WPC+ 2MBR ZCourierw Roman3|jw RomanUnivers Bold@`7X@HP LaserJet 4SiHPLAS4SI.PRSx  @\2YX@xxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNI\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^.6ZPP666PZ*6*-PPPPPPPPPP66ZZZPsjssjc}}=P}js}c}sZjssssj6-6]P6PZFZF6PZ-6Z-ZPZZF=6ZPsPPF@#@S6*S]666*666666P6Z-sPsPsPsPsPssFjFjFjFjF;-;-;-;-sZ}P}P}P}PsZsZsZsZsPsPsZ{P}PsPsPbZsPsPsPsFsFsSsFsvjFjFjFjF}P}P}P}S}P}Z}]=-=Z=6=ZZSS}Zj-jHj6j@j-sZssZsZ}P}PssFsFsFZ=Z=Z=ZSjRj6j]sZsZsZsZsZsZssSjFjFjFsZj6sZZ=j6sPu*PP5+5WppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN:``:UP6PPPPPP06zzP06vvPz066PPP77`PPby:``:eZZ6PP0"jjjjzzPz`^VPZ``P"i~'^:DpddȨDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd|Ld|pȐD8DtdDsjssjc}}=P}js}c}sZjssssjP,PhD4htDDD4DDDDDDdDp8dddddȐXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXhXXXXXdddhdptL8LpLDLpphhp8ZDP8pppddƐXXXpLpLpLphfDtppppppȐhXXXpDppLDd4ddC6CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxHjdDdddddd2>WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNCppCc]?]]]]]]8?]8?]8??]]]@@p]]rCppCvii?]]8"{{{{]pne]ipp]"i~'^DOuuOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuOOuۨYuۨ騨OAOuO{{tG]{ti{{]3]yO=yOOO=OOOOOOuOAuuuuu騨gggggVAVAVAVAuuuuuuuuuuuuuggyggggguuuyuYAYYOYyyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu鏱T錌TƒOuuF"u錊~u匌u2*K!K#K&Kj("i~'^?JWllJJJly8J8=llllllllll==yyy_ǜyJRyy̜J=JdlJ_l_l_Jll==l=llllJR=llll_h+huJ8udJJJ8JJJJJJJJl=__________J=J=J=J=llllllllll_ljlllyl_____u_____lllululJ=JlJJJlyuul=WJJ=lllllJJJyRyRyRyu[=dllllll̜u___lJlyRJl8llH'HWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNNNdlJ_lllll=ElAElAJJ__lJJllԄNقNyyJ_lA"lق~ulyԂl"i~'^?JyllٶJJJly8J8=llllllllllJJyyyl̜Rl̜yٜJ=J~lJly_y_Jly=Jy=ylyy_RJylll_W0WqJ8q~JJJ8JJJJJJlJy=lllllٜ_____P=P=P=P=yllllyyyyllyllllylll__q_____lllqly~R=RyRJRyyqqy=bJW=yyyllל___yRyRyRyqoJ~yyyyyyٜq___yJyyRJl8llH;HWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNNNslJllllllAJlAJlAJJlllJJllلNقNyyJllA"lقulyԂl"i~'^FRxxRRRx>R>CxxxxxxxxxxRRx⭞[x⭻𭭞RCRxRxjjRxCRCʆxj[Rxxxj`5`}R>}RRR>RRRRRRxRCxxxxxjjjjjYCYCYCYCxxxxxxxxxxxxxjj}jjjjjxxx}x[C[[R[†}}ClR`Cxxjjj[[[}zR}jjjR[Rx>xxPAPWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNVVxRxxxxxxHRxHRxHRRxxxRRxxVVȆRxxH"x𐎂x됐x"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxd27K*K2-}/KA5"i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d"">iiffSSxSrff8SS?"xxSx]xxS姧0 S88xfxxxxxxxxxx8S{gci{P8ix]i`xrxxxxxxxxxxSxxxxxxofxGcxxxxxxxSxxxxxxxSxxxxSxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx8xxx8xxx8xxx8xxxxxxxxxxxxx{`ic]S{``SfMx`f.+oS{Scx]xP`fc`flMiMrcxx]x{`x8irr`lrxz88iiii{xiiirrr8fSJ8Muu]daqqZZnn{{xu{{M{aZZ5M5M҅P?k"i~'^09FSS999Sq+9+/SSSSSSSSSS99qqqSggnxggxx9In]nxgxgS]xgg]]?/?FS9SSISI/SS//I/xSSSS??/SInII?C/CZ9+ZF999+999999S9S/gSgSgSgSgSnnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/nSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxS]IgSxSxSxS]IxSgSgSgSgSnInInZnIxdgIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999SSZZnI]/]<]9]5]/nSanSnSxSxSng?g?g?S?S?S?ZZ]<]/]FxSxSxSxSxSxSn]Z]?]?]?xS]9nSS?]9]Sd+SS8%8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNF FGa3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# 2%LH|IUJUKa7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala1DocumentgDocument Style Style\s0  zN8F I. ׃  2NWLLeMNa5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2`QNOTPPa4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2W3QReV.WDoc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNg*gngggg???z\z\z\zjrFr4rSggggggzjr\r\r\gg?gz\r?zgr3\g)%)WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBcg?rgggggFCg?Bg>((??g??nggnBnnBi\\(>\>"yyyy\n\c\jnn\2f|_K`KMb KdCourierTimes New RomanUnivers BoldTimes New Roman BoldUniversTimes New Roman ItalicTimes New Roman Bold ItalicArialArial Bold"i~'^44Cggz*??Gj4?44gggggggggg44jjjgzzzr4\zgzzrzzzr444Tg*gg\gg4gg**\*gggg?\4g\\\\?1?j?4jS???4??????g?r4zgzgzgzgzg\zgzgzgzg44444444gggggggggz\zggrgz\gygzgzgzg\\j\rzgzgzgzggggjgjg4*?r??4rQjjz\g*g6g?g>g*gngggg???z\z\z\zjrFr4rSggggggzjr\r\r\gg?gz\r?zgr3\g)%)WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBcg?rgggggFCg?Bg>((??g??nggpBnnBi\\(>\>"yyyy\n\c\jnn\"i~'^5>Xgg3>>Fj3>33gggggggggg>>jjjryr3gr{yryyyr>3>jg3grgrg>rr33g3rrrrFg>rggg\F3Fj>3jj>>>3>>>>>>g>r3ggggggygygygyg33333333rrrrrrrrryggrrrygryrgggggjgygygygygrrrrrrr33>r>>3rgjjgr3rFr>rXr3rrrrrFFFygygygyjrXr>rjrrrrrryjr\r\r\rr>rygr>yg5\g),)WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNBnnBgg>rgggggFBg>Ig>33\\g>>nggpBnnBirr3\\>"yyyy\nnc\jnn\"i~'^'-5CCph---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`XX`SK``-3`Su``K`XKS``}``S-%-=C-;C;C;-CC%%C%hCCCC-3%CC`CC;@@H-#H=---#--------C%`;`;`;`;`;uWX;S;S;S;S;-%-%-%-%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`A`C`C`CKC`;`;`;X;X;XHX;`TS;S;S;S;`C`C`C`H`C`H`C-%-C---C]KHH`CS%S5S-S-S%`CO`C`C`C`Cu`X-X-X-K3K3K3KHS8S%S=`C`C`C`C`C`C}``HS;S;S;`CS-`CK3S-`CT#CC,,W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN0PP0=C-;CCCCC%+eeC(+eeCe(--;;C..PCCQe0PP0OooKK-;Cp("XXXXee{CePMHCKPPC2Ap!Kg"K`i#KkKm"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9`XX`SK``-3`Su``K`XKS``}``SP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNrrcBc,j}jrjruBuBuru\u\u\urrIrBrrijrrji~rnXnXnXrrrrurrr~fy=\\===WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN\rr=_ffrrsKKrFF\\rF==\\sDDsspp\\\~pp=\\F"\a\4 \==m=\rfs\=s\siwbzpNm\QQ====fsbf\biUpNib3,z\_ffsNiimbmmQsU~bX~i=s~~bf~~==sssssss~~~=i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu2ytgtۍtt",^WfxfffNfNTTTfrfTfffTTTfrT<fNfffNffffffffTfTfTfTfTfTffffTxffTfffrrr~TfrfNd6dWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNllf T`Z`Zff,gg,&,l,l,f,Z",,,&,",^Wf,fffNfNTffr,fTfffTfTrfxBxfNfffNfffffffT,oToToToTrTrrfrTfxT)rrrf,frfNdQdWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNllf ZfZfZff,gg,,,l,l,f,Z",,,&,0g4  pG;0 @ND,%4  pG;;sH?,1Ts\  P6G;P+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx",^Wf,fffNfNTffr,fTff[xxBxfNfffNfffffffT,oToToToTrTrrfrTfxT)rrrf,frfNdQdWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNllf ZfZfZff,gg,,,l,l,f,Z",,,&,",^M[k[[[E[EKKKu[e[K[{[uuu[KKK[eKu5[E{[[[E[[[[[[[[Kuuuuuuuuuu[K[K[K[Kuuuuuuuuuuu[K[[[[Kk[[K[[[eeepK{uuu[e[EY0YWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN``{[uKUPUP[[uu [[  ` ` [u P"    0g4  pG;0 @ND,%4  pG;;sH?,1Ts\  P6G;P;wH?,%tw4  pG;RdW,e\  P6G;PRdW,%ք4  pG;\\====irmf\ii\nUin30z\\mfXinminwUrU~mfi=r~~iw~==rrrrrrr~~~=n\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu2tJ"i~'K2^,,ESSe,,,S,,,,SSSSSSSSSS,,EcS^`MJc`%JYHx`eOhUUS```[P,,,CC,HMHMH0MM H sMMMM/C0MJsJJ@CCCS%SSSSS,SSSSSSCSP cHcHcHcHcHp^HMHMHMHMH% % % % `MeMeMeMeM`M`M`M`M[JcH`MeMeM[J`MOMcHcScH]H]H^S^S`cMHSSSSMHcMcScScScS`S`S% SSSS%Po@SSYSH H5SSH4H%`M``M`SeMeSyU0U0USUCUCUCUSS=S0SS`M`M`S`S`M`Ms[SP@P@P@`SSS`SUSSS[Jc,CC,,,WddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN```CSS,EJJSST66S34CCS3,,CCT11TTRReCC`C[{{QQ,CC3"``C`J``C充&C,,`Q``````````,CcSOTmc@,T`JTM`h[``````````C``````tYQh`9O```````C```````C````C````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,`````````````cMTOJCcMMCQ>`MeQ%#YCcCyO`J`@eMmQOMQV>T>[O{``J{`mhcM`,Te[[mMVh[`b,,TTTTc`TTT[[[m,QC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx,e\  P6G;PRdW,%ք4  pG;APF,%4  pG;RdW,%ք4  pG;IYM,G \  P6G; Ps|vodssdx]sx84ddvo`sxvsx]|]vosC|sCC|||||||CxdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",^M[ [[[E[EK[[e [K[[uu[K[Kue[uk;k[E[[[E[[[[[[[K uuuuucKcKcKcKuuuuuuueKee[eKx[kKuuueee[ uuu[e[EYHYWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN``[P[P[P[[ [[   ` ` [ P"    0g4  pG;0 X@ND,%4  pG;j;sH?,1Us\  P6G;PZ;wH?,%tw4  pG;RdW,d\  P6G;P[RdW,%ׄ4  pG;APF,%4  pG;[RdW,%ׄ4  pG;]IYM,F \  P6G; P\IYM,%\ 4  pG; \^5hC:,BrXh*f9 xr G;XX_W!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP`H5!,),5\  P6G;,P\a{,W80,BBZW*f9 xr G;Xby.