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                          | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**FOURTH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: August 24, 2000 Released: September 8, 2000**

By the Commission: Chairman Kennard issuing a separate statement;
Commissioners Ness and Tristani approving in part, dissenting in part,
and issuing a joint separate statement.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION [1](#introduction)

II\. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

III\. BACKGROUND 6

IV\. DISCUSSION 12

A. Phase-In Schedule for Handset-Based Solutions 12

B. Waiver Requests 42

1\. Sprint Waiver Request 46

2\. VoiceStream Waiver Request 51

3\. USCC Request for Extension 69

C. Schedule for Carrier Reports 75

D. Accuracy Levels 82

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 86

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 92

# INTRODUCTION 

1.  In this Order, in response to petitions for reconsideration of the
    *E911 Third Report and Order*^,^[^1] we make certain changes to our
    wireless enhanced 911 (E911) rules aimed at facilitating full
    compliance with those rules on a nationwide basis. Specifically, we
    make adjustments to the deployment schedule that must be followed by
    wireless carriers that choose to implement E911 Phase II service
    using a handset-based technology. While we retain October 1, 2001 as
    the implementation date for E911 Phase II, we defer the date for
    initial distribution of Automatic Location Identification
    (ALI)-capable handsets by seven months and we adjust the timetable
    for carriers to meet certain interim benchmarks for activating new
    ALI-capable handsets. In addition, we defer the date by which a
    carrier must achieve full penetration of ALI-capable handsets by one
    year, and modify the manner in which we define full penetration.
    Further, we eliminate the separate handset phase-in schedule
    triggered by a request from a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).
    We also provide a modest extension of the deadline for carriers to
    file E911 implementation reports, requiring that these reports be
    filed by November 9, 2000. In our judgment, these changes establish
    a more practical, understandable, and workable schedule for
    implementation of handset-based ALI solutions.

2.  We also address several other issues regarding implementation of
    E911 Phase II, including several requests for waiver of the
    requirements for handset-based technologies. More specifically, we
    deny Sprint's request for authority to implement a "hybrid" ALI
    solution. We find that Sprint has not adequately demonstrated that
    special circumstances exist that warrant a deviation from our rules,
    nor that grant of such a waiver would be in the public interest. We
    grant, however, a waiver to VoiceStream Wireless (VoiceStream),
    subject to certain conditions, to permit it to deploy a hybrid
    location solution, that would involve software upgrades to both
    network equipment and handsets, because we find that VoiceStream\'s
    proposed system will provide meaningful public safety benefits and
    may be the only solution available for the Global System for Mobile
    Communications (GSM) air interface in the near future. Finally, we
    deny a request by United States Cellular Corp. (USCC) that we grant
    an extension of all Phase II deadlines for rural carriers until
    ALI-capable handsets are widely available.

3.  The October 1, 2001 E911 Phase II implementation date is now less
    than 14 months away. In the four years since the Commission's
    wireless E911 rules were first adopted, much progress has been made
    in developing technologies to make wireless E911 a reality, although
    much still remains to be done. The decisions we make today will
    provide additional clarity to wireless carriers, equipment
    manufacturers, and the public safety community, as well as to others
    involved in the development and deployment of location technologies,
    to help ensure that Phase II is operational on schedule. The hard
    work and ingenuity of many people have produced a number of location
    solutions that are now commercially available, or are scheduled to
    be available soon; many PSAPs are working to upgrade their systems
    to receive and use Phase II location information. Our Order today
    supports those efforts, so that wireless carriers and PSAPs may
    begin using location information to speed help to emergency scenes
    in order to save lives.

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

4.  In this Order, we adopt the following changes to the Phase II rules:

[Handset-based ALI Technologies]{.underline}:

We modify the rules for carriers employing handset-based ALI solutions
in the following respects:

-   Extend from March 1, 2001 to October 1, 2001, the date for carriers
    to begin selling and activating ALI-capable handsets.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   New Activations:

-   We eliminate the separate phase-in schedule that is triggered by a
    PSAP request.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   We adopt the following revised phase-in schedule:

-   December 31, 2001: at least 25 percent of all new handsets activated
    are to be ALI-capable;

-   June 30, 2002: 50 percent of all new handsets activated are to be
    ALI-capable;

-   December 31, 2002 and thereafter: 100 percent of all new digital
    handsets activated are to be ALI-capable.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Penetration:

-   Extend from December 31, 2004, to December 31, 2005, the date for
    carriers to reach full penetration of ALI-capable handsets in their
    total subscriber bases.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Modify the operational definition of full penetration from
    "reasonable efforts" to achieve 100 percent penetration of
    ALI-capable handsets to a requirement that 95 percent of all
    handsets in a carrier's total subscriber base be ALI-capable.

    [All Technologies:]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   We extend the date for carriers to file E911 Phase II implementation
    reports from October 1, 2000 to November 9, 2000.

5.  We grant a waiver to VoiceStream to permit it to employ an ALI
    solution that requires changes to both its network and handsets,
    subject to the following conditions and requirements:

-   VoiceStream must implement a network safety solution that provides
    baseline location information for all wireless 911 calls no later
    than December 31, 2001.

-   The accuracy requirement for this baseline location information is
    1000 meters for 67 percent of calls.

-   By October 1, 2001, VoiceStream must ensure that 50 percent of all
    new handsets activated are Enhanced Observed Time Difference of
    Arrival (E-OTD)-capable.

-   Effective October 1, 2001, VoiceStream must ensure that all
    E-OTD-capable handsets comply with an accuracy requirement of 100
    meters for 67 percent of calls, 300 meters for 95 percent of calls.

-   By March 31, 2002, VoiceStream must ensure that 100 percent of all
    new handsets activated are E-OTD-capable.

-   VoiceStream must ensure that all new E-OTD-capable handsets
    activated on or after October 1, 2003 comply with an accuracy
    requirement of 50 meters for 67 percent of calls, 150 meters for 95
    percent of calls.

-   VoiceStream must report the results of all trials and tests of its
    ALI technology and of actual operational deployment of its ALI
    technology and results semi-annually beginning October 1, 2000 and
    continuing through October 1, 2003.

# Background

6.  One of the Commission\'s statutory mandates under Communications Act
    is \"promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire
    and radio communication.\"[^2] To help achieve this mandate, the
    Commission has in this docket adopted requirements that cellular,
    broadband personal communications systems (PCS), and certain
    Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees implement 911 and E911
    services, pursuant to our authority under Sections 301 and 303(r) of
    the Act.[^3] In October 1999, Congress ratified and extended the
    Commission's efforts in this regard by enacting the Wireless
    Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (911 Act).[^4] The
    purpose of the 911 Act is to enhance public safety by encouraging
    and facilitating the prompt deployment of a nationwide, seamless
    communications infrastructure for emergency services that includes
    wireless communications.[^5]

7.  In 1996, the Commission initially adopted rules to stimulate the
    application of wireless technology to improving emergency 911
    systems.[^6] Most importantly, it required wireless carriers not
    just to deliver 911 calls to emergency dispatchers, but also to
    provide E911 service, which includes reporting the location of the
    emergency call. The E911 requirements were divided into two phases.
    Phase I requires wireless carriers to deliver the telephone number
    of the handset originating a 911 call, and the location of the cell
    site or base station receiving the 911 call, to the designated
    PSAP.[^7] Phase II requires carriers to deliver more specific
    latitude and longitude location information to the PSAP.[^8] The
    Commission recognized at the time that implementing E911 Phase II
    within five years, by October 1, 2001, was ambitious. Research,
    testing, and development requiring coordinated efforts by public
    safety organizations, wireless carriers, location technology vendors
    and equipment manufacturers were all necessary to produce
    technologies capable of pinpointing the location of wireless 911
    callers.

8.  During the course of this proceeding, we have revised our rules on
    occasion to reflect progress, and promote competition, in the
    development of wireless location technologies, as well as to
    facilitate compliance with the implementation schedule that we have
    established.[^9] In the *E911 Third Report and Order* last year, we
    revised our rules to better allow emerging handset-based location
    technologies to compete with network-based technologies.[^10] We
    recognized that carriers relying on a handset-based solution would
    not be able to provide ALI for all 911 calls in a specific area as
    of a fixed date because of the need to upgrade or replace older
    handsets in use.[^11] Thus, we established a separate set of
    accuracy and deployment requirements applicable to handset-based
    solutions. Handset-based solutions are held to tighter accuracy
    requirements (50 meters for 67 percent of calls, 150 meters for 95
    percent of calls) but are allowed to be phased-in over time, as new
    or upgraded handsets are put in service, until full deployment is
    reached. We also established a more accelerated schedule for handset
    deployment in areas where a carrier has received a request for Phase
    II deployment from a PSAP.

9.  Specifically, the phase-in schedule for handset-based solutions set
    by *the E911 Third Report and Order* provides that:

-   Without respect to any PSAP request for Phase II deployment, the
    carrier shall:

1\. Begin selling and activating ALI-capable handsets no later than
March 1, 2001;

2\. Ensure that at least 50 percent of all new handsets activated are
ALI-capable no later than October 1, 2001; and

3\. In addition to the 50 percent requirement, ensure that at least 95
percent of all new digital handsets activated are ALI-capable no later
than October 1, 2002.

-   Once a PSAP request is received, the carrier shall, in the area
    served by the PSAP:

1\. Within six months or by October 1, 2001, whichever is later:

a\. Ensure that 100 percent of all new handsets activated are
ALI-capable;

b\. Implement any network upgrades or other steps necessary to locate
handsets; and

c\. Begin delivering to the PSAP location information that satisfies
Phase II requirements.

2.  Within two years or by December 31, 2004, whichever is later,
    undertake reasonable efforts to achieve 100 percent penetration of
    ALI-capable handsets in its total subscriber base.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
10. In the *E911 Third Report and Order*, we also slightly revised the
    accuracy and reliability requirements for network-based solutions.
    Network-based solutions (which provide ALI for all handsets, not
    simply those that are ALI-capable) are allowed to meet a less
    stringent accuracy requirement (100 meters for 67 percent of calls,
    300 meters for 95 percent). In addition, we modified the deployment
    schedule for carriers employing a network-based solution, requiring
    a carrier to provide ALI to 50 percent of callers in its coverage
    area within six months of a PSAP request and to 100 percent of
    callers within 18 months of that request. In addition, the *E911
    Third Report and Order* established a requirement that all wireless
    carriers must submit to the Commission no later than October 1, 2000
    a report on their plans for implementing Phase II.[^12]

11. Three petitions for reconsideration of the *E911 Third Report and
    Order* were filed.[^13] All three of these petitions are addressed
    in this Order.

# DISCUSSION

## Phase-In Schedule for Handset-Based Solutions

12. **[Background]{.underline}.** A reconsideration petition filed
    jointly by handset manufacturers Nokia, Inc. and Motorola, Inc.,
    contends that the *E911 Third Report and Order* set an overly
    aggressive deployment schedule for the introduction of handset-based
    ALI technologies for which there is inadequate support in the
    record.[^14] The petitioners claim that this schedule will place a
    tremendous burden on manufacturers\' design, development, and
    production resources without tangible benefit to the public.[^15]
    Nokia and Motorola question whether sufficient quantities of
    ALI-capable handsets can be manufactured, tested, and made available
    for carriers to comply with the current deployment schedule.[^16]
    They also contend that delays in the Commission's issuance of
    guidance regarding ALI accuracy testing and verification have
    delayed development of ALI-capable handsets.[^17]

13. In a later *ex parte* filing, Nokia and Motorola, joined by another
    major handset manufacturer, Ericsson, request that the Commission
    substantially relax the handset deployment schedule.[^18] They argue
    that carriers should only be required to begin selling and
    activating ALI-capable handsets 18 months after the date on which
    they have made their technology choices known to the FCC.[^19] If
    the current October 1, 2000 report date were maintained,[^20] under
    this proposal the date on which carriers would be required to begin
    distribution of ALI-capable handsets would be April 1, 2002. The
    handset manufacturers go on to propose that one year after this
    initial rollout date (April 1, 2003 or two and a half years after
    the October 1, 2000 report date) carriers would be required to
    ensure that at least 25 percent of new handsets activated are
    ALI-capable.[^21] The manufacturers propose the following subsequent
    dates and activation benchmarks: two years after the initial rollout
    date (April 1, 2004), 50 percent of new handsets activated are
    ALI-capable; three years after the initial rollout date (April
    1, 2005) 100 percent of new handsets activated are ALI-capable; and,
    by a \"date certain\" carriers shall undertake reasonable efforts to
    ensure that substantially all subscribers have ALI-capable
    handsets.[^22] Nokia and Motorola also suggest that the location
    accuracy requirements for handset-based technologies may need to be
    modified, dependent on the Commission\'s actions concerning accuracy
    verification policies.[^23]

