Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | CC Docket No. 94-102         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Revision of the Commission\'s    | ) |                              |
| Rules                            | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| To Ensure Compatibility with     |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling   | * |                              |
| Systems                          | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| FocuSystems, Inc. Petition for   | * |                              |
| Reconsideration                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION**

**Adopted:** February 15, 2001 **Released:** February 20, 2001

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION

1\. We have before us a Petition for Reconsideration of the *Fourth
Memorandum Opinion and* *Order* in this docket filed by FocuSystems,
Inc. FocuSystems contends that the interim benchmarks for activating new
Automatic Location Identification (ALI)-capable handsets are unduly
burdensome and should not apply to carriers not yet subject to a Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP) request for E911 Phase II service. We deny
the petition because we find that it does not provide a basis for
reopening the issues in this proceeding or for delaying the
implementation of wireless E911, an important public safety measure.

# BACKGROUND

2\. In a series of orders since 1996, the Commission has adopted a set
of E911 requirements, whereby wireless carriers must provide to PSAPs
information regarding the location of an emergency call. These
requirements are divided into two phases. Phase I requires the carrier
to provide to the PSAP the telephone number of the handset originating
the 911 call, and the location of the cell site or base station that
received the call. Phase II requires carriers to deliver more specific
latitude and longitude information to the PSAP.

3\. In the *E911 Third Report and Order,* we revised our E911 rules to
better allow emerging handset-based location technologies to compete
with network-based technologies.[^1] Recognizing that carriers using
handset-based solutions would need to upgrade or replace older handsets
in use, we established a separate set of accuracy and deployment
requirements applicable to handset-based solutions. Handset-based
solutions were held to tighter accuracy requirements, but were allowed
to be phased in over time. Specifically, carriers were required to reach
certain benchmarks for selling and activating ALI-capable handsets
without respect to any PSAP request for Phase II deployment. We also
established a more accelerated schedule for handset deployment in areas
where a carrier received a request for Phase II deployment from a PSAP.
We further required carriers to file E911 Phase II implementation
reports specifying their choice of technology by October 1, 2000.

4\. In response to several petitions for reconsideration of the *E911
Third Report and Order,* in the *E911 Fourth MO&O,* we adopted certain
adjustments to the deployment schedule for carriers deploying
handset-based ALI solutions.[^2] Specifically, we extended until October
1, 2001, the date by which carriers must begin selling and activating
ALI-capable handsets. In addition, we revised the phase-in schedule to
provide that by December 31, 2001, at least 25 percent of all new
handsets activated are to be ALI-capable; by June 30, 2002, 50 percent
of all new handsets activated are to be ALI-capable; and by December 31,
2002 and thereafter, 100 percent of all new digital handsets activated
are to be ALI-capable. We also eliminated the separate phase-in schedule
that was to have been triggered by a PSAP request. We extended the date
for carriers to file E911 Phase II implementation reports from October
1, 2000 to November 9, 2000.

5\. The FocuSystems petition raises two issues. First, the petition
requests that the Commission modify its rules or otherwise clarify that
it will grant waivers of its handset activation benchmarks to carriers
not yet subject to a valid PSAP request for Phase II service.[^3] In
support of this request, the petition argues that the interim benchmarks
for activating new ALI-capable handsets will force many carriers that
select a handset-based approach to make substantial investments in
equipment and switch upgrades long before any PSAP in their operating
territory is prepared to utilize the location data and will effectively
prevent carriers from considering newer handset-based technologies that
are currently under development and likely to provide superior
performance and other benefits.[^4]

6\. Second, the petition requests that the Commission reconsider the
*E911 Fourth MO&O* \"insofar as it compels wireless carriers to declare
what type of technology they plan to use to meet the Phase II Automatic
Location Identification (ALI) requirements \... before a feasible and
affordable technology solution is available.\"[^5] This statement
appears to refer to the reports wireless carriers are required to file
under Section 20.18(i) of the Commission's rules.[^6]

# 7. The Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) submitted an *ex parte* filing opposing FocuSystems' petition.[^7] APCO contends that the Commission cannot afford to delay E911 deployment merely because a technology vendor claims that improvements are on the horizon.[^8] APCO argues that FocuSystems' specific proposal to condition implementation of handset solutions on PSAP requests is unworkable and counterproductive, and that the Commission has already recognized the need to move forward on handset deployment even in the absence of PSAP Phase II readiness.[^9]  {#the-association-of-public-safety-communications-officials-international-inc.-apco-submitted-an-ex-parte-filing-opposing-focusystems-petition.-apco-contends-that-the-commission-cannot-afford-to-delay-e911-deployment-merely-because-a-technology-vendor-claims-that-improvements-are-on-the-horizon.-apco-argues-that-focusystems-specific-proposal-to-condition-implementation-of-handset-solutions-on-psap-requests-is-unworkable-and-counterproductive-and-that-the-commission-has-already-recognized-the-need-to-move-forward-on-handset-deployment-even-in-the-absence-of-psap-phase-ii-readiness. .unnumbered}