\80,%>\4  pG;c6jC:,ỸXj9 xOG;Xe-d=4,ut&d2PG;&Pd+h=5,{&h2pPG;&$ fd!T,,,Tps7a$G,',مG\  P6G;P Ry.X80,ɒX\  P6G;P!t,U5.,U\  P6G;P"Q7jC:,ynXj\  P6G;XP#$ g.t==,E&tps7&$ h2~CC,=X~ps7Xi1mC9,uXm2PG;XP9nE<,fqn\  P6G;qP2fh X<?xxx,x6X@`7X@ 7jC:,yoXj\  P6G;XP y.X80,ɓX\  P6G;P$ }*i88, ips7$ p&_22,U _ps77nC:,%6,%0g4  pG;0 @ND,%4  pG;;sH?,1Ts\  P6G;P;wH?,%tw4  pG;RdW,e\  P6G;PRdW,%ք4  pG;APF,%4  pG;RdW,%ք4  pG;IYM,G \  P6G; PIYM,%\ 4  pG; \5hC:,BrXh*f9 xr G;XXW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hP<?xxx,x6X@`7X@ 7jC:,yoXj\  P6G;XP y.X80,ɓX\  P6G;P$ }*i88, ips7$ p&_22,U _ps77nC:,%6,%0g4  pG;0 @ND,%4  pG;;sH?,1Ts\  P6G;P;wH?,%tw4  pG;RdW,e\  P6G;PRdW,%ք4  pG;APF,%4  pG;RdW,%ք4  pG;IYM,G \  P6G; PIYM,%\ 4  pG; \5hC:,BrXh*f9 xr G;XXW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,BB[W*f9 xr G;Xy.\80,%?\4  pG;2j z]ol <?xxx,x6X@`7X@ 7jC:,yoXj\  P6G;XP y.X80,ɓX\  P6G;P$ }*i88, ips7$ p&_22,U _ps77nC:,%6,%0g4  pG;0 @ND,%4  pG;;sH?,1Ts\  P6G;P;wH?,%tw4  pG;RdW,e\  P6G;PRdW,%ք4  pG;APF,%4  pG;RdW,%ք4  pG;IYM,G \  P6G; PIYM,%\ 4  pG; \5hC:,BrXh*f9 xr G;XXW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,BB[W*f9 xr G;Xy.\80,%?\4  pG;6jC:,ŶXj9 xOG;X-d=4,ut&d2PG;&P+h=5,{&h2pPG;&<?xxx,x6X@`7X@ 7jC:,yoXj\  P6G;XP y.X80,ɓX\  P6G;P!$ }*i88, ips7$ p&_22,U _ps77nC:,%6,%0g4  pG;0 @ND,%4  pG;;sH?,1Ts\  P6G;P;wH?,%tw4  pG;RdW,e\  P6G;PRdW,%ք4  pG;APF,%4  pG;RdW,%ք4  pG;IYM,G \  P6G; PIYM,%\ 4  pG; \5hC:,BrXh*f9 xr G;XXW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,BB[W*f9 xr G;Xy.\80,%?\4  pG;6jC:,ŶXj9 xOG;X-d=4,ut&d2PG;&P+h=5,{&h2pPG;&$ d!T,,,Tps7a$G,',لG\  P6G;P  y.X80,ɓX\  P6G;P!2n b)<?xxx,x6X@`7X@ 7jC:,yoXj\  P6G;XP# y.X80,ɓX\  P6G;P!$ }*i88, ips7$ p&_22,U _ps77nC:,%6,%0g4  pG;0 @ND,%4  pG;;sH?,1Ts\  P6G;P;wH?,%tw4  pG;RdW,e\  P6G;PRdW,%ք4  pG;APF,%4  pG;RdW,%ք4  pG;IYM,G \  P6G; PIYM,%\ 4  pG; \5hC:,BrXh*f9 xr G;XXW!@(#,h@\  P6G;hPH5!,),5\  P6G;,P\{,W80,BB[W*f9 xr G;Xy.\80,%?\4  pG;6jC:,ŶXj9 xOG;X-d=4,ut&d2PG;&P+h=5,{&h2pPG;&$ d!T,,,Tps7a$G,',لG\  P6G;P  y.X80,ɓX\  P6G;P!t,U5.,U\  P6G;P" 7jC:,yoXj\  P6G;XP#p LoHvتֽG}oy:`S b! jofJW"3!. ks0W X- X-#ips7 ##_ps7U #w #Xn4  pG;(_~*c yO -ԍ SBMS Petition at 46.>  X1-x18.ؠ Nextel, an SMR provider, also supports requiring only that serviceinitialized calls be transmitted. It claims that (1) its digital SMR equipment can only be purchased in connection with SMR service, so the only unauthorized phones would be those stolen or otherwise illegally obtained; (2) handling all codeidentified calls, not just service initialized calls, would require major upgrades to the switch and all mobile units; (3) the requirement would competitively disadvantage carriers using iDEN technology developed by Motorola;  X -and (4) fraudulent 911 calls could not be traced.) *c yOf-#C\  P6QɓP#э#C\  P6QɓP# Nextel Petition at 46. In its June 4, 1997 ex parte letter, Nextel also requests that the Commission delay the Section 20.18(b) implementation deadline for 911  X{-availability for one year, citing the complexity of customer education, marketing, and billing.\*{*c {O-ԍ Nextel Ex Parte Filing at 57 (June 4, 1997).\  Xd-In comments filed on July 28, 1997, Nextel expands this to a request for a twoyear delay.K+d0 *c yOE-ԍ Nextel Additional Comments at 37.K  X6-x19. On the other hand, public safety organizations and an alliance of consumer groups have opposed these petitions in pleadings filed in the formal reconsideration pleading cycle,supporting the Commission's current rules regarding the 911 calls that should be  X-transmitted by carriers., *c {Ob"-ԍ See generally Alliance Opposition; I95 Coalition Opposition; Joint Commenters Opposition. The Joint Comments of NENA, APCO, and NASNA indicate that some PSAPs prefer to receive all calls " even if the lack of code identification means that call back is not possible " while others believe noncodeidentified calls should not be" R ,0*&&qq"  X-forwarded.L-*c yOy-ԍ Joint Commenters Opposition at 23.L The latter view is based largely on the concern that hoax calls, made by persons intent upon disrupting 911 service, will increase as it becomes evident to potential perpetrators that PSAPs and wireless carriers are unable to trace calls placed from nonservice initialized  X-phones.2.X*c {O-ԍ Id.2 Alliance argues that the Commission should simply require all carriers to transmit all 911 calls to the PSAP without blocking, contending that prompt, unconditional connection  X-of all 911 emergency calls is required by the public interest.B/*c yO( -ԍ Alliance Opposition at 6.B Alliance contends that many cellular carriers block emergency calls from nonsubscribers and roamers whose carriers do  X_-not have roaming agreements.:0_z*c {O -ԍ Id. at 27.:  X1-x20. P20HG נ In later ex parte presentations, the Wireless 911 Coalition presented further  X -information to the Commission regarding the technical aspects of processing 911 calls.1 *c {O-ԍ See Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filings (Apr. 22, 1997; June 4, 1997; June 18, 1997). According to the Coalition, wireless switch technology does not offer the choice of forwarding only code identified calls to PSAPs. The only available options are to (1) forward  X -all calls, or (2) forward only service initialized calls that have been successfully validated.2 *c {O&-ԍ#C\  P6QɓP# Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filing (June 4, 1997). On July 16, 1997, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau requested further information on this issue and requested comments on the information submitted by the Coalition, as well as  X-by Alliance and GTE.O30 *c {Os-ԍ See July 16 Public Notice.O Additional comments in response to the July 16 Public Notice generally agree with the Coalition that the Commission's 911 rules based on ``code  Xd-identification'' are not technically feasible at this time.'4Zd *c {O-ԍ See, e.g., AirTouch Additional Comments at 23; AT&T Additional Comments at 1; BANM Additional  yO-Comments at 2; CTIA Additional Comments at 78; SBMS Additional Comments at 35; 360o  Communications Additional Comments at 1.' Some commenters argue that the Commission should revise its rules that require covered carriers to transmit noncode  X6-identified 911 calls based on PSAP choice or delay implementation of the rules.5Z6*c {O"-ԍ See, e.g., AirTouch Additional Comments at 5; AT&T Additional Comments at 3; BANM Additional Comments at 12; CTIA Additional Comments at 1; Nextel Additional Comments at 37; RCA Additional Comments at 4. Public"6 50*&&qq" safety organizations and other commenters, however, urge the Commission not to defer  X-implementation of the E911 rules or modify its policy goals.6*c {Ob-ԍ See, e.g., APCO Additional Comments at 12; NENA Additional Comments at 3; XYPOINT Additional Comments at 13; MULOCK Additional Comments at 12.  X-x21.ؠ The Joint Letter, submitted on September 25, 1997, also proposes that the Commission eliminate the definition of ``code identification'' and change its rules to distinguish between ``all wireless 911 calls'' and ``successfully validated wireless 911  Xv-calls.'';7v"*c yOI -ԍ Joint Letter at 3.; The parties filing the Joint Letter propose that licensees be required to process only successfully validated 911 calls except in cases in which PSAPs have requested the receipt of  XH-all 911 calls.28H*c {O -ԍ Id.2 In addition, the Joint Letter requests that Section 20.18(b) be amended further to reflect that the choice of a PSAP authority to receive all wireless 911 calls or only successfully validated 911 wireless calls may not be possible until Phase II location  X -technology is in place.29 D*c {O-ԍ Id.2 The Joint Letter, however, further requests that the Commission's rules not preclude carriers who choose not to perform validation from passing all wireless 911  X -calls.2: *c {O\-ԍ Id.2  X -x22. In response to the Joint Letter, Congresswoman Eshoo reiterates her position that ``it is in the public's best interest that all wireless 911 calls should be passed through to the  Xy-public safety authority.''G;yh *c yO-ԍ Eshoo Letter (Sept. 29, 1997).G Alliance also filed an ex parte presentation, urging the  Xd-Commission to deny the proposals made in the Joint Letter.Y<d *c {O -ԍ Alliance Ex Parte Filing (Sept. 30, 1997).Y Alliance argues that the Joint Letter's proposed redefinition of terms is ``a transparent effort by certain wireless carriers to  X6-restore the practice of blocking emergency calls.'':=6 *c {Oq -ԍ Id. at 12.: In addition, because Alliance believes that the Joint Letter suggests that the public safety community is now willing to accept all 911 calls from carriers who choose to send them, Alliance contends that there is no reason why all  X-carriers should not be required to send all 911 calls.8>*c {O$-ԍ Id. at 2.8 Alliance thus urges that requiring" >0*&&qq'" carriers to process all 911 calls is the obvious and best solution to end the efforts by the  X-wireless industry to reinstate blocking of emergency calls.:?