14. AT&T Wireless, BellSouth Cellular, GTE Wireless, Nextel, and U.S.
    West Wireless filed comments in support of revising and delaying the
    handset phase-in schedule.[^24] SnapTrack also initially supported
    allowing some additional time for carriers to meet our activation
    levels, contending that the requirement that 95 percent of all
    digital handsets activated be ALI-capable by October 1, 2002 is
    unrealistic.[^25] Subsequently, however, SnapTrack claimed that
    technology currently is available to meet the mandate and that only
    very minor adjustments to the implementation schedule were necessary
    to make compliance possible and practical.[^26] KSI, Inc., the
    Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), and
    jointly the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the
    National Association of State Nine One One Administrators (NASNA)
    filed comments in opposition to delay in the handset phase-in
    schedule.[^27]

15. Several parties also raise concerns about the separate schedule for
    ALI-capable handset deployment triggered by a PSAP request,
    including questions about how to interpret the obligation that this
    schedule imposes on carriers.[^28] Sprint argues that this schedule
    is not workable as a practical matter, because of the difficulties
    of tracking Phase II requests made by thousands of PSAPs and
    matching this information with a customer's billing address,
    especially given the multiple distribution channels employed by a
    national carrier.[^29] According to Sprint, the only way to ensure
    compliance with the phase-in rule would be to sell only Global
    Positioning System (GPS) handsets effective October 1, 2001, which
    would limit consumer choice and potentially force consumers to pay
    high prices for first generation handsets.[^30]

16. Some wireless carriers also contend that the requirement that
    carriers undertake reasonable efforts to achieve 100 percent
    penetration of ALI-capable handsets by their customers by December
    31, 2004, or two years after a PSAP request, is both overly
    demanding and vague.[^31] Sprint suggests that the \"reasonable
    efforts\" approach, to the extent it involves carrier discounts on
    service or handsets, raises legal questions of the Commission\'s
    authority and the constitutional question of a taking without
    compensation under the Fifth Amendment.[^32] Qualcomm proposes that
    the rules be modified to clarify that carriers are in compliance if
    they timely place orders for ALI-capable handsets with their
    suppliers in sufficient quantities to meet the deployment
    obligations under the rules.[^33]

17. **[Discussion]{.underline}**. The Commission's wireless E911 rules
    are intended to meet important public safety needs as quickly as
    reasonably possible. The implementation schedule contained within
    these rules is based on a five-year schedule proposed in 1996 by a
    coalition of public safety organizations, and CTIA, representing
    certain wireless carriers, manufacturers, and others in the wireless
    industry.[^34] Since that time, the schedule has stimulated and
    guided efforts to develop and perfect wireless location technologies
    that can comply with our rules. While significant development and
    testing efforts for ALI technologies are still ongoing, we find that
    a wide range of ALI solutions that offer wireless carriers a
    reasonable prospect for compliance with our E911 Phase II
    requirements either are currently, or will soon be, available.

18. *Availability of ALI Solutions*. At the time of the adoption of our
    current rules, substantial evidence existed establishing that ALI
    solutions had been tested successfully in field trials.[^35] For
    example, a test of a GPS handset-based solution conducted in
    cooperation with the King County, Washington E-911 Program Office
    between June and November 1998 reported a location accuracy of 45.7
    meters (150 feet) or less for 74 percent of calls, and projected
    that accuracy would improve further with next generation GPS
    chips.[^36] SnapTrack also reported successful results in several
    trials of its GPS handset solution, and TruePosition of its
    network-based approach.[^37]

19. Since that time, wireless carriers, manufacturers, and location
    technology vendors have been more extensively involved in tests and
    trials of ALI solutions. Whereas, a year ago, there was some
    question of whether ALI solutions would be available for all air
    interfaces, particularly Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), since
    then successful trials have been reported for at least two separate
    network-based CDMA solutions.[^38] In addition, the State of Montana
    participated in and audited a trial of U.S. Wireless\'s
    network-based location fingerprinting technology for Advanced Mobile
    Phone Service (AMPS) handsets in Billings, Montana from May through
    August 1999 and reported that the system overall provided an
    accuracy of 85.7 meters for 67 percent of single location
    fixes.[^39] With continuous tracking and improved methods for
    selecting the most reliable location estimate from within a set of
    estimates, overall accuracy improved to about 20 meters.[^40]
    Similar performance levels were achieved in a range of environments,
    including light urban, industrial, residential, and
    suburban/rural.[^41] Other companies such as TruePosition, Cell-Loc,
    and SigmaOne have also announced successful trials of location
    solutions. [^42]

20. Progress also has been made in the development of handset-based
    solutions. For example, SiRF Technologies, Inc. has been offering
    GPS chips for sale since the third quarter of 1999, including chips
    more advanced than those tested successfully in the King County,
    Washington trial.[^43] Qualcomm has announced that it will begin
    delivering commercial quantities of CDMA chipsets that include a GPS
    location capability to handset manufacturers by the first quarter of
    2001 and chipsets with both a GPS capability and advanced packet
    data capabilities in the third quarter of 2001.[^44] In meetings
    with Commission staff, location technology vendors have represented
    that their solutions are ready for deployment and meet the
    Commission\'s accuracy requirements.[^45]

21. For their part, handset manufacturers and many wireless carriers
    claim that no currently available ALI technology meets the accuracy
    mandates and that it will be impossible to produce GPS-capable
    handsets in time to meet the handset deployment schedule. Their
    concerns appear to focus largely on performance in specific
    difficult environments (*e.g*., urban canyons and inside
    buildings[^46]) or with costs.[^47] Our rules recognize, however,
    that location information may not be accurate or even available in
    some cases, by providing that location accuracy requirements must be
    met for 95 percent of wireless 911 calls, rather than for all such
    calls. Thus, while certain parties have raised concerns about how
    911 calls from certain challenging environments will affect a
    carrier's ability to comply with our accuracy and reliability
    requirements, no party has presented evidence to suggest that such
    calls might make up a five percent wireless 911 calls. In fact, some
    evidence suggests the contrary.[^48]

22. Further, the Phase II rules are intended to be applied in a manner
    that takes into account practical and technical realities.[^49] The
    guidelines issued by OET and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    follow this approach.[^50] For example, in addition to the general
    reliability requirement, which excludes the worst five percent of
    calls, the OET Guidelines confirm that in testing performance
    carriers need not include locations where wireless calls cannot be
    completed.[^51] Such locations are likely to include many
    environments where it is difficult to provide location
    identification, such as from within high-rise buildings, parking
    garages, tunnels, and in remote areas. Accuracy under the OET
    Guidelines also may be based upon multiple fixes over a period of as
    long as 30 seconds, thereby allowing substantial improvements in
    accuracy over single fixes.[^52] Further, the OET Guidelines also
    express a preference for basing testing on locations from which 911
    calls actually are placed.[^53] Under this approach, the statistical
    impact of calls from many difficult environments may be further
    reduced, if 911 calls are rarely made from those locations. This
    reasonable, practical approach to ALI testing focuses on what is
    technically possible and attempts to recognize the needs of actual
    wireless 911 callers. It is an approach that should reduce, if not
    eliminate, carrier concerns that ALI systems that have demonstrated
    the capability to comply with the rules might nonetheless be found
    in violation.

23. In this light, we conclude that there are a number of location
    technologies that are currently, or will soon be, available to
    carriers and that these technologies provide carriers with a
    reasonable prospect of meeting the Commission's accuracy and
    reliability requirements for Phase II. While it is possible that the
    plans and claims of some firms may prove overly optimistic, the
    number of location technology providers present in the market should
    ensure that a choice of effective ALI solutions should be available
    to all wireless carriers. Because this technology is evolving
    rapidly, and may be significantly affected by improvements in
    computer, semiconductor, and software technologies, as well as
    increased operational experience, actual performance for certain of
    the location technology solutions may well be even better by the
    time deployment is required next year.

24. *Schedule for Handset-Based ALI Deployment.* In view of the current
    and anticipated availability of ALI solutions that will permit
    compliance with the Phase II schedule, we do not believe that
    substantial delays in the handset deployment schedule, such as those
    requested by Nokia and Motorola, are justified. The Phase II rules
    were originally adopted in 1996, and at that time established an
    October 2001 timeframe for provision of Phase II location
    information. Thus, all industry participants, including handset
    manufacturers, have had a substantial period of time in which to
    prepare for Phase II. Moreover, the Commission indicated in December
    1997 that it intended to permit the use of handset-based
    technologies for Phase II compliance, an intention that was
    facilitated by the adjustments in the deployment schedule for
    handset-based technologies made in the September 1999 *E911 Third
    Report and Order*.[^54]

25. In adopting the *E911 Third Report and Order,* we intended to
    provide an opportunity for wireless carriers to use handset-based
    technologies to provide Phase II, if such technologies could be
    developed in a timely fashion. While we sought to encourage
    competition among location technologies, we did not, however, intend
    to establish an entitlement for wireless carriers to use
    handset-based technologies. From their filings, it appears that
    Nokia, Motorola, and Ericsson do not plan to develop GPS-capable
    handsets until they receive firm orders from carriers, and that it
    may take them an additional 18 months to begin delivering those
    handsets. While this situation is unfortunate and may reduce the
    options available to wireless carriers for complying with the Phase
    II mandate, as noted above, other ALI technologies are currently
    available that provide a reasonable prospect for compliance. In
    addition to various network-based technologies, GPS-capable handsets
    produced by other manufacturers may be available substantially
    sooner than the timeframes estimated by Nokia, Motorola and
    Ericsson.[^55]

26. We find that the schedule proposed by the manufacturers 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 upon PSAPs. Emergency calltakers 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.

27. 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. While
    we have modified our rules as necessary to promote competition, we
    have sought to maintain technological and competitive neutrality in
    so doing. A radical extension of the handset phase-in schedule, as
    proposed by Nokia, Motorola and Ericsson, would amount to a decisive
    and unwarranted preference for handset-based technologies,
    substantially altering the terms of the competition between
    technologies.

28. Some comments suggest that allowing more time for the phase-in of
    handset-based solutions will lower the cost to consumers of
    ALI-capable handsets, because prices for these handsets are likely
    to decline over time.[^56] While this may be true to some extent,
    prices also are likely to decline rapidly only after high volume
    distribution occurs; thus, a relatively rapid deployment schedule
    should help to accelerate that process.

29. We also are not persuaded that retaining the current schedule will
    impose higher costs on carriers that must choose a network-based
    solution for E911. Indeed, at least one network-based ALI provider
    has proposed offering to provide ALI for 911 calls to carriers
    without charge, with the costs to be recovered from commercial
    applications of location technology.[^57] Another location
    technology vendor is pursing a similar business model under which it
    would provide location information as a service to carriers, and
    would utilize other location information gathered from wireless
    telephones for commercial applications. [^58] Under these types of
    arrangements, carriers would incur few, if any, network investment
    costs.

30. In sum, we conclude that the public interest and the public safety
    do not support a substantial delay in the current handset deployment
    schedule. 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.

31. *Elimination of Separate PSAP-Request Track for ALI-Capable Handset
    Activation*. While we do not believe that substantial changes in the
    current schedule are justified, we do find good cause to make some
    changes in the handset schedule to allow a more realistic
    opportunity for deployment of handset-based solutions. For example,
    we concur with Sprint\'s contention that the more accelerated
    handset deployment schedule following a PSAP request appears to be
    at least difficult, if not impossible, to implement. As it stands,
    this rule would require carriers to continuously monitor the status
    of PSAP requests for Phase II compliance throughout the country,
    which may occur on widely varying schedules. In addition, carriers
    would need to find some mechanism to correlate a customer's location
    with the Phase II status of the corresponding area. Carriers would
    also have to ensure that all of their sales and distribution
    channels have current information and follow similar procedures in
    distributing ALI-capable handsets. Such efforts are likely to be
    difficult, time-consuming, and expensive without any corresponding
    public interest benefit.

32. Moreover, carrier efforts to comply with the PSAP request-triggered
    implementation schedule are likely to cause confusion among
    customers, who might find it difficult to understand and accept that
    some handset models are not available to them because of where they
    live. While it is desirable as a matter of public safety to target
    the sale of ALI-capable handsets in areas where PSAPs are able to
    use location data, market forces, consumer preferences, and carrier
    efforts will, to some degree, achieve this goal. Because ALI-capable
    handsets may be more expensive initially than other handsets,
    customers are more likely to purchase them in areas where local
    PSAPs are able to use this capability in the event of an
    emergency.[^59] In addition, carriers should have substantial
    incentives to direct their marketing efforts for ALI-capable
    handsets to areas in which PSAPs are capable of receiving Phase II
    information, to most effectively and profitably achieve the
    deployment goals. For these reasons, we eliminate the separate
    deployment track for ALI-capable handsets triggered by a PSAP
    request.

