non- PSAP emergency personnel. 105 We find this information particularly encouraging because it suggests that database preparers are already including contact information for non- traditional emergency personnel. While we asked in the E911 Scope NPRM whether MSS carriers should permit callers from coastal waterways to dial 911 to access the Coast Guard, 106 we will not make any such requirement at this time. Although NENA/ NASNA and MSV support such a requirement, 107 we will not require specific call center procedures, consistent with our overall policy towards call centers. 33. Several commenters urge the Commission to take a leadership role in establishing and maintaining the continuing accuracy of a national PSAP database, 108 and although we are concerned about PSAP information accuracy, 109 we instead urge APCO, NENA, and other public safety entities to work closely with states to ensure that PSAP databases are complete and regularly updated. Also, we look forward to the dialog between the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and state 911 designees concerning PSAP identification and contact information. 110 c. Location Determination Technology 34. Background. We sought comment on whether an MSS system’s inherent location determination capabilities should be used to obtain a 911 caller’s location and whether that information should be automatically transmitted to the call center, if technically feasible. The availability of latitude 101 See Globalstar comments at 8, MSV comments at 21, ICO comments at 5. 102 MSV purchased a license to a PSAP database that is updated monthly and covers all 50 states, and has been used with success. MSV comments at 9- 10; NENA/ NASNA comments at 6. 103 APCO comments at 7. 104 MSV comments at 11; Globalstar comments at 6. 105 MSV comments at 11. 106 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd 25576 at 25585, para. 25. 107 NENA/ NASNA comments at 15; MSV comments at 11. 108 See MSV comments at 10; ICO comments at 8; Benton County comments at 2; AT& T reply at 4- 5. 109 See Benton County comments at 2 (noting that it found inaccurate information about Benton County PSAPs in several PSAP databases); see also Globalstar comments at 5 (noting that PSAP information for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands is not available). 110 See Final Agenda Announced for the October 29 and 30, 2003 Meeting of the Commission’s Wireless E911 Coordination Initiative, Public Notice, DA 03- 3388, rel. Oct. 23, 2003. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 15 and longitude information can enhance the ability of a call center to match the correct PSAP, particularly when callers are lost or otherwise do not know where they are and cannot provide their location. As described above, callers using Globalstar can use their handsets to determine their approximate coordinates, then read this information to the emergency operator, who then uses it to ascertain the appropriate PSAP. 111 The Iridium system, while not currently providing emergency call assistance, is capable of determining the location of a caller within an accuracy of approximately 10 to 20 kilometers. 112 We sought comment on the benefit to be gained in requiring satellite systems that are capable of determining caller locations to automatically transmit that information to the call center, either as the 911 number is dialed or shortly after the connection is made to the call center, if additional time is necessary for the handset to see enough satellites to determine the location. 35. Discussion. We do not believe that any location determination technology requirements are warranted at this time. No MSS carriers can presently determine caller location accuracy with the precision demanded by Section 20.18 of the Commission’s rules, and moreover, it is clear that MSS carriers differ from each other in their location determination capabilities. 113 MSV asserts that its location information is of no use to a PSAP (five beams cover North America, and a single beams covers thousands of square miles). 114 Inmarsat cannot locate callers with current generation equipment, claiming at best it can identify which beam is involved in the call. 115 Globalstar opposes any requirement that location information be automatically relayed to a call center, saying the costs “would drive the cost of doing business beyond what is currently sustainable.” 116 We agree with ICO that MSS providers “should be permitted to use their inherent system capability” to determine caller location, 117 and we encourage them to do so and forward that information to the call center automatically, if possible (particularly those carriers that intend to include Global Positioning System (GPS) in their systems). In fact, any efforts to automatically forward location and phone number information to the call center will make carriers better suited to transition to E911 deployment in the future. 2. Enhanced 911 36. Background. We noted in the E911 Scope NPRM that the record generated up to that point in the GMPCS and 2 GHz MSS proceedings illustrated a fundamental difference of opinion as to whether requiring E911 for MSS is appropriate at that time. 118 Satellite licensees generally opposed adoption of a rule requiring E911 for MSS, claiming it to be premature and/ or not economically and technically feasible, while public safety entities supported E911, claiming it is in the public’s interest. 119 We observed that if the technology and cost permit, consumer expectations and the public interest support a requirement that MSS provide E911 services comparable to those that terrestrial wireless service delivers. 111 See also Globalstar comments at 6- 7. 112 Feb. 22 Ex Parte Memo at 3. As a big LEO licensee, Iridium is required to be capable of locating the position of users of mobile transceivers in an effort to prevent interference with the radio astronomy service. See 47 C. F. R. § 25. 213. 113 For network- based technologies, we require Phase II location accuracy to be within 100 meters for 67 percent of calls and 300 meters for 95 percent of calls. For handset- based technologies, we require Phase II location accuracy to be within 50 meters for 67 percent of calls and 150 meters for 95 percent of calls. See 47 C. F. R. § 20. 18( h). 114 MSV comments at 12. 115 Inmarsat comments at 8. 116 Globalstar comments at 4. 117 ICO comments at 7. 118 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 22587- 88, para. 28. 119 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25587- 88, para. 28 and n. 85. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 16 Acknowledging that the record thus far demonstrated that E911 requirements for satellite systems may be premature, we sought new and updated information to develop further the record for eventual adoption of MSS enhanced 911. Therefore, we asked for comment regarding whether MSS network technology has improved in any significant way since comments were last filed on these issues, in early 2001. We also sought information relevant to comparing E911 in the MSS and terrestrial wireless contexts, including with respect to the two phases in which we required terrestrial wireless carriers to implement enhanced 911 (the first phase consisting of ANI and second phase consisting of ALI). 120 We sought comment on appropriate implementation schedules for MSS E911, including whether E911 compliance should be triggered when a licensee has achieved a certain benchmark in subscribership (as a means of cost-spreading). 121 At the time we adopted the E911 Scope NPRM, we had not yet made a decision in our MSS ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) proceeding (IB Docket No. 01- 185). However, we did request comment about basic and enhanced 911 compliance in the event we were to permit satellite carriers to offer an ancillary terrestrial component to their satellite service. 122 37. Discussion. We intend to eventually require MSS carriers to comply with our E911 requirements, but we do not find sufficient basis in the record to require immediate compliance. Public safety entities and the terrestrial wireless community argue that MSS carriers should be subject to the same E911 requirements as terrestrial CMRS. 123 MSS providers continue to oppose any extension of these requirements to their service, chiefly citing expense and technical difficulty as reasons. 124 We are encouraged by MSV’s comments that next generation satellite systems might be capable of implementing E911, 125 but we do not believe we have sufficient information to establish reasonable implementation schedules. We intend to eventually apply enhanced 911 requirements to those MSS entities that will be subject to the call center rule. We do not agree with AT& T Wireless’s argument that “[ t] here is no evidence in the record . . . of administrative problems or technical difficulties that are significantly distinct from those faced by nationwide CMRS providers with respect to 911.” 126 To the contrary, we find that the record does show significant differences between MSS and nationwide CMRS providers with respect to 911. Although a nationwide CMRS provider and an MSS provider both may have a nationwide footprint, the CMRS provider has local PSTN interconnection points throughout its network, whereas the MSS provider interconnects through only a small number, or a single, gateway station. 127 Thus, CMRS carriers have the benefit of access to 911 selective routers throughout their networks while MSS carriers do not. We recognize that the cost of establishing 911 trunks between gateway stations and 120 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25590- 94, paras. 33- 41. 121 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25594, paras. 42- 43. 122 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25598- 99, para. 55. 123 See NENA/ NASNA comments at 7; BRETSA comments at 3; WSEP comments at 4; AT& T Wireless comments generally; Sprint comments at 1- 4; CTIA comments at 5. 124 See, e. g., MSV comments at 17- 18 (commenting that whereas MSS user equipment is expensive and can be as large as a laptop computer and with service charges of a dollar per minute, terrestrial wireless equipment can fit it a pocket, frequently free, and airtime costs “Are often less than a tenth of those assessed to MSS customers.”); Globalstar comments at 8- 10 (citing a $1 million cost for new switching equipment at gateway); ICO comments at 5- 6 (stating that to transmit ALI and ANI to PSAPs, either switches throughout the PSTN (and beyond MSS carrier control) would need modification, or gateways would require “dedicated lines. . . to each. . . of the 10,000- plus PSAPs in the U. S.”); Globalstar comments at 9 (asserting that, with regard to the use of GPS to provide ALI, MSS providers in the 1610- 1626.5 MHz band may experience interference with GPS receive band in 1574- 1577 MHz). 125 MSV comments at 18- 21. 126 AT& T Wireless comments at 4. 127 See, e. g., Globalstar comments at 7 (“[ u] nlike locally- deployed fixed cellular and PCS base stations, which generally provide the carrier’s switch with sufficient data to ensure reliable call routing, MSS carriers have no fixed point of presence near a caller’s location”); ICO comments at 5- 6. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 17 all PSAPs throughout the nation would be substantial. 128 The record also shows that the MSS industry as a whole has many fewer subscribers than traditional CMRS, complicating the ability of MSS carriers to spread the cost of E911 upgrades. 129 38. Clearly, the MSS industry faces a number of unique network interconnection issues, and MSS providers differ from each other in terms of service provided and technologies used. 130 The record suggests that thus far in the development of MSS, the public safety community and the MSS industry have not engaged in direct interaction that might lead to workable basic and enhanced 911 solutions. This contrasts with the 1996 Consensus Agreement through which representatives from the wireless industry and public safety community reached agreement on a number of wireless E911 matters, including implementation of E911 in two phases (ANI and ALI). 131 We believe that active communication between MSS providers, public safety entities, and local exchange carriers will benefit the development of E911 solutions and provide the roadmap for a reasonable implementation schedule. 132 Therefore, we direct the rechartered Network Reliability and Interoperability Council (“ NRIC”) to study a number of issues pertaining to MSS E911 deployment. 133 We will include MSS issues in the NRIC’s charter with the expectation that relevant parties will develop recommendations for E911 deployment that we will release for comment in a future further notice of proposed rulemaking. 134 In addition to those issues mentioned 128 See, e. g., Globalstar comments at 7 (“[ e] stablishing hundreds or thousands of PSAP trunk- line connections . . . would be cost prohibitive”). 129 See Globalstar comments at 3, MSV comments at 17, Stratos comments at 5- 6.; ICO comments at 9. See also CTIA’s Semi- Annual Wireless Industry Survey, http:// www. wow- com. com/ pdf/ MidYear_ 2003_ survey. pdf, visited November 6, 2003 (indicating that as of June 2003, CTIA estimated a total of 148, 065,824 wireless subscribers in the U. S.). While statistics concerning MSS industry subscriber numbers are not available, anecdotal evidence suggests that domestic MSS subscribers number in the hundreds of thousands. See, e. g., E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25594, para. 43; Stratos comments at 5; Globalstar Reports Results for Second Quarter 2003, Press Release, http:// www. globalstar. com/ view_ pr. jsp? id= 342, visited November 7, 2003 (indicating that Globalstar had approximately 93, 000 subscribers worldwide as of June 30, 2003). 130 See, e. g., Inmarsat comments at 3 (noting that maritime and aeronautical terminals are mounted on ships and planes while terrestrial terminals are the size of laptop computers and cannot be used while in motion unless they provide data- only service); MSV comments at 3 (indicating that MSV, an L- band licensee, provides voice and data MSS and a “push- to- talk” dispatch- type service); Globalstar comments at (i), 1- 2 (noting that Globalstar uses a constellation of 1. 6/ 2. 4 GHz band nongeostationery satellites to provide two- way voice service interconnected to the PSTN). Globalstar can use its satellites to triangulate caller location (Globalstar comments at (i)), whereas MSV and Inmarsat can, at best, only identify which satellite beam is being used for a given call, and a beam can cover thousands of square miles. MSV comments at 12; Inmarsat comments at 8. 131 Wireless E911 First Report and Order at paras. 22- 23. The Commission sought comment on the Consensus Agreement and ultimately incorporated some of its principles into the final E911 rules. 132 See also MSV comments at 19 (recommending the formation of a “broad- based, cross- industry effort” to determine E911 solutions for MSS). 133 The chartering of the NRIC is a separate process, outside of this proceeding. Our proposal for the NRIC is subject to approval by the Administrator of the General Services Administration. See 41 C. F. R. §§ 105- 54. 201— 105- 54. 202. 134 The Commission has in the past directed the NRIC to study other issues and make recommendations. See, e. g., Deployment of Wireline Services Offering Advanced Telecommunications Capability and Implementation of the Local Competition Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket Nos. 98- 147, 96- 98, Third Report and Order and Fourth Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20912, 20992- 93 (1999) (requesting that NRIC V provide the Commission with initial recommendations for resolution of spectrum compatibility and management issues within 150 days from the date of NRIC V’s establishment). 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 19 indicate whether any progress had been made in this regard. 143 We asked in the E911 Scope NPRM whether resolution of international standards issues should in any way further delay adoption of a call center requirement or E911 rules 144 and received little information in response. MSV says that the Commission should make any call center and 911 requirements apply only to U. S. customers and argues that applicability to international roamers (including issues pertaining to international emergency dial codes) is better addressed in an international forum. 145 Globalstar believes that a universal standard is desirable, but the more flexible the U. S. standard is, the more likely it will be compatible with a subsequent international one. 146 41. Discussion. The record does not show that any progress has been made with regard to development of international standards for MSS emergency calling. We understand that to date no recommendation has resulted from emergency services ITU Study Group 8 question ITU- R 227/ 8. 147 Several years have elapsed since the Commission first indicated that international standards should be addressed in order to facilitate development of 911 service for MSS. We believe that MSS would benefit from that pursuit of international standards, but we no longer see resolution of these issues as an impediment to requiring domestic compliance with 911 rules. Interested parties have had ample opportunity to begin the international standards review process but have apparently failed to do so. We see no reason to further delay implementation of emergency service rules for MSS, particularly when call centers are technically and operationally feasible now. We strongly encourage all licensees, equipment manufacturers, public safety organizations, and any other interested parties to participate in the discussion of ITU- R Question 227/ 8. 42. As we indicated above, at this time we are not requiring MSS carriers to recognize emergency dial codes other than 911. Therefore, MSS carriers would be under no obligation to recognize emergency calls from international roamers who dial non- 911 codes for aid. However, to the extent that an MSS carrier providing U. S. service permits international customers to roam on the domestic network, any 911 calls placed by the roamers must not be blocked. We see no technical or policy reason why a carrier should not answer all 911 emergency calls that are placed over its network. We will monitor the progress of the development of international standards for MSS emergency access service and revisit our policy concerning international roamers if necessary. 4. Other Issues 43. Carrier Liability. Some carriers express concern about their potential liability in offering emergency services. ICO and Globalstar want the Commission to ensure that MSS carriers have the same protection from liability as other providers of 911 service. 148 Inmarsat expresses concern that the 911 Act did not contemplate MSS, and suggests that Congress must take action to protect MSS carriers before any 143 See, e. g., Iridium LLC GMPCS NPRM reply at 14; ICO Global GMPCS NPRM comment at 6- 7; SIA GMPCS NPRM reply at 2; Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications of Japan GMPCS NPRM comment at 1. comment in response to the Satellite 911 Public Notice on this issue was similar. See, e. g., ICO Satellite 911 Public Notice comments at 8; Inmarsat Satellite 911 Public Notice comments at 2. 144 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25597, para. 50. 145 MSV reply at 13. 146 Globalstar comments at 12. 147 This question addresses a number of issues critical to global implementation of emergency services, including the preferred capabilities of MSS systems, preferred requirements for automatic location determination, aspects of routing MSS emergency calls that must be compatible with international routing procedure, and the enhanced information to be forwarded with emergency calls. 148 Globalstar comments at 4- 5; ICO reply at 4. 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 20 911 requirements are imposed. 149 Inmarsat also suggests that carriers providing emergency services with access codes other than “911” may not be protected under the 911 Act. 150 44. Discussion. We believe that MSS carrier concerns about liability protection are moot by virtue of our requirement that they use the 911 dial code for call center access. 151 The 911 Act provides that a wireless carrier providing “wireless 9- 1- 1 service” (i. e., “any 9- 1- 1 service provided by a wireless carrier, including enhanced wireless 9- 1- 1 service”) “shall have immunity or other protection from liability in a State of a scope and extent that is not less than the scope and extent of . . . protection from liability that any local exchange company” has under Federal and State law. 152 Inmarsat’s concern that MSS was not contemplated in the 911 Act is unfounded, since the Act defines “wireless carrier” so broadly (i. e., a wireless carrier is “a provider of commercial mobile services or any other radio communications service that the Federal Communications Commission requires to provide wireless 9- 1- 1 service”). 153 Thus, MSS providers have the same protection from liability as other carriers. 154 While we require that MSS providers permit customers to access call centers by dialing 911, use of any other emergency access codes, such as 112 used by many European countries, will be at the provider’s discretion. We do not believe that use of other emergency access codes will affect MSS carriers’ liability protection, provided that the carrier recognizes “911.” 45. Non- initialized handsets. The E911 Scope NPRM sought additional information concerning other issues that the International Bureau had raised in the Satellite 911 Public Notice, 155 including applicability of 911 rules to non- initialized MSS handsets. 156 We sought comment on Globalstar’s assertion that it cannot route calls from non- initialized phones because they lack “an identifiable international mobile subscriber identity.” 157 Continuing to oppose any requirements for non- initialized phones, Globalstar says that it cannot complete emergency calls from non- service initialized handsets without “significant technical development for gateway capabilities” because such handsets “would require support for Electronic Serial Number (“ ESN”) addressing. . . .” 158 MSV also opposes requirements for non- initialized handsets, noting that its system is also “currently unable to identify non-service initialized handsets absent significant costs.” 159 Conversely, AT& T Wireless Services, Inc. argues that MSS should comply with the same basic and enhanced 911 rules as other services, including non- 149 Inmarsat comments at 9. 150 Inmarsat comments at 9. 151 Pursuant to the 911 Act, the Commission designated 911 as the number to be used throughout the nation for accessing emergency service. See Implementation of 911 Act, WT Docket No. 00- 110; The Use of N11 Codes and Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, CC Docket No. 92- 105, Fourth Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 17079 (2000). 152 Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106- 81, enacted Oct. 26, 1999, 113 Stat. 1286, amending the Communications Act of 1934, §§ 222, 251 (911 Act). 153 Id. 154 MSS carriers will also have the benefit of the same liability protection as terrestrial CMRS when E911 requirements for MSS eventually become effective. 155 See Satellite 911 Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 3785- 86. 156 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25599, para. 56. Non- service- initialized wireless handsets (non- initialized handsets) are phones that are not registered for service with any Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) carrier. Because carriers generally assign a dialable number to a handset only when a customer enters into a service contract, a non- initialized handset lacks a dialable number. 157 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25599, para. 56. 158 Globalstar comments at 15. 159 MSV reply at 13. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 21 initialized phone requirements. 160 46. Discussion. We will not require non- initialized MSS handsets to be 911- accessible at this time. The effort required to upgrade the gateways is not justified considering the small numbers of MSS customers, compared to traditional CMRS. 161 Moreover, we believe that non- initialized MSS handsets are not as likely as traditional CMRS handsets to be in the stream of commerce because of the relatively high cost and smaller customer base. 162 We will revisit this issue should MSS subscriber levels rise or the handset costs come down significantly, or both. 47. Consumer issues. We observed in the E911 Scope NPRM that information about consumer expectations for the emergency call features of satellite phones could help us craft rules. 163 We invited comment concerning measures that carriers may take, such as labeling, to communicate emergency access features to subscribers. 164 MSV opposes any requirement that existing terminals be recalled for labeling purposes because of the cost and inconvenience to customers. 165 MSV and Globalstar inform their customers about their call centers in customer service agreements and service manuals. 166 Benton County argues that satellite carriers should affix labels on handsets that provide information about 911 capabilities. 167 48. Discussion. As we mentioned above, the Commission required that any handset used for 2 GHz MSS that does not have access to basic 911 or E911 clearly indicate the lack of these functions with a label or sticker affixed to the handsets. 