*c {Ob-ԍ Id. at 23.:  X-x23.ؠ Commenters responding to the October 3 Public Notice generally support the proposals made in the Joint Letter. For example, most parties agree with the Joint Letter's proposal to eliminate the distinction based on ``code identification'' and to differentiate  Xv-between ``successfully validated wireless 911 calls'' and ``all wireless 911 calls.''@vZ*c {O -ԍ See, e.g., AirTouch Further Comments at 23; AT&T Further Comments at 12; BellSouth Further Comments at 2; GTE Further Comments at 2; PrimeCo Further Comments at 2. Commenters also generally support the Joint Letter's proposal to defer the PSAPbyPSAP choice to receive ``all wireless 911 calls'' or ``only successfully validated 911 calls'' until  X1-Phase II location technology is in place.A1*c {O-ԍ See, e.g., AirTouch Further Comments at 12; AT&T Further Comments at 2; BellSouth Further Comments at 2; GTE Further Comments at 2.  X -x24. In response to the concern voiced by Congresswoman Eshoo and Alliance that the Joint Letter's proposals are intended to block certain wireless 911 calls, CTIA and PCIA, in  X -their further comments, state that this is not the intent of the proposed amendment.hB *c yO-ԍ CTIA Further Comments at 23; PCIA Further Comments at 3.h CTIA, for example, clarifies that carriers and public safety organizations are not suggesting that only validated 911 calls be completed, to the exclusion of calls from noninitialized phones or calls from subscribers without valid roaming agreements. Rather, according to CTIA, ``the proposal attempts to capture more accurately the type of calls that the 911 authorities may  Xb-choose from " i.e., all wireless 911 calls and successfully validated 911 calls.FCb*c yO-ԍ CTIA Further Comments at 23.F Sprint PCS also argues that the Joint Letter does not advocate that only successfully validated calls be  X6-processed or that carriers should not route all calls.JD6. *c yO-ԍ Sprint PCS Further Comments at 2.J Rather, CTIA and other commenters claim that wireless carriers are prepared to deliver all wireless 911 calls to a requesting PSAP as long as the Commission recognizes that only calls that have been successfully validated  X-will be transmitted with enhanced features (i.e., call back and location).E *c {O`"-ԍ See, e.g., CTIA Further Comments at 3; Sprint PCS Further Comments at 2; AT&T Further Reply Comments at 1. Noting that the Joint Letter acknowledges that the architecture of certain systems will continue to route all"E0*&&qq" calls, Sprint PCS states that its system is currently structured to pass all calls and provide call  X-back numbers for most of these calls.JF*c yOb-ԍ Sprint PCS Further Comments at 2.J  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:K*c {O!-ԍ Id. (para. 35).> Finally, the presence of a code identification as a triggering factor might provide PSAPs with some basic information about the calling party, enabling PSAPs, in some  X~-cases, to call back the person seeking emergency assistance if the call is disconnected.2L~2 *c {Oa%-ԍ Id.2 We"~ L0*&&qqP" specifically rejected proposals to subject 911 calls to validation in order to screen out calls from nonsubscribers, concluding that the potential for delay would seriously compromise the  X-public safety objectives of this proceeding.>M*c {OK-ԍ Id. (para. 36).>  X-x27.ؠ At the same time, although we found a strong case for forwarding all calls, including those without code identifications, we were concerned that ANI and call back  Xv-features might not be as usable, and hoax and false alarm calls might be facilitated.NNvZ*c {O -ԍ Id. at 1869596 (paras. 3738).N Because public safety organizations are in the best position to determine whether acceptance of calls without code identification helps or hinders their efforts, we concluded that the choice of whether all 911 calls would be transmitted to the PSAP should reside with the public safety  X -administrators.GO *c {O-ԍ Id. at 18696 (para. 38).G The mechanism we adopted to accomplish this was to require covered carriers to transmit all 911 calls, including noncode identification calls, if requested by a PSAP.  X -x28.ؠ Based upon our review of the record, it now appears that this approach is, at least  X -for the present, unworkable. The E911 First Report and Order observed that wireless switches currently are technically unable to differentiate between subscribers and non X{-subscribers without validation procedures.KP{~*c {O-ԍ See id. at 18694 (para. 36).K The record on reconsideration, in particular the  Xd-information submitted in ex parte presentations in June and July 1997, the comments in  XO-response to our July 16, 1997 Public Notice, and the Joint Letter,EQO*c {O-ԍ See Joint Letter at 2.E demonstrates, however, that those switches also cannot presently differentiate between code identified and noncode  X!-identified handsets without applying those same validation procedures.R$!*c {Ot-ԍ See Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filings (June 4, 1997; June 18, 1997; July 10, 1997); Alliance Ex  {O>-Parte Filing (July 11, 1997): GTE Ex Parte Filing (July 7, 1997); see also AT&T Additional Comments at 1; BANM Additional Comments at 12; CTIA Additional Comments at 5; RCA Additional Comments at 23; SBMS Additional Comments at 6.   X-x29.ؠ According to information supplied by wireless industry representatives, wireless switches can either (1) transmit all calls without validation; or (2) transmit only calls from handsets that have been validated to prove the callers are current customers in good standing," R0*&&qq"  X-or (in roaming situations) are subject to roaming agreements with a serving carrier.CS*c {Oy-ԍ See Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filings (June 4, 1997; July 10, 1997); GTE Ex Parte Filing (July 7,  {OC-1997); see also AT&T Additional Comments at 1; BANM Additional Comments at 12; CTIA Additional  {O -Comments at 5; RCA Additional Comments at 23; SBMS Additional Comments at 6. See also Joint Letter at 2 (``[W]hether a . . . `code identification' is transmitted [by a carrier] will be meaningless in determining what type of information can be passed to a PSAP.'').C  X-Forwarding only code identification calls without validation is apparently not technically possible at present. Efforts to develop and deploy a screening mechanism for code identified calls that would not cause delay or blockage of 911 calls, as the validation process does, would apparently be expensive and time consuming, according to this information.  Xx-x30.