[Federal Register: January 22, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 14)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 2914-2919]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22ja03-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMIISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[CC Docket No. 94-102; FCC 02-318]
Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; PSAP
E911 Service Readiness
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; petitions for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document responds to petitions for reconsideration of the
Commission's October 2001 decision which addressed a petition from the
city of Richardson, Texas by adopting rules that clarify what
constitutes a valid Public Safety Anwering Point (PSAP) to trigger a
wireless carrier's obligation to provide E911 service to the PSAP
within six months. The document modifies the Commission's rules to
provide additional clarification regarding PSAP readiness. The action
is taken to respond to the petitions for reconsideration and to promote
rapid E911 implementation.
DATES: Effective February 21, 2003, except for Sec. Sec. 20.18(j)(4)
and (5), which contain information collection requirements that are not
effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The
Commission is seeking emergency approval from the Office of Management
and Budget for these collections. Public comment on the information
collections on these PRA burdens are due March 24, 2003. The Commission
will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of these sections.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Salhus, Attorney, 202-418-
1310. For further information concerning the information collection
contained in this Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, contact Judith
Boley Herman, Federal Communications Commission, 202-418-0214, or via
the Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration (Recon) in CC Docket No. 94-102; FCC 02-318, adopted
November 21, 2002, and released November 26, 2002. The complete text of
the Recon and the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is
available on the Commission's Internet site, at http://www.fcc.gov.,
and is also available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The text may also be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, Portals II, 445
12th Street, SW., CY-B4202, Washington, DC 20554 (telephone 202-863-
2893).
Synopsis of the Order on Reconsideration
1. The Recon responds to two petitions for reconsideration of the
Commission's Order (60 FR 55618, November 2, 2001) in this proceeding.
The Order, in further response to a petition filed by the city of
Richardson, Texas, adopted rules clarifying what constitutes a valid
PSAP request to trigger a wireless carrier's obligation to provide E911
service to that PSAP within six months. The Recon modifies
[[Page 2915]]
the Commission's rules to provide additional clarification as to PSAP
readiness.
2. The Recon first adopts procedural guidelines for requesting
documentation predictive of a PSAP's readiness to receive and utilize
the E911 service it has requested. Specifically, the Recon provides
that, where a wireless carrier requests such documentation from a PSAP
within 15 days of receiving the PSAP's request for E911 service, the
PSAP must respond within 15 days or the carrier's six-month
implementation period will be tolled until such documentation is
provided. (See paragraphs 9 through 12 of the full text of the Recon.)
3. Second, the Recon clarifies that the readiness showing is for
the purpose of commencing the wireless carrier's six-month
implementation obligation. The Recon also establishes a procedure
whereby wireless carriers that have completed all necessary steps
toward E911 implementation that are not dependent on PSAP readiness may
have their compliance obligation temporarily tolled, if the PSAP is not
ready to receive the information at the end of the six-month period and
the carrier files a certification to that effect with the Commission.
(See paragraphs 14 through 21 of the full text of the Recon.)
7. Finally, the Recon clarifies that nothing in the Commission's
rules precludes wireless carriers and PSAPs from mutually agreeing to
an implementation schedule different from that prescribed in the
Commission's rules. (See paragraph 29 of the full text of the Recon.)
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
8. This Recon has been analyzed with respect to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found to contain new reporting and
information collections. Implementation of these new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements will be subject to approval by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) as prescribed by the Act. The Commission is
seeking this approval on an emergency basis and will publish a notice
of effective date in the Federal Register when OMB approval for these
PRA burdens is received. The Commission is seeking public comment on
these PRA burdens. Public and agency comments are due March 24, 2003.
Comments should address:
[sbull] Whether the collection of information is necessary for the
proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
whether the information shall have practical utility.
[sbull] The accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates.
[sbull] Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information collected.
