**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | )  | CC Docket No. 94-102         |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Revision of the Commission's     | )  | WT Docket No. 99-328         |
| Rules to Ensure Compatibility    |    |                              |
| with Enhanced 911 Emergency      | )  |                              |
| Calling Systems                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
| 911 Call Processing Modes        |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
| Joint Petition for Declaratory   |    |                              |
| Ruling on 911 Call Processing    | )  |                              |
| Modes by AT&T Wireless Services, |    |                              |
| Inc., et al.; Petition for       | )  |                              |
| Declaratory Ruling of Wireless   |    |                              |
| Consumers Alliance, et al.       | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: July 23, 2008 Released: July 24, 2008**

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In the *E911 Second Report and Order*, the Commission adopted rules
    to improve 911 call completion and established guidelines for
    911-only call processing modes.[^1] In the course of litigation
    concerning this order, on September 20, 2006, the U.S. District
    Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Court) ordered the
    defendants in a class action lawsuit, sixteen wireless handset
    manufacturers and telecommunications carriers (the Joint
    Petitioners), to file a petition for declaratory relief with the
    Commission for resolution of seven issues raised by the defendants
    in their filings with the Court.[^2] The Court referred these issues
    under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction for resolution by the
    Commission. In this Order, we respond to these seven issues.

# background

2.  In the *E911 Second Report and Order*, the Commission adopted rule
    section 22.921, which requires that "mobile telephones manufactured
    after February 13, 2000 that are capable of operating in analog mode
    . . . must incorporate a special procedure for processing 911
    calls." [^3] Further, the special procedure "must recognize when a
    911 call is made and, at such time, must override any programming in
    the mobile unit that determines the handling of a non-911 call and
    permit the call to be transmitted through the analog system of other
    carriers."[^4] The requirement that the handset attempt to connect a
    911 call through other analog carriers is intended to avoid the
    "lock-in" problem, where a handset continually tries to complete the
    call with the preferred carrier (*i.e.*, the handset "locks in" to
    the preferred carrier) even when, for example, the handset is
    located in a dead spot in the preferred carrier's service area.[^5]
    The *E911 Second Report and Order* did not mandate a particular
    special procedure, but required handset manufacturers to incorporate
    "one or more of the 911 call system selection processes endorsed or
    approved by the FCC."[^6]

3.  The Commission approved three specific proposed "special procedures"
    in the *E911 Second Report and Order,* including a method referred
    to as Automatic A/B -- Intelligent Retry (A/B -- IR).[^7] Integral
    to the approved A/B -- IR method was the requirement that "the
    handset should seek to complete the call with the non-preferred
    cellular carrier if the preferred cellular carrier has not
    successfully delivered the call to the landline carrier within 17
    seconds after the call is placed."[^8] The *E911 Second Report and
    Order* also set out general principles for other acceptable modes
    and encouraged the development of further improvements in 911 call
    completion.[^9]

4.  The Commission delegated authority to the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau (the Bureau) to consider and approve new
    or modified 911 call processing modes.[^10] The Bureau responded to
    three specific requests. In the January 2000 *Nokia Order*, the
    Bureau granted Nokia's request to apply the A/B -- IR method to
    multimode (analog and digital) phones.[^11] In the February 2000
    *Ericsson Order*, the Bureau similarly granted Ericsson's request to
    apply the A/B -- IR method to multimode phones, although with a
    different ranking of carriers and systems.[^12] In the February 2003
    *Motorola Order*, the Bureau approved Motorola's modified call
    processing method, whereby for dropped 911 calls the handset would
    remain for five minutes on the paging channel of the carrier that
    last served the call, rather than automatically retrying the dropped
    call.[^13]

5.  In 2002, the Wireless Consumers' Alliance and the individual
    plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit (jointly "WCA") filed a series
    of lawsuits, seeking judgment that certain wireless handset
    manufacturers have failed to comply with Commission requirements
    regarding 911 call processing.[^14] These cases were consolidated in
    the Court.[^15] The Joint Petitioners sought partial summary
    judgment from the Court, which then stayed the proceedings pursuant
    to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, and ordered the Joint
    Petitioners to seek Commission resolution of seven issues raised in
    their summary judgment briefing.[^16] As specified by the Court,
    these seven issues are as follows:

    \(1\) Is a wireless handset manufacturer in compliance with 47
    C.F.R. § 22.921 if it utilizes a call-processing method, or some
    combination of methods, proposed by other wireless handset
    manufacturers and approved by the FCC?