33. *Extension of Initial Distribution Date for ALI-Capable Handsets.*
    We also conclude that a relatively brief extension of the date by
    which wireless carriers choosing a handset-based approach to ALI
    compliance must begin distributing ALI-capable handsets is in the
    public interest. In view of certain representations in the record of
    this proceeding, we believe that the current March 1, 2001 date may
    be difficult to meet.[^60] We accordingly revise the schedule to
    require that carriers employing a handset-based solution begin
    making ALI-capable handsets available for sale no later than October
    1, 2001. This schedule should ensure that customers electing to take
    advantage of the enhanced safety of these handsets may purchase them
    by October 1, 2001, when the first PSAPs may begin using this
    information for 911 calls. In effect, this requirement should
    stimulate competition and marketing of ALI capability while imposing
    minimal burdens on manufacturers and carriers. To comply with this
    requirement, manufacturers need not provide, nor carriers sell and
    activate, any particular volume of handsets. Further, these initial
    handsets need not be the same types or brands as those that carriers
    plan to offer later in the year, or in future years.[^61] Rather,
    the rule requires only that carriers undertake an essential
    preliminary step for implementation of a handset-based solution, by
    actually offering ALI-capable handsets by October 1, 2001. By
    promoting public awareness of handset-based ALI capabilities, this
    initial distribution requirement also should help accelerate
    complete deployment of ALI-capable handsets.

34. *New Activation Dates and Benchmarks*. For similar reasons, we also
    modify the other ALI-capable handset benchmarks in our current rules
    to provide a more reasonable opportunity for handset manufacturers
    and wireless carriers to test and market ALI-capable handsets. Under
    the revised schedule, a carrier employing a handset-based solution
    must achieve a 25 percent level of ALI-capable handset activations
    by December 31, 2001, a 50 percent activation level by June 30,
    2002, and a 100 percent activation level for new, digital handsets
    by December 31, 2002.[^62] This revised schedule gives manufacturers
    and carriers some additional time to evaluate and take into account
    the OET Guidelines for verification and testing of ALI technologies,
    which were released slightly later than originally targeted, and to
    complete any necessary standards, development, and testing work. The
    schedule we adopt is similar to that proposed last year by a public
    safety association, APCO.[^63] While any delay in the phase-in
    schedule is undesirable, the relatively brief extension of the
    handset activation schedule we adopt today should provide additional
    flexibility to wireless carriers wishing to use handset-based
    technologies to comply with our Phase II requirements, without
    resulting in unreasonable or unnecessary delay.[^64] By allowing
    this additional time, carriers will have over a year to begin
    activating ALI-capable handsets, nearly 16 months before they are
    subject to any volume sales requirements, and almost two and a half
    years to comply with the 100 percent activation level for new
    digital ALI-capable handsets.[^65]

35. Coincident with adjusting the handset deployment schedule and
    eliminating the separate deployment schedule following PSAP
    requests, we also modify the activation level for new ALI-capable
    digital handsets that carriers must achieve by December 31, 2002,
    from 95 percent to 100 percent. This modification is intended to
    track the activation level for new handsets that we previously
    required in areas where there has been a PSAP request for Phase II.
    The 95 percent deployment level would have allowed a small
    proportion of new digital handsets to be sold and activated without
    ALI capability in areas where there was no PSAP request. This small
    exception would reduce the public safety benefits of Phase II and
    make it more difficult to achieve full deployment, especially as new
    digital handsets might have relatively long future useful lifespans.
    The December 31, 2002 date should give manufacturers and carriers
    adequate lead-time to prepare a full line of ALI-capable digital
    handsets. As is the case currently, this requirement applies only to
    the first activation of newly purchased handsets, not to handsets
    already in use. Consumers will continue to be able to use their
    existing phones, and to switch service to other carriers or to other
    operating areas.

36. *Revisions to Full Penetration Requirements*. We also conclude that
    the final step in the current schedule for handset solutions should
    be modified in two respects. First, we conclude that it is
    reasonable to extend the timeframe for carriers to reach full
    penetration of ALI-capable handsets by an additional year, by moving
    the deadline from December 31, 2004 to December 31, 2005. We take
    this step in part because adjustments to the ALI-capable handset
    activation schedule are likely to delay the replacement of
    non-ALI-capable handsets. Moreover, we concur with those commenters
    that argue that the current schedule may have been overly ambitious,
    in view of consumers that may wish to continue to use their non-ALI
    capable handsets, even if newer handsets provide location as well as
    other advanced features.

37. Second, we modify our rules to require that carriers achieve 95
    percent penetration of ALI-capable handsets by the December 31, 2005
    date, rather than that they employ \"reasonable efforts\" to achieve
    100 percent penetration. The requirement that carriers use
    \"reasonable efforts\" to reach 100 percent, though intended to
    provide flexibility to carriers, instead appears to have generated
    uncertainty. Carriers express concern that they cannot be sure of
    what is expected of them or how extensive their efforts must be to
    comply with the rule. The clearer requirement of 95 percent
    penetration should allow carriers to develop plans to move to
    virtually full penetration without concerns that such plans might
    still be considered to fall short of reasonable efforts.

38. *Additional Issues*. We decline, however, to make other adjustments
    to our rules suggested by petitioners and commenters. For example,
    Qualcomm suggests in an *ex parte* comment that carriers be deemed
    in compliance with the handset deployment rules if they have placed
    timely orders for ALI-capable handsets.[^66] While this suggestion
    has the possible merit of recognizing the essential role that
    manufacturers play in achieving timely deployment of ALI, we lack
    any effective mechanism to guarantee that handset manufacturers
    would in fact meet those orders on schedule, because manufacturers
    are not directly subject to the requirements of the Phase II rules.
    Although Qualcomm suggests that carriers be obliged to notify us of
    any delay in delivery of ALI-capable handsets,[^67] such a
    requirement would do nothing to ensure timely delivery or deployment
    of such handsets. In the absence of effective rules applicable to
    handset manufacturers, we conclude that the adoption of Qualcomm's
    proposal might result in an indefinite delay in actual ALI
    deployment.[^68] While we decline to adopt this proposal, as we
    discuss more fully below, we will consider the placement of timely
    handset orders by carriers as a significant indication of good
    faith, concrete actions taken toward compliance with the rules, when
    considering waiver requests or enforcement action.

39. Some commenters also propose that we adopt uniform rules, including
    uniform accuracy standards, regardless of the technology used.
    Aerial, supported by CTIA and PCIA, argues that disparate standards
    for network-based and handset-based technologies serve no logical
    public safety purpose and destroy competitive neutrality.[^69] APCO
    and NENA oppose this proposal, to the extent it would permit lower
    accuracy standards for handset-based solutions, observing that
    tighter accuracy requirements for handset-based solutions were part
    of a bargain proposed by advocates of the ALI-capable handset
    phase-in.[^70]

40. As we explained in the *E911 Third Report and Order*, while we
    intend the Phase II rules to be technologically and competitively
    neutral, this intention does not mean that the rules must or should
    be the same for all technologies.[^71] Accuracy is only one of
    several important means by which locations technologies contribute
    to the public safety. The rate and extent of deployment,
    reliability, encouragement of further improvements, and cost are
    other relevant factors. Moreover, a rule that is ostensibly neutral
    on its face may in fact favor one technology and preclude another,
    however valuable to public safety. Such was the case with our
    initial Phase II rules, where the use of a single implementation
    date for the deployment of all ALI technologies unintentionally
    precluded handset-based solutions, which cannot practically be
    implemented in all handsets at one time but can, it appears, provide
    better accuracy in some situations. Thus, we changed our rules to
    permit the phase-in of handset-based solutions, but sought to offset
    the effects of delay by requiring that those solutions provide
    greater accuracy.[^72]

41. Eventually, it may be possible to adopt unified rules, with a single
    accuracy requirement for all technologies, as technologies improve
    and as we move beyond the initial installation period for ALI
    technologies.[^73] To the extent possible, we would prefer to move
    toward a uniform rule for all Phase II solutions. At present,
    however, we continue to believe that public safety, and the public
    interest, is best served by our current pragmatically disparate
    Phase II rules.

## Waiver Requests

42. In this section, we discuss our general approach toward possible
    requests for waiver of the E911 Phase II requirements, and address
    several such requests that are part of the record in this
    reconsideration proceeding.

43. Generally, the Commission's rules may be waived for good cause
    shown.[^74] Waiver is only appropriate, however, if special
    circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule, and such a
    deviation will serve the public interest.[^75] In the case of E911,
    we have recognized that there could be instances where
    technology-related issues or exceptional circumstances may mean that
    deployment of Phase II may not be possible by October 1, 2001, and
    indicated that these cases could be dealt with through individual
    waivers as these implementation issues are more precisely
    identified.[^76]

44. As we have discussed in this Order, ALI technologies are already, or
    will soon be, available that provide a reasonable prospect for
    carriers to comply with the E911 Phase II requirements. 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, broad, generalized waivers should
    not be necessary and will not be granted. Rather, we expect waiver
    requests to be specific, focused and limited in scope, and with a
    clear path to full compliance. Further, carriers should undertake
    concrete steps necessary to come as close as possible to full
    compliance (*e.g*., selecting ALI technologies or vendors, timely
    placing orders for necessary equipment, performing other necessary
    preparatory work) and should document their efforts aimed at
    compliance in support of any waiver requests. Carriers seeking a
    waiver will be expected to specify the solutions they considered and
    explain why none could be employed in a way that complies with the
    Phase II rules. If deployment is scheduled but for some reason must
    be delayed, the carrier should specify the reason for the delay and
    provide a revised schedule.

45. We expect wireless carriers to work aggressively with technology
    vendors and equipment suppliers to implement Phase II, and to
    achieve full compliance as soon as possible.[^77] Carriers should
    not expect to defer providing a location solution if one is
    available and feasible. If a carrier's preferred location solution
    is not available or will not fully satisfy the rules, in terms of
    accuracy and reliability or timing, the carrier would be expected to
    implement another solution that does comply with the rules. Further,
    if no solution is available that fully complies, the carrier would
    be expected to employ a solution that comes as close as possible, in
    terms of providing reasonably accurate location information as
    quickly as possible. It is not sufficient for a carrier to undertake
    a minimalist approach, in which the carrier conducts certain tests,
    decides that the tests do not definitively demonstrate that the
    technologies tested will satisfy the Commission\'s requirements in
    all situations, and as a result, declines to implement any ALI
    solution. In view of the importance of our E911 rules to public
    safety, we expect to take any steps necessary to ensure that
    carriers take their obligations seriously, including assessing
    appropriate penalties on carriers that fail to comply. As noted, in
    considering the appropriateness of enforcement actions, we will take
    into account the extent to which carriers have made concrete and
    timely efforts to comply and to which their failure to do so was the
    result of factors outside their control.

### Sprint Waiver Request

46. **[Background]{.underline}**. In February 1999, in response to a
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Public Notice, Sprint filed a
    request for waiver to permit implementation of a handset-based
    location technology.[^78] In its petition, Sprint proposed a phased
    implementation of handset-based ALI capability, along with a network
    software solution that would provide more general location
    information for customers with older handsets.[^79] In the *E911
    Third Report and Order*, we dismissed Sprint's petition as moot,
    based on the rule changes to permit use of handset-based solutions
    that we adopted in that order.[^80]

47. In its reconsideration petition, Sprint renews its request for
    approval to pursue a hybrid ALI approach that would combine
    software-based network and GPS handset solutions to support two
    different levels of location accuracy.[^81] Specifically, Sprint is
    considering an approach called Forward Link Triangulation (FLT) that
    would use network software upgrades to provide a baseline level of
    ALI more precise than Phase I information, for all users of its
    network.[^82] Sprint indicates that it will use its best efforts to
    deploy this capability ubiquitously throughout its network by
    October 2001. Sprint proposes to combine this network safety net
    approach with incorporation of newly developed handset software
    known as Advanced FLT (AFLT) that would provide even better
    accuracy. [^83] Although Sprint has provided some information on the
    results of tests of this technology,[^84] it has not made a specific
    commitment regarding the accuracy levels the technology will
    achieve. Sprint states that most of the new handsets it sells by
    October 1, 2001 will be equipped with AFLT software.[^85] Sprint
    further proposes to offer its customers the option to obtain even
    greater location capability by purchasing assisted GPS handsets as
    soon as they become available.[^86] APCO opposes the petition as
    lacking specific proposals for ALI accuracy and reliability and as
    relying on a vague, untested, and uncertain technology.[^87]

48. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** To the extent that Sprint's
    reconsideration petition raises concerns about the availability of
    GPS-capable handsets in time to meet the Commission's deployment
    schedule,[^88] we conclude that these concerns have been largely, if
    not completely, addressed by the adjustments to the handset
    deployment schedule that we make in this Order. In light of these
    adjustments, to the extent that Sprint continues to wish to pursue,
    through its reconsideration petition, a waiver to implement its
    proposed hybrid FLT/AFLT ALI solution, we deny that request, based
    on the present record. Although Sprint has outlined some specific
    proposals with respect to its planned-for compliance, we do not
    believe that it has provided the kind of specific, focused
    information suggesting a clear path to full compliance that is
    necessary before we can find the grant of a waiver in the public
    interest. For example, Sprint has committed to deploying FLT and
    AFLT in October 2001, or soon thereafter, but it has not yet
    provided specific commitments with regard to the accuracy and
    reliability levels these solutions can provide.[^89]

49. In addition, we are concerned that although Sprint indicates that it
    will offer customers who desire greater location accuracy the
    opportunity to purchase GPS-capable handsets as soon as they become
    available, Sprint has not provided a specific timetable by which it
    will achieve full compliance with the Commission's accuracy
    requirements. Our E911 rules do not envision location accuracy as
    being a product of customer choice; thus, if customers do not select
    GPS-enabled handsets at a high rate, we are concerned that PSAPs
    could receive less accurate location data for a lengthy, indefinite
    period.