ؠ The costs, delays, and administrative burdens of requiring wireless carriers to  Xa-implement the ``PSAP choice'' approach taken in the E911 First Report and Order might also be substantial. A single wireless switch may serve areas with numerous PSAPs in different state and local jurisdictions with different procedures and approaches. While it may be possible to segment the switch to reflect PSAP choices, this appears to require complicated  X -and expensive modifications to the software that could not be implemented for some time.T ~*c {O6-ԍ #Tps7##X\  P6G;ɓP#See, e.g., SBMS Petition at 46; Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filing at 11 (July 10, 1997); GTE Ex  {O-Parte Filing (July 7, 1997). See also Joint Letter at 3 (``The Commission . . . must recognize that particular Public Safety authorities may not be able to choose on an individual basis the types of calls they will receive  {O-(i.e., all calls or only successfully validated calls) until Phase II location technology is in place. . . . Furthermore, the parties agree that even when Phase II location technology is in place, calls may be identified with an inappropriate PSAP.''). Alternatively, a rule that required all PSAPs in an area to reach a consensus could be problematic to administer, especially in light of the varying switch coverage areas of the several competing wireless carriers. In sum, the problems presented by requiring wireless carriers to implement code identification screening based upon PSAP choices at present appear substantial.  Xf-x31.ؠ At the same time, we recognize that there are certain limitations on the benefits of code identification screening to PSAPs. The fact that a handset is codeidentified does not mean its user may be reliably called back in the event of disconnection. For some technologies, the MIN code is not a dialable number and the handset can be reached only if it is in service. Even if the code is a dialable number, that number might not permit call back or deter prank calls or false alarms. Lost, stolen, and cloned phones may transmit valid codes. Codes from handsets whose owners no longer maintain service may be reissued, so that the transmitted code may be ambiguous, duplicating the inservice code of another  X-handset.UZ *c {O[$-ԍ While MIN is only part of the information used to determine the uniqueness of a mobile unit (e.g., Electronic Serial Numbers and Mobile Station Identifiers are also used in the validation process), it is the only information supplied to a PSAP and used in the establishment of the dialable number of the unit for call back"%T0*&&&" purposes. For these categories of code identified handsets, PSAPs may be unable to call back"XU0*&&qq" reliably if disconnected, or to prevent or trace prank or false alarm calls. Moreover, the goal of deterring prank and false alarm calls and apprehending the callers is likely to be better served by the scheduled deployment of more accurate caller location information pursuant to  X-the Phase II requirements established in the E911 First Report and Order. This technology will provide information on the location of handsets being used to make prank or false alarm calls.  Xa-x32.ؠ In addition, from a caller's perspective, the distinction between code identified and noncode identified handsets would be difficult to explain and understand, as would the fact that this distinction would be crucial to completing 911 calls in some locations, but meaningless in others, depending on PSAP choice. In some cases, call completion could also depend on the vagaries of radio transmission and network management, because wireless calls are not necessarily received by the nearest cell site. A call from a noncode identified handset might be routed to a PSAP that would accept it one day, and to another that would decline to receive it the next. The end result could be unnecessary consumer confusion about wireless 911 service and added risks that help will not arrive promptly, if at all, in response to an emergency call.  Xd-x 33.ؠ Based upon this record, it appears that the technically feasible and most practical  XM-options are to forward either all 911 calls, or only those that have been validated. This is in  X8-fact the position of many in the wireless industry.V8X*c {OA-ԍ See Joint Letter at 3; Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filing (June 4, 1997); see also SBMS Additional  yO -Comments at 10; 360o  Communications Additional Comments at 1. Given this choice, we find that the public interest would clearly be better served by requiring covered carriers to forward all 911 calls.  X -As we noted in the E911 First Report and Order, one of the Commission's statutory mandates under the Communications Act is ``promoting safety of life and property through the use of  X-wire and radio communication.''W*c {OA-ԍ See 11 FCC Rcd at 18681 (para. 8); Section 1 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.  151.  X-x!34.ؠ We have already discussed many of the reasons why the validation process would  X-unnecessarily delay or defeat the dispatch of help in emergencies, here and in the E911 First  X-Report and Order. Roamers whose home carrier happened not to have a service agreement with a carrier in whose service area the call is placed would be most obviously affected. Applying the validation process to this important class of customers would, at a minimum, delay delivery of emergency 911 calls and, in some cases, block them. In addition, we are not persuaded by arguments that only current validated customers, including roamers with a roaming agreement, should be allowed to complete wireless 911 calls. We continue to believe that the public safety will be promoted more effectively if all potential 911 calls are passed"DW0*&&qq" through to the PSAP regardless of whether they are made by subscribers. Many wireless 911 calls are from ``Good Samaritans'' reporting traffic accidents and similar emergencies. Making it easier for individuals to report such emergencies thus primarily benefits the public and  X-serves the public interest, not simply the interests of the caller.X*c {O4-ԍ As we have noted, this approach promotes the goals of the Communications Act. See 47 U.S.C.  151.  X-x"35.ؠ The fact that many wireless carriers currently transmit all 911 calls without  Xv-validation}YvZ*c {O -ԍ See, e.g., Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filing at 2 (July 10, 1997).} undercuts arguments that customers would no longer purchase service because they could reach 911 operators without subscribing to any wireless service. Certainly customers value many capabilities of wireless telephony besides the ability to dial 911 in an emergency. The suggestion that consumers who might use nonservice initialized phones may drive up the price of service for customers is also doubtful. Emergency calls are a small fraction of total traffic. In addition, the costs of wireless E911 may be recovered in various ways, subject to state and local programs. We also remain unconvinced that a requirement that emergency calls be transmitted imposes an unfair regulatory burden on wireless carriers  X -as compared to wireline carriers.KZX *c yO[-ԍ For example, the State of California requires that all wireline residential telephone lines should be  yO#-connected with access to 911 emergency service regardless of whether an account has been established. Cal.  yO-Pub. Util. Code  2883.  K Overall, we conclude that the clear, concrete benefits of continuing to make it easy and quick to call for help in an emergency outweigh what appear to be largely speculative disadvantages and concerns. We also believe that the current praiseworthy practice of many wireless carriers, who already forward all 911 calls, should be endorsed and not eroded.  X4-x#36. The Joint Letter proposes rule changes to recognize that particular public safety authorities may not be able to choose on an individual basis the types of calls they receive, for example where a carrier's switch serves multiple PSAPs, until Phase II location  X-technology is in place.;[ *c yO-ԍ Joint Letter at 3.; It is unclear what costs would be incurred in implementing PSAP choice even under Phase II or how effective it would be. The parties to the Joint Letter agree  X-that, even under Phase II, calls may be identified with an inappropriate PSAP.2\*c {O!