SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL POWELL

**Re: *Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Request for Waiver by Cingular
Wireless LLC, Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Spring PCS, Verizon Wireless,
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc.***

I am disappointed and unsatisfied with the progress we have made, thus
far, on Phase II E911 rules. I know and respect that carriers have made
concerted strides in this area, but those efforts must be re-doubled. It
goes without saying that there is a new sense of urgency around using
mobile phones as important safety devices. They have become
indispensable tools for calling for help and for delivering help.

Thankfully, we are only at the beginning of the implementation of this
process and not at the end. I am committed to reaching that end with
full and unqualified success. Today, we accept revised implementation
plans from some of the major carriers. We initiate enforcement
investigations with regard to others. All these decisions are designed
to pursue single-mindedly one objective: the full availability of
enhanced 911 by the original deadline established by the Commission.
Given that this service can save lives, I trust that the carriers, the
manufacturers and public safety authorities will work tirelessly to get
this service to people as soon before that deadline as possible. It is
not good enough to go for a gentleman's "C." This test requires an "A+"
effort.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, the public safety
community, the carriers and their suppliers, Congress and other
governmental agencies, including the Department of Transportation, on
exploring ways to ensure and facilitate the successful nationwide
deployment of E911.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN ABERNATHY**

**Re:** ***Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Request for Waiver by
Cingular Wireless LLC, Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Spring PCS, Verizon
Wireless, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc.
(adopted Oct. 2, 2001)***

Today's orders are another positive, albeit complex and difficult, step
towards the world's first wireless E911 location-based public safety
network. That journey began in 1996 when the national wireless and
public safety trade associations reached a hard-fought consensus
agreement on a deployment plan for E911. That solution was to be
network-based, rolled out in a multiyear deployment beginning in 2001,
and achieve accuracy requirements of 125 meters -- about 67% of the
time. Remarkably, Sprint sold its first E911 capable handset on Monday
-- a solution not even contemplated by the Commission's first order back
in 1996 -- with better than twice the level of accuracy thought possible
in our original order. The waiver and enforcement referrals we take
today should not cloud the fact that we have made tremendous progress on
E911. There is no doubt that our collective sensitivity to public safety
and individual security were greatly heightened by the events of
September 11, 2001. Indeed, the terrorist attacks only served to drive
home the importance of wireless communications to our national
communications infrastructure and our everyday lives. Today we validate
that significance by becoming the only nation in the world that has
harnessed the power of location-based wireless cellphone technologies to
assist public safety in performing their vital work. The Commission
working with Congress, the public safety community, and the carriers
should be proud of this accomplishment, but also must continue to be
diligent in finishing the task.

I believe that the parties and the Commission staff have worked together
in good faith to craft the best available solutions to serve the
American people -- and I support that result. If I had dissented from
some or all of today's orders, I could have claimed that the Commission
was not "tough enough" on the carriers and cast myself in the more
politically beneficial role as defender of public safety. Although these
issues are extremely difficult, I rejected that approach. I have spent
extensive time with members of Congress, the carriers, manufacturers,
consumers and the public safety community to better understand the
challenges faced by each of the parties. Would I prefer that carriers,
particularly those in rural areas, roll out E911 more quickly? Of
course. Would I prefer that manufacturers provide the necessary
equipment on a timely basis to ensure compliance? Yes. Would I prefer
that every PSAP have adequate funds to upgrade their facilities
immediately to be ready to utilize location-based information?
Absolutely. Would I prefer that we had ruled on these waivers long
before today and sent clear signals to all the parties about our
expectations regarding deployment and our emphasis on enforcement?
Beyond a doubt, yes. But none of those things happened and all of us are
responsible.

# The Context of Today's Decisions

Our E911 regime was a government-led effort to speed the development and
deployment of a new technology prior to a commercial demand for that
product. It was not based on any statutory mandate; nor was it based on
any tangible technological showing. It was a tremendous undertaking,
full of uncertainty about the technology, the timing, and the costs for
all parties.

