Before the

Federal Communications Commission

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 94-102         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Revision of the Commission's     | ** |                              |
| Rules To Ensure Compatibility    |    |                              |
| with Enhanced 911 Emergency      | *  |                              |
| Calling Systems                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Request for Waiver by AT&T       |    |                              |
| Wireless Services, Inc.          | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted: October 2, 2001 Released: October 12, 2001**

By the Commission: Chairman Powell issuing a separate statement;
Commissioners Abernathy and Martin issuing separate statements;
Commissioner Copps concurring and issuing a statement.

# Introduction

1.  In this order, we approve an implementation plan proposed by AT&T
    Wireless Services, Inc. (AT&T), subject to certain conditions, for
    providing enhanced 911 services on its Global System for Mobile
    Communications (GSM)/ General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) network.
    Under this plan, AT&T will be permitted additional time to deploy
    Enhanced Observed Time Difference of Arrival (E-OTD) technology, its
    hybrid network- and handset-based solution for locating 911 callers
    throughout its new GSM/GPRS network. The accuracy of its E-OTD
    technology must meet the Commission's rules for network-based
    technologies immediately upon deployment and the stricter standards
    for handset-based technologies by October 1, 2003. Further, we
    require AT&T to file Quarterly Reports concerning its E911
    implementation program, including both Phase I and Phase II
    deployments, to permit effective monitoring and enforcement of its
    progress and performance in complying with the rules and the terms
    and conditions of its plan. We find this alternative implementation
    plan is justified by the overall benefits to public safety of AT&T's
    proposed solution, particularly its ability to deploy E-OTD
    concurrently with deployment of its new GSM network, and therefore
    grant a temporary, conditional waiver of the Commission's wireless
    E911 rules necessary to allow implementation of this plan.

2.  With this Order, along with the companion wireless E911 orders
    adopted today, the Commission clears the way for the start of actual
    deployment of E911 Phase II. The deployment plans approved in these
    orders apply to carriers who serve more than 75 percent of all
    subscribers for wireless phone service in the United States. Under
    these plans the major national carriers will begin deploying
    technologies to locate wireless 911 callers within the next several
    months. They also should achieve complete deployment of Phase II, in
    full compliance with the Commission\'s accuracy standards, in all
    areas across the nation where 911 call centers are ready and able to
    use this information by the end dates in the existing Commission
    rules -- *i.e.*, no later than December 31, 2005. These carriers
    must implement Phase II in accordance with the terms of these
    approved schedules or they will be subject to enforcement action by
    the Commission. The Quarterly Reports to be filed by these carriers
    will allow the Commission to monitor the pace and overall progress
    of Phase I and Phase II deployment, and to facilitate the prompt
    enforcement of the milestones and other requirements of the plans
    approved today.

3.  Despite the substantial progress to date, especially given the
    groundbreaking nature of these technologies, much remains to be done
    to achieve the FCC\'s fundamental goal of having wireless E911 Phase
    II capabilities deployed throughout the country. All necessary
    participants -- carriers, the public safety community, technology
    vendors, network equipment and handset vendors, local exchange
    carriers, and this Commission -- must continue to work aggressively
    in the coming months and years to ensure the promise of these new
    life saving technologies becomes a reality.

# BACKGROUND 

## Phase II Framework

4.  Under Phase II of the Commission\'s wireless E911 rules, wireless
    carriers are required to provide the location of wireless 911
    callers, a capability known as Automatic Location Identification
    (ALI).[^1] In establishing those rules, the Commission sought to be
    technologically and competitively neutral, allowing any location
    technology to be used that can comply with specified accuracy,
    reliability, and deployment schedule requirements. For example, the
    rules provide that handset-based location solutions must provide the
    location of wireless 911 calls with an accuracy of 50 meters for 67
    percent of calls and 150 meters for 95 percent of calls.[^2]
    Carriers using a handset-based solution also must begin to offer one
    entry-level model with location capability no later than October 1,
    2001 and must ensure that 95 percent of their customers have
    location capable handsets no later than December 31, 2005.[^3]