[sbull] Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
9. A copy of any comments on the information collections contained
in this Recon should be submitted to Judith Boley Herman, Federal
Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 Twelfth Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Kim
A. Johnson, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), Docket Library, Room 10236, New
Executive Office Building (NEOB), 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC
20503 or via the Internet at Kim_A._Johnson@omb.eop.gov.
OMB Approval Number: XXXX.
Title: Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems: City of Richardson, Texas,
Recon Order.
Form No. N.A.
Type of Review: New information collection.
Respondents: Business or other for profit.
Number of Respondents: 1,358.
Estimated Time Per Response: 2-40 hours.
Total Annual Burden: 13,960 hours.
Cost to Respondents: 0.
Needs and Uses: The information and coordination burdens are needed
to ensure the fairness of the Commission's E911 rules and to facilitate
speedy E911 implementation.
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA)
10. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Commission has prepared a Supplemental Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(SFRFA) of the estimated significant economic impact on small entities
of the policies and rules adopted in the Recon. The analysis may be
found in Appendix C of the full text of the Recon. This is a summary of
the full SFRFA. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the Recon,
including the SFRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Recon Order
11. In response to petitions for reconsideration, the Commission
amends its rules to clarify what constitutes a valid Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) request to trigger a wireless carrier's
obligation to provide enhanced 911 (E911) service to the PSAP within
six months. Specifically, the Recon adopts procedural guidelines for
requesting documentation predictive of a PSAP's readiness to receive
and utilize the E911 service it has requested, by specifying that where
a wireless carrier requests such documentation from a PSAP within 15
days of receiving the PSAP's request for E911 service, the PSAP must
respond within 15 days or the carrier's six-month implementation period
will be tolled until such documentation is provided. The Recon also
clarifies that the PSAP readiness showing is for the purpose of
commencing the wireless carrier's six-month implementation obligation,
and establishes a procedure whereby wireless carriers that have
completed all necessary steps toward E911 implementation that are not
dependent on PSAP readiness may have their compliance obligation
temporarily tolled, if the PSAP is not ready to receive the information
at the end of the six-month period and the carrier files a
certification to that effect with the Commission. Finally, the Recon
clarifies that nothing in the Commission's rules precludes wireless
carriers and PSAPs from mutually agreeing to an implementation schedule
different from that prescribed by the Commission's rules.
12. The actions adopted in the Recon are intended to promote
communication between wireless carriers, local exchange carriers (LECs)
and PSAPs and to provide further clarity regarding their respective
obligations in implementing wireless E911. Wireless E911 implementation
is very situation-specific and can vary significantly from jurisdiction
to jurisdiction and from carrier to carrier, depending on a number of
factors. The clarifications adopted in the Recon are also intended to
facilitate the implementation process by encouraging parties to
communicate with each other early in the E911 implementation process,
and to maintain a constructive, on-going dialog throughout the
implementation process.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to
the FRFA
13. The Commission received two petitions for reconsideration of
its decision in the Order. One petitioner, Cingular Wireless LLC
(Cingular) raises several procedural arguments against the validity of
the decision adopted in the Order, based on the requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act. In
[[Page 2916]]
support, several small carriers filed comments also challenging the
decision on a procedural basis, arguing that the decision contravenes
the provisions of the RFA because it does not take account of, and
attempt to reduce, the disproportionate burdens placed on small and
rural carriers. These smaller carriers maintain that, in order to
minimize the danger of unnecessary economic outlay on small carriers,
the Commission should impose an actual-readiness requirement on PSAPs
operating in areas where rural, small and mid-sized carriers do not
have a large customer base to absorb their E911 implementation costs
and are thus more vulnerable to delays in implementation caused by a
PSAP's inability to receive and utilize the E911 data supplied by the
carrier. The Commission is aware of the concerns of small and mid-sized
rural carriers and discussed these concerns in the FRFA. However, as
the Commission has iterated throughout this proceeding, any failure in
E911 communications, regardless of whether the carrier is small or
large, or whether the carrier has a large customer base or small, can
result in tragedy. Nonetheless, the Commission has tried wherever
possible to ease the regulatory burden in this proceeding on small
entities. The Commission's phased-in approach to E911 implementation is
an example of this desire to accommodate the needs of small entities
where it does not compromise our commitment to the goals of this
proceeding.
