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

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: September 11, 2007 Released: November 20, 2007**

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

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Paragraph**

[I. INtroduction 1](#introduction)

[II. Background 4](#background)

[III. DISCUSSION 8](#discussion)

[A. Compliance with Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP Level
8](#compliance-with-section-20.18h-at-the-psap-level)

[B. Compliance Deadline and Interim Benchmarks
16](#compliance-deadline-and-interim-benchmarks)

[IV. Procedural Matters 19](#procedural-matters)

[A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
19](#final-regulatory-flexibility-analysis)

[B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
20](#paperwork-reduction-act-of-1995-analysis)

[C. Congressional Review Act 21](#congressional-review-act)

[V. ordering clauseS 22](#ordering-clauses)

APPENDIX A -- List of Commenters

APPENDIX B -- Final Rules

APPENDIX C -- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# INtroduction

1.  In this Report and Order, we require wireless licensees subject to
    Section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules, which specifies the
    standards for wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) Phase II location
    accuracy and reliability, to satisfy these standards at a
    geographical level defined by the coverage area of a Public Safety
    Answering Point (PSAP). Our decision is supported by a diverse group
    of public safety entities whose comments emphasize the tragic
    results that inaccurate and unreliable location information can
    cause. Because we recognize that some carriers presently are
    measuring their compliance with Section 20.18(h) at broader
    geographic levels, we provide a reasonable amount of time to comply
    with Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP level. We therefore establish a
    deadline of September 11, 2012, by which time all commercial mobile
    radio service (CMRS) carriers must measure compliance with Section
    20.18(h) at the PSAP level. We also establish interim compliance
    benchmarks, in order to ensure that carriers are making progress
    toward compliance with Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP level.

2.  This Order is the critical first step in a comprehensive examination
    of E911 location accuracy and reliability. We take this initial step
    in order to ensure that all stakeholders -- including public safety
    entities, wireless carriers, and technology providers -- are subject
    to an appropriate and consistent compliance methodology with respect
    to the location accuracy standards in Section 20.18(h).

3.  In the coming months, we will continue our examination of 911
    location accuracy issues, after which we will release another order
    that will address the remaining issues on which we sought comment in
    this proceeding. That continued examination will explore the
    questions we have raised regarding possible establishment of more
    stringent, uniform location accuracy requirements across
    technologies, and the continuing development of technologies that
    might enable carriers to provide public safety with better
    information for locating persons in the event of an emergency. Our
    action today is necessary to ensure that carriers' provision of
    location information in compliance with current requirements is
    meaningful to PSAPs and first responders. By making clear that
    compliance with Section 20.18(h) must be measured at the PSAP level,
    we effectively "set the stage" for the examination that lies ahead
    and ensure that all stakeholders are focused on achieving compliance
    with Section 20.18(h) at a common, PSAP-based geographic level.

# Background

4.  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.[^1]

    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."[^2] The *First
    Report and Order* required each covered carrier "to demonstrate,
    upon request made by the PSAP, that its ALI system performs in
    compliance with the requirements established in this Order."[^3]

5.  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.[^4]
    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 \[Automatic Location Information\]
    system complies with the Commission's Rules."[^5] 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.[^6]

6.  In October 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.[^7] In its request, APCO proposed that carriers
    should be required to meet the Commission's location accuracy
    requirements at the PSAP service area level.[^8]

7.  On June 1, 2007, we released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    (*Notice*) seeking comment on APCO's proposal, as well as a variety
    of related questions about how to improve 911 location accuracy and
    reliability.[^9] In the *Notice*, we agreed with APCO that carriers
    should not be permitted to average their accuracy results over vast
    service areas because carriers could assert that they satisfy the
    requirements of Section 20.18(h) yet not meet the Commission's
    accuracy requirements in substantial segments of their service
    areas.[^10] We found that although measuring location accuracy at
    the PSAP level may present challenges, the public interest demands
    that carriers and technology providers strive to ensure that when
    wireless callers dial 911, emergency responders are provided
    location information that enables them to reach the site of the
    emergency as quickly as possible.[^11] In recognition of the fact
    that many carriers are not currently measuring and testing location
    accuracy at the PSAP service area level, we sought comment on
    whether we should defer enforcement of Section 20.18(h) if we
    adopted our tentative conclusion to require compliance at the PSAP
    level.[^12]

# DISCUSSION

## Compliance with Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP Level

8.  Consistent with the *Notice*, we find that carriers should be
    required to meet the Commission's Phase II accuracy requirements set
    forth in Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP service area level. Use of a
    PSAP-based geographic area for compliance purposes is most
    consistent with the purpose of the E911 rules, which, as we stated
    in the *Notice*, is to ensure that PSAPs receive accurate,
    meaningful location information in order to dispatch local emergency
    responders to the correct location. Although Section 20.18(h) does
    not explicitly state that accuracy must be measured and tested at
    the PSAP level, it is unreasonable to think that the Commission ever
    envisioned averaging of location accuracy on a large geographic
    basis, such as a carrier's entire national footprint.

9.  As we stated in the *Notice,* measuring over large geographic areas
    such as a carrier's entire national footprint could allow a service
    provider to claim compliance with the Commission's accuracy
    requirements even though the carrier cannot meet them in individual
    PSAP areas, or even entire states.[^13] In those circumstances,
    certain PSAPs receive either meaningless location information or no
    location information. Even worse, PSAPs may receive location
    information yet not know that the information is not reliable. Any
    of these results could extend the amount of time necessary for a 911
    call taker to obtain the location of the caller or the site of an
    emergency -- including cases as serious as callers attempting to
    report criminal activity impacting homeland security -- and thus
    result in longer dispatch times, and perhaps even no response by
    public safety officials who lack sufficient information to locate
    the caller.[^14] In fact, PSAPs often answer calls with: "911. What
    is the address of your emergency?" because they cannot rely on
    carriers to meet location accuracy requirements in their PSAP
    service area.[^15] A lack of meaningful data regarding a caller's
    location would thus render the purpose of the rule -- which is
    intended to ensure that carriers provide meaningful location
    information to emergency responders -- a nullity.[^16] Measurement
    of compliance at the PSAP level is the most appropriate way to avoid
    this otherwise absurd result consistent with the purpose of the
    rule.

10. The record in this proceeding supports our conclusion that requiring
    PSAP-level accuracy is necessary to ensure that the goal of
    providing meaningful location information to emergency responders is
    met. The public safety organizations that filed comments in response
    to the *Notice* are nearly unanimous in their support for our
    tentative conclusion.[^17] These organizations represent a
    cross-section of the public safety community, ranging from
    nationwide associations such as APCO and NENA, to first responders
    in densely populated urban areas such as New York City, Chicago, and
    Orlando, to emergency response organizations in smaller communities
    such as Lufkin, Texas and San Juan County, New Mexico. The public
    safety commenters are uniquely qualified to attest to the importance
    of accurate and reliable location information. Their comments
    support our observation in the *Notice* that averaging location
    accuracy over large geographic areas is likely to produce inadequate
    and unreliable location information in some parts of a provider's
    service area.[^18] The New York City Police Department, for example,
    emphasizes how difficult it is for PSAPs to ensure that the location
    information they receive from carriers is accurate and
    reliable.[^19] And *Consumer Reports* estimates that accurate
    location information is not delivered at the PSAP level in nearly
    half of the country.[^20]

11. Some commenters support measuring and testing location accuracy on a
    statewide basis, rather than at the PSAP service area level.[^21]
    These commenters, however, fail to address how measurement at the
    state level furthers the goals of Section 20.18(h). State-level
    compliance would not solve the problem that APCO described in its
    2004 request for declaratory ruling and that public safety
    commenters in this proceeding have also identified: state-level
    compliance would still allow service providers to average accuracy
    results over a geographic area large enough to render the location
    information provided to some PSAPs within the state "virtually
    useless."[^22] As a result, carriers may achieve acceptable levels
    of location accuracy in urban areas of a given state, yet provide
    location information of limited or no use to first responders in
    rural areas. Indeed, this approach would particularly shortchange
    residents of larger states with a significant number of PSAPs as
    they would be more likely to reside in a PSAP where location
    information of limited or no use would be provided than would
    residents of smaller states. Moreover, if it is possible for
    carriers to comply with location accuracy requirements on a
    statewide basis in small states, this suggests that it would be
    feasible for carriers to comply with location accuracy requirements
    at the PSAP level across the nation were they willing to invest
    appropriate resources. These commenters also provide no persuasive
    reasons or evidence why the Commission should require compliance at
    any level other than the PSAP level.[^23] In the absence of any such
    evidence, we reject this approach.

