**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | )  | PS Docket No. 07-114         |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Wireless E911 Location Accuracy  | )  | CC Docket No. 94-102         |
| Requirements                     |    |                              |
|                                  | )  | WC Docket No. 05-196         |
| Revision of the Commission's     |    |                              |
| Rules to Ensure Compatibility    | )  |                              |
| with Enhanced 911 Emergency      |    |                              |
| Calling Systems                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Association of Public-Safety     | )  |                              |
| Communications                   |    |                              |
| Officials-International, Inc.    | )  |                              |
| Request for Declaratory Ruling   |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
| 911 Requirements for IP-Enabled  |    |                              |
| Service Providers                | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | )  |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: May 31, 2007 Released: June 1, 2007**

**Section III.A Comment Date: \[14 days after publication in the Federal
Register\]**

**Section III.A Reply Comment Date: \[21 days after publication in the
Federal Register\]**

**Section III.B Comment Date: \[60 days after publication in the Federal
Register\]**

**Section III.B Reply Comment Date: \[90 days after publication in the
Federal Register\]**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Tate and
McDowell issuing separate statements; Commissioner Adelstein concurring
and issuing a statement.

# INtroduction

1.  In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice), we seek comment on
    several issues relating to wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) location
    accuracy and reliability requirements, in order to ensure that
    wireless E911 service meets the needs of public safety and the
    American people, while taking into account the evolution in the use
    of wireless devices and the further development of location
    technologies. First, in Section III.A below, we seek comment on our
    tentative conclusion that we should adopt a proposal by the
    Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International,
    Inc. (APCO) to clarify Section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules,
    which specifies the standards for wireless E911 Phase II location
    accuracy and reliability, to require licensees subject to this rule
    to satisfy these standards at a geographical level defined by the
    coverage area of each respective local Public Safety Answering Point
    (PSAP).[^1] We also grant APCO's request for an expedited
    consideration of its proposal,[^2] and seek comment on whether, if
    we adopt this tentative conclusion, we should defer enforcement of
    Section 20.18(h) to allow wireless carriers to come into compliance.
    In Section III.B, we seek comment on a number of other tentative
    conclusions and proposals, including: (1) if we were to require
    licensees to meet the standards of Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP
    level, and decide to defer enforcement of Section 20.18(h) as so
    defined, how long we should defer enforcement; (2) the tentative
    conclusion to establish a single location accuracy requirement
    irrespective of technology; (3) how advances in location
    technologies and the use of hybrid technologies that employ both
    handset- and network-based technologies should impact our
    analysis; (4) whether a more stringent accuracy requirement should
    be adopted; (5) how and by what date to require compliance with a
    uniform and/or new accuracy requirement; (6) the methodology for
    accuracy compliance testing, particularly when wireless phones are
    used indoors and in rural areas; (7) the tentative conclusions to
    establish a mandatory schedule for accuracy testing and to require
    carriers to automatically provide accuracy data to PSAPs; (8)
    whether to require carriers to provide E911 location information
    when a wireless phone roams to an area that uses a different
    location technology or in which there are no automatic roaming
    agreements between carriers; and (9) the tentative conclusion that
    to the extent that an interconnected voice over Internet Protocol
    (VoIP) service may be used in more than one location, service
    providers must employ an automatic location technology that meets
    the same accuracy standards that apply to services provided by
    circuit-switched commercial mobile radio services (CMRS) carriers.

# Background

2.  Section 20.18 sets forth the wireless 911 and E911 requirements.
    Licensees are required to provide E911 service only if the PSAP
    requests such service and meets other requirements.[^3] Section
    20.18(h) of the Commission's rules states that licensees subject to
    the wireless E911 requirements

    shall comply with the following standards for Phase II location
    accuracy and reliability: (1) For network-based technologies: 100
    meters for 67 percent of calls, 300 meters for 95 percent of
    calls; (2) For handset-based technologies: 50 meters for 67 percent
    of calls, 150 meters for 95 percent of calls. (3) For the remaining
    5 percent of calls, location attempts must be made and a location
    estimate must be provided to the appropriate PSAP.[^4]

    In the *First Report and Order*, in which the Commission first
    adopted accuracy requirements for the provision of E911 by wireless
    carriers, the Commission stated that "the level of accuracy achieved
    by \[a\] 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." [^5] The *First
    Report and Order* required covered carriers "to demonstrate, upon
    request made by the PSAP, that its ALI \[Automatic Location
    Identification\] system performs in compliance with the requirements
    established in this Order."[^6]

3.  In April 2000, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
    (OET) issued Bulletin No. 71 to provide guidance in determining
    whether wireless licensees required to supply location information
    to PSAPs comply with the Commission's accuracy requirements.[^7]
    OET's Bulletin did not establish mandatory procedures, but stated
    that compliance with the guidelines set forth therein would
    establish "a strong presumption that appropriate means have been
    applied to ensure that an ALI system complies with the Commission's
    Rules."[^8] The Bulletin described the Commission's expectations
    regarding location accuracy measurement and testing as follows:

    Reports of compliance testing should clearly define the subject
    geographical areas. Accuracy tests may be based on the coverage
    areas of local PSAPs that request Phase II deployment. It may be
    appropriate to subject a wireless service provider's entire
    advertised coverage area within a metropolitan area or similar
    region to testing . . . but these are typically large areas and
    initial ALI deployment may proceed more gradually. Thus, testing may
    initially cover an urban core and later extend to the response area
    of a local PSAP. Compliance may be verified for these sub-areas
    separately or in combination. However, the areas delineated for
    compliance testing should not overlap. It is unacceptable to include
    the same geographic sub-area in two or more test areas, especially
    if the sub-area is relatively undemanding for the location
    technology.[^9]

4.  On October 5, 2004, APCO filed a request for declaratory ruling
    seeking clarification of the geographic area over which wireless
    carriers must provide the levels of location accuracy required under
    the Commission's rules, as well as the degree to which carriers must
    provide confidence and uncertainty data on the level of location
    accuracy to PSAPs.[^10] On February 4, 2005, APCO supplemented its
    request to indicate that metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and
    rural statistical areas (RSAs) may also serve as appropriate
    boundaries within which to measure and test location accuracy.[^11]
    APCO also proposed that the Commission require compliance testing
    every two years.[^12]

# Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

## Geographic Area Required for Compliance with Section 20.18(h)

5.  Consistent with APCO's proposal, we tentatively conclude that
    Section 20.18(h) should be clarified to require carriers to meet
    Phase II accuracy requirements at the PSAP service area level.
    Measuring and testing location accuracy over geographic areas larger
    than PSAP service areas would appear to be directly contrary to the
    interests of public safety and homeland security. By averaging
    accuracy over a vast service area, a carrier can assert that it
    satisfies the requirements of Section 20.18(h) even when it is not
    meeting our accuracy requirements in substantial segments of its
    service area. This practice, as APCO correctly notes, "could leave
    significant portions of the country with virtually useless levels of
    E9-1-1 accuracy, essentially nullifying Phase II \[E911
    requirements\] in those areas."[^13] A PSAP that requests Phase II
    service should be able to expect location information from carriers
    that meets our accuracy requirements within the PSAP's service
    area.[^14] When carriers are incapable of transmitting such location
    information to the PSAP, emergency response may be delayed and, in
    some cases, may be impossible until another source of location
    information is provided. At a minimum, these delays waste limited
    public safety resources. At worst, inadequate location information
    can result in a loss of life that might otherwise have been
    prevented.

6.  At its core, the goal of our E911 rules is to provide meaningful
    automatic location identification information that permits first
    responders to render aid, regardless of the technology or platform
    employed. While measuring location accuracy at the PSAP level may
    present challenges to both carriers and technology providers, the
    public interest demands that carriers and technology providers
    strive to ensure that when wireless callers dial 911, emergency
    responders are provided with location information that enables them
    to reach the site of the emergency as quickly as possible. At the
    same time, we recognize that many carriers are not generally
    measuring and testing location accuracy at the PSAP level, and that
    there is some disagreement over the intended meaning of Section
    20.18(h).[^15] In this regard, some parties have argued that we
    should solicit comment on whether Section 20.18(h) should require
    compliance at the PSAP level, rather than simply issuing an order to
    this effect.[^16] Although Section 20.18(h) does not expressly state
    that accuracy must be measured and tested at the PSAP level, we note
    that the Commission has never suggested that it is appropriate to
    average accuracy results over an entire state, much less over a
    multi-state carrier's entire service area.[^17] As a result, while
    we are not convinced that the avenue of clarification is precluded,
    out of an abundance of caution, and to ensure that we have full
    public input, we now seek comment on APCO's proposal, and grant its
    request for expedited consideration. Further, should we adopt our
    tentative conclusion to require compliance with Section 20.18(h) at
    the PSAP level, we seek comment on whether we should defer
    enforcement of Section 20.18(h) as so defined.