168 This labeling requirement remains in effect until the Commission adopts an order concerning 911 rules in IB Docket No. 99- 67. In establishing that labeling requirement, the Commission was concerned that consumers may have difficulty distinguishing between terrestrial CMRS handsets subject to basic and enhanced 911 requirements and satellite handsets that were not subject to any 911 requirements. Thus, the Commission concluded that consumers likely would expect 911 services to be available whether on the terrestrial network or roaming on the satellite network, and consequently required that GHz MSS carriers inform consumers of the absence of emergency service by means of a label on the handset. 169 We do not believe a label is necessary to communicate call center features and/ or limitations. Rather, MSS carriers are strongly encouraged to communicate call center features and location identification limitations to customers via marketing material and customer service agreements. 160 AT& T Wireless comments at 4. 161 See, e. g., Washington State E911 Program (WSEP) comments at 6 (stating that no 911 requirements are necessary for non- initialized MSS handsets). 162 According to Globalstar, “there are at most a few hundred thousand MSS subscribers total in the United States.” (emphasis omitted). Globalstar comments at 14. Iridium says that compared to terrestrial handsets, “[ t] here is a much smaller volume of MSS handsets in circulation, and the prices of those handsets were far greater than today’s or even yesterday’s cellular and PCS handsets”). Iridium reply at 6. 163 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25599, para. 56. 164 Id. 165 MSV comments at 23. 166 MSV comments at 23; Globalstar comments at 16. 167 Benton County comments at 3. 168 See supra note 20. 169 2 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16127, 16185, para. 126. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 22 B. Multi- Line Telephone Systems 1. Background 49. In this section, the Commission addresses issues raised in the E911 Scope NPRM regarding the ability of multi- line telephone systems (MLTS) 170 to provide accurate call- back and location information for enhanced 911 (E911) calls originating from locations served by such systems. In the E911 Scope NPRM, the Commission referred to its previous actions regarding MLTS/ E911 compatibility, particularly the 1994 Notice, 171 and discussed the unique technical factors associated with MLTS provision of E911. 172 The Commission also discussed actions taken by states to require MLTS E911 compatibility, and sought comment on whether state action had been adequate, and if not, whether it would be appropriate for the Commission to adopt rules to require MLTS E911 compatibility. 173 In this context, the Commission also requested comment on the Model Legislation proposed by NENA and APCO, as well as the draft consensus proposal put forth by the “E911 Consensus Group.” 174 The Commission also sought comment on whether there are any workplace safety regulations of other agencies, state or federal, that should affect our consideration of access to 911 from multi- line systems. 175 50. The Commission is concerned that the lack of effective implementation of MLTS E911 could be an unacceptable gap in the emergency call system, and could have a deleterious effect on our homeland security system. The delivery of accurate location and call- back information is vital for emergency response service to be effective and is clearly in the public interest. 176 Nonetheless, the record demonstrates that, because of the particular requirements of E911 over MLTS, state and local governments are in a better position to devise rules to ensure that E911 is effectively deployed over MLTS in their jurisdictions. As we discuss in detail below, the rules proposed by commenters in this proceeding appear to be either be too ambiguous to be useful, or would impose technical requirements on carriers, MLTS manufacturers, and MLTS operators 177 that could stifle technological innovation and may 170 In this Order, we use the terms “MLTS” or “multi- line system” to describe a private branch exchange (PBX), a Centrex telephone system, a key telephone system, and a hybrid telephone system. 171 Revisions of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94- 102, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd 6170 (1994) (1994 Notice). In the 1994 Notice, the Commission sought comment on rules that would require certain mobile wireless licensees to ensure that their networks included features that would make enhanced 911 service available to their subscribers. Id. In addition, the Commission sought comment on amending its Part 68 rules to ensure compatibility of PBXs and other dispersed multi- line telephone systems with enhanced 911 services. Id., para. 1. Although the Commission has issued a number of decisions dealing with wireless E911, it has deferred decision on whether to require E911 compatibility by multi- line systems. E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25578- 79, 25605- 06, paras. 5, 83. 172 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25607, para. 86. 173 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25605, para. 81. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we requested comment on whether wireline, wireless, or Internet Protocol- based MLTS should be E911 compatible. Id. 174 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25607, para. 87. The E911 Consensus Group consisted of representatives from the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), Association of Public Safety Communications Officials – International, Inc. (APCO), National Association of State 9- 1- 1 Administrators, Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, and MultiMedia Telecommunications Association. 175 Id. 176 See also Ad Hoc comments at 6 (“ In this proceeding, the Commission has correctly underscored the important public interest served by expanding access to E911 services and the delivery of accurate location information and callback numbers to local emergency services personnel.”). 177 MLTS operators are the owners and operators of multi- line systems, such as businesses, hospitals, and universities. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 23 be overly burdensome. We find that under these circumstances, adopting national rules governing MLTS E911 compatibility would impose unnecessary regulatory burdens inconsistent with the pro- competitive, deregulatory goals of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 178 We applaud those states that have passed legislation to require MLTS implementation of E911. For those states that have not passed legislation to require MLTS operators to supply E911 functionality to the end users of their systems, we believe that the Model Legislation submitted by NENA and APCO offers the states a valuable blueprint for their own laws. 179 The Commission expects states to act expeditiously in this area, and will release a public notice in a year to examine the progress states have made in implementing MLTS E911 compatibility. In addition, we adopt a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider whether federal regulation may be necessary should states fail to act. 180 2. Discussion 51. Application of E911 Criteria. We begin our analysis by looking at the four criteria, referenced in paragraph 5 above, whereby the Commission considered whether certain wireless licensees should be required to implement E911 service. 181 Based on the record before us, we conclude that MLTS satisfy the first criterion because they interconnect to the public switched network, and offer real- time, two- way switched voice service. Regarding the second criterion, it is not entirely apparent from the record whether end- users of telephones served by MLTS always have a clear expectation of access to 911 and E911. We agree that consumers generally expect that 911 or E911 would work from the telephone at a particular location, and that a consumer using MLTS would have the same expectation of having access to E911 service as would any other caller. 182 Based on the record, we conclude that MLTS callers generally expect to have access to E911. 183 52. The record contains little evidence regarding the third criterion – whether MLTS compete with CMRS or wireline local exchange services. Accordingly, we seek additional comment in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the application of the criteria. We note, however, that in most cases MLTS are operated by private entities that do not compete with CMRS or wireline local exchange services, although we believe that many entities employ MLTS as a substitute for CMRS or wireline local exchange service. Finally, regarding the fourth criterion, although a coordinated overall plan is needed to determine technical standards and other requirements for all parties involved in making E911 for MLTS work in any particular case, a “one size fits all” plan does not appear be appropriate. As we discuss below, although technical solutions are available, effective deployment of E911 from MLTS requires technical coordination among the MLTS manufacturer, the local exchange carrier, the PSAP, and the 178 We emphasize, however, that we do believe that MLTS E911 implementation should be examined at the state and local level, where legislators have the benefits of their police power, and insight into local emergency needs and capabilities. 179 See MLTS Proposal of NENA and APCO, CC Docket No. 94- 102 (filed July 24, 2001) (“ Model Legislation”), Exhibit C. Further, although we strongly support the approach taken in the Model Legislation, we decline to revise our Part 64 or Part 68 rules at this time. 180 See Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, infra. 181 E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18716- 18, paras. 80- 84. 182 Intrado comments at 11 (“ There is a reasonable expectation on the part of the public that emergency response is available when dialing from a PBX or MLTS system.”); Colorado Task Force reply at 2 (“ Customers expect to dial a 9- 1- 1 call from a PBX phone and a wireline phone in exactly the same way, and they expect that the same information (i. e., a distinctive callback number and location identification) will be relayed to the PSAP.”). See also Colorado Task Force comments at 5. However, we note that at least one commenter suggests that MLTS operators may have informed end users that E911 will not work from their location and that another alternative exists for an emergency, such as an emergency call center. See Southern Company reply at 4. 183 Although, as noted in n. 182 supra, there may be some instances where this may not be true. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 24 MLTS operator. There are various equally effective technical solutions to MLTS E911 provisioning, any one of which may be appropriate for a particular locality. We do not believe that applying any one specific criteria is dispositive, but do believe that the level of specific information regarding local network deployment and customer expectation required to apply the second and fourth criteria supports a decision to rely on the states to decide what level of MLTS implementation is appropriate. 53. Adequacy of State Action. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we requested comment as to whether state action regarding MLTS E911 deployment had been adequate. 184 Based on the record, we determine that, although many states have not yet taken action to require MLTS to supply E911, states are in the best position to establish what steps to take to promote E911 availability, and agree with the commenters that the local nature of 911 implementation supports giving states broad discretion to adopt rules requiring MLTS to implement E911. 185 Accordingly, although we do not adopt national rules at this time, we expect that states will take appropriate steps to ensure MLTS E911 deployment in their jurisdictions. To the extent that states have not implemented rules requiring MLTS to implement E911, we believe the NENA Model Legislation offers states a valuable template for such rules and strongly encourage states to consider MLTS implementation of E911 in their jurisdictions. If states do not act to fill these gaps in implementation, we may reconsider our decision not to implement national rules in this area. 186 54. We decide not to adopt rules at this time because we believe the unique needs and circumstances of various residential and business MLTS may be better addressed by the states. 187 Congress, in The Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act of 1999, recognized the role that the states play when it required the Commission to “encourage and support efforts by States to deploy comprehensive end- to- end emergency communications infrastructure and programs, based on coordinated statewide plans. …” 188 The states have broad powers to adopt requirements regarding E911. 189 In particular, state legislatures may pass legislation in order to avail themselves of their police power (as well as other applicable powers) if they determine such powers are necessary to reach all affected parties. There appears to be little question that states have jurisdiction over operators of MLTS and could use their police powers to place requirements upon them. 190 Thus, we expect that states will adopt rules requiring MLTS E911 implementation. As noted above, and in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we are prepared to act at the federal level, should states fail to do so. 184 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25607, para. 87. 185 NENA and NASNA comments at 13. See also Ad Hoc comments at 12 (arguing that the state agencies are in a “better position to determine what capabilities local emergency services providers currently have in place to use transmitted information prior to imposing requirements that such information be transmitted from workplaces” and that “[ such] determinations are critically important to avoid the imposition of costly regulations that may not produce commensurate benefits”). 186 See Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, infra. 187 See, i. e., ACUTA comments at 1- 5 (“ higher education institutions have developed various methods of processing 911 calls, utilizing the capabilities of their equipment and the services that they are able to obtain from telecommunications service providers”); Ad Hoc comments at 11 (“ Ad Hoc cautions the Commission against attempting to regulate multi- line telephone systems in a manner that purports to apply equally to all workplaces; such regulations may not adequately consider the unique emergency notification requirements of particular places of employment.”). See also UTC comments at 2- 4; Southern Company reply at 2- 4. 188 See 911 Act. 189 The state of Illinois, has passed a law which regulates, among other things, operators of MLTS. See 50 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 750. 190 See, i. e., Ad HOC comments at 1- 13. But see Colorado Task Force comments at 6 (“ The FCC has jurisdiction … to require, by a specific date, MLTS operators to meet the same E9- 1- 1 requirements as wireline and wireless phones.”). 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 25 55. Further, the present record contains no evidence that convinces us that effective deployment of E911 from MLTS would achieve greater benefit from federal rules than state rules. Since 1994, technical advances have taken place regarding MLTS E911 deployment, 191 and various states have undertaken E911 initiatives. 192 Again, the unique needs and circumstances of various residential and business MLTS users lead us to the conclusion that greater benefit may be derived from state- level action. 193 Further, a number of commenters support specific proposals regarding E911 compatibility (i. e., grandfathering, 194 attendant notification, etc.). It is exactly this type of issue that we believe is best left to the competent decision- making of the states and localities. 56. We disagree with those commenters that urge the Commission to preempt state regulation. 195 We find preemption, at this time, to be unnecessary and contrary to the public interest. We are unwilling to substitute our judgment for the judgment of states that have enacted or may enact laws or regulations tailored to meet specific circumstances in their jurisdictions where there is no clear conflict with federal law or frustration of federal policy. We agree with NENA and NASNA that should future state regulations inhibit the development of E911 compatible MLTS or make compliance difficult or impossible on a broad scale, we can take appropriate action or entertain preemption petitions. 196 The record indicates that this is not the situation at this time. 57. Model Legislation. We solicited comment on whether the Model Legislation proffered by NENA and APCO offered a model for the states to adopt. 197 The Commission further solicited comment on the portion of the Model Legislation that would have the Commission modify portions of its Part 64 rule to require E911 trunking capability for carriers and its Part 68 rules to require E911 compatibility from MLTS manufacturers. 198 191 See Net2Phone reply at 1- 11( discussing VoIP technologies). See also Letter from Franklin Rademacher, Vice President and COO, RedSky Technologies, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 94- 102, (dated Sept. 17, 2003) (RedSky Sept. 17 Ex Parte Letter). 192 See http:// www. nena. org/ 9- 1- 1TechStandards/ state. htms for a list of state E911 legislation (visited Oct. 1, 2003). 193 See, i. e., ACUTA comments at 1- 5 (“ higher education institutions have developed various methods of processing 911 calls, utilizing the capabilities of their equipment and the services that they are able to obtain from telecommunications service providers”); Ad Hoc comments at 11 (“ Ad Hoc cautions the Commission against attempting to regulate multi- line telephone systems in a manner that purports to apply equally to all workplaces; such regulations may not adequately consider the unique emergency notification requirements of particular places of employment.”). See also UTC comments at 2- 4; Southern Company reply at 2- 4. 194 We note that the topic of grandfathering old equipment raises numerous proposals as to which types of equipment should be grandfathered, or which entities, or for how long. See, e. g., ACUTA comments at 6 (proposing grandfathering of older PBX equipment and a longer phase- in period for non- profit organizations and small organizations); Avaya comments at 4 (supporting implementation schedule and grandfathering proposed in the Model Legislation). See also UTC comments at 8; Southern Company reply at 6. 195 See Avaya comments at 2- 4; TIA comments at 3; Avaya reply at 4; NEC reply at 1- 4. 196 See NENA and NASNA comments at 13 (“ Should state actions range so far beyond whatever the FCC does here as to interfere with federal purposes, there will be time enough to consider whether federal regulation should preempt the states.”). See also TIA reply at 5. 197 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25607- 08, para. 88. See NENA Technical Information Document on Model Legislation: Enhanced E- 911 Multi- line Telephone Systems, available at http:// www. nena. org (visited October 2, 2002) (Model Legislation). 198 In an effort to resolve differences regarding MLTS E911 compatibility issues, NENA, APCO, NASNA, Ad Hoc, and MMTA met on their own initiative and developed an ex parte presentation “Public Safety- MLTS Industry Consensus” (Consensus Proposal), that they filed with the Commission on April 1, 1997. Although it addresses other matters, the Consensus Proposal focuses principally on whether each station of a MLTS must be automatically (continued....) 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 26 58. NENA and APCO proposed model legislation that would allow states to adopt many of the standards and protocols associated with delivering E911 services through multi- line systems. We note that the Model Legislation received much support from commenters in this proceeding. 199 We also support the goals and approach to achieving those goals embodied in the Model Legislation. The Model Legislation represents a carefully designed, well developed approach to MLTS E911 compatibility. We recommend that legislative bodies considering E911 issues consider the proposals contained in the Model Legislation. 59. We consider the Model Legislation to be particularly well- suited to guide state legislatures, because it offers a flexible approach to addressing MLTS implementation of E911. While the Model Legislation is comprehensive – addressing all aspects and parties involved in MLTS E911 implementation – it allows states to adopt rules based on local conditions and reflecting particular needs of the individual states. For example, the Model Legislation allows for a flexible initial deployment schedule. Additionally, the Model Legislation contains provisions for a waiver process, again allowing states to adapt legislation to local circumstances. We also note that some states have examined issues relating to MLTS E911 implementation and specifically point to the legislation adopted in Illinois as a reference for other states to consider. 200 We expect that states will work quickly to adopt legislation in this area. In order to monitor their progress in doing so, we intend to issue a public notice in a year examining this topic. If we find that states do not appear to be filling this gap in the emergency call system, we may reconsider our decision not to implement national rules in this area. 201 60. Although we support the goals of the Model Legislation, we do not believe it is necessary, based on the record before us, for us to revise our Part 64 and 68 rules, at this time. 202 With respect to Part 64, NENA and APCO propose a new Subpart V to Part 64 to “assure the cooperation of local exchange carriers in providing switching, trunking and technical information needed for MLTS support of E9- 1- 1.” 203 While we fully support the goal of the proposal, we are concerned that the proposed Part 64 amendments may be too vague, making them operationally unenforceable. 204 Further, we note that the record is unclear as to the extent to which LECs offer E911 compatible trunking. Finally, we note that the section 64.3001 of the Commission’s rules requires all telecommunications carriers to transmit all 911 calls to appropriate public safety authorities. 205 Thus, we believe that where a state requires MLTS E911 implementation, our rules would require telecommunications carriers to transmit the location information provided by the MLTS operator. Although we decline to adopt the Part 64 revision here, we seek comment on NENA’s Part 64 proposal, along with a further clarification from NEC, in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, infra, in order to fully develop the record on this topic. (... continued from previous page) identified when a 911 call is placed. We decline to adopt the Consensus Proposal. Many of the original parties to the Consensus Proposal have since withdrawn their support. NENA and NASNA comments at 11- 12. Further, as discussed supra, we have determined that this issue is best addressed at the state and local level. 199 Washington State E911 Program comments at 8; NEC reply at 1- 10; NENA and NASNA reply at 11- 13. Some commenters express general support with certain exceptions noted in their comments. 200 See 50 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 750. 201 See Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, infra. 202 See Model Legislation at 6, exh. A. 203 Id. 204 For example, see proposed section 64- 2102 which requires LECs to provide “a method for the MLTS operator to process 9- 1- 1 database records to the 9- 1- 1 Database Provider for the local public 9- 1- 1 system” without defining what acceptable methods might be or how affected parties would comply with this requirement. 205 See 47 C. F. R. § 64. 3001. 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 27 61. With respect to Part 68, we disagree with those commenters that support adopting “uniform national” standards through Part 68 amendments. 206 The proposed amendments to Part 68 are too vague to have any impact on the level of local coordination necessary to implement MLTS E911. Requiring MLTS to be E911 capable presents a set of issues and requirements beyond those implicated by non-multi- line systems, and involves coordination among a multitude of parties. 207 For example, Verizon implements a MLTS E911 solution in New York under which each party along the 911 path is responsible for providing a service or technical function beyond that required for non- MLTS E911 provision. 208 First, manufacturers must provide PBXs with direct inward dialing (DID) to support MLTS signaling through such systems as Centralized Automatic Message Accounting (CAMA) 209 or Integrated Services Digital Network (ISDN) 210 interfaces in order to deliver the calling number identification that makes MLTS E911 possible. Both CAMA and ISDN are well- known, readily available technologies, the availability of which would be unaffected by a change to Part 68. Assuming a MLTS operator has a MLTS compatible PBX, any carrier involved must provide trunking and interfaces capable of transferring location information received from the MLTS. However, the MLTS operators must transmit this location data, and also must populate (and update) the ALI database to provide specific geographic cross-references to the transmitted data for the PSAP to receive. Finally, PSAPs must have the capability to receive this information. A general requirement in Part 68 that MLTS be E911 compatible would not contribute to this process. 