12. Commenters also argue that we should not require location accuracy
    compliance at the PSAP level before completing the second phase of
    this rulemaking, or that we should first convene an industry forum
    or advisory council to assess the possibilities for improving 911
    location accuracy.[^24] We reject this argument as without merit.
    The step we take today is necessary to ensure first responders
    receive meaningful location accuracy information as soon as
    possible, and should not be delayed while we explore additional
    issues regarding improving location accuracy. By making clear that
    compliance with Section 20.18(h) must be measured at the PSAP level,
    we also effectively "set the stage" for the examination that lies
    ahead, ensuring that all stakeholders are properly discussing
    location accuracy at the correct geographic level.

13. Our action today, however, does not depend on that examination, nor
    does it preclude a more comprehensive approach to our E911 location
    accuracy rules, as some commenters suggest,[^25] or otherwise
    "plac\[e\] the cart before the horse."[^26] Although the *Notice*
    sought comment on whether hybrid location technologies can provide
    even *better* location accuracy results,[^27] we do not resolve
    those questions in this Order.[^28] We only require service
    providers to comply with Section 20.18(h) at what may be a smaller
    geographic area than they are currently using to measure their
    compliance, with whatever location technology they are now using to
    locate 911 callers. More specifically, we are not mandating any
    specific location technology or approach in this Order, nor are we
    requiring carriers to implement new location technologies. For
    example, carriers that currently employ a network-based location
    solution need not incorporate handset-based location technologies
    into their networks to comply with our ruling in this Order, or vice
    versa. And, as noted above, our determination here will serve to
    better inform the discussion going forward. For these reasons, we
    are not persuaded that the action we take today is premature.

14. We also reject as without merit commenters' assertions that we
    should not move forward because the location technologies that are
    currently available are not capable of satisfying the requirements
    of Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP service area level.[^29] In the
    first instance, our decision to allow carriers five years to achieve
    compliance at the PSAP level substantially mitigates these concerns.
    Furthermore, the record indicates that in many cases, PSAP-level
    compliance is technologically feasible today and would require only
    the investment of additional financial resources.[^30] In this
    regard, we note that while it is obviously in carriers' financial
    interests to argue that any meaningful requirement will not be
    possible to meet, carriers too often blur the distinction between
    that which is infeasible and that which simply requires the
    expenditure of additional resources. Finally, even though the record
    indicates that some service providers are not currently prepared to
    meet our current location accuracy requirements at the PSAP level,
    that fact alone should not prevent us from establishing the PSAP
    service areas as the geographic basis for compliance with the
    Section 20.18(h) location accuracy requirements. Indeed, the
    Commission has consistently found it appropriate to set aggressive
    benchmarks for carriers and providers when public safety is at
    stake,[^31] and it is our judgment based on the record as well as
    our experience regarding the implementation of similar public safety
    mandates that carriers will be able to meet the compliance deadline
    and interim benchmarks set forth in this Order. While we acknowledge
    that meeting the deadline and benchmarks may require the investment
    of significant resources by certain carriers, we believe that such
    expenditures are more than justified by the accompanying public
    safety benefits. Furthermore, we believe that our Order today will
    have a catalyzing effect on efforts to improve location accuracy
    measurement because it will create significant incentives for
    industry.

15. In short, the public interest demands that we no longer allow
    service providers to nullify our longstanding location accuracy
    requirements by measuring their compliance over unreasonably large
    geographic areas. While deployment of E911 Phase II service
    continues to expand, such service has no significance to local
    emergency responders if the location information so provided does
    not permit 911 call takers to locate the caller. In the interests of
    public safety and homeland security, our action today thus closes
    any "loopholes" that may allow service providers to avoid providing
    meaningful location accuracy information. It is clear based on the
    inability to date of wireless carriers and technology vendors to
    provide meaningful PSAP-level accuracy that it is incumbent on us to
    clearly establish that compliance must be achieved at the PSAP
    level.

## Compliance Deadline and Interim Benchmarks

16. The record in this proceeding contains encouraging evidence that
    location technology providers have developed and are developing
    technologies that can achieve PSAP-level compliance.[^32] The record
    also reflects that the technology exists to test, monitor, and
    report compliance at the PSAP level.[^33] Moreover, as noted above,
    PSAP-level compliance is possible in many instances through the
    deployment of existing resources and technologies presently
    available to carriers. We recognize, however, that many service
    providers are not currently measuring and testing location accuracy
    at the PSAP level,[^34] and that meeting our location accuracy
    requirements in every PSAP may take time to achieve. We do not
    intend to penalize carriers that are making good faith efforts to
    comply with our location accuracy requirements at the PSAP
    level.[^35] At the same time, we must ensure that carriers begin to
    transition to PSAP-level compliance without delay.

17. Accordingly, we establish a deadline of September 11, 2012 for
    achieving compliance with Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP level.[^36]
    We find that allowing sufficient time for carriers to achieve
    compliance alleviates parties' concerns about the challenges of
    PSAP-level compliance with Section 20.18(h),[^37] yet still leads to
    appreciable and swift improvements to E911 service that will result
    from compliance at the appropriate geographic level. The record in
    this proceeding supports giving carriers five years to achieve
    PSAP-level compliance.[^38]

18. In order to ensure that carriers are making progress toward
    compliance with the Commission's location accuracy requirements at
    the PSAP level, we establish a series of interim requirements, which
    carriers must also meet in order to comply with Section 20.18(h).
    These benchmarks consist of the following:

-   By September 11, 2008 -- one year from the date of adoption of this
    Order -- each carrier subject to the rule must satisfy the location
    accuracy requirements of Section 20.18(h) within each Economic Area
    (EA) in which that carrier operates.

-   By September 11, 2009 -- two years from the date of adoption of this
    Order -- each carrier subject to the rule must file with the
    Commission a report describing the status of its ongoing efforts to
    comply with Section 20.18(h).

-   By September 11, 2010 -- three years from the date of adoption of
    this Order -- each carrier subject to the rule must (1) satisfy the
    location accuracy requirements of Section 20.18(h) within each
    Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Rural Service Area (RSA) in
    which that carrier operates; (2) demonstrate PSAP-level compliance
    with Section 20.18(h) within at least 75% of the PSAPs the carrier
    serves; and (3) demonstrate accuracy in *all* PSAP service areas
    within at least 50% of the applicable location accuracy standard (in
    other words, a carrier subject to the accuracy standard for
    handset-based technologies in Section 20.18(h)(2), which is 50
    meters for 67 percent of calls, must achieve location accuracy of 75
    meters for 67 percent of calls in all PSAPs in order to comply with
    this requirement).

-   By September 11, 2011 -- four years from the date of adoption of
    this Order -- each carrier subject to the rule must file with the
    Commission a report describing the status of its ongoing efforts to
    comply with Section 20.18(h).

-   By September 11, 2012 -- five years from the date of adoption of
    this Order -- each carrier subject to the rule must be in full
    compliance with Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP service area level.