Each step forward in this process has been engendered by a constructive
dialogue amongst all of the parties based on an evolving knowledge base
-- not by carriers pointing at manufacturers, PSAPs pointing at
carriers, or manufacturers pointing at the Commission. For example, our
adoption of the handset-based alternative evolved from concerns that
permitting only a network-based solution was technologically
discriminatory and greater accuracy could be achieved through handset
solutions. In that instance, we recognized our initial network-only
decision as only a first step based on the best information available.
With the active support of many in the public safety community, we
modified our policy; as a result, consumers and public safety entities
will soon be able to locate handset-based consumers twice as accurately
as network-based.[^1] It was the right decision then, and it remains the
right decision today. We owe it to the parties, and the American people
to engage beyond the sound bites, by continually assessing our policy
approaches while striving to achieve the maximum good for the maximum
number in the shortest time frame.

The Commission's critical date for E911 Phase II deployment is December
31, 2005 when 95% of all handsets must be E911 Phase II compatible and
achieve our accuracy requirements.[^2] Significantly, none of the waiver
requests we act on today sought modification of our full deployment
deadlines or the ultimate accuracy requirements. Therefore these waivers
only request modifications of interim steps on the way to compliance.
Despite the Commission's efforts to adopt a plan developed through a
consensus process with all interested parties, those interim predictions
on the pace of technology simply missed their mark.

In light of these circumstances, today we grant a number of waivers
based on specific showing by each carrier of a clear path to compliance.
These waivers permitted each carrier to develop and implement their own
compliance schedule, while maintaining the overall integrity of our E911
policy goals. However, absent specific showings of their compliance
efforts, carriers received clear signals that their waivers would be
rejected. In two cases, carriers withdrew their waivers amidst mounting
questions about the efficacy of their proposed solutions. These carriers
are now engaged in discussions with Enforcement Bureau staff concerning
possible consent decrees to resolve these issues. It is my hope and
expectation that these proceedings will yield concrete and verifiable
plans to achieve full compliance. Moreover, I trust that treating these
compliance issues in the enforcement context will send a clear signal to
those that might have been tempted to take these obligations lightly.

It is also important to recognize that some of the carriers' requests
actually speed deployment of certain aspects of E911. For example,
Sprint and Verizon plan to deploy all of their Phase II switch upgrades
regardless of whether a PSAP has made the request that would trigger the
obligation for such deployment. Verizon also plans to install a
network-based technology to 100% of two counties (St. Clair County, IL,
and Lake County, IN) by December 31, 2001 and 100% deployment of a
network-based solution in three additional markets - Cook County, IL
(Chicago), St. Louis County, MO (St. Louis), and Harris County, TX
(Houston), by April 1, 2002 \-- all in advance of our requirement to
reach 100% of these coverage areas by Oct. 1, 2002. In addition, AT&T
plans to deploy a GSM network that will be location-capable its
inception \-- regardless of whether there is a valid PSAP request for
deployment.

# Why Approval of the Nextel and Verizon Waivers and Our Enforcement Approach is Appropriate

Although some disagree, I believe approval of the Nextel and Verizon
waivers and the enforcement approach we adopt today best serves American
consumers. While I am disappointed that we are addressing these
pleadings at the 13^th^ hour, I am not at all convinced that denial
would advance the public interest. Denial would not lead to the
miraculous introduction of equipment by manufacturers or any other
silver bullet solution. Instead, denial would mean more revised plans,
more changed technologies, and potentially more delay. It also could
mean that some carriers walk away from E911 and challenge the
Commission's E911 mandate in court with the potential for even greater
delays. As discussed above, the E911 deadlines and performance
requirements were largely aspirational and the public safety and
wireless communities have worked hard together to make this possible; a
court challenge prompted by unrealistic policies could jeopardize the
entire program. I am seriously concerned about the impact of delay,
litigation costs, uncertainty, and the risk of litigation on the actual
deployment of E911 to the American people.