    \(2\) Are handsets manufactured on or before the effective date of
    the Second Report and Order (or as to any particular defendant, any
    extensions granted to that defendant) subject to the FCC's 911
    call-processing compliance requirements?

    \(3\) Do the FCC's 911 call processing requirements apply to
    handsets manufactured for customers outside of the United States?

    \(4\) Does the 17-second time limit in the Second Report and Order
    apply only to the initial attempt to connect a 911 call on the
    preferred carrier's system, or does it also apply to any further
    attempts to connect the call?

    \(5\) Does the Second Report and Order require handsets to both
    switch and connect to the non-preferred carrier in any particular
    time period (including 17 seconds)?

    \(6\) Is a handset utilizing one of the 911 call-processing methods
    approved in the Motorola Order and in the Nokia Order required to
    automatically retry a dropped call?

    \(7\) Is a handset that automatically retries a dropped 911 call
    required to retry on the non-preferred carrier, or may it retry the
    dropped 911 call on the preferred carrier?[^17]

6.  On October 3, 2006, Joint Petitioners filed a petition for
    declaratory ruling asking the Commission to resolve the seven issues
    in conformance with their understanding.[^18] On December 22, 2006,
    WCA also filed a petition for declaratory ruling, asking the
    Commission to resolve the same issues in conformance with its
    understanding.[^19]

# DISCUSSION

7.  We have reviewed the seven questions posed by the Court in the
    *Referral Order*. In the discussion that follows, we provide our
    responses to each of these questions.

## Is a wireless handset manufacturer in compliance with 47 C.F.R. § 22.921 if it utilizes a call processing method, or some combination of methods, proposed by other wireless handset manufacturers and approved by the FCC? 

8.  Section 22.921 provides in relevant part that "\[m\]obile telephones
    manufactured after February 13, 2000 that are capable of operating
    in the analog mode . . . must incorporate a special procedure for
    processing 911 calls. . . . This special procedure must incorporate
    one or more of the 911 call system selection processes endorsed or
    approved by the FCC."[^20] Joint Petitioners contend that this rule
    does not limit a wireless handset manufacturer to the three call
    processing methodologies approved in the *E911 Second Report and
    Order*, or to any approved methods proposed by that manufacturer.
    Rather, they assert that a wireless handset manufacturer is also in
    compliance with section 22.921 if it utilizes either a call
    processing method, or some combination of methods, that has been
    proposed by other wireless handset manufacturers and approved by the
    FCC.[^21] WCA, however, argues that the Commission has never ruled
    that one manufacturer may use a processing method that it has
    approved for another manufacturer, much less that section 22.921
    allows handsets to combine different aspects of different approved
    methods.[^22]

9.  In the *E911 Second Report and Order*, the Commission specifically
    stated that "it is not our intent to limit the development and
    improvement of 911 call completion modes, so long as they meet the
    criteria we have established. We wish to encourage the development
    of new and improved methods of making wireless technology enhance
    public safety."[^23] Accordingly, the Commission delegated authority
    to the Bureau to act on requests "to incorporate new or modified 911
    call processing modes."[^24] It is therefore clear that the *E911
    Second Report and Order* does not by its terms limit the 911 call
    processing "special procedure" to the three methods approved in that
    order. Indeed, in each of the three subsequent orders approving
    additional special procedures for 911 call processing, the Bureau
    held that those procedures met the fundamental principles on which
    section 22.921 is based.[^25] Given the basic principle of
    encouraging new and improved methods for 911 call processing, and
    the fact that the three post-order, approved methods satisfied the
    fundamental criteria set forth in the *E911 Second Report and
    Order*, a wireless handset manufacturer is in compliance with
    section 22.921 if it utilizes a call processing method proposed by
    other wireless handset manufacturers and approved by the Commission.

