**Before the**

**[Federal Communications Commission]{.smallcaps}**

**Washington, D.C.**

In the Matter of )

)

Revision of the Commission\'s Rules ) CC Docket No. 94-102

To Ensure Compatibility with ) RM-8143

Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems )

**[Report and Order]{.smallcaps}**

**AND**

**[Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]{.smallcaps}**

**Adopted: June 12, 1996** **Released: July 26, 1996**

**Comment Date: August 26, 1996 Reply Date: September 10, 1996**

By the Commission: Commissioner Chong is issuing a statement.

**[Table of Contents]{.smallcaps}**

Paragraph

I. INTRODUCTION

II\. OVERVIEW

A. Value of 911 Services

1\. Overall Growth in Usage

2\. Reliance on 911 by Wireless Service Users

3\. Current Service Limitations; Commission Responsibilities

> B. Executive Summary of Commission Actions

1\. Report and Order

2\. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

III\. BACKGROUND OF PROCEEDING

A. Joint Paper; JEM Report

> B. Wireless E911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
>
> C. Consensus Agreement

IV\. DISCUSSION

> A. General 911 Service Requirements and Provisions

1\. 911 Availability Without Customer Validation

2\. 911 Access to Text Telephone Devices

B. Enhanced 911 Service Requirements and Provisions

1\. E911 Deployment Schedule

2\. Carriers and Services Required To Offer E911

3\. Cost Recovery

4\. Liability and Privacy Issues

5\. Preemption

6\. Equipment Manufacture, Importation, and Labelling

C. Specific E911 Technical and Other Issues

1\. Call Priority

> 2\. Grade of Service
>
> 3\. Common Channel Signalling

V. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

A. Background

B. Discussion

1\. Location Information Technology

2\. Access to 911 Service via Multiple Mobile Systems

C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

> D. Ex Parte

E. Comment Period

VI\. CONCLUSION

VII\. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION

VIII\. ORDERING CLAUSES

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A. List of Commenters and Abbreviations

APPENDIX B. I. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

II\. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

APPENDIX C. Final Rules

APPENDIX D. Tables

**I. INTRODUCTION**

1.   By our action today we are taking several important steps to foster
    major improvements in the quality and reliability of 911 services
    available to the customers of wireless telecommunications service
    providers. Our decisions in this Report and Order reflect our
    longstanding and continuing commitment to manage use of the
    electromagnetic spectrum in a manner that promotes the safety and
    welfare of all Americans. In addition, our Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking represents our desire to ensure continuity of
    our dedication to new and innovative 911 services by seeking comment
    on further refinements of our wireless 911 rules.

2.  

3.   The principal issue in this phase of the Docket 94-102 rulemaking
    proceeding[^1] involves the steps the Commission should take to
    optimize the delivery and processing of 911 calls and to prompt the
    accelerated delivery of enhanced wireless 911 features and functions
    to administrators of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), to
    assist them in responding to emergency calls for assistance. We
    believe that it is critically important that rigorous enhancement
    criteria be established, that firm target dates for implementation
    be set, and that reasonable cost recovery mechanisms be encouraged
    as a means of ensuring that implementation goals can be achieved.
    The actions we take in this Report and Order are designed to
    accomplish these objectives \-- we believe that we are taking
    reasonable and effective steps to promote cooperative efforts by
    state and local governments, PSAP administrators, wireless carriers,
    and equipment manufacturers that will lead to improved wireless 911
    services.

4.  

**II. OVERVIEW**

**A. [Value of 911 Services]{.underline}**

**1. Overall Growth in Usage**

1.   Dialing 911 is the most effective and familiar way the American
    public has of finding help in an emergency. Since it was first
    introduced in 1968, 911 service has spread across the Nation and
    become synonymous with emergency assistance. Nationwide, 95 million
    911 calls are made each year, or 260,000 every day.[^2] These calls
    are typically routed by local exchange carriers (LECs) to PSAPs
    staffed by professionals trained to assist callers in need of
    emergency assistance and to direct calls to police, fire, and health
    emergency response providers. The 911 systems in place today
    encourage those providing communications services and those
    providing emergency assistance to coordinate their efforts and
    facilities and work together, resulting in the saving of lives and
    property.[^3]

2.  

3.   In the basic form of 911, the attendant who receives the 911 call
    at the PSAP gathers all the necessary information about the nature
    and location of the emergency by questioning the caller. Over the
    last decade, most 911 systems and PSAPs have been upgraded to
    enhanced 911 (E911), which adds features that permit more efficient
    and speedy response by emergency service personnel. When a wireline
    911 call is placed in a region with E911 capability, the telephone
    number of the phone used for the call is typically passed to the LEC
    central office. A database, usually maintained by the LEC, is then
    used to selectively route the call to the most appropriate PSAP. In
    addition, the caller\'s telephone number and other useful
    information are transmitted to the PSAP along with the location of
    the telephone, based on LEC records.[^4]

4.  

5.   E911 saves lives and property by helping emergency services
    personnel do their jobs more quickly and efficiently. Automatic
    Location Identification (ALI) capability permits rapid response in
    situations where callers are disoriented, disabled, unable to speak,
    or do not know their location. In these situations, ALI permits the
    immediate dispatch of emergency assistance to the address of the
    wireline phone. ALI also reduces errors in reporting the location of
    the emergency and in forwarding accurate information to emergency
    personnel. Where telephone exchange boundaries extend into two or
    more PSAP jurisdictions, the ALI feature permits selective routing
    (SR) of calls to the appropriate PSAP for the identified location. A
    dispatcher at a PSAP with E911 capability can also call back in the
    event the call is disconnected. Currently, 89 percent of wireline
    phones in the United States are served by 911, and about 85 percent
    of 911 services include some form of E911.[^5]

6.  

**2. Reliance on 911 by Wireless Service Users**

1.   Although 911 was originally developed for wireline telephones,
    wireless customers place a large and increasing portion of 911
    calls. According to the Cellular Telecommunications Industry
    Association (CTIA), virtually all cellular carriers today provide
    basic 911 service or some close alternative. In 1994, almost 18
    million wireless calls were made to 911 and other public service
    numbers. The number of such calls is growing rapidly, spurred by the
    rapid growth in cellular subscribers. The total number of cellular
    subscribers in the United States currently exceeds 33 million, and
    9.6 million new subscribers were added in 1995 alone.[^6] The
    roll-out of broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS), now
    underway, will increase the number of mobile phones and wireless 911
    calls.[^7] With this growing popularity of mobile communications has
    come a recognition on the part of wireless customers that their
    phone provides them with a valuable communications link in
    emergencies. According to a recent survey, for example, 62 percent
    of cellular users cited safety and security as their main reason for
    purchasing a mobile phone.[^8]

2.  

3.   Wireless carriers currently provide access only to basic 911
    service, not to the advanced features of E911. The mobile nature of
    wireless technology creates complexities for providing even basic
    911 service. For example, a wireless 911 caller may not be a
    subscriber of the wireless provider with coverage in the area and
    therefore 911 calls may be blocked. Also, there may be technical
    reasons such as the use of different protocols that may lead to
    blocked 911 calls. Moreover, the nature of wireless technology and
    service presents significant obstacles to making E911 effective for
    wireless calls. For example, selective routing of calls to the
    appropriate PSAP is complicated by the fact that a cellular caller
    is often moving and the transmission may be received at more than
    one cell site. Automatically identifying the location of a wireless
    caller also presents new technological and policy issues.

4.  

**3. Current Service Limitations; Commission Responsibilities**

1.   One of the Commission\'s statutory mandates under the
    Communications Act is \`\`promoting safety of life and property
    through the use of wire and radio communication.\'\'[^9] Recognizing
    this responsibility, the Commission has expressed increasing concern
    regarding the inability of wireless customers to benefit from the
    advanced emergency capabilities of E911 systems that are available
    to most wireline customers. In developing rules for broadband PCS,
    we urged industry and standards-setting bodies to direct particular
    attention to E911 access, including, to the extent feasible,
    automatic location of callers.[^10] We recognized that the health
    and safety of citizens would be affected by whether broadband PCS
    carriers are capable of providing E911 access that is equivalent to
    access provided to wireline customers. While we declined to delay
    the introduction of broadband PCS service until E911 issues had been
    resolved, we stated our intention to initiate a proceeding to
    address E911 and related issues with regard to broadband PCS,
    cellular, and any other relevant mobile service.[^11]

2.  

3.   The *Notice* in this docket began that endeavor. In adopting this
    Report and Order, we are promulgating requirements and establishing
    a framework to improve wireless 911 services. We believe that these
    actions will result in the deployment of technologies that will help
    speed the delivery of assistance to people in need of help in
    emergency situations. It is important, however, to acknowledge what
    we are *not* able to achieve in this Order. We recognize that
    expanding the availability and increasing the reliability of
    wireless 911 service depend upon more than actions that we are able
    to take at this time.

4.  

> The implementation of E911 service will require a separate decisional
> process by many state and local public safety organizations to invest
> in facility and equipment upgrades to be able to receive E911 call
> location information.
>
> Proper incentives should be developed to encourage wireless service
> providers to transition to improved and more extensive network
> technology and infrastructures in order to provide more reliable 911
> service coverage over wider geographic areas. We must ensure that
> reasonable requirements and incentives are in place to facilitate the
> application of this technology to improve wireless 911 services. For
> example, we need to explore further the steps that can be taken to
> improve upon the ALI specifications we are adopting in this Order.
>
> Solutions to wireless service interoperability should be pursued in
> order to reduce current limitations on the ability of callers to
> switch from one provider\'s network to another as the caller roams
> between wireless systems.
>
> We need to explore further the steps that can be taken to improve upon
> the ALI specifications we are adopting in this Order. As technology
> leads to the development of cost effective location systems that can
> improve upon the accuracy and reliability standards we are adopting,
> we must ensure that reasonable requirements and incentives are in
> place to facilitate the application of this technology to improve
> wireless 911 services.

We need to explore further means of improving consumer education so that
users of wireless services will be able to determine rationally and
accurately the scope of their options in accessing 911 services from
mobile handsets.

These are some of the goals that the Commission, state and local
governments, the wireless industry, and PSAP organizations should strive
to achieve during the five-year period for implementing enhancements to
wireless 911 services. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking we are
adopting today will serve as one means for the pursuit of these goals.
One of our principal objectives is to make sure that ongoing processes
are in place that will make technological advances available to 911
service providers, and that will give PSAP administrators the means to
acquire and utilize these new technologies. Such a process will ensure
that users of wireless services will receive effective and reliable 911
services.

**B. [Executive Summary of Commission Actions]{.underline}**

**1. Report and Order**

1.    In this proceeding, we adopt several requirements pursuant to our
    authority under Sections 301 and 303(r) of the Communications Act,
    and make them applicable to all cellular licensees, broadband PCS
    licensees, and certain Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees (as
    defined in Section IV.B.2, *infra*). These classes of licensees are
    hereafter referred to as \`\`covered carriers.\'\' Certain other SMR
    licensees and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) carriers are exempt
    from our requirements. The requirements we adopt in this Report and
    Order are as follows:

2.  

> Not later than 12 months after the effective date of the rules adopted
> in this proceeding, covered carriers must process and transmit to any
> appropriate PSAPs all 911 calls made from wireless mobile handsets
> which transmit a code identification,[^12] including calls initiated
> by roamers. The processing and transmission of such calls shall not be
> subject to any user validation or similar procedure that otherwise may
> be invoked by the covered carrier.
>
> In the case of 911 calls made from wireless mobile handsets that do
> not transmit a code identification, not later than 12 months after the
> effective date of the rules adopted in this proceeding, covered
> carriers must process and transmit such calls to any appropriate PSAP
> which previously has issued a formal instruction to the carrier
> involved that the PSAP desires to receive such calls from the carrier.
>
> Not later than 12 months after the effective date of the rules adopted
> in this proceeding, covered carriers must be capable of transmitting
> calls by individuals with speech or hearing disabilities through
> devices used in conjunction with or as a substitute for traditional
> wireless mobile handsets, *e.g.,* through the use of Text Telephone
> Devices (TTY) to local 911 services.
>
> The implementation and deployment of enhanced 911 features and
> functions will be accomplished in two phases. Under Phase I, not later
> than 12 months after the effective date of the rules adopted in this
> proceeding, covered carriers must have initiated the actions necessary
> to enable them to relay a caller\'s Automatic Number Identification
> (ANI) and the location of the base station or cell site receiving a
> 911 call to the designated PSAP. Not later than 18 months after the
> effective date of the rules adopted in this Order, such carriers must
> have completed these actions. These capabilities will allow the PSAP
> attendant to call back if the 911 call is disconnected.
>
> Under Phase II, not later than five years after the effective date of
> the rules adopted in this proceeding, covered carriers are required to
> achieve the capability to identify the latitude and longitude of a
> mobile unit making a 911 call, within a radius of no more than 125
> meters in 67 percent of all cases.

1.   We also provide that the E911 (Phase I and Phase II) requirements
    imposed upon covered carriers by our actions in this Order shall
    apply only if (1) a carrier receives a request for such E911
    services from the administrator of a PSAP that is capable of
    receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the
    services; and (2) a mechanism for the recovery of costs relating to
    the provision of such services is in place. If the carrier receives
    a request less than 6 months before the implementation dates of
    Phase I and Phase II, then it must comply with the Phase I and Phase
    II requirements within 6 months after the receipt of the notice
    specifying the request.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.    Covered carriers, in coordination with the public safety
    organizations, are directed to resolve certain E911 implementation
    issues, including grade of service and interface standards, through
    industry consensus in conjunction with standard-setting bodies. This
    Commission intends to remain actively involved, as appropriate, to
    ensure resolution of issues necessary to prompt widespread
    availability of E911 service.

2.  

**2. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking**

1.   The E911 system requirements we are establishing in this Order are
    a first step toward our goal of improving the availability and
    quality of 911 service. In view of the Nation\'s important public
    safety needs, we find a compelling public interest in taking steps
    to ensure that E911 system performance keeps pace with the latest
    technologies. Therefore, we are also issuing a Further Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking to develop additional means of ensuring that
    improvements made possible by technological advances are
    incorporated into E911 systems.

2.  

3.   In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we tentatively
    conclude and request comment as follows:

4.  

> We seek comment on possible approaches to avoid customer confusion
> that could be generated by a system under which customers in the same
> geographic area may or may not be able to complete non-code
> identification[^13] 911 calls depending upon the practices of the
> various PSAPs serving that area. Specifically, we request comment
> regarding whether, within a reasonable time after the one-year period,
> PSAPs should no longer have the option to refuse to accept non-code
> identification 911 calls. Thus, covered carriers would be obligated to
> transmit all 911 calls to PSAPs.
>
> We tentatively conclude that covered carriers should continue to
> upgrade and improve 911 service to increase its accuracy,
> availability, and reliability, while also recognizing that our rules
> should ensure that covered carriers\' development and application of
> new technologies for E911 services also contribute to the overall
> quality of service and range of services that carriers provide to all
> their customers. These efforts will ensure that the public benefits
> from technological innovations, through the application of those
> innovations to public safety needs.
>
> We seek comment on a range of related issues, including the following:
> (1) Should covered carriers provide PSAPs information that locates a
> wireless 911 caller within a radius of 40 feet, using longitude,
> latitude, and altitude data, and that provides this degree of accuracy
> for 90 percent of the 911 calls processed? (2) Should wireless service
> providers be required to supply location information to the PSAP
> regarding a 911 caller within a certain number of seconds after the
> 911 call is made? (3) Should wireless service providers be required to
> update this location information throughout the duration of the call?
> (4) What steps could be taken to enable 911 calls to be completed or
> serviced by mobile radio systems regardless of the availability (in
> the geographic area in which a mobile user seeks to place a 911 call)
> of the system or technology utilized by the user\'s wireless service?

We also tentatively conclude that a consumer education program should be
initiated to inform the public of the capabilities and limitations of
911 service, and we seek comment regarding the scope of such a program
and carrier obligations that could be established in connection with
such a program. One purpose of such a program would be to address a
concern that consumers currently may not have a sufficient understanding
of technological limitations that can impede transmission of wireless
911 calls and the delivery of emergency assistance.

**III. BACKGROUND OF PROCEEDING**

**A. [Joint Paper; JEM Report]{.underline}**

1.   Public safety organizations and the wireless telecommunications
    industry have both recognized the limitations that the unique
    characteristics of wireless communications impose on current
    emergency service systems, and have been exploring paths to deliver
    E911 to wireless customers. On June 30, 1994, the Association of
    Public-Safety Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO),
    the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the National
    Association of State Nine One One Administrators (NASNA), and the
    Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) issued an
    \`\`Emergency Access Position Paper\'\' (Joint Paper), which they
    filed as an *ex parte* comment in the PCS proceeding. In July 1994,
    representatives of the wireless telecommunications community and the
    emergency service and public safety community undertook a joint
    examination of the issues related to wireless support of 911.

2.  

3.   The two communities convened a Joint Experts Meeting (JEM) in
    October 1994, including representatives of communications, public
    safety, satellite, Specialized Mobile Radio, and intelligent vehicle
    highway system (IVHS) industries, as well as vendors to these
    industries. The outcome of this meeting was a JEM Report that
    included a prioritized list of PSAP service requirements, the
    mapping of emergency services features to evolutionary paths showing
    which features need to be upgraded, identification of information
    elements transferred between the wireless system and the emergency
    service system, and the identification of radio location techniques
    that may provide wireless ALI. The JEM meeting and report, however,
    did not produce wireless E911 standards or any firm plan or schedule
    for implementing wireless E911.

4.  

5.  **B. [Wireless E911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking]{.underline}**

6.  

7.   In the *Notice*, we stated our belief \`\`that Commission action is
    necessary to ensure that, over time, mobile radio service users on
    the public switched telephone network have the same level of access
    to 911 emergency services as wireline callers.\'\'[^14] We thus
    proposed to require that mobile radio transmitters supplied to
    wireless customers provide the same level of access to 911 emergency
    services as is available to wireline customers.[^15] We did not
    anticipate adopting extensive technical standards for E911 operation
    \-- a task for which standards-setting committees are better
    equipped \-- but proposed that general performance criteria be
    adopted.[^16]

8.  

9.   With respect to the most crucial E911 feature, the ability to
    report the caller\'s location to the PSAP, we tentatively concluded
    that ALI should be implemented by wireless carriers in three steps
    over five years:

10. 

> We proposed that wireless carriers would be required to design their
> systems so that the location of the base station or cell site
> receiving a 911 call from a mobile unit would be relayed to the PSAP.
> This requirement would take effect within one year after the effective
> date of the Order adopting rules in this proceeding.
>
> Within three years, the wireless service provider would be required to
> include an estimate of the approximate location and distance of the
> mobile unit from the receiving base station or cell site.
>
> After five years, the location of the mobile unit would be identified
> within three dimensions, within a radius of no more than 125 meters.
> We reasoned that this information should enable the PSAP to assist
> emergency service personnel by providing a relatively precise location
> for a wireless 911 caller.[^17]

1.   We also discussed and sought comment on a range of other issues,
    principally issues that must be resolved in order to implement the
    wireless E911 capabilities identified as essential by the wireless
    industry and public safety groups. These issues are summarized in
    Table A in Appendix D.

2.  

3.   In response to the *Notice*, over 110 parties filed comments and
    reply comments regarding the wireless 911 issues, including wireless
    service providers, public safety organizations, equipment
    manufacturers, and others.[^18] In addition, a Petition for
    Rulemaking was filed on October 27, 1995, by the Ad Hoc Alliance for
    Public Access to 911 (Alliance) requesting that 911 access be
    provided to any cellular phone, regardless of whether it is listed
    as a cellular carrier\'s subscriber, and that mobile handsets be
    equipped to select and use the channel with the strongest cellular
    signal whenever a 911 call is placed . On November 13, 1995, the
    Commission sought comment regarding this Petition.[^19] In response
    to our Public Notice, eight comments and one set of reply comments
    were filed.

4.  

5.  **C. [Consensus Agreement]{.underline}**

6.  

7.   In the initial comment round, the wireless industry and
    representatives of public safety organizations generally supported
    the goals of the *Notice*, including the benefits and importance of
    deploying wireless E911 capability. Broadly speaking, the industry
    and public safety groups differed principally with regard to the
    schedule for E911 deployment and the need for Federal regulation.
    The public safety community supported the proposed mandatory
    five-year schedule for full E911 implementation by wireless
    carriers.[^20] The wireless carriers, on the other hand, generally
    opposed a fixed schedule.[^21]

8.  

9.    On February 12, 1996, after the comment cycle had closed, a
    Consensus Agreement on some of the issues in this proceeding was
    filed with the Commission by the Cellular Telecommunications
    Industry Association (CTIA), a trade association representing
    certain wireless industry participants (including service providers,
    manufacturers, and others) and three national public safety
    organizations \-- APCO, NENA, and NASNA. The Commission sought
    comment regarding the Consensus Agreement,[^22] and 17 comments and
    14 reply comments were filed.

10. 

11.  The Consensus Agreement proposes a two-step implementation schedule
    for wireless E911. In Phase I, within 12 (according to the public
    safety signatories) or 18 months (according to CTIA) after the
    adoption of a Commission Order,[^23] the Agreement proposes
    implementation of cell site information, calling party Automatic
    Number Identification (ANI), 911 availability from any service
    initiated mobile handset that is subscribed to the wireless carriers
    on whose system the call is made, 911 access for speech and
    hearing-impaired callers using TTY devices, and call-back
    capability. Under Phase II, within five years, the Consensus
    Agreement proposes to require deployment of ALI for wireless callers
    in two dimensions, latitude and longitude, within 125 meters Root
    Mean Square (RMS), of the call\'s origination. In addition, the
    Consensus Agreement provides that \`\`\[i\]n moving to Phase II, a
    cost recovery mechanism is needed to fund both carrier (wireless and
    wireline) and PSAP investment in E911 technology and 911 cost of
    service.\'\'[^24] The parties request the Commission: (1) to declare
    that state and local 911 fees and taxes are not barred as a matter
    of law and that such fees and taxes should not discriminate between
    wireline and wireless carriers involved in delivery of 911 services;
    and (2) to resolve carrier and public safety legal liability issues.
    The Consensus Agreement also suggests consumer education rather than
    equipment labelling to inform customers regarding wireless
    compatibility with E911 features. The Consensus Agreement is
    summarized in Table B in Appendix D.

12. 

**IV. DISCUSSION**

**A. [General 911 Service Requirements and Provisions]{.underline}**

**1. 911 Availability Without Customer Validation**

**a. Background, Pleadings, and Consensus Agreement**

1.   Adopting the Joint Paper\'s recommendations, the *Notice* proposed
    that, within one year after the effective date of rules adopted in
    this proceeding, a user must have the ability to reach emergency
    services from any service initialized mobile radio handset in a home
    service area, or when roaming, by dialing only 911, and that such
    911 access should be available without a requirement for user
    validation. The *Notice* defined \`\`service initialization\'\' to
    mean that a \`\`user has purchased services from a wireless service
    provider.\'\' We asked commenters to describe the current status of
    these capabilities provided by wireless services, and the technical
    challenges for implementing these features. Specifically, commenters
    were asked to address the application of this feature to mobile
    radio handsets used on a \`\`roaming basis\'\' or outside a mobile
    radio service provider\'s roaming area. We also sought comment on
    the ability of licensees and equipment manufacturers to implement
    the features in the proposed time frame.[^25]

2.  

3.   Most of the wireless industry supported our proposal, although many
    suggested that it be required only where handsets are in proper
    working condition and that the public safety 911 infrastructure is
    available in the service area.[^26] Commenters in general agreed
    with the proposal that mobile subscribers be permitted to reach 911
    without dialing additional digits, with some commenters pointing out
    that cellular customers may need to press the
    \`\`[send]{.smallcaps}\'\' key.[^27] While several commenters
    accepted \`\`service initialization\'\' as a reasonable limitation
    for 911 access,[^28] other commenters urged the Commission to
    eliminate the \`\`service initialization\'\' requirement.[^29] IAFC
    and IMSA, for example, urged the Commission to require that a host
    cellular provider process 911 calls from roamers without any need
    for PIN codes or \`\`service initialization.\'\'[^30] In addition,
    Alliance argued that 911 calls should be made available for
    non-subscribers and that cellular telephones should be able to
    access the stronger of the two available signals in a market
    area.[^31] Moreover, Motorola contended that a service initialized
    mobile unit is indistinguishable from a non-service initialized
    mobile unit unless the \`\`user validation\'\' process distinguishes
    between them, and that the Commission must balance the objectives of
    not employing validation for roamer calls and employing user
    validation for non-roamer calls.[^32]

4.  

5.   In its Petition for Rulemaking, Alliance requested that the
    Commission amend Section 22.911(b) of the Commission\'s Rules to
    require cellular carriers promptly to connect all 911 calls without
    precondition. Alliance contended that the Commission should require
    the provision of unrestricted access in order to mitigate against
    the loss of life and the harmful effects of delays in treating
    serious illness and injuries.[^33] It also proposed that Section
    22.933 of the Commission\'s Rules be amended to require that all
    newly constructed mobile and portable stations be equipped to scan
    all of the control cellular telephone channels assigned to both
    System A and to System B, and to select and use the channel with the
    strongest signal whenever a 911 call is placed.[^34] All of the
    commenters urged the Commission to deny Alliance\'s proposals.[^35]
    For example, AT&T expressed concern regarding the imposition of
    additional costs on subscribers that could result from a requirement
    to transmit 911 calls from non-subscribers.[^36]

6.  