5.  For carriers choosing a network-based solution, the rules provide
    that the technology must report the location of wireless 911 calls
    with an accuracy of 100 meters for 67 percent of calls and 300
    meters for 95 percent of calls.[^4] A carrier using a network-based
    solution must provide ALI to 50 percent of its coverage area, or 50
    percent of its population, beginning on October 1, 2001 or within 6
    months of a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) request, whichever
    is later, and to 100 percent of callers within 18 months of that
    request or by October 1, 2002, whichever is later. Wireless carriers
    subject to the rules were directed to report their Phase II plans,
    including the technologies they plan to use, by November 9,
    2000.[^5]

6.  During the course of the E911 proceeding, the Commission recognized
    that the E911 deployment schedule was aggressive in light of the
    need for further technological advancement. Nonetheless, the
    Commission predicted that ALI technologies would generally be
    available in sufficient time for carriers to comply. [^6]

7.  The Commission also recognized, however, that requests for waiver
    may be justified based on specific showings and discussed standards
    for such requests in the *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and
    Order.*[^7] In the *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we
    explained that we would expect requests for waiver to be specific,
    focused, and limited in scope, with a clear path to full
    compliance.[^8] We also stated that carriers should undertake
    concrete steps necessary to come as close as possible to full
    compliance and should document their efforts, including the
    solutions they considered and why none could be employed in a way
    that complies with our Phase II rules. Finally, we stated that
    carriers should not expect to defer implementing a location solution
    if one is available and feasible. [^9]

## Summary of AT&T's Request

8.  In its Amended E911 Phase II Report,[^10] AT&T stated that it
    planned to overlay a GSM/GPRS platform to its existing Time Division
    Multiple Access (TDMA) network. AT&T claimed that while this change
    would give AT&T's network higher speed data capabilities and its
    customers a wider array of mobile devices, the transition "seriously
    complicated" AT&T's plans regarding its location technology
    selection for Phase II.[^11] AT&T stated that it intended to deploy
    E-OTD technology throughout its GSM network and indicated that it
    would make E-OTD available immediately upon deployment of its GSM
    network.[^12] AT&T stated that it intended to seek relief from the
    rules once it had more information on its GSM deployment schedule
    and the performance and accuracy of the E-OTD technology.[^13] As
    for its TDMA network, AT&T explained that it was in the process of
    investigating the use of E-OTD for its TDMA network, finding the
    preliminary analysis "promising," but stated that it was also
    exploring other network-based TDMA solutions through various field
    trials.[^14]

9.  On April 4, 2001, AT&T filed an E911 Phase II compliance plan and
    relief from the Commission's E911 Phase II rules.[^15] Specifically,
    with respect to its new GSM network, AT&T requests that the
    Commission permit AT&T to deploy a hybrid network- and handset-based
    E-OTD technology. With respect to its selection of E-OTD location
    technology, AT&T claims that it faces circumstances similar to those
    of VoiceStream, whose waiver the Commission approved in 2000.[^16]
    AT&T asserts that while E-OTD ultimately will meet and even exceed
    the Commission's accuracy requirements, E-OTD technology will not
    initially meet the Commission's accuracy rules for handset-based
    location technologies. Accordingly, AT&T requests relief from the
    location accuracy requirements for handset-based solutions set forth
    in section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules to permit the
    deployment of E-OTD technology for AT&T's GSM network. AT&T asserts
    that it would provide E-OTD-compatible handsets to GSM customers
    when AT&T's GSM network comes online so that AT&T's GSM network is
    Phase II capable from day one.[^17] Further, similar to
    VoiceStream's commitment, AT&T commits to meeting the accuracy
    requirements for handset-based solutions by October 1, 2003, or it
    will adopt another ALI methodology that comports with the
    Commission's requirements.[^18]

10. AT&T asserts that its implementation plan to deploy E-OTD over its
    new GSM network is justified because E-OTD is the standardized
    location method for GSM, using an E-OTD solution would ensure rapid
    initial deployment of ALI capability, and accuracy of E-OTD is
    expected to improve over time.[^19] AT&T argues that the Commission
    should approve its compliance plan and grant its request in light of
    these substantial customer and public safety benefits and because
    the Commission already granted a waiver to VoiceStream under similar
    circumstances.[^20]