50. We commend Sprint for its work towards development of alternative
    location technologies or other means of achieving compliance with
    the Commission's E911 Phase II requirements. At this point, however,
    because Sprint has not provided a more concrete plan for achieving
    full compliance with the handset accuracy standards, we cannot
    conclude that the FLT/AFLT solution that Sprint proposes to pursue
    will serve the public interest. Accordingly, on the present record,
    we deny Sprint's petition for waiver.

### VoiceStream Waiver Request

51. **[Background.]{.underline}** Like Sprint, in February 1999 Aerial
    Communications also filed a request for waiver to permit
    implementation of a handset-based location technology. [^90] In its
    petition, Aerial discussed the possibility of using a non-GPS
    handset solution, in combination with existing network capabilities
    to provide better than Phase I-level location information for all
    calls.[^91] In the *E911 Third Report and Order*, we dismissed
    Aerial's petition as moot, based on the rule changes to permit use
    of handset-based solutions that we adopted in that order.[^92]

52. Unlike Sprint, Aerial did not specifically seek a reconsideration of
    our denial of its waiver petition, but rather challenged our
    decision to adopt stricter accuracy standards for handset-based
    solutions than for network-based solutions.[^93] In subsequent *ex
    parte* presentations in connection with this proceeding, however,
    Aerial renewed its request for approval to implement a hybrid ALI
    approach that would involve both network and handset software
    upgrades.[^94] Immediately following the close of the record on the
    reconsideration petitions in this proceeding, Aerial was acquired by
    VoiceStream, which has elected to pursue this waiver request.[^95]

53. Specifically, VoiceStream proposes to implement a network software
    solution (NSS) that would make use of existing network capabilities
    to provide immediate location information for all 911 calls on the
    network.[^96] VoiceStream indicates that the NSS will provide
    location information with better than Phase I accuracy -- within a
    radial accuracy of 500-1000 meters for 67 percent of calls.[^97]
    VoiceStream explains that for a suburban seven-kilometer inter-site
    distance (the typical environment within the VoiceStream network)
    Phase I service would yield a searchable area of approximately 14
    square kilometers. The NSS, by contrast, would yield a searchable
    area of one-half to one square kilometer for 67 percent of calls, 14
    to 28 times the accuracy provided by Phase I.[^98] VoiceStream
    commits to implement the NSS throughout its network, without regard
    to whether it has received any PSAP requests, by the fourth quarter
    of 2001.[^99]

54. In combination with the NSS, VoiceStream proposes to implement a
    technology called Enhanced Observed Time Difference of Arrival
    (E-OTD), which requires software upgrades to handsets and associated
    network upgrades, but which would not involve hardware changes or
    changes to antenna structures.[^100] VoiceStream indicates that
    E-OTD handsets will be available to meet the Commission's deadlines
    for handset deployment.[^101] VoiceStream indicates that the E-OTD
    solution would initially provide 100-meter accuracy, in accordance
    with the Commission's network accuracy standards, and presents
    evidence that such accuracy is attainable.[^102] Further, this
    accuracy level would, VoiceStream claims, improve to match the
    50-meter accuracy requirement for handset-based solutions within two
    years.[^103]

55. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** Although VoiceStream has not formally
    filed a request for waiver of our handset accuracy requirements in
    order to pursue its proposed NSS/E-OTD approach, we find it
    appropriate to construe the representations it has made in *ex
    part*e comments to constitute such a request.[^104] Based on the
    current record, we conclude that it is appropriate to grant
    VoiceStream a waiver to implement the NSS/E-OTD approach, subject to
    certain conditions.

56. As an initial matter, we find that VoiceStream, whose network uses
    the GSM air interface, faces special circumstances, as it appears
    that the NSS/E-OTD approach may be one of the only ALI solutions
    available in the near term for GSM systems. Although it is the
    standard air interface in most countries worldwide, GSM is used by
    carriers serving only a small percentage of U.S. wireless
    subscribers.[^105] There is evidence to suggest that the development
    of ALI capabilities for use by GSM carriers has lagged behind that
    for carriers using other interfaces that are more widely used in the
    United States, such as AMPS, CDMA, and TDMA. For example, several
    network location technology providers have indicated that they have
    not begun testing GSM solutions yet.[^106] While we understand that
    trials of GPS technology with GSM systems have very recently been
    conducted in Europe,[^107] little evidence has been presented to
    indicate GPS-capable handsets for use with GSM networks will be
    available.[^108] It appears that the NSS/E-OTD approach may be the
    only method available to GSM carriers for compliance with Phase II
    for some time.

57. Moreover, we determine based on the commitments that VoiceStream has
    made, that its proposal represents a promising approach that may
    offer significant public safety benefits, if it performs as
    expected. For example, VoiceStream has committed to implement the
    NSS throughout its network by the fourth quarter of 2001, without
    regard to whether it has received any PSAP requests for Phase II
    capability. The NSS approach uses data currently reported by the
    handset and data currently received by the base stations monitoring
    the handset, including timing and signal strength data, to calculate
    a handset\'s position.[^109] In contrast with assisted GPS
    solutions, NSS coverage would provide location information for 911
    calls from non-ALI capable handsets immediately. It would also
    provide similar location information for roamers. Unlike other
    network-based technologies, which usually require data from two or
    more cell sites, the NSS approach requires data from only a single
    cell to report the caller\'s location, though accuracy improves when
    additional cell sites can be used.[^110]

58. Further, the NSS location capability should provide a notable
    improvement in accuracy and reliability over Phase I location
    information, which provides only the location of the cell site or
    sector receiving the call. This cell might serve an area with a
    radius of several miles, especially in rural areas where distances
    between cell towers are generally longer. Moreover, Phase I data can
    in some cases be misleading, as wireless calls are not always
    handled by the nearest cell, but Phase I presumes that the call is
    coming from the area usually served by the cell. The NSS approach,
    by contrast, would provide an actual fix on the call with an
    accuracy that would be significantly more precise, to within
    500-1000 meters or less, 67 percent of the time. Further, this
    information would be more reliable, as location would be computed,
    rather than presumed based on the cell site receiving the call. This
    improvement in accuracy and reliability over Phase I should make it
    easier to route calls automatically to the correct PSAP and to
    dispatch emergency personnel more quickly to the scene of an
    emergency.

59. Use of E-OTD technology, in combination with the NSS "safety net"
    should provide substantial additional public safety benefits,
    including rapid initial deployment of ALI capability, with a
    relatively brief transition to even more precise levels of accuracy.
    With the inclusion of E-OTD capability, VoiceStream asserts that its
    proposed solution will achieve the accuracy standards required for
    network-based solutions, 100 meters/67 percent of the time, and in
    some cases, may be accurate to 50 meters or less.[^111] Further,
    because E-OTD requires only a software modification to handsets and
    some network equipment, VoiceStream indicates that it can comply
    with the benchmarks for distributing ALI-capable handsets in the
    current handset deployment schedule.[^112] For the same reason,
    implementation of E-OTD may be less costly than some other Phase II
    solutions. [^113] In addition, VoiceStream claims that accuracy for
    both the baseline NSS and E-OTD technologies will improve over time,
    as the software is refined, experience is gained, and additional
    cell sites are added to serve increasing traffic.[^114] This
    expected accuracy improvement is reflected in VoiceStream\'s
    commitment to meet the accuracy requirement for handset-based
    solutions of 50 meters/67 percent within two years, or by October 1,
    2003, an accuracy level it says has already been achieved in
    tests.[^115]

60. Given the substantial public safety benefits this solution may
    achieve if it performs as planned, we find it appropriate to grant
    VoiceStream permission to pursue this approach. Accordingly, we will
    grant VoiceStream\'s request for waiver, subject to compliance with
    the specific conditions we set forth in the paragraphs that follow.
    Because E-OTD requires handset modifications in order to be
    effective, VoiceStream will be subject to all of the requirements
    applicable to handset based technologies, except as specifically
    waived or modified in this Order.

61. First, as proposed, VoiceStream must deploy NSS capability by the
    fourth quarter of 2001 and have deployment throughout its network by
    or before December 31, 2001. This technology must provide location
    information with an accuracy and reliability of 1000 meters, or
    better, for 67 percent of calls.

62. Second, by October 1, 2001, Voicestream must ensure that at least 50
    percent of all new handsets activated are E-OTD capable. Although
    VoiceStream has not made a specific commitment in this regard, we
    require it to ensure that 100 percent of all new handsets activated
    are E-OTD capable by March 31, 2002. We conclude that it is
    reasonable to expect VoiceStream to meet or beat this timetable, in
    view of the relative simplicity of the software upgrade
    involved.[^116]

63. Third, initially, VoiceStream's E-OTD capable handsets must provide
    ALI with an accuracy of 100 meters/67 percent of the time and 300
    meters/95 percent of the time. Thus, effective October 1, 2001,
    VoiceStream must ensure that all E-OTD capable handsets comply with
    this accuracy requirement.

64. Fourth, VoiceStream must ensure that all new E-OTD capable handsets
    activated on or after October 1, 2003 comply with an accuracy
    requirement of 50 meters/67 percent of calls and 150 meters/95
    percent of calls.

65. Fifth, as is the case for handset-based solutions, within six months
    after a PSAP request, or October 1, 2001, whichever is later,
    VoiceStream must implement any network or infrastructure upgrades
    necessary to provide Phase II service, and begin providing Phase II
    location information.

66. Sixth, VoiceStream must comply with the requirement to achieve 95
    percent penetration of location-capable handsets among its
    subscribers no later than December 31, 2005.

67. Seventh, in order to assure that NSS and E-OTD approach is
    progressing and remains a realistic option for meeting the terms of
    the waiver, VoiceStream must report to the Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau semiannually, beginning October 1, 2000
    and continuing through October 1, 2003, on its experience with NSS
    and E-OTD, including actual deployment and the results of all tests
    and trials.

68. To the extent that VoiceStream cannot comply with any of these
    conditions, it will be expected to use another ALI methodology that
    comports with our requirements. For example, if the E-OTD approach
    proves unable to provide 50 meter/67 percent accuracy within two
    years as projected, VoiceStream would be required to adopt another
    approach that would meet our accuracy requirements. In view of the
    highly competitive nature of the wireless market, we would also
    expect market forces to compel VoiceStream to match its competitors'
    efforts to provide enhanced safety features, in the form of
    heightened accuracy, to their subscribers.