14. The FRFA addresses the issue of whether to adopt an actual-
readiness requirement on PSAPs and finds that the readiness showing
adopted in the Order ``will in fact reduce the vulnerability of the
smaller carriers, as they will be working along with the PSAPs to
ensure implementation of E911 service on a timely basis, and will
better be able to plan their progression and allocation of resources
during the implementation process * * *.'' The FRFA concludes that,
``Considering the potential burdens placed on all small entities, we
find that the institution of objective criteria by rule amendment will
benefit all PSAPs and carriers, including small entities, by more
clearly defining E911 readiness, thus reducing the potential for
misunderstanding between parties, and by reducing instances of delay in
E911 implementation. In turn, this will reduce the likelihood that any
PSAP or carrier, including all small entities, will have to expend its
limited capital resources prematurely and/or improvidently.''
15. The Recon takes several steps to mitigate the economic risk to
smaller carriers. First, as discussed in paragraphs 9 through 12 of the
full text, the Recon responds to carrier comment that indicates the
present rule does not specify time limits for responding to a carrier's
request for PSAP readiness documentation, by establishing that where a
wireless carrier requests readiness documentation in writing within 15
days of receiving the PSAP's request for E911 service, the PSAP will
have 15 days to provide such documentation. The Commission believes
that these 15-day timeframes will both reduce a carrier's ability to
use a documentation request as a delaying tactic, and minimize
unnecessary carrier expenditures in those situations where the PSAP is
unable to demonstrate that it will be ready to receive and utilize the
requested E911 information by the end of the six-month period allotted
for carrier compliance. The Recon also acknowledges, as discussed in
paragraph 14, that the current rules do not provide for situations
where a PSAP has made the upfront readiness showing necessary to
trigger Phase II implementation, but turns out to be incapable of
receiving Phase II information at the end of the six-month
implementation period. To address such situations, the Recon Order
modified the Commission's rules in several respects. These
modifications are set out in detail in paragraphs 15 through 21 of the
Recon Order.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
16. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under section 3 of the
Small Business Act, unless the Commission has developed one or more
definitions that are appropriate for its activities. Nationwide, there
are 4.44 million small business firms, according to SBA reporting data.
17. Under the Small Business Act, a ``small business concern'' is
one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant
in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small
organization is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801 small
organizations.
18. The definition of ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is one
with populations of fewer than 50,000. There are approximately 85,006
governmental jurisdictions in the nation. This number includes such
entities as states, counties, cities, utility districts and school
districts. There are no figures available on what portion of this
number has populations of fewer than 50,000. However, this number
includes 38,978 counties, cities and towns, and of those, 37,556, or
ninety-six percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census
Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all
government entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we
estimate that ninety-six percent, or about 81,600, are small entities
that may be affected by our rules.
19. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed definitions
for small providers of the specific industries affected. Therefore,
throughout our analysis, the Commission uses the closest applicable
definition under the SBA rules, the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) standards for ``Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications'' and ``Wired Telecommunications
Carriers.'' According to this standard, a small entity is one with no
more than 1,500 employees. To determine which of the affected entities
in the affected services fit into the SBA definition of small business,
the Commission will refer to Table 5.3 in Trends in Telephone Service
(Trends) a report published annually by the Commission's Wireline
Competition Bureau.
20. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in
this RFA analysis. As noted above, a ``small business'' under the RFA
is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size
standard (e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or
fewer employees), and ``is not dominant in its field of operation.''
The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small
incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant in their field of
operation because any such dominance is not ``national'' in scope. The
Commission has therefore included small incumbent carriers in this RFA
analysis, although we emphasize that this RFA action has no effect on
the Commission's analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA
contexts.