11. In the *AT&T Request*, AT&T also announced its selection of
    Mobile-Assisted Network Location Systems (MNLS) technology for its
    TDMA network, which, according to AT&T, would provide location
    accuracy of approximately 250 meters for 67 percent of calls and 750
    meters for 95 percent of calls.[^21] After numerous parties
    including public safety organizations and location technology
    vendors challenged AT&T's proposal to use MNLS for its TDMA network,
    AT&T filed a letter on September 17, 2001 amending its request for
    relief with respect to its TDMA network.[^22] In lieu of
    implementing MNLS as its E911 Phase II network-based solution for
    its TDMA network, AT&T seeks permission to deploy either
    TruePosition's or Grayson Wireless' (Grayson) network overlay
    technologies. AT&T indicates that its TDMA solution proposed in the
    *AT&T September 17^th^ Ex Parte* "is in lieu of MNLS and supersedes
    AWS's MNLS proposal set forth in its request and amplified in its
    August 6, 2001 letter."[^23] While AT&T has submitted a compliance
    plan for the TDMA portion of its network, the timing of that
    submission did not permit Commission consideration. Accordingly,
    discussions have been initiated between AT&T and FCC Enforcement
    Bureau staff concerning possible consent decrees with the Commission
    to resolve this compliance issue.[^24]

## Positions of Interested Parties

12. The *AT&T Request* was placed on public notice on April 6,
    2001.[^25] Comments largely supportive of AT&T's request for its GSM
    network were filed by handset manufacturers and wireless carriers,
    including Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia, Qwest, the Cellular
    Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA), and
    VoiceStream.[^26] AT&T also submitted reply comments in support of
    its compliance plan and request for relief from the Commission's
    rules. Ericsson asserts that AT&T should be permitted to use E-OTD
    technology as its Phase II location solution because its
    circumstances are similar to VoiceStream's for E-OTD.[^27]
    VoiceStream also supports AT&T's position that E-OTD at this time is
    the "best solution" for GSM operators.[^28] Public safety
    organizations, namely, the Association of Public-Safety
    Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) and the National
    Emergency Number Association (NENA), as well as Dr. John Brown of
    the City and County of San Francisco, EMS Section of the Department
    of Health, oppose AT&T's compliance plan and request for relief.
    APCO and NENA argue that E-OTD does not meet the Commission's
    accuracy requirements for a handset-based solution, nor has AT&T
    adequately demonstrated that this is the best solution.[^29]

# Discussion

13. We conclude that, based on the record, granting AT&T's proposed
    implementation plan for its GSM network and its request for a
    temporary, conditional waiver, subject to the modifications
    specified below, is consistent with the Commission's standards set
    out in the *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order.* It is our
    understanding that AT&T is not currently offering service on its GSM
    network. In order to ensure that E-OTD is available in AT&T's GSM
    network upon deployment of the GSM air interface, AT&T has required
    its vendors to be in compliance with the FCC's rules on the date of
    deployment.[^30]

## AT&T Has Satisfied the Commission's Standard for E911 Phase II Relief With Respect to Its Proposed Solution for Its GSM Network

14. ***Plan That Is Specific, Focused, and Limited in Scope.*** With
    respect to its GSM network, AT&T has presented an implementation
    plan and request that is specific, focused, and limited in scope. In
    its request, AT&T specifies the location technology it has selected
    to deploy in its GSM network, E-OTD, and identifies why its
    implementation plan is necessary to deploy this technology.
    Specifically, AT&T notes that it has selected E-OTD as its location
    technology because E-OTD is the standardized location method for
    GSM, it is included in the current GSM standards, and consequently,
    AT&T's handset manufacturers can be expected to include E-OTD
    capability in all future GSM handsets.[^31] Handset manufacturers
    Nokia and Motorola indicate that they plan to include E-OTD in
    future handsets.[^32] AT&T reasons that using an E-OTD solution will
    ensure rapid initial deployment of ALI capability to all of AT&T's
    GSM subscribers because AT&T will provide E-OTD-compatible handsets
    when AT&T's network comes online, ensuring that AT&T's GSM network
    is Phase II capable from day one.[^33] As explained above, however,
    E-OTD's accuracy currently fails to meet the handset-based accuracy
    requirements and therefore AT&T seeks temporary relief from those
    requirements. AT&T's implementation plan and request is also focused
    and limited in scope. AT&T requests relief of the handset-based
    accuracy requirements until October 1, 2003, at which time AT&T
    asserts that either E-OTD will meet the handset-based accuracy
    requirements or AT&T will select another location technology
    solution that will meet the Commission's standards. AT&T notes that
    the Commission previously granted similar relief to VoiceStream to
    allow VoiceStream to implement E-OTD technology.[^34]