### USCC Request for Extension

69. **[Background]{.underline}.** On June 29, 2000, USCC filed an *ex
    parte* letter in this docket requesting an extension of all Phase II
    deadlines for rural wireless carriers.[^117] USCC contends that
    without an extension, rural wireless carriers like USCC will be
    forced to begin spending millions of dollars to implement a
    network-based Phase II solution, because equipment manufacturers are
    unable at present to guarantee they will provide a handset-based
    solution that satisfies the requirements and timetable.[^118] USCC
    claims that a network-based solution will not work in many rural
    areas, and will be prohibitively expensive for rural wireless
    carriers.[^119] For these reasons, USCC seeks a six-month extension
    that would be renewed until a handset solution is widely
    available.[^120]

70. **[Discussion]{.underline}.** We find it appropriate to treat USCC's
    letter as a request for waiver of the Phase II rules.[^121] Although
    we recognize that rural wireless carriers may face distinct
    challenges in implementing Phase II, we decline to grant the
    requested relief at this time. We find that the request is
    insufficiently substantiated, and we believe that the need for such
    relief may be alleviated by the adjustments to the handset
    deployment schedule that we adopt in this Order. In support of its
    claim that handset-based solutions will not be available, USCC
    presents correspondence with two handset manufacturers. One
    manufacturer indicates that FCC's timeline will be very difficult to
    meet,[^122] whereas the other manufacturer states that it will not
    have a handset solution prior to October 2001.[^123] Under the
    revised rules adopted today, handset-based solutions need not be
    offered until October 1, 2001 and need not be deployed in quantity
    until December 31, 2001. Thus, the two letters do not appear to
    demonstrate that the two manufacturers cannot or will not have
    handsets available that will permit USCC to comply with the handset
    phase-in schedule as revised today. In addition, even if these two
    manufacturers do not have ALI-capable handsets available, there is
    evidence that other handset manufacturers may.[^124]

71. Further, although we have previously recognized that network-based
    solutions may pose particular challenges in rural areas, as USCC
    points out,[^125] we do not find USCC\'s claim that network-based
    solutions will be prohibitively expensive for rural carriers to be
    adequately substantiated. Although we have no basis upon which to
    question USCC's estimate that it would cost about \$90 million to
    upgrade its more than 2,500 cell sites to employ TruePosition's
    network-based solution,[^126] TruePosition is only one of several
    companies offering network-based solutions. Other network-based
    solutions may prove less expensive for rural carriers, such as USCC,
    to implement, especially where they are being offered on terms that
    do not require an up-front investment by carriers.[^127]

72. In addition, even if USCC were to incur the expenses specified, it
    appears unlikely that it would incur them all at once, as
    implied.[^128] Our rules require deployment of network-based
    solutions only if a PSAP is able to receive and use Phase II
    information and requests Phase II, within six months of such a
    request. It is doubtful that all PSAPs within USCC's service
    territory will be ready to request Phase II by October 1,
    2001.[^129] Further, in areas where PSAPs do request Phase II,
    carriers have 18 months to complete deployment of network-based
    solutions.

73. We also find USCC\'s request for extension overly broad. By its
    terms it would extend the schedule for all rural carriers until
    ALI-capable handsets are \"widely available,\" even if those
    carriers plan to employ network-based solutions, or hybrid
    solutions, or use an air interfaces for which ALI-capable handsets
    are available sooner. The effect could be to substantially delay
    Phase II deployment even in cases where this is unnecessary.
    Moreover, USCC's request does not specify how "rural" wireless
    carriers are to be identified, for the purposes of determining to
    whom the waiver would apply.

74. Our denial of USCC\'s request does not foreclose future waiver
    requests from USCC or other carriers, including rural carriers. As
    discussed above, though, we would expect those requests to be
    specific, focused and limited in scope, and with a clear path to
    full compliance. We also expect that the reports of carrier plans
    for Phase II, to be filed later this year, should provide a better
    understanding of Phase II deployment issues and opportunities and
    helpful background for evaluating any such requests.

## Schedule for Carrier Reports

75. **[Background]{.underline}**. As part of our program to keep Phase
    II on schedule and to encourage and monitor advance planning and
    discussion among the parties involved in Phase II, the *E911 Third
    Report and Order* required wireless carriers subject to the Phase II
    rules to submit a report on their plans for implementing Phase II no
    later than October 1, 2000, one year before the Phase II
    implementation date.[^130] In its comments regarding the petition
    for reconsideration filed by Nokia and Motorola, GTE contends that
    this date is unworkable and unrealistic, because the process of
    adopting new standards for location solutions requires time and
    effort.[^131] GTE argues that PSAPs, carriers, and manufacturers
    must be given sufficient time to determine the appropriate
    technology, pick the solution vendor and conduct trials to test
    location solutions. In addition, it says, carriers and manufacturers
    must be afforded sufficient time fully to understand location
    accuracy verification requirements that may be promulgated by the
    Commission and to implement such requirements as part of their trial
    and testing programs. GTE proposes that the October 1, 2000
    notification requirement be extended to June 2001.[^132]

76. Nokia and Motorola also suggest moving the October 1, 2000 report
    date, based on concerns that the implementation and volume
    requirements for handset-based location technology would be
    difficult to meet for an October 1, 2000 selection date, especially
    in view of the fact that the Commission had not adopted compliance
    criteria.[^133] They request that the Commission delay its carrier
    technology selection report date from October 1, 2000 and revisit
    the schedule based upon the release of any compliance verification
    procedures, to permit the wireless industry sufficient time to
    accurately comply with the E911 requirements.[^134]

77. NENA and NASNA oppose changing the reporting schedule. They point
    out that the reporting schedule was a planning tool adopted at the
    suggestion of a vendor-carrier coalition, and argue that refinements
    in measurement methods for location accuracy verification are not
    likely to change a carrier\'s mind about the larger question of
    Phase II ALI technology choice.

78. **[Discussion.]{.underline}** We conclude that a slight extension of
    the date upon which carriers must file their implementation plan
    reports would not substantially undercut their purpose, nor result
    in further delays in the deployment of the Phase II technologies.
    Thus, we modify the reporting deadline set in our rules from October
    1, 2000 to November 9, 2000. This slight modification provides
    carriers with sufficient additional time in which to react to the
    revisions to the E911 rules we adopt today. It also reflects the
    view of some parties that moving back the reporting deadline is
    necessary in light of the delay in the release of the OET Guidelines
    addressing testing and verification of ALI technologies.

79. We continue to believe that early information about the Phase II
    technologies that carriers will be using is an important planning
    tool for carriers and PSAPS and necessary for our monitoring of
    compliance; thus, we provide only a short extension of the reporting
    deadline. We do not believe this short delay in the reporting
    deadline affects our ability to monitor compliance, nor the
    usefulness of the reports to this Commission, the public safety
    community, manufacturers of wireless locations technologies and
    equipment and others, who need to coordinate their production and
    distribution schedules with carrier orders. In our view, the carrier
    reports will still serve their intended purpose of assisting public
    safety organizations in their planning for Phase II implementation,
    especially in understanding the extent to which local wireless
    carriers may be employing differing technologies, and increase the
    likelihood of cooperative discussions between public safety
    organizations and carriers.

80. We decline to adopt the substantial delay advocated by some parties,
    however. Delay in filing the reports until June 2001, which is
    actually two months [after]{.underline} the date by which PSAPs must
    request Phase II to assure earliest deployment, and only four months
    before the October 1, 2001 implementation date, would seriously
    erode if not eliminate the value of the reports for all these
    purposes. Moreover, while we expect that the report will provide
    useful information regarding the ALI technologies carriers will
    employ, the report does not constitute a final or irrevocable
    commitment by carriers, as GTE seems to imply. As we indicated in
    the *E911 Third Report and Order*, carriers may make good faith
    changes in their plans even after the report is filed, including
    changes in ALI technologies.[^135] These changes are to be filed
    within thirty days of the adoption of any such change. Thus, GTE\'s
    concern that it will lack sufficient time to make an informed
    decision regarding ALI technologies by October 1, 2000, even if
    true, provides no basis for changing the reporting date
    significantly beyond that timeframe. GTE and other carriers are
    obligated to develop plans for implementing Phase II and to report
    those plans by November 9, 2000, not to halt efforts to evaluate how
    best to provide Phase II. Indeed, information concerning other
    carriers\' plans may assist in those evaluations, as it should
    assist other participants in making Phase II a reality.

81. Similarly, we agree with NENA and NASNA that uncertainty regarding
    criteria for verifying compliance with the ALI accuracy and
    reliability requirements is not a persuasive or adequate basis for a
    considerable change in the report date. Those criteria should not
    substantially alter the accuracy and reliability requirements we
    have established -- only provide guidance on acceptable ways to test
    ALI technologies. Moreover, OET, in association with Wireless
    Bureau, issued the compliance and verification guidelines as
    directed on April 12, 2000. Carriers should have adequate time to
    assess any actual effect the OET Guidelines might have on their
    evaluation of ALI technologies and to reflect such effect in their
    reports before the reporting date we establish herein. And, as we
    have already discussed, carriers have the option of revising their
    plans even after those reports are filed.

## Accuracy Levels

82. **[Background]{.underline}**. In its petition for reconsideration,
    Aerial contended that the new accuracy levels for handset-based
    solutions were adopted unexpectedly without proper notice under the
    Administrative Procedure Act and that the citations used by the
    Commission do not support the new accuracy levels.[^136] It also
    claims its petition for waiver to use a non-GPS handset solution was
    "dismissed under improper consideration and Aerial is left with no
    means to request a waiver of the Commission's newly created
    standard."[^137] PCIA, a trade association of which Aerial is a
    member, similarly questions whether the Commission complied with the
    APA, relied too heavily on GPS vendors, and was competitively
    neutral in adopting different accuracy standards for the two
    technologies.[^138]

83. **[Discussion]{.underline}**. As discussed above, we are in this
    Order granting Aerial\'s renewed request for a waiver to implement a
    non-GPS handset solution, as presented in its subsequent *ex parte*
    presentations. Further, we believe the rules as adopted in the *E911
    Third Report and Order* and revised here were procedurally proper
    and fully supported by the record. The original *E911 Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* included within its scope the question of ALI
    accuracy levels.[^139] We requested additional comment on location
    technology and specifically on adopting more precise accuracy
    requirements in the *E911 Second NPRM,* issued in 1996.[^140] In
    response to petitions for reconsideration of the initial *E911 First
    Report and Order*, we indicated that we would consider proposals for
    further rules or waivers to allow a phase-in for handset-based
    solutions, especially to the extent this would help achieve further
    improvements in ALI capabilities such as improved accuracy.[^141]
    The Wireless Bureau, acting under its delegated authority to handle
    rulemakings such as this one, subsequently issued two public notices
    that more specifically raised this issue, and both Aerial and PCIA
    among others participated in this proceeding.[^142] The issue of
    whether to adopt a more precise accuracy standard for handset-based
    technologies was expressly raised in those notices and discussed in
    the comments. Aerial and PCIA, of course, also have had the
    opportunity to raise this issue again on reconsideration.

84. The specific accuracy standard adopted also was clearly and directly
    supported by the record, notably by the results of an actual trial
    of a handset-based solution in King County, Washington, which we
    cited, as well as accuracy results reported by Lucent and a trial in
    Denver by SnapTrack.[^143] The accuracy requirement we adopted is
    close to but slightly less stringent than the accuracy reported in
    the King County trial. Moreover, IDC, the technology provider in
    that 1998 trial, also asserted that the test involved an early
    generation chip and that improved versions would provide improved
    accuracy.[^144] Other trials of handset-based solutions have
    produced similar results and the recent decision of the President to
    allow commercial availability of more accurate GPS signals will
    permit further improvements in accuracy for some GPS-based
    solutions.[^145] There was thus substantial record evidence, which
    continues to accumulate, to indicate that handset-based solutions
    will be able to achieve the accuracy and reliability benchmarks.

85. Moreover, as we discussed above, in establishing the accuracy
    requirements, we do not seek to guarantee that any particular
    location technology can be used to provide E911 service. Our goal is
    to improve the public safety. While we have sought to allow fair and
    open competition among technologies, any candidate solution is
    judged on its overall performance in improving the public safety.
    Accuracy is one important consideration in that judgment, but so too
    are speed of deployment, completeness of coverage, and other factors
    relevant to the public safety. The manner in which we address
    VoiceStream's renewed request for waiver in the current Order is an
    example of this process and approach.[^146] While the initial
    accuracy of VoiceStream's proposed solution falls short of that
    required for handset-based solutions and a phase-in is necessary to
    achieve complete coverage, the other public safety benefits of its
    solution justify allowing its use, provided of course that the
    solution can satisfy these conditions in practice. For these
    reasons, we accordingly deny Aerial's petition for reconsideration.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

**A. Regulatory Flexibility Act**

86. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 604, the
    Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of
    the possible economic impact on small entities of the policy and
    rules adopted in this Third Report and Order. The Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis is set forth in Appendix C.

**B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis**

87. This Order contains a new information collection. As part of our
    continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general
    public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this
    opportunity to comment on the infor­mation collections contained in
    this Order, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
    1995.[^147] Public and agency comments are due 60 days from
    publication of the summary of this Order in the Federal Register,
    and OMB comments are due 60 days from that date. Comments should
    address:

-   Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the
    proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including
    whether the information shall have practi­cal utility.

-   The accuracy of the Commission\'s burden estimates.

-   Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
    collected.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the
    respondents, in­cluding the use of automated collection techniques or
    other forms of information tech­nology.

88. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
    comments on the information collections contained herein should be
    submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, Room
    1-C804, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the
    Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to Edward C. Springer, OMB Desk
    Officer, Room 10236 New Executive Office Building, 725 Seventeenth
    Street, N. W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or via the Internet to
    <edward.springer@omb.eop.gov>.

89. In addition to the new information collection, this Order also
    affects an approved information collection (OMB No. 3060-0910) by
    extending the date by which carriers must file implementation plan
    reports from October 1, 2000, to November 9, 2000.