7.   The Consensus Agreement agrees with the *Notice*\'s proposal
    regarding 911 availability without further discussion.[^37] Some of
    the parties commenting regarding the Consensus Agreement once again
    raise the \`\`service initialization\'\' requirement issue.
    Reiterating its arguments in the initial comments and in its
    Petition for Rulemaking, Alliance argues that public safety groups
    have been misled into signing the agreement, because it would block
    emergency calls to unauthorized roamers.[^38] In its reply comments,
    Alliance proposes that cellular carriers should be required to
    connect any 911 call from any mobile handset with a unique Mobile
    Identification Number (MIN).[^39] Alliance also states that it
    conducted a test in California in February 1996 which showed that
    significant areas in and around major cities could not be reached on
    the signal of one of the cellular licensees in those areas. In its
    view, this test proved its prior point that cellular phones must
    have the capability of selecting the strongest signal.[^40] Scott
    Hong argues that a caller should have the ability to reach emergency
    services from any mobile radio handset regardless of its service
    initialization, on the grounds that many service initialized
    cellular phones become inactive and that the threat of prank calls
    is insignificant compared to the problem of the ever-increasing
    number of inactive cellular phones which may not be used to contact
    emergency services.[^41]

8.  

9.   Vanguard claims that as a policy matter it transmits 911 calls from
    any caller in Vanguard\'s territory with an activated cellular phone
    even when Vanguard has terminated the caller for non-payment or when
    a roamer\'s underlying carrier is delinquent in its account.[^42]
    Vanguard distinguishes its practices of transmitting 911 from
    Alliance\'s initial request for unrestricted access to 911.[^43]
    BellSouth states that Alliance\'s request for unconditional
    processing of 911 calls would create the potential for fraudulent
    and prank calls which could not be traced by the police.[^44] GTE
    contends that a wireless carrier cannot handle emergency calls where
    911 service is not provided or where it has not built out its
    network in accordance with its license requirements.[^45]

**b. Discussion**

1.   Based on our review of the record and our analysis, we conclude
    that, not later than 12 months after the effective date of the rules
    adopted in this proceeding, covered carriers must transmit to the
    appropriate PSAP all 911 calls from wireless mobile handsets which
    transmit a code identification, without requiring any user
    validation or similar procedure. We further conclude that, beginning
    not later than 12 months after the effective date of the rules
    adopted in this proceeding, covered carriers must transmit calls
    from wireless mobile handsets which do not transmit a code
    identification to any appropriate PSAP which has formally requested
    transmission of such calls. If a covered carrier does not receive
    such a request from a PSAP before the end of the six-month period
    following the effective date of these rules, then the covered
    carrier will have six months from the date it receives a formal
    request from a PSAP to transmit 911 calls from handsets that do not
    transmit a code identification.

2.  

3.    In the *Notice,* we proposed to require carriers to forward to
    PSAPs automatically (*i.e.,* without user validation) all 911 calls
    made from \`\`service initialized\'\' handsets. We defined that term
    to include two kinds of users: (1) all of a carrier\'s subscribers
    in its home service area; and (2) all users authorized to roam on
    that carrier\'s network.[^46] Upon reviewing the record, we conclude
    that the proposed requirement is defined too narrowly. If adopted,
    it would unreasonably prevent a significant number of wireless
    customers from accessing 911 service and also would result in
    unwarranted customer confusion.

4.  

5.   We agree with Alliance and other public safety organizations[^47]
    that there are significant public interest benefits to making it
    easier for individuals to place wireless 911 calls in
    emergencies.[^48] We also conclude that user validation requirements
    harm the public interest because, by necessarily delaying call
    processing, they inhibit users\' ability to make 911 calls in a
    timely manner. Such delay may not be substantial if, as the rule
    proposed in the *Notice* implicitly presumes, validation information
    about a large percentage of 911 callers is readily available in
    every instance. Such information *is* available if a carrier
    receives a 911 call from a person in one of the two groups covered
    by the rule proposed in the *Notice* \-- *i.e.,* from one of its own
    subscribers, or from subscribers of other carriers with whom it has
    roaming agreements and shares roaming databases. In such situations,
    validation information typically is provided automatically by
    reference to these databases.

6.  

7.   The universe of potential 911 callers, however, is somewhat larger
    than these two groups. It includes, for instance, subscribers of
    carriers with whom a particular carrier does not have a roaming
    agreement. Put another way, subscribers cannot be certain where they
    can place a 911 call unless they know the nature and extent of their
    home system\'s roaming agreements with other carriers. Where no such
    agreement exists, validation can be a long and cumbersome process.
    Users typically are required to supply credit card information,
    which must in turn be validated. The resulting call processing delay
    can be lengthy. Errors or other problems that occur during the
    validation process can further delay or block wireless 911 call
    processing. The result is a dangerous deferral of the 911 assistance
    process, and, effectively, the denial of such assistance in some
    instances. For example, any requirement that a caller supply a
    credit instrument in order to place a 911 call effectively places
    such calling capability beyond the reach of children, who do not
    typically possess such instruments, and others in emergencies who
    may not have access to that information. The safety of lives and
    property in emergency situations should not hinge on whether a
    person is carrying a valid credit card. For that reason, we will
    require wireless service providers to transmit 911 calls from all
    handsets which transmit code identifications.

8.  

9.    Thus, we are broadening the requirement to ensure that any person
    who attempts to place a 911 call through the facilities of a covered
    carrier will not be subject to any validation or similar
    carrier-initiated procedures that could result in a delay in the
    delivery of the 911 call to a PSAP. We accomplish this objective by
    requiring covered carriers to forward to PSAPs automatically all 911
    calls from handsets that transmit a code identification. We note,
    however, that a covered carrier is required to forward to PSAPs only
    those calls from mobile units that transmit using an air interface
    protocol compatible with that used by the covered carrier\'s
    system.[^49]

10. 

11.   We have used the presence of a code identification in the signal
    transmitted by a mobile unit as the determining factor in requiring
    that the carrier immediately transmit the 911 call to a PSAP,
    without any further processing or validation by the carrier, for the
    following reasons. First, using the code identification as the
    triggering factor ensures that 911 calls will be routed to PSAPs
    with the minimum amount of delay. Carrier switches will screen
    incoming calls from mobile units, determine whether a code
    identification is present, and then (if such a code is present)
    immediately route the call to a PSAP without any further call
    screening. This prevention of delay, of course, is critically
    important in protecting the safety of lives and property in
    emergency situations.

12. 

13.   Second, this approach ensures that virtually all subscribing
    customers \-- including roamers \-- will be able to place and
    complete 911 calls easily in emergencies, thus meeting one of our
    principal objectives in this rulemaking. Finally, using the presence
    of a code identification as the triggering factor may provide PSAPs
    with some basic information about the calling party, after carriers
    and PSAPs implement the first phase of E911. This will be useful,
    for example, in enabling PSAPs, in some cases, to call back the
    person seeking emergency assistance if the person\'s 911 call is
    disconnected.

14. 

15.   We acknowledge that, since a handset programmed with a code
    identification could be in the possession of a person who is not a
    current subscriber to any wireless service, our requirement that
    carriers must transmit all 911 calls made from code identification
    handsets could result in the transmission of some 911 calls placed
    by non-subscribers. We do not view the possibility of such
    non-subscriber calls as a sufficient basis for us to modify or to
    refrain from imposing the requirement. As we have already explained,
    our requirement ensures that 911 calls from all subscribers and
    roamers will be transmitted, without the potential of delay
    resulting from the validation process. This objective would be
    seriously compromised if we permitted carriers to validate all 911
    calls for purposes of screening out calls from non-subscribers. We
    understand that, at present, there is no technical way to
    differentiate between subscribers and non-subscribers placing a 911
    call without invoking authentication and validation procedures.[^50]
    Given our belief that such procedures could unreasonably delay or
    prevent some 911 calls from being completed, we find that the public
    interest is best served by allowing all handsets with a code
    identification, both service-initialized and
    non-service-initialized, to make 911 calls. Moreover, if carriers
    prefer to limit the universe of non-subscribers they serve with
    respect to the transmission of 911 calls, then they may seek to
    follow practices to achieve this goal, such as modifying marketing
    techniques under which wireless phones with pre-programmed code
    identification numbers are available through retail merchandise
    outlets.[^51]

16. 

17.  In addition, if the PSAP Administrator requests that all 911 calls
    be forwarded from mobile handsets, we require covered carriers to
    automatically forward 911 calls from all handsets regardless of
    whether the handset has a code identification. We believe a strong
    case can be made for a requirement that carriers automatically
    forward *all* 911 calls to PSAPs, without any intervening
    validation, including cases in which the 911 call originates from a
    handset that does not have a code identification. The ability of
    non-subscribers to place 911 calls from code identification handsets
    could be of critical importance in emergency situations. We are not
    persuaded by arguments that such a requirement would impose an
    unfair regulatory burden on wireless providers relative to wireline
    carriers.[^52] Moreover, our concerns regarding the risk of such a
    burden are mitigated by the fact that several major wireless
    carriers have been processing 911 calls without a validation
    requirement.[^53] Further, for purposes of comparing 911 service
    burdens of wireline and wireless carriers, we believe that a pay
    telephone is the closest wireline analogy to a wireless handset, in
    terms of offering a capability of accessing 911 service while the
    user is away from his or her home or office. Users of pay phones are
    able to place 911 calls without any charge in many states as a
    result of state and local regulation.[^54] Against this background,
    our rules regarding treatment of 911 calls originating on wireless
    networks does not appear to place wireless providers at a
    competitive disadvantage. We will, however, carefully monitor this
    situation and will be receptive to a petition seeking a change in
    our rules should our assumption prove incorrect.

18. 

19.  At the same time, we recognize that there are disadvantages
    associated with requiring all 911 calls to be processed without
    regard to evidence that a call is emanating from an authorized user
    of *some* CMRS provider. Several carriers contend, for example, that
    placing 911 calls from handsets without a code identification has
    significant drawbacks, including the fact that ANI and call back
    features may not be usable, and hoax and false alarm calls may be
    facilitated.[^55] According to these parties, call processing in
    such instances may interfere with the ability of public safety
    organizations to respond quickly to emergency situations. We note
    that public safety organizations are, in the final analysis, in the
    best position to determine whether acceptance of calls from handsets
    without a code identification helps or hinders their efforts to
    preserve and promote health and safety in their communities.

20. 

21.  As a result, we believe that the decision as to whether to accept
    all calls from handsets to which no code identification has been
    assigned by a wireless service provider should reside at this time
    with the public safety organization administering the PSAP. Thus, at
    this time we will not require covered carriers to transmit non-code
    identification 911 calls to a PSAP unless the receipt of such calls
    is requested by a PSAP Administrator. Where a PSAP does make a
    request and is capable of receiving and utilizing the data elements
    associated with the service, covered carriers shall be required to
    transmit to the PSAP all non-code identification 911 calls that are
    received by the carrier\'s processing and transmission facilities.

22.  We recognize that in certain jurisdictions carriers may be
    providing 911 to several PSAPs from the same switch. We find,
    however, that this circumstance should not be an obstacle to
    implementing the choice of PSAP Administrators to receive non-code
    identification 911 calls. First, we understand that current
    technology enables carrier switches selectively to transmit non-code
    identification 911 calls to some PSAPs and not to other PSAPs that
    receive calls routed from the same switch. Second, even in cases in
    which such switches have not been deployed, we believe that any
    complications caused by sharing a switch by PSAPs can be minimized
    by cooperation among PSAP Administrators in the geographic area
    involved to coordinate their decisions whether to receive non-code
    identification 911 calls. We note that public safety organizations
    have successfully cooperated on other issues[^56] and we encourage
    them to continue these cooperative efforts for purposes of
    coordinating the receipt of code identification calls and non-code
    identification 911 calls.

23. 

24.   Some commenters requested clarification whether we intend to
    require that locked phones transmit 911 calls.[^57] We understand
    that wireless service providers and customers have tried to control
    fraud problems by using PIN numbers or locked-in features. For
    example, wireless carriers often use \`\`PIN\'\' fraud control
    offerings, which are switch-based, not handset-based.[^58] In
    addition, most handsets can be locked by the subscriber, who can
    then unlock the phone by dialing a three- or four-digit code to
    prevent unauthorized use of a cellular phone. While we recognize the
    need to control fraud in ordinary wireless calls, we believe that
    the benefit of allowing 911 calls to override a PIN system outweigh
    the cost associated with such requirements, because it is critical
    to pass 911 calls immediately in emergencies.

25. 

26.   Although some carriers currently allow 911 calls to override the
    switch-based fraud protection system, there is insufficient
    information in the record to determine whether it is a universal
    practice by all wireless service providers. Because of the potential
    harm of requiring a PIN in emergency situations, we have decided to
    require covered carriers to permit dialing 911 to override the
    switch-based \`\`PIN\'\' numbers created by them. We also note that
    the Joint Paper and the JEM Report have identified the ability to
    transmit 911 calls from a subscriber locked phone to be a desired
    requirement.[^59] Therefore, covered carriers are directed to make
    good faith efforts with manufacturers to ensure that, with respect
    to handsets manufactured in the future, these handsets are capable
    of overriding subscriber-programmed locking mechanisms and
    transmitting 911 calls.

27. 

28.  Regarding a dialing standard for placing a 911 call, we agree with
    GTE that we should not adopt a rule requiring any particular dialing
    pattern for 911 access.[^60] Although several commenters asked us to
    clarify that access to emergency personnel should be available by
    dialing \`\`9-1-1\'\' plus \`\`[send]{.smallcaps}\'\' key,[^61] we
    recognize that some wireless handsets in use today do not have a
    \`\`[send]{.smallcaps}\'\' key.[^62] Therefore, we require that 911
    calls be available to all callers in a manner contemplated by the
    type of handset the customer uses.

29. 

30.  With respect to the proposal made by Alliance that cellular phones
    must have the capability of selecting the strongest signal from
    either the A or the B carrier, we find that there is not a
    sufficient record to assess the proposal at this time. While all of
    the commenters to the Alliance petition urged denial of the proposal
    due to technical infeasibility and other equitable concerns,[^63]
    the Alliance reiterates its argument that selection of the strongest
    signal in emergency situations is of critical importance to the
    public.[^64] Because of the questions that have been raised with
    respect to its feasibility, we decline to adopt the rule recommended
    by the Alliance petition to the extent that it proposes to mandate
    the cellular handset to select the strongest signal whenever a
    cellular 911 call is placed. We note, however, that certain test
    results accompanying the Alliance reply comments may merit further
    examination of this issue.[^65] Finally, we understand that a MIN is
    a telephone number assigned by the wireless service provider to its
    subscribers as part of the North American Numbering Plan. The North
    American Numbering Plan currently does not allow equipment
    manufacturers to obtain numbers in order to designate a unique MIN.
    Also, such an arrangement would interfere with the carrier\'s
    ability to assign numbers. Therefore, we do not agree with
    Alliance\'s proposal that the manufacturer assign unique MINs to
    mobile handsets.

31. 

32.  We also recognize that there will be certain limitations to the
    requirement that all 911 calls be transmitted. Wireless mobile
    access to 911 will be limited, depending on the availability of 911
    service in the geographic area. Moreover, the unique characteristics
    of wireless mobile services might preclude access in particular
    circumstances. Therefore, we have decided to seek further comment on
    the issue of how to increase the availability of wireless 911
    communications in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

33. 

34.  As we have noted,[^66] we are requiring that cost recovery
    mechanisms must be in place as a prerequisite to the imposition of
    enhanced 911 service requirements upon covered carriers. We note,
    however, that we are not adopting such a requirement as a
    prerequisite to compliance by covered carriers with the requirements
    we adopt in this section regarding the transmission of 911 calls
    with code identification numbers and non-code identification 911
    calls. We recognize, however, that the establishment of regulatory
    requirements, especially regarding provision of basic 911 service to
    non-subscribers, might result in a carrier incurring additional
    costs related to the provision of such service to non-subscribers
    that may have a negative effect on levels of service and overall
    competition. Thus, a carrier may seek reimbursement, for its
    reasonable costs to provide basic 911 service to non-subscribers, at
    the state and local level. If any disputes arise in connection with
    recovery of these costs, the carrier may petition the Commission for
    relief.

35. 

36. **2. 911 Access to Text Telephone Devices**

37. 

38. **a. Background, Pleadings, and Consensus Agreement**

39. 

40.  Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires
    access to state and local government services, such as 911, to
    people with hearing and speech disabilities on a non-discriminatory
    basis.[^67] Further, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires
    manufacturers of telecommunications equipment or providers of
    telecommunications services to ensure that the equipment or services
    are accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities, if
    readily achievable.[^68] In the *Notice,* we proposed that, within
    one year of the effective date of the Order adopting rules in this
    proceeding, radio services must be capable of permitting access by
    individuals with speech or hearing disabilities through means other
    than mobile radio handsets, *e.g.,* through the use of a TTY device.
    We sought comment on how to ensure access to 911 service by TTY-type
    devices that use wireless services, and requested comment on the
    specific additional features, costs, and feasibility issues that may
    be relevant to achieving compatibility.[^69]

41. 

42.  Most commenters agreed with our proposal that TTY devices should be
    available to assist hearing and speech impaired 911 callers who use
    wireless services.[^70] Some commenters urged the Commission to
    ensure that the advantages of E911 are available equally to all
    callers, including TTY users, as a matter of safety and security.
    For example, TDI maintained that TTY users need assurance that they
    will have the benefit of ALI and ANI or at minimum ANI in locations
    where fully enhanced 911 calling systems exist.[^71] In order to
    achieve functionally equivalent access of TTY users to the 911
    emergency system, TDI suggested that Commission regulations should
    include: (1) speed in transmission of text; (2) the ability to
    interrupt and inject a point or question where dialogues are
    emergency personnel-centered; and (3) voice-carry-over (VCO) and
    hearing-carry-over (HCO) systems.[^72] TDI also noted that if the
    mobile radio telephone industry could be required to offer units
    with an RJ11 jack for direct input, that would be of value to TTY
    users who currently have limited use of cellular phones due to the
    configuration, size and volume level of many of these phones in
    relation to TTY acoustic cups.[^73]

43. 

44.  While expressing support for our proposal, many commenters
    representing the wireless industry pointed out that this requirement
    will need coordination among many parties, including
    telecommunications and equipment manufacturing industries, the LECs
    and the PSAPs.[^74] In the Consensus Agreement, however, the parties
    agree with our proposal without further conditions.[^75] In their
    comments regarding the Consensus Agreement, wireless companies
    suggest various limitations on the provision of TTY access, such
    limiting to access through TTYs and through cellular circuit
    switched data service.[^76] Commenters also note that CDMA vendors
    have been unable to pass through Baudot frequency signalling without
    distortion.[^77]ASCII is an acronym for American Standard Code for
    Information Interchange. It is a standard code used extensively in
    data transmission, in which 128 numerals, letters, symbols, and
    special control codes are represented by a seven-bit binary number.
    *See id*. at 57. PCIA contends that the establishment of a common
    data standard under which wireless and wireline providers can
    deliver TTY data to the PSAP is the most important coordination
    issue for this requirement.[^78] Some commenters argue that
    technological compatibility among PSAPs and wireless providers will
    also be necessary in order for the PSAPs to receive and interpret
    the transmitted data.[^79] The parties thus suggest that the
    industry should determine and establish standards to permit
    interface between TTYs and wireless systems.[^80]

45. 

**b. Discussion**

1.   We find that the tentative conclusion in the *Notice* with regard
    to TTY access is supported by the record in this proceeding. Thus,
    we will require that, not later than 12 months after the effective
    date of the rules adopted in this proceeding, covered carriers must
    transmit TTY calls to 911 services.

2.  

3.   TTY access to 911 services is important to the public safety of the
    30 million Americans with hearing and speech disabilities. In light
    of the technical issues presented by commenters, however, we
    conclude that parties and industry standard bodies should coordinate
    their efforts to resolve these technical issues before the end of
    this calendar year. The objective of such coordination should be to
    establish standards that will permit interfaces between TTYs and
    wireless systems.

4.  

5.   Although we recognize TDI\'s concerns that TTY users should also
    benefit from E911 features including ALI and ANI capabilities, we
    are of the view that at this time it would be prudent for the
    wireless industry, equipment manufacturers, PSAPs, and the disabled
    community to explore these issues to determine the extent of the
    problems and whether these issues might be resolved by agreements
    between the interested parties or by standard bodies. In that
    connection, we require that each of the signatories to the Consensus
    Agreement, PCIA, and TDI shall report to us jointly within one year
    after the effective date of the rules adopted in this proceeding
    regarding the status of the following issues: (1) whether incoming
    TTY 911 calls are properly identified in a timely manner by PSAPs,
    (*i.e*., whether TTY call identification equipment is in place in
    PSAP facilities); and (2) at the time a TTY 911 call is identified
    by the PSAP, whether ANI and ALI are initiated before the call is
    transferred to a TTY designated extension.[^81] In light of our
    decision in this Order regarding the provision of E911 and its
    importance in furthering our public safety goals, as well as our new
    statutory mandate to ensure accessibility to telecommunications
    services by persons with disabilities, if readily achievable,[^82]
    we may initiate a further proceeding after we have obtained
    additional information.

6.  

7.   TDI has also requested that the Commission take certain actions to
    improve general access of TTY users to the 911 emergency system,
    including mandating the wireless telephone industry to offer units
    with direct connect capabilities for TTY access.[^83] While these
    proposals may have merit, the record in this proceeding does not
    show that TDI\'s proposals are feasible.[^84] Consequently, it will
    be more appropriate for us to address them in another proceeding, as
    TDI has suggested.[^85] To this end, we expect to initiate in the
    near future a proceeding to implement the provisions of Section 255
    and related provisions of the Communications Act, which will provide
    further guidance and direction regarding accessibility standards and
    requirements. In addition, we note that Section 255 requires the
    Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board to
    develop guidelines for ensuring that equipment used in conjunction
    with telecommunications services is accessible by persons with
    disabilities, if readily achievable. We will consider those
    guidelines in any further proceeding as a basis for establishing
    further requirements.

8.  

9.  **B. Enhanced 911 Service Requirements and Provisions**

10. 

**1. E911 Deployment Schedule**

**a. Background, Pleadings and Consensus Agreement**

1.  In the *Notice*, we proposed to adopt rules to improve the access of
    users of mobile radio services to 911, particularly E911 service,
    noting that currently mobile radio services are unable to provide
    the information necessary for E911, such as the location of the
    caller (ALI), the number of caller (ANI), call back capability,
    while most of wireline customers who have 911 services have access
    to these features.[^86] In order to render functionally equivalent
    E911 services to wireless customers, we proposed that the mobile
    handset must be able to communicate the information, *e.g.,* ANI and
    ALI, to the base station, and the base station must be able to
    interpret all information transmitted from the mobile unit. In
    addition, we proposed that the base station be able to give priority
    handling to 911 calls, and forward sufficient information to the
    PSAP to provide call back capability and location identification
    (enabling selective routing).[^87] With respect to the ability to
    report the caller\'s location, we tentatively concluded that ALI
    should be implemented by wireless carriers in three steps over five
    years.[^88] We also proposed to require that, within three years of
    the effective date of the rules adopted in this proceeding, wireless
    systems must provide PSAP attendants with the capability to call
    back the 911 caller if the call is disconnected. In addition, we
    noted that this feature would ideally represent a seamless process
    whereby any return call is connected directly to the mobile unit
    that originated the call, thus permitting an automatic re-ring in
    case of disconnection.[^89]

2.  

3.    In the initial round of comments filed in this proceeding, parties
    agreed unanimously that E911 is a desirable and useful capability
    for wireless customers and the public. In particular, they agreed
    that ALI and re-ring/call back are important features for emergency
    services and should be required for E911 services. The focus of
    debate in the record was whether Commission regulation is necessary
    or appropriate to implement wireless E911 and, in particular,
    whether the Commission should adopt a mandatory implementation
    schedule, as proposed in the *Notice*.

4.  

5.   In general, comments submitted by public safety and state and local
    government organizations supported a mandatory implementation
    schedule for certain E911 services, including ALI systems and the
    call back feature, as necessary to make wireless E911 a
    reality.[^90] Comments on behalf of wireless communications carriers
    agreed with the view we expressed in the *Notice* that E911 is
    needed for CMRS wireless services,[^91]PCIA Comments at ii. but
    argued that the ALI systems needed to achieve this objective are
    unproven and have not been standardized, manufactured, or
    field-tested.[^92] These commenters stated that the Commission
    should encourage the wireless industry and the public safety
    communities to continue to work toward compatibility
    voluntarily,[^93] should establish an advisory committee to study
    wireless E911 issues,[^94] or should allow market forces to set the
    pace for deployment.[^95] A number of suppliers of location systems
    responded that, contrary to the concerns of wireless carriers, ALI
    systems are already available, or can be developed to meet the
    timetable and accuracy standards proposed in the *Notice*.[^96]
    Parties submitted very little data to quantify the cost of providing
    E911. Manufacturers generally presented estimates of the cost of
    their own products and argued that costs would decline or would be
    offset by new revenues if the Commission mandates ALI.[^97]

6.  

7.   The Consensus Agreement represents a significant change in the
    views held by the signatories to the Agreement with regard to some
    of the central issues in this proceeding. A representative of the
    wireless industry, CTIA, now agrees that E911 is technically
    feasible and can be deployed within the proposed five-year schedule.
    Public safety organizations concur, and agree that the three phases
    in the original schedule should be condensed into two phases. The
    parties to the Consensus Agreement also acknowledge that the
    wireless industry\'s agreement to provide ANI and
    \`\`pseudo-ANI\'\'[^98] in Phase I will make it possible for the
    PSAP to dial back a 911 caller so long as the mobile user has not
    turned off the mobile unit. Thus, these parties propose an earlier
    adoption of the call back feature at Phase I, rather than at the
    Phase II period as proposed in the *Notice*.[^99] The Consensus
    Agreement also suggests that the \`\`automatic re-ring\'\' features
    of the wireline network need not be required at this point.[^100]

8.  