In determining their compliance with these benchmarks and preparing
their reports to the Commission, carriers must include only those PSAPs
that are capable of receiving Phase II location data.[^39]

# Procedural Matters

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^40] an Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the
    *Notice*.[^41] The Commission sought written public comment on the
    possible significant economic impact on small entities regarding the
    proposals addressed in the *Further Notice*, including comments on
    the IFRA. Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis is set forth in Appendix C.

## Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

20. This document contains proposed new information collection
    requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
    reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office
    of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information
    collection requirements contained in this document, as required by
    the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. 
    In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
    2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek
    specific comment on how we might "further reduce the information
    collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
    employees."

## Congressional Review Act

21. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report
    to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
    pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C.
    801(a)(1)(A).

# ordering clauseS

22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), and 332 of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151,
    154(i), 332, that the Report and Order in PS Docket No. 07‑114, CC
    Docket No. 94-102, and WC Docket No. 05-196 IS ADOPTED, and that
    Part 20 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 20, is amended as
    set forth in Appendix B. The Order shall become effective 60 days
    after publication in the Federal Register, subject to OMB approval
    for new information collection requirements.

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request for Declaratory Ruling filed
    by APCO IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**List of Commenters**

**Comments in PS Docket No. 07-114**

  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **[Comments]{.underline}**                   **[Abbreviation]{.underline}**
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  Association of Public-Safety Communications  APCO
  Officials-International, Inc.                

  AT&T Inc.                                    AT&T

  Caddo Parish Communications District Number  Caddo Parish
  One                                          

  Cincinnati Bell Wireless LLC                 Cincinnati Bell

  City of Los Angeles                          City of Los Angeles

  City of Wichita Falls, Texas Police          City of Wichita Falls
  Department                                   

  Corr Wireless Communications, LLC            Corr

  CTIA -- The Wireless Association             CTIA

  Independent Telephone and Telecommunications ITTA
  Alliance                                     

  Intrado Inc.                                 Intrado

  Johnson County, KS Emergency Communications  Johnson County

  King County E911 Program                     King County

  Lufkin, Texas Police Department              Lufkin Police

  The Mid-America Regional Council             MARC

  Motorola, Inc. and Nokia, Inc.               Motorola/Nokia

  National Association of Telecommunications   NATOA
  Officers and Advisors, National Association  
  of Counties, National League of Cities, and  
  U.S. Conference of Mayors                    

  National Emergency Number Association        NENA

  New York City Police Department              New York City Police

  Nsighttel Wireless, LLC                      NSighttel

  Office of United Communications, Washington, OUC
  DC                                           

  Onondaga County Department of Emergency      Onondaga County
  Communications                               

  Orange County 9-1-1 Administration, Florida  Orange County

  Polaris Wireless, Inc.                       Polaris

  QUALCOMM Incorporated                        QUALCOMM

  RCC Consultants, Inc.                        RCC

  Rural Cellular Association                   RCA

  St. Tammany Parish Communications District   St. Tammany Parish

  San Juan County Communications Authority,    San Juan County
  New Mexico                                   

  Sprint Nextel Corporation                    Sprint Nextel

  State of Montana Department of               State of Montana
  Administration, Information Technology       
  Services Division                            

  State of New York Department of Public       New York DPS
  Service                                      

  State of Washington Enhanced 911 Program     Washington 911

  SunCom Wireless, Inc.                        SunCom

  Syosset Fire District                        Syosset Fire District

  TechnoCom Corporation                        TechnoCom

  The Texas 9-1-1 Alliance                     Texas 9-1-1 Alliance

  T-Mobile USA, Inc.                           T-Mobile

  TruePosition, Inc.                           TruePosition

  United States Cellular Corp.                 USCC

  Verizon Wireless                             Verizon Wireless

  Voice on the Net Coalition                   VON Coalition

  Waukesha County, Wisconsin Department of     Waukesha County
  Emergency Preparedness                       

  West Surburban Consolidated Dispatch Center  WSCDC
  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

**Replies in PS Docket No. 07-114**

  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------
  **[Replies]{.underline}**                    **[Abbreviation]{.underline}**

  Association of Public-Safety Communications  APCO
  Officials-International, Inc.                

  AT&T Inc.                                    AT&T

  Motorola/Nokia                               Motorola/Nokia

  Polaris Wireless, Inc.                       Polaris

  Rural Cellular Association                   RCA

  Rural Telecommunications Group               RTG

  SouthernLINC Wireless                        SouthernLINC

  Sprint Nextel                                Sprint Nextel

  TechnoCom Corporation                        TechnoCom

  T-Mobile USA, Inc.                           T-Mobile

  Verizon Wireless                             Verizon Wireless
  -------------------------------------------- --------------------------------

**APPENDIX B**

**Final Rules**

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

**PART 20 -- COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES**

1\. The authority for part 20 remains unchanged.

2\. Section 20.18(h) is amended to read as follows:

\* \* \*

\(h\) *Phase II accuracy*. (1) By September 11, 2012, licensees subject
to this section shall comply with the following standards for Phase II
location accuracy and reliability, to be tested and measured at the PSAP
service area geographic level:

\(i\) For network-based technologies: 100 meters for 67 percent of
calls, 300 meters for 95 percent of calls;

\(ii\) For handset-based technologies: 50 meters for 67 percent of
calls, 150 meters for 95 percent of calls.

\(iii\) For the remaining 5 percent of calls, location attempts must be
made and a location estimate must be provided to the appropriate PSAP.

\(2\) By the dates specified in this paragraph, carriers must satisfy
the following requirements:

\(i\) By September 11, 2008, carriers must satisfy the location accuracy
standards in paragraph (h)(1) of this section within each Economic Area
(EA) in which that carrier operates;

\(ii\) By September 11, 2009, carriers must file with the Commission a
report describing the status of their ongoing efforts to comply with
Section 20.18(h);

\(iii\) By September 11, 2010, carriers must:

\(A\) Satisfy the location accuracy standards in paragraph (h)(1) of
this section within each Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Rural
Service Area (RSA) in which that carrier operates;

\(B\) Demonstrate PSAP-level compliance with the location accuracy
standards in paragraph (h)(1) of this section within at least 75% of the
PSAPs the carrier serves; and

\(C\) Demonstrate accuracy in all PSAP service areas within at least 50%
of the applicable location accuracy standard (*i.e.*, a carrier subject
to the location accuracy standards in paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this
section must achieve location accuracy of 75 meters for 67 percent of
calls in all PSAPs).

\(iv\) By September 11, 2011, carriers must file with the Commission a
report describing the status of their ongoing efforts to comply with
Section 20.18(h).

\(v\) By September 11, 2012, carriers must be in full compliance with
Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP service area level.

\(3\) In assessing their compliance with the requirements of this
section, carriers must include only those PSAPs that are capable of
receiving Phase II location data.

\* \* \*

**APPENDIX C**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

1.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
    (RFA),[^42] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
    included in the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in PS Docket No.
    07-114; CC Docket No. 94-102; and WC Docket No. 05-196
    (*Notice*).[^43] The Commission sought written public comment on the
    proposals in these dockets, including comment on the IRFA. This
    Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the
    RFA.[^44]

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

2.  In the *Notice*, we sought 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 objective
    was 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.  This *Report and Order* requires that Commercial Mobile Radio
    Service (CMRS) carriers comply by September 11, 2012, with section
    20.18(h) of the Commission's rules at the PSAP service area level
    and adopts interim benchmarks in each of the preceding years to
    achieve this level. Section 20.18(h) sets forth the standards for
    Phase II wireless E911 location accuracy and reliability.[^45] This
    action 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.[^46]

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
    Response to the IRFA**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4.  There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the IRFA.

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
5.  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.[^47] The RFA generally defines the
    term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^48] In addition, the term "small business" has the
    same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
    Business Act.[^49] 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).[^50]

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

#### Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers

6.  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.