62. Similarly, revising Part 68 to impose a particular technical solution would be inconsistent with our conclusion that the states are in a better position to determine the manner in which E911 should be deployed in a particular locality. Further, because multiple technical solutions are possible, any revision to Part 68 that would mandate a particular technology would possibly inhibit innovation. 211 The 206 Avaya reply at 4; NEC reply at 1- 9. 207 See Avaya comments at 2 (“ However, for the rollout of MLTS E911 services to be successful and timely, other key players – namely, the wireline E911 service provider (typically the Local Exchange Company) and the requesting PSAP – must be ready and able to support MLTS emergency capabilities.”). E911 transmits caller identification and location information to the PSAP. E911 also routes calls to the appropriate PSAP. The E911 network performs these tasks by using the following features: automatic number identification (ANI); selective routing (SR); and automatic location information (ALI). With these features, calls made from a residence or coin line easily identify the caller’s emergency response location. These features alone, however, would not reveal the location of emergency calls originating from a MLTS. While each telephone within the organization served by a MLTS has a unique telephone number or extension that the MLTS recognizes for directing internal traffic and inbound calls, outbound external calls may not have a unique identifier, and therefore may be unable to transmit complete 911 information. See BRETSA comments at 8; Colorado Task Force comments at 4. 208 See Verizon reply at 3. 209 CAMA is an “arrangement that provides for the recording of detailed billing information at a centralized location other than an end office, usually a tandem. CAMA equipment also may be associated with operator systems, etc.” See Telcordia Notes on the Networks, Telcordia Technologies Special Report, SR- 2275, Issue 4, October 2000 at Glossary. A CAMA trunk is a dedicated trunk that uses multi- frequency signaling and reverse- battery call supervision to transmit a caller’s ANI or another number which is used to identify the caller’s location. 210 ISDN is an "integrated digital network in which the same digital switches and digital paths are used to establish connections for different services, for example, telephony, data." See Telcordia Notes on the Networks, Telcordia Technologies Special Report, SR- 2275, Issue 4, October 2000 at Glossary. An ISDN Primary Rate Access (PRA) line "offers 23 B channels and 1 D channel, also known as 23B + D. Information is delivered over a single T1-carrier system at a rate of 1. 544 Mbps, which includes 8 kbps for overhead. PRA ISDN is full duplex and can serve large- business applications and PBXs." See Telcordia Notes on the Networks, Telcordia Technologies Special Report, SR- 2275, Issue 4, October 2000 at Section 14. 9. 5. 2. 211 For example, requiring that MLTS be modified and manufactured to ensure their compatibility with the E911 network, at this time, could mean requiring MLTS to be inherently compatible with CAMA trunks or capable of working with an adjunct device which allows a MLTS to be connected to a CAMA trunk. CAMA technology, (continued....) 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 28 Commission should not block the deployment of advanced digital solutions to E911 MLTS compatibility, such as VoIP and packet- based technologies, as doing so would be inconsistent with the Commission’s policy to promote the advancement of new technologies. We strongly encourage industry standards-setting bodies to focus due attention on setting appropriate standards for MLTS E911 compatibility on an expedited basis. 212 In addition, the rechartered Network Reliability and Interoperability Council should address the issue of obtaining location information for E911 calls from MLTS. Moreover, we strongly encourage MLTS operators to ensure that E911 services are available from their MLTS. As demonstrated in the record, a variety of technologies and vendors exist currently that make E911 compliance in the MLTS context quite feasible. 213 We believe that states are in a unique position to coordinate the disparate elements necessary for MLTS E911 implementation, 214 and need broad flexibility to bring E911 to all their citizens. 63. Finally, although we sought comment on the Commission’s authority to require compliance with its E911 rules by manufacturers of multi- line systems, 215 because we do not revise our Part 64 or Part 68 rules, or otherwise impose requirements on MLTS manufacturers, we do not need to reach the issue of whether the Commission has authority to compel manufacturers to take steps to ensure MLTS E911 compatibility. 216 Any inquiry into whether we have such jurisdiction would be premature. 217 C. Telematics 64. Summary. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we observed the extent of telematics equipment that (... continued from previous page) along with ISDN, is presently the only widely available network solution to MLTS E911 compatibility problems. However, CAMA is an older solution that we do not wish to impose as the default solution for MLTS compatibility. Industry representatives have developed a standard for the interface between MLTS and the CAMA trunk (EIA/ TIA 689, Feb. 25, 1997). Thus, any manufacturer that wishes to ensure that its MLTS can accommodate CAMA trunks or be modified to accommodate CAMA trunks is able to do so consistent with an industry standard. 212 UTC comments at 8 (“ Uniform standards that are developed by the industry are likely to reduce equipment costs and reflect the current state of technology . … In order to encourage the development of new technologies, the Commission should not adopt rules of guidelines for new technologies at this time.”). 213 For example, Verizon has a tariffed service that provides E911 support to PBX switches and Centrex customers. Verizon reply at 4. See discussion of CAMA and ISDN, supra. See also RedSky Sept. 17 Ex Parte Letter. 214 For example, states and localities are in the best position to consider the unique characteristics of their cities, e. g., building stock composition (old vs. new buildings), problem areas, university or hospital environments, in determining their E911 needs. 215 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25608- 09, para. 91. 216 Although some commenters focus their attention on whether the Commission has jurisdiction over operators of multi- line systems, the decision we reach here does not require us to assert such jurisdiction, and we do not address those issues here. See Ad Hoc comments at 1- 2. We note that Ad Hoc argues that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to impose regulations on operators of MLTS at places of employment because such “workplace” regulations are subject to the jurisdiction of state regulations and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Ad Hoc comments at 1- 13. But see NENA and NASNA reply at 12 (“ We cannot accept, however, Ad Hoc TUC’s assertions that the issue of 9- 1- 1 access through MLTS on business premises belongs with the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration or its state counterparts rather than the FCC.”). Because we do not reach the issue of whether the Commission has jurisdiction over MLTS operators, we similarly decline to address Ad Hoc’s argument that OSHA has jurisdiction over MLTS E911 compatibility in workplace environments. 217 We note that commenters’ views varied on whether the Commission has jurisdiction over manufacturers. See., i. e., TIA comments at 4- 17 (arguing the Commission lacks jurisdiction); UTC comments at 10 (“ UTC agrees that the Commission has the legal authority to require MLTS equipment manufacturers to provide E911 capability, however the Commission should at this time refrain from exercising its authority over manufacturers.”). 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 29 manufacturers had begun to install in vehicles on the Nation’s highways. In view of the predicted trends for growth of the telematics services industry and the increasing role that it appeared to have in contributing to the public safety needs of the Nation’s drivers, we sought comment on the Commission’s current regulatory approach to such services and on possible future approaches. 218 We received 18 comments and 11 reply comments on the telematics issues. After considering the record with respect to telematics systems, we conclude that we should not impose the E911 requirements on telematics providers that do not provide a commercial mobile radio service that interconnects with the public switched network (PSTN). We also conclude that given the on- going testing of the advanced capabilities of telematics systems, the better course is for the Commission to take an informal approach in assisting stakeholders’ implementation of such capabilities. We believe that the Commission’s active participation in the mutual efforts between public safety organizations and private industry will encourage them to continue to provide expeditiously the benefits of prompt emergency response to the public in the event of life- threatening emergencies on the Nation’s highways. 65. Background. The E911 Scope NPRM noted that telematics can generally be defined as the integrated use of location technology and wireless communications to enhance the functionality of motor vehicles. 219 The embedded in- vehicle equipment applications of telematics systems provide safety and concierge services through integrated vehicle communications and navigations systems. These systems employ Global Position System (GPS) technology to provide directions, track a vehicle’s location, and help a caller obtain emergency assistance in the event of an accident. Telematics units in vehicles may also provide an automatic crash notification (ACN) capability that enables such units to automatically call an emergency services dispatcher for help in an accident. That capability may include the transmission of data pertaining to the area and extent of damage to the vehicle, air bag deployment, and information on the occupants’ condition. 220 66. The comments generally indicate that in this emerging environment two models of telematics systems are the most prevalent – first, a standard or telematics- only model and, second, a model based on the first that also integrates and provides Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) for voice calling to and from other end users. Both models rely on the service of an underlying licensed wireless carrier who provides a direct communications link between the vehicle and the call center or advisor of the telematics service provider. In the standard telematics model, data and voice communications are transmitted over this link only to the telematics call centers 221 and cannot transmit and receive commercial wireless calls between occupants in the vehicle and other wireline or wireless end users. 222 It is over the link to their call centers that telematics service providers furnish their concierge type and emergency services through the call center. The emergency call the telematics subscriber makes by pressing the “hot button” in the vehicle is also transmitted over this link. The call center screens the emergency calls and reports the information on genuine emergencies by calling the PSAP on its ten- digit phone number. 67. In the alternative model, however, the telematics service provider also provides to its subscribers the option of a wireless commercial mobile radio service (CMRS). 223 Subscribers who can 218 See E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25601, paras. 61- 63. 219 See E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25600, at para. 58, citing Year 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendments of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Modify or Eliminate Outdated Rules Affecting the Cellular Radiotelephone Service and other Commercial Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 01- 108, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 18485 (2002) (Biennial Review Report and Order), at para. 18 n. 56. 220 See id. 221 ATX Technologies comments at 8- 9; Toyota comments at 7. 222 ATX Technologies comments at 8- 9. 223 See MBUSA reply at 2- 3. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 30 use CMRS also have a choice of dialing 911 in an emergency and reaching a PSAP directly in addition to making emergency calls to the call center over the telematics link. In a recent order, the Commission determined with respect to one telematics provider, OnStar, that licensed wireless carriers providing CMRS for its commercial wireless calling option did have an obligation to meet the Commission’s E911 requirements. 224 Due to the problems with reconciling the autonomous GPS systems of telematics with the GPS technology on which Commission rules for traditional mobile handsets are based, the Commission granted OnStar’s wireless carrier partners a waiver of the pertinent parts of Section 20.18 of the rules until December 31, 2005. 225 In reaching this conclusion, the Commission also considered that OnStar needed to accommodate the transition from analog to digital based systems in modifying its embedded vehicle equipment to provide E911 Phase II capabilities for its commercial wireless service offering. 226 68. Commenters generally contend that standard telematics service does not meet the four criteria for imposing E911 obligations we sought comment on for new services and devices in this proceeding: (1) it does not interconnect to the PSTN, (2) subscribers have no expectation of direct access to 911, (3) it does not compete with CMRS, and (4) there are significant technical issues that do not make it operationally feasible to implement E911 capabilities. 227 Commenters further add that telematics systems deliver substantial public safety benefits with their call center- based service, and provide location capabilities that exceed the criteria in the Commission’s Rules. 228 Consequently, they contend that the imposition of E911 Phase II requirements is either unnecessary or problematic for telematics providers. 229 The comments focus primarily on the first two criteria. The record indicates that telematics systems are still in the early stages of development and constitute a relatively new and evolving technology. 230 69. In addition, commenters contend that the Commission should not impose obligations with regard to the direct transmission of emergency calls made over the telematics communications link to a PSAP. Similarly, they argue that there should be no requirements for the transmission of ACN data to PSAPs, because public safety organizations, service providers, manufacturers, and emergency provider stakeholders are continuing the process of trial programs and formulating standards. 231 70. Discussion. We find that telematics service providers that provide a standard service, i. e., do not provide a commercial wireless service that connects to the PSTN, offer an alternative to our E911 224 Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94- 102, Order, FCC 03- 242 (Oct. 21, 2003) (OnStar Order). 225 See OnStar Order, at paras. 24, 30. 226 See OnStar Order, at paras. 24- 26; see 47 C. F. R. § 20. 18( g). 227 ATX Technologies comments at 9; MBUSA comments at 2 (contending that its “Tele- Aid” service does not meet the criteria); OnStar comments at 4, 9; Toyota comments at 10 (making similar contentions concerning its “Lexus-Link” service); Verizon comments at 3. Toyota further suggests that even telematics units providing CMRS voice calling service under the alternative model do not meet the criteria. See Ex Parte Letter from W. Carnell, counsel for Toyota North America, to J. Muleta, Chief Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Oct. 9, 2003). 228 ATX Technologies comments at 6; BMW Group comments at 2 (asserting that call centers, unlike CMRS cell tower- based systems, ensure that emergency calls are directed to the PSAP in the jurisdiction where first responders can promptly react to the call); ITSA comments at 7; MBUSA comments at 7; OnStar comments at 8- 10. 229 BMW Group comments at 2; ITSA comments at 3, 5; OnStar comments at 8; Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers of America reply at 2. 230 ATX Technologies comments at 11 (having less than 2 percent market penetration); AIAM comments at 2; Intelligent Transportation Systems of America (ITSA) comments at 3. 231 See ATX Technologies comments at 12- 13; ComCARE Alliance comments at 23- 24; OnStar comments at 3, 12. 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 31 requirements that comparably meets the objectives that the Commission initially set forth in adopting its E911 rules. We conclude that for the reasons set forth below, the imposition of Phase I and Phase II E911 requirements on such providers of telematics- only services is not warranted. Further, we clarify that telematics providers offering an interconnected switched voice service, i. e., service “[ t] hat is interconnected with the public switched network, or interconnected with the public switched network through an interconnected service provider, that gives subscribers the capability to communicate to or receive communication from all other users on the public switched network,” 232 may have E911 obligations under rules adopted today, 233 depending on the nature of the relationship the telematics provider has with the underlying licensee. 71. Relation of Telematics to CMRS Service and E911 Location Requirements. We undertake our analysis by determining whether telematics services should be subject to E911 requirements on the basis of the four criteria set out in the E911 Scope NPRM. First, we find that telematics providers that provide call center- based emergency service that does not use commercial wireless service to communicate with the call center do not meet the criteria for a service that interconnects with the PSTN pursuant to the Commission’s rules. We agree with commenters that standard telematics service does not meet this criterion because it relies solely on a dedicated link to the call center, which is the only wireless end user. 234 This limitation precludes telematics equipment for that service from transmitting and receiving commercial wireless calls between the vehicle’s occupants and other wireline or wireless end users. 235 Consequently, although telematics providers have the dedicated link between the call center and an underlying wireless carrier, customers of standard telematics service providers have no capability to communicate with other end users on the PSTN, i. e., they cannot directly dial out of the network of the telematics provider to a specific number outside the call center. 236 For emergency service they rely on reaching the call center rather than dialing 911. 72. Further, we recognize that telematics systems may offer location capabilities that are either equivalent, or superior, to our E911 rules that apply to licensed carriers connecting to the PSTN. BMW Group asserts that telematics services generally outperform the accuracy requirements of E911. 237 BMW describes the telematics system in its vehicles as using dead reckoning, map matching, and GPS technology that is capable of providing a location to within 11 yards. 238 ATX Technologies submits that the GPS capabilities in cars with its units exceed the Commission’s E911 accuracy requirements for wireless location technologies all over the country. 239 Telematics call centers provide PSAPs with more accurate location information and on a consistent nation- wide basis. 240 Based on autonomous GPS technology, embedded telematics devices currently deliver nationwide precise GPS- based location information with every emergency call, regardless of whether the PSAP is Phase II ready. 241 Thus, we 232 47 C. F. R. § 20.3. 233 See infra Section IV. D., Resold and Pre- paid Calling. 234 See ATX Technologies comments at 8; MBUSA comments at 4. See also, NENA/ NASNA comments (contending that to the extent telematics providers offer customers the ability to connect directly to the PSTN, they should be required to comply with the E911 rules); Washington State E911 Program comments at 6. 235 See ATX Technologies comments at 8- 9; Verizon reply at 3 & n. 7. 236 See MBUSA comments at 4. 237 BMW Group comments at 2. 238 BMW Group comments at 2. Cf. Commission’s E911 Phase II requirements, 47 C. F. R. § 20. 18( g). 239 ATX Technologies comments at 6, n. 5. 240 BMW Group comments at 2. See also, ITSA comments at 7. 241 OnStar comments at 8; ComCARE Alliance reply at 8. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 32 find that the call center approach used by telematics providers allows for the delivery of the precise telematics location information to PSAPs that have not upgraded their systems to automatically receive such information. 242 ITSA also submits that telematics service providers furnish this information without causing PSAPs to incur additional costs. 243 73. Other Telematics Call Center Public Safety Capabilities. Further, we find that the public safety benefits of these technical capabilities are enhanced through the call centers that telematics providers have established as the initial emergency contact for their subscribers. Most commenters, including public safety organizations, agree that call centers perform a useful service 244 and provide several capabilities that advance other objectives of E911 requirements. For example, some commenters indicate that call centers, unlike the cell tower- based systems of CMRS carriers, ensure that the call is directed to the PSAP in the correct jurisdiction. 245 74. As noted in the E911 Scope NPRM, in their capacity as the initial contact, telematics call centers have a screening capability. The record substantiates that call centers can perform several valuable screening functions. 246 With the advisors assigning a priority level to each call, call centers are able to offer and dispatch assistance for calls that are not life threatening emergency calls, such as those requesting assistance for typical roadside emergencies, (e. g., broken down vehicle, a vehicle out of gas, or a flat tire). 247 For situations that require extensive or higher level emergency service response from public safety officials or medical emergency personnel, the call center can transfer the caller to the appropriate PSAP. Moreover, the telematics call center approach allows the advisor or representative to collect information on the nature of the emergency, enabling them to request the appropriate emergency service to be dispatched to the scene. 248 75. We agree with commenters that such filtering of calls that might otherwise go to the PSAP if 911 were dialed is a valuable service that relieves pressure on PSAPs. 249 ATX Technologies submits that its call centers transfer only about 40 percent of “hot button” calls to a PSAP because the “emergency” reported is not one that a PSAP would typically handle. 250 ATX Technologies asserts that out of the 1.1 million calls received in 2002 by ATX Technologies, only 4700 involved an in- vehicle emergency or notification of impact. 251 In 2002, of all the calls BMW’s telematics service handled, only 2 percent needed to be and were actually connected to PSAPs. 252 242 See ITSA comments at 7; OnStar comments at 8. 243 ITSA comments at 7. 244 NENA/ NASNA comments at 9. 245 BMW Group comments at 2; see OnStar comments at 9- 10; see also, supra, note 228. 246 See BMW Group comments at 2; MBUSA comments at 7; OnStar comments at 9. 247 OnStar comments at 9. We do not find it necessary for the Commission to become involved in the issue concerning the training of call center advisors. The record indicates that telematics service providers train their advisors in handling emergency calls. See ATX Technologies comments at 8; OnStar comments at 4, 9; Toyota reply at 7; cf. BRETSA comments at 6. 248 MBUSA comments at 8, n. 15; see ATX Technologies comments at 10. 249 Intrado comments at 9; MBUSA comments at 7 (asserting that the call center filtering function actually saves PSAPs time); OnStar comments at 9. 250 ATX Technologies comments at 8. 251 ATX Technologies comments at 4; see also, id. at 6 (asserting that 2300 out of the 4700 calls were automatic airbag notifications). 252 BMW Group comments at 2. 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 33 76. We find that with such capabilities, telematics services constitute an alternative to E911- capable commercial wireless services that is consistent with the public safety goals that the Commission set forth in the proceeding to adopt wireless E911 requirements. 