9.   In their comments on the Consensus Agreement, parties again support
    the goals of E911 for wireless services, but some wireless industry
    commenters contend that neither the Phase I nor the Phase II
    deadlines are achievable.[^101] These commenters also argue that the
    Consensus Agreement ignores digital cellular, PCS, and wide area
    SMRs,[^102] that more information is necessary concerning the
    responsibility for providing ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI\'\' and for
    setting standards,[^103] that location technologies have not been
    fully field tested,[^104] and that there is no industry-wide
    consensus regarding these and other issues.[^105] BellSouth also
    suggests that the time frame for implementation of call back must
    consider the SS7/IS-41 plans of providers and the costs associated
    with implementing the capabilities in the PSAP systems.[^106]

10. 

11.  Other wireless service providers, as well as ITS, support the
    Consensus Agreement deployment schedule for ALI requirement.[^107]
    For example, Nextel believes that the schedule is feasible if the
    Commission takes measures to ensure that the LECs select protocols
    that are compatible with the wireless carriers\'
    infrastructure.[^108] The signatories to the Consensus Agreement
    note that industry standards will be in place shortly; that vendors
    have pledged their support; that wireline and wireless carriers are
    expected to move quickly to connect their networks wherever such
    interconnection can be cost justified; and that where Feature Group
    D has been implemented, SS7 links and standards are not
    required.[^109] Various wireless carriers contend that
    implementation should not be required prior to PSAP ability to
    retrieve the ALI information.[^110]

12. 

13.  Equipment manufacturers are split on the issue of the deployment
    schedule for ALI requirements. KSI supports the Consensus Agreement,
    proposes to add to the ALI requirement a latency period (the period
    it takes to provide location information to the PSAP) of no more
    than 5 seconds and an updating of location information every 10
    seconds, and suggests that accuracy be required to 125 meters in
    urban areas and to 1,000 meters in rural areas, both at a 90 percent
    confidence level.[^111] On the other hand, Motorola and Nortel
    contend that the Phase I schedule cannot be met. They maintain that
    switching and signalling capabilities to pass actual ANI and
    pseudo-ANI to the LEC network have not been standardized or deployed
    nationwide,[^112] and Motorola contends that it takes 18 to 24
    months after a standard is developed for a LEC to test new equipment
    in a limited number of markets.[^113]

**b. Discussion**

**(1) Wireless E911 Service Requirements**

1.   Although some parties contend that the Commission should allow E911
    to develop based upon the demands of the marketplace, we believe
    that we should play a more active role to ensure that technologies
    that will enhance public safety communications will be deployed
    expeditiously. While, in general, we believe that marketplace
    demands should determine the services provided by wireless carriers,
    we also believe that our mandate to promote safety of life using
    wireless technologies requires more direct Commission action in this
    case. This view is consistent with the argument of public safety
    organizations that Commission action is necessary to ensure that
    E911 services are deployed in a timely fashion.[^114] While they
    recognize the need for an evolutionary path for the E911 rules
    because the timing of implementation is affected by \`\`economic,
    operational and technological feasibility,\'\'[^115] for example,
    the public safety organizations have contended that the pace of
    evolution is likely to be slower than the public interest demands
    unless the Commission imposes a schedule that is rigorous without
    being impossible or commercially self-defeating.[^116] Once
    installed, ALI will bring important safety benefits to all wireless
    customers and to the community.

2.  

3.   Estimates of what full implementation of wireless E911 might cost
    vary widely in the record, from \$510 million to \$7.5 billion
    depending on the ALI technology,[^117] but we believe that it is
    reasonable to conclude that these costs are likely to decline in the
    future. We believe that advances in computer technology, economies
    of scale with mass production, and competition in providing systems
    should reduce costs associated with providing E911 service. In
    addition, once deployed, ALI and other E911 features may offer
    additional benefits, such as helping to reduce and detect fraudulent
    calls and providing the infrastructure for other services and
    features.[^118] It also may be feasible to use a single ALI system
    for several wireless carriers in the same city or region, thus
    spreading the costs. Moreover, costs are primarily incurred during
    the initial stages of deployment, for installation of equipment. As
    wireless subscribership grows, these relatively fixed costs will be
    spread over a widening base of subscribers, lowering unit costs per
    subscriber.

4.  

**(2) Deployment Schedule: Phase I E911 Requirements**

1.   With regard to Phase I of deployment, we will require covered
    carriers to relay the caller\'s ANI and the location of the base
    station or cell site receiving a 911 call to the PSAP through the
    use of \`\`pseudo-ANI.\'\' We believe that the schedule for this
    phase of E911 deployment proposed by the signatories of the
    Consensus Agreement is a reasonable middle ground between the
    positions of carriers and public safety organizations. Therefore, we
    will require implementation of Phase I to begin not later than 12
    months after the effective date of the rules adopted in this
    proceeding and to be completed not later than 18 months after such
    effective date. In establishing this deployment schedule, we also
    conclude, however, that the requirements imposed upon covered
    carriers by our actions in establishing the schedule shall apply
    only if a carrier receives a request for E911 service from the
    administrator of a PSAP that has made the investment which is
    necessary to allow it to receive and utilize the data elements
    associated with the service,[^119] LEC infrastructure will support
    the service,[^120] and a cost recovery mechanism is in place.

2.  

3.    In reaching this conclusion, we agree with the concerns expressed
    by US West, and with the arguments advanced by the signatories to
    the Consensus Agreement in their joint reply comments.[^121] Should
    a PSAP first inform a wireless service provider less than 6 months
    before the required implementation date that it is capable of
    accepting the ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI\'\' information, the carrier
    will be required to implement Phase I within 6 months after it
    receives the notice from the PSAP. We also note that our decision
    does not preclude carriers from implementing Phase I features sooner
    than 12 months after our rules become effective. Rather, we
    encourage PSAPs and wireless carriers to begin immediately to work
    together to implement E911 features as soon as possible. We find
    that the provision of ANI as part of Phase I will provide PSAPs the
    ability to call the 911 caller back if the call is disconnected,
    unless the caller\'s handset has been turned off or programmed to be
    redirected to voice mail. In light of the ability of PSAPs to call
    back disconnected callers, we agree with the claims of several
    commenters that automatic re-ring (*i.e.,* the automatic ringing of
    the 911 caller\'s number if the call is disconnected) is
    unnecessary.[^122]

4.  

5.   We base our decision with respect to the Phase I schedule on the
    following analysis. First, ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI\'\' have already
    been deployed effectively in some systems, such as in New
    Jersey.[^123] Deploying them as part of Phase I will provide
    valuable information and will assist emergency response both by
    identifying the base station or cell site that received the call and
    by permitting call back. We recognize that some wireless providers
    and equipment manufacturers question whether ANI and
    \`\`pseudo-ANI\'\' can be deployed nationwide within the 12-18 month
    period set forth by the Consensus Agreement.[^124] Equipment
    manufacturers, in particular, argue that the lack of SS7
    standards[^125] for transmitting ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI\'\' will
    require delay in deployment of Phase I. Other wireless commenters
    disagree, however.[^126] For example, in their Joint Reply Comments,
    parties to the Consensus Agreement explain that SS7 features are not
    necessary for carriers to transmit ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI.\'\' The
    Joint Reply Comments state that any network with the capability of
    providing Feature Group D equal access will also have the capability
    of transmitting ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI.\'\'[^127] In addition, they
    note that standards which are scheduled for balloting in September
    in TIA\'s Committee TR 45.2 will make this problem
    transitional.[^128] We believe that adopting our 12 to 18 month
    Phase I implementation schedule, rather than allowing the parties
    more time, will better promote the public interest and result in
    faster implementation of E911.

6.  

7.   We recognize, however, that technology-related issues may prevent
    some wireless carriers from implementing Phase I within the
    timetable adopted in this Order. Therefore, a covered carrier may
    request a waiver of our rules, based on sufficient factual support
    that either (1) its network equipment is not capable of transmitting
    ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI\'\' and its equipment cannot be upgraded
    within the Phase I timetable; or (2) the LEC used by the covered
    carrier to transmit 911 calls to the PSAP does not have the
    capability of transmitting ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI.\'\' If a covered
    carrier requests waiver of Phase I because its own equipment
    requires upgrading, the carrier shall submit with its waiver request
    a deployment schedule for meeting the requirements of Phase I. We
    note that no waiver request is required if the PSAP has not made the
    necessary investment to provide the capability of receiving the
    information transmitted under Phase I since the carriers\'
    obligation does not arise until this point.

8.  

9.  **(3) Deployment Schedule: Phase II E911 Requirements**

10. 

11.  We agree with the Consensus Agreement that cancellation of the
    second phase of ALI implementation proposed in the *Notice* appears
    warranted. The commenters to the *Notice* concur that implementing
    this stage of E911 deployment would not be a bridge but instead
    could be a costly detour that could delay full implementation of ALI
    capability.[^129] There is also convincing evidence that the
    benefits of the proposed second phase to PSAPs and the public would
    likely prove to be relatively small.[^130] Therefore, the proposal
    that a covered carrier must provide an estimate of the approximate
    location of a 911 caller or the distance of the mobile unit from the
    receiving base station or cell site in three years will not be
    adopted.

12. 

13.  We continue to believe that the third phase of ALI implementation
    proposed in the *Notice* is achievable with some modification.
    Because we are not adopting the second phase of our original
    proposal, we will now refer to our original Phase III, requiring
    ALI, as Phase II. The Consensus Agreement confirms that ALI is
    technically and economically feasible within the five-year deadline
    proposed in the *Notice*. While some wireless carriers see obstacles
    to implementing Phase II in five years, the equipment manufacturers
    believe a five-year deadline is achievable.[^131] Thus, we will
    require implementation of Phase II to be completed not later than
    five years after the effective date of the rules adopted in this
    proceeding.

14. 

15.  We have also concluded that certain provisions we have adopted in
    this Order in connection with Phase I of the deployment of E911
    service shall also apply in connection with Phase II of the
    deployment schedule. These provisions are as follows: (1) The
    provision for waivers. (2) The condition that the PSAP must have the
    capability of receiving and using information transmitted to the
    PSAP by a covered carrier. (3) The provision that a covered carrier
    has an obilgation to deploy location technology within 6 months
    after notification by the PSAPs, if such notification occurs less
    than 6 months before the required implementation date.

16. 

17.  Our initial proposal did not discuss a reliability factor for ALI.
    Based on the comments and evidence in the record from actual trials
    of ALI technologies, we believe that the Agreement\'s proposed RMS
    probability standard for location accuracy is reasonable.[^132] The
    125 meter RMS standard will assist emergency response teams by
    providing relatively precise location for 911 callers and is
    currently technically feasible. It thus appears to represent a
    satisfactory initial minimum standard. Conversely, the record
    indicates that identifying a wireless phone\'s height above ground
    within 125 meters, for example in a building, would be more
    difficult to achieve within five years and is not likely to aid
    emergency response significantly, except in the downtown areas of
    major cities.

18. 

19.  In light of these considerations, we adopt a requirement pursuant
    to which covered carriers must achieve the capability to identify
    the latitude and longitude of a mobile unit making a 911 call,
    within a radius of no more than 125 meters in 67 percent of all
    cases. The degree of accuracy will be calculated through use of Root
    Mean Square methodology. For purposes of complying with this
    requirement, covered carriers shall attempt to invoke the equipment
    and facilities they have deployed to determine mobile unit location
    in each case in which a 911 call transits their system. For purposes
    of applying the RMS methodology, the level of accuracy achieved by
    the carrier shall be calculated based upon all 911 calls originated
    in a service area in which the carrier is required to supply
    Automatic Location Identification to PSAPs. A covered carrier shall
    be required to demonstrate, upon request made by the PSAP, that its
    ALI system performs in compliance with the requirements established
    in this Order.

20. 

21.  While the 125 meter RMS in two dimensions is a good starting place,
    however, we expect that technological advances will enable
    improvements after the end of the five-year period. For example,
    KSI\'s proposal of a latency time and a requirement of updating
    location information may be useful additions to the E911
    requirements we are establishing in this Order. KSI asserts that its
    technology supports a confidence measure of 90 percent, that is
    based on a radius of less than 125 meters for urban centers and a
    radius of less than 1,000 meters in rural environments. We have
    concluded that the current record does not sufficiently demonstrate
    the practicality of KSI\'s differential standard for rural and urban
    areas, because KSI has not provided a definition or described how
    suburban or other areas should be measured. Therefore, we will not
    adopt KSI\'s proposal. In addition, we are not adopting a latency
    time and an updating requirement at this time because the current
    record does not show whether these features are generally available
    or are otherwise appropriate. The Commission will, however, review
    these matters in the further rulemaking proceeding we are initiating
    as part of our action today.

22. 

**(4) Development of Technical and Operational Standards**

1.   While we are taking action in this Order to ensure the provision of
    911 and E911 services over certain commercial wireless
    communications systems, and intend to closely monitor implementation
    of our decision, we do not believe it would be appropriate for the
    Commission to micromanage this process. We confirm our tentative
    conclusion in the *Notice* that we should determine what
    capabilities must be achieved, rather than attempting to promulgate
    extensive technical standards.[^133] Among the issues that still
    must be resolved are the development of detailed technical and
    operational standards necessary to implement and enable widespread
    wireless access to emergency communications and services, the
    specification of a required grade of service, the mapping required
    to develop the coordinates of latitude and longitude necessary for
    location identification, and the exact interface between the several
    components of the total network.[^134] The nature of these issues
    relating to technical standards requires a level of expertise and
    consultation among the parties that can best be achieved through
    processes involving covered carriers and public safety
    organizations.

2.  

3.   We do not find it necessary to establish an Advisory Committee or
    initiate a negotiated rulemaking proceeding, as requested by some
    commenters.[^135] The parties to the Consensus Agreement have stated
    that they will continue to work cooperatively to make progress in
    resolving implementation issues. Moreover, the parties have already
    undertaken to resolve these issues and we are informed by them that
    standard-setting bodies are already meeting to consider them. For
    example, the T-1 Committee and the Telecommunications Industry
    Association are already considering some E911 standards.[^136] In
    addition, our review of the record does not reveal any significant
    differences between the parties on implementation issues, although
    there are differences regarding the time it will take to comply with
    the E911 requirements. Given the degree of consensus that has been
    achieved regarding substantive issues involved in the implementation
    of E911, we do not believe there is a need to invoke the Advisory
    Committee mechanism at the same time, especially since doing so
    could risk delaying the implementation process.

4.  

5.    Based on the analysis above, we conclude that we can rely on the
    parties to proceed with this task in good faith. Therefore, we leave
    the resolution of a number of technical decisions and issues
    necessary for implementing our decision for the parties, including
    service providers, public safety organizations, equipment
    manufacturers, standard-setting groups, and state and local
    governments. We intend to remain actively involved, however, and
    will provide whatever assistance our resources permit. In that
    connection, we shall require the signatories to the Consensus
    Agreement, PCIA, and Alliance to furnish the Commission with joint
    reports detailing the status of the discussions, what decisions have
    been made, and what can be done to expedite the resolution of the
    issues. Such reports must be filed not later than 30 days following
    the end of each annual period after the effective date of the rules
    adopted in this proceeding.

6.  

7.   We want to emphasize the importance of some of the particulars
    involved in providing wireless E911 services. Our decisions here,
    however, are consistent with our intentions as expressed in the
    *Notice* that we would adopt general performance criteria, rather
    than extensive technical standards, to guide the development of
    wireless 911 services. By setting forth a schedule for
    implementation of wireless E911 services, we are providing a time
    frame by which these unspecified parameters and standards must be
    established or resolved by the various parties involved. In view of
    the representations of CTIA in its reply comments on the Consensus
    Agreement, we believe that some of the tasks to be performed by the
    standard-setting group should be completed before the end of this
    calendar year.[^137] Should we find that the parties are not
    maintaining their efforts to resolve these issues in good faith, we
    may take such actions as we believe to be necessary to implement
    E911 service without undue delay.

8.  

**2. Carriers and Services Required To Offer E911**

**a. Background and Pleadings**

1.   In the *Notice*, we tentatively decided to require E911 service to
    be applicable to systems providing CMRS real time voice services
    using the public switched network. This would include cellular and
    broadband PCS, but not private mobile radio services. We asked for
    comment on this issue, including whether one-way paging or
    non-voice, non-geostationary mobile satellite service should be
    subject to this requirement, and whether private services not
    available to the public or not interconnected with the public
    switched network should be included.[^138]

2.  

3.   Most of the wireless industry supported exemption for certain CMRS
    licensees, particularly site-specific SMR services due to their
    limited interconnection with the public switched network.[^139] Some
    PCS and cellular providers contended that E911 access should be
    extended to all CMRS providers of voice service.[^140] MSS carriers
    generally opposed the application of E911 requirements to them on
    the grounds that their service is international rather than local,
    that it would be difficult to route a call to the nearest PSAP, and
    that it would require the costly and inconvenient adaptation of
    handsets.[^141] On the other hand, ICSAR argued that E911 provision
    by mobile satellite carriers could be valuable in saving lives,
    although ISCAR conceded that major technical challenges still exist
    before mobile satellite services could provide E911 access.[^142]
    Rural cellular providers argued that they should be exempted from
    E911 requirements because of the high expense in low density
    markets, as well as the lack of PSAP capabilities in such
    markets.[^143]

4.  

5.   In their comments on the Consensus Agreement, many commenters
    repeat their arguments in favor of exemption from E911
    requirements.[^144] RCA argues that there are many problems in
    implementing location technologies in rural areas*, e.g.*, cell site
    service areas do not necessarily correspond with PSAP service areas,
    and triangulation techniques cannot be performed in many rural
    systems. Therefore, RCA urges that cellular carriers serving rural
    jurisdictions must be afforded a reasonable implementation time
    after the PSAP has deployed the technology to receive E911
    information.[^145] On the other hand, ICSAR argues that MSS carriers
    should be required to implement E911 because of the potential to
    save persons not reachable by terrestrial cellular phones.[^146] KSI
    urges that all CMRS providers, including providers of data messaging
    services for two-way pagers and personal digital assistants, should
    be subject to E911 requirements because the Commission would have
    difficulty in imposing E911 obligations on these companies in the
    future.[^147] Both KSI and TX-ACSEC support requiring E911
    obligations for rural carriers.[^148]

6.  

**b. Discussion**

1.   No party has objected to the applicability of E911 to cellular and
    broadband PCS carriers. We believe that customers of these public
    telephone services clearly expect access to 911 and E911, especially
    because many of them purchase cellular telephones and are likely to
    purchase broadband PCS telephones primarily for security. As stated
    above, 62 percent of cellular users cited safety and security as
    their main reason for purchasing a mobile phone.[^149] Therefore, we
    affirm our tentative conclusion that such commercial voice telephone
    services should be subject to the requirements set forth in this
    Order.

2.  

3.   In addition, we conclude that certain specialized mobile radio
    (SMR) providers should be subject to the E911 requirements and
    schedule imposed on cellular and broadband PCS because these
    carriers may have significant potential to offer near-term direct
    competition to cellular and broadband PCS carriers.[^150] These SMR
    providers include two classes of SMR licensees. First, E911
    requirements will extend to 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR licensees that
    hold geographic area licenses. Second, the rule will cover incumbent
    wide area SMR licensees defined as licensees who have obtained
    extended implementation authorizations in the 800 MHz or 900 MHz SMR
    service, either by waiver or under Section 90.629 of the
    Commission\'s Rules.[^151] Within each of these classes, \`\`covered
    SMR providers\'\' includes only licensees that offer real-time,
    two-way switched voice service that is interconnected with the
    public switched network, either on a stand-alone basis or packaged
    with other telecommunications services. Because they do not compete
    substantially with cellular and broadband PCS providers, local SMR
    licensees, offering mainly dispatch services to specialized
    customers in a more localized, non-cellular system configuration, as
    well as licensees offering only data, one-way, or stored voice
    services on an interconnected basis, would not be governed by these
    E911 requirements. While some traditional SMRs are treated as CMRS
    because they are interconnected to the public switched network, we
    do not intend to require them to implement E911. We find that costs
    of implementing E911 for local SMRs would outweigh the benefits and,
    as AMTA argues, imposing this obligation on them may give them the
    incentive to eliminate their interconnection, which would not be in
    the public interest.[^152] Of course, any SMR provider that is not
    interconnected to the public switched network or does not offer two
    way voice service would not be subject to E911 requirements.

4.  

5.   At this time, we believe that 220 MHz licensees operating on 5 kHz
    channels are likely to provide more traditional dispatch services,
    although they may be interconnected to the public switched network.
    Therefore, we will not require 220 MHz licensees to provide E911. We
    note, however, that the 220 MHz service is in its infancy and still
    evolving.[^153]Treatment of Mobile Services, Amendment of Part 90 of
    the Commission\'s Rules To Facilitate Future Development of SMR
    Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band, and Amendment of Parts 2 and
    90 of the Commission\'s Rules to Provide for the Use of 200 Channels
    Outside the Designated Filing Areas in the 896-901 MHz and 935-940
    MHz Band Allotted to the Specialized Mobile Radio Pool, GN Docket
    No. 93-252, PR Docket Nos. 93-144 and 89-553, Third Report and
    Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7988, 8055 (1995). In the future if this service
    develops into a mobile telephone service like cellular or broadband
    PCS, we may revisit this decision. Similarly, it is not certain how
    multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (LMS)[^154] will
    develop, and therefore it is premature to require such licensees to
    provide E911 at this time. In addition, we do not believe that it is
    appropriate to require other two way voice services, such as
    Air-to-Ground (Part 22, Subpart M) or Public Coast Stations (Part
    80, Subpart J). These services are provided for passengers and crews
    of airplanes and ocean vessels. We find that passengers and crews do
    not rely on ground-based rescue operations. Instead, passengers and
    crews of airplanes rely on other radio communications channels, and
    passengers and crews of ships rely on internationally approved
    GMDSS.[^155] Further, we do not find that there is a public safety
    need for E911 on two way, non-voice services. There has been
    insufficient comment in the record to support a deviation from our
    original intention to limit the E911 requirements to real time voice
    services.

6.  

7.   In general, we believe that the public interest will ordinarily
    require that all CMRS real time two-way voice communications
    services provide reasonable and effective access to emergency
    services. For the present, however, we recognize that adding
    specific regulatory requirements to MSS may impede the development
    of the service in ways that might reduce its ability to meet public
    safety needs. For example, coordination with international standards
    bodies will be necessary for international calls, and the current
    state of technology requires more obstacles to be overcome in the
    case of MSS carriers than for terrestrial carriers. Thus, while we
    expect that CMRS voice MSS will eventually be required to provide
    appropriate access to emergency services, we do not adopt schedules
    or other requirements for them here. The carriers and other
    interested parties are urged to develop emergency access systems as
    soon as is feasible to speed eventual implementation of effective
    emergency access and to minimize the costs of re-engineering
    facilities.

8.  

9.   RCA and individual rural cellular providers contend that providing
    ALI in some rural areas may not be technologically and economically
    feasible.[^156] The Consensus Agreement suggests that some rural or
    thinly-populated areas may have system configurations which, without
    augmentation at special expense, would not be able to deliver ALI
    accuracy comparable to that which we are requiring.[^157] The
    parties to the Agreement state that they agree to work on this in
    good faith as an implementation issue which need not delay adoption
    of the general rule.[^158] As stated above, we have found E911
    service to be in the public interest. We agree that there may be
    exceptional circumstances where deployment of E911 may not be
    technically or economically feasible within the five-year general
    deadline. We believe that these cases can be dealt with through
    individual waivers. In cases where the cost recovery mechanisms for
    E911 service uniquely disadvantage a particular carrier, we will
    also consider waiver requests. We agree with the parties to the
    Consensus Agreement that this need not delay adoption of the general
    rule and encourage their efforts to develop recommended approaches
    to resolving these implementation issues as they are more precisely
    identified. Moreover, to the extent that, in any rural area, no PSAP
    Administrator has informed the carrier that the PSAP is capable of
    receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the
    service, the rural carrier will not be obligated to provide E911.

10. 

**3. Cost Recovery**

**a. Pleadings and Consensus Agreement**

1.   Although the issue of cost recovery was not directly addressed in
    the *Notice*, many commenters in their initial and reply comments
    urged the Commission to address it in relation to the implementation
    of E911 compatibility.[^159] Several commenters representing the
    wireless carriers argued that wireless service providers will incur
    substantial costs in implementing E911 services and expressed
    concern about their ability to recover their costs.[^160] Many
    commenters emphasized the need to develop a funding mechanism to
    recover the costs of implementing wireless E911 technology, arguing
    that such technology should be funded the same way that wireline
    deployment of 911 service has been funded \-- through tax revenues,
    supplemented with subscriber surcharges.[^161] Noting that E911
    compatibility requirements will be a government mandate, some
    parties suggested that the Commission should take the lead in
    addressing cost recovery.[^162] RCA, for example, was concerned
    about imposition of a federal mandate for the provision of E911
    services in rural areas, and suggested that the Commission should
    consider an appropriate cost recovery mechanism for mobile service
    providers.[^163] Some commenters further requested the deferral of
    wireless E911 compatibility until an equitable cost recovery
    mechanism is developed.[^164]

2.  

3.   While wireless carriers requested the Commission to provide a means
    for recovering their costs, public safety groups and other
    commenters did not address the funding issues in particular in their
    initial comments. On October 11, 1995, APCO filed *ex parte*
    comments to address the funding issues specifically. APCO\'s *ex
    parte* comments illustrate the variety of existing state funding
    methods associated with wireline 911 and E911. It noted that
    although some states took advantage of Federal matching funds to
    help pay for implementation of the service, there is no national
    funding of wireline 911. APCO indicated that local and state
    governments have found ways to finance wireline 911 and argued these
    governments can be relied upon to do the same for upgrades required
    to achieve wireless E911 compatibility.[^165] Several state and
    local government commenters noted that they have implemented
    legislation mandating statewide E911 services and authorizing a
    telephone tax to fund E911 systems.[^166]

4.  