-ԍ Id.2 Under these circumstances, we believe it is at best premature to impose the obligation of implementing PSAP choice on the carriers. While there may be some benefit to requiring that wireless carriers screen and block calls on behalf of the PSAPs, in order to deter and prevent hoax 911 calls, the extent of the benefits and the costs that would be incurred are uncertain. Rather"e. \0*&&qq" than imposing this requirement on the wireless carriers on the current record, we find it preferable to simply require carriers to transmit all 911 calls to the appropriate PSAPs.  X-x$37.ؠWe also are not convinced that requiring wireless carriers to forward all 911 calls precludes PSAP efforts to implement call back and guard against fraudulent 911 calls. Our rules apply to wireless carriers, not PSAPs, which can administer their own operations and decide how to manage incoming calls. PSAPs should, for example, receive call information that will allow them to screen out or identify many types of fraudulent calls or those where call back is not possible. Also, there is a dispute in the record concerning whether call back can be achieved for handsets that are not service initialized through the use of the ``Follow X -MeRoaming''{]Z *c yO -ԍ According to Alliance, the ``FollowMeRoaming'' process uses a pseudoANI to uniquely identify a nonlocal handset's code identification with a temporary, dialable ``local'' telephone number. Calls directed to the  {O# -handset are routed using this number. See Alliance Comments on Further NPRM, Attachment E at 2.{ process, which, if proven to be the case, might mitigate some concerns  X -within the public safety community.^" *c {O-ԍ See Alliance Opposition at 89; Alliance Ex Parte Filing at 2 (July 11, 1997); contra AirTouch Additional Comments at 7; AT&T Additional Comments at 2; BANM Additional Comments at 56; CTIA Additional  yO0-Comments at 67; NENA Additional Comments at 45; SBMS Additional Comments at 3; 360o Communications Additional Comments at 2.   X -x%38.ؠ The option suggested by CTIA of allowing validation where it can be done without a call processing delay does not appear to be feasible for existing equipment, as the  X -Commission pointed out in the E911 First Report and Order and parties such as SBMS and the Wireless Coalition affirm in their comments and other submissions. Even if it were feasible, the public safety would be better served by ensuring that all 911 calls are passed through promptly to the PSAP regardless of whether the caller is a subscriber. Moreover, CTIA itself no longer appears to support this approach. In the Joint Letter that it signed and in its further  X6-comments, CTIA supports transmitting all calls to the PSAP, if the PSAP so chooses.r_6*c {O-ԍ See Joint Letter at 3; see also CTIA Further Comments at 23.r While we would not lightly dismiss proposals that present an effective way to screen 911 calls and better meet the wishes of PSAPs, we would also want to be assured that the end result would improve public safety for all users, not just subscribers.  X-x&39.ؠA requirement that covered carriers transmit all 911 calls also should be feasible for covered SMR services provided by carriers such as Nextel. The transmission of all calls should not require the major switch upgrades Nextel claims would be needed to implement code identification screening or PSAP choice. It should also not disadvantage any particular  Xg-technology. As we discuss below,p`gf *c {O~%-ԍ See discussion at paras.  P14F70 ש P1583 , infra.p this does not mean that 911 calls from handsets that have"g `0*&&qq" never been placed in service will be transmitted, but customers who purchase an SMR handset and service, but later discontinue service, will be able to dial 911 and reach a PSAP in an emergency.  X-x'40.ؠ We deny Nextel's request to delay further the implementation deadline for Section 20.18(b) requirements to transmit 911 calls to PSAPs. Many carriers already transmit all 911  Xv-calls to PSAPs.wa\v*c {O-ԍ See E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18695 (para. 37) (GTE routes 911 calls to a PSAP  {O-regardless of whether the handset is service initialized); see also Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filing at 2 (July 10, 1997) (noting that many wireless carriers choose to pass all calls to the PSAP).w Moreover, in response to questions from Commission staff, wireless carriers  X_-generally agreed that no delay is necessary for the 911 availability requirements.b_*c {O -ԍ See, e.g., GTE Ex Parte Filing (July 7, 1997); Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filing (July 10, 1997); SBMS Additional Comments at 8. We thus find no need or justification for a further delay in the basic 911 implementation deadline. In the case of some SMR technologies, we note that the carrier does not recognize the handset until it has been programmed with a code at the time service is started. For these technologies, we clarify that we consider handsets that have not been placed in service to be incompatible with the carrier's air interface protocol " such handsets thus are not subject to 911 requirements until they are programmed with a code. Otherwise the same obligations would apply. Thus, if the carrier has the ability to recognize a 911 call, the carrier is obligated to forward the call to the designated PSAP. For example, in the case of these SMR technologies, if a handset is placed in service and programmed with a code, the carrier would be obligated to transfer 911 calls from the handset even if it is no longer subscribed for service.  X4-x(41.ؠWe also clarify, in response to a request by TIA, that we do not bar validation procedures that provide information to the PSAP, such as database lookups to associate a telephone directory number with a particular handset code identification, provided these  X-procedures do not prevent or delay call completion.ncF*c {O-#C\  P6QɓP#э See TIA Petition at 79.n In addition, because the definitions of ``code identification'' and ``mobile identification number'' are no longer relevant, we are deleting them from our rules. This action moots concerns raised by TIA about these  X-definitions.kd*c {O3!-ԍ#C\  P6QɓP# See id. at 45.k Further, we clarify that switch functions that do not block or delay any 911 calls are not considered to be validation functions for purposes of 911 and E911  X|-implementation.Qe|j *c {O$-ԍ See SBMS Additional Comments at 2.Q  Xe- "e e0*&&qq"Ԍ X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:63.ؠ The Coalition, in requesting an extension of the October 1, 1997 deadline, also pledged that the wireless industry would provide periodic status updates on progress in TTY  X -compatibility.k *c {Or-ԍ Wireless E911 Coalition Ex Parte Filing at 5 (June 4, 1997).k In addition, the TTY Consensus Agreement proposes to submit a status  X -report on the progress of the TTY Forum every four months.H ~*c yO-ԍ TTY Consensus Agreement at 12.H T o monitor the progress of these efforts and help encourage and ensure progress, we will require that the progress reports be made as a condition for the suspension of enforcement of the TTY requirement for wireless digital systems. These progress reports should be filed by the parties to the TTY Consensus Agreement in this docket at least quarterly, within 10 days after the end of the quarter beginning January 1, 1998, until the quarter ending September 30, 1998. For the first quarter, JanuaryMarch, 1998, this progress report should be filed no later than April 10, 1998.  X- x?64.