10. Section 22.921 does not explicitly indicate whether the phrase
    "\[t\]his special procedure must incorporate one or more of the 911
    call system selection processes endorsed or approved by the FCC"
    means each system selection processes as a whole or in a combination
    of parts of system selection processes. However, as already noted,
    the *E911 Second Report and Order* announced basic principles that
    any analog cellular 911 call processing mode should satisfy,
    approved three call processing procedures any manufacturer could
    use, and delegated authority to the Bureau to approve additional
    procedures any manufacturer could use. Again, this was intended "to
    encourage the development of new and improved methods of making
    wireless technology enhance public safety."[^26] Moreover, the *E911
    Second Report and Order* specifically held that "our rules do not
    bar manufacturers from electing to incorporate more than one calling
    mode, *or some combination of modes,* if that is a cost-effective
    design and marketing solution ..."[^27]

11. Taken together, we find that these elements of the *E911 Second
    Report and Order* indicate a clear Commission intent to allow the
    incorporation of different parts of different approved modes.
    Accordingly, we conclude that a wireless handset manufacturer is in
    compliance with section 22.921 if it utilizes a call processing
    method, or some combination of methods, proposed by other wireless
    handset manufacturers and approved by the Commission, provided: (1)
    the new procedure is consistent with the core principles established
    in the *E911 Second Report and Order*, and (2) the elements used
    from each approved method are identical to that approved method. In
    all other cases, the new procedure requires specific Commission
    approval.

## Are handsets manufactured on or before the effective date of the Second Report and Order (or as to any particular defendant, any extensions granted to that defendant) subject to the FCC's 911 call processing compliance requirements?

12. Section 22.921 provides in relevant part that: "Mobile telephones
    manufactured after February 13, 2000 ... must incorporate a special
    procedure for processing 911 calls." (The effective date of the
    *E911 Second Report and Order* was February 13, 2000.) WCA contends
    that "manufactured" means both physically assembled and loaded with
    the carrier's software.[^28] It also argues that handsets for which
    an application for type acceptance was filed on or after November
    13, 1999, must also comply with the 911 call processing compliance
    requirements even if manufactured prior to February 13, 2000.[^29]
    Joint Petitioners assert that both contentions conflict directly
    with the plain language of section 22.921.[^30] We agree with the
    Joint Petitioners.

13. We interpret the word "manufactured" as used in the rule to have its
    plain meaning, *i.e.* the process by which the manufacturer made its
    handset. Contrary to WCA's contentions, there is no additional
    meaning, including any requirement that the device must be loaded
    with software to be considered "manufactured." Furthermore, there is
    no correlation between the meaning of "manufactured" and the timing
    of the filing of an application for equipment authorization. The
    *E911 Second Report and Order* specified that "\[a\]ny application
    for equipment authorization of an analog cellular telephone
    submitted six months after the adoption date of this Order must
    include a statement and a description of the approved 911 call
    processing method used by the device."[^31] However, this
    requirement simply was imposed to ensure that manufacturers began
    submitting equipment approval applications sufficiently in advance
    to be sure that handsets manufactured after the effective date would
    be in compliance.

14. Accordingly, we find that handsets manufactured, in the plain sense
    of the word as explained above, on or before the effective date of
    the *E911 Second Report and Order* (or as to any particular
    defendant, any extensions granted to that defendant) are not subject
    to the FCC's 911 call processing compliance requirements, namely,
    section 22.921.

##  Do the FCC's 911 call processing requirements apply to handsets manufactured for customers outside of the United States?

15. Pursuant to § 302(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    the Commission's rules "shall not be applicable . . . to devices . .
    . manufactured solely for export . . ."[^32] WCA, however, contends
    that the word "customers" in the Court's question (set forth above)
    is ambiguous because a foreign purchaser of a handset might resell
    it in the U.S.[^33] Along with the Joint Petitioners, we do not see
    any ambiguity.[^34] Handsets sold in the United States, whether or
    not they are first sold to customers outside of the United States,
    must comply with all applicable regulations, including section
    22.921. If they are not section 22.921 compliant at the time they
    are sold to a foreign customer, they must become so prior to sale in
    the United States. Accordingly, we find that the Commission's 911
    call processing requirements do not apply to handsets manufactured
    for customers outside of the United States.

## Does the 17-second time limit in the Second Report and Order apply only to the initial attempt to connect a 911 call on the preferred carrier's system, or does it also apply to any further attempts to connect the call?