7.  As noted on the first page of this Notice, we have established
    separate comment due dates for the proposals set forth in this
    Section III.A, and Section III.B, below. Specifically, we will
    require the filing of initial comments on the proposals in this
    Section III.A to be due fourteen days after publication of this
    Notice in the Federal Register, and reply comments to be due
    twenty-one days after publication. For the proposals for which we
    seek comment in Section III.B below, initial comments and reply
    comments will be due sixty days, and ninety days, respectively,
    following publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. We
    have established the comment periods in this manner because the
    required geographic area over which compliance with the location
    accuracy requirements of Section 20.18(h) will be measured is of
    primary importance to our resolution of the issues that follow in
    Section III.B. Accordingly, the record developed in response to the
    proposals in Section III.A will serve to inform subsequent comments
    submitted in response to the issues raised in Section III.B.

## Other Wireless E911 and VoIP 911 Accuracy Issues

8.  *Deferred Enforcement of Section 20.18(h)*. In Section III.A above,
    we tentatively conclude to require compliance with Section 20.18(h)
    at the PSAP level, and seek comment on whether we should defer
    enforcement of Section 20.18(h) as so defined. The record on these
    issues will be developed in advance of receiving comments on the
    proposals contained in this Section III.B. Accordingly, as an
    initial matter in this Section III.B, and assuming, based on the
    record developed in response to the proposals set forth in Section
    III.A, we require carriers to achieve compliance with Section
    20.18(h) at the PSAP level yet also determine to defer enforcement,
    we seek comment on how long we should defer enforcement.
    Specifically, what reasonable amount of time should we permit
    carriers to achieve compliance at the PSAP level? What specific
    tasks will be necessary for carriers to come into compliance with
    current accuracy requirements on a PSAP-level basis? Should the
    amount of time vary based on certain factors? What factors should be
    considered? Should benchmarks be established?

9.  *Single Location Accuracy Standard*. We seek comment on how to best
    ensure that PSAPs receive location information that is as accurate
    as possible for all wireless E911 calls. In this regard, we observe
    that much has changed since the Commission established the current
    location accuracy requirements. For example, wireless services have
    advanced to the point where many people rely on them for
    communications wherever they may be, whether at home or in the
    workplace, indoors or outdoors, or in an urban, suburban or rural
    area. Many people rely on wireless phones in place of wired landline
    phones. We also observe that location technologies have continued to
    advance. It is our objective to ensure that PSAPs receive reliable
    and accurate location information irrespective of the location of
    the caller or the technology that may be used.

10. As noted above, the Commission established different location
    accuracy requirements for network-based and handset-based location
    technologies. It is not clear that this bifurcated approach
    continues to best serve the public interest. Consumers cannot
    reasonably be expected to recognize the implications of the location
    technology used by their carrier, nor understand why one carrier
    would provide better reliability in an emergency than another. The
    bifurcated accuracy standards also mean that public safety officials
    must adjust their expectations about the accuracy of the information
    they receive based on the technology used by the carrier. We also
    note that the current requirement is not technology neutral because
    it provides a lower standard for only one technology. It may also
    result in ambiguity when a carrier uses an approach that includes
    both network- and handset-based technologies. Accordingly, we
    tentatively conclude that the public interest would be better served
    by a single location accuracy requirement rather than the current
    separate accuracy requirements for network- and handset-based
    technologies. We invite comment on this tentative conclusion.

11. *Location Technologies*. We recognize that several factors must be
    considered in establishing a single location accuracy requirement.
    We seek to develop a full understanding of the capabilities and
    limitations of existing location technologies, as well as any new
    technologies that may provide improvements in location accuracy. We
    invite parties to comment on the various location technologies that
    are available to provide accurate E911 location information and
    their capabilities. Do some technologies perform better under
    certain circumstances? What factors influence how well a particular
    accuracy solution performs? How best can accuracy be improved in
    both the short term and the future? Can carriers employ a
    combination of handset-based and network-based location technologies
    (a hybrid solution),[^18] rather than employing one or the other, to
    achieve improved location accuracies? Would hybrid technologies
    provide greater location accuracy than either network-based or
    handset-based solutions alone? Should we require the use of such
    technologies? What has been the experience of PSAPs that receive
    Phase II service? We also ask parties to comment on any other
    potential revisions to our current location accuracy requirements
    that could help carriers improve location accuracy.

12. *Accuracy Standard*. Assuming the Commission adopts a uniform
    accuracy standard, what should that standard be? We are inclined to
    require that the uniform accuracy standard be at least as stringent
    as that currently in place for handset-based technologies, *i.e.*,
    50 meters for 67 percent of calls, 150 meters for 95 percent of
    calls. Is this standard still appropriate, given the advances in
    location technology that have occurred since the Commission adopted
    the current location accuracy standards in 1999? Should the
    Commission adopt more stringent accuracy requirements? Should the
    standard now include additional information, such as elevation?
    Should all classes of carriers be held to this uniform standard,
    and, if so, by what date should they be required to come into
    compliance with a more stringent, uniform accuracy requirement? What
    other measures should be taken to improve location accuracy?

13. *Compliance Timeframes*. We invite comment on any requirements the
    Commission should adopt to ensure compliance with our location
    accuracy rules. We already have asked at the outset of this Section
    III.B for comment on what amount of time is reasonable to allow
    carriers to come into compliance with current accuracy requirements
    at the PSAP level. Assuming we adopt a uniform location accuracy
    requirement, what is the appropriate date by which to require
    compliance with such requirement at the PSAP level? What action
    should the Commission take relative to systems that have been
    deployed and meet the current requirements at the PSAP level, but
    may not meet whatever requirements we may adopt on a going forward
    basis?

14. *Compliance Testing*. In addition, we seek comment on what
    methodology carriers should employ to verify compliance, both
    initially and during ongoing testing. Should OET Bulletin No. 71,
    which provides guidelines for testing and verifying the accuracy of
    wireless E911 location systems, be used to verify compliance? If so,
    what revisions to the Bulletin would be appropriate? For example,
    should the Bulletin specify a certain level of indoor versus outdoor
    testing in order to reflect the proportion of indoor versus outdoor
    use? What mix of equipment (*i.e*., carrier-provided handsets, base
    stations, or other facilities) should be employed for accuracy
    testing? How many test points within a PSAP service area should be
    required or considered sufficient and how should they be
    distributed? What special considerations, if any, should be
    established for tests in rural areas? Are there other testing
    parameters that should be imposed to ensure that testing accurately
    assesses consumer experiences in using a carrier's E911
    service?[^19] We seek comment on these and any other related
    questions regarding the appropriate testing methodology or
    standards. Should OET Bulletin No. 71, which is currently only a
    guideline, be made mandatory? Alternatively, should the Commission
    place the measurement procedure in its rules?

15. *Schedule for Testing*. We tentatively conclude that we will
    establish a mandatory schedule for accuracy testing, and seek
    comment on the appropriate schedule for such testing. Should we
    require testing every two years, as APCO has suggested,[^20] or
    should we adopt a different schedule? As Phase II service is
    extended into new areas, at what point should carriers be required
    to conduct compliance testing? Should carriers be required to file
    compliance and maintenance testing data with the Commission, one or
    more national public safety organizations (such as NENA, APCO, and
    NASNA), local PSAPs, or some combination of these entities? Should
    the Commission treat such information in a confidential manner?
    Should carriers be required to provide consolidated performance
    statistics to illustrate accuracy levels for various topologies or
    for other reasons?

16. *Accuracy Data*. We also tentatively conclude that carriers should
    automatically provide accuracy data to PSAPs.[^21] How and in what
    format should that data be transferred to each applicable PSAP? How
    often should it be reported or provided? Should it be provided as
    part of the call information/ALI? What is the appropriate level of
    granularity for such accuracy data?

17. *911 Calls Placed When Roaming*. We are concerned that a wireless
    caller whose carrier employs one type of location technology may not
    be provided Phase II service at all when roaming on the network of
    another carrier that relies on a different technology, or when there
    is no roaming agreement between carriers using compatible
    technologies. How can these issues be addressed? Should we require
    carriers to ensure delivery of location information to PSAPs for
    every call handled on their networks, including calls made by
    customers of another carrier ("roaming calls") that has deployed a
    different technology in its own network or with whom the carrier
    handling the call has no automatic roaming relationship? While we
    believe there are benefits to applying a performance-based
    requirement for location accuracy, we invite comment as to whether
    we should consider mandating a particular technology that achieves
    the required accuracy. If so, which technology?

18. *Interconnected VoIP Services*. Finally, we seek comment on whether
    and to what extent providers of interconnected VoIP services should
    be required to provide ALI, and whether and to what extent they
    should be subject to the same location accuracy requirements that
    apply to certain services provided by circuit-switched CMRS carriers
    under Section 20.18 of the Commission's rules.[^22] We tentatively
    conclude that to the extent that an interconnected VoIP service may
    be used in more than one location, providers must employ an
    automatic location technology that meets the same accuracy standards
    that apply to those CMRS services.[^23] In light of this tentative
    conclusion, we ask that commenters provide input on all issues
    raised in this Notice as though the accuracy requirements for those
    CMRS services would apply to all interconnected VoIP services that
    can be used in more than one location. More generally, we invite
    commenters to update the record in the Commission's VoIP 911
    proceeding with any new information or arguments they believe to be
    relevant to the questions raised in the June 2005 *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking* relating to location issues.[^24]

19. *Commission Reports.* We expect that the comments filed by carriers,
    technology providers, public safety entities and other stakeholders
    will provide significant data on the ability of current technologies
    to meet location criteria and the development of new technologies to
    increase location accuracy. There are, however, at least two areas
    that warrant additional evaluation by Commission engineers and
    staff: (1) methods for carriers to improve in-building location
    accuracy; and (2) the use of hybrid technology solutions to increase
    location accuracy and address shortcomings of current technologies.
    We intend to examine both issues, and provide reports on our efforts
    to the public. However, we recognize the need to proceed quickly and
    efficiently with respect to these evaluations, and intend to
    initiate and complete them without unduly delaying the issuance of a
    final order.