A denial of the waiver requests based on comparisons between carriers
compliance plans is also inconsistent with the technical reality of
America's wireless networks. To their considerable credit, American
wireless regulators permitted wireless carriers to adopt a broad range
of technical standards. This policy reflected a fundamental trust in the
powers of free markets to drive licensees to the best service offerings
for the public. That approach yielded, among other things, the technical
interface that forms the foundation for third generation wireless
networks. It also yielded distinct technological networks for each
licensee. Therefore one cannot readily impose a technical solution or
timeline on Verizon just because it works for Sprint. Verizon operates
800 MHz analog, 800 MHz digital and 1900 MHz PCS, and for many of its
most popular regional and national plans, it requires a tri-mode phone
available from a more limited number of vendors - whereas Sprint
operates solely a PCS network at 1900 MHz and regularly uses dual mode
phones. Similarly, Verizon has roughly three times as many subscribers
to which it must get ALI-compliant handsets than Sprint. While Sprint
has been a leader in E911 and should be given credit for their
commitments, imposing their path to compliance on other licensees does
not withstand vigorous scrutiny. Nextel is also uniquely situated. It
has exactly one vendor to supply their equipment; while that arrangement
has yielded significant advantages to Nextel and its customers in other
contexts, it does impact their ability to respond to the E911 mandate.
It should also be noted that that the public safety community offered
qualified support for Nextel's approach.[^3] Therefore one cannot
compare Verizon's network with Sprint's or Nextel's to Cingular's and
adopt a cookie cutter approach to their paths to compliance. Unique
networks require unique E911 solutions.

I appreciate the frustration of my colleague regarding the Commission's
lack of control over manufacturers and vendors. Whenever the Commission
mandates various technological capabilities by licensees, it runs into
the very real limits imposed by manufacturing capabilities and
timelines. But it is a mistake to equate manufacturer conduct with
carrier conduct and to punish one for the acts and omissions of the
other. I do believe that carriers are obligated to use their best
efforts to obtain compliant equipment is a timely fashion. However, it
is unreasonable for the Commission automatically to "begin an
enforcement action" against a carrier because a vendor "fails to make
equipment . . . available on time" based on the carriers' "significant
control over their vendors." First, as someone who worked in the
wireless industry, I believe this assertion is inconsistent with the
global marketplace and the multiple business factors which affect
manufacturing decisions, especially in light of the fact that the U.S.
is the only country mandating this E911 equipment. Wireless
manufacturing is a global industry with thousands of carriers around the
world seeking products. And each of the national carriers here has only
a fraction of that market. These carriers generally do not have the
equipment market power to exercise "significant control." Second,
creating carrier liability based on manufacturer conduct is essentially
a back door effort to expand the Commission's jurisdiction so as to
reach manufacturers. The FCC's jurisdiction is limited by Congress
through the statute and only Congress can expand that jurisdiction.
Third, there is significant evidence that carriers cannot predict with
complete accuracy (which is what our initial rules required) when
products will be available and how they will perform when initially
deployed -- regardless of the commercial or other incentives to do so.
One needs look no further than the extended delays in rolling out 3G
handsets and performance issues with 2.5G for a dramatic illustration of
this fact.[^4]

I also have serious concerns about prejudging any future carrier filings
regarding E911. The Commission has an obligation to judge each
licensee's filing on the merits at the time they are filed. I do not
believe adjudicatory filings, such as waiver requests, should be
prejudged as "suspicious" any more than they should be prejudged as
"sympathetic."

Finally I feel compelled to clarify a few facts about our Order. Today's
Order does not create a dramatic extension of the handset phase-in
schedule that the prior Commission rejected a year ago. The extension
referenced in the Fourth Report and Order called for a blanket delay for
100% of new activations until 4/1/05 with no specific requirement to
ever reach the 95% overall penetration level. Even the lengthiest
extension in today's Orders, granted to Nextel, beats that schedule for
new activations by four months and maintains the integrity of the 95%
penetration requirement. The other carriers, Verizon (15 months), Sprint
(more than two years), AT&T/GSM (more than three years), Cingular/GSM
(more than two and a half years) dramatically exceed that proposal and
maintain the 95% penetration threshold for 2005. In addition I want to
point out that the Commission's approval in 1999 of a handset-based E911
solution did not represent a "delayed schedule" for E911 deployment. The
handset-based E911 deployment option was new, so there was nothing to
delay. Although it is true the initial roll out date was later than the
network-based solution schedule, this change was supported by many in
the public safety community because a handset solution doubled the
accuracy of the location information -- a vital and lifesaving
improvement over our initial plan.