7.  *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."[^51]
    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.[^52] Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999
    or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
    or more.[^53] 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.[^54] We have estimated that 260 of
    these are small, under the SBA small business size standard.[^55]

8.  *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."[^56]
    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.[^57] Of this total, 804 firms had
    employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment
    of 1,000 employees or more.[^58] 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.[^59] 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.[^60] The SBA has approved these small business size
    standards.[^61] An auction of Metropolitan Economic Area licenses
    commenced on February 24, 2000, and closed on March 2, 2000.[^62] 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.[^63] Of those, we estimate that
    370 are small, under the SBA-approved small business size
    standard.[^64]

9.  *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.[^65] Under that SBA small business
    size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
    employees.[^66] According to Commission data, 445 carriers reported
    that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony.[^67]
    We have estimated that 245 of these are small under the SBA small
    business size standard.

10. *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.[^68] 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."[^69] These standards defining "small entity" in the
    context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the
    SBA.[^70] 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.[^71] 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.

11. *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*.[^72]
    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.[^73] 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.

12. *Rural Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted a
    size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service.[^74] A significant subset of the Rural
    Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System
    (BETRS).[^75] 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.[^76] 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.

13. *Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.* The Commission has not adopted
    a small business size standard specific to the Air-Ground
    Radiotelephone Service.[^77] 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.[^78] 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.

14. *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.[^79] 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.[^80] Under that SBA small business size standard, a
    business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^81]

#### Wireline Carriers and Service Providers

15. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for wireline
    firms within the broad economic census category, "Wired
    Telecommunications Carriers."[^82] 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.[^83] Of
    this total, 2,395 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees,
    and 37 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^84] Thus,
    under this category and associated small business size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

16. 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."[^85] 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.[^86] 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.

17. *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.[^87] According
    to Commission data,[^88] 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.

18. *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.[^89] According to Commission data,[^90] 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.

19. *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.[^91] According to Commission data,[^92] 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.

20. *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.[^93] According to Commission data,[^94] 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.

21. *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.[^95] According to Commission data,[^96] 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.

22. *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.[^97] According to Commission
    data,[^98] 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.

23. *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.[^99] According to Commission data,[^100] 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.

24. *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.[^101] According to Commission data,[^102] 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.

25. *800 and 800-Like Service Subscribers.*[^103] 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.[^104] 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.[^105] 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

26. 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.[^106]

27. 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."[^107] For this category,
    Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 371
    firms that operated for the entire year.[^108] Of this total, 307
    firms had annual receipts of under \$10 million, and 26 firms had
    receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.[^109] Consequently, we
    estimate that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

28. 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."[^110] For this
    category, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total
    of 332 firms that operated for the entire year.[^111] 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.[^112] Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of Other Telecommunications firms are
    small entities that might be affected by our action.

#### Cable and OVS Operators

29. *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."[^113] 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.[^114]
    According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of
    1,191 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^115] 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.[^116] Thus, under this size standard, the
    majority of firms can be considered small.

30. *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.[^117] Industry
    data indicate that, of 1,076 cable operators nationwide, all but
    eleven are small under this size standard.[^118] In addition, under
    the Commission's rules, a "small system" is a cable system serving
    15,000 or fewer subscribers.[^119] 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.[^120] Thus, under this second size standard, most cable
    systems are small.

31. *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."[^121] 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.[^122] Industry data indicate that, of 1,076 cable
    operators nationwide, all but ten are small under this size
    standard.[^123] 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,[^124] and therefore we are unable to estimate more
    accurately the number of cable system operators that would qualify
    as small under this size standard.

32. *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).[^125] The OVS framework provides
    opportunities for the distribution of video programming other than
    through cable systems. Because OVS operators provide subscription
    services,[^126] 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.[^127] 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.[^128] As of June, 2005, BSPs served
    approximately 1.4 million subscribers, representing 1.5 percent of
    all MVPD households.[^129] 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.[^130] 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

33. *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."[^131] Under
    the SBA size standard, such a business is small if it has average
    annual receipts of \$23 million or less.[^132] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were 2,529 firms in this category that
    operated for the entire year. [^133] 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.[^134] Consequently,
    we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that
    may be affected by our action.

34. *All Other Information Services*. "This industry comprises
    establishments primarily engaged in providing other information
    services (except new syndicates and libraries and archives)."[^135]
    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.[^136] According to Census Bureau data for 1997,
    there were 195 firms in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^137] 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

35. *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."[^138] 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.[^139]
    According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of
    1,041 establishments in this category that operated for the entire
    year.[^140] Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and an
    additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999.[^141] Thus, under this
    size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

36. *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."[^142] The SBA has developed a small business size
    standard for Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing, which is: all such
    firms having 1,000 or fewer employees.[^143] According to Census
    Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 518 establishments in
    this category that operated for the entire year.[^144] Of this
    total, 511 had employment of under 1,000, and an additional 7 had
    employment of 1,000 to 2,499.[^145] Thus, under this size standard,
    the majority of firms can be considered small.

37. *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."[^146] The SBA has developed a
    small business size standard for this category of manufacturing;
    that size standard is 500 or fewer employees.[^147] According to
    Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 1,082 establishments in this
    category that operated for the entire year.[^148] Of these, 987 had
    employment of under 500, and 52 establishments had employment of 500
    to 999.