15. We conclude that AT&T's proposal to deploy E-OTD simultaneously with
    the rollout of its GSM network represents a reasonable technology
    choice by which to meet the Commission's Phase II requirements. As
    the Commission stated in granting the VoiceStream waiver, GSM is
    used by carriers serving only a small percentage of U.S. wireless
    subscribers and the development of ALI capabilities for use by GSM
    carriers lagged behind that for carriers using other interfaces,
    such as AMPS, CDMA, and TDMA.[^35] Although a year has passed since
    the Commission made that determination and it appears some new GSM
    location technologies may become available,[^36] we find AT&T's
    proposal to use E-OTD technology to be a suitable Phase II solution.
    The majority of commenters agree with AT&T that E-OTD is the best
    currently available solution for AT&T's GSM network.[^37] In its
    comments, Motorola states that E-OTD is "the most effective,
    efficient location technology that will be available in the
    Commission's accelerated timeframe and useable for Phase II E911
    purposes."[^38] Based on the record in this proceeding and our own
    review of the costs and benefits of the various technological
    approaches, we agree with these assessments.

16. ***As Close as Possible to Full Compliance.*** AT&T demonstrates it
    has come as close as possible to full compliance and taken concrete
    steps toward full compliance. As an initial matter, AT&T will ensure
    that all GSM handsets are E-OTD-capable from day one, thus
    preventing a legacy handset problem. To ensure that this happens,
    AT&T has obtained firm commitments from its handset
    manufacturers.[^39] Therefore, unlike other carriers that select a
    handset-based solution, AT&T will ensure that 100 percent of all new
    digital handsets activated are ALI-capable and it will
    simultaneously achieve 100 percent penetration of ALI-capable
    handsets among its GSM subscribers from the time the GSM network is
    deployed.[^40] AT&T's inability to meet the handset-based accuracy
    standards is offset by the fact that ALI-capable handsets will be
    rapidly deployed in the GSM network and that all GSM handsets will
    be ALI-capable. Therefore, AT&T's proposed solution is in many ways
    more akin to a network-based solution than a handset-based solution
    because no legacy handset problem will exist.

17. ***Clear Path to Full Compliance.*** Finally, AT&T presents a clear
    path to full compliance. Like VoiceStream, AT&T has committed to
    meeting the handset-based accuracy requirements by October 1, 2003,
    or it will implement another location solution that meets the
    Commission's rules.[^41]

18. Although issues have been raised as to whether E-OTD can meet the
    Commission's accuracy requirements for handset-based solutions (50
    meters for 67 percent of calls), evidence suggests that E-OTD can
    meet and ultimately exceed these requirements. As the Commission
    recognized in granting relief to VoiceStream, VoiceStream claims
    that the accuracy of E-OTD technology will improve over time, "as
    the software is refined, experience is gained, and additional cell
    sites are added to serve increasing traffic."[^42] More recent
    evidence also supports that conclusion. In its comments, Nokia
    indicates that its internal tests confirm that E-OTD should be
    capable of meeting the requirement for network-based solutions (100
    meters for 67 percent of calls).[^43] Furthermore, VoiceStream
    states in its reply comments that its trials in Houston yielded
    accuracy results of 75 to 80 meters for 67 percent of calls.[^44]
    VoiceStream states that it is confident that the location accuracy
    of E-OTD will improve over time.[^45]