5.   The Consensus Agreement proposes essentially to rely on state and
    local funding mechanisms, which could be in the form of public
    appropriations or bond issues, with or without a separate 911
    subscriber line fee. The Consensus Agreement parties, however, ask
    the Commission to declare that state or local 911 fees or taxes
    reasonably related to recovery of prudently-incurred wireless system
    or service costs are not barred as a matter of law.[^167] They also
    ask the Commission to state that such fees or taxes should not
    discriminate between wireline and wireless carriers involved in
    delivery of 911 services. The parties agree to work in good faith
    toward the adoption of state and local legislation fairly designed
    for cost recovery under these principles.[^168]

6.  

7.   The comments on the Consensus Agreement take a variety of positions
    on this issue. The RCC supports the Consensus Agreement.[^169] US
    West contends that the issue of funding is best left to the local
    public safety organizations and interested carriers, but that a
    uniform surcharge should be imposed on subscribers for both wireless
    and wireline E911.[^170] GTE favors letting the states, but not
    local governments, define the funding requirements.[^171] Other
    commenters argue that \`\`no federally mandated funding mechanism
    should be considered at this time, much less adopted,\'\' because
    they believe that state and local government will address the 911
    wireless funding issue appropriately and any federal rules could
    potentially disrupt current state and local 911 funding
    systems.[^172] Noting that \`\`the major \`\`road block\'\' to state
    and local government funding has been *some* cellular carriers,\'\'
    TX-ACSEC contends that \`\`adoption of the Consensus Agreement may
    provide those cellular carriers the incentive they need to stop
    undermining attempts to obtain funding for 911 wireless service at
    the state and local level.\'\'[^173] On the other hand, a number of
    parties contend that the Commission should be more involved in
    funding, either by mandating the method of cost recovery or by
    working with the states to develop an equitable funding
    mechanism.[^174] Vanguard urges that existing funding sources should
    be used, and that implementation should be conditioned on funding by
    the state or locality.[^175] AMSC contends that its subscribers
    should not be required to contribute to any state or local revenue
    pool if it is exempted from E911 requirements.[^176] AT&T contends
    that wireless customers should pay only for operating costs of E911,
    and that the Commission should require state and local governments
    to pay for equipment upgrades.[^177] Ameritech urges that the
    funding mechanism be carrier and technology neutral.[^178] ART
    argues that the financial burdens of implementing ALI systems should
    be shared by location services of all kinds.[^179] In their reply
    comments, the signatories to the Consensus Agreement, Comcast,
    Vanguard, and Nextel argue that a public funding mechanism is
    required as a prerequisite to imposing obligations on CMRS carriers
    to provide E911.[^180]

8.  

**b. Discussion**

1.   Although we have made implementation of E911 services contingent
    upon the adoption of a cost recovery mechanism, we will not
    prescribe a particular E911 cost recovery methodology at this time,
    for two reasons. First, the record does not demonstrate a need for
    such action. No party disputes the fundamental notion that carriers
    must be able to recover their costs of providing E911 services. Nor
    is there any evidence of state or local officials attempting to
    prevent a carrier from doing so. To the contrary, carriers and
    government officials uniformly recognize (1) that resolving cost
    recovery issues is a prerequisite to E911 deployment,[^181] and (2)
    that carriers should not be required to provide E911 capability
    unless a PSAP is capable of receiving the associated data elements.
    Moreover, we agree with APCO that local and state governments have
    pursued innovative and diverse means for the funding of wireline
    E911 services, and that it is reasonable to anticipate that these
    governments will follow a similar course with regard to wireless
    E911.

2.  

3.   Second, an inflexible Federal prescription would deny carriers and
    government officials the freedom to develop innovative cost recovery
    solutions tailored to local conditions and needs. Such a
    prescription also might unintentionally discourage carriers from
    developing creative technological approaches to E911
    deployment.[^182] Thus, Federal action at this time actually might
    undercut and delay efforts to deploy wireless E911 capabilities. For
    these reasons, we will not prescribe a cost recovery methodology at
    this time. Furthermore, nothing in the record persuades us that, as
    a general matter, all state and local E911 cost recovery mechanisms
    are barred under the Communications Act. Furthermore, nothing in the
    record persuades us that, as a general matter, all state and local
    E911 cost recovery mechanisms are necessarily permissible, or
    necessarily barred, under the Communications Act. Whether a
    particular state or local tax or fee would constitute rate
    regulation under Section 332(c), and therefore be preempted, would
    depend on the specifics of the tax or fee at issue.

4.  

**4. Liability and Privacy Issues**

**a. Background and Pleadings**

1.   In the *Notice*, we sought comment on the necessity for, and
    implications of, imposing privacy requirements on information, such
    as name, address and telephone number, transmitted to LECs and PSAPs
    in the delivery of 911 emergency services. The *Notice* indicated
    that the Commission, in another proceeding regarding calling number
    identification services, declined to apply privacy protection
    requirements in circumstances which did not appear to raise serious
    privacy implications, including calls to emergency service
    providers. Recognizing that the states have adopted varying
    approaches to the privacy interests in information used in the
    delivery of emergency services, the *Notice* suggested that
    commenters address the issue of whether there are privacy interests
    in information transmitted by wireless service providers pursuant to
    the delivery of emergency services and, if so, what specific
    measures are appropriate to protect those interests.[^183]

2.  

3.   Most commenters addressing this issue agreed with the Commission\'s
    general assessment that privacy protection requirements are not
    necessary in the delivery of 911 emergency calls.[^184] Many
    commenters argued that a person calling 911 is generally assumed to
    give up a portion of their privacy rights at the time the call is
    initiated.[^185] APCO, for example, contended that the act of
    dialing 911 is considered in most state and local jurisdictions to
    be implied consent to forward ALI information to the PSAP.[^186]
    Other commenters, particularly the search and rescue (SAR)
    organizations, argued that privacy requirements must be waived for
    911 calls in order to facilitate emergency services.[^187] ICSAR
    asserted that to do otherwise would deny emergency services
    personnel the very information necessary to respond in an efficient
    manner and would seem contradictory to the concept of 911 service.
    APCO argued that \`\`the Commission should require that service
    providers transmit all relevant information to the E911
    interface,\'\' noting that \`\`the actual display of the information
    will then be determined by state and local laws.\'\'[^188]

4.  

5.   While some commenters argued that emergency conditions fall within
    an exemption to the Privacy Act,[^189] other parties expressed their
    concern over the statutory, privacy-based limitations on the
    dissemination of caller location information, which might be viewed
    as inconsistent with the location identification requirements
    proposed in the *Notice*.[^190] Some commenters suggested that
    information transmitted to PSAPs by wireless providers should be
    safeguarded and used only for purposes of providing required
    emergency services.[^191] Some commenters contended that the privacy
    issue should be addressed by each individual state.[^192] Other
    commenters argued that potential liability for transmitting
    information relating to a caller dialing 911 should be addressed in
    a separate proceeding.[^193]

6.  

7.   Although the issue of liability was not directly raised in the
    *Notice,* several commenters asked the Commission to generally
    insulate wireless service providers from liability for delivering
    911 calls to the LEC, including any liability for complying with any
    priority requirements, violating the calling party\'s privacy
    interests, or providing incomplete or inaccurate information.[^194]
    Several parties suggested that wireless service providers should
    enjoy the same broad immunity from liability that is afforded to
    landline local exchange carriers.[^195] To this end, PCIA suggested
    that the Commission adopt as part of its rules the liability
    limitation language discussed at the JEM.[^196]

8.   In the Consensus Agreement, the wireless industry and public safety
    organizations express their belief that the wireline experience, in
    which callers generally have been held to consent implicitly to the
    disclosure of their calling number, location, and associated
    information, is applicable to wireless 911 communications.
    Similarly, they note that PSAP and wireline experience with state
    \`\`Good Samaritan\'\' statutes is applicable to wireless 911
    communications.[^197] The parties to the Consensus Agreement,
    however, urge the Commission to address issues relating to the
    impact of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of
    1994 (Wiretap Act)[^198] on 911 operations and the legal liability
    of wireless service providers.[^199] The parties argue that, despite
    the express language in the 1994 legislation barring caller location
    disclosure (except where \`\`determined from the telephone
    number\'\'), Congress did not intend to preclude location
    determination and disclosure via other means (such as ALI), in the
    ordinary course of good faith 911 operations.[^200]

9.  

10.  In their comments regarding the Consensus Agreement, most
    commenters agree with the arguments in the Consensus Agreement that
    Congress did not intend to preclude location determination and
    disclosure in the ordinary course of 911 operations.[^201] Vanguard
    also argues that the Wiretap Act is not applicable to the operations
    of E911 because the language refers to \`\`information acquired
    solely pursuant to the authority for pen registers and trap and
    trace devices.\'\'[^202] Alliance contends that it is not
    appropriate to limit the liability of wireless carriers.[^203] In
    addition, several commenters request specific protection from
    liability for (1) passing Calling Party Number (CPN) on non-911
    calls in violation of per line blocking requirements where the
    carrier is incapable of passing CPN on 911 calls and blocking it on
    other calls, (2) providing inaccurate location information, and (3)
    negligence.[^204] Ameritech contends that the issue of liability for
    uncompleted or ineffective E911 connections is unresolved, but is
    arguably beyond the scope of the proceeding.[^205]

**b. Discussion**

1.   The Consensus Agreement suggests that the Commission resolve
    whether language in the Wiretap Act affects 911 operations or the
    legal liability of carriers.[^206] The relevant language of the
    statute provides that:[^207]

2.  

> \[W\]ith regard to information acquired solely pursuant to the
> authority for pen registers and trap and trace devices (as defined in
> section 3127 of title 18, United States Code), such call‑identifying
> information \[which the Section requires telecommunications carriers
> to enable Federal Government officials to access pursuant to a court
> order or other lawful authorization\] shall not include any
> information that may disclose the physical location of the subscriber
> (except to the extent that the location may be determined from the
> telephone number).

1.  The Commission has requested that the Department of Justice provide
    us with a legal opinion regarding the interpretation of this
    provision as it relates to the requirements contained in the rules
    we are adopting. We anticipate that we will receive that legal
    opinion within the 60 day period before those rules are scheduled to
    become effective. When we receive the Department of Justice\'s legal
    opinion, we will address the effect of the Wiretap Act on our rules.

2.  

3.   We conclude that it is unnecessary to exempt providers of E911
    service from liability for certain negligent acts, as PCIA and US
    West request. If the E911 wireless carriers wish to protect
    themselves from liability for negligence, they may attempt to bind
    customers to contractual language, require public safety
    organizations to hold them harmless for liability, as suggested by
    US West,[^208] or, if the liability is caused by the rulings of the
    Commission, argue that the actions complained of were caused by acts
    of public authority.[^209]

4.  We are not persuaded by the argument advanced by some parties that
    the Commission should provide wireless carriers the same broad
    immunity from liability that is available to landline local exchange
    carriers. This local exchange carrier immunity generally is a
    product of provisions contained in local exchange carrier tariffs.
    We conclude that covered carriers can afford themselves similar
    protection by including similar provisions in contracts with their
    customers.

5.  

6.    While the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) has issued rulings
    affecting the liability of carriers subject to their rules and
    requirements, those actions were taken pursuant to specific language
    that gives the ICC authority to modify the imposition of
    liability.[^210] No such statutory provision is applicable here. In
    addition, before we would consider taking any action to preempt
    state tort law, we would need to demonstrate that our rule with
    respect to limitations on carrier liability is essential to
    achieving the goals of the Communications Act.[^211] We note that
    the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has struck down, as
    infringing upon the jurisdiction of state courts, a Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission ruling that conditioned the granting of
    licenses for dams on a rule of strict liability for property damage
    caused by seismically induced dam failure.[^212] The court noted
    that FERC failed to show that the action was essential to achieving
    the goals of the Federal Power Act. In our view, displacing the
    jurisdiction of state courts over tort suits for negligence in
    installation, performance, provision, or maintenance of E911 systems
    is not necessary to the inauguration of E911 service. We therefore
    are unable to find that general exemption from liability is
    essential to achieving the goals of the Communications Act.

7.  

8.    Aside from the requests for general exemption from liability,
    several carriers request specific exemptions. BellSouth expresses
    concern regarding liability for violating per line blocking
    requirements. GTE contends that it cannot provide 100 percent
    accurate location information. We find that BellSouth has not
    provided sufficient evidence to show that it is unable to permit 911
    location information to be transmitted without transmitting location
    information for other calls. Therefore, there is an inadequate
    record to determine whether exemption from liability for violating
    per line blocking requirements is essential to the inauguration of
    E911. Consequently, we shall not grant BellSouth\'s request for
    exemption, but shall decide such requests on a case-by-case basis.
    With respect to GTE\'s contention that we do not require 100 percent
    accuracy, a state court finding of liability would not thwart any
    Commission goal. We do not require 100 percent accuracy, but we
    expect that as technology allows for greater accuracy, wireless
    providers will upgrade their capabilities accordingly.[^213]

9.  

**5. Preemption**

**a. Background and Pleadings**

1.   In the *Notice*, we stated that we could preempt state regulation
    that affects interstate service when it is not possible to separate
    the interstate and intrastate components of the service or when it
    thwarts or impedes a federal policy. We asked for comment with
    respect to whether any conflicts exist between our proposed rules
    and state regulations. Commenters opposing preemption were asked to
    provide alternatives to ensure that Federal, state, and local
    requirements do not thwart the nationwide goal of achieving
    compatibility with enhanced 911 systems.[^214]

2.  

3.   Most commenters supported the need for preemption of state
    standards to ensure nationwide deployment of consistent
    technology.[^215] Springwich Cellular, for example, claimed that it
    can provide the location of the cell site in Connecticut but not in
    Massachusetts, due to state restrictions in its interconnection
    arrangements with the LECs.[^216] Two state agencies oppose Federal
    preemption on the grounds that state and local funds remain the sole
    support of these systems.[^217]

4.  

**b. Discussion**

1.   We begin this discussion by emphasizing our understanding of
    states\' interests in telecommunications and public safety matters,
    including E911 operations. As we stated in the *Notice,* however, it
    is well established that this Commission may preempt state
    regulation when (1) the matter to be regulated has inseverable
    interstate and intrastate aspects; and (2) preemption is necessary
    to protect a valid Federal regulatory objective.[^218] A primary
    objective in this proceeding is to fulfill our statutory mandate of
    \`\`promoting safety of life and property\'\'[^219] through wireless
    communications by facilitating the deployment of E911 capabilities
    to the maximum reasonable extent throughout the Nation. In that
    regard, we agree with those commenters, including state and local
    public safety organizations, who argue that Federal preemption of
    intrastate E911 regulation may be necessary to ensure the
    achievement of various inseverable, nationwide aspects of E911
    operations, including: (1) ubiquitous E911 operational
    compatibility; (2) the avoidance of state-by-state technical and
    operational requirements that would burden equipment manufacturers
    and carriers; and (3) the averting of confusion by end users,
    especially roamers, who are attempting to contact emergency service
    providers.[^220]

2.  

3.   Moreover, those few state agencies who oppose preemption do not
    provide any reasonable alternative means to achieve these objectives
    other than by preemption. Against this background, we conclude that
    state actions that are incompatible with the policies and rules
    adopted in this Order are subject to preemption. Since we have not
    been presented with evidence that specific state regulations are, in
    fact, incompatible with national E911 goals, we shall not preempt
    any state regulations at this time. Instead, we shall examine the
    need for specific preemption in the future on a case-by-case basis,
    relying on the guidelines expressed in this Order.

4.  

**6. Equipment Manufacture, Importation, and Labelling**

**a. Background, Pleadings, and Consensus Agreement**

1.   In the *Notice*, we sought comment regarding whether it may be
    necessary to establish specific requirements for base and mobile
    transmitters to ensure compliance with the objectives of this
    proceeding, particularly with regard to ANI and ALI. The *Notice*
    also suggested that if specific requirements for transmitters are
    necessary, we might require the submission of information
    demonstrating compliance as part of the equipment authorization
    process. We further requested comment on the appropriateness of
    cut-off dates for manufacture, importation, and marketing of
    equipment that may not meet the standards and how much time should
    be allowed for transitions to equipment that meets the new
    requirement. Assuming that such manufacturing standards are
    necessary, we then asked for comment as to whether to require
    non-compliant equipment to be labelled with a warning statement on
    the device and on the outside of the packaging in which it is
    marketed.[^221]

2.  

3.    While commenters representing public safety groups supported our
    proposals in their initial comments,[^222] commenters representing
    wireless service providers and wireless equipment manufacturers
    unanimously opposed the proposals because of the uncertainty of the
    implementation standards.[^223] Most of the parties opposing the
    proposals argued that the Commission should not consider altering
    the equipment requirement until technical solutions are reasonably
    identified and available. For example, Motorola asserted that
    overlay systems may be able to provide location information without
    requiring changes to the subscriber unit or the base station, or to
    either system element.[^224] Thus, these parties strongly urged that
    any cut-off dates be tied, not to the effective date of rules
    adopted within this proceeding, but instead to the standards
    development process which the industry must complete before 911
    access can be defined and implemented.[^225]

4.  

5.   Although some commenters supported the labelling requirements
    proposal,[^226] most commenters strongly opposed the proposal,
    arguing that mandatory package and handset labelling is less than
    helpful in achieving the intended objectives for a number of
    reasons.[^227] Some commenters noted that location technology might
    not be built into the handset, thereby making warning labels
    obsolete as soon as network-based location technology becomes
    operational.[^228] Commenters also contended that packaging labels
    could be misleading and that it is better to accomplish customer
    education through other means, such as billing manuals and billing
    information.[^229] In reply comments, TX-ACSEC changed its view,
    concluding that labels on wireless handsets are not the best method
    of educating end users regarding the limitations of the devices
    related to 911 calls.[^230]

6.  

7.   The parties to the Consensus Agreement note that the Commission was
    less firm with its proposal in this area, partly owing to
    uncertainty about the extent to which wireless compatibility would
    be a function of subscriber equipment versus network infrastructure
    and features. Acknowledging that wireless compatibility, at least
    with respect to cellular telephony, is likely to proceed on a
    network implementation basis in the near term, the parties to the
    Consensus Agreement agree to work on methods and language for
    consumer education that would not depend on equipment
    labelling.[^231]

8.  

9.   In their comments regarding the Consensus Agreement, BellSouth and
    Nextel support the Consensus Agreement, while CTO contends that
    consumer education should be in addition to equipment
    labelling.[^232]

10. 

**b. Discussion**

1.   It appears from the Consensus Agreement comments that E911 will
    generally be implemented by network-based technology, rather than by
    modification of handsets. Therefore, we find that the proposals in
    the *Notice* for equipment requirements, approval, and labelling,
    which were based on the possibility that handsets might have to be
    modified, are not presently necessary for the implementation of E911
    and that any labelling carried out pursuant to our requirements
    might in fact be confusing to customers. Consequently, we will not
    implement such requirements, but instead will require the parties to
    work on alternative methods of customer education so that they will
    be available prior to the implementation of E911 service.

2.  

3.   Education will be an extremely important element in consumers\'
    understanding both the capabilities and limitations of wireless E911
    services as well as the differences between the wireless and
    wireline systems. Consumers should be informed how to place a 911
    call, and under what circumstances a 911 call will not be completed.
    Among other things, consumers should also be informed of their
    ability to reprogram their handsets to enable them to use either
    carrier in a cellular area, as well as the charges that could result
    from such reprogramming. In the Further Notice, we seek comment
    regarding the role of consumer education in improving the
    effectiveness of wireless 911 services. In particular, we seek
    comment regarding possible requirements for covered carriers to
    engage in consumer education or labelling with respect to specific
    areas of potential consumer confusion.

4.  

5.  **C. [Specific E911 Technical and Other Issues]{.underline}**

6.  

**1. Call Priority**

**a. Background and Pleadings**

1.    In the *Notice,* we sought comment on our proposal to require
    that, one year after the Order, originating 911 calls must be
    assigned priority over non-emergency service calls. We explained
    that this priority would be assigned at the handset and would place
    the 911 call at the beginning of any queue for calls waiting to be
    placed in the mobile radio network. We asked commenters to address
    whether this capability would require any major equipment
    modifications or whether existing systems currently have this
    capability. Commenters were also requested to discuss the technical
    feasibility and cost of establishing priority for 911 calls in new
    and existing mobile radio networks.[^233]

2.  

3.    Commenters generally agreed that 911 call priority is an important
    element of wireless access to E911 service.[^234] However,
    commenters expressed diverse views on the issue of whether the
    proposed one year implementation date is achievable and whether the
    assignment of priority at the handset is appropriate. While some
    commenters supported our proposal without objection,[^235] most
    commenters differed on the implementation of this feature. Several
    cellular handset manufacturers and service providers opposed the
    proposal that priority should be assigned from the handset.[^236]

4.  

5.    Commenters also contended that implementation of a priority system
    will require longer than a year because of the need for network
    equipment upgrades.[^237] Some commenters proposed alternative
    timetables for development of the call priority feature.[^238] Other
    commenters suggested that the Commission should defer this issue to
    an industry committee.[^239] Similarly, some commenters contended
    that the Commission should urge industry bodies to continue their
    work on developing a reasonable and effective call prioritization
    scheme for wireless services, because coordination among industry
    experts and the LECs and PSAPs is required to investigate various
    priority problems, such as call queuing and call flow control
    (throttling). PCIA, for example, noted that mobile networks
    currently are incapable of either prioritization or queuing
    calls.[^240] It further argued that, even assuming that call queuing
    and call priority were both fully implemented, there remains the
    problem of throttling. For example, numerous mobile customers would
    simultaneously report an emergency situation via 911. All of these
    calls would jump to the head of the calling queue, thereby
    overwhelming both the LEC and the PSAP. In the meantime, another 911
    call from a totally different area might be squeezed out. Therefore,
    the parties contended that the network should recognize this case
    and insert the new call into the queue in a higher priority position
    than the existing calls.[^241]

6.  

7.    Some commenters expressed concern that absolute call priority for
    911 calls may not be appropriate and even counter-productive,
    considering certain policy issues.[^242] For example, APC contended
    that call prioritization and the effect on carrier liability is an
    important issue that requires Commission awareness.[^243] Other
    commenters urged that the Commission should consider the impact of
    911 call priority upon national security and emergency preparedness
    (NS/EP) calls during disasters, suggesting a relative priority
    scheme needs to be devised rather than an absolute priority for 911
    calls.[^244] The parties also noted that the Cellular Priority
    Access Advisory Committee, composed of government representatives,
    manufacturers and service providers, is currently undertaking an
    effort to address implementation of prioritization.[^245] Therefore,
    the parties urged the Commission to withhold any final decision on
    the 911 call priority issues, specifically the relative priority
    assignment issue, until the Advisory Committee resolves the issues
    involving NS/EP calls.[^246] The Consensus Agreement does not
    address the issue of call priority.

8.  

**b. Discussion**

1.   As recognized in the *Notice*, we believe that call priority for
    wireless 911 calls is an important aspect of promoting public
    safety. The comments on the issue of call priority generally agree
    that call priority should be established for wireless 911 calls. We
    recognize, however, that the technology for call priority is
    complex. For example, commenters claim that mobile networks are
    currently incapable of prioritizing or queuing calls.[^247]
    Commenters also describe the difficulty of determining whether 911
    calls should have priority over other non-emergency calls such as
    calls to a suicide hotline.[^248] Further, some commenters argue
    that priority should not be given to 911 calls which are duplicate
    reports of the same accident.[^249]

2.  

3.    As pointed out by the Secretary of Defense, there are ongoing
    discussions by the Cellular Priority Access Advisory Committee,
    composed of industry and Federal and state government
    representatives under the NCS, to establish a uniform nationwide
    method of providing access for mobile subscribers.[^250] On October
    12, 1995, the NCS filed a Petition for Rulemaking, requesting the
    Commission to adopt rules to provide priority access to cellular
    spectrum for National Security/Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP)
    responsiveness. Specifically, the NCS requested that the Commission
    establish the Cellular Priority Access Service (CPAS). The Petition
    proposes that authorized NS/EP users would be permitted to obtain
    access to cellular radio channels ahead of non-NS/EP users when
    cellular network congestion is blocking NS/EP call attempts. In
    order to obtain priority access, the authorized user would dial a
    feature code. CPAS calls would not preempt calls in progress.[^251]

4.  

5.   In view of the complexity of the issues as pointed out by the
    commenters and in view of the possibility of interference with the
    Secretary of Defense\'s efforts to develop priority standards for
    national security and emergency preparedness, we shall not develop
    E911 call priority standards at this time. We encourage the wireless
    industry and public safety organizations to continue working to
    resolve the technical and other issues associated with 911 call
    priority, and its relationship to national security and emergency
    preparedness needs. We will revisit the issue of call priority for
    wireless E911 in conjunction with the call priority issues raised by
    the NCS Petition for Rulemaking with respect to priority access.

6.  

**2. Grade of Service**

**a. Background and Pleadings**

1.   The term \`\`grade of service\'\' refers to the percentage of calls
    between the mobile transmitter and the PSAP that are blocked either
    within the radio or the wireline network. The interconnection of a
    mobile radio transmitter call with a PSAP attendant may involve
    several interconnecting networks, including mobile radio links and
    the wireline public switched telephone network (PSTN). In the
    *Notice*, we proposed that standards bodies should investigate
    technical solutions or other strategies to ensure minimal blocking
    of 911 calls from mobile radio transmitters. Recognizing that any
    overall grade of service objective will require a cooperative effort
    between the initiating, interconnecting, and terminating systems, we
    tentatively concluded that Federal standards are not warranted at
    this time. We sought comment on this assessment and requested that
    commenters advocating Federal standards should describe how grade of
    service would be defined, and discuss any jurisdictional
    implications of imposing such standards.[^252]

2.  