38. *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."[^149] The SBA has developed a small
    business size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size
    standard is 1,000 or fewer employees.[^150] According to Census
    Bureau data for 1997, there were 209 establishments in this category
    that operated for the entire year.[^151] 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}
<!-- -->
```
39. In this *Report and Order*, we have taken steps to advance our
    public safety mission by establishing a requirement that CMRS
    carriers comply by September 11, 2012, at the PSAP service area
    level, with section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules. The Order
    requires carriers to submit compliance reports to the Commission at
    the two-year and four-year marks, explaining their progress in
    achieving compliance with section 20.18(h) at the PSAP level. In
    addition, some carriers may have to revise their internal
    recordkeeping procedures to comply with the Order's requirements,
    although the Order imposes no specific requirements in this regard.

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

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
40. 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."[^152]

41. In the *Notice*, the Commission specifically considered the impact
    of potential revisions to the wireless E911 accuracy rules on small
    entities. The *Notice* asked 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.[^153] In previous
    rulemakings, the Commission has established different compliance
    deadlines for small wireless carriers.[^154] The questions posed in
    the *Notice* enabled the Commission to assess whether similar
    concessions to small entities were warranted with respect to
    wireless E911 accuracy requirements.

42. The Commission has determined that the benefits of requiring all
    CMRS carriers to comply with the requirements of Section 20.18(h) at
    the PSAP service area level far outweigh any burdens associated with
    implementing these requirements. E-911 represents a significant and
    valuable investment that enables emergency responders to reach the
    site of an emergency as quickly as possible. The public safety
    comments in response to the *Notice* were nearly unanimous in
    support of this requirement. We acknowledge that compliance with the
    rule adopted in the order may impose cost burdens on small entities.
    However, given the great public interest benefits of the rules, we
    find that the public interest benefits outweigh the economic
    burdens. Furthermore, the Order gives carriers a full five years to
    come into compliance with section 20.18(h) at the PSAP level, in
    large part because we have taken into account the specific economic
    and technological concerns that small entities face. In the Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, we sought comment on these rules
    and no commenter proposed an alternative version that would serve
    these benefits while lessening the economic burdens. Accordingly, we
    find that we have discharged our duty to consider the burdens
    imposed on small entities.

43. **[Report to Congress]{.underline}:** The Commission will send a
    copy of the *Report and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to
    be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
    pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.[^155] In addition, the
    Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order,
    including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A
    copy of the Second Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof)
    will also be published in the Federal Register.[^156]

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

Re: Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114);
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; 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196),
Report and Order

Supporting the safety of the public and the needs of our first
responders is our highest obligation as public officials. Nowhere is
this more apparent than ensuring that the most basic need of the public
to call for help by dialing 911 is fulfilled. But not only must the
public be able to call 911, help must be able to reach them in a timely
manner. E911 is meant to ensure that when someone dials 911 during an
emergency, public safety can easily and reliably find them. To achieve
that goal, our enhanced 911 rules must provide meaningful automatic
location information that permits first responders to reliably find
persons in need when seconds count.

We all know that people are relying on cell phones for more and more of
their calls, including calls to 911. The advances in wireless technology
allow people to call for help more quickly and from more remote places
than ever before. We need to make sure that our location accuracy
requirements keep apace with these changes so that consumers can take
advantage of all the opportunities wireless technology has to offer.

I am pleased that today's item adopts the Commission's tentative
conclusion to require location accuracy measurement at the PSAP-level.
This will help provide necessary and possibly life-saving information to
our first responders. As I have stated before, providing location
accuracy information on a multi-state or state-wide basis does not
provide public safety with the information it needs to do its job
effectively. 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.

While I would have also been comfortable with a shorter time period, I
also support the delayed effective date for PSAP-level compliance
requested by several public safety groups, which includes specific,
measurable benchmarks that will improve both the level of accuracy
achieved by carriers and the quality of the location information first
responders receive. While new solutions such as hybrid location
technologies can increase location accuracy even over our current
standards and solve some of the technological challenges carriers may
face, the Commission finds today that there are concrete measures that
carriers can be taking now to improve location, and that PSAP-level
compliance is technologically feasible today in many cases, requiring
only the investment of additional financial resources. It is
appropriate, therefore, that we delay the effective date of this rule
rather than deferring enforcement, and adopt benchmarks that will
facilitate compliance with the rule by the effective date.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

Re: Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114);
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; 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196),
Report and Order

            Here we are again---September 11^th^.  The sixth anniversary
of that terrible and murderous day when America began to understand just
how vulnerable we are in this 21^st^ century.  Six years later, not
enough has changed.  We are still vulnerable.  Our communications
infrastructure is still not capable of connecting us in the ways we need
to be connected in the maelstrom of catastrophe.  In some few ways and
places, we may be better off, but in far more other ways and places, we
are not.  We're working, but there remains so much to do.  Two months
ago, the Commission embarked on a huge effort to encourage construction
of an interoperable, nationwide broadband public safety network, to be
turned into reality by the combined efforts of the public safety
community, a commercial licensee, and the FCC.  Today we
visit---actually ***re***visit---the challenging world of wireless E911,
in hopes of providing our citizens with effective and reliable
connections to emergency operators in times of crisis. 

Our reliance on wireless phones grows deeper every day.  The number of
handsets deployed in the United States grows almost exponentially---an
increase of 50 percent over the last three years.[^157]  The amount of
time we spend on our phones continues to soar---an average consumer uses
his or hers for around 13 hours each month, an increase of two hours
from just the year before.[^158] That's just part of the picture when it
comes to E911.  More tellingly, for 14 percent of American adults, their
wireless phone is now their ***only*** phone.[^159]  When these 30
million wireless-only consumers---and any child in their care---face a
medical crisis or physical threat, they will seek help through the
wireless E911 system.  If that system fails them, it can be the
difference between life and death.

            Many Americans probably believe that their wireless handsets
provide the same level of protection as the wireline phones they have
replaced.  The terrifying reality is that, in many cases, this is not
so.  Wireless phones do not transmit a particular street address to an
emergency operator, as the wireline E911 system does.  In fact, even
under the best of conditions, carriers are required only to transmit a
set of geographic coordinates that is accurate within 50 or 100 meters. 
In other situations, the accuracy may be far worse.  Indeed, one recent
study looked at call performance within a small sample of individual
PSAPs and concluded that the overall level of accuracy was below what
the experts expected and, in many cases, below what the FCC's rules
require.  Available evidence also indicates that location accuracy is
especially unreliable for calls placed from inside a building or in a
rural area---two places where mobile handsets are increasingly common. 
Nor is it possible using current technology to estimate the elevation
from which a call is placed---a critical piece of information for first
responders if the caller-in-need is located in a sky-scraper or other
multi-story building.

            So it should be abundantly clear that the FCC faces a
profound set of challenges to develop a wireless E911 system that will
give American consumers the level of protection they need and deserve. 
This is starkly urgent business, but in the best of cases, it will still
take time; it will take more money; and it will take supreme efforts on
the part of industry, public safety and the FCC.  On this sixth
anniversary of the searing tragedy of 9/11, we should require no
reminder that the status quo is not acceptable and that the burdens of
protecting the people's safety must be an ongoing national priority.

  Is today's item aggressive and demanding?  Yes it is.  But let me say
right now that we would be in even worse shape public safety-wise
without having already taken some aggressive steps.  Making sure that
Voice over Internet Protocol was part of the E911 system was aggressive
and controversial.  But it was the right thing to do and I continue to
commend Chairman Martin for his leadership in that.  If our public
safety alternatives are to do either too much or too little, you will
find this Commissioner is always going to err on the side of doing more
rather than less.

            As I suggested when we initiated this docket earlier this
summer, I think the right path forward involves a sequence of two
steps.  First, the FCC---in full partnership with public safety and
industry---needs to test and really understand the capabilities and the
limitations of our existing E911 system, and we need to assess
developing and future technologies that can improve these capabilities.
 Second, after we understand the technical realities of where we are
today and the limits on what is possible in the future, we need to set
aggressive accuracy standards---the most aggressive that law and
technology allow---and require carriers to meet them.  

            In the discussions surrounding the release of our NPRM
earlier this summer, I was pleased that my colleagues accepted my
suggestion that we commission two reports from our Office of Engineering
and Technology that could put this process on a sound technical
footing.  These reports were to address the question of how well