16. We agree with the Joint Petitioners that the 17 second time limit
    adopted in the *E911 Second Report and Order* focuses on the initial
    call set-up attempts with the preferred carrier.[^35] In other
    words, the Commission was focused on the amount of time a handset
    would spend attempting to connect with the preferred carrier before
    attempting to complete the call with another cellular carrier: "it
    is possible that in a small percentage of cases, call set-up would
    take much longer under the IR as proposed, because the algorithm
    permits up to three attempts to complete the call with the preferred
    carrier before switching to the non-preferred carrier. This could
    lead callers to terminate 911 calls that eventually would have been
    completed. To minimize this possibility, while also allowing a
    reasonable period for initial call set-up to the non-preferred
    carrier, we conclude that a time limit should be placed on the
    initial attempt to set-up the call with the preferred carrier."[^36]
    The *E911 Second Report and Order* did not address the applicable
    time limit for call set-up attempts following the initial call setup
    attempts with the preferred carrier. It thus did not apply the 17
    second time limit to call setup attempts following the initial call
    set-up attempt.

17. In its petition, WCA argues that pursuant to the *E911 Second Report
    and Order* if, using the A/B-IR method, the initial call attempt to
    the preferred carrier and the following attempt to call the
    non-preferred carrier both fail, "the handset would continue to
    rescan and reattempt placing the call with both the preferred and
    the non-preferred carrier, using the same algorithm ..."[^37] WCA
    argues that this means that the 17-second requirement applies to all
    attempted calls because that requirement is inherent in the
    algorithm.[^38] WCA, however, misquotes the relevant language from
    the *E911 Second Report and Order*, and misconstrues its
    meaning.[^39] In describing how, under the A/B-IR method, a handset
    would make repeated attempts to place a call, this language refers
    to "algorithms" in the plural, not "algorithm" in the singular:
    "\[T\]he handset would continue to rescan and reattempt placing the
    call with both the preferred and the non-preferred carrier, using
    the same *algorithms*."[^40] With this language the Commission
    expressly contemplated that there could be one algorithm for the
    initial call attempt with the preferred carrier and another
    algorithm for placing the call with the non-preferred carrier, which
    undercuts WCA's argument that the 17-second time limit is "inherent"
    in the "algorithm" for any further attempts to connect the 911 call.
    As noted above, in applying the 17-second time limit, the *E911
    Second Report and Order* focuses only on the set of instructions
    that a handset follows to connect a 911 call on the preferred
    carrier's system, not on any further attempts to connect the 911
    call, as set forth in the proposed A/B-IR. Accordingly, the
    17-second time limit applies only to the initial attempt to connect
    a 911 call on the preferred carrier's system, not to any further
    attempts to connect the call.

## Does the Second Report and Order require handsets to both "switch and connect" to the non-preferred carrier in any particular time period (including 17 seconds)?

18. WCA quotes language from the *E911 Second Report and Order* and the
    *Clarification Order* which states that, in the event that a
    wireless handset fails to connect with the preferred carrier, it
    must variously "seek to complete the call with," "switch to" or
    "retry an initial 911 call attempt with" the non-preferred
    carrier.[^41] WCA argues that this quoted language means that the
    handset must both switch and connect to the non-preferred
    carrier.[^42] The Joint Petitioners contend that the language of
    those two orders in fact imposes no connection requirement.[^43] We
    agree with the Joint Petitioners.

19. In the *E911 Second Report and Order*, the Commission concluded that
    "a time limit should be placed on the initial attempt to set-up the
    call with the preferred carrier," and that 17 seconds would be "a
    reasonable and achievable maximum time period."[^44] In the
    *Clarification Order*, the Commission further explained that
    "\[t\]he 17 second time limit applies to the initial 'call set-up'
    attempts between the handset and the preferred carrier's base
    station, not to the further stages of call processing (*i.e.*,
    delivery of the call to the landline from the base station)."[^45]
    Thus the 17-second condition only requires that the handset
    terminate its initial call set-up attempt with the preferred carrier
    and retry to set up the 911 call with the non-preferred carrier if
    the handset is not assigned a voice channel by the preferred carrier
    within 17 seconds. Accordingly, the Commission's orders do not
    require handsets to both "switch and connect" to the non-preferred
    carrier during the initial call set-up attempt.

## Is a handset utilizing one of the 911 call processing methods approved in the Motorola Order and Nokia Order required to automatically retry a dropped 911 call?

20. The *E911 Second Report and Order* requires that handsets use an
    approved method, including the A/B -- IR method that was among the
    three methods approved in that order. The A/B -- IR method included
    the automatic retry feature. Thus, the Commission required automatic
    retry for handsets using the A/B -- IR method.