ؠ The quarterly status report should include, but not be limited to, information regarding the problems associated with TTY access through digital wireless systems, proposed  X-technical solutions, and steps taken to achieve the proposed technical solutions.2*c {O-ԍ Id.2 In addition, as part of the quarterly status report, the parties to the TTY Consensus Agreement will be required to report generally on the steps taken to notify current and potential subscribers that  X|-TTYs cannot be used to call 911 over digital wireless systems.n|*c {O#-ԍ See discussion at paras.  T160 ש YA61 , supra.n Such information should be sufficiently detailed to allow the Commission to assess whether sufficient progress is being made. Based on these quarterly status reports, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,"N 2 0*&&qq" under delegated authority, may extend the suspension of enforcement of Section 20.18(c) for an additional three months, until January 1, 1999, if necessary. We note that the disability community has agreed to support the efforts of the TTY Forum by providing representatives  X-with appropriate technical expertise to the Working Group.8*c {O4-ԍ Id. at 2.8 We strongly urge the industry to include the disability community in the process of making E911 compatible with TTY for digital service.  X_-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:*c yOb-ԍ AMTA Petition at 89.>  X-xG72.ؠ On December 16, 1996, AMTA filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling concerning  X-the definition of ``covered SMR'' in this and three other Commission proceedings. X*c yO-ԍ AMTA Petition for Declaratory Ruling, In the Matter of Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, CC Docket No. 9454; Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94102, RM1843; Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95116, RM8535; Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, ET Docket No. 9362, filed Dec. 16, 1996.  In its Petition, AMTA proposes a revised definition of ``covered SMRs'' in this proceeding as ``geographic area SMR services in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands (included in Part 90, Subpart S of this chapter) that offer realtime, twoway interconnected voice service using multiple base stations and an intelligent innetwork switching facility that permits automatic, seamless interconnected call handoff among base stations, and Incumbent Wide Area SMR  X -licensees.''B *c {O-ԍ Id., Exhibit.B  X -xH73.ؠ In an ex parte filing dated April 14, 1997, Geotek proposes an alternative for  X -SMR licensees operating in a group dispatchstyle configuration.V *c {O"-ԍ Geotek Ex Parte Filing (Apr. 14, 1997).V Geotek claims that application of the E911 rules to SMR carriers providing traditional dispatch services to the  X -regulatory requirements adopted in the E911 First Report and Order, with interconnection as an ancillary feature, may be counterproductive and lead to results adverse to the  X}-Commission's intentions.8}, *c {OZ-ԍ Id.8 Under Geotek's proposed alternative rule, a covered carrier offering dispatchstyle services must notify its customers that vehicles with interconnected service within the customer's fleet may not have capability to reach an appropriate PSAP by dialing 911. The covered carrier would be required to specify in its notice to customers that it is the responsibility of the customer, presumably through its dispatcher, to process requests for emergency assistance from vehicles within the fleet, as well as to make the vehicle operators aware on a regular basis of the need to contact the dispatcher rather than dial 911. Further, Geotek proposes that covered carriers provide the customer with labels to be affixed to the vehicle radios that instruct the operators to contact their dispatcher directly in an  X-emergency.Q *c {O%-ԍ Id., Attachment.Q Nextel, in an ex parte filing dated June 4, 1997, supports Geotek's claim that"%P 0*&&qqp" the Commission should allow fleet dispatch users to rely on their dispatcher for emergency  X-situations.*c {Ob-ԍ Nextel Ex Parte Filing at 2 (June 4, 1997). Nextel claims that it provides the following four distinct service offerings, each with varying degrees of interconnection, and therefore varying degrees of E911 capabilities: (1) analog dispatchonly services; (2) analog dispatch services with limited ancillary interconnection capability; (3) dispatchonly digital iDEN service; and (4) fully integrated digital cellular, dispatch, shortmessaging iDEN services.   X-xI74.ؠ In their ex parte filings, Geotek and Nextel argue that a dispatcher remains the natural point of contact in an emergency in traditional dispatchstyle operations with limited interconnection capability, because the dispatcher has far better information regarding a mobile unit's exact location and is in almost constant contact with the fleet. Geotek and Nextel also note that in a dispatch system that provides interconnection, it is not guaranteed that a customer's 911 call would be connected to the nearest or most appropriate PSAP given  X3-the locational limitations of the single base station.3z*c {O^-ԍ Geotek Ex Parte Filing at 3 (Apr. 14, 1997); Nextel Ex Parte Filing at 4 (June 4, 1997) They argue that even if an interconnected customer can reach the PSAP by calling 911, the call may not be routed to the nearest or most appropriate PSAP because traditional dispatch operations typically use a single  X -high power cell site that may cover a radius of as much as 25 miles.F *c {O-ԍ Nextel Ex Parte Filing at 4 (June 4, 1997). Nextel, for example, claims that an analog user travelling through Washington, D.C., might be operating on a base station located in Baltimore, Maryland. If the user were to dial 911, the call would be routed to a PSAP in Baltimore, approximately 40 miles away from the  {O-caller's location and the appropriate PSAP in the District. See also Geotek Ex Parte Filing at 3 (Apr. 14, 1997). Geotek also claims that licensees providing traditional dispatch operations typically operate cells with radii as  {O-large as 25 miles, i.e., areas close to 2,000 square miles. Within such an area, there may be numerous PSAPs. In addition, in some locations, such as the Philadelphia area, the area served by a single cell site might include a multiplicity of jurisdictions, including several across state borders. Thus, they contend that, while it may be ``possible'' to provide PSAPs with the system's base station location,  X -such information is of no practical value to determining the caller's location.IZ *c {O-ԍ Nextel Ex Parte Filing at 4 (June 4, 1997). Nextel also argues that because the individual user has no specific telephone number assigned to it, the Phase I requirement to transmit a call back number cannot be accomplished since there is no phone number for the PSAPs to call back.I  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:Z*c {O-ԍ Id. (para. 81).