in-building coverage fares under current technology, as well as the
extent to which so-called hybrid technology---the most promising
technique out there right now---could help remedy some of the
limitations of the existing wireless E911 infrastructure.  I had hoped
that these studies would be available before I was called upon to vote
on a framework for adjusting the FCC's accuracy standards. 

            Unfortunately, those studies are not before us today, even
as we have an item that adopts the specific compliance benchmarks
suggested to us in recent days by the two leading public safety
organizations.  In a more perfect world, we would have the additional
time necessary to develop a fuller factual record before reaching a
decision.  But I also recognize that any technical issue can always
benefit from additional study and that any important decision contains a
degree of legal risk.  The simple truth is that public safety officials
and the wireless industry are rarely going to agree about the
appropriate timeframe for developing and implementing new and expensive
technologies.  Faced with a choice between the concerns of industry and
the suggestions of the public safety community, I think the right answer
is to forge ahead with a set of aggressive---but I believe
achievable---benchmarks.  The rules we announce today will give industry
a strong incentive to develop technical solutions that will make the
American public safer.  I appreciate the Chairman's leadership in
bringing us to this point.

            Now that we are resolving the PSAP-level accuracy issue, I
hope we can focus our energies on moving forward swiftly to address the
many additional issues raised by the second phase of the NPRM in this
docket, Section III.B.  Our resolution of this portion of the
proceeding---even more than the decision we reach today---will determine
whether American wireless consumers will benefit from a technologically
advanced  E911 system capable of keeping them as safe as they possibly
can be.  Indeed, our approach to that next phase is perhaps the best
test of whether this Commission is really on-target to improve the state
of public safety readiness in the years ahead.  The specific questions
we must address include (1) whether to mandate a "hybrid" technical
solution and a single wireless accuracy standard, (2) whether to require
carriers to report the height as well as the latitude and longitude of
E911 calls, (3) how to require carriers to measure and report compliance
with our standards, and (4) how to deal with the remaining issues of
wireless VoIP provision.  I certainly look forward to receiving OET's
studies and to addressing these questions in the weeks and months
immediately ahead.  We can settle for no less. 

            I also think it is important to mention that the OET studies
and our consideration of the further issues raised in Section III.B will
give us a second opportunity to assess whether the compliance deadlines
we set today are appropriate.  I am not now, nor ever will be,
interested in compromising public safety just because the right
technical standards will require substantial investment by industry in
infrastructure.  But I also recognize that it is possible to set
standards so high that they become counter-productive.  While I believe
that the benchmarks we set today are achievable, if the record that
develops between now and one year from now suggests otherwise, I am
willing to revisit the timeframes we establish today. The important
point is today's action provides what seem to be realistic parameters
and timeframes for getting the job done.  E911 has taken a long
time---too long---and we just do not have the luxury of frittering away
more of that precious commodity. 

            Many thanks to the Bureau for its hard work on this
item---and also to my colleagues who worked so hard on this item and the
other public safety proceedings the Chairman has teed up.  I am pleased
to see the Commission back in the forefront of public safety
communications.  It is where we should have been all along.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

**APPROVING IN PART, DISSENTING IN PART**

Re: Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114);
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; 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196),
Report and Order

It has been nearly a decade since Congress enacted the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act for the purpose of establishing 911
as the universal emergency assistance number, and to promote, among
other things, the further deployment of wireless 911 services.[^160]
Congress recognized then, as we must today, that our efforts to maintain
and upgrade our vital 911 network necessitate reliance on broad
coordination efforts and emerging technologies -- critical elements in
effectuating networks that are "seamless, ubiquitous and
reliable."[^161] Over the past several years, the Commission, together
with public safety, state and local governments, and relevant
industries, has made significant progress in promoting the deployment of
911 and enhanced (E911) emergency services and improving location
accuracy information.

Keeping these directives and past progress in mind, it remains my
objective in promoting E911 services to make sure that the Commission is
always looking ahead -- that we are making policy and enforcement
decisions that will lead to more advanced 911 and E911 services for all
citizens in the most effective and efficient manner possible. I believe
the ultimate goal of today's *Report and Order* -- ensuring that public
safety answering points (PSAPs) receive reliable and accurate location
information -- is critical. It is a goal that I share with my
colleagues. I have also expressed my full support for requiring carriers
to conduct testing on the PSAP level, particularly in response to
requesting PSAPs.

But while I support providing first responders with the best data
possible, today's item is fraught with highly dubious legal and policy
maneuvering that bypasses a still developing record on what should be
the reasonable and appropriate implementation details. Instead of giving
the public safety community, industry and this Commission the benefit of
a decision based on a full record, the majority plows forward with
details on benchmarks and compliance determinations -- findings that are
the very subject of the III.B. portion of this bifurcated proceeding.

When we launched this proceeding, I questioned our decision to bifurcate
the issues with the goal of setting a new accuracy compliance standard
well in advance of a making a determination of how we can actually
achieve improved location accuracy. I also advocated putting "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."[^162] In response, the record reflects both overwhelming
concern regarding technical feasibility and compliance deadlines, and
overwhelming support for a joint FCC, industry and public safety forum
on new requirements. And while I appreciate the efforts of public safety
to flesh out a path to compliance, a proposal such as that put forth on
benchmarks should be considered in a forum that is open and conducive to
a dialogue with all of the involved parties.

Given the huge commitment of resources and effort needed to make the
vast progress we have yet to make, a collaborative, cooperative approach
is the most effective way to achieve the goals all of us share. Adopting
in whole cloth an eleventh hour proposal at the stroke of Sunshine's end
is not the way to promote an atmosphere for progress. Instead of working
with all stakeholders, the Commission today simply adopts on a Tuesday a
proposal filed on Friday. Offering no opportunity for deliberation or
participation by so many stakeholders does not befit an expert agency.
Indeed, members of the wireless industry have announced plans for a
joint public safety and industry technology summit
entitled, *\"Automatic Location Information Summit, 9-1-1 Technical
Requirements and Capabilities\"* scheduled for October 11^th^ - the
goals of which include setting public safety and industry objectives and
timelines.[^163] Rather than jump the gun, our Commission should help
sponsor and draw from such a forum before reaching conclusions.

So I am disappointed that we are not conducting this proceeding in a
more thoughtful and deliberate manner to ensure that the steps we take
truly advance E911. As I said in the response to the underlying *NPRM*,
no one will be well served by a proceeding that inevitably draws
affected parties into unnecessary disputes and legal uncertainties. That
only distracts all of us from the real objective of improved E911. It is
unfortunate that we move forward today on compliance details that do not
leverage the expertise of industry and public safety, and ignores the
Network Reliability and Interoperability Council VII's recommendation on
improving delivery of E911 location accuracy information.[^164] Nor do
we leverage the work of APCO's Project Locate[^165] or other studies in
our determinations. The majority has blindly pushed wireless carriers
off the edge with the possibility of offering a parachute some time in
the future when the second portion of this proceeding is completed.

While I have objections to the process that led to the adoption of
today's Order, that should not minimize the real need I believe there is
for improving location accuracy. Indeed today, as we commemorate those
who lost their lives in the tragic events of September 11^th^, we are
reminded of how critical location information is for first responders
trying to coordinate efforts to save lives. But saving lives is more
than a political platform. Let's unearth today's action for what it
really is and is not. The sum total here is a set of compliance details
that may bring confusion rather than clarity, and incite litigation,
rather than progress.

For these reasons, while I support the goals of this item, I am unable
to fully support it and must dissent in part.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

Re: Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114);
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; 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196),
Report and Order

On this sobering day for our nation, the sixth anniversary of 9/11, we
take steps to improve the safety and security of all Americans by
strengthening the requirements related to emergency services whenever a
consumer calls 911. This identical set of numbers ironically means so
much to the provision of public safety services and those who summon
their assistance. Specifically, the rules we adopt today will help more
accurately measure the provision of important Enhanced 911 (E911)
services, especially the ability of wireless service providers to help
locate 911 callers.

Wireless service providers play an increasingly important role in
supporting our nation's communications related to public safety and
homeland security. Our increasingly mobile society means mobile
subscribers may be the first to see and report accidents, crimes,
terrorist threats, or any other emergency. Incredibly, mobile phones are
used to make over a quarter of a million 911 calls every day. Moreover,
even when the subscriber is not mobile, the mobile phone often is the
preferred means of communication. One of every eight homes in this
country is "wireless only," so even at home people call 911 wirelessly.
The ability to locate callers who are unable to describe their location,
or unaware of their location, is critical to ensuring a timely, and
potentially life-saving, response by public safety officials.

I recognize that, in some geographic areas, accomplishing the goals we
establish today will be challenging, at least with current technologies.
Thus, we need to ensure that, by establishing these rules, we do not
provide disincentives for expanding service to rural Americans,
especially as it relates to our goal of nationwide broadband deployment.

At the same time, I believe that the Commission must set reasonable