21. WCA argues that the 2000 *Nokia Order* did not change the
    requirement in the A/B -- IR method approved in the *E911 Second
    Report and Order* requiring automatic retry of a dropped call.[^46]
    Joint Petitioners assert, however, that "\[n\]owhere in its filings
    did Nokia indicate that \[its\] proposed methodology would
    automatically re-attempt a dropped 911 call.[^47] We agree with
    Joint Petitioners. Inherent in the *Nokia Order* was approval of the
    entire alternate 911 call completion methodology proposed by Nokia,
    which did not include automatic retry.[^48] Rather, under Nokia's
    proposal, a dropped call is returned to an idle or ready mode.[^49]
    Accordingly, the method approved by the Bureau in the *Nokia Order*
    did not require automatic retry.

22. In the 2003 *Motorola Order*, the Bureau approved a different
    version of the A/B -- IR method. In this modified version, for calls
    terminated prematurely, without action by the caller or call-taker,
    for example because of loss of signal, handsets do not immediately
    attempt to complete the call using alternate channels and systems
    until the call is completed. Instead, the handset remains on a
    paging channel, facilitating call back and the identification of
    unintentional 911 calls by public safety answering point
    dispatchers.[^50] Thus, following the *Motorola Order*, handsets
    using or incorporating the method approved therein are not required
    to automatically retry a dropped 911 call.

## Is a handset that automatically retries a dropped 911 call required to retry on the non-preferred carrier, or may it retry the dropped 911 call on the preferred carrier?

23. With respect to the A/B -- IR method, the *E911 Second Report and
    Order* stated that "\[i\]nitially, the handset would seek to
    complete the call with the preferred carrier. . . . If this initial
    call attempt via the preferred carrier should fail, the handset
    would attempt to complete the call via the non-preferred carrier. .
    . . If a voice channel is established but the 911 call terminates
    for some reason other than the user ending the call or the base
    station releasing the call -- for example, if the handset moves into
    a coverage gap or encounters some other transmission problem -- the
    handset would automatically reattempt the call using the same
    algorithm."[^51] This indicates that the entire calling sequence
    would begin anew, *i.e.,* the handset would again first try to call
    using the preferred carrier. Moreover, the *Clarification Order*
    noted that where the handset considers a call to have been
    completed, *e.g.*, in a dropped call situation, "the next 911 call
    attempt would be initiated with the preferred carrier."[^52]
    Accordingly, a handset that automatically retries a dropped 911 call
    may retry the dropped 911 call on the preferred carrier. Indeed,
    from our reading of their petitions, we find that neither WCA nor
    the Joint Petitioners actually disagree on this specific
    question.[^53]

# ORDERING CLAUSES

24. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i) and Section 1.2 of the
    Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.2, that the Petition for
    Declaratory Ruling filed by the Joint Petitioners IS GRANTED IN PART
    AND DENIED IN PART to the extent indicated herein.

25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Petition for Declaratory Ruling
    filed by the Wireless Consumers Alliance, *et al.* IS GRANTED IN
    PART AND DENIED IN PART to the extent indicated herein.

26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commission's Office of Managing
    Director, Office of the Secretary, shall send a copy of this Order
    to the United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Marlene H. Dortch Secretary

[^1]: Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    *Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 10954 (1999) (*E911 Second
    Report and Order*).

[^2]: *In re* Wireless Telephone 911 Calls Litigation, MDL-1521,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, entered Sept. 20, 2006 (*Referral
    Order*).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.921.

[^4]: *Id*.

[^5]: *E911 Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10961-62 ¶ 16.

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.921.

[^7]: *E911 Second Report and Order* 14 FCC Rcd at 10965-66 ¶ 27.

[^8]: *Id*. at 10971-72 ¶ 41.

[^9]: These basic principles are: (1) the most basic goal is to improve
    the 911 call completion rate so far as practicable; (2) it is often
    desirable to complete 911 calls, where possible, via the preferred
    cellular carrier; (3) a 911 call processing mode should not disrupt
    overall operation of 911 service; (4) the 911 call processing mode
    should address the lock-in problem in a reasonable and effective
    way; and (5) the benefits of the calling mode to public safety
    should outweigh any additional costs. *Id*. at 10966 ¶¶ 28, 29.