> We determined that a distinction was warranted between SMR providers that will compete directly with cellular and PCS providers, and SMR providers that offer mainly dispatch services in a localized noncellular system configuration. We therefore adopted the ``covered SMR'' definition in an attempt to exclude the latter  Xv-category of SMR providers from our E911 requirements.pp  XH-xK76. On reconsideration, we agree with petitioners that the ``covered SMR'' definition  X1-adopted in the E911 First Report and Order is overinclusive with respect to certain types of SMR systems. In addition, we conclude that the concept of applying E911 requirements only to certain categories of ``covered'' carriers should be extended to cellular and broadband PCS. The current rule requires all geographic area or widearea SMR licensees to comply with the E911 requirements if they provide twoway real time interconnected voice service. As petitioners point out, however, this brings within the ``covered SMR'' definition any SMR provider with a geographic or widearea license that provides any form of interconnected twoway voice service. Thus, SMR providers that primarily offer traditional dispatch services but also offer limited interconnection capability are potentially subject to E911 requirements under the current rules. We believe that this is inconsistent with our determination that only SMR providers who compete directly with cellular and PCS should be subject to E911 requirements. x  X-xL77. We also note that traditional dispatch providers with limited interconnection  X-capabilities, such as those described by Geotek in its ex parte filing, would have to overcome significant and potentially costly obstacles to provide 911 access. First, ``noncellular'' dispatch systems typically have a limited number of interconnected lines and do not necessarily have the capability to accommodate PSAP routing. Further, interconnected SMR users or dispatch systems are often not assigned individual telephone numbers and must share phone lines with other customers, creating the risk of getting a busy signal on an interconnected call, including a 911 call. Even if the call reaches the PSAP via 911, selective routing to the appropriate PSAP is complicated by the fact that most dispatchoriented systems use single, highpower sites, so that routing a 911 call to the system's base station may not  X$-guarantee connection to the nearest or most appropriate PSAP.F$*c {O"-ԍ Id. at 18680 (para. 7).F  X - x` `  hh  X-xM78. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the ``covered SMR'' definition should be narrowed to include only those systems that will directly compete with cellular and"'~0*&&qq" PCS in providing comparable public mobile interconnected service. We agree, as several petitioners suggest, that the best indicator of an SMR provider's ability to compete with cellular and broadband PCS providers in this respect is whether the provider's system has ``innetwork'' switching capability. This switching capability allows an SMR provider to hand off calls seamlessly without manual subscriber intervention. Innetwork switching facilities also accommodate the reuse of frequencies in different portions of the same service area. Frequency reuse enables the SMR provider to offer interconnected service to a larger group of customers, which enables the provider to compete directly with cellular and PCS. We therefore adopt these criteria as the basis for our definition of ``covered'' service.  X -xN79. In adopting this definition of ``covered'' service, we note that some ``covered'' SMR providers that utilize innetwork switching and provide seamless handoff may also provide their customers with dispatch capability. We agree with Geotek and Nextel that in such instances, customers' emergency needs may be as well served by the dispatcher as by providing 911 dialing access. We therefore conclude that ``covered'' SMR systems that offer dispatch services to customers may meet their E911 obligations to their dispatch customers either by providing customers with direct capability for E911 purposes, or alternatively, by routing dispatch customer emergency calls through a dispatcher.  XK-xO80. A covered carrier who chooses the latter alternative for its dispatch customers must make every reasonable effort to explicitly notify current and potential dispatch customers and their users that they will not be able to directly reach a PSAP by calling 911 and that, in the event of an emergency, the dispatcher should be contacted. This notification could be accomplished, for example, with an insert in billing statements, newsletters, notification stickers on handsets, disclosure in service agreements, user manuals, or other means designed to inform current and potential subscribers of the inability to directly call 911 with SMR systems that offer dispatch services.  X|-xP81. We also conclude that cellular and broadband PCS should be treated consistently with SMR providers to the extent they do not provide innetwork switched mobile telephone services. The likelihood that some providers may seek to provide other services over cellular or broadband PCS spectrum is heightened by our recent rule changes which allow the  X -partitioning and disaggregation of spectrum. *c yO-ԍ Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 96148, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21831 (1996). We believe that all broadband Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) licensees providing primarily dispatch service should be excluded from the E911 requirements regardless of whether SMR, PCS, or cellular spectrum is used. Therefore, we extend our modified ``covered SMR'' definition to these other services also. We believe that this revised definition of the class of carriers covered by our rules also will better match expectations of consumers who use services of these carriers as to whether they will have access to 911 and E911 services. In addition, ``covered carriers'' that""( 0*&&qq!" offer dispatch services to their customers may meet their E911 obligations by providing access through a dispatcher, provided they comply with the notification requirement described above.  X-xQ82. We agree with Nextel's assertion in its petition that the definition of ``covered'' services for E911 purposes should be applied on a systembysystem basis. Therefore, we clarify that where a licensee provides ``covered'' interconnected services on one system while providing traditional dispatch services on another system, only the ``covered'' system is required to provide E911 services.  X -xR83.P15 Finally, we reject AMTA's alternative proposal that the ``covered'' service definition apply only to systems serving 20,000 or more subscribers nationwide. We seek to develop a definition that covers cellular, broadband PCS, and SMR providers based on the functional nature of the service they provide. A definition based solely on the size of a system without regard for the type of services provided would be arbitrary and incompatible with our policy objectives.  Xy-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:*c yO= -ԍ PCIA Petition at 67.>  Xv-x^95.ؠ Later ex parte presentations and additional comments in response to the July 16 Public Notice reiterate the arguments that reliable call back number can not be provided  XJ-unless a 911 caller is a validated subscriber, i.e., a current subscriber of the serving carrier or  X5-a roamer with a roaming agreement with the serving carrier.5x*c {O^-ԍ See, e.g., Coalition Ex Parte Filing at 1 (July 10, 1997); GTE Ex Parte Filing (July 7, 1997); AirTouch Additional Comments at 67; AT&T Additional Comments at 2. On the other hand, Alliance in  X -its July 11 ex parte filing contends that any handset can be called back by a PSAP by use of a ``valid'' MIN or a ``pseudoMIN'' assigned to the calling handset by the cell switch at the  X -time the 911 call is received.] *c {Ou-ԍ Alliance Ex Parte Filing at 2 (July 11, 1997).] Many parties in their additional comments filed in response to the July 16 Public Notice, however, dispute Alliance's claim that the use of a ``pseudo X -MIN'' is a feasible solution to the call back requirement.$ d *c {O-ԍ See, e.g., AirTouch Additional Comments at 67; AT&T Additional Comments at 12; BANM Additional Comments at 56; CTIA Additional Comments at 67; NENA Additional Comments at 45; SBMS Additional  {Ok-Comments at 3; 360o Communications Additional Comments at 2; see also Coalition Ex Parte Filing (Aug. 8, 1997).  X-x_96.