19. APCO and NENA, however, criticize AT&T's selection of E-OTD
    technology as its ultimate solution because there is "no assurance
    that 50 meter accuracy will ever be achieved."[^46] AT&T has
    committed to meeting the accuracy requirements by October 1, 2003,
    or if E-OTD is unable to meet those requirements, to adopting
    another ALI methodology that comports with the Commission's
    requirements.[^47] APCO and NENA are concerned that AT&T has not
    suggested that it will be able to convert immediately to an
    alternative technology on October 1, 2003 should E-OTD fail to meet
    the handset-based accuracy requirements. This concern may not become
    a problem, however: AT&T expects that E-OTD's accuracy levels will
    improve over time, noting that E-OTD is expected to improve further
    in accuracy performance "as carriers such as AT&T advance along the
    path to the wider-band third generation ("3G") technologies."[^48]

20. In sum, we find that AT&T has satisfied the standards set forth in
    the *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* for the grant of a
    temporary, conditional waiver of the Phase II rules. We conclude
    that, based on the record developed here, granting limited relief to
    AT&T for its deployment of E-OTD technology over its GSM network is
    consistent with the Commission\'s standard for the grant of relief
    from the Phase II rules, specifically that AT&T has demonstrated
    that special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule
    and that such a deviation will benefit public safety overall and the
    public interest. Although E-OTD will not initially satisfy the
    handset-based accuracy standards, there are substantial public
    safety benefits "including rapid initial deployment of ALI
    capability with a relatively brief transition to even more precise
    levels of accuracy."[^49]

## Additional Conditions of Relief Granted

21. To assist in monitoring and enforcing each of the conditions imposed
    on AT&T, as set forth in summary form below, we also require that
    AT&T file Quarterly Reports with the Chief of the Enforcement Bureau
    and the Chief of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Because
    mere assertions of compliance with the conditions of this order and
    with our rules are not sufficient to show compliance, these reports
    are intended to provide specific, verifiable information to allow us
    to monitor AT&T\'s progress closely and determine whether AT&T is in
    compliance with each of the benchmarks and conditions of this order
    and with other applicable provisions of the E911 rules, permitting
    prompt enforcement action if necessary.[^50]

22. Specifically, the Quarterly Reports must include the following
    information:[^51]

-   The Report must include information on all pending Phase I and Phase
    II requests, including the name of the PSAP, the date the request
    was received by the carrier, whether or not AT&T considers it valid,
    and its status. To the extent any request has been pending for more
    than six months, AT&T must identify the specific reasons underlying
    the failure to provide the requested service, the steps AT&T has
    taken to resolve the problems, and the anticipated date of full
    completion of the work necessary to deliver the requested
    information to the PSAP in question. If AT&T believes there are
    questions concerning a PSAP\'s compliance with the conditions
    necessary for a valid Phase I or II request, such as its readiness
    to receive and utilize Phase I or Phase II information, it should
    identify specifically the question and the efforts it has
    undertaken, including the communications it has had with the PSAP,
    to resolve the question. Further, to help keep PSAPs informed, we
    direct AT&T to serve this report on APCO, NENA and NASNA.[^52] In
    addition, the Commission will post this information on its
    website.[^53] Because it is important for each individual PSAP with
    a pending Phase I or Phase II request to have access to this
    information, we authorize the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to
    require any additional steps necessary to ensure PSAP access to this
    information.

-   The Report must also include information on: current handset models
    being activated or sold that are E-OTD-capable; and important events
    affecting location-capable handset penetration levels, such as
    introduction of new handset models.

-   Each Quarterly Report also must contain statements regarding whether
    AT&T has met each deployment benchmark falling due in the period
    immediately preceding the Quarterly Report,[^54] and, if not, the
    reasons for its failure to comply. Each Quarterly Report must
    contain: (1) a statement of whether AT&T has commenced offering
    service on its GSM network and, if so, on what date it began
    offering its GSM service; (2) a statement of whether AT&T has begun
    selling and activating E-OTD handsets and, if so, on what date AT&T
    began selling and activating E-OTD handsets and whether E-OTD
    handsets sold and activated prior to October 1, 2003 meet the
    accuracy requirements of 100 meters for 67 percent of calls and 300
    meters for 95 percent of calls; and (3) for the October 1, 2003
    benchmark, a statement of whether all E-OTD handsets to be sold and
    activated after October 1, 2003 meet the handset-based accuracy
    standards of 50 meters for 67 percent of calls and 150 meters for 95
    percent of calls.[^55]

-   AT&T must support each Quarterly Report with an affidavit, from an
    officer or director of AT&T, attesting to the truth and accuracy of
    the report.