[^10]: *Id*. at 10993 ¶ 88.

[^11]: 911 Call Processing Modes, WT Docket No. 99-328, *Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 1911 (WTB 2000) (*Nokia Order*).

[^12]: 911 Call Processing Modes, WT Docket No. 99-328, *Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 15671 (WTB 2000) (*Ericsson Order*).

[^13]: 911 Call Processing Modes; Motorola Request for Approval of
    Modified 911 Call Processing Mode, WT Docket No. 99-328, *Order*, 18
    FCC Rcd 2500 (WTB 2003) (*Motorola Order*).

[^14]: The suits seek relief including handset recalls, damages, and
    injunctions.

[^15]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; 911 Call Processing
    Modes; Petition for Declaratory Ruling Regarding Cellphone 911
    Requirements in Response to Referral from the United States District
    Court of the Northern District of Illinois by Wireless Consumers
    Alliance et al.; Joint Petition for Declaratory Ruling on 911 Call
    Processing Modes, CC Docket No. 94-102, WT Docket No. 99-328,
    *Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 13448, 13449 ¶ 4 (2004) (*Clarification Order*).
    In the *Clarification* *Order*, the Commission previously responded
    to a primary jurisdiction referral from the Court on certain aspects
    of the A/B -- IR method.

[^16]: *Referral Order* at 1.

[^17]: *Id*. at 2.

[^18]: Joint Petition for Declaratory Ruling (filed Oct. 3, 2006) at 1-3
    (Joint Petition).

[^19]: Petition for Declaratory Ruling (filed Dec. 22, 2006) at 2-5 (WCA
    Petition). Joint Petitioners subsequently filed a response to the
    WCA Petition. *See* Letter from Terrence Dee, Esq., on behalf of
    Defendant Petitioners, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission (dated Feb. 9, 2007). Furthermore, in
    support of its Petition, WCA submitted certain information under a
    request for confidential treatment pursuant to Section 0.459 of the
    Commission's rules. In this regard, WCA filed a redacted version of
    its Petition on January 19, 2007. Because this Order discusses only
    that information made public by WCA, we need not rule on WCA's
    request at this time. Until we so rule, we will honor WCA's request
    for confidential treatment. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.459(d)(1).

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 22.921.

[^21]: Joint Petition at 10-14.

[^22]: WCA Petition at 3.

[^23]: *E911 Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10966 ¶ 29.

[^24]: *Id*. at 10995 ¶¶ 88, 97.

[^25]: *Nokia Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 1915 ¶ 11; *Ericsson Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 15674 ¶ 6; *Motorola Order*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2501 ¶ 6.

[^26]: *E911 Second Report and Order* 14 FCC Rcd at 10966 ¶ 29.

[^27]: *Id*. at 10990 ¶ 82 (emphasis added).

[^28]: WCA Petition at 3.

[^29]: *Id*.

[^30]: Joint Petition at 15.

[^31]: *E911 Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10992 ¶ 88

[^32]: 47 U.S.C. § 302a(c).

[^33]: WCA Petition at 39-40.

[^34]: *See* Joint Petition at 16.

[^35]: *See id*. at 17-18.

[^36]: *See* *E911 Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10971 ¶ 40.

[^37]: WCA Petition at 27 (quoting *E911 Second Report and Order*, 14
    FCC Rcd at 10968 ¶ 33).

[^38]: *Id*. at 27-29.

[^39]: *See, e.g.,* WCA Petition at 27-29.

[^40]: *E911 Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10968 ¶ 33
    (emphasis added).

[^41]: *See* WCA Petition at 21.

[^42]: *See* *id*. at 21-22.

[^43]: *See* Joint Petition at 18-19.

[^44]: *E911 Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10971 ¶¶ 40, 41.

[^45]: *Clarification Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 13454-55 ¶ 20.

[^46]: WCA Petition at 30.

[^47]: Joint Petition at 20.

[^48]: *See Nokia Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 1916 ¶ 13.

[^49]: *See* Letter from David Siddall, Counsel to Nokia, to Thomas
    Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, WT Docket No.
    99-328, Attachment at 8 (filed Nov. 10, 1999).

[^50]: *Id*. at 2501 ¶ 4.

[^51]: *E911 Second Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 10968 ¶ 33.

[^52]: *Clarification Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 13448 ¶ 27.

[^53]: *See* Joint Petition at 22-23; WCA Petition at 5.