3.   Commenters representing the wireless industry generally supported
    our initial view that Federal grade of service standards need not be
    promulgated at this time for various reasons.[^253] Some commenters
    asserted that grades of service of wireline 911 networks differ from
    jurisdiction to jurisdiction.[^254] Several commenters contended
    that any grade of service objective requires a cooperative effort
    between responsible service providers and users.[^255] Other parties
    argued that the competitive market will provide a grade of service
    standard which any wireless service provider must meet.[^256]

4.  

5.   APCO and other public safety groups, on the other hand, argued that
    the Commission should adopt Federal grade of service
    standards.[^257] These commenters contended that a wireless 911
    caller reasonably expects the same grade of service that is expected
    from a wireline phone.[^258] Thus, the parties suggested that a
    grade of service of one busy signal per one hundred 911 call
    attempts in the average busy hour should be adopted as a Federal
    standard, noting that this requirement is compatible with most state
    and local grade-of-service requirements for E911 access.[^259] Some
    commenters requested that if grade of service is addressed in the
    Report and Order, the Commission should simply require that wireless
    911 grade of service be equivalent to the wireline grade of service
    being provided within the same locale.[^260] Other commenters urged
    the Commission to adopt system requirements for functions like total
    transmission time and database availability.[^261] None of the
    parties advocating Federal standards discussed the jurisdictional
    implication of imposing such standards.

6.  

7.   In its comments regarding the Consensus Agreement, US West supports
    a procedure to resolve implementation issues at the local level in
    the first instance, while Motorola urges that any standards for
    wireless location technologies be compatible with all radio
    frequency technologies.[^262]

8.  

**b. Discussion**

1.   As discussed in a previous Section,[^263] we agree with the parties
    that contend that Federal standards regarding grade of service for
    911 service are not warranted at this time. The nature of the issue
    requires a level of expertise and consultation among the parties
    that can best be achieved through discussions and proceedings of
    standard-setting bodies, which the parties indicate are already in
    progress. In addition, requiring a grade of service for 911 calls
    which is superior to the current grade of service may require the
    implementation of special technologies, especially call priority.
    Therefore, we conclude that the interested parties should develop
    standards by mutual agreement or by submission to standard-setting
    bodies.

2.  

3.   We intend, however, to track the industry\'s progress in achieving
    a grade of service standard for 911 service, and will provide
    whatever assistance our resources permit. In that connection, we
    shall require the signatories to the Consensus Agreement, PCIA, and
    Alliance to furnish the Commission with reports detailing the status
    of the discussions involving the grade of service, what decisions
    have been made by standard bodies or through mutual agreement among
    the interested parties, and what can be done to expedite the
    resolution of the issues. Such reports must be filed not later than
    30 days following the end of each annual period after the effective
    date of the rules adopted in this proceeding, and if sufficient
    progress has not been made, we shall take appropriate action. With
    the wireless systems operating in different technical, operational,
    and jurisdictional environments, we believe details on grade of
    service need further review. This careful review can best be
    accomplished through these consultative processes, with significant
    Commission input, rather than by a Commission decision based on a
    paper record.

4.  

**3. Common Channel Signalling**

**a. Background and Pleadings**

1.   In the *Notice*, we noted the conclusion of the Joint Paper that
    radio transmissions of 911 calls eventually should be capable of
    providing the same or similar information and features currently
    available from wireline calls over E911 systems. In addition to the
    ALI and call back information discussed above, we proposed that some
    or all of the following information should be furnished to the
    PSAP: (1) call back number and the mobile transmitter subscriber\'s
    name; (2) class of service, *e.g.*, residence, business, etc.; (3)
    base station provider\'s name and telephone number; (4) priority of
    the caller, *e.g.*, hospital, school, *etc*.; (5) routing
    information to direct the call to the proper PSAP (primary and
    secondary PSAP identifiers); and (6) transfer numbers, *i.e.,*
    separate numbers to allow transfer of calls to police, fire and
    ambulance services. In the *Notice*, we requested comment on the
    feasibility of these features, which would permit radio transmission
    systems to interface fully with wireline E911 systems. To facilitate
    full interface between the wireless and wireline networks, we
    proposed and solicited comment on the requirement to implement
    common channel signalling (CCS) capabilities within three years
    after the Order.[^264] Commenters were asked to discuss whether the
    reliability of 911 technology will be hampered if 911 services are
    transferred to CCS, and how the issue of CCS for 911 services would
    affect the survivability of 911 SS7-based calls during a CCS
    outage.[^265]

2.  

3.   Commenters expressed diverse views on the proposal to require CCS
    capabilities within three years. Some commenters supported the
    proposed rule and timetable, arguing that current features and
    standards that exist today for SS7 networks are applicable to E911
    service.[^266] APCO, for example, argued that the use of an expanded
    SS7 would provide a more reliable method for processing E911 calls
    than waiting for CCS.[^267] At the same time, the parties recognized
    that additional new standards will need to be developed to define
    data elements and processes for handling and transporting E911 calls
    through the network.[^268] Other commenters contended that requiring
    CCS capabilities within three years is inappropriate because of the
    cost involved and the fact the standards have not been set. SBC, for
    example, contended that the cost of implementing CCS capabilities to
    perform the wireline type functions for wireless will be substantial
    and urged the Commission to refer this issue to industry standards
    committees and industry forums.[^269]

4.  

5.   Many commenters noted that the wireless industry currently lags
    behind the wireline industry in implementation of CCS and does not
    necessarily employ consistent protocols. PCIA and Motorola, for
    example, noted that while SS7 is prevalent on wireline networks,
    wireless networks often use different protocols, with some using SS7
    but most using IS-41. Motorola notes further that PCS networks are
    expected to deploy SS7.[^270] Because of the need for coordination
    among industry members in the implementation of the common channel
    signalling capabilities, some commenters recommended that the
    Commission not tie the implementation to the effective date of these
    rules, but rather to the joint development of a universal CCS or
    interworking platform.[^271]

6.  

7.   Commenters also expressed concern over the proposal that wireless
    carriers would be required to provide the same or similar
    information and features that are currently provided by wireline
    carriers to E911 systems. Many commenters contended that certain
    information about the subscriber would be unnecessary and may be
    counterproductive in wireless 911 situations.[^272] SBC, for
    example, pointed out that the overwhelming majority (as high as 97
    percent) of wireless 911 calls are placed by Good Samaritans where
    the caller is a stranger to the incident and is not necessarily
    waiting at the site of the incident.[^273] In such cases, commenters
    contended that information about the subscriber is not critical and
    may discourage such Good Samaritan calls from people who want to
    assist in an emergency but do not want to \`\`get involved\'\'
    personally.[^274]

8.  

9.   Other commenters contended that this issue requires substantial
    study and cannot be rationally addressed without extensive
    coordination and consideration by the relevant parties.[^275] For
    example, CTIA contended that enormous costs would be incurred by
    both PSAPs and carriers to achieve the necessary modifications and
    upgrade, because routing information as well as transfer number data
    available on the wireline-side are based upon the street address of
    the originating telephone, which is of very limited utility in a
    mobile context.[^276] Thus, the parties contended that the
    Commission should rely on the JEM process to determine what
    information should be provided to the PSAP and how that information
    should be transmitted, given differing implementation of signalling
    protocols in landline and wireless networks.[^277] PCIA, for
    example, urged that the Commission allow the wireless industry and
    the 911 community to agree on the scope of information that
    ultimately will be provided, rather than specifying the required
    information in its rules at this stage.[^278] Some commenters also
    contend that CMRS providers should not be required to implement the
    new features until PSAP operators are equipped to handle the
    information that would be transmitted by the CMRS provider.[^279]

10. 

**b. Discussion**

1.    In their comments, the wireless service providers and associations
    contend that common channel signalling should be addressed by the
    parties rather than determined by the Commission. For example, they
    point out that common channel signalling will require cooperation by
    wireless carriers, LECs and PSAPs.[^280] As discussed in a previous
    Section,[^281] we agree that issues involving the interfaces and
    signalling systems to be deployed should, for the present, be
    resolved by the interested parties through mutual agreement or by
    submission to standards bodies. We note that under our Phase I E911
    implementation plan, covered carriers must transmit a caller\'s ANI,
    which provides the PSAP with call back capability. As we explained
    above, transmission of ANI does not require implementation of SS7,
    but standards setting bodies are scheduled to consider SS7 protocols
    for ANI in the very near future. We also note that under our rules
    requiring that location information be provided to the PSAP within
    five years, it will be necessary for the parties to develop whatever
    signalling standards are necessary to transmit that data. Once the
    parties have determined what signalling standards will be adopted,
    we shall consider whether further information should be furnished to
    the PSAP.

2.  

3.    We intend, however, to track the industry\'s progress of common
    channel signalling, and will provide whatever assistance our
    resources permit. In that connection, we shall require each of the
    signatories to the Consensus Agreement, PCIA, and Alliance to
    furnish the Commission with reports detailing the status of the
    issues involving the interfaces and signalling systems to be
    deployed for E911 services, what decisions have been made by
    standard bodies or through mutual agreement among the interested
    parties, and what can be done to expedite the resolution of the
    issues. Such reports must be filed not later than 30 days following
    the end of each annual period after the effective date of this Order
    of the rules adopted in this proceeding, and if sufficient progress
    has not been made, we shall take appropriate action.

4.  

**V. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**A. [Background]{.underline}**

1.    As stated in the previous Sections, the 911 and E911 rules we have
    adopted in the Report and Order are a first step toward the goal of
    meeting the Nation\'s public safety communications needs by ensuring
    that 911 and E911 services are as widely available as possible and
    that these services take advantage of advances in communications
    technology. We have concluded, however, that we also should
    immediately begin the task of exploring the need for further action
    to spur improvements in the features and delivery of these services.

2.  

3.   Some of the rules we have adopted in the Report and Order have a
    somewhat limited scope, in part because of insufficient information
    in the present record regarding the ability of wireless carriers to
    implement more stringent requirements within the short term. We
    believe that the next phase of this proceeding should seek to
    improve on this record, and should focus on the issue of whether the
    standards and requirements we are adopting today can be expanded.
    Specifically, we intend to examine whether requirements can be
    developed under which carriers will deliver more precise location
    information to PSAPs, and whether it will be possible to establish
    standards governing the speed at which such information must be
    delivered and the extent to which the information must be monitored
    and updated by the carrier to ensure its accuracy.

4.  

5.   As we have often observed throughout this proceeding, one of the
    principal issues we have set out to resolve is the problem of
    locating the mobile caller in emergency situations. The next phase
    of our inquiry will continue our effort to establish standards for
    the efficient use of communications technology to improve the
    accuracy and reliability of this location information. We also
    intend to examine how consumers can be educated to know the
    capabilities as well as the limitations of wireless services when
    they are used to call 911. We expect that this rulemaking will
    result in 911 service which will enhance the health and safety of
    the Nation\'s citizens.

6.  

7.  **B. [Discussion]{.underline}**

8.  

**1. Location Information Technology**

1.    One of our objectives is to ensure that wireless E911 continues to
    benefit from improvements in location information technology, while
    also striving to make sure that covered carriers\' development and
    application of new technologies for E911 services also contribute to
    the overall quality of service and range of services that carriers
    provide to all their customers. Such an objective is consistent with
    our responsibility under the Communications Act to provide for the
    management of the spectrum in a manner that serves national public
    safety needs. Based on the present record, we have adopted
    requirements under which carriers must supply to PSAPs, not later
    than five years after the effective date of the rules adopted in the
    Report and Order, information that locates a wireless 911 caller
    within a radius of 125 meters, using longitude and latitude data,
    and that provides this degree of accuracy for 67 percent of the 911
    calls processed.

2.  

3.    We believe it is advisable to begin considering at this time
    whether requirements establishing a higher degree of ALI accuracy
    should be adopted before the end of the five-year Phase II period,
    to take effect immediately after the close of that five-year period.
    Establishing such requirements now, rather than at a later time
    closer to the end of the five-year period, will act as an incentive
    to spur continuing efforts to develop improved location information
    technologies. In addition, triggering debate and discussion in the
    industry and the public safety community at this juncture through
    initiation of this further rulemaking proceeding will serve to
    ensure a full and detailed consideration of the range of location
    information technologies that are likely to be feasible.

4.  

5.    Based upon these considerations, we propose that covered carriers
    should be required to achieve the capabilities necessary to provide
    to PSAPs, after the initial five-year period, information that
    locates a wireless 911 caller within a radius of 40 feet, as
    recommended as a long term goal in the JEM Report,[^282] using
    longitude, latitude, and vertical location data, and that provides
    this degree of accuracy (for longitudinal and latitudinal data and
    for vertical location data) for 90 percent of the 911 calls
    processed. We also propose that the described requirements should
    apply only if (1) a covered carrier receives a request for E911
    services from the administrator of a PSAP that is capable of
    receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with the
    services; and (2) a mechanism for the recovery of costs relating to
    the provision of such services is in place.

6.  

7.    We propose to adopt a standard of 90 percent accuracy, within a
    radius of 40 feet, at the end of the initial five-year period, based
    on our estimate that such a standard will be feasible at that time.
    We seek comment on the reasonableness of this estimate.
    Specifically, we ask commenters to assess the current state of
    relevant technology, and to evaluate assumptions that can be made
    with respect to the evolution of this technology during the next
    five years. In that regard, we note that one manufacturer, KSI,
    claims that it is already possible to implement location technology
    that can identify a 911 caller\'s location with a reliability of 90
    percent.[^283]

8.  

9.    Commenters arguing that 90 percent accuracy is not realistic
    should suggest alternative accuracy standards that would improve the
    67 percent standard that we have adopted in the Report and Order. We
    also seek further comment regarding our proposal to establish
    standards for location information that require location within a
    radius of 40 feet. Commenters have suggested that altitude
    information may prove most beneficial in urban areas.[^284]
    Therefore, we seek comment regarding whether it would be appropriate
    to limit a requirement for providing this type of location
    information to certain geographic areas. Alternatively, we seek
    comment whether it would be appropriate to give local PSAPs the
    option of obtaining location information in three dimensions. We
    also seek comment on whether other requirements are preferable to
    those we are proposing, or whether there are other methods of
    achieving improved accuracy without the setting of any specific
    requirements. Given the concerns we have noted regarding the
    relationship between the development and application of ALI
    technology for E911 services and the overall quality of service and
    range of services that covered carriers provide to all their
    customers, we also ask commenters to address the relative costs and
    benefits associated with imposition of the specific requirements we
    are proposing.

10. 

11.   To the extent that a new technology would substantially advance
    the quality of E911 service to the public, we believe that the
    public interest is served by expediting the introduction of this
    technoloby in E911 networks. Specifically, we seek comment on the
    following issues: (1) What estimates can be made regarding the
    additional costs that would be incurred by carriers to upgrade ALI
    technology in order to achieve a higher percentage rate of
    reliability in determining the location of wireless 911 callers? (2)
    Similarly, what level of additional costs would be associated with
    upgrading location technology to include vertical location data? (3)
    Will these increased levels of cost be adequately accommodated by
    the state and local cost recovery mechanisms that will be
    established? (4) Will other benefits \-- in addition to improvements
    in the delivery of 911 assistance \-- be derived from these
    technological upgrades?

12. 

13.   We also seek comment regarding the development of a minimum
    latency period to ensure that public safety personnel are informed
    of callers\' locations in time to act in the emergencies that they
    confront. In addition, commenters should address whether updating of
    location information throughout the duration of a 911 call may be
    technically feasible and useful. KSI\'s proposal of a latency period
    of 5 seconds, and an updating of the location information every 10
    seconds, may serve as a useful starting point. We therefore request
    comment on these proposals, including their use and feasibility, and
    any other alternative proposals on these issues. We note that the
    Commission has not chosen a specific technology for providing ALI,
    and we therefore seek comment regarding the impact of latency or
    updating requirements on various technologies under development. We
    request that commenters addressing these issues provide supporting
    engineering analyses.

14. 

15.  Further, in addition to proposing specific requirements to be
    implemented within a reasonable time after the five-year period, we
    wish to ensure that sufficient mechanisms are in place to give
    covered carriers proper incentives to implement state-of-the-art
    communications technology, as that technology becomes available, in
    connection with the provision of E911 services. We therefore request
    comment regarding what types of monitoring mechanism the Commission
    should adopt to ensure that carriers are developing and deploying
    state-of-the-art technology. One method under which the Commission
    could monitor the development, application, and deployment of
    state-of-the-art technology, as well as the effects of this
    technology on the quality of wireless E911 service, would be to
    establish reporting requirements under which covered carriers would
    periodically inform the Commission of developments relevant to the
    provision of E911 services. When new technology is reported to be
    available, we could require that it be deployed if the benefit
    exceeds the cost, unless the limited availability of the technology
    makes the deployment impractical. We seek comment regarding whether
    such reporting requirements and the requirement for deployment of
    new technology should be adopted. We also recognize that there may
    be other ways to achieve the same goals while also minimizing
    administrative burdens faced by covered carriers or the Commission.
    Commenters are invited to discuss any other possible ways to monitor
    the quality of wireless 911 service.

16. 

**2. Access to 911 Service via Multiple Mobile Systems**

**a. Technical Issues**

1.    In its Petition, Alliance raises a number of technical issues
    concerning interoperability between cellular systems and the
    problems that could be created for users of these systems trying to
    make 911 calls. Specifically, Alliance indicates that the service
    area of all wireless systems contains \`\`blank spots,\'\' that is,
    areas where a system\'s radio signal is very weak or non-existent.
    Alliance\'s solution to this problem is to require 911 calls to be
    sent to the cellular system with the strongest control channel
    signal.[^285] While we believe there is a broader issue beyond that
    raised by Alliance, as discussed below, we seek comment on
    Alliance\'s specific proposal, including the tests contained in its
    Reply Comments to the Consensus Agreement, especially from a
    technical feasibility standpoint. If a commenter believes that
    Alliance\'s proposal is technically infeasible, it should provide
    its reasons in detail, with supporting engineering analyses.

2.  

3.   The issue raised by Alliance, however, is not limited to cellular
    systems, and could be extended to other mobile services, such as
    broadband PCS, that will be required to provide 911 access. The
    generic issue underlying Alliance\'s concerns is not only one of
    accessing the *best* system, but one of accessing *any* system, to
    service a wireless 911 call. Such a call should not be limited to a
    specific service provider, system, or technology. Rather, ideally, a
    911 call should be handled by whatever wireless system is available
    in the area of need and, if there are multiple systems available, by
    the one that will provide the quickest and most reliable and
    accurate response.

4.  

5.   Common air interface standards currently make cellular systems
    relatively compatible for 911 calls on all cellular
    telephones.[^286] As cellular systems evolve to digital technology,
    however, this may no longer hold true. Furthermore, common standards
    do not exist for broadband PCS systems or between other mobile
    service systems.[^287] Sending a 911 call to the system with the
    strongest signal assumes that all systems are capable of handling
    every call. As many commenters point out, a carrier with the best
    signal in the area may use a different air interface than that used
    by the handset.[^288] Commenters also indicate that it may not be
    currently possible to transfer a call to another mobile carrier
    because the systems use different protocols.[^289]

6.  

7.   In order to ensure the broad availability of basic 911 service for
    wireless customers, we have decided to seek further comment on ways
    to enable such mobile users to complete a 911 call without regard to
    the availability (in the geographic area in which they seek to place
    a 911 call) of the system or technology utilized by their wireless
    service. To the extent that any mobile service is available in an
    area, we seek comment regarding whether it would be desirable to
    establish arrangements and procedures under which all wireless 911
    calls could be handled by the available service. This issue goes
    well beyond Alliance\'s concern and proposed solution regarding
    coverage gaps in cellular service. We recognize, however, that many
    wireless service providers claim that Alliance\'s proposal is
    technically infeasible and without merit. These same parties may
    likewise have concerns with the broader direction that we are
    pursuing here. We emphasize that the Commission has chosen not to
    establish a common technical air interface for broadband PCS, nor
    has it chosen technical standards for digital cellular service. We
    have decided that the marketplace should determine which digital
    protocols will survive, and we do not intend to reach different
    conclusions in this proceeding.

8.  

9.   Nevertheless, we seek comment regarding how to achieve the goal of
    enabling wireless 911 service to be available and accessible
    wherever a qualifying mobile system is present. Commenters should
    address issues framed by the mobile services environment as a whole,
    but should also offer partial solutions, as appropriate, *e.g.,* if
    the goal can be achieved for cellular but not between and among
    other mobile systems. Options to explore should consider both
    equipment and system capabilities. For example, to what extent can
    dual-mode mobile units enable operation with multiple systems, such
    as switching between cellular and PCS systems? Or, can a common
    protocol be developed and incorporated into every mobile system to
    overcome compatibility or interoperability problems? Currently,
    cellular handsets are preset to seek the strongest signal from the
    cellular carrier to which the user subscribes. While the user can
    manually change this default setting to access the strongest signal
    from either of two cellular carriers regardless of subscription, it
    would be useful to apply such feature in all cases for 911 calls
    without disrupting handling and roaming considerations with respect
    to other calls. To accomplish this, manufacturers of cellular
    handsets would have to modify the default settings of these units.
    The handsets could then automatically route 911 calls to the
    strongest signal provided by a cellular carrier while all other
    calls would be handled as determined by the users. We request
    commenters to address whether such a requirement should be imposed
    on handset manufacturers and, if so, whether it should be
    implemented by the Commission in the equipment authorization
    process.

10. 

**b. 911 Availability and Consumer Education**

1.   In this Order, one of our goals is to ensure that as many 911 calls
    are processed as feasible. Thus, we have determined that, within
    one-year from the effective date of the rules which are adopted in
    this Order, covered carriers would be required to transmit to PSAPs
    911 calls from wireless handsets that do not transmit a code
    identification where requested by the PSAP Administrator. The basis
    for the restriction is that public safety organizations are in the
    best position to determine whether acceptance of calls from handsets
    without a code identification helps or hinders their efforts to
    preserve and promote health and safety in their communities.
    However, we are concerned that a system under which customers in the
    same geographic area may or may not be able to complete non-code
    identification 911 calls depending on the practices of the PSAPs
    serving that area may generate unnecessary customer confusion. We
    therefore seek comment on whether, within a reasonable time after
    the one year period, covered carriers should be obligated to
    transmit all such calls even without a request from the PSAP.

2.  

3.   We acknowledge the possibility that solutions may not be readily
    developed for improving access to 911 services, such that 911 access
    may still be limited. In light of these circumstances, we request
    comment regarding how users can be informed or made aware that not
    all wireless 911 calls may be processed by carriers and delivered to
    PSAPs for monitoring and response. One purpose of such a customer
    education program would be to address a concern that consumers
    currently may not have a sufficient understanding of technological
    limitations that can impede transmission of wireless 911 calls and
    the delivery of emergency assistance. We believe that covered
    carriers have an obligation to inform their customers regarding the
    scope of their services, including any such technical limitations of
    current wireless services in providing access to basic and E911
    services, so that customers will be able to determine rationally and
    accurately the scope of their options in accessing 911 services from
    mobile handsets, and available alternatives.

4.  

5.    For example, current cellular handsets are capable of accessing
    both cellular carriers within a service area. In some cases,
    however, cellular subscribers have their mobile phones set to
    restrict access to the alternative carrier, in order to avoid
    potentially costly roaming charges. It may be useful, however, to
    educate consumers regarding the potential disadvantage of setting
    their handsets in such a manner. In other words, a cellular
    subscriber might want to have his or her handset set to receive
    signals of both cellular carriers in order to limit the possibility
    of being in a \`\`dead spot\'\' when trying to call 911. To the
    extent 911 access to multiple systems might be accomplished by users
    programming their mobile units, we seek comment regarding whether
    handset labelling or instructions should be provided to users about
    this possibility as well as the need for the customer to be aware of
    the air time charges that might be incurred.

6.  

7.   Further, we believe that public education regarding limitations
    relating to the scope of 911 service, not only in this context but
    also for the location capability discussed in previous Sections,
    could be valuable so that customers can be informed of the
    capabilities and limitations of wireless 911 systems. To this end,
    we seek comment regarding the extent equipment labelling or detailed
    service descriptions may be necessary or appropriate to provide this
    education. We also seek comment regarding whether mobile unit
    equipment manufacturers should be required to prepare, for inclusion
    in the packaging of their consumer products, consumer education
    materials addressing the capabilities and limitations of the mobile
    units in connection with the ability of the user to make 911 calls.
    We also seek comment regarding the role that local public safety
    agencies can play in disseminating information regarding the
    capabilities and limitations of wireless 911 service.

8.  

9.    While we are seeking comment regarding actions that could be taken
    to enable all wireless 911 calls be completed, we recognize that
    there are difficulties in attaining this objective. The emerging
    environment of multiple mobile service providers and systems, and
    the Commission\'s inclination to provide reasonable flexibility for
    licensees to develop their services, may contribute to the
    situation. As noted above, the implementation of our baseline
    schedule depends in large part on the actions of state and local
    government authorities, and is therefore likely to result in
    significant variation in different jurisdictions. We must find ways,
    however, to make wireless 911 service as ubiquitous and transparent
    as possible to the using public. Taking such actions should not only
    improve 911 service but also promote a more universal, dynamic, and
    competitive mobile radio industry. We therefore seek comment on
    solutions that would address this concern.

10. 

**C. [Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis]{.underline}**

1.   This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains a proposed
    information collection. As part of its 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 Further Notice, as
    required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13.
    Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other
    comments on this Further Notice; OMB comments are due 60 days from
    date of publication of this Further Notice in the Federal Register.
    Comments should address: (1) 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; (2) the accuracy of the Commission\'s burden
    estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
    the information collected; and (4) 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.