# Procedural Matters

## *Ex Parte* Presentations

20. This proceeding shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose"
    proceeding in accordance with the Commission's *ex parte*
    rules.[^25] Persons making oral *ex parte* presentations are
    reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations must contain
    summaries of the substance of the presentations and not merely a
    listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-sentence
    description of the views and arguments presented is generally
    required.[^26] Other rules pertaining to oral and written
    presentations are set forth in Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's
    rules as well.

## Comment Filing Procedures

21. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
    reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
    this document. All filings related to this Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking should refer to **PS Docket No. 07-114 and WC Docket No.
    05-196**. We hereby incorporate the comments and *ex parte*
    presentations related to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that
    were previously filed in CC Docket No. 94-102 into PS Docket No.
    07-114. Commenters need not resubmit material previously filed in
    that proceeding. Comments may be filed using: (1) the Commission's
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal
    Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies.
    *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63
    Fed. Reg. 24,121 (1998).

-   Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
    Internet by accessing the ECFS:
    [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs](http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/) or the
    Federal eRulemaking Portal:
    [http://www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/). Filers
    should follow the instructions provided on the website for
    submitting comments.

    -   For ECFS filers, if multiple dockets or rulemaking numbers
        appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit
        one electronic copy of the comments for each docket or
        rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the
        transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S.
        Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
        rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment
        by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should
        send and e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and include the following
        words in the body of the message, "get form." A sample form and
        directions will be sent in response.

-   Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
    original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
    rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
    must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
    rulemaking number.

    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
    overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal
    Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving
    U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the
    Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission.

    -   The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
        messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary
        at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington,
        DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to
        7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber
        bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of
        [before]{.underline} entering the building.

    -   Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
        Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East
        Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

    -   U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must
        be addressed to 445 12^th^ Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554.

22. Comments and reply comments and any other filed documents in this
    matter may be obtained from Best Copy and Printing, Inc., in person
    at 445 12th Street, S.W., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, via
    telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile at (202) 488-5563, or via
    e-mail at <FCC@BCPIWEB.COM>. The pleadings will be also available
    for public inspection and copying during regular business hours in
    the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street,
    S.W., Washington, DC 20554, and through the Commission's Electronic
    Filing System (ECFS) accessible on the Commission's Web site,
    [http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs](http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/).

23. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
    disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
    send an e-mail to <fcc504@fcc.gov> or call the Consumer &
    Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
    (TTY).

24. Commenters who file information that they believe is should be
    withheld from public inspection may request confidential treatment
    pursuant to Section 0.459 of the Commission's rules. Commenters
    should file both their original comments for which they request
    confidentiality and redacted comments, along with their request for
    confidential treatment. Commenters should not file proprietary
    information electronically. *See* Examination of Current Policy
    Concerning the Treatment of Confidential Information Submitted to
    the Commission, *Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 24816 (1998), *Order
    on Reconsideration*, 14 FCC Rcd 20128 (1999). Even if the Commission
    grants confidential treatment, information that does not fall within
    a specific exemption pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act
    (FOIA) must be publicly disclosed pursuant to an appropriate
    request. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 0.461; 5 U.S.C. § 552. We note that the
    Commission may grant requests for confidential treatment either
    conditionally or unconditionally. As such, we note that the
    Commission has the discretion to release information on public
    interest grounds that does fall within the scope of a FOIA
    exemption.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

25. Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^27] the
    Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities
    by the proposals considered in this Notice. The text of the IRFA is
    set forth in the Appendix. Written public comments are requested on
    this IRFA. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing
    deadlines for comments on the Notice, and they should have a
    separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the
    IRFA. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including the
    IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.[^28]

## Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

26. This document does not contain proposed information collection(s)
    subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law
    104-13.  In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or
    modified "information collection burden for small business concerns
    with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant to the Small Business
    Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. §
    3506(c)(4).

# ordering clauseS

27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 332 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 332,
    that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking IS ADOPTED.

28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

29. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to applicable procedures set
    forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on
    Section III.A of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 14
    days after publication in the Federal Register, and reply comments
    on or before 21 days after publication in the Federal Register, and
    interested parties may file comments on Section III.B of this Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 60 days after publication in the
    Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 90 days after
    publication in the Federal Register.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX**

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^29] the Commission has prepared this present Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the
    policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
    Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
    filed by the deadlines for comments on the first page of the Notice.
    The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA,
    to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration (SBA).[^30] In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or
    summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.[^31]

    A.  **Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

2.  In the Notice, we seek comment on how to best ensure that public
    safety answering points (PSAPs) receive location information that is
    as accurate as possible for all wireless E911 calls. The Notice also
    asks whether and to what extent providers of interconnected voice
    over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services should be required to provide
    automatic location identification (ALI), and whether they should be
    subject to the same location accuracy requirements as providers of
    circuit-switched commercial mobile radio services (CMRS). The
    objective is to ensure that PSAPs receive reliable and accurate
    location information irrespective of the location of the caller or
    the technology that may be used.

3.  The Notice tentatively concludes that wireless carriers must comply
    with section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules, which sets forth
    the standards for Phase II wireless E911 location accuracy and
    reliability, at the PSAP service area level. This tentative
    conclusion responds to a petition for declaratory ruling filed by
    the Association of Public-Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) expressing concern that by
    measuring and testing location accuracy over geographic areas larger
    than PSAP service areas, a wireless carrier can assert that it
    satisfies the requirements of section 20.18(h) even when it is not
    meeting the location accuracy requirements in substantial segments
    of its service area. In recognition of the fact that many carriers
    are not currently measuring and testing location accuracy at the
    PSAP level, the Notice seeks comment on whether -- and for what
    length of time -- the Commission should defer enforcement of section
    20.18(h) if it adopts the tentative conclusion to require compliance
    at the PSAP level.[^32]

4.  The Notice explores other possible ways to improve wireless E911
    location accuracy and reliability. The item tentatively concludes
    that the public interest would be better served by a single,
    technology-neutral location accuracy requirement for wireless E911
    service, rather than the separate accuracy requirements for
    network-based and handset-based location technologies that are
    currently in place. In light of this tentative conclusion, the
    Notice seeks comment on what an appropriate uniform accuracy
    standard would be, what level of accuracy is possible with current
    location technologies, whether hybrid solutions that employ both
    network-based and handset-based location technologies can produce
    improved location accuracy, and how long carriers should be given to
    come into compliance if the Commission adopts a new, uniform
    location accuracy standard.[^33]

5.  The Notice tentatively concludes that the Commission will establish
    a mandatory schedule for accuracy testing, and that carriers should
    automatically provide accuracy data to PSAPs. The Notice seeks
    comment on these tentative conclusions, and also seeks comment on
    whether the Commission should require wireless carriers to deliver
    location information for "roaming" 911 calls placed by another
    carrier's customers.[^34]

6.  With respect to interconnected VoIP, the Notice seeks comment on
    whether and to what extent providers of interconnected VoIP services
    should be required to provide automatic location identification, or
    ALI, and whether they should be subject to the same location
    accuracy requirements as providers of circuit-switched CMRS. The
    Notice tentatively concludes that to the extent that an
    interconnected VoIP service may be used in more than one location,
    providers must employ an automatic location technology that meets
    the same accuracy standards that apply to CMRS carriers.[^35]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Legal Basis**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this
    Notice is contained in Sections 4(i) and 332 of the Communications
    Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 332.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
C.  **Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
    the Proposed Rules Will Apply**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
8.  The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
    feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
    affected by the proposed rules.[^36] The RFA generally defines the
    term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^37] In addition, the term "small business" has the
    same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
    Business Act.[^38] A small business concern is one which: (1) is
    independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
    of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established
    by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^39]

9.  Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small
    businesses, according to SBA data.[^40] A "small organization" is
    generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently
    owned and operated and is not dominant in its field."[^41]
    Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small
    organizations.[^42] The term "small governmental jurisdiction" is
    defined generally as "governments of cities, towns, townships,
    villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population
    of less than fifty thousand."[^43] Census Bureau data for 2002
    indicate that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in
    the United States.[^44] We estimate that, of this total, 84,377
    entities were "small governmental jurisdictions."[^45] Thus, we
    estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

### 1. Telecommunications Service Entities {#telecommunications-service-entities .unnumbered}

#### Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers

10. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a
    general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
    businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
    the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
    Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless,
    in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues
    are implicated.