## III. DISCUSSION {#iii.-discussion .unnumbered}

8\. We deny FocuSystems' petition as untimely, directed to the wrong
decision, and without merit. The E911 Phase II implementation reporting
requirements and the schedule for deployment of handset-based location
solutions, including interim benchmarks for activation of ALI-capable
handsets, were adopted in the *E911 Third Report and Order* in this
proceeding, released on October 6, 1999.[^10] Petitions seeking
reconsideration of that Order, including both the Phase II report
schedule and the handset deployment schedule, were addressed in the
*E911 Fourth MO&O.* The only rule changes adopted in the *E911Fourth
MO&O* were a short extension of the implementation report date,[^11] a
date which has now passed; relaxation of the handset deployment schedule
for several months,[^12] a change that FocuSystems says it
supports;[^13] and elimination of a separate, more stringent deployment
schedule in cases where PSAPs have requested Phase II,[^14] a change
which FocuSystems does not mention. Thus, to the extent that FocuSystems
suggests that wireless carriers should not be required to begin
activating ALI-capable handsets until they have received a Phase II
request from the PSAP serving the area, it appears to be seeking an
untimely reconsideration of the decisions and rule changes adopted in
the *E911 Third Report and Order,* not of any decisions or actions taken
in the *E911 Fourth MO&O.*[^15]

9\. Moreover, in response to Focusystems' first argument that the
interim handset activation benchmarks should be waived for carriers not
yet subject to a PSAP request for Phase II service, we find that the
petition provides no basis for reopening the issues in this proceeding
or for delaying implementation of wireless E911 Phase II, an important
public safety measure. As we discussed in the *E911 Third Report and
Order,* it is important to require carriers to begin handset deployment
even in advance of PSAP Phase II readiness to promote the rapid rollout
of handset-based solutions.[^16] Handset-based solutions are deployed on
a phased-in basis, to allow time for new ALI-capable handsets to be
produced and existing handsets to be upgraded or replaced.[^17] Any
delay in the initial deployment of ALI-capable handsets will result in a
corresponding delay to their full penetration into the market. It is in
the public interest to prevent any such additional delay. Also,
requiring carriers to deploy handset solutions in advance of a PSAP
request will ensure that customers who might use their handsets while
roaming in areas served by carriers and PSAPs that have upgraded to
Phase II will benefit from location capability.[^18]

10\. For these reasons, we believe that any further delay in the handset
deployment schedule is not justified. Even if new location technologies
will be developed in the near future, we believe that the public safety
will be better served if carriers are required to deploy existing ALI
technologies in accordance with the deployment schedule we have adopted.

11\. We also find FocuSystems' second argument that the E911 Phase II
implementation reporting requirement should be reconsidered to be
without merit. We disagree with FocuSystems' assertion that this
requirement forces carriers to select technology prematurely, as less
than a year remains before wireless carriers must begin deploying E911
Phase II. Moreover, as we have repeatedly stated, carriers may make
good-faith changes to their implementation plans, if necessary, after
the initial reports have been filed.[^19] We note also that FocuSystems'
request for reconsideration of the Phase II implementation reporting
requirement is largely moot, as these reports were due November 9, 2000.

12\. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration of
FocuSystems, Inc. IS DENIED.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas
>
> Secretary

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

[^2]: Revision of the Commission\'s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, Fourth
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17442 (released September
    8, 2000) (*E911 Fourth MO&O*).

[^3]: FocuSystem Petition for Reconsideration, filed November 1, 2000,
    at 4 (*Petition*).

[^4]: *Id.* at 1.

[^5]: *Id.*

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. §20.18(i). Under this rule, the Phase II reports were
    required to be filed by November 9, 2000. For copies of these
    reports, see <http://www.fcc.gov/wtb/e911>. In its petition, filed
    November 1, 2000, FocuSystems did not seek a stay of the reporting
    requirement in this rule.

[^7]: *Ex Parte* Comments of The Association of Public-Safety
    Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) in Opposition to
    Petition for Reconsideration of FocuSystems, Inc. (filed Dec. 5,
    2000) at 3. (APCO *ex parte*) As APCO notes, these comments were not
    submitted by the deadline for filing a formal opposition to the
    FocuSystems Petition. However, APCO did submit its comments prior to
    the deadline for filing replies to oppositions. *Id.* at n.1. Within
    our discretion, we choose to consider the arguments APCO presents in
    this filing.

[^8]: *Id*. at 3.

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *E911 Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17408, 17427.

[^11]: *E911 Fourth MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17467.

[^12]: *Id.* at 17454-55.

[^13]: *Petition* at 1.

[^14]: *E911Fourth MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17453-54.

[^15]: Under Section 405 of the Communications Act, "\[a\] petition for
    reconsideration must be filed within 30 days from the date upon
    which public notice is given of the order, decision, report, or
    action complained of." 47 U.S.C. §405.

[^16]: *E911 Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17408, para. 41.

[^17]: *Id.* at 17406, para. 37.

[^18]: *Id.* at 17409, para. 44.

[^19]: *See, E911 Third Report and Order*, 14 FCC Rcd at 17428; *E911
    Fourth MO&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 17467; and Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau Provides Guidance on Carrier Reports on Implementation of
    Wireless E911 Phase II Automatic Location Identification, Public
    Notice, CC Docket No. 94-102, DA 00-2099 (2000).