[[Page 2917]]
Local Exchange Carriers. According to the most recent Trends data,
1,329 incumbent carriers reported that they were engaged in the
provision of local exchange services. Trends indicates that of these
entities, 1,024 local exchange carriers report that, in combination
with their affiliates, they have 1,500 or fewer employees, and would
thus be considered small businesses as defined by NAICS.
Competitive Access Providers and Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (CAPs and CLECs). Trends indicates that 532 CAPs and CLECs,
134 local resellers, and 55 other local exchange carriers reported that
they were engaged in the provision of competitive local exchange
services. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of
these carriers that are not independently owned and operated. However,
Trends states that a total of 595 of these entities employ 1,500
individuals, thus qualifying as small entities.
Wireless Telephone Including Cellular, Personal Communications
Service (PCS) and SMR Telephony Carriers. There are 858 entities in
this category as estimated in Trends, and 291 such licensees in
combination with their affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees, and
thus qualify as small businesses using the NAICS guide as small
businesses.
Special Mobile Radio (SMR) Dispatch. Trends estimates 289 entities
in this category and all 289 licensees, in combination with their
affiliates, have 1,500 or fewer employees, and thus qualify as small
entities using the NAICS guide.
Other Mobile Service Providers. Trends estimates that there are 32
providers of other mobile services, and again using the NAICS standard,
all 32 providers of other mobile services utilize with their affiliates
1,500 or fewer employees, and thus may be considered small entities.
Toll Service Providers. Trends calculates that there are 932 toll
service providers, and that 832 toll service providers with their
affiliates have 1,500 or fewer employees and thus qualify as small
entities as defined by NAICS.
Offshore Radiotelephone Service. At present, there are
approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is unable at
this time to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as
small entities under the SBA definition for radiotelephone
communications. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this SFRFA,
that all of the 55 licensees are small entities, as that term is
defined by NAICS.
Public Safety Answering Points. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a definition of small entities applicable to PSAPs. In
order to give a numerical quantification of the number of PSAPs that
are small entities affected by the rule modifications, it appears there
are approximately 5,000 primary PSAPs nationwide. For purposes of this
SFRFA, we assume that all of the PSAPs are small entities, and may be
affected by the rule amendments.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
21. As indicated in paragraphs 15 through 21 of the Recon, in order
to toll the six-month implementation period, a wireless carrier must
file a certification with the Commission that it has completed all
necessary steps towards E911 implementation that are not dependent on
PSAP readiness and that the PSAP is not ready to receive the
information at the end of the six month period. Additionally, the
Commission clarifies that nothing in our rules precludes wireless
carriers and PSAPs from mutually agreeing to an implementation schedule
different from that prescribed by the Commission's rules.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
22. The Commission is limited in this proceeding as to minimizing
the burden on small entities. The proceeding is intended to provide all
Americans with the most reliable, responsive emergency services that
are technologically possible. The critical nature of this goal demands
that all entities involved, regardless of size, bear the same
responsibility for complying with requirements adopted to expedite
reaching this goal. A delay in response caused by a small entity could
result in the same fatal consequences as a delay caused by a large
entity.
23. The Commission, upon review of the petitions for
reconsideration of the Order, could have elected to simply deny the
petitions and leave the rules as is, or it could have modified the
rules to intensify the demonstration requirements on PSAPs. Instead the
Commission makes certain clarifications to the rules to dispel some of
the existing confusion as to PSAP readiness and the decision adopted in
the Order, and modifies the rules to accommodate certain of the
carrier's continuing concerns, while refraining from imposing
additional burdens on PSAPs, most of whom are either small or mid-sized
entities.
24. First, the Recon, in paragraphs 9 through 12 clarifies the
rules along the lines suggested by two wireless carriers by
establishing the parallel 15-day timeframe for carrier requests and
PSAP responses in certain instances where the PSAP does not provide
readiness documentation simultaneous with its request for E911 service.