2.  

3.  **D. [Ex Parte]{.underline}**

4.  

5.   The *Further Notice* is a non-restricted notice and comment
    rulemaking proceeding. *Ex Parte* presentations are permitted,
    except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are
    disclosed as provided in the Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    Sections 1.1201, 1.1203 and 1.1206(a).

6.  

7.  **E. [Comment Period]{.underline}**

8.  

9.    Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and
    1.419 of the Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419,
    interested parties may file comments on or before August 26, 1996.
    Reply comments are due on or before September 10, 1996. To file
    formally in this proceeding, commenters must file an original and
    four copies of all comments, reply comments with the reference
    \`\`CC Docket 94-102.\'\' If they wish each Commissioner to receive
    a personal copy of their comments, they must file an original plus
    nine copies. Filings should be sent to the Office of the Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. In
    addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
    comments on the information collections contained herein should be
    submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room
    234, 1919 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet
    to dconway@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236
    NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20503 or via the
    Internet to fain t@al.eop.gov. Comments and reply comments will be
    available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
    FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications
    Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Copies of
    comments and reply comments are available through the Commission\'s
    duplicating contractor: International Transcription Service, Inc.
    (ITS, Inc.), 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C.
    20037, (202) 857-3800.

10. 

**VI. CONCLUSION**

1.   In the implementation of wireless E911 service, state and local
    governments and public safety agencies will play a central role in
    developing effective E911 solutions. The schedule we are adopting
    sets a minimum standard which should not impede more rapid
    deployment or the development of new and improved capabilities and
    features. The fact that state and local authorities will continue to
    be responsible for E911 deployment in PSAPs and funding should
    encourage their ongoing efforts to find better ways to meet
    emergency needs.

2.  

3.   The goal in this proceeding has been to make wireless services as
    comparable as possible to wireline service in E911 access. As
    technology makes it possible, we will continue to monitor how both
    wireline and wireless carriers can enhance their crucial roles in
    \`\`promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire
    and radio communication.\'\'

4.  

**VII. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISION**

1.   As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the
    Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of
    the Expected impact on small entities of the changes in our rules
    adopted herein and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the
    Expected impact on small entities of the proposals contained in the
    Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    are set forth in Appendix B.

2.  

**VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES**

1.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Rule Amendments specified in
    Appendix C SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 60 days after the date of
    publication in the Federal Register.

2.  

3.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition of the Ad Hoc Alliance for
    Public Access to 911 is GRANTED in part, as set forth in the text of
    the Order.

4.  

5.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the signatories to the Consensus
    Agreement, the Personal Communications Industry Association, and the
    Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to 911 file joint annual reports
    within 30 days after the end of each calendar year, as set forth in
    the text of this Order.

6.  

7.    IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the signatories to the Consensus
    Agreement, the Personal Communications Industry Association, and
    Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. file a joint report within one
    year of the effective date of the rules adopted herein, as set forth
    in the text of the Order.

8.  

9.   This action is taken pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 201, 208, 215,
    303, and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
    U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 201, 208, 215, 303, 309.

10. 

11.  For further information, contact Peter Wolfe of the Policy
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-1310.

12. 

13. 

14. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

15. 

16. 

17. 

18. 

19. William F. Caton

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1.  Acting Secretary

2.  **APPENDIX A**

**LIST OF COMMENTERS AND ABBREVIATIONS**

**(1) Initial Comments and Reply Comments on the *Notice***

> AACOG (Alamo Area Council of Governments)

Adcomm (Adcomm Engineering Company)

> Ad Hoc Telecomm. (Ad Hoc Telecommunications Users Committee, the
> California Bankers Clearing House and the New York Clearing House
> Association)

AirTouch (AirTouch Communications)

> Alamo (Alamo Area Council of Governments)

Alliance (Consumers First and the Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to
911)

> ALLTEL (ALLTELL Mobile Communications, Inc.)
>
> Ameritech

AMSC (AMSC Subsidiary Corporation)

AMTA (American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc.)

> APC (American Personal Communications)
>
> APCO (Association of Public-Safety Communications
> Officials-International, Inc.)

ART (Associated RT, Inc.)

> AT&T (American Telephone & Telegraph)
>
> Bell Atlantic
>
> BellSouth (BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.,
> BellSouth Enterprises, Inc. and BellSouth Cellular Corp.)
>
> Caddo (Caddo Parrish Communications District No. One)
>
> Carter (Carter County)
>
> CDC (The Department of Corrections of the State of California)
>
> CNP (Cellular Networking Perspectives, Ltd.)
>
> Century (Century Cellunet Inc.)
>
> C. J. Driscoll (C.J. Driscoll & Associates)
>
> CMT (CMT Partners)
>
> COMSAT (COMSAT Corporation\'s COMSAT Mobile Communications division)
>
> Constellation (Constellation Communications, Inc.)
>
> Coast Guard (The United States Coast Guard)
>
> Cowlitz (Cowlitz County)
>
> CPUC (The People of the State of California and the Public Utilities
> Commission of the State of California)
>
> CTIA (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association)
>
> E.F. Johnson (E.F. Johnson Company)
>
> Elert (Elert & Associates)
>
> Ericsson (Ericsson Corporation and affiliated companies)
>
> GE (GE Capital - RESCOM)
>
> Geotek (Geotek Communications, Inc. and its subsidiaries and
> affiliates)
>
> Green (Green County Emergency Communications District)
>
> GTE (GTE Service Corporation )

Harris (Harris Corporation)

> Harris County (Greater Harris County 911 Emergency Network)
>
> Hillsborough (Hillsborough County, FL)
>
> IAFC (International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc.)
>
> ICSAR (Interagency Committee on Search and Rescue)
>
> IDB Mobile (IDB Mobile Communications, Inc.)
>
> IMSA (International Municipal Signal Association)
>
> ITS (Intelligent Transportation Society of America)
>
> Jackson County
>
> Kentucky (Kentucky Emergency Number Association)
>
> King County (King County E911 Program Office)
>
> KML (KML Technology, Inc.)
>
> KSI (KSI, Inc.)

Lake County

> LEO One USA (LEO One USA Corporation)

LHC (Lake Huron Cellular)

> Liberty (Liberty Cellular)
>
> Lockheed (Lockheed Martin, Sanders)
>
> LQP (Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership, L.P.)
>
> Maryland ENSB (Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional
> Services, Emergency Number Systems Board)
>
> MCI (MCI, Inc.)
>
> Motorola (Motorola, Inc.)
>
> NASNA (National Association of State Nine One One Administrators)
>
> NATA (North American Telecommunications Association)
>
> NCS (The Secretary of Defense, on behalf of the Department of Defense
> and as Executive Agent of the National Communications System)

NENA (National Emergency Number Association)

> \- Florida Chapter of NENA
>
> \- Georgia Chapter of NENA
>
> \- North Carolina Chapter of NENA
>
> Nextel (Nextel Communications, Inc.)

NJETS (New Jersey Office of Emergency Telecommunications Services)

Nortel (Northern Telecom, Inc.)

> North Dakota (State of North Dakota)
>
> NYNEX (The NYNEX Companies)
>
> OPASTCO (Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small
> Telephone Companies)
>
> ORBCOMM (Orbital Communications Corporation)
>
> Oregon (Oregon State Police Emergency Management Division)
>
> Pacific Bell (Pacific Bell, Nevada Bell and Pacific Bell Mobile
> Services )
>
> Palmer (Palmer Communications Incorporated)
>
> PCIA (The Personal Communications Industry Association)
>
> Pertech (Pertech America, Inc.)
>
> Pro-West (Pro-West Associates)
>
> PSCC (Public Safety Communications Center, IN)
>
> RCA (Rural Cellular Association)
>
> Redcomm (Redcomm Laboratories, Inc.)
>
> San Juan (San Juan County, WA)
>
> SafeTalk (National Cellular SafeTalk Center, Inc.)
>
> SAT (Smith Advanced Technology, Inc.)
>
> SBC (SBC Communications, Inc.)

SBMS (Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc.)

Shelby County (Shelby County 911 District)

Southern (The Southern Company)

> Springwich (Springwich Cellular Limited Partnership)
>
> Sprint (Sprint Cellular Company)
>
> Stanford Telecom (Stanford Telecommunications, Inc.)
>
> STARSYS (STARSYS Global Positioning, Inc.)

TDI (Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.)

> Teleos
>
> Telident (Telident, Inc.)
>
> Tendler (Tendler Cellular)
>
> Terrapin (Terrapin Corporation)
>
> Thurston County (Thurston County, WA)
>
> TIA (Telecommunications Industry Association)
>
> TRW (TRW, Inc.)

TX-ACSEC (Texas Advisory Committee on State Emergency Communications)

> US Cellular (US Cellular Corporation)
>
> US West (US West, Inc.)
>
> Vanguard (Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.)

Walla Walla (Walla Walla, WA Police Department)

> Washington (State of Washington Emergency Management)
>
> Washington County (Washington County, TN)
>
> Watercom (Waterway Communications Systems, Inc.)
>
> Westinghouse (Westinghouse Electric Corporation)
>
> WT (Washington Telecommunications)

**(2) Comments and Reply Comments on the Alliance\'s Petition for
Rulemaking**

> AT&T (AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.)
>
> BANM (Bell Atlantic NYNEX Mobile, Inc.)
>
> BellSouth (BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Cellular Corporation)
>
> CTIA (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association)
>
> Carolina West (North Carolina RSA3 Cellular Telephone Company)
>
> PBMS (Pacific Bell Mobile Services)
>
> PCIA (Personal Communications Industry Association)
>
> RCA (Rural Cellular Association)
>
> SBMS (Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems, Inc.)

**(3) Comments and Reply Comments on the Consensus Agreement**

> Alliance (The Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to 911)
>
> AMSC (AMSC Subsidiary Corporation)
>
> AMTA (American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc.)
>
> BellSouth (BellSouth Corporation)
>
> BMJ&D (Blooston, Mordkofsky, Jackson & Dickens)
>
> CTO (Concepts to Operations, Inc.)
>
> GTE (GTE Service Corporation)
>
> ICSAR (The Interagency Committee on Search and Rescue)
>
> ITS (Intelligent Transportation Society of America)
>
> Motorola (Motorola, Inc.)
>
> Nextel (Nextel Communications, Inc.)
>
> Nortel (Northern Telecom Inc. )
>
> PCIA (The Personal Communications Industry Association)
>
> RCA (The Rural Cellular Association)
>
> RCC (The Ad Hoc Rural Cellular Coalition)
>
> US West (US West, Inc.)
>
> Vanguard (Vanguard Cellular Systems, Inc.)

**APPENDIX B**

**I. FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. §
603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the *Notice*. The Commission sought written public
comments on the proposals in the *Notice*, including on the IRFA. The
Commission\'s Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Order
conforms to the RFA, as amended by the Contract With America Advancement
Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA).[^290]

**I. Need For and Objective of the Rules:**

This *Report and Order* adopts policies concerning the operation of 911
and enhanced 911 (E911) emergency calling service and the services
provided by cellular, broadband personal communications services (PCS),
and geographic area specialized mobile radio (SMR) licensees. Commenters
responding to the *Notice* in this proceeding have identified a number
of ways in which 911 and E911 might be available through the use of
wireless telephones, and have indicated that more widely available 911
and E911 services will save lives and property. Commenters also have
indicated that various enhancements to wireless 911 service, such as the
ability of the carrier to provide precise caller location information to
the public safety answering point administrators, would make significant
contributions to the effectiveness of wireless 911 services.

We find that the benefit of providing for more widely available and more
effective 911 and E911 services for users of wireless telephones exceed
any negative effects that may result from the promulgation of rules for
this purpose. Thus, we conclude that the public interest is served by
requiring that wireless telephones operate effectively with E911
systems.

**II. Summary of Issues Raised by the Public Comments In Response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis:**

No comments were submitted in direct response to the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis. In general comments on the *Notice*, however, a
number of commenters raised issues that might affect small entities.
Most of the wireless industry supported exemption for site-specific
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees due to their limited
interconnection with the public switched network. Rural cellular
providers argued that they should be exempted from E911 requirements
because of the high expense in low density markets, as well as the lack
of emergency service provider capabilities in such markets.

**III. Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements of the Rule:**

There are no general reporting or recordkeeping requirements. There are,
however, requirements for a group of trade and consumer organizations to
report to the Commission on the status of industry discussions of
technical standards and other implementation issues.[^291] We assume
that these reports will be prepared by the professional staff of these
associations, and we do not intend to impose any unnecessary burdens or
costs on the entities involved in the preparation and submission of the
reports. The rule will require cellular, broadband PCS, and geographic
area SMR licensees to upgrade their equipment so that:

> \(l\) 911 calls from wireless mobile handsets which transmit a code
> identification will be transmitted without delay or credit
> verification.
>
> \(2\) 911 calls from any mobile handset will be transmitted without
> delay or credit verification to any emergency service provider who
> requests that they be transmitted.
>
> \(3\) 911 calls may be transmitted by speech or hearing impaired
> individuals through Text Telephone Devices.
>
> \(4\) Emergency service providers will be enabled to call back 911
> calls which are disconnected.
>
> \(5\) Emergency service providers will be sent the location of the 911
> caller within a radius of 125 meters by longitude and latitude in 67
> percent of all cases.

These upgrades will require engineering and construction work on
switches, protocols, and network architectures. We recognize that full
implementation of wireless E911 will incur additional expenses.[^292]
However, we have found that E911 service to be in the public interest
and that these relatively fixed costs will be spread over a widening
base of subscribers as wireless subscribership grows, lowering unit
costs per subscriber.

**IV. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Subject to the Rules**

The rule adopted in this *Report and Order* will apply to providers of
cellular, broadband PCS, and geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) services, including licensees who have
obtained extended implementation authorizations in the 800 MHz or 900
MHz SMR services, either by waiver or under Section 90.629 of the
Commission\'s Rules. However, the rule will apply to SMR licensees only
if they offer real-time, two-way voice service that is interconnected
with the public switched network.

***a. Estimates for Cellular Licensees***

The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to cellular licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition
of small entity is the definition under the Small Business
Administration (SBA) rules applicable to radiotelephone companies. This
definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company
employing fewer than 1,500 persons.[^293] Since the Regulatory
Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the record in this
proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to request information
regarding the number of small cellular businesses and is unable at this
time to make a precise estimate of the number of cellular firms which
are small businesses.

The size data provided by the SBA does not enable us to make a
meaningful estimate of the number of cellular providers which are small
entities because it combines all radiotelephone companies with 500 or
more employees.[^294] We therefore used the 1992 Census of
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau
of the Census, which is the most recent information available. That
census shows that only 12 radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178
such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.[^295]
Therefore, even if all 12 of these large firms were cellular telephone
companies, all of the remainder were small businesses under the SBA\'s
definition**.** We assume that, for purposes of our evaluations and
conclusions in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, all of the
current cellular licensees are small entities, as that term is defined
by the SBA. Although there are 1,758 cellular licenses, we do not know
the number of cellular licensees, since a cellular licensee may own
several licenses.

We assume that all of the current rural cellular licensees are small
businesses. Comments filed by small business associations, the
Organization for the Protection and Advancement of Small Telephone
Companies (OPASTCO), state that 2/3 of its 440 members provide cellular
service,[^296] and comments filed by the Rural Cellular Association
(RCA) state that its members serve 80 cellular service areas.[^297] We
recognize that these numbers represent only part of the current rural
cellular licensees because there might be other rural companies not
represented by either association.

***b. Estimates for Broadband PCS Licensees***

The broadband PCS spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks
designated A through F. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b), the
Commission has defined \`\`small entity\'\' for Blocks C and F licensees
as firms that had average gross revenues of less than \$40 million in
the three previous calendar years. This regulation defining \`\`small
entity\'\' in the context of broadband PCS auctions has been approved by
the SBA.[^298]

The Commission has auctioned broadband PCS licenses in Blocks A, B, and
C. We do not have sufficient data to determine how many small businesses
under the Commission\'s definition bid successfully for licenses in
Blocks A and B. As of now, there are 90 non-defaulting winning bidders
that qualify as small entities in the Block C auction. Based on this
information, we conclude that the number of broadband PCS licensees
affected by the rule adopted in this *Report and Order* includes the 90
non-defaulting winning bidders that qualify as small entities in the
Block C broadband PCS auction.

At present, no licenses have been awarded for Blocks D, E, and F for
spectrum. Therefore, there are no small businesses currently providing
these services. However, a total of 1,479 licenses will be awarded in
the D, E, and F Block broadband PCS auctions, which are scheduled to
begin on August 26, 1996. Eligibility for the 493 F Block licensees is
limited to \`\`entrepreneur\'\' with the average gross revenues of less
than \$125 million. However, we cannot estimate how many small
businesses under the Commission\'s definition will win F Block
licensees, or D and E Block licensees. Given the facts that nearly all
radiotelephone companies have fewer than 1,000 employees and that no
reliable estimate of the number of prospective D, E, and F Block
licensees can be made, we assume, for purposes of our evaluations and
conclusions in this FRFA, that all of the licenses will be awarded to
small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

***c. Estimates for SMR Licensees***

Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 90.814(b)(1), the Commission has defined
\`\`small entity\'\' for geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR
licenses as firms that had average gross revenues of less than \$15
million in the three previous calendar years. This regulation defining
\`\`small entity\'\' in the context of 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR has been
approved by the SBA.[^299]

The rule adopted in this *Report and Order* applies to SMR providers in
the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that either hold geographic area licenses
or have obtained extended implementation authorizations. We do not know
how many firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service
pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor how many of
these providers have annual revenues of less than \$15 million. Since
the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect until the
record in this proceeding was closed, the Commission was unable to
request information regarding the number of small businesses in this
category. We do know that one of these firms has over \$15 million in
revenues. We assume, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in
this FRFA, that all of the remaining existing extended implementation
authorizations are held by small entities, as that term is defined by
the SBA.

The Commission recently held auctions for geographic area licenses in
the 900 MHz SMR band. There were 60 winning bidders who qualified as
small entities under the Commission\'s definition in the 900 MHz
auction. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of
geographic area SMR licensees affected by the rule adopted in this
*Report and Order* includes these 60 small entities.

No auctions have been held for 800 MHz geographic area SMR licenses.
Therefore, no small entities currently hold these licenses. A total of
525 licenses will be awarded for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz
geographic area SMR auction. However, the Commission has not yet
determined how many licenses will be awarded for the lower 230 channels
in the 800 MHz geographic area SMR auction. There is no basis to
estimate, moreover, how many small entities within the SBA\'s definition
will win these licenses. Given the facts that nearly all radiotelephone
companies have fewer than 1,000 employees and that no reliable estimate
of the number of prospective 800 MHz licensees can be made, we assume,
for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA, that all
of the licenses will be awarded to small entities, as that term is
defined by the SBA.

**V. Steps Taken To Minimize the Burdens on Small Entities**

The Commission in this proceeding has considered comments on ways of
achieving wider 911 availability and E911 compatibility with wireless
telephone services. In doing so, the Commission has adopted alternatives
which minimize burdens placed on small entities. First, it has limited
the regulations to mass market two-way voice services.[^300] In doing
so, it excluded small local specialized mobile services which provide
mainly dispatch services and do not provide the mass market services
which most users rely on to send 911 calls.[^301] It has also excluded
mobile satellite systems.[^302] Second, it provided for waivers for
small rural cellular carriers, and also provided that most services
would not be required unless specifically requested by the local
emergency service providers.[^303] Third, it has taken industry concerns
into account by basing the schedule for implementing E911 on that
recommended by the Consensus Agreement between the Cellular Telephone
Industry Association and public safety organizations, which does not
require caller location information until five years after the rules
adopted in the Order become effective.[^304] Finally, it has made the
E911 requirements conditional on (1) a request by a local emergency
service provider that is capable of receiving and using the information;
and (2) a mechanism for the recovery of costs relating to the provision
of the service.[^305] Therefore, the burden on small entities will be
offset by the requirement that a cost recovery mechanism will be in
place before their E911 obligations need to be implemented.

**VI. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected**

The Commission rejected the alternative proposal that the rules should
be applicable to all providers of Commercial Mobile voice services
because not all CMRS services are mass market voice services whose users
expect to be able to use them to call 911. Specifically, the Commission
found that the costs of requiring local SMR services to comply with the
rules would outweigh the benefits and application of the rules to them,
and would give them an incentive to eliminate their interconnection to
the public network, which would not be in the public interest.[^306] The
Commission did not exempt rural cellular carriers from these
requirements, as requested by some of commenters, but instead provided
for waivers. The Consensus Agreement between the Cellular Telephone
Industry Association and public safety organizations indicated that the
signatories would work with rural cellular carriers to resolve their
problems in good faith, and that the issue of how such carriers would be
treated need not delay the final rule, which would be required in the
public interest. Instead, reviewing the need for applying the rules to
rural cellular carriers could be reviewed on an individualized basis.
Moreover, the Commission relied on the representations that many
emergency service providers do not use 911 in rural areas, so that the
requirement that the emergency service providers would have to request
and be capable of receiving and using the E911 services would protect
carriers from the obligation to provide unneeded services. Further, the
requirement that there be a cost recovery mechanism would protect small
carriers from having to absorb excessive costs.[^307]

The Commission rejected proposals to delay the provision of the upgrades
necessary to expand the availability of 911 and the accuracy of location
technology because these upgrades will result in saving lives and
property and because the requirements of the rules were included in the
Consensus Agreement. We rejected the argument that imposing 911
availability requirements on wireless carriers would competitively
disadvantage wireless carriers, since several wireless carriers have
been voluntarily transmitting 911 calls without a validation
requirement. Moreover, the Commission rejected proposals that Federal
grade of service and other standards should be developed by the
Commission, and instead determined that parties should be allowed to
develop standards with monitoring by the Commission, since these issues
require a level of expertise which can best be achieved by
intra-industry discussions.[^308]

**VII. Report to Congress**

The Commission shall send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis along with this Order in a report to Congress pursuant of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, codified at
5 U.S.C. Section 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this RFA will also be published
in the Federal Register.

**II. INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

**FOR FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**I. Reason for Action**

This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking responds to the petition
submitted by the Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to 911 to amend the
Commission\'s Rules to require that all newly constructed mobile and
portable units be equipped to select the strongest signal whenever a 911
call is placed. Telephone stations for wireless services are not
adequately identifying caller location to permit a timely response by
emergency services personnel and are not providing 911 service for all
caller locations.

**II. Objectives and Legal Basis for Proposed Rules**

 One objective of this Further Notice is to collect additional
information on the technical issues related to the improvement of
wireless E911 services, including higher accuracy standards for the
Automatic Location Identification (ALI), a latency period requirement,
and the provision of 911 services without interruption where one
wireless provider does not provide complete area coverage. Another
objective is to collect information with respect to informing consumers
what their wireless phones can and cannot do. A third objective is to
determine whether all 911 calls should be transmitted without any
preconditions.

The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 201, 208, 215,
303, 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 201, 208, 215, 303, 309.

**III. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Subject to the Rules**

The proposed changes in the regulations will apply to providers of
cellular, broadband PCS, and geographic area 800 MHz and 900 MHz
specialized mobile radio services, including licensees who have extended
implementation authorizations in the 800 MHz or 900 MHz SMR services,
either by waiver or under Section 90.629 of the Commission\'s Rules.
However, the rule will apply to SMR licensees only if they offer
real-time, two-way voice service that is interconnected with the public
switched network.

In the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the *Report and Order*,
we have estimated the number of small entities for each category, or
else stipulated that all providers are small entities where we were
unable to make an estimate. We request comment on whether these
estimates should be improved or refined. We especially request comment
on the number of small entities in the categories that we were unable to
estimate, i.e., cellular service providers; PCS service providers in the
D, E, and F Blocks; 800 MHz geographic area SMR licensees; and providers
of 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR service pursuant to waiver or
pursuant to Section 90.629 of our rules.

**IV. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements**

Commercial mobile radio services will be required to improve the
accuracy and time of the identification of the location of mobile
transmitters and to permit interoperability of their 911 service with
those of their competitors and to provide consumer education materials.
Equipment used for commercial mobile radio services will have to be
capable of providing this information to the local telephone exchanges
to which they are connected. Local telephone exchanges will incur costs
storing and relaying this information to E911 public safety answering
points. We request comment with respect to ways in which these proposed
requirements can be modified to reduce the burden on small entities and
at the same time meet the objectives of this proceeding.

**V. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected**

The Commission concluded that the 911 and E911 rules adopted in the
Report and Order are a first step toward the goal of meeting the
Nation\'s public safety communications needs, and that it is also
necessary to begin the task of exploring the need for further action to
spur improvements in the features and delivery of the 911 and E911
services. We believe that continuing involvement of the Commission in
developing rules that take the resources of small businesses into
account as well as the public safety needs are in the public interest.
Therefore, the Commission rejected alternative proposals that the future
development of the E911 technologies should be left to the market forces
and the industry without the Commission\'s involvement.

The Commission considered and rejected proposals that the rules should
be expanded to apply to all providers of Commercial Mobile Radio
Services (CMRS) because not all CMRS services are mass market voice
services whose users expect to be able to use them to call 911.
Specifically, the Commission believes that the costs of requiring local
SMR services and 220 MHz licensees operating on 5 kHz channels to comply
with the proposed rules would outweigh the benefits and application of
the proposed rules to them, and would give them an incentive to
eliminate their interconnection to the public network, which would not
be in the public interest. Similarly, because it is not certain how
multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (LMS) will develop, we
concluded that it is premature to propose to require such licensees to
provide E911 at this time. In the future if these wireless service
providers not covered by the current rules develop into a mobile
telephone service like cellular or broadband PCS, we may revisit this
decision.