\* \* \* \* \*

The final chapters of E911 deployment, like the first, must have many
authors -- public safety, carriers, manufacturers, technology vendors,
incumbent local exchange carriers, Congress and the Commission. In this
regard, I specifically wish to thank the public safety community for
their tireless efforts in this docket. As the events of September 11
reminded each of us, the men and women of the public safety community
are dedicated public servants who risk their lives to ensure our safety.
They are truly American heroes. Remarkably, some of these heroes go
beyond even those substantial responsibilities to volunteer their time
as advocates for public safety policy issues at the Commission. The
Commission and the public greatly benefit from their unique
contributions to the decision-making process. I also wish to thank
Congressman Upton, Congressman Markey, Congressman Rush, Congresswoman
Eshoo, Senator Hollings, Senator McCain, and Senator Burns for their
continued attention and constructive engagement on this difficult issue.
It is unquestionable that American consumers will benefit from E911
deployment, and the bipartisan leadership of these members has sharpened
our resolve, generated a meaningful public dialogue, and helped to shape
the approach we adopt today. Finally I wish to recognize the tremendous
effort of the Bureau staff on this docket. These issues are extremely
difficult, complex, and changing. They have required innumerable long
nights and lengthy redrafts. Your hard work and dedication are greatly
appreciated. Going forward, this important work will require all of us
to continue this difficult work together to deliver the benefits of
enhanced 911 services to the American people.

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL COPPS

**Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part**

Re: *Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Request for Waiver by Cingular
Wireless LLC, Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Spring PCS, Verizon Wireless,
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc.*

When dealing with life critical technology, especially in today's
environment, we cannot conduct "business as usual." We must make extra
effort, expend extra resources, and do a better job. None of us has done
that in the context of E911. Many carriers have not met deadlines for
deploying E911 systems and handsets. Many manufacturers have not made
equipment and software upgrades available quickly enough. Many in the
public safety community have not secured funding for upgrades or made
adequate progress towards installing needed new equipment. Importantly,
the Commission is only now dealing with dozens of pending waivers at the
last possible moment and in a way that is not consistent with its stated
waiver standard.

We can do better than this -- we *must* do better than this. Enhanced
911 will save lives. We all therefore have a special responsibility to
work hard to make certain our wireless networks are E911 compliant so
they are better able to help Americans when there is an emergency. If
there was ever any doubt about the value of wireless communications to
public safety, recent events have completely erased them. Wireless
communications save lives today. By making E911 a reality, we will
improve our networks and equipment so that they will save far more lives
in the future.

Yet today the Commission decides to grant waivers that excuse compliance
with our October 1, 2001 deadline and push compliance benchmarks far
into the future. I fear that because of this decision consumers will not
have E911 services as quickly as they deserve, and in the coming months
and years we will see more waiver requests, more finger pointing, and
unacceptably slow progress. The country cannot afford to go down that
road. I hope instead that carriers and manufacturers will not seek
further extensions based on arguments of more vendor delay, technology
failure, or the fact that the Commission today grants some carriers far
more lenient compliance schedules than others. I hope that PSAPs move
forward quickly to do their part and modernize their facilities. And, I
hope that, when faced with compliance failures or waiver requests, the
Commission holds fast and requires carriers to live up to the promises
made in the waiver requests we dispose of today.

I respectfully dissent from the Nextel and Verizon Orders because the
underlying requests do not satisfy our waiver requirements. These
requests do not give us "a clear path to full compliance," and do not
come "as close as possible to full compliance." I also would have
preferred that the Commission include stronger compliance language in
all of today's Orders that would have made it clear that carriers have
the burden of proving that they have met each benchmark they have agreed
to, that failure to meet a benchmark will result in enforcement action
and punitive measures, and that waivers that seek changes to these
benchmarks will be received with suspicion.

For these reasons I concur in the result of the *AT&T*, *Cingular*, and
*Sprint* Orders, agree with the *City of Richardson* Order, and
respectfully dissent from the *Nextel*, and *Verizon* Orders.

# 

# 

## Previous Commission Action on E911

In 1996 the Commission worked closely with the public safety community
and the wireless communications industry to devise E911 rules.[^5] In
the *E911 First Report and Order*, the Commission and industry began the
process of making our national wireless system able to report the
location of an emergency call to public safety personnel. As part of
this proceeding, the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
and various members of the public safety community suggested that the
Commission require "Phase II" compliance within five years in a
"Consensus Agreement" filed on the record on February 12, 1996.[^6]
Recognizing the complexity of achieving Phase II compliance, the
Commission agreed with CTIA and the public safety community and provided
industry with a full five years to reach "Phase II" compliance.[^7]
Thus, carriers knew on July 26, 1996 that their systems would have to
achieve Phase II compliance on October 1, 2001, as they had proposed.

The Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO), the
National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National
Association of State Nine One One Administrators (NASNA) therefore
recently stated, "The Commission established its rules five years ago,
and carriers and their suppliers have long known that deployment must
begin on October 1, 2001. Thus, the Commission must stand firm on this
and other deployment deadlines. Otherwise there will be little incentive
for carriers and others to fulfill the promise of wireless E9-1-1."[^8]

In several subsequent Orders, the Commission relaxed the Phase II
requirements, delayed compliance dates, and allowed more flexibility in
the types of technologies that could be used to achieve Phase II
compliance.[^9] As part of allowing the use of handset-based
technologies, the Commission relaxed the five-year period for achieving
Phase II compliance in order to achieve the greater location accuracy of
GPS. Therefore, carriers were allowed to chose between network
technologies that were required to be in place by October 1, 2001 and
handset technologies on a delayed schedule. This delayed schedule
required initial availability of Phase II compliant phones by March 1,
2001, compliance of 50% of new phones sold by October 1, 2001, and
compliance of 100% of new phones sold within six months of a PSAP
request received after October 1, 2001.[^10]

In the *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order*, the Commission
delayed compliance yet again. Responding to carrier and manufacturer
arguments that handset technologies were behind schedule, the Commission
extended compliance deadlines as follows: initial availability of
compliant phones was delayed until October 1, 2001, 25% compliance of
new phones was delayed until December 31, 2001, 50% compliance was
delayed until June 30, 2002, and 100% compliance was delayed until
December 31, 2002. Carriers were required to achieve 95% compliance of
all phones in their network by December 31, 2005, a delay of one year.

The Commission found that adopting further delays would not be in the
public interest. It stated that:

> "We find that \[additional proposed delay\] would substantially reduce
> the public safety benefits of Phase II, leaving many wireless 911
> callers without the benefits of ALI for a greatly extended period of
> time. Such delay also would compound the increasing burdens that
> rapidly growing numbers of wireless 911 calls impose on PSAPs.
> Emergency call takers now must devote critical time and resources to
> questioning wireless 911 callers to determine their location.
> Emergency response teams must often waste critical minutes -- or
> longer -- searching for those callers. Further, we determine that any
> wholesale deferral of the handset deployment schedule would be unfair
> to the many competitors who have been working to timely develop and
> market other ALI solutions . . . . A radical extension of the handset
> phase-in schedule . . . would amount to a decisive and unwarranted
> preference for handset-based technologies, substantially altering the
> terms of the competition between technologies . . . *[In sum, we
> conclude that the public interest and the public safety do not support
> a substantial delay in the current handset deployment
> schedule]{.underline}*. Even if some major handset manufacturers prove
> unable or unwilling to produce ALI-capable handsets in the near
> future, we believe the public safety will be better served if carriers
> are required to deploy other available ALI solutions, including GPS
> handsets that may be available from other manufacturers, according to
> the timetable we set herein. To allow the lengthy delay requested by
> some parties, would, in our view, jeopardize the progress made to date
> in the development of ALI solutions."[^11]

Despite this finding, and despite a long history of delays of E911
implementation schedules, the majority has now granted waivers for
Nextel and Verizon that allow a "radical extension of the handset
phase-in schedule" after the Commission found such a delay to be against
the public interest a mere 12 months ago. While the delay the Commission
faced then was not identical to the one it faces now, it was similar in
scale. Nearly doubling the time after our October 1, 2001 deadline in
which Nextel may continue to sell non-compliant handsets, and accepting
schedules that place our 2005 end date in grave danger, as we do today,
can only be seen as a "radical extension."

# The Waivers Before the Commission

The Commission has created a special standard for E911 waiver requests.
In the *E911 Fourth Memorandum Report and Order* the Commission stated
that:

> Waivers thus should not generally be warranted, especially in light of
> the vital public safety benefits of Phase II. In those particular
> cases where waivers may be justified, however . . . we expect waiver
> requests to be specific, focused and limited in scope, and with *[a
> clear path to full compliance]{.underline}*. Further, carriers should
> undertake concrete steps necessary to come *[as close as possible to
> full compliance]{.underline}* . . . .[^12]

Several carriers have met this standard in their waiver requests.
Sprint, AT&T (GSM), and Cingular (GSM) make firm commitments to begin
offering consumers Phase II compliant handsets on October 1 or, in the
case of AT&T, as soon as the first GSM phone is available. They each
have made enforceable promises to sell only Phase II handsets, and to
have all switch upgrades complete, by the end of next year. The
Commission will be able to monitor the progress of these carriers
through quarterly reports, and will be able to bring enforcement actions
if any of the carriers miss any of their benchmarks. These compliance
plans thus give us "a clear path to full compliance," and come "as close
as possible to full compliance."