11. *Cellular Licensees.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
    category "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^46]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Cellular and
    Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
    that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the
    entire year.[^47] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999
    or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
    or more.[^48] Thus, under this category and size standard, the great
    majority of firms can be considered small. Also, according to
    Commission data, 437 carriers reported that they were engaged in the
    provision of cellular service, Personal Communications Service
    (PCS), or Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services, which
    are placed together in the data.[^49] We have estimated that 260 of
    these are small, under the SBA small business size standard.[^50]

12. *Common Carrier Paging.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for wireless firms within the broad economic census
    category, "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications."[^51]
    Under this SBA category, a wireless business is small if it has
    1,500 or fewer employees. For the census category of Paging, Census
    Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^52] Of this total, 804 firms had
    employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment
    of 1,000 employees or more.[^53] Thus, under this category and
    associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can
    be considered small. In the Paging *Third Report and Order*, we
    developed a small business size standard for "small businesses" and
    "very small businesses" for purposes of determining their
    eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
    installment payments.[^54] A "small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues not exceeding \$15 million for the preceding three
    years. Additionally, a "very small business" is an entity that,
    together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
    gross revenues that are not more than \$3 million for the preceding
    three years.[^55] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^56] An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses
    commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000.[^57] Of
    the 985 licenses auctioned, 440 were sold. Fifty-seven companies
    claiming small business status won. Also, according to Commission
    data, 375 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision
    of paging and messaging services.[^58] Of those, we estimate that
    370 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size
    standard.[^59]

13. *Wireless Telephony*. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal
    communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio (SMR)
    telephony carriers. As noted earlier, the SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications" services.[^60] Under that SBA small business
    size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^61] According to Commission data, 445 carriers reported
    that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony.[^62]
    We have estimated that 245 of these are small under the SBA small
    business size standard.

14. *Broadband Personal Communications Service*. The broadband Personal
    Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency
    blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions
    for each block. The Commission defined "small entity" for Blocks C
    and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of \$40 million
    or less in the three previous calendar years.[^63] For Block F, an
    additional classification for "very small business" was added and is
    defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
    gross revenues of not more than \$15 million for the preceding three
    calendar years."[^64] These standards defining "small entity" in the
    context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the
    SBA.[^65] No small businesses, within the SBA-approved small
    business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
    and B. There were 90 winning bidders that qualified as small
    entities in the Block C auctions. A total of 93 small and very small
    business bidders won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses
    for Blocks D, E, and F.[^66] On March 23, 1999, the Commission
    re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses. There were 48 small
    business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, the Commission
    completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses in
    Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction, 29
    qualified as "small" or "very small" businesses. Subsequent events,
    concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations,
    resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available
    for grant.

15. *Narrowband Personal Communications Services.* To date, two auctions
    of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have
    been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already
    been held, "small businesses" were entities with average gross
    revenues for the prior three calendar years of \$40 million or less.
    Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41
    licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To
    ensure meaningful participation of small business entities in future
    auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business
    size standard in the *Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order*.[^67]
    A "small business" is an entity that, together with affiliates and
    controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
    preceding years of not more than \$40 million. A "very small
    business" is an entity that, together with affiliates and
    controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
    preceding years of not more than \$15 million. The SBA has approved
    these small business size standards.[^68] In the future, the
    Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve Metropolitan Trading
    Areas (MTAs) and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one
    megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve
    and that the Commission has not yet decided to release for
    licensing. The Commission cannot predict accurately the number of
    licenses that will be awarded to small entities in future auctions.
    However, four of the 16 winning bidders in the two previous
    narrowband PCS auctions were small businesses, as that term was
    defined. The Commission assumes, for purposes of this analysis that
    a large portion of the remaining narrowband PCS licenses will be
    awarded to small entities. The Commission also assumes that at least
    some small businesses will acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means
    of the Commission's partitioning and disaggregation rules.

16. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a
    size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service.[^69] A significant subset of the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System
    (BETRS).[^70] The Commission uses the SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^71] There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are
    1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone
    Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted
    herein.

17. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted
    a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service.[^72] We will use SBA's small business size
    standard applicable to "Cellular and Other Wireless
    Telecommunications," *i.e.*, an entity employing no more than 1,500
    persons.[^73] There are approximately 100 licensees in the
    Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and we estimate that almost all
    of them qualify as small under the SBA small business size standard.

18. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service.* This service operates on several
    UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television
    broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of
    Mexico.[^74] There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this
    service. We are unable to estimate at this time the number of
    licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business
    size standard for "Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications"
    services.[^75] Under that SBA small business size standard, a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^76]

#### Wireline Carriers and Service Providers

19. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireline
    firms within the broad economic census category, "Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers."[^77] Under this category, the SBA
    deems a wireline business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees. Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 2,432
    firms in this category that operated for the entire year.[^78] Of
    this total, 2,395 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees,
    and 37 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^79] Thus,
    under this category and associated small business size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

20. We have included small incumbent local exchange carriers in this
    present RFA analysis. As noted above, a "small business" under the
    RFA is one that, *inter alia*, meets the pertinent small business
    size standard (*e.g*., a telephone communications business having
    1,500 or fewer employees), and "is not dominant in its field of
    operation."[^80] The SBA's Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA
    purposes, small incumbent local exchange carriers are not dominant
    in their field of operation because any such dominance is not
    "national" in scope.[^81] We have therefore included small incumbent
    local exchange carriers in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize
    that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and
    determinations in other, non-RFA contexts.

21. *Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs).* Neither the Commission
    nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
    specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate
    size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^82] According
    to Commission data,[^83] 1,303 carriers have reported that they are
    engaged in the provision of incumbent local exchange services. Of
    these 1,303 carriers, an estimated 1,020 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and 283 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange
    service are small businesses that may be affected by our action.

22. *Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, Competitive Access Providers
    (CAPs), "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers."* Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a
    small business size standard specifically for these service
    providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
    category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size
    standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^84] According to Commission data,[^85] 769 carriers have
    reported that they are engaged in the provision of either
    competitive access provider services or competitive local exchange
    carrier services. Of these 769 carriers, an estimated 676 have 1,500
    or fewer employees and 93 have more than 1,500 employees. In
    addition, 12 carriers have reported that they are "Shared-Tenant
    Service Providers," and all 12 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer
    employees. In addition, 39 carriers have reported that they are
    "Other Local Service Providers." Of the 39, an estimated 38 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and one has more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of
    competitive local exchange service, competitive access providers,
    "Shared-Tenant Service Providers," and "Other Local Service
    Providers" are small entities that may be affected by our action.

23. *Local Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^86] According to Commission data,[^87] 143
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    local resale services. Of these, an estimated 141 have 1,500 or
    fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of local
    resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

24. *Toll Resellers.* The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for the category of Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^88] According to Commission data,[^89] 770
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    toll resale services. Of these, an estimated 747 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and 23 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of toll resellers are small
    entities that may be affected by our action.

25. *Payphone Service Providers (PSPs)*. Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    payphone services providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^90] According to Commission data,[^91] 613
    carriers have reported that they are engaged in the provision of
    payphone services. Of these, an estimated 609 have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and four have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of payphone service providers
    are small entities that may be affected by our action.

26. *Interexchange Carriers (IXCs).* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    providers of interexchange services. The appropriate size standard
    under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications
    Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it
    has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^92] According to Commission
    data,[^93] 316 carriers have reported that they are engaged in the
    provision of interexchange service. Of these, an estimated 292 have
    1,500 or fewer employees and 24 have more than 1,500 employees.
    Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of IXCs are
    small entities that may be affected by our action.

27. *Operator Service Providers (OSPs).* Neither the Commission nor the
    SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    operator service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA
    rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^94] According to Commission data,[^95] 23 carriers
    have reported that they are engaged in the provision of operator
    services. Of these, an estimated 20 have 1,500 or fewer employees
    and three have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that the majority of OSPs are small entities
    that may be affected by our action.

28. *Prepaid Calling Card Providers.* Neither the Commission nor the SBA
    has developed a small business size standard specifically for
    prepaid calling card providers. The appropriate size standard under
    SBA rules is for the category Telecommunications Resellers. Under
    that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or
    fewer employees.[^96] According to Commission data,[^97] 89 carriers
    have reported that they are engaged in the provision of prepaid
    calling cards. Of these, 88 are estimated to have 1,500 or fewer
    employees and one has more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, the
    Commission estimates that all or the majority of prepaid calling
    card providers are small entities that may be affected by our
    action.

29. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.*[^98] Neither the Commission
    nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
    specifically for 800 and 800-like service ("toll free") subscribers.
    The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
    Telecommunications Resellers. Under that size standard, such a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^99] The most
    reliable source of information regarding the number of these service
    subscribers appears to be data the Commission collects on the 800,
    888, and 877 numbers in use.[^100] According to our data, at the end
    of January, 1999, the number of 800 numbers assigned was 7,692,955;
    the number of 888 numbers assigned was 7,706,393; and the number of
    877 numbers assigned was 1,946,538. We do not have data specifying
    the number of these subscribers that are not independently owned and
    operated or have more than 1,500 employees, and thus are unable at
    this time to estimate with greater precision the number of toll free
    subscribers that would qualify as small businesses under the SBA
    size standard. Consequently, we estimate that there are 7,692,955 or
    fewer small entity 800 subscribers; 7,706,393 or fewer small entity
    888 subscribers; and 1,946,538 or fewer small entity 877
    subscribers.