-   To the extent AT&T anticipates that it will fail to satisfy any one
    of the conditions, it must advise the Commission of the problem.
    Seeking relief from that condition will not, in and of itself,
    insulate AT&T from possible enforcement in cases where AT&T has
    violated a condition of this Order.

23. AT&T\'s Quarterly Reports to the Commission should be the principal
    vehicle for providing the Commission with notice of anticipated
    problems but, to the extent unexpected problems arise affecting
    AT&T's ability to perform in the period between reports, AT&T should
    notify the Commission through a supplementary filing. This
    supplemental filing must include specific details regarding the
    problems AT&T has encountered affecting its ability to comply.

24. These Quarterly Reports by AT&T will assist the Commission and the
    PSAPs in monitoring its compliance not only with its Phase II
    implementation plan, but also with the Phase I deployment
    requirements of the rules. Information on Phase I deployment will
    allow us to assess whether this aspect of E911 deployment - itself a
    critical public safety benefit - is being achieved. The reports on
    Phase II deployment will assist in monitoring AT&T\'s compliance
    with both its implementation plan and the Phase II rules. The
    reports on handset deployment will assist us in assessing whether
    AT&T is in compliance with the requirements of its implementation
    plan.

25. AT&T is required to comply with each individual condition of this
    Order, including the reporting requirements set forth above.
    Consistent with the *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we
    note that the conditions imposed herein as part of the grant of
    Phase II relief have the same force and effect as a Commission rule
    itself. Each specific benchmark and Quarterly Report is a separate
    condition of the plan as approved. In addition, AT&T remains subject
    to all other requirements of the Commission's wireless E911 rules
    apart from those specifically modified in this Order. To the extent
    that AT&T fails to satisfy any condition or Commission rule, it will
    be subject to possible enforcement action, including but not limited
    to revocation of the relief, a requirement to deploy an alternative
    ALI technology, letters of admonishment or forfeitures. We will not
    entertain requests for additional relief that seek changes in the
    requirements, schedules, and benchmarks imposed herein absent
    extraordinary circumstances.

26. Moreover, the approval of AT&T's compliance plan does not alter
    AT&T's ultimate obligation to comply with the Phase II rules and the
    conditions of this relief. AT&T remains ultimately responsible for
    providing timely compliant Phase II service. If AT&T does not have
    compliant Phase II service available on the dates set forth herein,
    it will be deemed noncompliant and referred to the Commission\'s
    Enforcement Bureau for possible action. At that time, an assertion
    that a vendor, manufacturer, or other entity was unable to supply
    compliant products will not excuse noncompliance. However, a
    carrier\'s \"concrete and timely\" actions taken with a vendor,
    manufacturer, or other entity may be considered as possible
    mitigation factors in such an enforcement context.[^56] As set forth
    above, AT&T is required to include in its Quarterly Reports a
    statement regarding whether it has met each accuracy milestone, and
    any other condition as set forth below, and, if not, the reasons for
    its failure to comply. As noted above, the report must be supported
    with an affidavit. To the extent that the Commission receives a
    complaint or otherwise has questions regarding the information in
    the report, or more generally AT&T's compliance, AT&T may be
    required to provide additional documentation to refute the complaint
    or respond to the Commission's questions. In the event that AT&T's
    Phase II solution unexpectedly fails to comply with the Phase II
    accuracy requirements, AT&T shall, as a condition, propose to deploy
    a solution that does comply with those requirements, as well as the
    other conditions of the Order and applicable Phase II rules.[^57]

## Summary of Conditional Relief Granted

27. We grant AT&T's request for waiver of the Phase II requirements to
    permit AT&T to deploy E-OTD technology for its GSM network only,
    subject to compliance with the specific conditions we set forth in
    the paragraphs below. Because E-OTD requires handset modifications
    in order to be effective, AT&T will be subject to all of the
    requirements applicable to handset-based technologies except as
    specifically waived or modified in this order.