The Nextel and Verizon waiver requests do not meet our waiver standard.
Nextel will not make a single compliant phone available until December
2002 -- by which time Sprint, AT&T, and Cingular have promised to sell
*[only]{.underline}* compliant phones. Nextel will continue to sell
non-compliant phones far into the future, not reaching 100% compliance
of new handsets until December 2004 -- nearly two years behind Sprint,
and two years and two months behind Cingular. In addition, Nextel's
request indicates that the company will be able to have 95% of its
entire imbedded base of handsets compliant only one year after it stops
selling non-compliant phones. This seems unlikely to me, even with the
large number of corporate customers Nextel describes in its comments.
Even the evidence Nextel proffers related to turnover of
Internet-capable phones show that they required more time for handset
turnover than allowed in this order. These extreme delays and unlikely
benchmarks do not give us "a clear path to full compliance," or come "as
close as possible to full compliance."

Similarly, Verizon will not sell a single compliant handset by the
October 1 deadline. It will continue to sell non-compliant phones until
December 2003 -- a full year later than Sprint despite using similar
technology and a year and three months later than Cingular.
Additionally, Verizon depends on Motorola switches for a substantial
portion of its network. Motorola has stated that it will not be able to
make its switches compliant until March 2003. This will leave a
substantial number of Verizon customers without even the possibility of
Phase II E911 services, even if they purchase a compliant handset, for a
year and six months after the October 1, 2001 deadline. Again, these
extreme delays and manufacturer uncertainties do not give us "a clear
path to full compliance," or come "as close as possible to full
compliance."

Nextel's asserts that its use of iDEN technology and reliance on
Motorola for equipment availability puts it in a different position than
other carriers. Verizon states that it was delayed because its original
E911 technology failed, and because it also depends on delayed equipment
availability from Motorola. I believe that carriers have significant
control over their vendors and can speed equipment availability through
financial and contractual pressure. In the end it is the carrier's
responsibility to meet E911 responsibilities. I recognize the need for
flexibility because of equipment availability. I support such
flexibility where delays are brief in the Sprint, AT&T, and Cingular
waivers. Problems with suppliers should not, however, excuse radical
departures from carriers' responsibilities.

# Enforcement Language

The majority grants all five E911 waiver requests because the carriers
commit to deployment schedules. These schedules include dates of initial
handset availability, dates when various interim benchmarks will be met,
dates when switch upgrades will be complete, and the December 31, 2005
date by which all carriers must have 95% of their entire base of
handsets Phase II compliant. In order for these schedules to move us
towards "full compliance" carriers must understand that the benchmarks
are not targets but commitments. If a carrier misses a benchmark it must
expect that the Commission will begin an enforcement action, even if it
missed the benchmark because its vendor fails to make equipment or
software available on time. Carriers should also understand that waivers
will not be granted merely because a technology fails to work as
expected or because of delays by a vendor.

To make this perfectly clear, I would have preferred to include stronger
enforcement language with each Order. This language would have made it
explicit that the Carriers themselves offered the schedules and
benchmarks and that therefore we would not expect to grant any future
waiver based on an argument that these schedules and benchmarks are
unreasonable or unobtainable. I also would have preferred language that
made it clear that the carriers had the legal burden of proving that
they had met each benchmark, and that mere assertions that they met
these benchmarks would be insufficient.

The Orders, unfortunately, do not include this stronger enforcement
language. However, the majority has made efforts to strengthen the
language to the point that I can concur in the result of granting the
Sprint, AT&T, and Cingular waivers. I believe, nonetheless, that the
addition of stronger language would have made the Orders far more
effective.