#### International Service Providers

30. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard
    specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate
    size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census
    categories of "Satellite Telecommunications" and "Other
    Telecommunications." Under both categories, such a business is small
    if it has \$13.5 million or less in average annual receipts.[^101]

31. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point
    telecommunications services to other establishments in the
    telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and
    receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
    reselling satellite telecommunications."[^102] For this category,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371
    firms that operated for the entire year.[^103] Of this total, 307
    firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 26 firms had
    receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^104] Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

32. The second category of Other Telecommunications "comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized
    telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking,
    communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2)
    providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
    operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
    systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or
    receiving telecommunications from satellite systems."[^105] For this
    category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total
    of 332 firms that operated for the entire year.[^106] Of this total,
    303 firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million and 15 firms had
    annual receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^107] Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

#### Cable and OVS Operators

33. *Cable and Other Program Distribution.* The Census Bureau defines
    this category as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
    primarily engaged as third-party distribution systems for broadcast
    programming. The establishments of this industry deliver visual,
    aural, or textual programming received from cable networks, local
    television stations, or radio networks to consumers via cable or
    direct-to-home satellite systems on a subscription or fee basis.
    These establishments do not generally originate programming
    material."[^108] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for Cable and Other Program Distribution, which is: all
    such firms having \$13.5 million or less in annual receipts.[^109]
    According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of
    1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^110] Of this total, 1,087 firms had annual receipts of under
    \$10 million, and 43 firms had receipts of \$10 million or more but
    less than \$25 million.[^111] Thus, under this size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

34. *Cable Companies and Systems.* The Commission has also developed its
    own small business size standards, for the purpose of cable rate
    regulation. Under the Commission's rules, a "small cable company" is
    one serving 400,000 or fewer subscribers, nationwide.[^112] Industry
    data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but
    eleven are small under this size standard.[^113] In addition, under
    the Commission's rules, a "small system" is a cable system serving
    15,000 or fewer subscribers.[^114] Industry data indicate that, of
    7,208 systems nationwide, 6,139 systems have under 10,000
    subscribers, and an additional 379 systems have 10,000-19,999
    subscribers.[^115] Thus, under this second size standard, most cable
    systems are small.

35. *Cable System Operators*. The Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, also contains a size standard for small cable system
    operators, which is "a cable operator that, directly or through an
    affiliate, serves in the aggregate fewer than 1 percent of all
    subscribers in the United States and is not affiliated with any
    entity or entities whose gross annual revenues in the aggregate
    exceed \$250,000,000."[^116] The Commission has determined that an
    operator serving fewer than 677,000 subscribers shall be deemed a
    small operator, if its annual revenues, when combined with the total
    annual revenues of all its affiliates, do not exceed \$250 million
    in the aggregate.[^117] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
    operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size
    standard.[^118] We note that the Commission neither requests nor
    collects information on whether cable system operators are
    affiliated with entities whose gross annual revenues exceed \$250
    million,[^119] and therefore we are unable to estimate more
    accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify
    as small under this size standard.

36. *Open Video Services (OVS).* In 1996, Congress established the open
    video system (OVS) framework, one of four statutorily recognized
    options for the provision of video programming services by local
    exchange carriers (LECs).[^120] The OVS framework provides
    opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than
    through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription
    services,[^121] OVS falls within the SBA small business size
    standard of Cable and Other Program Distribution Services, which
    consists of such entities having \$13.5 million or less in annual
    receipts.[^122] The Commission has certified 25 OVS operators, with
    some now providing service. Broadband service providers (BSPs) are
    currently the only significant holders of OVS certifications or
    local OVS franchises.[^123] As of June, 2005, BSPs served
    approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.5 percent of
    all MVPD households.[^124] Affiliates of Residential Communications
    Network, Inc. (RCN), which serves about 371,000 subscribers as of
    June, 2005, is currently the largest BSP and 14th largest
    MVPD.[^125] RCN received approval to operate OVS systems in New York
    City, Boston, Washington, D.C. and other areas. The Commission does
    not have financial information regarding the entities authorized to
    provide OVS, some of which may not yet be operational. We thus
    believe that at least some of the OVS operators may qualify as small
    entities.

#### Internet Service Providers

37. *Internet Service Providers.* The SBA has developed a small business
    size standard for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). ISPs "provide
    clients access to the Internet and generally provide related
    services such as web hosting, web page designing, and hardware or
    software consulting related to Internet connectivity."[^126] Under
    the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average
    annual receipts of \$23 million or less.[^127] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that
    operated for the entire year. [^128] Of these, 2,437 firms had
    annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 47 firms had receipts of
    \$10 million or more but less then \$25 million.[^129] Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
    may be affected by our action.

38. *All Other Information Services*. "This industry comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
    services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives)."[^130]
    The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this
    category; that size standard is \$6.5 million or less in average
    annual receipts.[^131] According to Census Bureau data for 1997,
    there were 195 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^132] Of these, 172 had annual receipts of under \$5 million,
    and an additional nine firms had receipts of between \$5 million and
    \$9,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these
    firms are small entities that may be affected by our action.

#### Equipment Manufacturers

39. *Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau
    defines this category as follows: "This industry comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and
    television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples
    of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and
    receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment,
    pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio
    and television studio and broadcasting equipment."[^133] The SBA has
    developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television
    Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing,
    which is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees.[^134]
    According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of
    1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^135] Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an
    additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999.[^136] Thus, under this
    size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

40. *Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing*. The Census Bureau defines this
    category as follows: "This industry comprises establishments
    primarily engaged in manufacturing wire telephone and data
    communications equipment. These products may be standalone or
    board-level components of a larger system. Examples of products made
    by these establishments are central office switching equipment,
    cordless telephones (except cellular), PBX equipment, telephones,
    telephone answering machines, LAN modems, multi-user modems, and
    other data communications equipment, such as bridges, routers, and
    gateways."[^137] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: all such
    firms having 1,000 or fewer employees.[^138] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 518 establishments in
    this category that operated for the entire year.[^139] Of this
    total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional 7 had
    employment of 1,000 to 2,499.[^140] Thus, under this size standard,
    the majority of firms can be considered small.

41. *Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing.* These
    establishments manufacture "computer storage devices that allow the
    storage and retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic,
    optical, or magnetic/optical media."[^141] The SBA has developed a
    small business size standard for this category of manufacturing;
    that size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^142] According to
    Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 1,082 establishments in this
    category that operated for the entire year.[^143] Of these, 987 had
    employment of under 500, and 52 establishments had employment of 500
    to 999.

42. *Computer Storage Device Manufacturing.* These establishments
    manufacture "computer storage devices that allow the storage and
    retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or
    magnetic/optical media."[^144] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^145] According to Census
    Bureau data for 1997, there were 209 establishments in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^146] Of these, 197 had
    employment of under 500, and eight establishments had employment of
    500 to 999.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
D.  **Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
    Compliance Requirements for Small Entities**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
43. The Notice includes a tentative conclusion that carriers should
    automatically provide accuracy data to PSAPs.[^147] Accordingly, it
    is possible that the Commission may establish rules imposing
    additional recordkeeping requirements on small entities. The Notice
    seeks comment on what specific information carriers should provide
    to PSAPs; the Commission will examine the resulting record to
    determine whether any requirements should apply to small entities.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
E.  **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
    Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
44. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically
    small business alternatives that it has considered in reaching its
    proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives
    (among others): "(1) the establishment of differing compliance or
    reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
    resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification,
    consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting
    requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of
    performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption
    from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
    entities."[^148]

45. In the Notice, the Commission specifically considers the impact of
    potential revisions to the wireless E911 accuracy rules on small
    entities. The Notice asks whether certain classes of carriers and/or
    rural networks should be held to a uniform standard of accuracy if
    the Commission were to adopt one, and if so, by what date they
    should be required to come into compliance with a more stringent,
    uniform accuracy requirement.[^149] In previous rulemakings, the
    Commission has established different compliance deadlines for small
    wireless carriers.[^150] The questions posed in today's Notice will
    enable the Commission to assess whether similar concessions to small
    entities are warranted with respect to wireless E911 accuracy
    requirements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
F.  **Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
    Proposed Rules**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
46. None.

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

Re: In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No.
94-102); Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International, Inc. Request for Declaratory Ruling, Wireless
E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114); 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196)

E911 ensures that when someone dials 911 during an emergency, public
safety can easily and reliably find them. To achieve that goal, we need
to ensure that our enhanced 911 rules provide meaningful automatic
location information that permits first responders to reliably find the
public.

Multi-state or state-wide averaging can mask the reliability of 911
outside of large urban areas. For example, meeting location accuracy
standards on average in the entire state of New York by providing
enhanced 911 capability in Manhattan does not help first responders in
Buffalo.

Quite simply, providing location accuracy information on a multi-state
or state-wide basis is not enough. It does not provide public safety
with the information it needs to do its job effectively. The tentative
conclusion in today's NPRM to require location accuracy measurement at
the PSAP-level will help provide necessary and possibly life-saving
information to our first responders.