28. First, initially AT&T's E-OTD-capable handsets must provide ALI with
    an accuracy of 100 meters/67 percent of calls and 300 meters/95
    percent of calls. Thus, effective October 1, 2001, all of AT&T's
    E-OTD-capable handsets sold and activated must comply with this
    accuracy requirement. [^58]

29. Second, all of AT&T's E-OTD-capable handsets sold and activated on
    or after October 1, 2003 must comply with an accuracy of 50
    meters/67 percent of calls and 150 meters/95 percent of calls.[^59]

30. Third, in the event that AT&T's solution fails to comply with the
    Phase II accuracy requirements by October 1, 2003, AT&T is required,
    as a condition, to propose a solution that does comply with those
    requirements as well as the other conditions of this Order and
    applicable Phase II rules.[^60]

31. Fourth, AT&T must file Quarterly Reports, on its progress and
    compliance with the terms and conditions of the implementation plan
    and the wireless E911 rules, as set forth in paragraphs 21-26,
    *supra.*

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES

## Paperwork Reduction Analysis

32. This Order does not contain an information collection applicable to
    ten or more entities.

## Further Information

33. For further information, contact Jennifer Tomchin of the Policy
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-1310
    (voice) or (202) 418-1169 (TTY).

## Ordering Clauses

34. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the AT&T petition for relief from
    the wireless E911 Phase II rules with respect to the use of E-OTD
    for its GSM network IS GRANTED effective October 1, 2001, to the
    extent indicated and subject to the conditions indicated herein.

35. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that authority is delegated to the Chief of
    the Enforcement Bureau and the Chief of the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau to administer, clarify, and, as
    appropriate, modify the Quarterly Reports specified in this Order,
    including requiring the filing of additional information.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Magalie Roman Salas

> Secretary

[^1]: *See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems*, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC
    Rcd 18676 (1996). For additional information regarding the
    Commission\'s wireless E911 program, *see* \<www.fcc.gov/e911\>.

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(h)(2).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(g).

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(h)(1).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(i). *See* \<www.fcc.gov/e911\>, Wireless E-911
    Phase II Automatic Location Identification Implementation, Reports
    From Wireless Carriers.

[^6]: *Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,* CC Docket No. 94-102,
    Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17442, 17457-58
    (2000) (*E911* *Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order)*.

[^7]: *Id*.

[^8]: *Id.* at 17457, para. 44.

[^9]: *Id*. at 17457-58, paras. 44-45.

[^10]: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Amended E911 Phase II Report, CC
    Docket 94-102 (filed Dec. 9, 2000) (*AT&T Amended E911 Phase II
    Report*). Pursuant to the Commission's orders, on November 9, 2000,
    AT&T filed a E911 Phase II report in which AT&T stated that it was
    not in a position to choose between a handset-based and network
    overlay solution, but it committed to filing an amended report as
    soon as possible regarding its E911 Phase II location technology
    choice. Subsequently, it filed the *AT&T Amended E911 Phase II
    Report* on December 9, 2000.

[^11]: *Id.* at 2.

[^12]: *Id.* at 3.

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *Id.* at 4-5.

[^15]: AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. Request for Waiver of the E911 Phase
    II Location Technology Implementation Rules, CC Docket No. 94-102
    (filed April 4, 2001) (*AT&T Request*).

[^16]: *AT&T Request* at 1. *See* *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*.

[^17]: *AT&T Request* at 5.

[^18]: *Id.*

[^19]: *AT&T Request* at 4-5.

[^20]: *Id.* at 6.

[^21]: *Id.*

[^22]: Letter from Douglas I. Brandon, Vice President -- External
    Affairs & Law, AT&T Wireless Services Inc., to Thomas Sugrue, Chief,
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed Sept. 17, 2001) (*AT&T
    September 17th Ex Parte*).

[^23]: *Id.* at 2.

[^24]: *See* Press Release, "FCC Acts on Wireless Carrier and Public
    Safety Requests Regarding Enhanced Wireless 911 Services" (rel. Oct.
    5, 2001).