**C. Authority**

90. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 201, 303, 309,
    and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 201, 303,
    309, 332.

**D. Further Information**

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

# ORDERING CLAUSES

92. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 20 of the Commission\'s Rules
    is amended as set forth in Appendix B.

93. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule amendments made by this Order
    and specified in Appendix B SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after the
    date of the publication of the rule amendments in the Federal
    Register, except for the new information collection regarding
    waivers, which will become effective 120 days after publication of a
    summary of the Order in the Federal Register, pending OMB approval.

94. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    Order, including the Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.

95. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by
    Nokia and Motorola IS DENIED.

96. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by
    Sprint PCS IS DENIED.

97. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed by
    Aerial Communications, Inc., IS DENIED.

98. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that VoiceStream Communications is GRANTED A
    WAIVER of the E911 Phase II requirements, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS, TO
    THE EXTENT INDICATED HEREIN.

99. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the request for extension of the E911
    Phase II deadlines for rural carriers filed by United States
    Cellular Corp. IS DENIED.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Magalie Roman Salas

    Secretary

    **APPENDIX A**

**Petitions for Reconsideration**:

Aerial Communications (Aerial), subsequently acquired by VoiceStream
Wireless

Nokia Inc. and Motorola, Inc. (Nokia and Motorola)

Sprint Spectrum, L.P., d/b/a Sprint PCS (Sprint PCS)

**Comments and Oppositions:**

Aerial

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International
(APCO)

AT&T Wireless Services (AT&T)

GTE Service Corporation (GTE)

KSI, Inc. (KSI)

Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)

Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

Qualcomm, Incorporated (Qualcomm)

SnapTrack, Inc. (SnapTrack)

U.S. West Wireless, LLC

**Replies:**

Aerial

APCO

AT&T

BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth)

Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA)

National Emergency Number Association and National Association of State
Nine-one-one Administrators (NENA and NASNA)

Nextel

Nokia and Motorola

Sprint

**APPENDIX B**

**FINAL RULES**

Part 20 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

**Part 20 - COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES**

> 1\. Section 20.18 is amended by revising paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) as
> follows:

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) *Phase-in for Handset-based Location Technologies.* Licensees
subject to this section who employ a handset-based location technology
may phase in deployment of Phase II enhanced 911 service, subject to the
following requirements:

\(1\) Without respect to any PSAP request for deployment of Phase II 911
enhanced service, the licensee shall:

\(A\) Begin selling and activating location-capable handsets no later
than October 1, 2001;

\(B\) Ensure that at least 25 percent of all new handsets activated are
location-capable no later than December 31, 2001;

\(C\) Ensure that at least 50 percent of all new handsets activated are
location-capable no later than June 30, 2002; and

\(D\) Ensure that 100 percent of all new digital handsets activated are
location-capable no later than December 31, 2002 and thereafter.

\(E\) By December 31, 2005, achieve 95 percent penetration of
location-capable handsets among its subscribers.

\(2\) Once a PSAP request is received, the licensee shall, in the area
served by the PSAP, within six months or by October 1, 2001, whichever
is later:

(A) Install any hardware and/or software in the CMRS network and/or
    other fixed infrastructure, as needed, to enable the provision of
    Phase II enhanced 911 service; and

(B) Begin delivering Phase II enhanced 911 service to the PSAP.

\* \* \* \* \*

> 2\. Section 20.18 is amended by revising paragraph (i) as follows:

\* \* \* \* \*

\(i\) *Reports on Phase II plans.* Licensees subject to this section
shall report to the Commission their plans for implementing Phase II
enhanced 911 service, including the location-determination technology
they plan to employ and the procedure they intend to use to verify
conformance with the Phase II accuracy requirements by November 9, 2000.
Licensees are required to update these plans within thirty days of the
adoption of any change. These reports and updates may be filed
electronically in a manner to be designated by the Commission.

\* \* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX C**

**SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS (SFRFA)**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^148] an
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in
    Appendix B II of the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this
    proceeding (FNPRM).[^149] A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (FRFA) was incorporated in Appendix C of the Third Report and Order
    (Third R&O).[^150] Additionally, The Commission sought written
    public comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, including comment on
    the IRFA. These comments were discussed in the FRFA. This
    Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (SFRFA) considers
    the current Order on Reconsideration (Order) and updates information
    contained in the FRFA. The present SFRFA, contained in the Order,
    conforms to the RFA.[^151]

**Need For, and Objectives of, the Order**

2.  The Order is intended to provide wireless carriers, manufacturers,
    and the public safety community with additional clarity so that
    Phase II of the Commission's 911 effort can be deployed and
    operational on schedule, so far as possible. The Order supports the
    efforts of many entrepreneurs, public safety answering points, and
    companies who are working toward the technical and operational
    improvements needed to optimize 911 service and thus save lives.

    **Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
    Response to the FRFA**

3.  No comments were directed at the FRFA, and no comments were received
    from small entities that are not part of a larger organization.
    However, one reconsideration petition, filed jointly by handset
    manufacturers Nokia, Inc. and Motorola, Inc. contends that the rules
    adopted in the Third R&O set an overly aggressive deployment
    schedule for the introduction of handset-based Automatic Location
    Identification (ALI) technologies for which there is inadequate
    support in the record. Nokia, Motorola, and Ericsson ask that the
    Commission relax the handset deployment schedule substantially by
    only requiring carriers to begin selling and activating ALI-capable
    handsets 18 months after the date on which they have made their
    technology choices known the FCC. (The discussion concerning these
    petitions and comments supporting Nokia, Motorola and Ericsson's
    arguments favoring a relaxed schedule may be found at paragraphs
    12-14 of the Order.) Other parties raised concerns about the
    separate schedule for ALI-capable handset deployment triggered by a
    public service answering point (PSAP) request, noting the
    impracticality of such a schedule. (This contention in discussed in
    paragraph 15 of the Order.) Finally, in paragraph 16 of the Order,
    other parties maintain that the requirement in the current 911 rules
    that carriers employing handset-based solutions undertake reasonable
    efforts to achieve 100 percent usage of ALI-capable handsets by
    their customers by December 31, 2004, or two years after a PSAP
    request, is both overly demanding and vague.

    **Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
    Rules Will Apply**

4.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^152] The RFA generally
    defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the
    terms "small business," "small organization," and "small
    governmental jurisdiction."[^153] In addition, the term "small
    business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern"
    under the Small Business Act.[^154] A small business concern is one
    which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant
    in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
    established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^155] A
    small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which
    is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
    field."[^156] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately
    275,801 small organizations.[^157] Below, the Commission updates the
    figures reflected in the FRFA in the Third Report and Order.

5.  **Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS).** The broadband
    PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A
    through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. As
    stated in paragraph 11 of the FRFA, there is a total of 183 small
    entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's
    auction's rules.

6.  **Narrowband PCS.** The Commission has auctioned nationwide and
    regional licenses for narrowband PCS. There are 11 nationwide and 30
    regional licensees for narrowband PCS. The Commission does not have
    sufficient information to determine whether any of these licensees
    are small businesses within the SBA-approved definition for
    radiotelephone companies. At present, there have been no auctions
    held for the major trading area (MTA) and basic trading area (BTA)
    narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission anticipates a total of 561
    MTA licenses and 2,958 BTA licenses will be awarded by auction. Such
    auctions have not yet been scheduled, however. Given that nearly all
    radiotelephone companies have no more than 1,500 employees and that
    no reliable estimate of the number of prospective MTA and BTA
    narrowband licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of this
    SFRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to small entities,
    as that term is defined by the SBA.

Therefore, there may be as many as 3,519 small entities affected.

7.  **Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR).** The Commission awards bidding
    credits in auctions for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR
    licenses to firms that had revenues of no more than \$15 million in
    each of the three previous calendar years.[^158] In the context of
    both 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR, this regulation defining "small
    entity" has been approved by the SBA.

8.  The rules in the Order apply to SMR providers in the 800 MHz and 900
    MHz bands that hold CMRS licenses. We do not know how many firms
    provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service as CMRS
    operators, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of
    no more than \$15 million. One firm has over \$15 million in
    revenues. We assume, for purposes of this SFRFA, that all of the
    remaining existing SMR authorizations are held by small entities, as
    that term is defined by the SBA. In the 900 MHz SMR band, there are
    60 small or very small entities and there are 38 such entities in
    the 800 MHz band.

    **Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
    Compliance Requirements**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
9.  In paragraphs 42-45, the Order discusses what should be included in
    successful waiver requests. All of the other changes adopted in this
    Order are extensions of the existing implementation schedule that do
    not impose new burdens. The critical nature of improving nationwide
    wireless E911 services does not allow the Commission much
    flexibility to differentiate between large and small entities
    because a lapse in the provision of dependable, responsive 911
    service by a small business can lead to the same catastrophic result
    as a lapse by a large entity. However, the Commission, in adopting
    the E911 improvement program, has tried wherever possible to
    consider the individual needs and situation of all involved parties.
    In this decision, the actual cost of the amendments to all entities
    is nominal.

**Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered**

10. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternative
    that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
    include the following four alternatives: (1) the establishment of
    differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that
    take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
    clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
    reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the
    use of performance, rather than design,

standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage.

11. First, the Commission declines to extend the implementation date for
    E911 Phase II beyond October 1, 2001, partially to avoid placing the
    burden for obtaining location information on PSAPs, already acting
    under constrained emergency conditions. This discussion is at
    paragraphs 24-30 of the Order. However, we do extend the date for
    initial distribution of ALI-capable handsets by seven months and we
    also adjust the timetable for carriers to meet certain interim
    benchmarks for activating new ALI capable handsets. The alternative,
    to leave the schedules as is, would impose a larger compliance
    burden on all carriers that elect to use handset-based technologies,
    whether such carriers are large or small. (Paragraphs 33-35 of the
    Order contain this discussion.) At paragraphs 36-37 of the Order, we
    defer the date by which a carrier must achieve full penetration of
    ALI-capable handsets by one year, and modify the manner in which we
    define full penetration. Further, at paragraphs 31-33 of the Order,
    the Commission eliminates the separate handset deployment schedule
    for areas where PSAPs have requested deployment of Phase II. These
    actions should provide flexibility to all entities to comply with
    911 requirements utilizing the most current and efficient
    technology, thus also ensuring the most responsive and dependable
    911 system possible. Thus the Commission again chose not to stay
    with the current schedule. The alternatives in each case would have
    resulted in additional burden on all affected parties.

12. One alternative that the Commission considered and rejected
    concerned the petition by USCC that requests a six-month extension
    of all Phase II deadlines for rural wireless carriers. As discussed
    in paragraph 69 of the Order, USCC contends that without such an
    extension, rural wireless carriers (often small entities) like USCC
    will be forced to begin spending millions of dollars to implement a
    network-based Phase II solution, because equipment manufacturers are
    unable at present to guarantee that they will provide a
    handset-based solution that satisfies the requirements and
    timetable. The Commission denied this request, in paragraphs 70-74
    of the Order, finding that even if some manufacturers cannot meet
    even the deadlines as revised in this Order, others may very well be
    able to provide ALI-capable handsets within the new timeframe. Also,
    the Order maintains that the expenses involved will come over a
    period of time and not all come due at once and that USCC's request
    is overly broad. Further, the Order finds that there are certain ALI
    solutions that are being offered on terms that do not require
    up-front investment by carriers. Finally, the Order stresses that
    the Commission's denial of USCC's request does not foreclose future
    waiver requests from USCC or other carriers, including rural
    carriers.

13. Finally, it should be noted that the Commission's requirement that
    wireless carriers provide the location of wireless 911 callers has
    created a business opportunity for companies that are to develop and
    provide the technology to meet this obligation. It is expected that
    many location technology providers will qualify as small businesses.

14. **[Report to Congress]{.underline}:** The Commission will send a
    copy of the Order, including this SFRFA, in a report to be sent to
    Congress pursuant to SBREFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §801(a)(1)(A). In
    addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including
    the SFRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration. A copy of the Order and the SFRFA (or summaries
    thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register. *See* 5
    U.S.C. § 604(b).

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN WILLIAM E. KENNARD**

Re: *Revision of the Commission\'s Rules To Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102 (rel. Sept.
8, 2000)*

Today's action should jumpstart delivery of life-saving E911 services to
the American public. We affirm all of the critical elements of our Phase
II deployment requirements while making certain minor adjustments to
better suit the current state of technological development, and
otherwise simplify and clarify our wireless enhanced 911 (E911) rules.
In so doing, the Commission takes another important step to provide
certainty to the industry with respect to the deployment of life-saving
E911 Phase II location technology to American consumers. Additionally,
we require the accelerated deployment of Phase II by one carrier in
exchange for interim limited relief on other aspects of our rules. We
expect that, with the deployment of location technologies by one
carrier, competitive conditions among wireless carriers will lead to
further, expedited deployment by others. These actions should promote
the rapid, ubiquitous deployment of the location technology that is so
critical in an emergency situation.