goals to ensure that wireless service providers move steadily towards
better location capabilities. Thus, while I am supportive of the item, I
would have preferred seeking a consensus of public safety and technical
experts regarding the benchmarks established herein.

I thank the staff of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau for
their work on this important item, as well as the men and women who
respond to 911 calls every day and especially to those who have given
their lives keeping us safe in times of emergency.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

Re: Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements (PS Docket No. 07-114);
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; 911
Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers (WC Docket No. 05-196),
Report and Order

At the outset, I thank the Chairman and my colleagues for your efforts
to forge consensus on this important matter. I also thank all of the
participants for sharing your knowledge on the highly technical issues
discussed in this proceeding. It is especially poignant that we are
taking action to further improve Enhanced 911 on Patriot Day. I thank
our nation's bravest for their selfless service to all of us.

Passions are high. We all agree that wireless E911 service must satisfy
the needs of public safety personnel, as well as the expectations of
America's wireless consumers. This is especially important because the
percentage of Americans living in cellphone-only households recently
reached 14 percent, overtaking for the first time the percentage in
landline-only households, which stands at 12.3 percent. Given this
growth, I agree that an aggressive time table is in order.

On the other hand, as I stated in May, we must walk before we can run.
Since that time, a broad array of entities -- wireless service
providers, technology vendors and public safety -- have told us that we
are not yet in a position to devise a plan for rolling out a system of
improved wireless E911 location accuracy. I hope that these predictions
turn out to be incorrect. Ideally, I would have preferred that the
Commission complete its own in-house testing and verification prior to
our implementing benchmarks that may be unachievable at best, or,
inefficient.

At the same time, I am eager to ensure that consumers and first
responders alike will benefit from the latest location-capable wireless
technologies. I have every expectation that the Commission will be a
part 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 continue to 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
technology challenges in a straightforward, comprehensive and
transparent manner.

[^1]: 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)).

[^2]: 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*).

[^3]: *Id.*

[^4]: 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.

[^5]: *Id*.

[^6]: *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.").

[^7]: *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).

[^8]: *Id.* On February 4, 2005, APCO supplemented its request to
    indicate that metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) and rural
    service areas (RSAs) may also serve as appropriate boundaries within
    which to measure and test location accuracy. Association of
    Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc.
    Supplement to Request for Declaratory Ruling, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    at 1 (filed Feb. 4, 2005) (APCO Supplement). In subsequent filings,
    however, APCO reiterated its support for measuring and testing
    location accuracy at the PSAP level. *See, e.g.*, APCO Comments at
    1-2; Letter from Robert M. Gurss, Director of Legal and Government
    Affairs, Association of Public-Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, at 2 (filed Sept. 14, 2005).

[^9]: Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; Revision of the
    Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911
    Emergency Calling Systems; 911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service
    Providers, PS Docket No. 07-114, CC Docket No. 94-102, WC Docket No.
    05-196, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 22 FCC Rcd 10609 (2007)
    (*Notice*).

[^10]: *Id.* at 10611-12 ¶ 5.

[^11]: *Id.* at 10612 ¶ 6.

[^12]: *Id.* The *Notice* established a bifurcated comment cycle;
    comments and replies on the issues raised in Section III.A of the
    *Notice*, which are addressed in this Order, were due on July 5 and
    July 11, 2007, respectively. *See* Comment and Reply Comment Dates
    Established for Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter of
    Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements and E911 Requirements
    for IP-Enabled Service Providers, PS Docket No. 07-114, WC Docket
    No. 05-196, *Public Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd 11171 (Public Safety &
    Homeland Security Bur. 2007) (*E911 Location Accuracy Public
    Notice*). A list of the parties that filed comments in the first
    stage of this proceeding is attached as Appendix A. In Section III.B
    of the *Notice*, we sought comment on other possible ways to improve
    wireless E911 location accuracy and reliability. *See Notice*, 22
    FCC Rcd at 10613-16 ¶¶ 8-18. The issues raised in Section III.B of
    the *Notice* are not addressed in this Order, but will be addressed
    in a future order. Comments on the issues raised in Section III.B
    were due on August 20, 2007; replies are due on September 18, 2007.
    *See E911 Location Accuracy Public Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 11171.

[^13]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 10611 ¶ 5.

[^14]: *See* Syosset Fire District Comments at 3. Moreover, as pointed
    out by Syosset, inaccurate location information could put the public
    at even greater risk of harm while first responders rush to locate
    the emergency incident with poor information. *Id.*; *see also*
    *Phoning 911; Gaps despite new technologies*, ConsumerReports.Org,
    January 2007, *at*
    [http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/electronics-computers/news-electronics-computers/phoning-911-1-07/overview/0107_911_ov.htm]{.underline}
    (last visited Sept. 11, 2007) (January 2007 Consumer Reports
    Article) (describing the inability of emergency responders to locate
    a young girl who had called 911 from her cell phone while clinging
    to her father, who could not swim, after their kayak tipped over in
    the Hudson River).

[^15]: *Id.* (noting that every telephone call to the Department of
    Emergency Response in Dutchess County, New York, is answered this
    way because of the lack of accurate location information at the PSAP
    level).

[^16]: We have never suggested that it is appropriate to average
    accuracy results over an entire state, much less over a multistate
    carrier's entire service area. *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 10612 ¶ 6
    & n.17. It would, therefore, have been appropriate for us to clarify
    that Section 20.18(h) requires compliance at the PSAP level;
    however, as we stated in the *Notice*, out of an abundance of
    caution, we have initiated a rulemaking in order to ensure full
    public input and development of a record on this issue. *Id.*
    Accordingly, our decision today is supported by the record developed
    in response to the *Notice.* We therefore find no merit in
    commenters' procedural arguments regarding our action today. *See,
    e.g.*, T-Mobile Comments at 13-15; Verizon Wireless Comments at
    7-10.

[^17]: *See, e.g.*, APCO Comments at 2; Johnson County Comments at 2;
    Lufkin Police Department Comments at 1; NENA Comments at 1; New York
    City Police Comments at 2-3; Onandaga County Comments at 2; Orange
    County Comments at 2; San Juan County Comments at 2; Syosset Fire
    District Comments at 3; Texas 9-1-1 Alliance Comments at 2; Waukesha
    County Comments at 2; City of Wichita Falls Comments at 2; WSCDC
    Comments at 2 (all supporting PSAP-level compliance with Section
    20.18(h)). Even public safety commenters that expressed some concern
    about the costs or the benefits of implementing PSAP-level
    compliance nonetheless supported PSAP-level accuracy as "the ideal
    approach." NATOA Comments at 5.

[^18]: *See, e.g.*, Orange County Comments at 3 ("Allowing \[wireless
    carriers\] to average location accuracy performance over large areas
    creates a public safety disadvantage to all, as under performing
    rural areas may not receive the level of service that public safety
    agencies need to rapidly locate callers, who may be imperiled in a
    remote area."); Syosset Fire District Comments at 3 ("If a carrier's
    coverage area is vast, it may average the more precise accuracy
    information in some areas with the relatively inaccurate location
    information it is able to provide in others. . . . \[M\]easuring
    accuracy of location information must occur at the PSAP level to be
    meaningful.").

[^19]: New York City Police Comments at 3-4; *see also* Waukesha County
    Comments at 2 ("\[W\]e need to be able to meet callers' expectations
    and be able to locate them accurately and in a timely manner, and to
    be able to qualify that accuracy within \[the boundaries of\] 'our'
    system.").

[^20]: *See* January 2007 Consumer Reports Article.

[^21]: *See, e.g.*, State of Montana Comments at 1; Letter from Steve
    Marzolf, President, National Association of State 9‑1‑1
    Administrators, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No.
    94-102 (filed May 23, 2007) (NASNA May 23, 2007 *Ex Parte* Letter).

[^22]: APCO Supplement at 1.

[^23]: Some carriers argue that PSAP-level compliance will be hindered
    by the variety of shapes, sizes, and topographical features that
    characterize different PSAPs. *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 9-10. We
    recognize that geographical variations in service areas can present
    challenges to the provision of E911 service, but in the interest of
    public safety, we cannot permit those challenges to justify
    diminished location accuracy.

[^24]: *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 3-6; CTIA Comments at 6-7.

[^25]: *See, e.g.*, QUALCOMM Comments at 7.

[^26]: *See, e.g.*, Sprint Nextel Comments at 3; Verizon Wireless
    Comments at 12.

[^27]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 10614-15 ¶ 11.

[^28]: The *Notice* established a separate comment cycle for all
    questions relating to the use of hybrid location technologies. *See
    id.* at 10612 ¶ 7; *see also* *supra* note 12.

[^29]: *See, e.g.*, QUALCOMM Comments at 4-7; T-Mobile Reply at 3-10;
    Verizon Wireless Reply at 4-7.

[^30]: *See, e.g.,* TruePosition Comments at 2-3 (suggesting that
    TruePosition's U-TDOA location technology can achieve the location
    accuracy standards for network-based technologies today "in the
    majority of situations," and that "\[w\]here the technology as
    presently deployed does not meet the standard, it could do so with
    additional \[financial\] investments").

[^31]: *See, e.g.*, 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, 10266-67 ¶ 37 (2005), *aff'd*, *Nuvio Corp. v. FCC*, 473 F.3d
    302 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ("While 120 days is an aggressively short
    amount of time in which to comply with \[the Commission's VoIP 911
    rules\], the threat to public safety if we delay further is too
    great and demands near immediate action."); 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, 17399 ¶ 21 (1999) ("The sooner \[automatic
    location identification (ALI)\] information is available and used by
    PSAPs\[,\] the more rapidly and efficiently emergency help can be
    sent. We have set an aggressive schedule in order to deploy ALI as
    soon as reasonably possible\[,\] and we seek to avoid and minimize
    any delay.").