[^25]: Public Notice, "WTB Seeks Comment on Wireless E911 Phase II
    Waiver Request Filed by AT&T Wireless Services, Inc." DA 01-894
    (rel. Apr. 6, 2001).

[^26]: Comments and reply comments filed in response to AT&T's request
    are listed in Appendix A.

[^27]: Ericsson Comments at 1-2.

[^28]: VoiceStream Reply Comments at 2.

[^29]: APCO/NENA Comments at 5, 7.

[^30]: *See* Partial Response of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. to Order
    of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, CC Docket No. 94-102 at 5
    (May 30, 2001) (*AT&T Partial Response*).

[^31]: *AT&T Request* at 4.

[^32]: Motorola Comments at 3; Nokia Comments at 4.

[^33]: *AT&T Request* at 5.

[^34]: *Id.* at 6.

[^35]: *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* at para. 56.

[^36]: Some network technology vendors have fairly recently announced
    they have adopted their technologies for GSM although it is not
    clear that these technologies have been tested in actual GSM
    networks. *See, e.g.,* Press Release, "Grayson Wireless Adds GSM
    Compatibility to Its Geometrix Wireless E911 Caller Location
    System" (rel. Aug. 30, 2001). Moreover, since AT&T will be locating
    100% of its GSM subscribers to the network accuracy standard
    immediately, it is unclear what benefit would be achieved were it to
    move to a network-based approach.

[^37]: *See, e.g.,* Ericsson Comments at 3-6; Motorola Comments at 2-3;
    Nokia Comments at 3-6; VoiceStream Reply Comments at 2.

[^38]: Motorola Comments at 3.

[^39]: *See AT&T Partial Response* at 5.

[^40]: AT&T Request at 5.

[^41]: *Id*.

[^42]: *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* at para. 59.

[^43]: Nokia Comments at 5.

[^44]: VoiceStream Reply Comments at 2.

[^45]: *Id.*

[^46]: APCO/NENA Comments at 7.

[^47]: *AT&T Request* at 5.

[^48]: *Id.*

[^49]: *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order* at para. 59.

[^50]: To the extent AT&T believes any of the required information is
    proprietary, it may file a request for confidential treatment
    pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 0.459.

[^51]: We delegate authority to the Chiefs of the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau and the Enforcement Bureau to require AT&T
    to provide additional information in its Quarterly Reports, if
    necessary to evaluate AT&T's compliance with the terms and
    conditions of the relief granted, and its progress in deploying
    Phase I and Phase II E911 services.

[^52]: AT&T should serve the Executive Director of each organization as
    well as its counsel, to extent such counsel has been identified in
    the record in response to AT&T's request for relief.

[^53]: *See \<*www.fcc.gov/e911 \>.

[^54]: To the extent AT&T cannot provide the information required under
    this paragraph in its next Quarterly Report following the respective
    benchmark, it must file with the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, a
    request for extension of time to file the required information. Such
    request must be filed as early as possible before the Quarterly
    Report filing date, but generally no later than 10 business days
    prior to the Quarterly Report filing date. The request must specify
    the specific reasons for the request.

[^55]: AT&T's Quarterly Reports are due February 1, May 1, August 1 and
    November 1 of each year, beginning February 1, 2002 and continuing
    through November 1, 2003. To the extent AT&T cannot provide any of
    the information required in its final report, it must file with the
    Chief, Enforcement Bureau, a request for extension of time to file
    the required information in accordance with the procedures set forth
    in n.54, *supra.*

[^56]: *E911 Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17458.

[^57]: As stated above, seeking relief will not, in and of itself,
    insulate AT&T from possible enforcement in cases where AT&T has
    violated a condition of this Order.

[^58]: This requirement applies only to new handsets, not to new
    activations of older models or refurbished handsets. *See, E911
    Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 17455, fn. 62
    and 17453-4.

[^59]: *See* n.58, *supra*.

[^60]: Proposing such a revised implementation plan would not relieve
    AT&T from its obligations under the rules and its implementation
    plan or insulate AT&T from possible enforcement action. *See* paras.
    22, 26, *supra.*