We considered three requests for a waiver of our Phase II deployment
requirements. Of the three requests, we deny two requests, finding that
they have not met the strict waiver standard that the Commission intends
to apply, but grant a limited waiver of our accuracy requirements for
VoiceStream. I believe that the proposal put forward by VoiceStream
represents a workable interim solution, and it is on this basis that I
have agreed to grant this limited relief. Although VoiceStream is
allowed additional time, until October 1, 2003, to meet our handset
accuracy standards, after that date it must meet those more stringent
standards. In the interim, it must deploy Phase II on a substantially
accelerated basis, faster than any other carrier choosing a pure
handset-based solution. In my view, these and other conditions imposed
on VoiceStream as part of the grant of relief here ensure that the
VoiceStream solution offers substantial public benefits. I emphasize
that, as the order states, the limited waiver we grant VoiceStream is
conditional -- failure to satisfy the waiver's conditions will lead to
its revocation and VoiceStream will be expected to implement another
technology that meets our Phase II standards. Moreover, nothing in this
order should be interpreted as a signal that the Commission has softened
its resolve in enforcing the Phase II implementation mandate.

I note that VoiceStream\'s request has been subject to public comment
and debate. Because time is of the essence as we approach key benchmark
dates in the deployment of the Phase II technology - including a
November 9, 2000 carrier reporting deadline - we have taken a reasonable
course in issuing a definitive determination on this waiver request
without delay.

**JOINT SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONERS SUSAN NESS AND GLORIA TRISTANI**

**Approving in Part, Dissenting in Part**

Re: *Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility with
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102 (rel. Sept.
8, 2000)*

We respectfully dissent from the decision to grant VoiceStream a waiver
of our enhanced 911 (E911) Phase II location identification rules. We
would have preferred to seek public comment on VoiceStream's request to
better understand the consequences for VoiceStream customers and E911
deployment generally.

As Americans increasingly rely on wireless services, the ability of
wireless callers to reach public safety agencies -- and these agencies'
ability to locate the callers -- becomes ever more important. Given the
critical nature of emergency 911 services, sound public policy dictates
that any proposal to significantly alter Phase II implementation
warrants public comment on the details of the alteration. VoiceStream's
request, however, is contained in a series of *ex parte* presentations
and has not been made subject to sufficient public review and
consideration. Even more troubling is our concern that today's action
may, in effect, create an alternative Phase II implementation track for
carriers inclined to seek new E911 solutions in lieu of prompt
deployment under our existing rules.

Last fall, in light of technology developments that allow for
handset-based location solutions, we modified our Phase II rules to
include a second deployment track for handset-based approaches. Our
decision came after exhaustive deliberation, involving the balancing of
trade-offs such as the handset phase-in and the benefit of increased
accuracy levels.

The decision here allows one carrier to pursue an alternative Phase II
deployment track absent, we're afraid, a clear understanding of the
consequences involved. The VoiceStream waiver, based on the GSM
technology deployed by VoiceStream, inevitably invites other carriers to
offer similar showings. The action here, fashioned as a waiver, may have
the effect of a rule change, and thus should have warranted public
notice and ample public scrutiny and consideration.

In the end, it is possible that VoiceStream's approach properly balances
the goal of ensuring wireless location capability with the technological
realities carriers confront in E911 deployment. Its hybrid system is
intended to provide a safety net location solution for all wireless
callers in VoiceStream's service area, while promising to reach the
handset-based accuracy levels by October 2003. We do not question
VoiceStream's commitment to E911 but continue to have questions about
its hybrid approach. It is not clear that VoiceStream's proposal will
reach the Commission's proscribed accuracy standards. Additionally,
there is some question whether VoiceStream's proposal is the only viable
option for GSM carriers, thus necessitating a waiver. Ultimately, we are
concerned that in light of today's decision other carriers -- whether
deploying GSM or other modulation technologies -- may choose to focus on
seeking a waiver rather than rapidly implementing E911 consistent with
our accuracy and deployment requirements. After significant
deliberations to create and revise our E911 rules, the VoiceStream
request warranted rigorous public examination.

[^1]: Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, *Third
    Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd 17388 (1999) (*E911 Third Report and
    Order*)*.*

[^2]: Section 1 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^3]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 301 and 303(r). *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, 18682 (1996) (*E911 First
    Report and Order*).

[^4]: Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. No.
    106-81, enacted Oct. 26, 1999 (911 Act).

[^5]: 911 Act at Section 2(b).

[^6]: *See generally E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676.

[^7]: *E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18708-18710.

[^8]: *Id.* at 18710-18712. The Commission originally specified that
    wireless carriers must provide the location of a 911 call by
    longitude and latitude within a radius of 125 meters using root mean
    square methodology.

[^9]: *See, e.g.,* Revision of the Commission\'s Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket
    No. 94-102, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22665 (1997)
    (*E911 Reconsideration Order*); Revision of the Commission's Rules
    to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 14 FCC
    Rcd 10954 (1999) (*E911 Second MO&O*).

[^10]: *See E911 Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17388.

[^11]: *Id.* at 17391.

[^12]: *Id.* at 17427-17428.

[^13]: Parties filing reconsideration petitions include Aerial
    Communications, Sprint PCS, and Nokia, Inc. and Motorola, Inc.,
    filing jointly. Oppositions, comments and reply comments filed in
    response to the reconsideration petitions are listed in Appendix A.

[^14]: *See* Petition for Reconsideration of Nokia, Inc. and Motorola,
    Inc. at 2 (Nokia and Motorola Petition).

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *Id.* at 5.

[^17]: Nokia and Motorola Reply Comments at 6-7.

[^18]: Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson May 25 *Ex Parte* Comments.

[^19]: *Id.* at 4.

[^20]: Nokia and Motorola have also requested that we delay the October
    1, 2000 reporting date. *See* Nokia and Motorola Reply Comments at
    7-8.

[^21]: Motorola, Nokia and Ericsson May 25 *Ex Parte* Comments at 5.

[^22]: *Id*. This schedule is significantly more extended than the
    phase-in Nokia and Motorola initially requested in their
    reconsideration petition. *See* Nokia and Motorola Petition at 2.
    The petition proposed the following schedule, where no PSAP request
    had occurred: October 1, 2001: 25 percent of new handsets
    ALI-capable; October 1, 2002: 50 percent ; October 1, 2003: 75
    percent; October 1, 2004: 95 percent. Nokia and Motorola did not
    request any change in the deployment schedule following PSAP
    requests for Phase II.

[^23]: Nokia and Motorola Petition at 6.

[^24]: *See* AT&T Wireless Reply Comments at 1-2; BellSouth Cellular
    Reply Comments at 3; GTE Comments at 6; Nextel Comments at 3-7; U.S.
    West Wireless Comments at 4.

[^25]: SnapTrack Comments at 4-5.

[^26]: Qualcomm June 21 *Ex Parte* Comments at 1. SnapTrack was acquired
    by Qualcomm in March 2000 after the petitions and initial comments
    in this proceeding were filed. *See* "Qualcomm Completes Acquisition
    of Wireless Location Leader SnapTrack," News Release (March 2,
    2000), available at
    <http://www.qualcomm.com/cda/pr//view/0,1565,252,00.html>.

[^27]: APCO Opposition at 2-4; KSI Opposition at 2-3; NENA and NASNA
    Reply Comments at 2-4.

[^28]: *See, e.g.,* SnapTrack Comments at 5; U.S. West Comments at 7;
    CTIA Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^29]: Sprint Petition at 7.

[^30]: *Id*. at 8-9.

[^31]: *See, e.g.,* SnapTrack Comments at 5-6.

[^32]: Sprint Petition at 8-9, n.27.

[^33]: Qualcomm March 16 *Ex Parte* Comments at 4.

[^34]: *E911 First Report and Order,* 11 FCC Rcd at 18688.

[^35]: *See, e.g.,* Public Notice, Technical Roundtable On
    Implementation Of Automatic Location Identification (\"ALI\") For
    Enhanced 911 ("E911") Technologies To Be Held June 28, 1999, DA
    99-1141 (June 9, 1999); *see also* the Commission\'s E911 web page,
    <http://www.fcc.gov/e911/roundtables.html>.

[^36]: Integrated Data Communications, Inc. (IDC), Report of Findings, A
    Study of Stand-Alone Global Positioning System Determined Location,
    Cellular Communications, Call Path Signaling and Routing, March
    1999, at 1-3, 7-14. The King County trial reported successful
    results for four air interfaces: CDMA, N-AMPS, AMPS, and iDEN. *Id.*
    at 7-20, Fig. 7-10.

[^37]: *See* transcripts at <http://www.fcc.gov/e911/roundtables.html>.

[^38]: For example, TruePosition conducted a trial with Bell Atlantic
    Mobile in Pennsylvania, *see*
    <http://www.trueposition.com/press16.html>; and U.S. Wireless
    conducted a similar trial in Baltimore for both AMPS and CDMA, *see*
    <http://www.uswcorp.com/USWCMainPages/PressRel/pr62.htm>. *See also*
    Summary of FCC E911 Phase II Reconsideration Proceeding Multi-Party
    Meeting July 6, 2000, filed August 10, 2000, at 6-7 (FCC July 6
    Meeting *Ex Parte* Summary).

[^39]: State of Montana Department of Administration, Information
    Services Division, Montana Wireless E9-1-1 Trial: Final Report, May
    22, 2000 at 34 (Montana Final Report).

[^40]: *Id*. at 35. The guidelines for Phase II location verification
    and testing developed by the Office of Engineering and Technology
    (OET) and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau permit use of
    multiple fixes over a period of up to 30 seconds to be used in
    measuring the accuracy of ALI solutions. *See* OET Bulletin No. 71,
    Guidelines for Testing and Verifying the Accuracy of Wireless E911
    Location Systems, April 12, 2000 at 4 (*OET Guidelines*).

[^41]: Montana Final Report at 34-35.

[^42]: *See* FCC July 6 Meeting *Ex Parte* Summary at 5-7; *see also*
    Letter from Philip L. Verveer and David M. Don, Willkie, Farr &
    Gallagher, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, July 24, 2000
    (TruePosition July 24 *Ex Parte* Letter); Letter from Dr. Michel
    Fattouche, President and CEO, Cell-Loc, Inc., to Jim Schlichting,
    Deputy Bureau Chief, Wireless Bureau, FCC, June 29, 2000 (Cell-Loc
    June 29 *Ex Parte* Letter); News Release, "SigmaOne Announces
    Successful TDMA-AMPS Location Trials," April 26, 2000, located at
    \<<http://www.sigma-1.com/prsuccess.htm>\>.

[^43]: *See* SiRF web site, <http://www.sirf.com/ssii.htm>.

[^44]: Letter from Veronica M. Ahern, Nixon, Peabody to Magalie R.
    Salas, Secretary, FCC, July 7, 2000, at 2 (Qualcomm July 7 *Ex
    Parte* Letter). Qualcomm also contends that a manufacturer that
    supplies chipsets for Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and GSM
    devices intends to develop a chipset incorporating the GPS
    capability in time to allow delivery of handsets incorporating this
    chipset by the third quarter of 2001, but has not provided any
    evidence in support of the contention. *Id.*

[^45]: *See generally,* Summary of FCC E911 Phase II Reconsideration
    Proceeding Multi-Party Meeting June 29, 2000, filed July 24, 2000
    (FCC June 29 Meeting *Ex Parte* Summary); FCC July 6 Meeting *Ex
    Parte* Summary.

[^46]: *See, e.g.*, BellSouth May 16 *Ex Parte* Comments at 2; Motorola
    June 21 *Ex Parte* Comments at 8.

[^47]: Letter from Thomas P. Van Wazer and James P. Young, Sidley &
    Austin, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, June 29, 2000 at 6-7
    (USCC Request).

[^48]: VoiceStream June 15 *Ex Parte* Comments at 8 (data for wireless
    911 call distribution in five major markets indicating that only one
    to six percent of all wireless 911 calls are from urban areas,
    including all types of urban environments).

[^49]: *E911 Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17426.

[^50]: *See generally OET Guidelines*.

[^51]: *Id.* at 3.

[^52]: *Id*. at 4. *See, e.g*., Montana Final Report at 34.

[^53]: *OET Guidelines* at 4.

[^54]: *E911 Second Report and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 22725. The
    Commission specifically stated it would consider proposals to phase
    in implementation of ALI for these technologies.

[^55]: *See supra* para. 20.

[^56]: Sprint Petition at 4-5.

[^57]: *See* Cell-Loc June 29 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2. *See also* FCC
    July 6 Meeting *Ex Parte* Summary at 5.