The Commission considered and rejected proposals to adopt a specific
technology for providing ALI, because we believe that various
technologies are currently under development which can provide more
advanced public safety technology than those that are currently
available. The Commission also considered and rejected proposals to
adopt rules to require a minimum latency period to locate 911 callers at
this time, because the record is insufficient to determine the technical
feasibility and the costs of implementing such requirements, especially
the financial impact on small business entities.[^309] The Commission
instead decided to seek comment on these proposals, including the
benefits and feasibility of such requirements.

**VI. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict with These
Proposed Rules**

There are no Federal rules which overlap, duplicate, or conflict with
the rules we are proposing.

**APPENDIX C**

**FINAL RULES**

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

**Part 20 - COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES**

1\. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: Sections 4, 303 and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 154, 303, and 332.

\* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 20.03 is amended by adding the following definitions in
alphabetical order to read as follows:

**Section 20.3 Definitions.**

[Automatic Number Identification.]{.underline} A system which permits
the identification of the caller\'s telephone number.

\* \* \* \* \*

[Code Identification.]{.underline} A mobile Identification Number for
calls carried over the facilities of a cellular or Broadband PCS
licensees, or the functional equivalent of a Mobile Identification
Number in the case of calls carried over the facilities of a Specialized
Mobile Radio Services.

\* \* \* \* \*

[Mobile Identification Number.]{.underline} A 34-bit number that is a
digital representation of the 10-digit directory telephone number
assigned to a mobile station.

\* \* \* \* \*

[Pseudo Automatic Number Identification.]{.underline} A system which
identifies the location of the base station or cell site through which a
mobile call originates.

[Public Safety Answering Point.]{.underline} A point that has been
designated to receive 911 calls and route them to emergency service
personnel.

\* \* \* \* \*

3\. New Section 20.18 is added to read as follows:

**Section 20.18 911 Service.**

\(a\) The following requirements are only applicable to Broadband
Personal Communications Services (Part 24, Subpart E of this chapter)
and Cellular Radio Telephone Service (Part 22, Subpart H of this
chapter), Geographic Area Specialized Mobile Radio Services in the 800
MHz and 900 MHz bands (included in Part 90, Subpart S of this
chapter)and offer real-time, two-way voice service that is
interconnected with the public switched network, and Incumbent Wide Area
SMR Licensees.

\(b\) As of \[one year after the effective date of the rule\], licensees
subject to this section must process all 911 calls which transmit a Code
Identification and must process all 911 wireless calls which do not
transmit a Code Identification where requested by the administrator of
the designated Public Safety Answering Point which is capable of
receiving and utilizing the data elements associated with 911 service.

\(c\) As of \[one year after the effective date of the rule\], licensees
subject to this section must be capable of transmitting 911 calls from
individuals with speech or hearing disabilities through means other than
mobile radio handsets, *e.g.*, through the use of Text Telephone
Devices.

\(d\) As of \[18 months after the effective date of the rule\],
licensees subject to this section must relay the telephone number of the
originator of a 911 call and the location of the cell site or base
station receiving a 911 call from any mobile handset or text telephone
device accessing their systems to the designated Public Service
Answering Point through the use of Pseudo Automatic Number
Identification and Automatic Number Identification.

\(e\) As of \[five years after the effective date of this rule\],
licensees subject to this section must provide to the designated Public
Service Answering Point the location of a 911 call by longitude and
latitude within a radius of 125 meters using root mean square
techniques.

\(f\) The requirements set forth in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this
section shall be applicable only if the administrator of the designated
Public Service Answering Point has requested the services required under
those paragraphs and is capable of receiving and utilizing the data
elements associated with the service, and a mechanism for recovering the
costs of the service is in place.

**APPENDIX D**

  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
  **TABLE A: MAJOR       
  PROVISIONS OF E911     
  SERVICE NPRM**         

  **Implementation       
  Schedule**             

  **PHASE**              **IMPLEMENTATION**

  One                    Within one year after the effective date of a
                         final Order, wireless service providers would be
                         required to relay the location of the base
                         station or cell site receiving a 911 call to the
                         PSAP.

  Two                    Within three years, the carrier must include an
                         estimate of the approximate location and
                         distance of the mobile unit from the receiving
                         base station or cell site.

  Three                  Within five years, the mobile unit must be
                         located in three dimensions (*i.e*., two surface
                         coordinates and height) within a radius of no
                         more than 125 meters, or 410 feet.

  **Proposed Service     
  Features**             

  911 Availability       Any transmitter that is service-initialized
                         would be allowed to make a 911 call without
                         validation, *e.g.*, when roaming (Phase 1).

  911 Call Priority      911 calls would be assigned priority over
                         non-emergency service calls (Phase 1).

  Access to TTY          Access by individuals with speech or hearing
                         disabilities through a TTY device (Phase 1).

  Re-Ring; Call Back     Capability to permit PSAP attendants to return
                         calls if the call is disconnected (Phase 2).

  Common Channel         Technology to provide additional information
  Signalling             similar to wireline E911, *e.g.*, class of
                         service, priority of caller (Phase 2).

  **Other Issues on      
  Which Comment Was      
  Sought**               

  Equipment Standards    Whether to establish specific requirements for
                         base and mobile transmitters (*e.g.*, ANI and
                         ALI), and the elements of such standards.

  Labelling              Whether to require labelling of equipment that
                         does not meet E911 requirements.

  Privacy                Whether there are privacy interests in 911 calls
                         and, if so, what measures are appropriate to
                         protect those interests.

  Preemption             Whether intrastate regulations conflict with the
                         proposed E911 rules, and whether such
                         regulations should be preempted.
  ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------

+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **TABLE B:          |                                                |
| CONSENSUS AGREEMENT |                                                |
| BETWEEN CTIA AND    |                                                |
| PUBLIC SAFETY       |                                                |
| GROUPS REGARDING    |                                                |
| WIRELESS E911**     |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **Implementation    |                                                |
| Schedule**          |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **PHASE**           | **IMPLEMENTATION**                             |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| One                 | Within 12 to 18 months after the effective     |
|                     | date of a final Order, wireless service        |
|                     | providers would be required to relay the       |
|                     | location of the base station or cell site      |
|                     | receiving a 911 call to the PSAP.              |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI\'\' would be passed     |
|                     | from carriers to PSAPs.                        |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | Use of ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI\'\' will provide |
|                     | ability to call the 911 caller back if the     |
|                     | call is disconnected; \`\`automatic            |
|                     | re-ring\'\' would not be required.             |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | CTIA favors 18-month deadline; APCO, NENA, and |
|                     | NASNA favor 12 month deadline                  |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | 911 service would be available to any handset  |
|                     | that is service-initialized and available      |
|                     | without a requirement for user validation,     |
|                     | *e.g*., to roamers.                            |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Two                 | Drop Phase Two of *Notice*.                    |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Three               | Within five years, the mobile station must be  |
|                     | located in *two* dimensions (*i.e*., longitude |
| \[Phase Two under   | and latitude) within a radius of no more than  |
| the Consensus       | 125 meters.                                    |
| Agreement\]         |                                                |
|                     | Accuracy to 125 meters would be measured using |
|                     | root mean square (RMS) techniques, which means |
|                     | that location devices would be required to be  |
|                     | accurate to within 125 meters in about 67      |
|                     | percent of all cases.                          |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | Parties agree to work in good faith to address |
|                     | concerns that in exceptional cases, such as    |
|                     | rural areas, carriers will have difficulty in  |
|                     | meeting requirements.                          |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| **Other Proposals** |                                                |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Cost Recovery       | State and local cost recovery mechanisms are   |
|                     | needed to fund both carrier and PSAP           |
|                     | investment in E911 technology and 911 cost of  |
|                     | service.                                       |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | State or local 911 fees or taxes should not    |
|                     | discriminate between wireline and wireless     |
|                     | carriers.                                      |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | FCC should declare that state or local 911     |
|                     | fees or taxes reasonably related to costs are  |
|                     | not barred as a matter of law.                 |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Legal Liability     | The parties believe that the wireline          |
|                     | experience, in which callers generally have    |
|                     | been held to consent implicitly to the         |
|                     | disclosure of calling number, location, and    |
|                     | associated information, is applicable to       |
|                     | wireless 911.                                  |
|                     |                                                |
|                     | The FCC should address and resolve legal       |
|                     | liability issues under the Communications      |
|                     | Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994,    |
|                     | which the parties believe does not preclude    |
|                     | location determination and disclosure in the   |
|                     | ordinary course of good-faith 911 operations.  |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| TTY                 | The parties agree with Commission proposal     |
|                     | that 911 access should be available in Phase I |
|                     | to speech and hearing impaired individuals     |
|                     | through means other than mobile radio          |
|                     | handsets, such as TTY devices.                 |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+
| Equipment Labelling | The parties agree to work on methods and       |
|                     | language for consumer education that would not |
|                     | require equipment labelling.                   |
+---------------------+------------------------------------------------+

[^1]: We began this rulemaking with the issuance of a Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking on October 19, 1994. Revision of the Commission\'s Rules
    To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
    CC Docket 94-102, RM-8143, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 9 FCC Rcd
    6170 (1994) (*Notice*). The *Notice* also sought comment regarding
    the compatibility of private branch exchanges (PBXs) with E911
    emergency calling systems. We will address these issues in a
    separate proceeding.

[^2]: *Notice,* 9 FCC Rcd at 6171 (para. 3).

[^3]: *See* \`\`The National Policy for Emergency Telephone Number
    \`911\',\'\' prepared by Executive Office of the President, Office
    of Telecommunications Policy, Mar. 21, 1973, *attached in* Oregon
    Comments at Exhibit B.

[^4]: Joint Comments of APCO, NENA, and NASNA (APCO Comments) at 9-11,
    27; *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6171 (paras. 4-6).

[^5]: *See Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6171 (paras. 3, 6).

[^6]: According to the latest semi-annual report prepared by CTIA, a
    total of 33.8 million people were cellular customers in the United
    States at the end of 1995, a 40 percent rise compared with the 24
    million customers reported in 1994. CTIA gathered data on current
    cellular systems, but did not include PCS customers. *See*
    \`\`CTIA\'s Newest Report Shows 40 Percent Customer Growth,\'\'
    Radio Communications Report, Mar. 25, 1996, at 4.

[^7]: *Notice,* 9 FCC Rcd at 6172 (paras. 9-10).

[^8]: Lockheed Reply Comments at 6.

[^9]: Section 1 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^10]: Amendment of the Commission\'s rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, GEN Docket No. 90-314, Second Report and
    Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7700 (1993) (*PCS Second Report and Order)*.

[^11]: *PCS Second Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd at 7756 (para. 139).

[^12]: The term \`\`code identification,\'\' when used in this Order in
    conjunction with 911 calls, means (1) in the case of calls
    transmitted over the facilities of a covered carrier other than a
    Specialized Mobile Radio carrier that is subject to the requirements
    of this Order, a call originated from a mobile unit which has a
    Mobile Identification Number (MIN); and (2) in the case of calls
    transmitted over the facilities of a Specialized Mobile Radio
    carrier that is subject to the requirements of this Order, a call
    originated from a mobile unit which has the functional equivalent of
    a MIN. A MIN is a 34-bit binary number that a PCS or cellular
    handset transmits as part of the process of identifying itself to
    wireless networks. Each handset has one MIN, and it is derived from
    the ten-digit North American Numbering Plan (NANP) telephone number
    that generally is programmed into the handset at the time service
    for a new subscriber is initiated. *See, e.g.,* EIA/TIA Standard
    553, Mobile Station - Land Station Compatibility Specification,
    September 1989, at 2.3.1.

[^13]: The term \`\`non-code identification,\'\' when used in this Order
    in conjunction with 911 calls, means a call originated from a mobile
    unit which does not have a code identification. *See* note ,
    *supra.*

[^14]: *Notice,* 9 FCC Rcd at 6176 *(*para. 37).

[^15]: *Id.*

[^16]: *Id.* at 6177 (para. 40).

[^17]: *Id.* at 6178-79 (paras. 49-51).

[^18]: A list of these pleadings, as well as related pleadings filed in
    the docket, is included in Appendix A. Abbreviations used in this
    Order in citing to pleadings also are included in Appendix A.

[^19]: Public Notice, Commission Seeks Comment on Petitions for
    Rulemaking filed by Ad Hoc Alliance for Public Access to 911 in
    Conjunction with Wireless Enhanced 911 Rulemaking Proceeding, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, Nov. 13, 1995; 60 FR 58593 (Nov. 28, 1995).

[^20]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Reply Comments at 33.

[^21]: *See, e.g.,* CTIA Comments at 6-7; PCIA Comments at 1, 15-20.

[^22]: Public Notice, Commission Seeks Additional Comment in Wireless
    Enhanced 911 Rulemaking Proceeding Regarding \`\`Consensus
    Agreement\'\' Between Wireless Industry Representatives and Public
    Safety Groups, CC Docket No. 94-102, DA 96-198, Feb. 16, 1996; 61 FR
    6963 (Feb. 23, 1996).

[^23]: CTIA believes 18 months from the adoption of rules in this
    proceeding is a realistic frame for implementation of Phase I, while
    the public safety organizations prefer the 12 months suggested in
    the *Notice.* *See* Consensus Agreement at 1, n.1.

[^24]: Consensus Agreement at 3 (footnote omitted).

[^25]: *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6177 (para. 41).

[^26]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments at 20-21; PCIA Comments at 6-8; CTIA
    Comments at 1-3; CMT Comments at 2-3; SBC Comments at 9; GTE
    Comments at 12-13.

[^27]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments at 24-25; Bell Atlantic Comments at 8;
    APCO Comments at 36; Ericsson Comments at 3.

[^28]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Comments at 36; TX-ACSEC Comments at 9.

[^29]: *See, e.g*., Alliance Comments at 3; IAFC and IMSA Reply Comments
    at 4; GTE Reply Comments at 12; Vanguard Comments at 10.

[^30]: IAFC and AMSA Reply Comments at 4.

[^31]: Alliance Comments at 3, 8.

[^32]: Motorola Comments at 22-23.

[^33]: Ad Hoc Alliance Petition for Rulemaking, filed Oct. 27, 1995 at
    3.

[^34]: *Id.*

[^35]: We received eight comments and one reply comment. *See* Appendix
    A for the list of commenters on Alliance\'s Petition.

[^36]: AT&T Comments on Alliance Petition at 5-6.

[^37]: Consensus Agreement at 5.

[^38]: Alliance (CA) Comments at 11-17. (The abbreviation \`\`CA\'\' is
    used to distinguish comments relating to the Consensus Agreement
    from comments filed in earlier stages of this proceeding).

[^39]: Alliance (CA) Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^40]: Alliance (CA) Comments at 17-18.

[^41]: Scott Hong (CA) Reply Comments at 1-2.

[^42]: Vanguard (CA) Comments at 2.

[^43]: Vanguard (CA) Reply Comments at 7.

[^44]: BellSouth (CA) Comments at 10-11.

[^45]: GTE (CA) Comments at 7.

[^46]: *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6177 (para. 41).

[^47]: *See* IAFC and AMSA Reply Comments at 4.

[^48]: *See* Alliance (CA) Comments at 7-11.

[^49]: Such protocols determine access to, and thus processing of, calls
    within a system\'s architecture. While various wireless networks may
    use the same or similar architecture, different protocols may be
    employed. The Further Notice seeks additional comment regarding the
    ability of carriers to forward 911 calls from handsets that use
    incompatible transmission protocols.

[^50]: *See* note , *supra*, and accompanying text.

[^51]: Some cellular carriers currently market entry-level service
    through mass market retailers. Cellular phones (with pre-programmed
    code identifications) can be purchased \`\`off the shelf\'\' and
    then can be activated by the purchaser through a call to an
    \`\`800\'\' number maintained by the carrier. *See* Bloomberg News
    Service, \`\`The Bells To Jointly Market Wireless,\'\' Apr. 10,
    1996.

[^52]: *See* Vanguard (CA) Reply Comments at 6.

[^53]: *See, e.g.*, GTE Reply Comments at 11-13 (noting that GTE can and
    does route 911 calls placed from an operational mobile handset,
    regardless of whether the handset is service initialized, to a PSAP,
    or, where no PSAP exists, to a law enforcement agency or other
    destination based on arrangements with state and local authorities).

[^54]: *See, e.g.,* Fla. Stat. Ann. § 364.3375(2)(a) (West 1996)
    (requiring that each pay telephone station shall receive and permit
    coin-free access to the universal emergency telephone number
    \`\`911\'\' where operable); Idaho Code § 31-4811 (1995) (pay phones
    to be converted to allow emergency calls without charge); Iowa Code
    Ann. § 34A.4 (West 1996) (requiring conversion of pay telephones to
    allow 911 calls without depositing coins or paying other charges);
    Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch.166, § 14A (West 1996); Minn Stat. Ann. §
    403.04(2) (West 1996); S.C. Code Ann. § 23-47-20(c)(12) (Law. Co-op.
    1993); S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 34-45-13 (1995); Wis. Stat. Ann. §
    146.70 (West 1996).

[^55]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments on Alliance Petition at 4-5; CTIA
    Comments at 13; BellSouth (CA) Comments at 10-11.

[^56]: In Gen Docket No. 87‑112, a National Public Safety Plan to
    satisfy communications requirements was developed through a regional
    process involving the coordination and cooperation of Federal,
    state, and local public safety agencies. *See also,* The Development
    of Operational, Technical, and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting
    Federal, State and Local Public Safety Agency Communication
    Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 96-155, para. 32 (released Apr. 10, 1996)
    (*Public Safety NPRM*) (recognizing that some public safety agencies
    already have made efforts to address the problems associated with
    multi-jurisdictional and multi-discipline interoperability).

[^57]: *See, e.g*., AT&T Comments at 25; PCIA Comments at 7-8; APC
    Comments at 2-3.

[^58]: Wireless customer often get to pick their own PIN numbers, but
    those numbers must be programmed into the switch by the carrier.

[^59]: Joint Paper at 4; PCIA/JEM Report at 6, item 5.1.1.

[^60]: GTE Reply Comments at 14.

[^61]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 24-25; Bell Atlantic Comments at 8;
    Ericsson Comments at 3; APCO Comments at 36.

[^62]: GTE Reply Comments at 14.

[^63]: Some of commenters contended that the strongest *control* signal
    does not guarantee strongest *voice* signal. *See, e.g.,* AT&T
    Comments on Alliance at 7-8; BANM Comments on Alliance at 4;
    BellSouth Comments on Alliance at 3; CTIA Comments on Alliance at
    10-11; PCIA Comments on Alliance at 7.

[^64]: Alliance (CA) Comments at 18.

[^65]: The test results are shown in Appendix E to the Alliance (CA)
    Comments. *See* Alliance (CA) Comments at 18.

[^66]: *See* Section II.B.1, *supra*.

[^67]: *See* 42 U.S.C. Section 12131-34.

[^68]: Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56
    (1996), Section 101, adding Section 255.

[^69]: *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6180 (para. 54).

[^70]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Comments at 49-50; TX-ACSEC Comments at 11; TDI
    Comments at 5; ICSAR Comments at 7; GTE Comments at 28; CMT Comments
    at 9.

[^71]: TDI Comments at 2.

[^72]: *Id*. at 4.

[^73]: *Id*. at 5.

[^74]: *See, e.g*., AT&T Comments at 39; PCIA Comments at 23; CTIA
    Comments at 15; Nextel Comments at 6; CMT Comments at 9.

[^75]: Consensus Agreement at 4.

[^76]: BellSouth (CA) Comments at 9-10; GTE (CA) Comments at 7.

[^77]: ^?^ US West (CA) Comments at 9. This comment is based on the fact
    that Baudot signalling for TTY devices is generally at a much lower
    rate than that used by modems on current networks. The term
    \`\`Baudot\'\' refers to a code of 32 numbers used for alphabetic
    and symbolic communication, which was invented by J.M.E. Baudot in
    1880. *See* R. Graf, [Modern Dictionary of Electronics]{.smallcaps}
    88 (6th ed. 1989). TTY devices generally transmit and receive Baudot
    signals at a speed of 45.5 baud, half-duplex, while transmitting and
    receiving ASCII asynchronous code at a speed of 300 baud (minimum),
    full duplex. TTY devices generally must have the capability to
    determine the incoming communications mode (Baudot or ASCII), and
    answer in the appropriate communications mode without any operator
    intervention.

[^78]: PCIA Comments at 24.

[^79]: *See, e.g*., AT&T Comments at 39; PCIA Comments at 24; CTIA
    Comments at 15; Nextel Comments at 6.

[^80]: *See, e.g.,* PCIA Comments at 24; CTIA Comments at 15; CMT
    Comments at 9.

[^81]: In establishing this reporting requirement, and the other
    reporting requirements applicable to the signatories to the
    Consensus Agreement, PCIA, and TDI, we do not intend to impose any
    unnecessary burdens or costs on the entities involved in the
    preparation and submission of the reports. In this regard, we
    encourage these entities to use their discretion in preparing
    reports in a manner that reasonably responds to the issues,
    concerns, and information needs we identify in the Order without
    incurring any undue burdens.

[^82]: *See* Section 255 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 255.

[^83]: *See* TDI Comments at 3-6.

[^84]: *See, e.g.,* US West (CA) Comments at 9.

[^85]: TDI Comments at 6.

[^86]: *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6177 (para. 39-40).

[^87]: *Id.*

[^88]: *See* para. , *supra.*

[^89]: *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6179 (para. 52).

[^90]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Reply Comments at 35-36; CMT Comments at 8;
    Westinghouse Comments at 7; Ericsson Comments at 10-11.

[^91]: ^?^ *See, e.g.*, PCIA Comments at ii (supporting goal of this
    proceeding \-- the broadened availability of E911 services to users
    of wireless telecommunications).

    > PCIA fully shares the Commission\'s important objective of
    > maximizing compatibility between wireless services and Enhanced
    > 911 (E911) systems. Specifically, it concurs that subscribers to
    > real-time voice services interconnected with the public switched
    > telephone network ultimately should enjoy the same access to
    > advanced emergency response services as wireline service
    > subscribers, with due consideration for the unique characteristics
    > of radio-based technology.

[^92]: \`\`Although the Commission proposes requirements and schedules
    for implementation, there remains a fundamental problem insofar as
    the technical solutions necessary to achieve the Commission\'s
    objectives are in various stages of development \-- and none has
    been commercially demonstrated that meet the FCC\'s ultimate
    goals.\'\' CTIA Comments at 6-7. *See also* PCIA Comments at 15-20.

[^93]: PCIA Comments at 5.

[^94]: CTIA Comments at 17-18.

[^95]: *See, e.g.,* Air Touch Comments at 5-6; RCA Comments at 4-9;
    NYNEX Comments at 10.

[^96]: *See, e.g.,* KSI Comments at 8-10; Lockheed Comments at 3-4; C.J.
    Driscoll Comments at 2.

[^97]: *See, e.g.,* SAT Comments at 5; ART Comments at 10-11; KSI
    Comments at 13-14.

[^98]: \`\`Pseudo-ANI\'\' provides the number of the cell site and
    either the number of the carrier or the number of the caller.
    Pseudo-ANI numbers are utilized by carriers for several purposes,
    one of which is to act as a surrogate identification number for
    mobile units operating in a roamer mode. *See* JEM Report at 17-18.

[^99]: Consensus Agreement at 4-5.

[^100]: *Id*.

[^101]: *See, e.g.*, BellSouth (CA) Comments at 3-7; GTE (CA) Comments
    at 3-5; PCIA (CA) Comments at 9-13.

[^102]: BellSouth (CA) Comments at 5-7.

[^103]: GTE (CA) Comments at 3-4.

[^104]: *Id.*

[^105]: PCIA (CA) Comments at 4-5.

[^106]: GTE (CA) Comments at 7-8; BellSouth (CA) Comments at 10.

[^107]: *See, e.g.,* Nextel (CA) Comments at 4-6; CTIA (CA) Reply
    Comments at 3-4, 9-12; ITS (CA) Reply Comments at 1-3.

[^108]: Nextel (CA) Comments at 4-6.

[^109]: CTIA (CA) Reply Comments at 3-4, 9-12.

[^110]: *See, e.g.,* US West (CA) Comments at 5-8; BellSouth (CA) Reply
    Comments at 11; Nextel (CA) Reply Comments at 4.

[^111]: KSI (CA) Comments at 2-5; KSI (CA) Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^112]: Motorola (CA) Comments at 4-5; Nortel (CA) Comments at 4-5.

[^113]: Motorola (CA) Comments at 4-5.

[^114]: The Commission is also addressing public safety services issues.
    *See Public Safety NPRM,* at note , *supra*.

[^115]: APCO Reply Comments at 35 n. 31.

[^116]: *Id.* at 35.

[^117]: *See, e.g.*, KSI Comments at 7-8 (according to KSI, its simplest
    location systems using Angle of Arrival measurements will cost less
    than \$30,000 per cell site); Smith Advanced Comments at 13-14
    (using Global Positioning System, the cost to retrofit existing
    cellular phones is expected to be approximately \$200 per phone, and
    the cost to the PSAP is projected to be approximately \$40,000).

[^118]: *See* ART Comments at 10-11; SAT Comments at 14; KSI Comments at
    13-15.

[^119]: The PSAPs must use switches, protocols, and signalling systems
    that will allow them to obtain the calling party\'s number from the
    transmission of ANI. Older analog systems may not have this
    capability.

[^120]: For example, it may be problematic if LEC infrastructure does
    not support the provision of Feature Group D equal access, which may
    be used to transmit ANI and \`\`pseudo-ANI.\'\' *See* para. ,
    *infra.*

[^121]: *See* US West (CA) Comments at 5-8; CTIA (CA) Joint Reply
    Comments at 4-5.