253 There, the Commission enunciated that the public safety advantages for E911 constituted significant objectives for wireless service. Stating that E911 saves lives and property by assisting emergency services personnel in doing their jobs more quickly and efficiently, the Commission determined that the capability of Automatic Location Identification (ALI) to permit rapid response in situations where callers are disoriented, disabled, or otherwise unable to articulate their location, to permit the immediate dispatch of emergency assistance to the location in these situations, and to reduce errors in reporting the location and in forwarding accurate information to emergency personnel are significant benefits that the public safety demands from the advanced emergency capabilities of E911 systems. 254 We conclude that telematics services generally achieve those objectives. 77. Telematics Customer Expectations. With respect to the second criterion, we find that with the above response capabilities in the telematics call center approach, telematics- only service also does not generate a reasonable expectation among its customers to have access to 911 and E911 services. The record indicates that telematics subscribers understand the manner in which emergency services are delivered over telematics- only systems, and therefore, do not expect that they can dial a PSAP directly. Several commenters contend that customers using telematics- only systems do not expect to contact a PSAP directly for their “hot button” calls to request assistance, 255 and that there is no evidence of confusion that the use of the “hot button” feature provides direct contact with a PSAP. 256 Further, Toyota submits that the marketing literature for its telematics service makes clear that emergency service is provided through a “dispatcher,” and customers sign a notice that clearly states that they understand “Lexus Link is not a cellular telephone.” 257 MBUSA adds that sales representatives, the structure of the fee for its telematics service program, and the labeling of the “hot button” with “SOS” rather than “911” for its Tele- Aid system inform users that pressing “SOS” does not directly dial 911. 258 On the other hand, concerning OnStar systems which have the capability of providing access to either a call center or directly to a PSAP, OnStar submits that there is no evidence that additional notice needs to be given regarding how its system works in emergencies. 259 We conclude that consumers of a telematics service that does not offer CMRS understand the capabilities of the telematics system in their vehicles and do not expect that they will initially reach a PSAP when making their calls for emergency assistance. 78. We find, however, that as variations on the two general models for telematics service develop with new devices or offerings, telematics service providers may further need to clarify the nature and capabilities of their emergency service offerings to consumers. For instance, with offerings that may provide subscribers access to a call center or advisor through the two- way voice calling offering of a CMRS network, such as AAA describes, 260 we are concerned that customers may reasonably expect 253 E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18679, para. 5. 254 E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18681, para. 8. See also, id., at 18681, para. 9 (on wireless E911 resulting in deployment of technologies that speed the delivery of assistance to people in emergency situations and more reliable 911 service coverage over wider geographic areas). 255 Toyota comments at 8 (asserting that their customers’ willingness to purchase both telematics services and commercial wireless telephone service in their vehicles demonstrates their understanding of each service). BMW Group comments at 5; ComCARE Alliance comments at 31. 256 MBUSA comments at 11; AIAM comments at 2. 257 Toyota comments at 9, 21. 258 Mercedes comments at 9. 259 See OnStar comments at 11. 260 AAA comments at 3. 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 34 immediate access to a PSAP. As the telematics industry continues to grow and such variations based on providing CMRS to telematics customers are implemented, there will be a need for customers to understand how they can obtain emergency service. Another goal for implementing the Commission’s E911 regulations has been the need to explore further means of improving consumer education so that users of wireless services will be able to determine rationally and accurately the scope of their options in accessing 911 services from mobile handsets. 261 Thus, we urge telematics providers to continue to ensure that their customers understand the different emergency capabilities of their service offerings and, if CMRS is offered, to explicitly notify them that they also have direct access to 911. 79. Telematics as a Competitive Alternative to CMRS or Wireline Service. Concerning the third criterion – whether the service examined competes with traditional CMRS or wireline local exchange service, we find that the standard telematics model does not provide competition to those services. Because it does not interconnect with the PSTN, except through a ‘private’ dedicated line as described above, the standard telematics model does not offer the same capability for customers to make calls to more than one end user, i. e., the telematics call center. Thus, we agree with ATX Technologies that telematics in its standard form does not resemble CMRS. 262 On the other hand, we find for the reasons stated above, that the alternative telematics model, which offers CMRS, has the capability by virtue of interconnecting with the PSTN for voice service with other end users to compete with typical CMRS offerings and, also, wireline local exchange service. 80. Operational and Technical Feasibility. We find that the fourth criterion regarding the feasibility of a service to support E911 can also be evaluated in the context of the standard telematics service versus the alternative model. We agree with the contentions of commenters that for standard telematics service, it would be operationally and technically unfeasible to require telematics providers to comply with the Commission’s E911 rules. Given that the standard telematics service does not offer CMRS, we find that mandating E911 requirements for that model would have a significant adverse impact on telematics providers. 263 The automotive product life- cycle pertaining to the development, testing and production of the standard telematics model for incorporation into a vehicle’s electrical architecture would be significantly constrained due to the substantial lead time required to either modify or develop capabilities compatible with current E911 regulations. 264 Further, imposing E911 requirements would create technical problems in that the autonomous GPS used by telematics differs from the assisted GPS/ AFLT system used by wireless carriers that is compatible with the E911 solutions that they are deploying. 265 Moreover, the migration from analog to digital based telematics services already poses complications for telematics providers. In addition, we find that there would be a secondary impact on PSAPs, who would incur additional cost burdens to accommodate widespread changes in the operation of standard telematics services were we to adopt E911 regulations. 266 81. As for telematics service that offers CMRS, however, the record for the recent OnStar Order indicates that the technical difficulty in reconciling the different GPS technologies of embedded 261 E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18682, para. 9. 262 ATX Technologies comments at 8. 263 See Toyota comments at 11; Verizon reply at 3. 264 See Toyota comments at 10- 11, 22- 23 (telematics units are subject to extensive validation and phase- in requirements as part of the automotive product cycle that may be five years or more); see also, OnStar comments at 7, 14- 15; ATX Technologies reply comments at 12- 13. 265 Toyota comments at 12. 266 ATX Technologies reply comments at 12- 13; ComCARE Alliance reply comments at 7. We note that PSAPS might also lose some of the operational benefits due to the screening function that standard telematics service provides. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 35 telematics systems as compared to traditional handsets can be resolved. We also recognize that OnStar plans a phase- in of units that will be fully compliant. 267 The effort to resolve the technical and operational complexities due to any differences among the networks of underlying wireless carrier partners continues. 82. Therefore, upon fully assessing all of the comments in this proceeding, 268 we conclude that there is no need to adopt the Commission’s E911 requirements for telematics- only service at this time, because that service does not satisfy the four general criteria. We further conclude that the alternative telematics model meets the four criteria, including operational and technical feasibility. In addition, from our consideration of the record, we have become increasingly aware that variations on the two telematics models may evolve, blurring the delineation between telematics- only services and those that offer two-way voice calling over the CMRS network. The record indicates other telematics service models may develop that connect the caller to a call center via commercial wireless calling over the PSTN rather than the direct link of the “pure” telematics model to only a call center. Such a call center might be operated by the road club or service to which the caller subscribes. 269 For instance, AAA contemplates that a subscriber to its road club service would reach it by dialing an 800 number or with pre- set one- key dialing in the handset. 270 In such a model, the caller also appears to still have the alternative of dialing 911. As the recent OnStar Order reflects, we clarify that telematics service providers who choose to offer services that rely on the commercial wireless service provided by underlying wireless carriers need to continue to coordinate with those carriers, so that regardless of the legal relationship between the carrier and the telematics provider E911 requirements pursuant to section 20.18( g) of the rules can be met. 271 We find that this guidance sufficiently addresses the issues that Toyota has concerning the OnStar Order and renders them moot. 272 Furthermore, as different telematics models evolve, we encourage entities evaluating their new product and service offerings to consider the four- part test to comply with E911 requirements, and we reserve the right to revisit potential E911 obligations in the future. In addition, we remind those telematics providers who offer interconnected CMRS voice service of their obligations pursuant to Section 255 of the Communications Act. 273 83. Direct Delivery of Telematics Calls. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we also sought comment on the timeliness of the delivery of calls to a PSAP or other appropriate local emergency authority. Based on our review of the record, we find that although some entities express concern that the call center approach 267 See OnStar Order, at para. 26 268 We note that the comments on which the OnStar Order is based are also part of CC Docket 94- 102. 269 We also conceive the possibility in which a call center might even be a sophisticated, computerized “electronic-concierge.” 270 The call center operator would inform the caller how to transmit the location information, e. g., pressing a “hot button” on a specially equipped mobile phone that transmits GPS- generated location information over the same communications path (existing CMRS infrastructure) and other information generated during the call. AAA comments at 3. 271 To the extent that OnStar is considered a reseller of CMRS voice service, we extend the terms of the OnStar Order of October 21, 2003 with regard to a waiver of section 20. 18( g) to On- Star for the same reasons we waived the equipment activation and compliance plan requirements for Verizon Wireless as the licensee of On- Star's underlying service." See OnStar Order at paras. 34- 35. 47 C. F. R. § 20. 18 (g); see infra Section IV. D, Resold and Pre- paid Calling. We clarify and further extend that waiver so that, consequently, any telematics units that are capable of providing CMRS service and are installed in vehicles as of December 31, 2005, i. e., vehicles manufactured by December 31, 2005, will not have to comply with current E911 regulations. See OnStar Order at paras. 1, 24- 27, 31, 34- 35. 272 See Ex Parte Letter from W. Carnell, counsel for Toyota North America to M. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 3, 2003). See also, supra, note 271. 273 See supra, Sec. III, Legal Authority, at para. 17. 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 36 may create delay in customers obtaining emergency service, specific requirements for the direct delivery of calls from those telematics systems, including the direct transmission of automatic crash notification data, are not warranted at this time. The comments indicate a concern that the call center approach may lead to a delay in getting emergency service personnel to the scene. Upon the telematics customer contacting the call center, the call center contacts the PSAP over an administrative line via a 10- digit phone number provided by the PSAP. 274 The Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA) contends that emergency calls and information received from telematics providers should be transferred and handled by trained personnel at a PSAP at the earliest possible moment. 275 BRETSA further argues that such calls should be transferred using E911 trunks where they are available, and not the administrative number for the PSAP, and that the call should include transmission of the ANI and ALI. 276 Conversely, other commenters, such as ComCARE Alliance, contend that the Commission should not require delivery of call center calls over dedicated E911 trunks because the diversity of 911 systems does not allow for requiring such a mandate. 277 84. We do not find a sufficient basis for adopting regulations that specify how a telematics call and the information it contains should be routed by the call center to a PSAP. First, we find that any delay in the process of call centers contacting PSAPs may be minimal. For instance, MBUSA points out that with its telematics system, it takes an average of less than 60 seconds for the call to be received at the call center and then directed to the appropriate PSAP. 278 Also, any additional time that may be attributable for a PSAP to call back may be eliminated because call back may be unnecessary due to the fact that the telematics calls can be conferenced between the call center and the PSAP. 279 In addition, the screening function performed by the call center may actually save some PSAPs valuable time. 280 85. In addition, we agree with ComCARE Alliance that requiring telematics providers to deliver emergency calls over E911 trunks would burden local PSAPs who may be at different stages of updating their systems. 281 We find that not all PSAPs may be ready for or prefer the recommendation of the BRETSA for their particular local emergency service operation. 282 NENA and NASNA are of the view that the integration of the communication of voice and data information from telematics call centers directly into public safety communications networks is a long term goal. 283 Further, there appears to be an overall lack of consensus among PSAPs on how to use data generated by telematics devices in the way BRETSA suggests. 284 We concur with the Technical Affairs Committee of Association of International 274 ATX Technologies comments at 5. 275 BRETSA comments at 5. 276 BRETSA comments at 5- 7 277 ComCARE Alliance reply at 14; MBUSA comments at 16 (referring to APCO news release as opposing any new regulation requiring direct transmission of emergency calls to PSAPs). 278 MBUSA comments at 8; see also, OnStar comments at 5. 279 MBUSA comments at 8 (also describing that should some problem cause the call to disconnect, the system is programmed to call back the call center). See also, OnStar comments at 5. Cf. E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25602- 03, para. 69 (regarding potential time problem with delivery of call back number). 280 MBUSA reply at 7. 281 ComCARE Alliance comments at 14. 282 See id. 283 NENA/ NASNA comments at 10. See also, infra, at para. 87. 284 MBUSA comments at 15; ATX Technologies comments at15; Intrado comments at 10 (concerning the differing needs that PSAPS and other emergency medical service (EMS) providers may have with respect to all the data elements, such as those transmitted by ACN). 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 37 Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM) that because of the national scope required for telematics to work, and the inconsistencies among PSAPs’ systems, E911 regulation of telematics would impair the developing operational relationship of telematics systems to those public safety entities. 285 In view of this context, we conclude that it would be difficult to craft E911 regulations that would provide the flexibility needed yet ensure that ANI/ ALI, and perhaps additional information, are transmitted. 286 In spite of such complexities, we, nevertheless urge telematics service providers to continue to work with the public safety community on using E911 trunks more extensively by pursuing the approaches we address below. 287 86. Automatic Crash Notification Data. Although there appears to be merit in BRETSA’s proposal to use E911 trunks for transferring calls from telematics call centers to PSAPs, 288 as applied to the transmission of ANI/ ALI data, and potentially ACN data, we find that the measures it would involve are better considered as part of extensive cooperative efforts by all stakeholders in modernizing the E911 services. In the E911 Scope NPRM we sought comment on what, if any, role the Commission should play regarding delivery of ACN data from telematics providers, including all aspects of potentially extending our E911 rules to include delivery of ACN data by telematics providers to PSAPs. 289 The direct transmission of such information could provide substantial public safety benefits. It would allow PSAPs to evaluate more quickly and accurately the level of resources needed at the scene of an accident. Delivery of ACN would also provide PSAPs and other emergency personnel, such as first responders and hospitals, the information necessary to treat injured victims promptly and with the care they deem necessary. 87. First, we note that several commenters refer to the problems noted by the Hatfield Report. 290 For example, ATX cites the Hatfield Report finding that the current 911 network is not capable of accepting telematics data. 291 Consequently, they contend that it is not advisable to compel telematics providers to integrate backwards into the “antiquated” 911 legacy network. ComCARE Alliance and Washington State E911 Program submit that the findings of the Hatfield Report with respect to transmission of information from telematics systems should be part of a long term effort to incorporate new technologies. 292 NENA urges that the approach to telematics must assure a well designed interface with the E- 911 infrastructure before there is a crisis for the 911 community and that the Commission 285 AIAM comments at 3. 286 Intrado raises the issue of whether telematics providers should be required to support the costs of the interface between telematics call centers and the legacy 911 network in terms of PSAP upgrades to evaluate the telematics data elements, such as ALI, that can be transmitted. We consider this issue outside the scope of this proceeding. See Intrado comments at 9. 287 We recognize that individual PSAPs or a regional system of PSAPs may prefer continued routing of incoming calls from telematics call centers over administrative lines to avoid congestion in particular situations, e. g., during emergencies with an impact over a wide area. 288 See BRETSA comments at 7. For example, NENA/ NASNA informs that direct transmission of ACN in a trial program in Harris County, Texas is through 911 trunks to PSAP. NENA/ NASNA comments at 9- 10. 289 See E911 Scope NPRM, at paras. 74- 75 (stating that “ACN functionality allows for the transmission of crash information (i. e., whether the vehicle rolled over, the measured deceleration of the vehicle at the time of the crash, the principal direction of force) to the telematics providers, and possibly to emergency responders.”). 290 Public Notice, “Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks comment on Report on Technical and Operational Wireless E911 Issues,” WT Docket No. 02- 46, DA 02- 2666 (Oct. 16, 2002) (concerning Report filed by Dale Hatfield on Oct. 15, 2002). See ATX Technologies comments at 14; Motorola comments at 2. 291 ATX Technologies comments at 14. 292 ComCARE Alliance comments at 4; Washington State E911 Program comments at 2. 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 38 should give it priority. 293 ATX Technologies and other telematics service providers are working with NENA in the development of technical standards for communications between the providers’ call centers and PSAPs during emergencies. 294 88. We agree that the integration of telematics, and particularly ACN, raises valid public safety concerns and requires continued, long term emphasis and involvement by the Commission. In this vein, we find that developments, such as the recent trials noted by various commenters, 295 should continue to be monitored. We concur with the concern of those commenters that because such field testing of ACN is still in the early stages, the Commission should allow the voluntary approaches for information exchange that engage all stakeholders. 296 These field trials are evaluating the best routes by which to transmit calls and data without imposing undue burdens or costs on PSAPs and which are most reliable. 297 89. We find that the telematics industry is working closely with the public safety community to develop means of conveying more information that may be useful to the 911 call centers. This cooperation is helping the interested parties develop standards for the formats used to relay ACN to a secure website for use by public safety personnel to manage information regarding the type of crash and injuries. 298 Telematics service providers have participated in ComCARE’s National Mayday Readiness Initiative (NMRI) and on its ACN Committee to develop a standardization of the data set that could be used to transmit information from telematics units to emergency agencies. 299 We also note that their efforts include further discussions with automobile manufacturers (OEMs) to work with public safety groups on how the migration to digital telematics systems might complement or comport with the E911 Phase II criteria, dependent on whether CMRS personal calling service is offered. 300 We recognize, for instance with regard to the Phase II criteria, the long- term product life- cycle planning that telematics providers and OEMs undertake for the operation of telematics units that are a part of a vehicle’s electrical architecture. 301 We further realize the impact that this developmental aspect of providing telematics services has on achieving the public safety benefits that various stakeholders have been discussing for 293 NENA/ NASNA reply at 11. 294 ATX Technologies comments at 12; OnStar comments at 6. 295 See ComCARE Alliance comments at 44- 45 (referring to test of Minnesota’s Mayday Plus System and grant of USDOT Public Safety Program to Minnesota DOT); NENA/ NASNA comments at 9- 10 (concerning trial in Harris County, Texas); OnStar comments at 12- 13 (referring to Minnesota trial and one in Northern Shenandoah Valley, Virginia); AIAM comments at 2; MBUSA comments at 15; see also, E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25602, nn. 179- 80 (mentioning the above field trials in Virginia and Harris County, Texas). 296 See e. g., ATX Technologies comments at 19. 297 ATX Technologies comments at 14; BMW Group comments at 5 (concerning initiatives by telematics providers and PSAP organizations that are complemented by USDOT funded and state initiated projects in Virginia, Texas, and Minnesota). 298 ATX Technologies comments at 12- 13; OnStar comments at 3, 12 (working with the ACN Subcommittee of NENA’s Nontraditional Access Committee to considering new possibilities to providing location and other relevant information via advance automatic crash notification (AACN) to PSAPs, traffic management officials, first responders, secondary PSAPs, and hospital emergency rooms). 299 See ComCARE Alliance comments at 23- 24; for example, ATX and OnStar are participants in the ComCARE Alliance. ComCARE Alliance comments at 23; OnStar comments at 12. 300 See Ex Parte Letter from W. Carnell, counsel for Toyota North America, to M. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Oct. 10, 2003) (apprising Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff of Nov. 17, 2003 meeting of automobile OEMs and telematics service providers with APCO, NENA, and other stakeholders). 301 See OnStar Order, at paras. 26, 32 (addressing factor of product life- cycles). See also, OnStar comments at 13- 14; Toyota comments at 22- 23 (concerning impact of long product life- cycles in relation to regulation). 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 39 ACN. 302 Consequently, we urge telematics providers to continue to coordinate with the underlying CMRS carriers and public safety groups, including the PSAP community and other stakeholders, on the relay of ACN information that is important to public safety. The Commission also provides avenues for further coordination through an informal approach, such as its E911 Coordination Initiative. 