## Smaller and Rural Carriers

The Commission also received a number of waiver requests from smaller
carriers and rural carriers. Because we do not have an adequate record
on how to treat smaller and rural carriers, and because hundreds of
carriers have not filed waivers or indicated the status of their E911
deployment, the Commission will delay enforcement of its E911 rules for
these carriers for a brief period.

I support this action because many small and rural carriers have unique
situations and the Commission must carefully consider how to address
these situations. However, the fact that we must delay on the very week
when carriers are supposed to meet E911 requirements demonstrates why it
was a bad idea to wait so long to deal with this issue. We should not
have to be in this situation. When, after developing a record, we decide
how to address the situations of small and rural carriers, I will seek
reporting requirements and benchmarks that, while sensitive to these
carriers' differences from the major carriers, nevertheless are strong,
enforceable, and in concert with "a clear path to full compliance."

# Conclusion

I am encouraged that the December 31, 2005 deadline by which 95% of all
carriers handsets must be Phase II compliant is not postponed in any of
these Orders. This date is critical, and now all six major carriers have
stated that it is reasonable and that they will meet it. This date must
not be allowed to slip.

We have a long way to go to meet this responsibility. Carriers,
manufacturers, PSAPs and the Commission must all rally around the goal
of making E911 fully available to the American people before the end of
2005. In every moment of national emergency our country has faced,
American workers, American enterprise, and American leaders have come
together not only to meet, but to exceed critical production and
infrastructure needs. We are in such an emergency now. To me, and I
think to a vast majority of my fellow citizens, our challenge is clear.

SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KEVIN MARTIN

Re: *Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Request for Waiver by Cingular
Wireless LLC, Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Spring PCS, Verizon Wireless,
AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc.*

Like all of my fellow Commissioners, I am very frustrated and
disappointed that Phase II E911 is not farther along than it is today. I
too would have preferred to take more immediate enforcement measures,
and the current failure to meet the Commission's Phase II E911 deadlines
is shameful. Nonetheless, we are told by manufacturers and suppliers
that meeting today's deadlines is a practical impossibility. Let me be
clear, however, these delays must come to an end. We must remain
vigilant to ensure that this technology will quickly meet its full
potential for the American public. Much hard work remains to be done in
the days ahead.

I also commend and express my gratitude to the public safety community
for the time and dedication they have put into this issue. I have relied
on their expertise and look forward to continued partnership with them
as we move forward with implementation *and strict enforcement* of the
schedules we adopt today.

**APPENDIX A**

**Comments and Oppositions (filed July 31, 2001):**

Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
Inc.,

> National Emergency Number Association, and National Association of
> State Nine One One Administrators (APCO, NENA, and NASNA)
>
> AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T)
>
> Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA)
>
> Ericsson Inc. (Ericsson)
>
> Siemens Information and Communication Mobile, Inc. (Siemens)

**Replies (filed August 10, 2001):**

> Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular)
>
> VoiceStream Wireless Corporation (VoiceStream)

# 

[^1]: *See, e.g.,* Reply Comments of APCO, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed
    July 2, 1999) (stating that "facilitating handset-based technologies
    as an option may actually speed delivery of Phase II capability").

[^2]: For handsets, this accuracy level is 50 meters -- 67% of the time
    and 150 meters -- 95% of the time. Alternatively for those carriers
    who chose a network-based solution, the key date is full deployment
    18 months after a Public Safety request or October 2002, whichever
    is later. The accuracy requirements for the network-based solution
    are 100 meters -- 67% of the time and 300 meters -- 95% of the time.

[^3]: *See* Comments of APCO, CC Docket No. 94-102, 3 (filed Jan. 5,
    2001); Comments of NENA, CC Docket No. 94-102, 4 (filed Jan. 5,
    2001).

[^4]: *See*, *e.g.*, Elisa Batista, *3G Stands for 3-Year Glitch*, Wired
    News at http://www.wired.com/news/wireless/0,1382,44029,00.html (May
    23, 2001).

[^5]: *See E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676.

[^6]: *Id.* at ¶ 23.

[^7]: *Id*.

[^8]: *Additional Ex Parte Comments of APCO, NENA and NASNA* at 2.

[^9]: *See E911 Reconsideration Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22665 (1997); *E911
    Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 10954.

[^10]: *E911 Third Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 17388, at ¶ 9 (1999).

[^11]: *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* ¶¶ 26-30 (emphasis
    added).

[^12]: *Id.* at ¶ 44 (emphasis added).