The Commission takes this action to promote early communication between
wireless carriers and PSAPs, to expedite the E911 implementation
process, to reduce a carrier's ability to use a documentation request
as a delaying tactic, while minimizing unnecessary carrier expenditures
where the PSAP is unable to demonstrate that it will be E911 capable by
the end of the six-month period allotted for carrier compliance. This
modification thus benefits both small and mid-sized wireless carriers
and PSAPs and strengthens the Commission's efforts to encourage
necessary cooperation between carriers and PSAPs in achieving truly
responsive E911 implementation.
25. Second, to address situations in which a PSAP has made the
upfront readiness showing but turns out to be incapable of receiving
E911 Phase II information at the end of the six-month implementation
period, the Recon amends 47 CFR 20.18(j) in several ways. (See
paragraphs 14 through 21 of the Recon.) The Recon clarifies that the
readiness showing is for the purpose of commencing the wireless
carrier's six-month implementation obligation. The Recon also
establishes a certification procedure whereby wireless carriers that
have completed all necessary steps toward E911 implementation that are
not dependent on PSAP readiness may have their six-month compliance
obligation temporarily tolled. These procedures, set out in paragraphs
15 through 21 of the Recon, minimize the financial risk to wireless
carriers while providing PSAPs with an opportunity to respond and set
up several other restrictions in the certification procedure to avoid
abuse of the process by all parties involved.
26. Several wireless carrier commenters recommend that the
Commission amend its rules to require that the PSAP obtain the local
exchange carrier's (LEC's) written commitment to complete the required
Automated Location Information (ALI) database upgrades within the six-
month period. As discussed in paragraph 23 of the Recon, the Commission
does not adopt such a regulation. In paragraph 24, the Commission also
declines to adopt a
[[Page 2918]]
second, alternative proposal that would require PSAPs to acquire copies
of an LEC's schedule of ALI database upgrade, because PSAPs are not in
the best position to furnish such documentation. In paragraph 25 of the
Recon, the Commission directs the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to
collect additional information periodically from LECs regarding the
status of their efforts in connection with wireless E911 deployment to
PSAPs and to consumers.
27. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of this
Recon, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a report to be sent to
Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this
Recon, including this Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Ordering Clauses
28. The Petition for Reconsideration filed by Sprint is granted to
the extent provided in the full text of the Recon and that the Petition
is otherwise denied.
29. The Petition for Reconsideration filed by Cingular is denied.
30. Part 20 of the Commission's rules is amended as indicated in
the rule changes section of this summary, effective February 21, 2003,
except for Sec. Sec. 20.18(j)(4) and (5), which contain information
collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the
Office of Management and Budget. The Commission is seeking emergency
approval from the Office of Management and Budget for these
collections. Public comment on the information collections on these PRA
burdens are due March 24, 2003. The Commission will publish a document
in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for these
sections.
31. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Recon, including
the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carrier, Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 20.18(j) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 20.18 911 Service.
* * * * *
(j) Conditions for enhanced 911 services. (1) Generally. The
requirements set forth in paragraphs (d) through (h) of this section
shall be applicable only if the administrator of the designated Public
Safety Answering Point has requested the services required under those
paragraphs and the Public Safety Answering Point is capable of
receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the service
and a mechanism for recovering the Public Safety Answering Point's
costs of the enhanced 911 service is in place.
(2) Commencement of six-month period. (i) Except as provided in
paragraph (ii) of this section, for purposes of commencing the six-
month period for carrier implementation specified in paragraphs (d),
(f) and (g) of this section, a PSAP will be deemed capable of receiving
and utilizing the data elements associated with the service requested,
if it can demonstrate that it has:
(A) Ordered the necessary equipment and has commitments from
suppliers to have it installed and operational within such six-month
period; and
(B) Made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange carrier
for the necessary trunking, upgrades, and other facilities.