303 90. In this still experimental environment, we find that the appropriate course is to defer any regulatory action, but actively support the cooperative efforts that have been undertaken. We agree with ComCARE Alliance that existing cooperative efforts by public safety organizations, the telematics industry, and any standards setting bodies should be allowed to continue unfettered by regulation that might otherwise restrict the flexibility stakeholders need in evaluating standards and the trials to implement them. 304 We find that such a course should assist telematics providers in further developing their offerings as they migrate from analog to digital based telematics systems. 305 APCO has recently adopted a resolution recommending a non- regulatory approach to telematics. 306 We recognize that stakeholders, including telematics providers, are currently participating in ongoing government efforts and programs to encourage the implementation of E911 programs and the technical innovations that telematics providers can contribute. We urge these providers and new entrants to continue involvement in these programs. 307 D. Resold and Pre- paid Calling 91. We next decide whether resellers that use licensees’ facilities to provide wireless voice service to consumers should have an independent obligation to provide access to E911 service. We find that we should place an obligation on resellers 308 and pre- paid calling providers (collectively “resellers”) to comply with our enhanced 911 rules, to the extent that the underlying facilities- based licensee has deployed the facilities necessary to deliver enhanced 911 information to the appropriate PSAP. We recognize, however, that the ability of resellers to comply may be complicated, and therefore, we 302 See Ex parte Letter from W. Ball, Vice President, Public Policy, OnStar Corporation to M. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Oct. 15, 2003) (concerning meeting with WTB staff on the potential approaches for delivery of data that are being considered – “. . . leveraging the current network, development of a national routing database, enhanced functionality of telematics units, and development of internet- based capabilities.”). See also, ComCARE Alliance comments at 40- 45. 303 See Public Notice, “Agenda for the April 29, 2003 Meeting of the Commission’s Wireless E911 Coordination Initiative,” DA 03- 1172 (Apr. 29, 2003); Public Notice, “Agenda for the October 29 and 30, 2003 Meeting of the Commission’s Wireless E911 Coordination Initiative,” DA 03- 3035 (Oct. 3, 2003). 304 ComCARE Alliance reply at 9. 305 See generally, MBUSA comments at 11- 12; OnStar comments at 14. 306 APCO News Release (Jan 3, 2003) (stating that there must be a close working relationship between the public safety community and telematics). 307 See U. S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Wireless E9- 1- 1 Initiative (including, e. g , Priority Action Plan) http:// www. itspublicsafety. net/ wireless/ htm; USDOT ITS Public Safety Program, http:// www. itspublicsafety. net/ index/ htm; Emergency Services Interconnection Forum (ESIF) of the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), http:// www. atis. org/ atis/ esif/ esifhome. htm; see supra, note 2 (concerning Federal Communication Commission’s E911 Coordination Initiative; see also, http: // wireless. fcc. gov/ outreach/ e911/ index. html. 308 For purposes of this order, “resellers” include mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs), who like traditional resellers, do not necessarily own their own spectrum and usually has no network infrastructure. Also like some resellers, MVNOs have business arrangements with licensees to buy minutes of use for sale to their own customers. Unlike resellers, MVNOs typically have brand recognition in another market and use that branding to offer customers not only wireless service, but other products and services from their core business. See “What is a MVNO,” available at < http:// www. mobilein. com/ what_ is_ a_ mvno. htm>. 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 40 establish a period of time to allow resellers to come into compliance. 92. Background. Resellers offer service to consumers by purchasing airtime at wholesale rates from facilities- based providers and reselling it at retail prices. 309 The resale sector accounts for approximately 5 percent of all mobile telephone subscribers. 310 Some resellers, such as Virgin Mobile and Boost Mobile, enter into agreements with a single nationwide licensee to provide their customers’ service. Other resellers, however, enter into agreements with multiple licensees. TracFone, for example, has agreements with “dozens” of facilities- based licensees. 311 93. Discussion. We begin our analysis by determining whether resold voice services should be required to comply based on the four criteria set out in the E911 Scope NPRM. 312 First, resold voice service, like voice service provided by licensees, interconnects to the public switched network. Further, as commenters noted, service provided by resellers is indistinguishable from service provided by licensees, and therefore, consumers of resold service would have the same expectations as consumers of licensees’ service with respect to having access to enhanced 911 service. 313 Additionally, as resellers commented, they are direct competitors of facilities- based CMRS licensees. 314 Finally, as licensees have shown through their deployment of the infrastructure necessary for enhanced 911 to occur, it is technically feasible to comply with our rules, and because resellers use those same facilities, it is by extension technically feasible for them to comply as well. 94. We are concerned, however, about the operational obstacles resellers may face in complying with our rules. As noted above, some resellers enter into agreements with multiple licensees in order to offer larger calling area plans to their customers. 315 Our rules allow licensees to determine how best to comply with the automatic location requirements of our rules. 316 Some licensees have chosen to comply by deploying technology into their networks that allows them to locate the handset through triangulation or some other network- based solution. Others, however, have chosen to meet the requirements by using GPS- enabled handsets or through a hybrid handset- based solution that is assisted by the network, such as assisted GPS. Not all licensees, therefore, have selected the same method for compliance. 309 See Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18455, 18457 (1996); see also Implementation of Section 6002( b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 02- 379, Eighth Report, FCC 03- 150 (July 2003). This is distinguished from agents of licensees. Consumers that sign up for wireless voice service through an agent are currently covered by our rules because the service they receive comes from a covered licensee. An agent of a licensee offers the licensees services to consumers, as opposed to offering a voice service directly to consumers. For example, Radio Shack is an agent for Verizon Wireless and Sprint PCS. Its role is to sign up customers for those licensees. Verizon Wireless or Sprint then activates the service and bills the customer under its brand name. A reseller, such as Virgin Mobile or TracFone, however, signs customers up to its service, which is provided over the facilities of Sprint or Verizon Wireless, activates their service, and bills them under their brand name. 310 See Implementation of Section 6002( b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 02- 379, Eighth Report, FCC 03- 150 para. 122 (July 2003). 311 See TracFone comments at 10. 312 See E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25581, para. 13. 313 See CTIA comments at 3- 4; Sprint comments at 5; TruePositon comments at 3. 314 Virgin Mobile comments at 10. 315 See TracFone comments at 10. 316 See generally 47 C. F. R. § 20. 18. 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 41 95. Those resellers that have entered into agreements with multiple licensees would need to offer handsets to their customers that are capable of supporting the choice made by the underlying facilities-based licensees. For example, if a reseller has partnered with a licensee that has deployed a handset-based solution in Seattle, but a network- based solution in Buffalo, the reseller, like the underlying facilities- based licensee, would need to make certain that its handset offerings in those areas are capable of providing Phase II location information through the technology chosen by the underlying facilities-based licensee. Similarly, if the above scenario implicated two licensees instead of one, the reseller would need to ensure that the handsets offered to customers in the respective service areas are capable of transmitting Phase II location information through their chosen technologies. 317 As detailed below, in recognition of this obstacle we will provide a conversion period for resellers to allow them time to make the necessary changes in their handset offerings to ensure that they are capable of complying with the enhanced 911 rules. 318 96. Having found that resellers meet the four criteria, we decide that resellers will be required to offer access to enhanced 911 service. By imposing a requirement on resellers, we minimize the possibility for confusion by consumers, who expect all of the benefits of wireless service, whether provided by a licensee or a reseller. We find this to be a sound outcome not only for the reasons stated above, but also because the most likely and logical place for the customer of a reseller to turn for assistance if it has a problem with performance is the entity that holds itself out to the customer as the provider of service. For these reasons, we place an obligation on resellers to ensure that their customers have access to enhanced 911 service. 97. We further conclude, however, that resellers only have an obligation to ensure access to 911 service to the extent that the underlying facilities- based licensees offer access to 911 service. 319 We sought comment on this issue in the E911 Scope NPRM. As commenters asserted, resellers lack control over the underlying licensee and therefore should not be liable for its failure to deploy the needed facilities in a timely manner. We agree with these commenters and decide that by having the resellers’ obligation only arise once the underlying licensee has made the necessary upgrades; we are able to address those commenters’ concerns about the lack of control over the facilities of licensees. 320 Therefore, licensees that meet the E911 compliance obligations through GPS- enabled handsets and have agreements with resellers will not be required to include the resellers' handset counts in their compliance percentages. 321 98. We note that the obligation we are placing on resellers is the responsibility of each reseller. We are persuaded by the record in this proceeding in which resellers and licensees generally agreed that the obligation should not be shared or negotiated between the parties. 322 We understand resellers’ concern that information about their business needs to be protected from competitors, including the underlying licensees with whom they have agreements. By making the obligation the reseller’s responsibility there should be no need for licensees to request information on any reseller’s compliance. 323 Additionally, we understand licensees’ concern that they lack control over resellers with whom they have 317 See Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94- 102, Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17388, 17414- 15, paras. 55- 58 (1999). 318 See Virgin Mobile comments at 9; Sprint comments at 6; TracFone comments at 14. 319 See TracFone comments at 9. 320 Hop- On Wireless comments at 2. 321 See 47 CFR 20. 18( g). 322 See e. g., Virgin Mobile comments at 3; Sprint comments at 1; Nextel comments at 4; Verizon Wireless reply at 10. 323 See Virgin Mobile at 3; Verizon Wireless reply at 10. 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 42 agreements. As some licensees note in their comments, resellers make their business decisions and the licensee’s role is limited to providing the needed capacity or airtime. Therefore, licensees that meet their enhanced 911 compliance obligations through GPS- enabled handsets, including assisted GPS handsets, and have agreements with resellers, will not be responsible for ensuring that these resellers provide handset- based E911 location technology. 324 For these reasons, we agree that the obligation should be the reseller’s alone. 325 99. We recognize that resellers will need time to comply with this requirement, and as we did with the underlying licensees, we will allow time for compliance. We are also mindful of the fact that the typical user of resold service is someone that may use the phone only occasionally and therefore may be reluctant to purchase a new handset. We therefore decide that an appropriate timeframe for resellers to comply with our rules is one year after the full compliance date for licensees, December 31, 2006. By selecting this date, we are ensuring that resellers have an opportunity to make the necessary changes to their handsets to ensure compliance. 326 Additionally, we decide that the rule will only apply to handsets sold after that date, which recognizes the reality that customers of resellers may be reluctant to replace their handsets. In the interim, we encourage resellers to take whatever steps they can to bring access to enhanced 911 service to their customers. 100. We, therefore, conclude that resellers will have an affirmative obligation to provide access to enhanced 911 service with the obligation arising only to the extent that the underlying facilities- based licensee complies with our rules. Moreover, the obligation on resellers is an independent obligation to ensure that it does not impact the licensees’ obligations. Finally, we will not impose this requirement on resellers until December 31, 2006, recognizing that time will be needed for them to alter their handset offerings, and the requirement will only apply to new handset sales, not replacement of existing handsets. We also encourage resellers to take the steps they can before the compliance date to provide their customers access to enhanced 911 service. E. Disposable Phones and Personal Data Assistants 101. We next decide whether disposable phones and personal data assistants (PDAs) should be required to comply with our enhanced 911 requirements. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we sought comment on whether these devices should be required to comply with our enhanced 911 rules. Having decided that the obligation for ensuring access to enhanced 911 service is the responsibility of the resellers, pre- paid calling providers, and licensees, we find it is unnecessary for us to place a separate requirement on these devices. These entities are best able to ensure that the devices they offer their customers for use with their service are capable of transmitting the required callback and location information through the means they have chosen to ensure such information is transmitted. 102. Under our current rules, licensees have an obligation to provide enhanced 911 service. Through this Order, we are extending that obligation to resellers and pre- paid calling card providers. These entities typically decide which handsets to offer for use with their service. These are the entities that provide consumers wireless voice service. Therefore, by placing the obligation on these entities, we ensure that the handsets they offer are capable of meeting the enhanced 911 requirements contained in our rules. We, therefore, do not need to impose a separate obligation on disposable phone manufacturers. 103. By affirming the obligation on wireless providers to ensure that the handsets they use are capable of fulfilling their obligations, we are not, as one commenter noted, making the business plan of 324 See 47 CFR 20. 18( g). 325 See Sprint comments at 7. 326 See TracFone comments at 13; Virgin comments at 7; Hop- On Wireless comments at 1. 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 43 disposable phone manufacturers “infeasible.” 327 We are mindful of the fact that these devices offer consumers a low- cost handset, which may allow more consumers access to wireless voice service. This in turn may allow more consumers access to 911 service, which is clearly preferable to no access to such service. We are aware of the additional costs that would be incurred to enable these handsets to transmit Phase II location information through hybrid and GPS- based systems. We are also mindful, however, of the public safety benefits of providing access to enhanced 911 features. To the extent that these devices do not incorporate the software needed to operate on hybrid enhanced 911 systems or GPS to operate on systems using that technology, the resellers and licensees that offer service with such devices would need to ensure that they have chosen a network- based solution. As Hop- On Wireless noted in its comments, disposable phones are already capable of relaying a callback number. 328 Additionally, to the extent that the underlying provider uses a network- based method for relaying location information, disposable phones are capable of providing “infrastructure related [location] information.” 329 These two capabilities should make the existing disposable phones compliant with some licensees and their resellers, assuming the disposable phones are used in conjunction with network- based location technologies. We, therefore, conclude that there is no need to impose a separate obligation on disposable phone manufacturers. 104. We reach the same conclusion for PDAs. Again, wireless voice service providers have an obligation to comply with our rules. They, therefore, are in a better position than the Commission to make certain that devices offered to consumers are capable of meeting those compliance obligations. Action on our part to place a separate requirement on PDAs, like disposable phones, is unnecessary. Instead, the Commission will rely on licensees, resellers, and pre- paid calling providers to ensure that the devices they offer consumers do not hinder them in their efforts to comply with our rules. F. Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems 105. We next decide whether automated maritime telecommunications systems (AMTS) licensees should be required to provide access to enhanced 911 service to the extent that they offer two-way switched voice service. Based on the record developed in this proceeding, we decide not to extend our 911 service rules to AMTS licensees at this time. 106. As we noted in the E911 Scope NPRM, AMTS is a specialized voice and data service used primarily by tugs, barges and other vessels on waterways. As commenters explained, the specialized groups of consumers that use this service have little or no expectation of being able to reach a PSAP by dialing 9- 1- 1. 330 Instead, these users reach emergency service personnel by radioing the Coast Guard for assistance. Additionally, as the commenters point out, AMTS does not necessarily interconnect to the public switch network; rather, it is primarily a dispatch service. 331 Further, based on the spectrum available for each license to an AMTS licensee, about 2 MHz, the amount of traffic capable of being carried over that licensed spectrum is so small as to make it impracticable for these licensees to offer CMRS- like voice service in any meaningful way, thus hindering their ability to compete with traditional CMRS service providers. 332 Finally, commenters note that the technical obstacle to providing 911 service are substantial, noting problems such as priority access from dispatch service and other changes that would need to be made to the equipment, software and telephone systems. 333 While these obstacles alone 327 Hop- On Wireless comments at 2. 328 See Hop- On Wireless comments at 2- 3. 329 See id. 330 See Paging Systems reply at 2- 3; AMTA comments at 5; Mobex Network Services comments at 2- 3. 331 See Motorola comments at 6. 332 See AMTA comments at 6; Mobex Network Services comments at 5. 333 See Motorola comments at 7; Mobex Network Services comments at 4. 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 44 would not necessarily be persuasive, however, when taken together with the fact that the other criteria are not met, we find that AMTS licensees should not be required to comply with our enhanced 911 requirements at this time. V. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING A. Integration of Ancillary Terrestrial Component 107. Background. When we adopted the E911 Scope NPRM, we had not yet rendered a decision in our proceeding to determine whether to allow flexibility in the delivery of MSS communications in the 2 GHz, 334 L- band, 335 and Big LEO 336 bands. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in that docket (IB 01- 185) explored issues concerning MSS licensees’ integration of an ancillary terrestrial component (“ ATC”) with their networks using assigned MSS frequencies. In the E911 Scope NPRM, we recognized that the issues raised in the ATC proceeding could have an effect on satellite carriers’ ability to implement both basic and enhanced 911 (e. g., MSS carriers with ATC would likely have access to ground- based interconnection points in a manner similar to that of cellular and PCS licensees, critical to routing 911 calls to the nearest PSAP). 337 Accordingly, we sought comment on a number of issues concerning the impact of ATC on basic and enhanced 911 requirements for MSS. Subsequently, we adopted a Report and Order 338 in which we permitted authorized MSS systems to integrate ancillary terrestrial components (ATCs) into their MSS networks in the 2 GHz MSS band, the L- band, and the Big LEO band, subject to the authorized MSS system meeting certain substantial satellite service and integrated service criteria. 339 108. Discussion. We sought comment on whether implementation of ATC would affect the Commission’s analysis of MSS under its proposed general criteria for compliance with basic and enhanced 911 requirements. We believe that the record provides us with the legal authority to apply basic and enhanced 911 requirements to MSS providers with integrated ATC. As discussed above, two of the criteria that the Commission uses for analyzing whether a class of providers should comply with our basic and enhanced 911 rules are reasonable consumer expectations for 911 access and whether the service competes with traditional CMRS or local exchange services. We agree with those commenters who argue that an MSS carrier with ATC will have an increased ability to compete with terrestrial CMRS. 340 This derives from the fact that ATC enables an MSS carrier to have additional local interconnection via ATC base stations. 341 We believe consumers will not be likely to distinguish between a traditional CMRS 334 The term “2 GHz MSS band” is used in this Order to refer to the 2000- 2020 MHz uplink (Earth- to- space transmissions) and 2180- 2200 MHz downlink (space- to- Earth transmissions) frequencies. 335 The “L- band” is a general designation for frequencies from 1 to 2 GHz. In the United States, the Commission has allocated L- band spectrum for MSS downlinks in the 1525- 1544 MHz and 1545- 1559 MHz bands and for MSS uplinks in the 1626. 5- 1645. 5 MHz and 1646.5- 1660.5 MHz bands. See 47 C. F. R. § 2.106. 336 The term “Big LEO band” is used in this Order to refer to the 1.6/ 2.4 GHz bands. In general, the Big LEO MSS systems rely on uplinks within the 1610- 1626. 5 MHz band and downlinks in the 2483. 5- 2500 MHz band. 337 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25598- 99, para. 55. 338 Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L- Band, and the 1.6/ 2.4 GHz Bands, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 03- 15, 18 FCC Rcd 1962 (2003) (Decision or MSS Flexibility Decision); Errata (rel. March 7, 2003), appeal pending, AT& T Wireless Services, Inc. and Cellco Partnership d/ b/ a Verizon Wireless v. FCC, No. 03- 1191 (D. C. Cir. filed July 8, 2003). 339 For a full discussion of these criteria, see MSS Flexibility Decision, 18 FCC Rcd at 1999- 2016, paras. 66- 102, and Order on Reconsideration, IB Docket No. 01- 185, FCC 03- 162, 18 FCC Rcd 13590 (2003). 340 See AWS comments at 3; APCO comments at 6- 7; T- Mobile reply at 6- 7; Verizon Wireless reply at 8- 9. 341 See, e. g., Globalstar comments at 13, MSV comments at 21- 22 (noting that despite that availability of additional interconnection points, ATC base stations will likely cover a small geographic area). 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 45 service and an MSS service with a terrestrial component, and therefore consumers using ATC handsets likely will expect those handsets to have access to the same 911 services as other terrestrial wireless devices. 