[^32]: *See, e.g.*, Polaris Comments at 3-8; TruePosition Comments at
    2-6. *But see* QUALCOMM Comments at 6-7 (arguing that no existing
    location technology can meet the Commission's location accuracy
    requirements in every PSAP).

[^33]: *See* Technocom Comments at 2.

[^34]: *Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 10612 ¶ 6.

[^35]: *See* Intrado Comments at 3.

[^36]: By establishing a deadline of September 11, 2012 for compliance
    with Section 20.18(h) at the PSAP level, we address some commenters'
    preference for delaying the effective date of a rule requiring PSAP
    level compliance rather than making the rule effective immediately
    but deferring enforcement. *See, e.g.*, AT&T Comments at 13-34;
    Sprint Nextel Comments at 15. Thus, this Order does not address the
    issue of deferred enforcement of Section 20.18(h).

[^37]: *See, e.g.*, NASNA May 23, 2007 *Ex Parte* Letter at 1-2
    (expressing concern about the effect of requiring PSAP-level
    compliance with Section 20.18(h) on state budgets and E911 cost
    recovery mechanisms).

[^38]: *See, e.g.*, Letter from Robert M. Gurss, Director, Legal and
    Government Affairs, APCO International, to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 07-114 (filed Sept. 7, 2007) (APCO
    September 7, 2007 *Ex Parte* Letter) (supporting a compliance
    deadline of "no more than five years"); Letter from Robert W. Quinn,
    Jr., Senior Vice President, Federal Regulatory, AT&T, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 07-114 (filed Sept. 6, 2007)
    (suggesting that a five-year compliance period would be
    appropriate).

[^39]: Public safety commenters in this proceeding support this interim
    benchmark approach. *See* APCO September 7, 2007 *Ex Parte* Letter
    at 1-2 (stating that APCO and NENA support a five-year transition
    period with yearly compliance benchmarks).

[^40]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^41]: *See Notice*, 22 FCC Rcd at 10619-32 (Appendix).

[^42]: *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).

[^43]: *See* Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, 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, PS Docket
    No. 07-114, CC Docket No. 94-102, WC Docket No. 05-196, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 22 FCC Rcd 10609 (2007) (*Notice*).

[^44]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^45]: Section 20.18(h) states: Phase II accuracy. Licensees subject to
    this section 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 for each call must be provided to the appropriate
    PSAP. 47 C.F.R. § 20.18(h).

[^46]: *See* Notice at paras. 5-8.

[^47]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^48]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^49]: 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."

[^50]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^51]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^52]: 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).

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

[^55]: *Id.*

[^56]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^57]: 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).

[^58]: *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."

[^59]: *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).

[^60]: *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).

[^61]: *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).

[^62]: *Id.* at 10085, para. 98.

[^63]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^64]: *Id.*

[^65]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^66]: *Id.*

[^67]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^68]: *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).

[^69]: *See PCS Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 7824.

[^70]: *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).

[^71]: 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).

[^72]: *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).

[^73]: *See* SBA Dec. 2, 1998 Letter.

[^74]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^75]: BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.

[^76]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^77]: The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission's
    rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.

[^78]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517212.

[^79]: This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the
    Commission's rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-22.1037.

[^80]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^81]: *Id*.

[^82]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

[^83]: 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).

[^84]: *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."

[^85]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^86]: 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).

[^87]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^88]: 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.

[^89]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^90]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^91]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^92]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^93]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^94]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^95]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^96]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^97]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^98]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^99]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110 (changed from 513310 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^100]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^101]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^102]: "Trends in Telephone Service" at Table 5.3.

[^103]: We include all toll-free number subscribers in this category,
    including those for 888 numbers.

[^104]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517310 (changed from 513330 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^105]: *See* FCC, Common Carrier Bureau, Industry Analysis Division,
    *Study on Telephone Trends*, Tables 21.2, 21.3, and 21.4 (Feb.
    1999).

[^106]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517410 and 517910.

[^107]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 517410 Satellite
    Telecommunications" (www.census.gov., visited Feb. 2006).

[^108]: 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).

[^109]: *Id*. An additional 38 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^110]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517910 Other
    Telecommunications";
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.

[^111]:  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).

[^112]: *Id*. An additional 14 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^113]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "517510 Cable and
    Other Program Distribution";
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF517.HTM.

[^114]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^115]: 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).

[^116]: *Id*. An additional 61 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^117]: 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).

[^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]: 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(c).

[^120]: 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.

[^121]: 47 U.S.C. § 543(m)(2); *see* 47 C.F.R. § 76.901(f) & nn. 1-3.

[^122]: 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).

[^123]: 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.

[^124]: 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).

[^125]: 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*").

[^126]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 573.

[^127]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510.

[^128]: *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.

[^129]: *See id*. at 2507 ¶ 14.

[^130]: *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*.

[^131]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 518111 Internet
    Service Providers" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^132]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 518111 (changed from previous
    code 514191, "On-Line Information Services," in Oct. 2002).

[^133]: 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).

[^134]: *Id*. An additional 45 firms had annual receipts of \$25 million
    or more.

[^135]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 519190 All Other
    Information Services" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^136]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190 (changed from 514199 in
    Oct. 2002).

[^137]: 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.

[^138]: 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.

[^139]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^140]: 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. 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.

[^141]: *Id*. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or
    more.

[^142]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334210 Telephone
    Apparatus Manufacturing";
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342.

[^143]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334210.

[^144]: 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. 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.

[^145]: *Id*. An additional 4 establishments had employment of 2,500 or
    more.

[^146]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334413
    Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004)
    \<www.census.gov\>.

[^147]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334413.

[^148]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing ,"
    Table 4, NAICS code 334413 (issued July 1999).

[^149]: U.S. Census Bureau, "2002 NAICS Definitions: 334112 Computer
    Storage Device Manufacturing" (Feb. 2004) \<www.census.gov\>.

[^150]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334112.

[^151]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Computer Storage Device Manufacturing," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334112 (issued July 1999).

[^152]: 5 U.S.C. §§ 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).

[^153]: *See* Notice at para. 13.

[^154]: *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).

[^155]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^156]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^157]: *Eleventh Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market
    Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Services*, FCC 06-142,
    at ¶ 158.

[^158]: *Id.* at ¶ 168.

[^159]: Alex Mindlin, "Cellphone-only Homes Hit a Milestone," *New York
    Times* (August 27, 2007).

[^160]: Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L.
    No. 106-81, enacted Oct. 26, 1999, 113 Stat. 1286, at Section 2.

[^161]: *Id.*

[^162]: Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein, *Wireless E911
    Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No. 07-114; 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; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Providers;
    WC Docket No. 05-196; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 07-108
    (rel. June 1, 2007*) (*NPRM*)*.*

[^163]: *See* Letter from Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President,
    Regulatory Affairs, CTIA--The Wireless Association®, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 1 (filed Sept. 7, 2007).

[^164]: NRIC VII Focus Group 1A, Near Term Issues for Emergency E9-1-1
    Services Final Report (Dec. 2005).

[^165]: *See*
    http://www.locatemodelcities.org/documents/LOCATE_Final_Report.pdf.