(ii) For purposes of commencing the six-month period for carrier
implementation specified in paragraphs (f) and (g) of this section, a
PSAP that is Phase I-capable using a Non-Call Path Associated Signaling
(NCAS) technology will be deemed capable of receiving and utilizing the
data elements associated with Phase II service if it can demonstrate
that it has made a timely request to the appropriate local exchange
carrier for the ALI database upgrade necessary to receive the Phase II
information.
(3) Tolling of six-month period. Where a wireless carrier has
served a written request for documentation on the PSAP within 15 days
of receiving the PSAP's request for Phase I or Phase II enhanced 911
service, and the PSAP fails to respond to such request within 15 days
of such service, the six-month period for carrier implementation
specified in paragraphs (d), (f), and (g) of this section will be
tolled until the PSAP provides the carrier with such documentation.
(4) Carrier certification regarding PSAP readiness issues. At the
end of the six-month period for carrier implementation specified in
paragraphs (d), (f) and (g) of this section, a wireless carrier that
believes that the PSAP is not capable of receiving and utilizing the
data elements associated with the service requested may file a
certification with the Commission. Upon filing and service of such
certification, the carrier may suspend further implementation efforts,
except as provided in paragraph (j)(4)(x) of this section.
(i) As a prerequisite to filing such certification, no later than
21 days prior to such filing, the wireless carrier must notify the
affected PSAP, in writing, of its intent to file such certification.
Any response that the carrier receives from the PSAP must be included
with the carrier's certification filing.
(ii) The certification process shall be subject to the procedural
requirements set forth in sections 1.45 and 1.47 of this chapter.
(iii) The certification must be in the form of an affidavit signed
by a director or officer of the carrier, documenting:
(A) The basis for the carrier's determination that the PSAP will
not be ready;
(B) Each of the specific steps the carrier has taken to provide the
E911 service requested;
(C) The reasons why further implementation efforts cannot be made
until the PSAP becomes capable of receiving and utilizing the data
elements associated with the E911 service requested; and
(D) The specific steps that remain to be completed by the wireless
carrier and, to the extent known, the PSAP or other parties before the
carrier can provide the E911 service requested.
(iv) All affidavits must be correct. The carrier must ensure that
its affidavit is correct, and the certifying director or officer has
the duty to personally determine that the affidavit is correct.
(v) A carrier may not engage in a practice of filing inadequate or
incomplete certifications for the purpose of delaying its
responsibilities.
(vi) To be eligible to make a certification, the wireless carrier
must have completed all necessary steps toward E911 implementation that
are not dependent on PSAP readiness.
(vii) A copy of the certification must be served on the PSAP in
accordance with Sec. 1.47 of this chapter. The PSAP
[[Page 2919]]
may challenge in writing the accuracy of the carrier's certification
and shall serve a copy of such challenge on the carrier. See Sec. Sec.
1.45 and 1.47 and Sec. Sec. 1.720 through 1.736 of this chapter.
(viii) If a wireless carrier's certification is facially
inadequate, the six-month implementation period specified in paragraphs
(d), (f) and (g) of this section will not be suspended as provided for
in paragraph (j)(4) of this section.
(ix) If a wireless carrier's certification is inaccurate, the
wireless carrier will be liable for noncompliance as if the
certification had not been filed.
(x) A carrier that files a certification under paragraph (j)(4) of
this section shall have 90 days from receipt of the PSAP's written
notice that it is capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements
associated with the service requested to provide such service in
accordance with the requirements of paragraphs (d) through (h) of this
section.
(5) Modification of deadlines by agreement. Nothing in this section
shall prevent Public Safety Answering Points and carriers from
establishing, by mutual consent, deadlines different from those imposed
for carrier and PSAP compliance in paragraphs (d), (f), and (g)(2) of
this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-1326 Filed 1-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P