While I do not believe that it was the intent of our rules to allow
state-wide averaging, we are seeking brief public comment on APCO's
proposal to require location information on a PSAP-level basis. Our
decision on this issue, however, must be prompt, as it will help set the
stage for the discussions among all stakeholders on the means to achieve
meaningful location accuracy in the quickest manner possible.

We have long known that the two location technologies used by carriers
--- handset-based GPS and network-based triangulation --- each have
limitations. Network-based technologies are not as effective in rural
areas often due to lack of sufficient towers. Handset-based technologies
are not as effective in urban areas, as signals often have difficulty
penetrating buildings. In this respect, a network-based technology that
works well in Manhattan may have little or no ability to locate an
individual in other parts of the state. As technology has developed,
however, so must our standards and expectations.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking recognizes that the different
technologies chosen by carriers to date have limitations, and seeks
comment on ways to remedy these shortcomings. For example, we
specifically ask about the use of hybrid technologies that employ both
handset-based and network-based location solutions. Among other things,
the Notice also asks how roaming among carriers that use different
location technologies should be addressed, and to what extent providers
of interconnected voice over Internet protocol services should be
required to provide automatic location information.

These are important questions, and the bar must be raised for E911. We
expect that carriers, technology providers, and public safety entities
will rise to the occasion, and I look forward to working with my fellow
Commissioners on these critical public safety issues.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

 

Re: In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No.
94-102); Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International, Inc. Request for Declaratory Ruling, Wireless
E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114); 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196)

           

            A call to 911 is among the most important calls that any of
us will ever make.  Customers deserve confidence that dialing these
three digits will connect them to the help they need.  And customers
also need a realistic view of how well their current communications
technologies will actually work in a crisis -- because sometimes a false
sense of reliance on a technology can be the most dangerous thing of
all.  Just consider the example of first responders focusing an
exhaustive search for an injured caller on the ground next to 300 meters
of highway -- only to learn, too late, that the victim was actually 1000
meters down the road.  Or consider the example of someone who "cuts the
cord" and relies exclusively on an E911-capable cell phone -- only to
learn, again too late, that their phone cannot determine what floor
their apartment is on and may not work inside the apartment at all.   

 

             I am pleased that today's item raises a series of pressing
and important questions about the Commission's current E911 location
accuracy standards.  I am even more pleased that the item commits to a
process for improving our wireless location accuracy that I think can
lead to meaningful, and still expeditious, improvements in our emergency
calling system.  We need to get a handle -- a better handle than
we presently have -- on the precise capabilities and limitations of
today\'s emergency calling technologies.  It is clear that we still have
a serious challenge in making and completing some in-building emergency
calls.  Such calls comprise, of course, a significant percentage of all
emergency calls.  We need to resolve that.  Another study will look at
the potential and costs of hybrid technologies that could combine, in
one device, the technologies appropriate for both urban and rural
calling.  Successfully meeting this challenge could result in huge
public safety gains for all Americans. 

The Commission itself will conduct these studies, working of course with
industry and public safety stakeholders as appropriate, but avoiding
exclusive reliance on industry-generated statistics and/or the
self-assessments of technology solution providers.  We don\'t have the
time here to get bogged down in contentious technical and methodological
disputes.  By conducting real-world testing, the Commission can develop
an independent body of knowledge upon which we all can rely, thereby
freeing up industry, public safety advocates, and the Commission itself
to move forward to working on constructive solutions.  It is a
front-and-center role for the Commission that public safety compels --
there's no way around it.   The process envisioned here is for the
Commission to move full-speed ahead so it can expeditiously issue public
reports setting forth its findings and potential solutions.  I thank the
Chairman for his commitment to initiate and complete these evaluations
swiftly so that the issuance of a final order will not be unduly
delayed.

 

            I want also to emphasize my belief that, after developing
revised location accuracy and accuracy reporting standards, aggressive
and thorough enforcement will continue to be important -- just as
enforcement has been important in getting us this far.  Our commitment
to enforcement will be part of the measure of our success as much as the
nature of the rules themselves.   

 

             I look forward to working with the Chairman and my
colleagues to ensure that the important work we begin here today ends up
making the world a safer place for America's wireless users.  And my
thanks to everyone here at the Commission who works so hard on these
matters.

**CONCURRING STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

Re: In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No.
94-102); Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International, Inc. Request for Declaratory Ruling, Wireless
E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114); 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196)

There is no higher calling or higher priority for us at the Commission
than improving 911 and enhanced 911 (E911) emergency response services.
Every day, we confront issues that have millions of dollars at stake;
but this literally is a matter of life or death. My primary objective in
promoting E911 services is to make sure that the Commission is always
moving the ball forward -- that we are making policy and enforcement
decisions that will lead us to more advanced 911 and E911 services for
[all]{.underline} citizens and in the most effective and efficient
manner possible.

Against that backdrop, I support the very timely launch of this
proceeding to look at the current status of E911 Phase II location
accuracy and to rightly consider how we can improve our nation's E911
network. While we have made great progress over the past several years
in promoting the deployment of E911 Phase II services, recent reports
that location data may not be sufficiently accurate to be of help to
public safety answering points (PSAPs) warrant our full attention. It is
time for a renewed commitment from all of the parties involved in E911
to provide first responders with the best data possible or, as was
described to me, the right door to be kicked in.

But these answers don't always come quickly. As we begin this important
initiative, it also is critical that the Commission commit to conduct
this proceeding in a thoughtful and deliberate manner to ensure that the
steps we take truly advance E911. No one will be well served by a
proceeding that inevitably draws affected parties into unnecessary
disputes and legal uncertainties that distract all of us from the real
objective of improved E911.

I am concerned that this proceeding, while well-intentioned, rushes to
judgment by issuing a series of tentative conclusions without even
beginning to conduct the necessary due diligence. I am troubled that we
are considering imposing a new compliance requirement that we know some
carriers will be unable to meet in certain circumstances. To make
matters worse, we are bifurcating the proceeding with the goal of
setting a new accuracy compliance standard well in advance of making a
determination of how we can actually achieve improved location accuracy.
This is premature from both legal and policy standpoints.

We all share the goal of providing the best location data possible to
public safety. I fully support the effort to require carriers to conduct
testing on the PSAP level, particularly in response to requesting PSAPs.
This information exchange is an important dialogue to improve accuracy
and collaboration between PSAPs and carriers. PSAPs must know the
quality of the data they are receiving so that they can deploy their
scarce resources accordingly.

But I believe that it is premature to support the several tentative
conclusions in this item before the Commission has been presented with a
full record and conducted its own review of current data and future
technology. At a minimum, we should put in place a series of hearings
and reports that will guide us to develop benchmarks and targets that
will pave the way to a new approach to accuracy compliance. Each of
these can be done on an expedited basis.

Indeed, it is troublesome to advance the notable goal of PSAP location
accuracy compliance without considering the disruption that may be
caused in setting such a specific FCC rule. To gauge the full
implications of this approach, we should heed the words of those closer
to the issue, like the National Association of State 9-1-1
Administrators:

> If the Commission adopts Phase II accuracy testing requirements that
> currently available location technologies cannot meet (such as a
> requirement for PSAP level testing), states with carrier cost recovery
> will be responsible for the cost of new technologies that have not yet
> been developed to meet those requirements. ...
>
> It is important to remember that the current accuracy requirement
> (distance measurement) was based on the promise of the location
> technology BEFORE it was actually developed as a solution. To hold a
> new technology solution to this same requirement would be highly
> inappropriate. We must instead determine the optimal accuracy to save
> lives and focus our efforts to achieving that goal. ...
>
> To adopt an accuracy testing process that cannot be achieved at this
> time not only puts the carrier in a compliance limbo, but also puts
> many states in a budgetary limbo until someone can figure out how to
> achieve the requirement.[^151]

In launching this proceeding, we need to keep our eye on the prize --
improving E911. So while we obviously should take a serious and
considered look at location accuracy, we also need to take a step back
from the issue and consider the future of E911 and how it will be used
in an IP-based world. Fore example, we should gather evidence about
those situations when callers cannot be located, or not quickly enough.

We also should carefully review the impact on E911 of the increasing use
of wireless phones at home. Should we look beyond network-based
technologies to provide E911 Phase II for subscribers using home-based
wireless phones since we know that these users are at a fixed location
for a large part of the day? We need to think creatively in considering
this important shift in the increasing use of wireless communications as
a replacement for wireline services.

As we look to new accuracy requirements, should we consider a
topographic- or geographic-based standard to E911 that may better
reflect the practicalities of trying to make a location determination in
certain parts of the country? Should we consider population density or
tower site density? And with improved accuracy, should we be taking a
closer look at how privacy interests intersect with innovation in the
E911 space? Finally, and not to be overlooked in this accuracy debate,
how can we encourage Phase II deployment to the 30% of PSAPs who still
rely on E911 Phase I or something even less?

I don't have the answers to these and the many other questions that need
to be asked about the future of E911 and location accuracy. Fortunately,
we have an abundance of resources, both inside and outside the
Commission, that are well positioned to provide guidance on the many
elements of E911. Indeed, we already have the work of NRIC 1A[^152] and
APCO's Project Locate[^153] that specifically look at the accuracy
location issue, and we should immediately put these and any other
relevant documents out for public comment in this docket.