342 The ATC base stations will afford MSS carriers the opportunity for local access to selective routers and 911 trunks to local PSAPs, thereby making delivery of basic and enhanced 911 service more feasible than it currently is for MSS carriers without ATC. 109. Although we are convinced that we have the authority to require MSS systems with ATC to comply with the basic and enhanced 911 requirements contained in Section 20.18 of our rules, we are not prepared to establish a roll- out schedule or to require compliance upon deployment of ATC systems. Globalstar points out that “[ f] or MSS and ATC, each operational MSS system is unique in both system design and the frequencies it uses.” 343 This appears to be true with regard to hand- off of calls between satellite and terrestrial segments of a network. Globalstar maintains that an ATC phone would operate in only one mode (satellite or terrestrial) for any single call. We infer from this that a call initiated on the terrestrial segment of Globalstar’s network could not be handed- off mid- call to the satellite segment. MSV, however, says that an advisory committee should study “how the hand- off of calls between the satellite and terrestrial components of an integrated MSS/ ATC system will impact E9- 1- 1 compliance.” 344 NENA/ NASNA supports formation of an advisory committee which they say should consider whether an MSS carrier’s ancillary terrestrial service could be readied for Phase II sooner than its conventional satellite- enabled transmissions. 345 We direct the rechartered NRIC to study whether hand- off of calls between terrestrial and satellite network components will be a factor and if so what the impact will be on 911 service. 110. We believe for those calls that utilize only the terrestrial component of an MSS system, the carrier should provide access to the same 911 services as terrestrial CMRS providers. For reasons discussed above, particularly consumer expectation and improved feasibility of routing calls to local PSAPs, MSS carriers who intend to integrate ATC should be designing their systems with 911 features in mind. Including 911 features in the design stage will prevent potentially costly and complicated retrofitting at a later date. We seek additional comment, however, concerning whether transition periods for compliance are warranted, and if so what an appropriate schedule would be. We agree with Globalstar that the position location mechanism may be different for each mode of an ATC call. 346 Depending on the mode the phone is in, 911 access could be by either call center (for satellite calls) or basic/ enhanced 911 (for terrestrial calls). This split in functionality could be confusing to consumers and we seek comment on steps carriers could take to clarify this situation. We believe that MSS carriers with ATC will have the benefit of using technological advances already made with respect to terrestrial E911. Therefore, we seek comment about whether MSS carriers with integrated ATC will be able to comply with the location accuracy standards (for both network- based and handset- based solutions) of Rule 20.18, and if they cannot, why. Comment from equipment manufactures would be particularly useful on this point. Globalstar says that equipment options will be limited by smaller MSS subscriber bases and unique features that distinguish MSS systems from one another. 347 ICO argues that because ATC was only recently permitted, licensees should be permitted time to design systems first before adding E911 requirements. 348 We believe that to the contrary, since ATC will facilitate E911 service, MSS carriers intending to offer ATC should be considering E911 in the design stage. In this way, MSS providers with 342 CTIA comments at 2, 5- 6. 343 Globalstar comments at 14. 344 MSV comments at 21- 22. 345 NENA/ NASNA reply at 10. 346 Globalstar comments at 13. 347 Globalstar comments at 14. 348 ICO comments at 6. 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 46 ATC might avoid any unnecessary delays in implementing E911 service at the time that their ATC networks become operational. B. MSS Carriers’ Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements 111. Background and Discussion. The call center rule requires MSS carriers to deploy call centers 12 months after publication of this Report and Order, but we do not require any advance planning to meet that goal. Clearly, advance planning is essential to meeting this deadline. Delays in carrier planning for call center implementation could, in turn, complicate the planning of other necessary participants in call center planning – PSAPs, providers of PSAP databases, local exchange carriers, and others. Timely planning and communication among the parties involved with call centers could be critical for successful deployment of this capability. For similar reasons, the Commission required terrestrial wireless carriers to submit reports on their plans for implementing Phase II E911. 349 We seek comment whether MSS carriers subject to the call center requirement should prepare and submit a report on their plans for implementing call centers no later than three (3) months prior to the call center rule’s effective date. The report would have to include basic information concerning the carrier’s call center plans, including staffing and site considerations and the PSAP database to be used. We expect that the reports would assist our efforts to monitor call center development and then take any necessary actions to ensure that the implementation deadline is met. The reports would also provide the public with valuable information about MSS emergency services. 112. We also seek comment on recordkeeping and reporting requirements post- call center deployment. Since the call center rule is the domestic MSS industry’s first 911 requirement, we are interested in collecting data on MSS call center use, including the volume of calls that the call centers receive. We would find other call data useful as well, such as the number of calls that required forwarding to a local PSAP and the success rate in handing off calls to the proper PSAP. We seek comment on whether MSS carriers should record and store this information themselves, subject to inspection by the Commission at any time, or whether MSS carriers should file the information in the form of a report once a year. We invite commenters to address whether the call center data should be reported to an entity other than the Commission (and, if so, suggest possible recipients of the data). Collection of call data would allow us to monitor compliance with the call center requirement and track usage trends. For example, if the data were to show a substantial increase in call center call volume over a period of time, we might consider modifying the call center rule to accommodate the changing market. We seek comment on this approach. We also seek comment on sunset provisions for any recordkeeping or reporting requirements, and request information about appropriate sunset timeframes. C. Multi- Line Telephone Systems 113. Background. Based on the record before us, and given the particular requirements of E911 over multi- line telephone systems, the accompanying Report and Order concludes that state and local governments are in the best position to devise rules to ensure that E911 is effectively deployed over MLTS in their jurisdictions. We nonetheless recognize the importance of effective MLTS E911 capability in the emergency call system and are concerned that lack of implementation of MLTS E911 capability may create unacceptable gaps in that system. Accordingly, we issue this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to continue our consideration of this issue, and to ensure that we are in a position to take appropriate action should states fail to do so or should it otherwise be warranted. We again commend those states that have passed legislation to require MLTS implementation of E911, and refer other states to the Model Legislation submitted by NENA and APCO as a meaningful blueprint for 349 Wireless E911 Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 17388, 17427- 28, paras. 87- 89 (1999). See also 47 C. F. R. § 20. 18( i). 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 47 their own laws. 114. Discussion. Through this Notice, we seek further comment on the Commission’s role in requiring multi- line systems to deliver call- back and location information, and specifically seek comment on the value of a national approach where states have failed to act. 350 While we continue to study the need for federal action, we expect states to work quickly to adopt legislation to reduce any gaps in this area. We note that if state action proves uniformly effective, further action by the Commission may not be necessary. 115. As an initial matter, we seek to refresh the record on the prevalence of MLTS and on the status of E911 implementation for those systems. We seek comment on the number of lines that are served by multi- line systems, and the full range of operators who manage them. We encourage commenters to provide as comprehensive a picture as possible of the status of MLTS deployment, but to also note particular variations by location or type of user. We seek comment on how the growth of IP telephony will affect the manufacture and deployment of new MLTS equipment and its use for 911/ E911 calls. Does this development affect the policy question of whether MLTS E911 standards should be uniform nationally, or instead can be set on state by state basis? With regard to MLTS manufacturers, we seek comment as to whether E911 features represent an opportunity for manufacturers to improve the value of their equipment. If so, is the value added by these improvements worth the increased costs to their customers. If the status of MLTS E911 implementation has changed over time, we seek comment on the application of the four criteria discussed in the E911 Scope NPRM and the accompanying Report and Order herein. 351 116. We also seek updated comment on the Commission’s authority to require compliance with E911 rules we may adopt, on all of the affected parties: carriers, manufacturers, PSAPs, and MLTS operators. In particular, we ask commenters to focus on the nature of the Commission’s jurisdiction over MLTS operators, in light of the Commission’s earlier interpretations of section 4( i) authority and its prior statement that “the reliability of 911 service is integrally related to our responsibilities under section 1 of the Act, which include ‘promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication. ’” 352 To the extent that parties ask this Commission to adopt rules in this area, we also seek comment on whether any such rules would have a disproportionate impact on small entities. We also seek comment generally on steps that we can take to ensure that small entities are not disproportionately impacted, if any such steps are necessary. 117. Finally, we seek comment on NENA's proposed new section to our Part 64 rules requiring that LEC central offices be provisioned to permit connection of MLTS equipment for E911 purposes "in any accepted industry standard format, as defined by the FCC, requested by the MLTS operator." 353 In connection with this recommendation, we seek comment on NEC’s recommendation that the Commission 350 We note that in the accompanying Report and Order, the Commission expressed its intention to issue a public notice in a year to examine the status of state action on this topic. Should there be legislative action during the comment or reply period of this proceeding, we encourage commenters to bring such action to our attention. 351 E911 Scope NPRM, 17 FCC Rcd at 25581- 82, paras. 12- 15. In the accompanying Report and Order, the Commission analyzed each service based on whether: (1) it offers real- time, two- way voice service that is interconnected to the public switched network on either a stand- alone basis or packaged with other telecommunications services; (2) the customers using the service or device have a reasonable expectation of access to 911 and E911 services; (3) the service competes with traditional CMRS or wireline local exchange services; and (4) it is technically and operationally feasible for the service or device to support E911. 352 Amendment of Part 63 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for Notification by Common Carriers of Service Disruptions, Second Report and Order, CC Docket No. 91- 273, 9 FCC Rcd 3911, 3925, para. 35. 353 Model Legislation, exh. A, at 1. 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 48 adopt the ANSI T1.628- 2000 ISDN network interface standard as an "accepted industry standard," thereby requiring LECs to enable MLTS operators to use a more efficient means of interfacing with the network than is currently available in most instances. According to NEC, without this change, many MLTS operators will continue to be forced to incur the cost of purchasing direct inward dial (DID) numbers strictly for E911 purposes, despite the fact that their existing ISDN service could eliminate this cost if the LEC switch could accept the updated ISDN network interface standard. 354 We note that, in the attached Order, we have raised a number of concerns about this proposal. 355 We ask parties to address this issue further. Finally, we note that, in the accompanying Report and Order we have asked both industry standard setting bodies and the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council to address issues of MLTS E911 capability. 356 We encourage parties to supplement this record as these organizations address these issues. We agree that adopting a standard in this area would be useful but seek comment on what the appropriate standard should be. VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 118. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this Report and Order, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,, as amended, see 5 U. S. C. § 604, is set forth in Appendix C. The Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, see 5 U. S. C. § 604, is set forth in Appendix D. B. Paperwork Reduction Act 119. The actions contained herein have been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and found to impose new reporting and/ or recordkeeping requirements or burdens on the public. Implementation of these reporting and/ or recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as prescribed by the PRA, and will go into effect upon publication by Commission staff of an announcement in the Federal Register that OMB has approved the information collection. C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 120. Written comments by the public on the new information collection are due 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. Written comments must be submitted by the OMB on the proposed and/ or modified information collections on or before 60 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judith Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1- C804, 445 Twelfth Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20554, or via the Internet to Judith. Herman@ fcc. gov, and to Kim Johnson, OMB Desk Officer, Room 10236 New Executive Office Building, 725 Seventeenth Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, or via the Internet to Kim_ A._ Johnson@ omb. eop. gov. 354 NEC comments at 6- 7. 355 Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Calling Systems, Report and Order, CC Docket 94- 102 and IB Docket 99- 76, paras. 60- 62 (E911 Order). 356 See supra, Report and Order, at para. 62. 48 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 49 D. Accessible Formats 121. To request materials in accessible formats for individuals with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e- mail to fcc504@ fcc. gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202- 418- 0531 (voice), or 202- 418- 7365 (tty). VII. ORDERING CLAUSES 122. IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Sections 1, 4( i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 222( d)( 4)( A) -( C), 222( f), 222( g), 222( h)( 1)( A), 222( h)( 4)-( 5), 251( e)( 3), 301, 303, 308, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 151, 154( i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 222( d)( 4)( A)-( C), 222( f), 222( g), 222( h)( 1)( A), 222( h)( 4)-( 5), 251( e)( 3), 301, 303, 308, 310, this Report and Order is hereby ADOPTED. 123. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule changes set forth in Appendix D WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with the exception of new rule 25.284 which WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 12 months after publication in the Federal Register. 124. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Office of Consumer and Government Affairs, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 A- 1 APPENDIX A FINAL RULES Parts 20, 25 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are amended as follows: Revise Part 20 as follows: § 20.18 1. Section 20. 18( a) is amended to read as follows: (a) Scope of section. The following requirements are only applicable to Broadband Personal Communications Services (part 24, subpart E of this chapter), Cellular Radio Telephone Service (part 22, subpart H of this chapter), and Geographic Area Specialized Mobile Radio Services and Incumbent Wide Area SMR Licensees in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands (included in part 90, subpart S of this chapter) and those entities that offer voice service to consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale rates from these licensees, collectively CMRS providers. In addition, service providers in these enumerated services are subject to the following requirements solely to the extent that they offer real- time, two way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in- network switching facility which enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand- offs of subscriber calls. 2. Section 20. 18( b) is amended to read as follows: (b) Basic 911 Service. CMRS providers subject to this section must transmit all wireless 911 calls without respect to their call validation process to a Public Safety Answering Point, or, where no Public Safety Answering Point has been designated, to a designated statewide default answering point or appropriate local emergency authority pursuant to § 64. 3001 of this chapter, provided that "all wireless 911 calls" is defined as "any call initiated by a wireless user dialing 911 on a phone using a compliant radio frequency protocol of the serving carrier." 3. Section 20. 18( c) is amended to read as follows: (c) TTY Access to 911 Services. CMRS providers subject to this section must be capable of transmitting 911 calls from individuals with speech or hearing disabilities through means other than mobile radio handsets, e. g., through the use of Text Telephone Devices (TTY). (d) – (g) *** [unchanged] 4. Revise 20.18 (g) to add a new subsection (vi) as follows: 20.18( g)( 1)( vi): Licensees that meet the enhanced 911 compliance obligations through GPS- enabled handsets and have commercial agreements with resellers will not be required to include the resellers’ handset counts in their compliance percentages. 5. Redesignate 20.18( h) to (i); (i) to (j); (j) to (k); (k) to (l); and (l) to (m) 6. New 20.18( h) to read as follows: 20.18( h) Reseller obligation. (1) Beginning December 31, 2006, resellers have an obligation, independent of the underlying licensee, to provide access to basic and enhanced 911 service to the 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 A- 2 extent that the underlying licensee of the facilities the reseller uses to provide access to the public switched network complies with Sections 20.18( d)-( g). (2) Resellers have an independent obligation to ensure that all handsets or other devices offered to their customers for voice communications and sold after December 31, 2006 are capable of transmitting enhanced 911 information to the appropriate PSAP, in accordance with the accuracy requirements of Section 20.18( i). Revise Part 25 as follows: § 25.103 1. Section 25. 103 is amended to read as follows: ***** 25.103( g) Emergency call center (ECC). A facility that subscribers of satellite commercial mobile radio services call when in need of emergency assistance by dialing “911” on their mobile satellite earth terminal. 2. New Section 25. 284 is added to read as follows: 25.284 Emergency Call Center Service Providers of mobile satellite service to end- user customers (part 25, subparts A- D) must provide Emergency Call Center service to the extent that they offer real- time, two way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network and utilize an in- network switching facility which enables the provider to reuse frequencies and/ or accomplish seamless hand- offs of subscriber calls. Emergency Call Center personnel must determine the emergency caller’s phone number and location and then transfer or otherwise redirect the call to an appropriate public safety answering point. (1) Providers of mobile satellite services that utilize earth terminals that are not capable of use while in motion are exempt from providing Emergency Call Center service for such terminals. 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 B- 1 APPENDIX B Parties Filing Comments (44 Commenters) Name of Party Abbreviation Association for Communications Technology ACUTA Professionals in Higher Education, Inc. Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Ad Hoc Users Committee AirCell, Inc. AirCell American Automobile Association AAA American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. AMTA Association of Public Safety Communications APCO Officials – International, Inc. Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. AIAM AT& T Wireless Services, Inc. AT& T Wireless ATX Technologies, Inc. ATX Technologies Avaya, Inc. Avaya Benjamin N. Kann, Sr. Benton County Emergency Services Benton E911 Program BMW Group BMW Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority BRETSA Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association CTIA Chris Fischer Colorado 9- 1- 1 Advisory Task Force Colorado Task Force ComCare Alliance Final Analysis Communications Services, Inc. Final Analysis Communications Globalstar USA, LLC and Globalstar, LP Globalstar ICO Global Communications Holding Limited ICO Global Inmarsat Ventures PLC Inmarsat Intelligent Transportation Society of America ITSA Intrado Mercedes- Benz USA, LLC MBUSA Mobex Network Services, LLC Mobex Network Services Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary, LLC Mobile Satellite Ventures Motorola, Inc. Motorola NEC America, Inc. NEC 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 B- 2 NENA and NASNA (joint filed) NENA/ NASNA Nextel Communications, Inc. Nextel OnStar Corporation OnStar Paging Systems, Inc. SkyBitz, Inc. SkyBitz Sprint Corporation Sprint Stratos Mobile Networks, Inc. and Stratos Stratos Communications, Inc. Telecommunications Industry Association TIA Toyota Motor North America, Inc. Toyota TracFone Wireless, Inc. TracFone TruePosition, Inc. TruePosition United Telecom Council Virgin Mobile USA, LLC Virgin Mobile Washington State E- 911 Program WSEP WorldCom, Inc. WorldCom Parties Filing Reply Comments (37 Reply Commenters) Name of Party Abbreviation ACUTA, Inc. ACUTA Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee Ad Hoc Users Committee Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers AAM American Automobile Association AAA Association of Public Safety Communications APCO Officials – International, Inc. AT& T Wireless Services, Inc. AT& T Wireless ATX Technologies, Inc. ATX Technologies Avaya, Inc. Avaya Colorado Advisory 9- 1- 1 Task Force ComCARE Alliance Digital Earth Systems, Inc. DES Henning Schulzrinne Hop- On Wireless ICO Global Communications Holding Limited ICO Global 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 B- 3 Inmarsat Ventures PLC Inmarsat Iridium Satellite LLC & Iridium Constellation LLC Iridium Locus, Corp. Mercedes- Benz USA, LLC MBUSA Mobex Network Services, LLC Mobex Network Services Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary, LLC Mobile Satellite Ventures NEC America, Inc. NEC NENA and NASNA (joint filed) NENA/ NASNA Net2Phone, Inc. OnStar Corporation OnStar Porsche Cars North America, Inc. Porsche Red Sky Technologies, Inc. Red Sky Southern Company T- Mobile USA, Inc. T- Mobile Telecommunications Industry Association TIA Telenor Satellite Services, Inc. Telenor Texas 9- 1- 1 Agencies Toyota Motor North America, Inc. Toyota Verizon Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless Virgin Mobile USA, LLC Virgin Mobile Vonage Holding Corp. Vonage WorldCom, Inc. WorldCom 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 C- 1 APPENDIX C FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 357 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice). 358 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposal in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 359 A. Need for, and Objectives of, Adopted Rules 2. In the Order, the Commission modifies existing rules to broaden the scope of those rules to include new services that were either not in existence or were just beginning to emerge at the time of the rules’ adoption. Specifically, the Commission, through this Report and Order, modifies its 911 rules to include within the scope of those rules certain mobile satellite service providers and resellers, including pre- paid calling card providers. The Commission takes this action in recognition of Congress’ directive to “facilitate the prompt deployment throughout the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end- to- end infrastructure for communications, including wireless communications, to meet the Nation's public safety and other communications needs.” 360 In addition, the Commission takes these actions to ensure consumers’ expectations regarding access to enhanced 911 service are met, to strengthen Americans’ ability to access public safety. It has balanced those goals against the needs of entities offering these services to be able to compete in a competitive marketplace. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 3. We received no comments directly in response to the IRFA in this proceeding. The Commission, however, considered the potential impact of its rules on smaller wireless service providers and in response to concerns expressed by some commenters, we adopted phase- in periods and decided in the case of certain small wireless handset manufacturers, such as disposable phone manufacturers, and smaller wireless service providers, such as automated maritime telecommunications service providers, not to impose an obligation at this time. 361 The Commission believes that such actions should ensure that smaller entities operating in these areas are able to do so with minimal regulatory interference. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Adopted Rules Will Apply 4. 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 adopted rules, if adopted. 362 The RFA generally 357 See 5 U. S. C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U. S. C. §§ 601- 612., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104- 121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996) (CWAA). 358 See Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 25, 576 (2002) (Notice). 359 See 5 U. S. C. § 604. 360 See Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106- 81, 113 Stat. 1286 (codified at 47 USC §§ 222, 251( e)) (Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999). See 47 USC § 615 note. 361 See infra paras. 91- 106. 362 See 5 U. S. C. § 603( b)( 3). 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 C- 2 defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 363 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 364 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). 365 A small organization is generally “any not- for- profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 366 5. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFS analyis. 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.” 367 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. 368 6. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 369 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 1,337 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. 370 Of these 1,337 carriers, an estimated 1,032 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have more than 1,500 employees. 371 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers of local exchange service are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 7. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for providers of competitive local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 372 According to the FCC's 363 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6). 364 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U. S. C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment , establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definitions( s) in the Federal Register.” 365 15 U. S. C. § 632. 366 Id. § 601( 4). 367 15 U. S. C. § 632. 368 Letter from Jere W. Golver, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small- business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of “small business.” See 15 U. S. C. § 632( a) (Small Business Act); 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 C. F. R. § 121.102( b). 369 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 370 FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5. 3, page 5- 5 (August 2003) (Telephone Trends Report). 371 Id. 372 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 C- 3 Telephone Trends Report data, 609 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. 373 Of these 609 companies, an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 have more than 1,500 employees. 374 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers of competitive local exchange service are small entities that may be affected by the rules. 8. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for competitive access providers (CAPS). The closest applicable standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 375 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 609 CAPs or competitive local exchange carriers and 35 other local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. 376 Of these 609 competitive access providers and competitive local exchange carriers, an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 have more than 1,500 employees. 377 Of the 35 other local exchange carriers, an estimated 34 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. 378 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of small entity CAPS and the majority of other local exchange carriers may be affected by the rules. 9. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 379 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 133 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local resale services. 380 Of these 133 companies, an estimated 127 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 6 have more than 1,500 employees. 381 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers may be affected by the rules. 10. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 382 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 625 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of toll resale services. 383 Of these 625 companies, an estimated 590 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 35 have more than 1,500 employees. 384 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of toll resellers may be affected by the rules. 11. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that 373 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 374 Id. 375 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 376 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 377 Id. 378 Id. 379 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513330. 380 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 381 Id. 382 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513330. 383 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 384 Id. 57 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 C- 4 standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 385 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 261 carriers reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. 386 Of these 261 carriers, an estimated 223 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 38 have more than 1,500 employees. 387 Consequently, we estimate that a majority of interexchange carriers may be affected by the rules. 12. Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically applicable to operator service providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 388 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 23 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services. 389 Of these 23 companies, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. 390 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of local resellers may be affected by the rules. 13. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 391 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 37 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. 392 Of these 37 companies, an estimated 36 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. 393 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of prepaid calling providers may be affected by the rules. 14. Mobile Satellite Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the U. S. Small Business Administration has developed a small business size standard specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they have $12.5 million or less in annual revenues. 394 Currently, nearly a dozen entities are authorized to provide voice MSS in the United States. We have ascertained from published data that four of those companies are not small entities according to the SBA’s definition, 395 but we do not have sufficient information to determine which, if any, of the others are small 385 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 386 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5. 3. 387 Id. 388 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 389 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 390 Id. 391 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513330. 392 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 393 Id. 394 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, North American Industry Classification System (“ NAICS”) code 51740, formerly NAICS code 513340. 395 Comsat Corporation, Globalstar USA, Honeywell International, Inc., and Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (“ MSVS”) each holds one of the current licenses for 1. 6 GHz mobile satellite stations. Comsat Corporation reported annual revenue of $618 million in its most recent annual report to the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“ SEC”). Globalstar USA (formerly AirTouch Satellite Services) is a wholly- owned subsidiary of Vodaphone Group Plc. In an annual report filed with the SEC, Vodaphone reported revenue of 15 billion pounds sterling for the year ending March 31, 2001. In another annual report filed with the SEC, Honeywell International Inc. reported receiving sales revenue of $23. 7 billion in 2001. MSVS is wholly owned by a limited partnership that (continued....) 58 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 C- 5 entities. We anticipate issuing several licenses for 2 GHz mobile earth stations that would be subject to the requirements we are adopting here. We do not know how many of those licenses will be held by small entities, however, as we do not yet know exactly how many 2 GHz mobile- earth- station licenses will be issued or who will receive them. 396 The Commission notes that small businesses are not likely to have the financial ability to become MSS system operators because of high implementation costs, including construction of satellite space stations and rocket launch, associated with satellite systems and services. Still, we request comment on the number and identity of small entities that would be significantly impacted by the proposed rule changes. 15. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically applicable to "Other Toll Carriers." This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 397 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 92 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of "Other Toll Services." 398 Of these 92 carriers, an estimated 82 have 1,500 or fewer employees and ten have more than 1,500 employees. 399 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of “Other Toll Carriers" may be affected by the rules. 16. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses within the two separate categories of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications and Paging. Under these standards, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 400 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,387 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless service. 401 Of these 1,387 companies, an estimated 945 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 442 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we estimate that a majority of wireless service providers may be affected by the rules. D. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 17. The reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements adopted require that any and all of the affected entities to which the Commission’s adopted rules apply must comply with the Commission’s rules adopted in the Report and Order. (... continued from previous page) is 48. 1% owned by Motient Corporation and 39. 9% owned by a limited partnership controlled by a wholly- owned subsidiary of BCE, Inc. In an annual report filed with the SEC, Motient reported revenue of $93. 3 billion for calendar year 2001. BCE, Inc. reports in its corporate website, http:// www. bce. ca/ en/ investors/ reports/ annual/ bce/ 2002annual/ bce_ ar02_ 04_ e. html, that it received $19.8 billion of revenue in 2002. 396 There are currently four space- station authorizations for mobile satellite service systems that would operate with 2 GHz mobile earth stations. Although we know the number and identity of the space- station operators, neither the number nor the identity of future 2 GHz mobile- earth- station licensees can be determined from that data. 397 13 C. F. R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513310. 398 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 399 Id. 400 13 C. F. R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322. 401 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5. 3. 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 C- 6 18. In paragraph 31 of the section of the Report and Order that addresses mobile satellite systems (MSS), the Commission requires that MSS providers provide Emergency Call Center service to the extent that they offer real- time, two way switched voice service that is interconnected to the public switched network and utilize an in- network switching facility which enables the provider to reuse frequencies and/ or accomplish seamless hand- offs of subscriber calls. The Commission declines to mandate specific procedural requirements for this call center service, and instead, is requiring that the Emergency Call Centers be capable of determining the emergency caller’s phone number and location. These Call Centers are then required to transfer or redirect the emergency call to an appropriate public safety answering point. At paragraph 37, the Commission determines that although it intends to eventually apply enhanced 911 requirements to MSS providers subject to the foregoing call center requirements, there is not a sufficient basis in the record to require immediate E911 compliance. 19. In the telematics section of the Report and Order at paragraphs 64- 90, the Commission declines to require that providers of standard telematics services, i. e., those that do not offer a commercial wireless voice service (CMRS) that connects the telematics user to end users other than the telematics call center, comply with the Commission’s E911 requirements. For those telematics providers that do offer CMRS, however, the Commission determines that they may have E911 obligations and will need to work with the underlying wireless carriers, so that regardless of the legal relationship between the carrier and the telematics provider the Commission’s E911 requirements can be met. 20. For resellers and pre- paid calling providers, at paragraphs 91- 100 of the Report and Order, the Commission decides that they have an independent obligation to comply with the Commission’s 911 rules to the extent that the underlying licensee deploys the technology for E911 service. In paragraphs 101- 104, the Commission finds that it is unnecessary to impose E911 obligations on manufacturers of disposable phone and personal digital assistants that contain a voice component. 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 adopted 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. 402 22. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a phase- in period for resellers of wireless service to comply with its rules. This phase- in period was set to allow time for the wholesale price of wireless handsets capable of transmitting the required callback and location information to decline based on economies of scale; and to allow resellers sufficient time to make any necessary changes to their wireless handsets. This alternative will assist all affected licensees, and may be especially helpful to small entities that require more time to comply with the new rules. Additionally, instead of imposing a E911 Phase II requirement on resellers that considered its embedded base of handsets, as it did to licensees, the Commission only places a forward- looking requirement on resellers. 23. By tailoring its rules in this manner, the Commission seeks to fulfill its obligation of ensuring “a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end- to- end infrastructure for communications, including wireless communications, to meet the Nation's public safety and other communications needs.” 403 402 See 5 U. S. C. § 603( c)( 1)-( c)( 4). 403 Id. 60 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 C- 7 F. Report to Congress 24. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 404 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U. S. C. § 604( b). 404 See 5 U. S. C. § 801( a)( 1)( A) 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 D- 1 APPENDIX D INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking CC Docket No. 94- 102 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended (RFA), 405 the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further Notice), IB Docket No. 99- 67 and 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 Second Further Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Second Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. See 5 U. S. C. § 603( a). In addition, the Second Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register. 406 A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules 2. The Second Further Notice continues a reevaluation of the scope of communications services that should provide access to emergency services that was initiated with the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 94- 102 and IB Docket No. 99- 67. 407 The Second Further Notice examines and seeks comment on the need to require compliance with the Commission’s basic and enhanced 911 (E911) rules, or similar requirements, by mobile satellite service (MSS) providers, including MSS providers having an ancillary terrestrial component (ATC). The Second Further Notice also seeks comment on a proposal to require mobile satellite service (MSS) providers to comply with reporting and recordkeeping requirements in connection with emergency call center implementation. Further, the Second Further Notice considers whether multi- line telephone systems (MLTS) should be required to provide access to enhanced 911 (E911) service and questions whether the Commission should adopt revisions to its Part 64 rules. B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules 3. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4( i), 7, 10, 201, 202, 208, 214, 222( d)( 4)( A)-( C), 222( f), 222( g), 222( h)( 1)( A), 222( h)( 4)-( 5), 251( e)( 3), 301, 303, 308, 309( j), and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. §§ 151, 154( i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 222( d)( 4)( A)-( C), 222( f), 222( g), 222( h)( 1)( A), 222( h)( 4)-( 5), 251( e)( 3), 301, 303, 308, 309( j), 310. C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply 4. 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 adopted rules, if adopted. 408 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 405 See 5 U. S. C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U. S. C. §§ 601- 612., has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104- 121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 406 See 5 U. S. C. § 603( a) 407 See Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94- 102, IB Docket No. 99- 67, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 25576 (2002). 408 See 5 U. S. C. § 603( b)( 3). 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 D- 2 organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” 409 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under section 3 of the Small Business Act. 410 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). 411 A small organization is generally “any not- for- profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” 412 5. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this present RFA analyis. 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.” 413 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. 414 6. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for providers of incumbent local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 415 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 1,337 incumbent local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of local exchange services. 416 Of these 1,337 carriers, an estimated 1,032 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 305 have more than 1,500 employees. 417 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of providers of local exchange service are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein. 7. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific small business size standard for providers of competitive local exchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 418 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 609 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of either 409 5 U. S. C. § 601( 6). 410 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in the Small Business Act, 15 U. S. C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment , establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definitions( s) in the Federal Register.” 411 15 U. S. C. § 632. 412 Id. § 601( 4). 413 15 U. S. C. § 632. 414 Letter from Jere W. Golver, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small- business concern,” which the RFA incorporates into its own definition of “small business.” See 15 U. S. C. § 632( a) (Small Business Act); 5 U. S. C. § 601( 3) (RFA). SBA regulations interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis. 13 C. F. R. § 121.102( b). 415 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 416 FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology Division, Trends in Telephone Service, at Table 5. 3, page 5- 5 (August 2003) (Telephone Trends Report). 417 Id. 418 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 D- 3 competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. 419 Of these 609 companies, an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 have more than 1,500 employees. 420 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of providers of competitive local exchange service are small entities that may be affected by the rules. 8. Competitive Access Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for competitive access providers (CAPS). The closest applicable standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 421 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 609 CAPs or competitive local exchange carriers and 35 other local exchange carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange carrier services. 422 Of these 609 competitive access providers and competitive local exchange carriers, an estimated 458 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 151 have more than 1,500 employees. 423 Of the 35 other local exchange carriers, an estimated 34 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. 424 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of small entity CAPS and the majority of other local exchange carriers may be affected by the rules. 9. Local Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 425 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 133 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of local resale services. 426 Of these 133 companies, an estimated 127 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 6 have more than 1,500 employees. 427 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local resellers may be affected by the rules. 10. Toll Resellers. The SBA has developed a specific size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that SBA definition, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 428 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 625 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of toll resale services. 429 Of these 625 companies, an estimated 590 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 35 have more than 1,500 employees. 430 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of toll resellers may be affected by the rules. 11. Interexchange Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically applicable to providers of interexchange services. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that 419 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 420 Id. 421 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 422 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 423 Id. 424 Id. 425 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513330. 426 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 427 Id. 428 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513330. 429 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 430 Id. 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 D- 4 standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 431 According to the FCC’s Telephone Trends Report data, 261 carriers reported that their primary telecommunications service activity was the provision of interexchange services. 432 Of these 261 carriers, an estimated 223 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 38 have more than 1,500 employees. 433 Consequently, we estimate that a majority of interexchange carriers may be affected by the rules. 12. Operator Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically applicable to operator service providers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 434 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 23 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of operator services. 435 Of these 23 companies, an estimated 22 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. 