[^58]: *See* U.S. Wireless web site,
    <http://www.uswcorp.com/USWCMainPages/PressRel/pr62.htm>. *See also*
    FCC July 6 Meeting *Ex Parte* Summary at 6-7.

[^59]: Being able to call for and receive help in an emergency is one of
    the most important reasons for purchasing a wireless phone. *See,
    e.g.,* Peter D. Hart Research Associates, The Evolving Wireless
    Marketplace, February 1998 at 3 (personal safety cited in this
    survey as the primary use of wireless phones by 25 percent of
    consumers); Polk Public Opinion Strategies, National Survey, July
    31-August 4, 1997 (79 percent of respondents cite additional safety
    and security as the most important reason for owning a wireless
    phone), which may be found at
    <http://www.wow-com.com/consumer/highway/reference/e911poll.cfm>.

[^60]: *See* Qualcomm July 7 *Ex Parte* Letter at 2, indicating that
    production for its MSM3300 and MSM5100 chipsets, which incorporate
    GPS capability, will ramp up in the first quarter, and the third
    quarter, of 2001, respectively.

[^61]: At least one vendor already is offering a handset incorporating
    GPS technology that reportedly delivers location information to
    PSAPs when 911 is dialed. *See*
    [http://www.fonefinder.com](http://www.fonefinder.com/).

[^62]: The new handset activation benchmarks apply only to new handsets,
    not to new activations of older model or refurbished handsets
    (*i.e.,* when a customer switches wireless service from one wireless
    carrier to another but retains his or her current handset, that "new
    activation" of service need not be included in the total of the
    wireless carrier's new handset activations for purposes of measuring
    ALI-capable handset activation benchmarks). We clarify, however,
    that if a carrier's handset solution involves a stand-alone
    attachment that provides ALI, rather than an integrated ALI handset
    approach, the sale of such a stand-alone attachment to an existing
    subscriber would count towards the carrier's compliance with the
    ALI-capable handset activation requirements. Mere availability of a
    stand-alone device that may be used with a particular handset,
    however, would not count towards compliance with the activation
    requirements.

[^63]: APCO Further Comments at 2-3, May 25, 1999.

[^64]: For example, it appears that the revised schedule will give
    handset manufacturers using Qualcomm chipsets additional time that
    may be necessary to meet the Commission's requirements. *See supra*
    note 60.

[^65]: We recognize that although we are providing additional time to
    carriers to meet the new activation dates and benchmarks, the
    interim benchmarks of 25 percent and 50 percent ALI-capable handset
    activations may be difficult to measure. We emphasize that in
    evaluating compliance, we will look at the reasonableness of a
    carrier's measurement methodology and the circumstances surrounding
    the measurement.

[^66]: Qualcomm March 16 *Ex Parte* Comments at 4.

[^67]: *Id*.

[^68]: As previously discussed, some major handset manufacturers may not
    even begin delivering ALI-capable handsets for more than 18 months,
    with full deployment of ALI-capable handsets up to three years
    later. *See* Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson May 25 *Ex Parte*
    Comments at 4.

[^69]: Aerial Petition at 4; CTIA Reply Comments at 3; PCIA Comments at
    6.

[^70]: NENA Reply Comments at 4, 5; APCO Reply Comments at 1, 2.

[^71]: *E911 Third Report and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd at 17425.

[^72]: *Id.*

[^73]: *See* VoiceStream June 15 *Ex Parte* Comments at 15, indicating
    that hybrid E-OTD technology can eventually achieve the same
    50-meter accuracy level required for handset-based solutions.

[^74]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.3.

[^75]: *Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC*, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166
    (D.C. Cir. 1990) citing *WAIT Radio v. FCC*, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159
    (D.C. Cir. 1969).

[^76]: *See E911 First Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18710, 18718.

[^77]: We emphasize that the filing of a waiver request does not and
    will not excuse noncompliance with our E911 rules. Moreover,
    carriers are obligated to continue best efforts to comply with our
    rules while a waiver request is pending.

[^78]: Sprint Spectrum L.P. Waiver Request, February 4, 1999. A number
    of other carriers filed similar petitions at the same time.

[^79]: *Id*. at 4-5.

[^80]: *E911 Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17429-30.

[^81]: Sprint Petition at 10. *See also* Sprint PCS May 1 *Ex Parte*
    Comments.

[^82]: Sprint Petition at 10-11.

[^83]: *Id.* at 12.

[^84]: *See* Letter from Jonathan M. Chambers, Vice President,
    Regulatory Affairs, Sprint PCS, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary,
    FCC, dated July 11, 2000, attaching Qualcomm, Inc. and Lucent
    Technologies AFLT reports (Sprint July 10 *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^85]: Sprint Petition at 12.

[^86]: *Id.* at 12-13.

[^87]: APCO Opposition at 4-6.

[^88]: *See* Sprint Petition at 4-9.

[^89]: *Id*. at 11.

[^90]: Aerial Communications Inc. Petition to Waive Section 20.18(e) of
    the Commission's rules, February 5, 1999 (Aerial Waiver Petition).

[^91]: *Id*. at 2-3, 6.

[^92]: *E911 Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17429-30.

[^93]: *See* discussion *infra* at Section D.

[^94]: *See* Aerial May 2 *Ex Parte* Comments; VoiceStream June 15 *Ex
    Parte* Comments.

[^95]: In this Order, we generally refer to the acquiring company,
    VoiceStream, as the party in interest that now seeks reconsideration
    and a waiver. To avoid confusion, however, we refer to \"Aerial\" in
    citing pleadings and comments filed under that name.

[^96]: VoiceStream June 15 *Ex Parte* Comments at 3-4.

[^97]: Letter from Robert A. Calaff, Corporate Counsel, VoiceStream
    Wireless, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, July 31, 2000.
    (VoiceStream July 31 *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^98]: *Id.*

[^99]: *Id*.

[^100]: VoiceStream June 15 *Ex Parte* Comments at 2,4. VoiceStream
    indicates that E-OTD has been included as part of the GSM standard
    and has also been adopted as one standard method for position
    determination for forthcoming third generation (3G) wireless
    systems. *See* European Telecommunications Standards Institute
    (ETSI), TS V0.0.6 (2000-1), Digital cellular telecommunications
    system (Phase 2+); Location Services (LCS); Location Services
    Management (GSM 12.71 version 0.0.6), April 2000, at 73.

[^101]: VoiceStream June 15 *Ex Parte* Comments at 4.

[^102]: *Id*. at 4, 6. *See generally* VoiceStream August 9 *Ex Parte*
    Comments (presenting preliminary test results from an E-OTD trial
    conducted in Houston, Texas).

[^103]: *Id.* at 4, 15.

[^104]: Qualcomm argues that we are without legal authority to grant
    VoiceStream a waiver because it has not filed a formal waiver
    petition. *See* Letter from Dean R. Brenner, Attorney for Qualcomm,
    Incorporated, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated August
    22, 2000 at 4 (Qualcomm August 22 *Ex Parte* Letter). Because we
    have discretion to grant waivers on our own motion, we reject this
    argument. *See* 47 CFR §§ 1.3, 1.925(a). We emphasize, however, that
    requests for waiver made through the *ex parte* process are
    discouraged; parties seeking a waiver of the Commission's rules
    should, except in the unusual case, formally file a waiver request
    with the Commission pursuant to our rules of practice and procedure.
    *See generally,* 47 C.F.R. § 1.925.

[^105]: *See* Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market
    Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, *Fifth
    Report*, FCC 00-289, at Appendix B, Table 5 (released August 18,
    2000) (estimating that GSM is used to serve 12% of total U.S.
    digital mobile telephone subscribers).

[^106]: *See* FCC July 6 Meeting *Ex Parte* Summary at 6-7.

[^107]: Letter from Dean R. Brenner, Attorney for Qualcomm Inc., to
    Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, July 28, 2000 (Qualcomm July 28
    *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^108]: In fact, Motorola, Nokia, and Ericsson argue that the technology
    used in the European trials is not currently available for
    commercial use, nor presently suitable for wireless handset
    integration. *See* Letter from Mary Brooner, Motorola, Barbara
    Baffer, Ericsson, Inc., and Leo FitzSimon, Nokia, Inc. to Magalie
    Roman Salas, Secretary, FCC, dated August 18, 2000 (Motorola, Nokia
    and Ericsson August 18 *Ex Parte* Letter) at 2-3.

[^109]: VoiceStream June 15 *Ex Parte* Comments at 3.

[^110]: *Id.*

[^111]: *Id*. at 6; *see also* Cambridge Positioning Systems web site,
    [www.cursor-system.com](http://www.cursor-system.com/).

[^112]: VoiceStream June 15 *Ex Parte* Comments at 4.

[^113]: In its 1999 waiver petition, Aerial estimated that its hybrid
    solution would cost \$5 million to implement, compared with a
    network-based solution implementation cost of \$41 million. Aerial
    Waiver Petition at 2-3. These cost figures reflect Aerial\'s network
    prior to its acquisition by VoiceStream.

[^114]: VoiceStream June 15 *Ex Parte* Comments at 4, 12.

[^115]: *Id*. at 6, 15.

[^116]: At least one major handset manufacturer, Ericsson, has indicated
    that it may be able to provide E-OTD capable handsets for GSM
    systems towards the end of 2001. *See* FCC June 29 Meeting *Ex
    Parte* Summary at 4.

[^117]: USCC Request at 2.

[^118]: *Id*. at 1.

[^119]: *Id*. at 6-7.

[^120]: *Id*. at 8.

[^121]: USCC does not specify a procedural vehicle for considering and
    acting on its request. If considered a petition for reconsideration
    of the *E911 Third Report and Order*, the request would be untimely.
    *See* 47 U.S.C. § 405(a).

[^122]: USCC Request, Exhibit A, e-mail from Tom Dietrick, Ericsson.

[^123]: *Id.,* Exhibit B, e-mail from Mark H. Woolery, Audiovox.

[^124]: For example, part of USCC\'s network uses the CDMA air
    interface. As we discussed above, ALI-capable Qualcomm chipsets for
    CDMA handsets are scheduled to be available before October 1, 2001.

[^125]: USCC Request at 3-4, citing *E911 Third Report and Order*, 14
    FCC Rcd at 17400.

[^126]: USCC Request at 6. USCC suggests that the actual cost may be
    higher in order to address problems presented by cell sites in
    sparsely populated areas or in straight lines along highways.

[^127]: See para. 29, *supra*, for a discussion of vendor proposals to
    offer E911 location information to carrier for free, or through a
    service bureau approach.

[^128]: USCC Request at 6.

[^129]: USCC states that it has already received several statewide E911
    requests and expects similar requests from other state or local
    PSAPs but does not indicate what proportion of its cell sites would
    be affected by these requests. *Id.* at 5-6.

[^130]: *E911 Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17427. *See*
    Section 20.18(h) of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(h).

[^131]: GTE Comments at 2-3.

[^132]: *Id.*

[^133]: Nokia and Motorola Reply at 7.

[^134]: *Id*. at 7-8.

[^135]: *E911 Third Report and Order,* 14 FCC Rcd at 17428.

[^136]: Aerial Petition at 2-3.

[^137]: *Id.* at 3.

[^138]: PCIA Comments at 4-6.

[^139]: Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    RM-8143, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 9 FCC Rcd 6170, 6178-6179
    (1994).

[^140]: *E911 Second NPRM*, 11 FCC Rcd at 18743-18746.

[^141]: *E911 Reconsideration Order*, 12 FCC Rcd at 22724-22725 (1997).

[^142]: Public Notice, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Outlines
    Guidelines for Wireless E911 Rule Waivers for Handset-Based
    Approaches to Phase II Automatic Location Identification
    Requirements, 13 FCC Rcd 24609 (1998); Public Notice, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau Requests Targeted Comment on Wireless E911
    Phase II Automatic Location Identification Requirements, 14 FCC Rcd
    8858 (1999).

[^143]: *E911 Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17419, 17421.

[^144]: *Id*. at 17421.

[^145]: *See* Statement by the President Regarding the United States'
    Decision to Stop Degrading Global Positioning System Accuracy, May
    1, 2000, available at
    [http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov](http://www.pub.whitehouse.gov/).

[^146]: *See supra* paras. 51-68.

[^147]: Pub. L. No. 104-13.

[^148]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq.,*
    has been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of
    the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^149]: 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18764 (1996).

[^150]: 14 FCC Rcd 17388, 17438 (1999).

[^151]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^152]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(b)(3).

[^153]: *Id*. § 601(6).

[^154]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^155]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^156]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^157]: [U.S. Bureau of the Census]{.smallcaps}, [U.S. Dept. of
    Commerce, 1992 Economic Census]{.smallcaps}, Table 6 (special
    tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of the U.S.
    Small Business Administration).

[^158]: 47 C.F.R. §90.814(b)(1).