We also should leverage the expertise of those who have worked on E911
issues for some time to better inform our decision making process. Much
like the WARN Act Advisory Committee, we could immediately convene a
committee of industry and public safety experts to develop and submit
recommendations to the FCC regarding technical standards and protocols
for the next generation of automatic location services. In conjunction
with such a committee, we should commit to hold hearings on specific
E911 issues including (1) the challenges of accuracy compliance in rural
areas; (2) the challenges of accuracy compliance in urban areas and
in-building settings; and (3) the current and future state of location
technology. I also support the efforts by Commissioner Copps to put in
place specific goals for the Commission staff to develop our own
internal analysis on the promise of future location technologies to help
inform this important debate.

It is easy to say that we want something better for E911. No one
disputes the goal of improved location accuracy. The harder question is
how to get there. It is questionable that the best way is for the
Commission to set a utopian standard before it even considers the full
record. After much consideration, I think we need a more collaborative
approach. I am unable to fully support our item because I am concerned
the debate over compliance will create an unnecessary sideshow to the
main event of improving E911 services.

For all of the reasons above, I concur in this item.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

Re: In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No.
94-102); Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International, Inc. Request for Declaratory Ruling, Wireless
E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114); 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196)

One of the core purposes of the Commission is "promoting safety of life
and property through the use of wire and radio communication."
Throughout the Commission's history this Commission has acted to fulfill
that purpose, but perhaps one of its most successful and important
actions was to adopt in 1996 rules requiring the Commercial Mobile Radio
Service industry to implement basic 911 and E911 services. Hundreds of
thousands of Americans dial "911" on their mobile phones each day, and
the location information that is sent along with the vast majority of
these calls is critical to ensuring a timely arrival by first
responders. It's been proven again and again that the combination of a
wireless phone and "911" saves lives.

This item is an important step towards improving and modernizing that
system. In light of the amazing technological progress we witness each
year, it makes perfect sense to ask questions like whether the location
accuracy rules we last updated in 1999 should be revised, whether we are
measuring accuracy in the most appropriate manner, and whether other new
communications services like interconnected VoIP also should be required
to send more accurate location information. I am pleased that this item
will help us to answer those questions and allow us to ensure that our
communications infrastructure even better helps to protect each and
every American citizen.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

Re: In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems (CC Docket No.
94-102); Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials-International, Inc. Request for Declaratory Ruling, Wireless
E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114); 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196)

I am hopeful that the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* we approve today
will serve as a positive start to a challenging task. I am pleased that
we are inviting comment and debate on a proposal from the Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials-International (APCO), which would
require licensees subject to our E911 rules to satisfy location accuracy
at a geographic level defined by the coverage area of each respective
local Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). Certainly it is of paramount
importance that wireless E911 service satisfies the needs of public
safety personnel, as well as the expectations of America's wireless
consumers.

That said, we must walk before we can run. At the present time, it
appears that measuring location accuracy at the PSAP level presents real
challenges to carriers, technology providers, and PSAPs alike. Further,
I understand that many wireless carriers are not generally capable of
measuring and testing location accuracy at the PSAP level, and that they
require adequate time to achieve this measurement. This is not
surprising since there are over 6,000 PSAPs in the United States, each
with unique deployment, topography, network, and RF propagation issues.
Given these circumstances, I am delighted that the Commission will be
building a more complete record upon which to make informed decisions as
we move forward. And, I thank the Chairman for his support of this
flexible, goal-oriented approach.

It is important to note that the *NPRM* we adopt today does not
preemptively impose a geographic mandate. Rather, we first seek comment
on whether to adopt the APCO proposal, and separately ask specific
questions about the timing for enforcing any rule regarding geographic
area or areas that we may adopt. While I appreciate the need to gather a
record quickly on the merits of the APCO proposal (pursuant to the
request of the association itself), I am also pleased that we are
allowing a more reasonable comment period on the myriad implementation
issues. I am counting on interested parties to raise and analyze all of
the important issues surrounding E911 location accuracy, whether noted
in today's *NPRM* or not. We must work together to establish realistic
accuracy and reliability requirements that are achievable.

At the end of the day, I envision the development of a meaningful
partnership among the commercial wireless industry, technology
providers, and public safety entities that will ensure the best possible
access to E911 location information for the benefit of wireless callers
*and* emergency response providers in as expeditious a time frame as
possible. I believe that harnessing the expertise of all interested
stakeholders in this manner will serve the public interest and move all
of us ahead to quickly solve these challenges in a straightforward,
comprehensive and transparent manner.

[^1]: *See* Association of Public-Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc. Request for Declaratory Ruling,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, at 1 (filed Oct. 6, 2004) (APCO Request).

[^2]: *See* Letter from Robert M. Gurss, Director of Legal and
    Government Affairs, APCO, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, at 1
    (filed May 18, 2007).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(j)(1). A PSAP is defined as a "point that has
    been designated to receive 911 calls and route them to emergency
    service personnel." 47 C.F.R. § 20.3. It follows then that in areas
    where there is no PSAP to receive 911 calls, the E911 rules would
    not apply.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(h); *see also* Revision of the Commission's
    Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling
    Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, *Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd
    17388, 17417-23 ¶¶ 66-77 (1999) (adopting the current version of
    Section 20.18(h)).

[^5]: Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, *First
    Report and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18712 ¶ 71 (1996) (*First
    Report and Order*).

[^6]: *Id.*

[^7]: OET Bulletin No. 71, Guidelines for Testing and Verifying the
    Accuracy of Wireless E911 Location Systems (Apr. 12, 2000) at 2,
    *available at*
    http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet71/oet71.pdf.

[^8]: *Id*.

[^9]: *Id*.; *see also, e.g.*, Cingular Consent Decree, File No.
    EB-02-TS-003, 18 FCC Rcd 11746, 11751 n.10 (2003) ("OET Bulletin No.
    71 . . . states that accuracy testing may be based on, among other
    things, the coverage areas of local PSAPs that request Phase II
    deployment or the wireless carrier's entire advertised coverage area
    within a metropolitan area.").

[^10]: APCO Request at 1.

[^11]: Association of Public-Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc. Supplement to Request for Declaratory
    Ruling, CC Docket No. 94-102, at 1 (filed Oct. 6, 2004) (APCO
    Supplement).

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *Id.* at 4; *see also* Joint Statement of International
    Association of Fire Chiefs, National Association of Counties, and
    National League of Cities, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed July 20,
    2005); Letter from Gregory T. Riddle, Executive Director, West
    Suburban Consolidated Dispatch Center, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed Feb. 14, 2005); Comments
    of Public Safety Communication Division, Orange County, Florida, CC
    Docket No. 94-102 (filed Mar. 14, 2005) (all supporting APCO's
    Request).

[^14]: Without that expectation, a PSAP's incentive to become Phase II
    capable would be significantly reduced.

[^15]: *See* APCO Request at 3-4.

[^16]: *See* Letter from Thomas Coates, Dobson Communications Corp.,
    David Nace, Rural Cellular Association, Thomas Sugrue, T-Mobile USA,
    Inc., and John Scott, III, Verizon Wireless, to Marlene Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed May 8, 2007).

[^17]: At most, OET has suggested that averaging accuracy results over a
    metropolitan area may be appropriate in some circumstances. *See
    supra* para. 3.

[^18]: Hybrid solutions combine network-based equipment with
    handset-based location technologies to provide more robust methods
    of determining the location of a caller through the use of multiple
    inputs.  For example, Verizon Wireless has deployed an assisted-GPS
    (A-GPS) system combined with an advanced forward link trilateration
    (A-FLT) system. *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure
    Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Request
    for Waiver by Verizon Wireless, CC Docket No. 94-102, *Order*, 16
    FCC Rcd 18364, 18366, 18370 ¶¶ 8, 17 (2001).

[^19]: *See, e.g.*, Association of Public Safety Communications
    Officials-International, *An Assessment of the Value of Location
    Data Delivered to PSAPs with Enhanced Wireless 911 Calls (Project
    LOCATE)*, Final Report, April 2007, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed Apr.
    10, 2007).

[^20]: APCO Supplement at 4.

[^21]: *See* APCO Request at 5-6; APCO Supplement at 4; *see also*
    Wireless 911 Board of North Carolina Petition for Declaratory Ruling
    and/or Clarification, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed Jan. 31, 2005)
    (requesting a Commission ruling requiring that uncertainty and
    confidence data be included in the ALI that wireless carriers
    deliver to PSAPs).

[^22]: "Interconnected VoIP services" are services that (1) enable
    real-time, two-way voice communications; (2) require a broadband
    connection from the user's location; (3) require IP-compatible
    customer premises equipment; and (4) permit users to receive calls
    from and terminate calls to the public switched telephone network.
    *See* IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
    Providers, WC Docket Nos. 04-36, 05-196, *First Report and Order and
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, 10257-58 ¶ 24
    (2005), *aff'd*, *Nuvio Corp. v. FCC*, 473 F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2006)
    (*VoIP 911 Order*); *see also id.* at 10276-77 ¶ 57 (seeking comment
    on whether and how interconnected VoIP service providers might be
    able to provide location information automatically). Interconnected
    VoIP service providers are not subject to Section 20.18 of the
    Commission's rules; the 911 obligations that apply to interconnected
    VoIP services are set forth in Part 9. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 9.1-9.5.
    *See* Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands
    et al., WT Docket No. 06-150 et al., *Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, FCC 07-72, paras. 129-136 (rel. Apr.
    27, 2007).