436 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of local resellers may be affected by the rules. 13. Prepaid Calling Card Providers. The SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses within the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 437 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 37 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of prepaid calling cards. 438 Of these 37 companies, an estimated 36 have 1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. 439 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of prepaid calling providers may be affected by the rules. 14. Mobile Satellite Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the U. S. Small Business Administration has developed a small business size standard specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they have $12.5 million or less in annual revenues. 440 Currently, nearly a dozen entities are authorized to provide voice MSS in the United States. We have ascertained from published data that four of those companies are not small entities according to the SBA’s definition, 441 but we do not have sufficient information to determine which, if any, of the others are small 431 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 432 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5. 3. 433 Id. 434 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513310. 435 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 436 Id. 437 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, NAICS code 513330. 438 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 439 Id. 440 13 C. F. R. § 121. 201, North American Industry Classification System (“ NAICS”) code 51740, formerly NAICS code 513340. 441 Comsat Corporation, Globalstar USA, Honeywell International, Inc., and Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (“ MSVS”) each holds one of the current licenses for 1. 6 GHz mobile satellite stations. Comsat Corporation reported annual revenue of $618 million in its most recent annual report to the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“ SEC”). Globalstar USA (formerly AirTouch Satellite Services) is a wholly- owned subsidiary of Vodaphone Group Plc. In an annual report filed with the SEC, Vodaphone reported revenue of 15 billion pounds sterling for the year ending March 31, 2001. In another annual report filed with the SEC, Honeywell International Inc. reported receiving sales revenue of $23. 7 billion in 2001. MSVS is wholly owned by a limited partnership that (continued....) 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 D- 5 entities. We anticipate issuing several licenses for 2 GHz mobile earth stations that would be subject to the requirements we are adopting here. We do not know how many of those licenses will be held by small entities, however, as we do not yet know exactly how many 2 GHz mobile- earth- station licenses will be issued or who will receive them. 442 The Commission notes that small businesses are not likely to have the financial ability to become MSS system operators because of high implementation costs, including construction of satellite space stations and rocket launch, associated with satellite systems and services. Still, we request comment on the number and identity of small entities that would be significantly impacted by the proposed rule changes. 15. Other Toll Carriers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a specific size standard for small entities specifically applicable to "Other Toll Carriers." This category includes toll carriers that do not fall within the categories of interexchange carriers, operator service providers, prepaid calling card providers, satellite service carriers, or toll resellers. The closest applicable size standard under the SBA rules is for Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 443 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 92 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of "Other Toll Services." 444 Of these 92 carriers, an estimated 82 have 1,500 or fewer employees and ten have more than 1,500 employees. 445 Consequently, the Commission estimates that a majority of “Other Toll Carriers" may be affected by the rules. 16. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses within the two separate categories of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications and Paging. Under these standards, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 446 According to the FCC's Telephone Trends Report data, 1,387 companies reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless service. 447 Of these 1,387 companies, an estimated 945 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 442 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, we estimate that a majority of wireless service providers may be affected by the rules. D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities. 17. The reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements ultimately adopted will depend on the rules adopted and the services subject to those rules. First, any and all of the affected entitites who the Commission finds appropriate to provide 911 and E911 services (See Legal Authority, (... continued from previous page) is 48. 1% owned by Motient Corporation and 39. 9% owned by a limited partnership controlled by a wholly- owned subsidiary of BCE, Inc. In an annual report filed with the SEC, Motient reported revenue of $93. 3 billion for calendar year 2001. BCE, Inc. reports in its corporate website, http:// www. bce. ca/ en/ investors/ reports/ annual/ bce/ 2002annual/ bce_ ar02_ 04_ e. html, that it received $19.8 billion of revenue in 2002. 442 There are currently four space- station authorizations for Mobile Satellite Service systems that would operate with 2 GHz mobile earth stations. Although we know the number and identity of the space- station operators, neither the number nor the identity of future 2 GHz mobile- earth- station licensees can be determined from that data. 443 13 C. F. R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513310. 444 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5.3. 445 Id. 446 13 C. F. R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322. 447 Telephone Trends Report, Table 5. 3. 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 D- 6 for example, in paragraphs 12- 17 of the Report and Order 448 ) would need to comply with the Commission’s basic or enhanced 911 rules. This would involve a schedule for implementing 911 and E911 service, and possibly regulations mandating the provision of automatic number identification (ANI), possible software modification to assist in recognition of single or multiple emergency numbers, and provision of automatic location information (ALI) and interference precautions, as well as regulations, specific to individual services. Additionally, paragraphs 111- 112 of the Second Further Notice seek comment on proposals that all Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) licensees subject to the emergency call center requirement both (a) submit implementation progress reports prior to the effective date of the call center requirement and (b) record data on call center operations for possible reporting purposes. 18. The Second Further Notice, in paragraphs 113- 117, examines whether to require multi- line telephone systems, including wireline, wireless, and Internet protocol- based systems, to deliver call- back and location information. Possible requirements that the Second Further Notice suggests if the Commission decides that multi- line telephone systems should provide these services include technical standards as discussed in paragraph 117. Paragraphs 114- 116 seek comment on the scope of deployment of MLTS and on the Commission’s jurisdiction over all parties involved in the provision of E911 over MLTS, including carriers, MLTS manufacturers, PSAPs, and MLTS operators. 19. Other regulations and requirements are possible for those services discussed in the Second Further Notice found suitable for 911 and E911 service. Such rules and requirements could be found appropriate, based on comment filed in response to the Second Further Notice and would be designed to meet the consumer needs and licensee situations in each service and service area. E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 20. 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. 449 21. The critical nature of the 911 and E911 proceedings limit the Commission’s ability to provide small carriers with a less burdensome set of E911 regulations than that placed on large entities. A delayed or less than adequate response to an E911 call can be disastrous regardless of whether a small carrier or a large carrier is involved. MSS providers have been exempt to date from the Commission’s 911 and E911 regulations as the Commission sought information from which to judge the appropriateness of requiring that these services provide 911 and E911 service. The Second Further Notice continues this examination and reflects the Commission’s concern that only those entities that can reasonably be expected to provide emergency services, financially and otherwise, be asked to provide this service. The Second Further Notice affords small entities another opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of the affected services providing emergency services and on what the Commission can due to minimize the regulatory burden on those entities who meet the Commission’s criteria for providing such service. 22. Throughout the Second Further Notice, the Commission tailors its request for comment to 448 See Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94- 102, IB Docket No. 99- 67, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 03- 290, rel. Nov. 24, 2003. 449 See 5 U. S. C. § 603. 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 D- 7 devise a prospective regulatory plan for the affected entities, emphasizing the individual needs of the service providers, manufacturers, and operators as well as the critical public safety needs at the core of this proceeding. The Commission will consider all of the alternatives contained not only in the Second Further Notice, but also in the resultant comments, particularly those relating to minimizing the effect on small businesses. 23. The most obvious alternatives raised in the Second Further Notice are whether the services under discussion should be required to comply with the Commission’s basic and enhanced 911 rules or whether the Commission should continue to exempt these entities from providing this service. 24. Along these lines, discussion of criteria and alternatives could focus on implementation schedules. In discussing the prospective entities and soliciting further information, throughout the Second Further Notice the Commission invites comment on the schedule for implementing 911 and E911 services which best meets the abilities, technically and financially, of the individual entities. In the past, the Commission has best been able to offer affected small and rural entities some relief from E911 by providing small entities with longer implementation periods than larger, more financially flexible entities that are better able to buy the equipment necessary to successful 911 and E911 implementation and to first attract the attention of equipment manufacturers. We again seek comment on such possible alternatives. 25. In its discussion of MSS, the Second Further Notice recognizes that although satellite carriers face unique technical difficulties in implementing both basic and enhanced 911 features, these difficulties are avoided to a larger extent when the carrier has an ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) to its service. Thus, in paragraphs 107- 110, the Second Further Notice examines the impact of ATC on MSS providers’ ability to offer the same enhanced 911 service that terrestrial wireless carriers provide. Paragraph 108 of the Second Further Notice notes that several commenters, thus far, have indicated that MSS basic and enhanced 911 service can be improved with ATC. The Second Further Notice suggests alternative solutions to this problem, asking whether MSS providers with ATC should be allowed additional time (or transition periods) in order to come into compliance with terrestrial E911 rules, and whether they can meet the location identification standards of Section 20. 18 (47 C. F. R. § 20. 18). The Second Further Notice also directs the Network Reliability and Interoperability Council to study issues associated with hand- off of calls between satellite and terrestrial components. 26. As mentioned, the Second Further Notice seeks comment on reporting and recordkeeping proposals in connection with implementation of the MSS emergency call center requirement. Call center 911 service is a new form of 911 service, and the Second Further Notice seeks comment on the collection of call center data, including total volume of calls received during a given period, the number of calls requiring forwarding to a public safety answering point (PSAP), and the success rate in handing off the call to an appropriate PSAP. The Second Further Notice suggests alternatives for this data collection, seeking comment on whether the information should simply be retained by service providers and available upon Commission request, whether the information should be submitted to the Commission on a regular basis, or whether the information should be submitted to a third party for review. In addition, the Second Further Notice seeks comment on whether the proposed data collection/ recordkeeping requirement should be subject to sunset provisions. 27. The Second Further Notice, in paragraphs 113- 117, examines potential 911 and E911 requirements for multi- line telephone systems. In that regard, the Commission considers whether to impose such regulations on a national basis or whether it is sufficient to rely on actions by state and local authorities to ensure reliable coverage. NENA and APCO, for example, have proposed Model Legislation that would allow states, through legislation, to adopt many of the standards and protocol association with delivering E911 services through multi- line systems. Paragraph 117 considers adopting NENA's proposed new section to our Part 64 rules requiring that LEC central offices be provisioned to permit connection of MLTS equipment for E911 purposes in any accepted industry standard format, as 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 D- 8 defined by the Commission, requested by the MLTS operator. In connection with this recommendation, the Second Further Notice seeks comment on NEC’s recommendation that the Commission adopt the ANSI T1.628- 2000 ISDN network interface standard as an "accepted industry standard," thereby requiring LECs to enable MLTS operators to use a more efficient means of interfacing with the network than is currently available in most instances. Additionally, the Second Further Notice asked parties to comment on whether any rules that the Commission adopts may have a disproportionate impact on small entities and requested comment how it might ameliorate any such impacts. F. Federal Rules that Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules None. 69 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL Re: Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No. 94- 102); and Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (MPCS) 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 (IB Docket No. 99- 67). E911 is an essential component to the Commissions Homeland Security Agenda. By our action, the Commission demonstrates its continued commitment to ensuring that all Americans have access to life saving services provided through various telecommunications platforms. Our balanced approach takes into consideration reasonable consumer expectations regarding access to emergency call features, the need to deploy life saving services in times of crisis, and the needs of entities offering various services and devices to compete in a competitive marketplace. Specifically, in this Report and Order, we revise and broaden the scope of our existing enhanced 911 (E911) rules to clarify the obligation of mobile satellite services (MSS), telematics services, multi-line telephone systems, resold and pre- paid calling services, and disposable phones to provide E911capabilities. In the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek additional comment, concerning MSS carriers with integrated ancillary terrestrial component (ATC), and their ability to comply with our location accuracy standards. In addition, our continued participation with local and state public safety organizations and private industry, such as the FCC’s E911 Coordination Initiative, will further encourage the full deployment of prompt emergency response. Although the Commission expands the scope of its rules, it must continue to ensure that there are no unacceptable gaps in our Nation’s emergency call system. I am particularly concerned about E911 access for MLTS operators. I strongly encourage our state colleagues to take action to ensure E911 capabilities in these systems. The Commission will continue to closely monitor this situation to ensure the American people have the E911 access they expect and deserve. 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY Re: Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No. 94- 102); and Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (MPCS) 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 (IB Docket No. 99- 67). Today’s item is another step in the Commission’s efforts to ensure that E911 capability is available in a timely and efficient manner to all segments of the United States population. Today we clarify our existing E911 rules to delineate which additional technologies and services will be required to transmit E911 information to public safety answer points. This order ensures that consumers will have access to critical public safety services in the near future through mobile satellite services (MSS), telematic services that offer commercial mobile wireless services, and prepaid and resold commercial mobile wireless service services. We are also setting a framework for reviewing state implementation of E911 service over multi- line telephone systems. Our goals are three fold: first, meet the reasonable expectations of consumers to have access to emergency services; second, strengthen the ability of all American’s to access public safety in times of crisis; and third, enable entities offering access to E911 services to operate in a competitive marketplace. Access to E911 services continues to be a top priority of mine. I look forward to reviewing the record gathered in response to the Further NPRM on issues concerning the implementation of E911 service over the ancillary terrestrial component of MSS and certain reporting and recordkeeping requirements for MSS deployment of E911. 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS Re: Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No. 94- 102); and Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (MPCS) 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 (IB Docket No. 99- 67). I’m pleased that we’re addressing some of the potential gaps in our 911 system in this important Order, and that we are clarifying the responsibilities of a wide range of parties. The responsibilities of multi- line telephone system operators are of particular concern for me. This is one of our public safety community’s top public safety issues, and we need to determine what can be done to bring adequate E911 services to Americans who work in the large offices where MLTS are present. This may well be a place for more federal action. Today, in an FNPRM, we seek to bolster our record on the nature of this problem, the technologies involved, and our jurisdiction. I strongly encourage the public safety community and MLTS operators to file specific and thorough comments on these issues. Without their help, we cannot properly address this challenge. Finally, I note that as the Commission continues its examination of IP telephony, we must keep 911 issues in mind. We need to find a way to allow this technology to bring much needed new competition to our consumers without undermining the ubiquity of our 911 system. 72 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KEVIN J . MARTIN Re: Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No. 94- 102); and Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 to Implement the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (MPCS) 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 (IB Docket No. 99- 67). I am pleased with much of this item. 911 service is a vitally important means for Americans to respond to a host of emergencies. And enhanced 911 (or E911), which provides public safety officials information on the caller’s physical location, has made 911 service even more valuable. While we still have a long way to go to make nationwide E911 deployment a reality, this item takes some important steps by addressing some gaps in our E911 rules. Among other things, the item discusses the E911 obligations of mobile satellite services, telematics services, resold and pre- paid services, and disposable phones. I am hopeful that, through this item, we have provided some needed regulatory clarity. I am disappointed, however, in our treatment of multi- line telephone systems (MLTS). 911 calls made by MLTS have posed significant problems. A phone in a large company’s MLTS might be anywhere in the country, and public safety officials will have no way of knowing where the phone is. I have heard multiple stories of emergency personnel showing up in the wrong place as the result of insufficient information from an MLTS. Indeed, today the Commission acknowledges that the lack of effective implementation of MLTS E911 may be an unacceptable gap in the emergency call system. Nevertheless, we fail to take any concrete actions, instead posing questions in another further notice. I appreciate that some states have made real strides in addressing the MLTS problem and that there are outstanding questions about the legality and wisdom of the Commission taking action. However, I am concerned by the fact that we have been seeking comment on these issues since at least 1994. And a year ago, I spoke on the importance of resolving the MLTS problem. All the while, many Americans dialing 911 from an MLTS have faced an unacceptable level of protection. I thus think we need to resolve this further proceeding as soon as is practicable. 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03- 290 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN Re: In re Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; CC Docket No. 94- 102 There is no higher calling or higher priority for us at the Commission than improving 911 and enhanced 911 (E911) emergency response services. Every day, we confront issues that have millions of dollars at stake; but nothing we do is more important than 911 and E911 services. Unlike a lot of issues we handle that get so much attention, this literally is a matter of life or death. The Commission always can do more to support the rollout of E911. In my view, we can never do enough. And we have made great strides during the last year: by continuing to provide solid regulatory guidance; by improving our level of collaboration with legislators on Capitol Hill, including the leadership of the Congressional E911 Caucus; and through two very well- organized E911 Coordination Initiatives, which were held right here in the Commission meeting room. We continue these outstanding efforts today by providing a comprehensive review of our rules to determine the applicability of E911 requirements to a number of different technologies and services. I believe that the item strikes the right balance in imposing obligations on these services, in that it continues our work to make emergency response better and faster in America through the use of both improved 911 and E911 services but also recognizes the unique technical and service characteristics of the different offerings. That is why I am particularly pleased that we adopt a measured approach to those telematics providers providing call- center based services, which are not also available with commercial mobile wireless service. These companies are offering their subscribers a service with very real public benefits. There is no reason to impose regulation on these services, given their success and collaboration with the public safety community to date. I also am pleased with our decision to require MSS carriers to establish call centers for the purpose of answering 911 emergency calls. Rightly, we also put these same carriers on notice that we ultimately intend to require them to comply with our E911 requirements, though the record, at this time, does not support immediate compliance with those rules. Finally, I do have a lingering concern that our actions today with regard to Multi- Line Telephone Systems (MLTS), such as private branch exchanges (PBXs), just are not enough. Consequently, I regard our action today as simply a first step, and I am very pleased with our decision to continue our review in this important area through a Further Notice. It cannot be emphasized enough how critical it is that state and local governments adopt rules requiring MLTS E911 implementation, such as the model legislation suggested by APCO and NENA. I am fully prepared to intervene should we not see the timely adoption of these important requirements. 74