[^122]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 27-29; Consensus Agreement at 4-5;
    GTE (CA) Comments at 7-8.

[^123]: *See* New Jersey Comments at 14.

[^124]: Motorola (CA) Comments at 4-5; Nortel (CA) Comments at 4-5.

[^125]: Signalling System 7 (SS7) is an out-of-band signalling system
    that transfers between switches information that is required to set
    up a call as well as other caller information.

[^126]: Nextel (CA) Comments at 4-6; KSI (CA) Comments at 2-5.

[^127]: CTIA (CA) Reply Comments at 10-11.

[^128]: *Id.* at 11-12.

[^129]: *See, e.g.,* GTE Comments at 16-20; PCIA Comments at 14-15.

[^130]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Reply Comments at 2; TX-ACSEC Reply Comments
    at 5-6.

[^131]: Motorola (CA) Comments at 7; KSI (CA) Comments at 3; ART
    Comments at 16-17.

[^132]: Root Mean Square is a method by which to calculate the
    probability that the location information will be accurate. Based on
    tests performed by Associated Group and KSI, root mean square
    probability results in accuracy of location two-thirds to
    three-quarters of the time. Consensus Agreement at 2-3.

[^133]: *See Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6177 (para. 40).

[^134]: This would include the switching and signalling capabilities,
    such as SS7/CCS and selective routers, that are necessary for ANI
    originating at the wireless handset to be passed through the
    wireless and local exchange carriers\' systems to the PSAP, as well
    as the standards for the transfer of TTY data to the PSAP.

[^135]: *See, e.g.,* BellSouth (CA) Reply Comments at 2-5; US Cellular
    Comments at 1; CTIA Comments at 17-18; PCIA Reply Comments at 1.

[^136]: PCIA (CA) Comments at 4 (\`\`industry members will take part in
    a T1P1 standards group meeting, to be held during the week of March
    4, that will address wireless E911 standards as part of its
    agenda.\'\'); CTIA (CA) Reply Comments at 12 n. 26 (\`\`The
    Consenting Parties understand that the needed standard is scheduled
    to be balloted by September, 1996, and that the work for all
    wireless interconnection standards has been consolidated in TIA\'s
    Committee TR45.2.\'\') The *Notice* stated that \`\`\[t\]here are
    several standards bodies that are capable of \[adopting technical
    standards for E911\], such as Committee T1, sponsored by the
    Alliance of Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), and its
    various subgroups, T1P1, T1S1, etc.; the Telecommunications Industry
    Association under TR 46 and TR 45.2; and research organizations,
    such as Bell Communications Research.\'\' *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at
    6177 (para. 40 n.45).

[^137]: CTIA (CA) Reply Comments at 12, n. 26.

[^138]: *Notice,* 9 FCC Rcd at 6177 (para. 38).

[^139]: *See, e.g.*, PCIA Comments at 6; AMTA Comments at 4-7; Nextel
    Reply Comments at 3.

[^140]: *See e.g.*, Sprint Comments at 8; NYNEX Comments at 10;
    Ameritech at 8.

[^141]: *See, e.g.*, COMSAT comments at 3-9; IDB Comments at 3; AMSC
    Comments at 8.

[^142]: ICSAR Comments at 2-4; Coast Guard Comments at 1-4.

[^143]: *See, e.g.,* US Cellular Comments at 5, 7-9; Springwich Comments
    at 9-10.

[^144]: AMTA (CA) Comments at 2; Nextel (CA) Comments at 6-7; BMJ&D (CA)
    Comments at 2-4; AMSC (CA) Comments at 4-9; RCC (CA) Comments at
    3-7; Motorola (CA) Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^145]: RCA (CA) Comments at 2-4.

[^146]: ICSAR (CA) Comments at 1.

[^147]: KSI Comments at 15-16; KSI (CA) Comments at 5.

[^148]: KSI (CA) Reply Comments at 4; TX-ACSEC (CA) Reply Comments at
    5-6.

[^149]: Lockheed Comments at 6.

[^150]: *See* Applications of Dial Page, Inc., File Nos. 907075-907086
    *et al*., Order, DA 95-2379, paras. 20-29 (released Nov. 22, 1995).

[^151]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.629.

[^152]: AMTA Comments at 4-7.

[^153]: ^?^ *See* Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the
    Communications Act, Regulatory

[^154]: *See* Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to Adopt
    Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems, PR Docket No.
    93-61, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4695 (1995). We note that one of
    the issues on reconsideration of this decision is whether
    multilateration LMS is CMRS.

[^155]: *See, e.g.,* COMSAT Comments at 4; COMSAT Reply Comments at 2;
    IDB Comments at 3.

[^156]: RCA (CA) Comments at 3-5; US Cellular Comments at 5, 7-9;
    Springwich Comments at 9-10.

[^157]: Consensus Agreement at 3 n. 8.

[^158]: *Id.* at 3.

[^159]: *See, e.g.,* AT&T Comments at 42; PCIA Comments at 28; GTE
    Comments at 31-32; BellSouth Comments at 20-21; Bell Atlantic
    Comments at 12; Nextel Comments at 7; Pacific Bell Comments at 3;
    PCIA Comments at 28; APC Comments at 3-4; Ameritech Comments at 7;
    Nortel Comments at 62; RCA Comments at 9; US West Comments at 23-25.

[^160]: AT&T Comments at 42-43; PCIA Comments at 28; BellSouth Comments
    at 20-21; Nextel Comments at 7.

[^161]: *E.g.,* AT&T Comments at 42; BellSouth Comments at 20-21.

[^162]: PCIA Comments at 28; RCA Comments at 9.

[^163]: RCA Comments at 8-9.

[^164]: APC Comments at 3-4 (urging the Commission to consider
    mechanisms that would recover the costs of complying with any
    compatibility mandate in a competitively neutral manner through a
    system established at the Federal level); GTE Comments at 31-32
    (arguing that the Commission must consider the cost of implementing
    wireless E911 prior to mandating the provision of these services).

[^165]: APCO Letter, filed Oct. 11, 1995, at 1.

[^166]: *See, e.g.,* Oregon Comments at 1-2; New Jersey Comments at 2-5;
    Lake County, Florida Ordinance 1994-16 (attached to Lake County
    Comments).

[^167]: Consensus Agreement at 3-4.

[^168]: *Id*. at 4.

[^169]: RCC (CA) Comments at 7.

[^170]: US West (CA) Comments at 5-6, 10-11.

[^171]: GTE (CA) Comments at 8.

[^172]: *See, e.g.* TX-ACSEC (CA) Reply Comments at 3-5; GTE Comments at
    8; US West (CA) Comments at 10-11; Vanguard Comments at 4-5.

[^173]: TX-ACSEC (CA) Reply Comments at 4.

[^174]: BellSouth (CA) Comments at 7-8; PCIA (CA) Comments at 8; RCA
    (CA) Comments at 5-6.

[^175]: Vanguard (CA) Comments at 4-8.

[^176]: AMSC (CA) Comments at 9.

[^177]: AT&T (CA) Reply Comments at 4.

[^178]: Ameritech (CA) Reply Comments at 3.

[^179]: ART (CA) Reply Comments at 13-15.

[^180]: CTIA (CA) Reply Comments at 5; Comcast (CA) Reply Comments at
    4-5; Vanguard (CA) Reply Comments at 4; Nextel Reply Comments at
    3-4.

[^181]: *See, e.g.,* TX-ACSEC (CA) Reply Comments at 3-4; Oregon
    Comments at 1-2; New Jersey Comments at 2-5; Lake County, Florida
    Ordinance 1994-16 (attached to Lake County Comments); *see also*
    Consensus Agreement at 5.

[^182]: *See, e.g.,* SAT Comments at 5; ART Comments at 10-11; KSI
    Comments at 13-14.

[^183]: *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6180 (paras. 56-57).

[^184]: PCIA Comments at 26; BellSouth Comments at 19-20; Coast Guard
    Comments at 6-7.

[^185]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Comments at 52; TX-ACSEC Comments at 12;
    Pertech Comments at 10.

[^186]: APCO Comments at 52; *see also* TX-ACSEC Comments at 12; Pertech
    Comments at 10.

[^187]: ICSAR Comments at 8; Coast Guard Comments at 6-7.

[^188]: APCO Comments at 52. *See also* The Maryland Emergency Number
    Systems Board (ENSB) Comments at 3. Under the State of Maryland
    Public Information Act (PIA), recordings of calls to 911 emergency
    telephone system centers are \`\`public records\'\' subject to
    disclosure requirements. The portion of any recording containing
    medical or psychological information about an individual may not be
    disclosed, and disclosure contrary to the public interest may be
    withheld. All other recordings must be disclosed upon request,
    except in the extraordinary situation in which a court is asked to
    withhold otherwise available information. The ENSB contends that
    this is an issue that should be addressed by each individual state,
    and that the same policy should be effective for wireless and
    wireline calls.

[^189]: Coast Guard Comments at 7 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(8)).

[^190]: AT&T Comments at 40-41 (noting that the Digital Telephone Bill,
    H.R. 4922, prohibits cellular carriers from disclosing caller name,
    number, and location information to law enforcement officials
    without a specific subpoena or court order); SBC Comments at 25-26;
    PCIA Comments at 26-27 (urging the Commission to immunize wireless
    service providers from liability for transmitting information that
    is required to be provided under the Commission\'s rules or standard
    industry practices).

[^191]: *See, e.g.,* SBC Comments at 25-26; Coast Guard Comments at 7-8.

[^192]: Maryland ENSB Comments at 3.

[^193]: *See, e.g*., AT&T Reply Comments at 29-30; Bell Atlantic
    Comments at 11-12; Bell Atlantic Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^194]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 41; AT&T Reply Comments at 29;
    Motorola Comments at 17-18 (noting that 60 percent reliability is
    the maximum that can be expected for future location technology).

[^195]: *See, e.g*., AT&T Comments at 40-41; Bell Atlantic Comments at
    11 (requesting the Commission to address liability issues in a
    future proceeding); BellSouth Comments at 20 (arguing that the
    Commission should hold wireless carriers harmless); CTIA Comments at
    20-21; Nextel Comments at 9; PCIA Comments at 27-28; SBC Comments at
    24-25 (wireless carriers should be treated the same as landline
    carriers.); US West Comments at 24-25; APC Comments at 4.

[^196]: ^?^ PCIA Comments at 28. PCIA suggested that the Commission
    should incorporate in its rules the following text, which was
    discussed at the JEM but not included in the final report, into the
    Commission\'s wireless rules:

    > No provider or subsidiary of a provider or any person that
    > supplies E911 emergency reporting system wireless location
    > information or equipment or employees or agents thereof, or the
    > 911 jurisdiction or the employees or agents thereof, shall be held
    > civilly liable for the installation, performance, provision or
    > maintenance of an E911 wireless location system if the provider,
    > subsidiary or other supplier, or the employees or agents thereof,
    > or the E911 jurisdiction or the employees or agents thereof act
    > without willful or wanton conduct. Nothing in this section shall
    > affect any liability an E911 jurisdiction may have for operator or
    > operator-supervisor negligence in receiving calls from the public
    > and rendering dispatch services to the public.
    >
    > \`\`Provider\'\' means a utility, vendor or supplier or licensee
    > of telecommunications services and equipment who provides network
    > system equipment; E911 data base development, installation or
    > maintenance; or wireless location information and equipment; or
    > local exchange access services within an E911 service area.

[^197]: Consensus Agreement at 4.

[^198]: Section 1002, 47 U.S.C. § 1002.

[^199]: *Id.*

[^200]: *Id.*

[^201]: *See, e.g.*, RCC (CA) Comments at 7-8; AMSC (CA) Comments at 9;
    BellSouth (CA) Comments at 8-9; Vanguard (CA) Comments at 5.

[^202]: Vanguard (CA) Comments at 5.

[^203]: Alliance (CA) Reply Comments at 10.

[^204]: BellSouth (CA) Comments at 8-9; GTE (CA) Comments at 6; US West
    (CA) Comments at 10.

[^205]: Ameritech (CA) Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^206]: Consensus Agreement at 4.

[^207]: Section 1002(a) of the Wiretap Act, 47 U.S.C. §1002(a).

[^208]: US West (CA) Comments at 10.

[^209]: *See* Shippers National Freight Claim Council v. Interstate
    Commerce Commission, 712 F. 2d 740, 745 (2d Cir. 1983).

[^210]: Southern Railway Co. v. United States, 194 F. Supp. 633 (E.D.
    Va. 1961)*.*

[^211]: *See* South Carolina Pub. Serv. Authority v. FERC, 850 F. 2d 788
    (D.C. Cir. 1988).

[^212]: *Id.* at 792-95.

[^213]: We explore this issue in greater detail in the Further Notice we
    are adopting today. *See* paras. 135-142, *infra.*

[^214]: *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6181 (para. 59).

[^215]: *See, e.g.*, PCIA Reply Comments at 13; Nextel Reply Comments at
    7; ICSAR Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^216]: Springwich Comments at 7.

[^217]: TX-ACSEC Comments at 13; Oregon Comments at 6.

[^218]: *Notice,* 9 FCC Rcd at 6181 (para. 59). *See* Louisiana Public
    Service Commission v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986); Illinois Bell Tel.
    Co. v. FCC, 833 F. 2d 104 (D.C. Cir. 1989); California v. FCC, 905
    F. 2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Texas Public Utility Comm\'n v. FCC, 886
    F. 2d 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1989); North Carolina Utilities Comm\'n v.
    FCC, 552 F. 2d 1036 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 874 (1977);
    North Carolina Utilities Comm\'n v. FCC, 537 F. 2d 787 (4th Cir.),
    cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1027 (1976).

[^219]: 47 U.S.C. § 151.

[^220]: *See, e.g.,* CTIA Reply Comments at 13; Nextel Reply Comments at
    7; ICSAR Reply Comments at 7.

[^221]: *Notice,* 9 FCC at 6180 (para. 55).

[^222]: *See* APCO Comments at 51; TX-ACSEC Comments at 12; ICSAR
    Comments at 7; Coast Guard Comments at 16.

[^223]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 40; CTIA Comments at 22; PCIA
    Comments at 25-26; Southwestern Bell at 23-26; Nortel Reply Comments
    at 13; Pertech Comments at 7-8; Motorola Comments at 26; TIA
    Comments at 15; Nextel Comments at 7-8.

[^224]: Motorola Comments at 25-26.

[^225]: *Id.* at 25; s*ee* PCIA Comments at 25 (arguing that cut offs
    are inappropriate because there is currently no basis for
    determining when compliant technology can be developed).

[^226]: *See, e.g*., APCO Comments at 51; TX-ACSEC Comments at 5, 10;
    New Jersey Comments at 17; ICSAR Comments at 7; Coast Guard Comments
    at 16.

[^227]: *See, e.g*., AT&T Comments at 40; Caddo Comments at 7-8; CTIA
    Comments at 22; Motorola Comments at 26; Nextel Comments at 8; NATA
    Comments at 16-17; Nortel Comments at 52; PCIA Comments at 25-26;
    RCA Comments at 11; and SBC Comments at 23-24.

[^228]: *See, e.g.*, PCIA Comments at 26; CTIA Comments at 22; AT&T
    Comments at 40 (noting that labelling will not reflect upgrades to
    system capabilities); Motorola Comments at 26.

[^229]: *See, e.g*., AT&T Comments at 40; CTIA Comments at 22; Motorola
    Comments at 26; Nextel Comments at 7-8; PCIA Comments at 25-26; SBC
    Comments at 23-26; CMT Comments at 10.

[^230]: TX- ACSEC Reply Comments at 6.

[^231]: Consensus Agreement at 5.

[^232]: BellSouth Comments at 11; Nextel Comments at 7-8; CTO Comments
    at 3-4.

[^233]: *Notice,* 9 FCC Rcd at 6178 (para. 44).

[^234]: *See, e.g*., APCO Comments at 39; TX-ACSEC Comments at 10; PCIA
    Comments at 11; Motorola Comments at 22-23; APC Comments at 3; CMT
    Comments at 3-4; Westinghouse Comments at 5; ICSAR Comments at 5.

[^235]: *See, e.g.*, APCO Comments at 39-40; CMT Comments at 3-4;
    Westinghouse Comments at 5; ICSAR Comments at 5.

[^236]: *See, e.g.*, Nortel Reply at 12-13; AT&T Comments at 26;
    BellSouth Comments at 19; Ericsson Comments at 4; PCIA Comments at
    9; SBC Comments at 10; NYNEX Comments at 12; Pacific Telesis
    Comments at 4.

[^237]: *See, e.g.*, PCIA Comments at 11; AT&T Comments at 26-27; Bell
    Atlantic Comments at 9-11; CTIA Comments at 13-14; Motorola Comments
    at 23; Nortel Comments at 54-55.

[^238]: *See, e.g.*, Motorola Comments at 22-23 (suggesting that a
    reasonable time frame is no sooner than 2 years after the Order);
    Ericsson Comments at 4-5 (arguing that a three year time frame is a
    more realistic assessment of the time necessary to accomplish the
    goal.).

[^239]: *See, e.g.*, CTIA Comments at 13-14; Southern Comments at 7;
    AT&T Comments at 27; GTE Comments at 14-15.

[^240]: *See, e.g*., PCIA Comments at 9; CTIA Comments at 13.

[^241]: *See, e.g*., PCIA Comments at 9-11; APC Comments at 3-4.

[^242]: *See, e.g.,* NCS Comments at 3-5; ALLTEL Comments at 2; AT&T
    Comments at 26; CTIA Comments at 13-14; PCIA Comments at 9-11;
    Century Reply Comments at 8.

[^243]: APC Comments at 4.

[^244]: *See, e.g*., Motorola Comments at 23-24; NCS Comments at 7-8;
    Nortel Reply Comments at 12-13.

[^245]: *See, e.g*, NCS Comments at 7-8; Nortel Comments at 12-13.

[^246]: *See, e.g.*, NCS Comments at 7-8; Motorola Comments at 24;
    Nortel Reply Comments at 12-13; Ericsson Comments at 4-5.

[^247]: *See, e.g.,* PCIA Comments at 9; Ericsson Comments at 4-5;
    Northern Telecom Reply Comments at 12-13.

[^248]: *See, e.g.,* PCIA Comments at 10; Century Reply Comments at 8.

[^249]: *See, e.g.*, PCIA Comments at 10; CTIA Comments at 13-14; APC
    Comments at 4.

[^250]: NCS Comments at 7-8.

[^251]: Public Notice, Commission Seeks Comment on Petition for
    Rulemaking Filed by National Communications System, WT Docket No.
    96-86, DA 96-604, April 18, 1996.

[^252]: *Notice*, 9 FCC Rcd at 6178 (paras. 42-43).

[^253]: PCIA Comments at 8-9; APC Comments at 3; RCA Comments at 9-10;
    SBC Comments at 9-10; CMT Comments at 3; Pertech Comments at 6.

[^254]: Pertech Comments at 6.

[^255]: PCIA Comments at 8-9; APC Comments at 3; RCA Comments at 9-10.

[^256]: SBC Comments at 9-10 (claiming that competition in the wireless
    market demands that the amount of blocked calls be as minimal as
    possible.).

[^257]: *See* APCO Comments at 39; TX-ACSEC Comments at 9; ICSAR
    Comments at 5.

[^258]: *See, e.g.,* TX-ACSEC Comments at 9.

[^259]: APCO Comments at 39; *See* TX-ACSEC Comments at 9 (arguing that
    a P. 01 grade of service should be required for the mobile radio
    network portion of the cell.).

[^260]: Pertech Comments at 6.

[^261]: ICSAR Comments at 5.

[^262]: US West (CA) Comments at 8-9; Motorola (CA) Comments at 7-8.

[^263]: *See* Section IV.B.1.b.(4), *supra*.

[^264]: CCS is a network architecture supported by numerous protocols.
    SS7, or Signalling System 7, is the primary signalling protocol used
    by the wireline network.

[^265]: *Notice,* 9 FCC Rcd at 6179-80 (para. 53). We indicated that the
    Network Reliability Council has recommended that, before 911 calls
    are handled by SS7, standards bodies must determine whether
    additional standards are needed for the SS7 protocol. *Network
    Reliability: A Report to the Nation*, Network Reliability Council,
    Federal Communications Comm\'n, June 1993, Section F, at 16.

[^266]: *See, e.g.*, APCO Comments at 45-49; TX-ACSEC Comments at 11;
    Coast Guard Comments at 5-6.

[^267]: APCO Comments at 48.

[^268]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Comments at 49; TX-ACSEC Comments at 11.

[^269]: SBC Comments at 21-22.

[^270]: PCIA Comments at 22-23; Motorola (CA) Comments at 4..

[^271]: *See, e.g.*, PCIA Comments at 23; GTE Comments at 27; AT&T
    Comments at 37; CTIA Comments at 14-15; Nextel Comments at 5; SBC
    Comments at 22.

[^272]: *See, e.g.*, SBC Comments at 21-22; PCIA Comments at 23; CTIA
    Comments at 14-15.

[^273]: SBC Comments at 21.

[^274]: *Id.*

[^275]: *See, e.g*., PCIA Comments at 23; CTIA Comments at 14-15; Nextel
    Comments at 5; Southern Comments at 8; Springwich Comments at 12.

[^276]: CTIA Comments at 14-15.

[^277]: *See, e.g.,* PCIA Comments at 23; CTIA Comments at 14-15
    (arguing that referral to an industry forum for further study is
    appropriate.); CMT Comments at 9 (urging the Commission to defer
    implementing this proposal pending completion of analysis by the
    industry board.).

[^278]: *See, e.g.,* PCIA Comments at 23.

[^279]: SBMS Comments at 8.

[^280]: *See, e.g.,* PCIA Comments at 22-23; Nextel Comments at 5.

[^281]: *See* Section IV.B.1.b.(4), *supra*.

[^282]: JEM Report at 7-8.

[^283]: KSI (CA) Reply Comments at 5.

[^284]: *See, e.g.,* APCO Comments at 42 (arguing that the Commission
    should adopt an ultimate location accuracy requirement of 10 meters
    with a 95 percent confidence factor, applying to both horizontal and
    vertical accuracy); TX-ACSEC Comments at 10 (suggesting that a 10
    meter radius in three dimensions would be a better goal, because it
    would narrow the location to within three floors in a building).

[^285]: Alliance Petition at 3. We recognize the significance of
    Alliance\'s concern regarding the existence of \`\`blank spots\'\'
    with respect to a cellular system\'s radio signal. In support of its
    contention, Alliance submits tests which purport to show that
    significant portions of major cities either cannot be reached via
    the signal of one carrier or another, or can only be reached with a
    poor signal. Thus, Alliance contends, a requirement that a 911
    cellular call be connected to the cellular carrier with the
    strongest signal in the geographic area involved may be the only
    means to ensure that a 911 call can be successfully made.

[^286]: \`\`Compatibility\'\' means that any cellular mobile telephone
    is able to place and receive calls in any cellular system; and
    conversely, all systems are able to place and receive calls for any
    mobile telephone. *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 22 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to Permit Liberalization of Technology and
    Auxiliary Service Offerings in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio
    Telecommunications Service, GN Docket No. 87-390, Report and Order,
    3 FCC Rcd 7033, 7038 (para. 36) (1988).

[^287]: *See, e.g.,* Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules to Establish
    New Personal Communications Services, GN Docket No. 90-314,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 4957, 5021-22 (paras. 162,
    164) (1994).

[^288]: According to AT&T, if phones are automatically programmed to
    search out the strongest signal, as Alliance proposes, but the
    carrier possessing that signal is using an incompatible air
    interface, the subscriber would be unable to complete the call. AT&T
    Comments on Alliance Petition at 6-7.

[^289]: Initial PCS technology will be digital as opposed to cellular
    technology, which is evolving from analog to digital. Cellular
    carriers currently use three different air interfaces \-- the analog
    AMPS standard, and digital TDMA and CDMA protocols. *See, e.g.,*
    AT&T Comments on Alliance Petition at 7.

[^290]: Subtitle II of the CWAAA is \`\`The Small Business Regulatory
    Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,\'\' (SBREFA), codified at 5 U.S.C.
    § 601.

[^291]: *See* paras. , , , , *supra*. (These reporting requirements are
    applicable to the signatories to the Consensus Agreement, PCIA, TDI,
    and Alliance).

[^292]: *See* paras. , , *supra.*

[^293]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
    Code 4812.

[^294]: U. S. Small Business Administration 1992 Economic Census
    Employment Report, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of
    Commerce, SIC Code 4812 (radiotelephone communications industry data
    adopted by the SBA Office of Advocacy).

[^295]: U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992
    Census of Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, UC92‑S‑1,
    Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size, Table 5, Employment
    Size of Firms: 1992, SIC Code 4812 (issued May 1995).

[^296]: OPASTCO Comments at 1-2 (filed January 9, 1995).

[^297]: RCA Comments at 2 (filed January 9, 1995).

[^298]: *See* Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act
    \-- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fifth Report and
    Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5532, 5581-84 (1994).

[^299]: *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Provide for the Use of 200 Channels Outside the Designated Filing
    Areas in the 896-901 MHz and the 935-940 MHz Bands Allotted to the
    Specialized Mobile Radio Pool, PR Docket No. 89-583, *Second Order
    on Reconsideration and Seventh Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 2639,
    2693-702 (1995); Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz
    Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, *First Report and Order,
    Eighth Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995).

[^300]: *See* Section IV. B. 2, *supra*.

[^301]: *See* para. , *supra.*

[^302]: *Id.*

[^303]: *See* para. , *supra.*

[^304]: *See* Section IV. B. 1, *supra.*

[^305]: *See* para. , *supra.*

[^306]: *See* para. , *supra.*

[^307]: *See* para. , *supra.*

[^308]: *See* Section IV. C. *supra.*

[^309]: *See* para. , *supra.*