[^23]: *See VoIP 911 Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 10259-60, ¶ 25 & n.80
    (contrasting "fixed" VoIP services, which can be used at only one
    location, with "portable" VoIP services, which can be used from any
    broadband connection).

[^24]: *See id.* at 10276-77 ¶ 57.

[^25]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200, 1.1206; Amendment of 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 *et
    seq*. Concerning Ex Parte Presentations in Commission Proceedings,
    GC Docket No. 95-21, *Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 7348 (1997).

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b)(2).

[^27]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA has been amended by the Contract
    with America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat.
    847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business
    Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^28]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^29]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 -- 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^30]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^31]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^32]: *See* Notice at paras. 5-8.

[^33]: *See id.* at paras. 9-12.

[^34]: *See id.* at paras. 15-17.

[^35]: *See id.* at para. 18.

[^36]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(b)(3), 604(a)(3).

[^37]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^38]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
    § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such terms which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definitions(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^39]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^40]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^41]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^42]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^43]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^44]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415.

[^45]: We assume that the villages, school districts, and special
    districts are small, and total 48,558. *See* U.S. Census Bureau,
    Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page
    273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total
    number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was
    38,967, of which 35,819 were small. *Id.*

[^46]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^47]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517212 (issued November 2005).

[^48]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^49]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^50]: *Id.*

[^51]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^52]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    "Information," Table 5, Employment Size of Firms for the United
    States: 2002, NAICS code 517211 (issued November 2005).

[^53]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^54]: *Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for
    the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio
    Service*, PR Docket No. 89-552, Third Report and Order and Fifth
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70, paras.
    291-295, 62 FR 16004 (Apr. 3, 1997).

[^55]: *See* Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from A. Alvarez,
    Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998) (SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter).

[^56]: *Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems*, Memorandum Opinion
    and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd
    10030, paras. 98-107 (1999).

[^57]: *Id.* at 10085, para. 98.

[^58]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^59]: *Id.*

[^60]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^61]: *Id.*

[^62]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^63]: *See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules --
    Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service Spectrum Cap*, WT Docket No. 96-59, Report and Order, 11 FCC
    Rcd 7824, 61 FR 33859 (July 1, 1996) (*PCS Order*); *see also* 47
    C.F.R. § 24.720(b).

[^64]: *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824.

[^65]: *See, e.g*., *Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
    Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding*, PP Docket No. 93-253,
    Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5332, 59 FR 37566 (July 22, 1994).

[^66]: FCC News, Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, No.
    71744 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997); *see also Amendment of the Commission's
    Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal
    Communications Services (PCS) Licenses*, WT Docket No. 97-82, Second
    Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 16436, 62 FR 55348 (Oct. 24, 1997).

[^67]: *Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, Narrowband PCS*, Docket No. ET 92-100,
    Docket No. PP 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 65 FR 35875 (June
    6, 2000).

[^68]: *See* SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter.

[^69]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^70]: BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.

[^71]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^72]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^73]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517212.

[^74]: This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the
    Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-22.1037.

[^75]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 513322 (changed to 517212 in
    October 2002).

[^76]: *Id*.

[^77]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^78]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517110 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^79]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^80]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^81]: Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to
    William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 27, 1999). The Small Business
    Act contains a definition of "small-business concern," which the RFA
    incorporates into its own definition of "small business." *See* 15
    U.S.C. § 632(a) (Small Business Act); 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (RFA). SBA
    regulations interpret "small business concern" to include the
    concept of dominance on a national basis. *See* 13 C.F.R. §
    121.102(b).

[^82]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^83]: FCC, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3,
    page 5-5 (April 2005) ("Trends in Telephone Service"). This source
    uses data that are current as of October 1, 2004.

[^84]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^85]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^86]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^87]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^88]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^89]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^90]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^91]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^92]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^93]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^94]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^95]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^96]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^97]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^98]: We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category,
    including those for 888 numbers.

[^99]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^100]: *See* FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
    *Study on Telephone Trends*, Tables 21.2, 21.3, and 21.4 (Feb.
    1999).

[^101]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910.

[^102]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517410 Satellite
    Telecommunications" ([www.census.gov](http://www.census.gov/).,
    visited Feb. 2006).

[^103]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^104]: *Id*. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^105]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517910 Other
    Telecommunications";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.

[^106]:  U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^107]: *Id*. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^108]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517510 Cable and
    Other Program Distribution";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM>.

[^109]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^110]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 517510 (issued November 2005).

[^111]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^112]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(e). The Commission determined that this size
    standard equates approximately to a size standard of \$100 million
    or less in annual revenues. *Implementation of Sections of the 1992
    Cable Act: Rate Regulation,* Sixth Report and Order and Eleventh
    Order on Reconsideration, 10 FCC Rcd 7393, 7408 (1995).

[^113]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^114]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).

[^115]: Warren Communications News, *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*,
    "U.S. Cable Systems by Subscriber Size," page F-2 (data current as
    of Oct. 2005). The data do not include 718 systems for which
    classifying data were not available.

[^116]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

[^117]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f); *see* Public Notice*, FCC Announces New
    Subscriber Count for the Definition of Small Cable Operator*, DA
    01‑158 (Cable Services Bureau, Jan. 24, 2001).

[^118]: These data are derived from: R.R. Bowker, *Broadcasting & Cable
    Yearbook 2006*, "Top 25 Cable/Satellite Operators," pages A-8 & C-2
    (data current as of June 30, 2005); Warren Communications News,
    *Television & Cable Factbook 2006*, "Ownership of Cable Systems in
    the United States," pages D-1805 to D-1857.

[^119]: The Commission does receive such information on a case-by-case
    basis if a cable operator appeals a local franchise authority's
    finding that the operator does not qualify as a small cable operator
    pursuant to § 76.901(f) of the Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    76.909(b).

[^120]: 47 U.S.C. § 571(a)(3)-(4). *See* *Annual Assessment of the
    Status of Competition in the Market for the Delivery of Video
    Programming, Eleventh Annual Report,* 20 FCC Rcd 2507, 2549 ¶ 88
    (2006) ("*2006 Cable Competition Report*").

[^121]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^122]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^123]: *See 2006 Cable Competition Report*, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549 ¶ 88.
    BSPs are newer firms that are building state-of-the-art,
    facilities-based networks to provide video, voice, and data services
    over a single network.

[^124]: *See id*. at 2507 ¶ 14.

[^125]: *See 2006 Cable Competition Report*, 20 FCC Rcd at 2549 ¶ 89.
    WideOpenWest is the second largest BSP and 16th largest MVPD, with
    cable systems serving about 292,000 subscribers as of June, 2005.
    The third largest BSP is Knology, serving approximately 170,800
    subscribers as of June, 2005. *Id*.

[^126]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet
    Service Providers" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^127]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518111 (changed from previous
    code 514191, "On-Line Information Services," in Oct. 2002).

[^128]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, Table 4, Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:
    2002, NAICS code 518111 (issued November 2005).

[^129]: *Id*. An additional 45 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^130]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 519190 All Other
    Information Services" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^131]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190 (changed from 514199 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^132]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization)," Table 4, NAICS code 514199 (issued Oct. 2000). This
    category was created for the 2002 Economic Census by taking a
    portion of the superseded 1997 category, "All Other Information
    Services," NAICS code 514199. The data cited in the text above are
    derived from the superseded category.

[^133]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334220 Radio and
    Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
    Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342>.

[^134]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^135]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334220 (released May 26, 2005);
    [http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/). The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census
    breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the total number
    of such entities for 2002, which was 929.

[^136]: *Id*. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or
    more.

[^137]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334210 Telephone
    Apparatus Manufacturing";
    <http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342>.

[^138]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334210.

[^139]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334210 (released May 26, 2005);
    [http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/). The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census
    breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the total number
    of such entities for 2002, which was 450.

[^140]: *Id*. An additional 4 establishments had employment of 2,500 or
    more.

[^141]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334413
    Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004)
    \<www.census.gov\>.

[^142]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334413.

[^143]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334413 (issued July 1999).

[^144]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334112 Computer
    Storage Device Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^145]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334112.

[^146]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Storage Device Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334112 (issued July 1999).

[^147]: *See* Notice at para. 17.

[^148]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).

[^149]: *See* Notice at para. 13.

[^150]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 14841, 14851-52, ¶¶ 32-35 (2002) (establishing a
    longer compliance period for small wireless carriers to achieve
    compliance with the handset sale and activation requirements of the
    Commission's wireless E911 rules).

[^151]: *Ex Parte* Comments of the National Association of State 9-1-1
    Administrators, CC Docket No. 94-102 (filed\
    May 23, 2007) (emphasis in original).

[^152]: *See*
    http://www.nric.org/meetings/docs/meeting_20051216/FG%201A_Dec%2005_Final%20Report.pdf.

[^153]: *See*
    http://www.locatemodelcities.org/documents/LOCATE_Final_Report.pdf.