ؠ In the September 25, 1997, Joint Letter, the parties contend that once number portability is implemented, a MIN will not serve as a unique identifier, and this will thwart  Xh-the ability of carriers to provide call back capability.;hP *c yOi-ԍ Joint Letter at 2.; In addition to their proposals to modify Section 20.18(b) of the Commission's Rules, the parties to the Joint Letter urge the Commission to refrain from making any decisions regarding certain call back capabilities, the strongest signal issue, and the use of temporary call back numbers until the relevant parties  X -develop consensus positions.8 *c {O$-ԍ Id. at 4.8 While supporting a commitment by interested parties to continue to discuss technical issues, however, Congresswoman Eshoo and Alliance oppose the"/r0*&&qq'" Joint Letter's suggestion that the Commission should wait for these developments to occur  X-prior to resolving issues under reconsideration.*c {Ob-ԍ Congresswoman Eshoo Ex Parte Letter (Sept. 29, 1997); Alliance Ex Parte Letter (Sept. 30, 1997) at 2. Alliance also claims that a caller using a GSM handset can be called back even if service has never been initialized. In response to the claim made in the Joint Letter that the ability of carriers to provide call back numbers will be  X-thwarted once number portability is implemented,;Z*c yO-ԍ Joint Letter at 3.; Alliance argues that call back can be  X-easily accomplished in the number portability situation as well by assigning a pseudoANI.`*c {O( -ԍ Alliance Ex Parte Letter (Sept. 30, 1997) at 12.`  X_-x`97.ؠ Further comments filed in response to the October 3 Public Notice generally  XH-dispute Alliance's contentions regarding the call back capability and the use of pseudoANI.H|*c {Ou-ԍ See, e.g., AirTouch Further Comments at 4; CTIA Further Comments at 5; GTE Further Comments at 34; PCIA Further Comments at 23; Sprint PCS Further Comments at 2. Particularly, in response to Alliance's claim that call back is possible for uninitialized GSM handsets, some parties contend that the record clearly demonstrates that no technology,  X -including GSM, can provide call back if service has not been initialized. *c {O-ԍ See, e.g., AirTouch Further Comments at 23; CTIA Further Comments at 5; GTE Further Comments at 34; PCIA Further Comments at 56. CTIA also claims  X -that ``call back will be possible only upon successful validation " i.e., a database query must be conducted to retrieve a dialable number,'' particularly once number portability is  X -implemented.w 0 *c {O-ԍ CTIA Further Comments at 56; see also Sprint PCS Further Comments at 2.w In addition, Sprint PCS contends that Alliance misconstrues the meaning of the term ``pseudoANI,'' arguing that within the Sprint PCS CDMA system, a ``pseudoANI'' is a number assigned to a particular sector of a tower face that permits the system to identify  X{-the approximate location of the caller.J{ *c yO-ԍ Sprint PCS Further Comments at 2.J Sprint PCS thus argues that the existence of a pseudoANI does not mean the existence of call back capability because pseudoANI is not  XM-associated with a specific handset.2MR *c {OP -ԍ Id.2 In their Joint Reply Comments, however, public safety community representatives argue that the issues related to the call back capability should  X-remain open for discussion with Alliance and other interested parties.C*c yO#-ԍ Joint Reply Comments at 1.C  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:N~*c yO}"-ԍ 47 C.F.R.  20.03.> with the understanding that carriers could transmit cell site location information through the use of pseudoANI. Upon reviewing the record, we agree with TIA that pseudoANI may not be" 20*&&qq"  X-useful to convey location information in certain circumstances.G*c {Oy-ԍ See TIA Petition at 67.G A ``pseudoANI'' mimics a telephone number, but is used to convey additional information to a PSAP or for other purposes. As TIA and CTIA discuss, the current definition may impair the flexibility of carriers to deliver the called number and the base station or cell site location information in ways that accommodate the capabilities of some wireline switches, and implies a particular  X-implementation that may not be desirable for many wireless carriers.KZ*c {O-ԍ Id.; CTIA Petition at 1415.K  X_-xe102.ؠ Accordingly, we adopt the revised, implementation neutral definition of ``pseudoANI,'' as TIA and CTIA propose, by modifying the Section 20.03 definition of ``pseudoANI'' to mean a number, consisting of the same number of digits as ANI, that is not a North American Numbering Plan telephone directory number and may be used in place of an ANI to convey a special meaning. The specific meaning assigned to the pseudoANI is determined by agreements, as necessary, between the telephone system originating the call, intermediate telephone systems handling and routing the call, and the destination telephone  X -system.] *c {O[-ԍ See TIA Petition at 7; CTIA Petition at 1415.]  X-xf103.ؠ This definition permits the specific meaning of the ``pseudoANI'' to be determined by agreements among the telephone systems involved in completing the calls. With respect to Alliance's request that the Commission not leave any issues to industry  XK-agreement which may delay the implementation of E911,|K~*c {Oz-ԍ Alliance Opposition at 10; See also CTIA Petition at 15; Motorola Reply at 5.| we do not believe that this modification of the Section 20.03 definition will delay Phase I implementation, because it only gives covered carriers flexibility in implementing Phase I. The change in the definition has no effect on the obligation to provide cell site or base station location information or on the Phase I implementation schedule.  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:y *c yO6#-ԍ SBMS Petition at 68.> Because the present record is insufficient to evaluate Alliance's proposed solution, however, we ask signatories to the Consensus Agreement and other interested parties to include a status report on this issue as part of their"K60*&&qqg"  X-scheduled annual reports to us.J*c {Oy-ԍ We note that the text of the E911 First Report and Order indicates that the annual report of the signatories to the Consensus Agreement, PCIA, and Alliance must be filed not later than 30 days following the  {O -end of each annual period after the effective date of the E911 First Report and Order (i.e., October 31). See,  {O-e.g., E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18742 (para. 132). The ordering clause in the E911 First  {O-Report and Order, however, requires these parties to file joint annual reports within 30 days after the end of each  {Oi-calendar year (i.e., January 30). E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18752 (para. 162). We wish to take this opportunity to clarify that we will consider annual reports filed within 30 days after the end of the calendar year to be timely filed. We will revisit this issue when we resolve remaining issues in later stages of this proceeding.  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:7*c {O -ԍ See, e.g., SnapTrack Ex Parte Filing (June 26, 1997); Tendler Cellular Ex Parte Filing (Oct. 14, 1997) ; Motorola Ex Parte Filing (Sept. 26, 1997); Zoltar Further Reply Comments. To clarify our policies, we wish to reaffirm that our rules and their application are intended to be technologically and competitively neutral. We do not intend that the implementation deadline, the accuracy standard, or other rules should hamper the development and deployment of the best and most efficient ALI technologies and systems. Manufacturers and other interested parties who believe that our rules could be applied in a way that might unreasonably hamper the deployment of effective ALI solutions may raise this issue in the ongoing rulemaking or by requests for waivers. We do not expect to delay the 2001 deadline, but would consider proposals to phase in implementation, especially to the extent a proposal also helps achieve  Xh-the further improvements in ALI capabilities we discussed in the E911 Further NPRM.E?hF*c yO_-ԍ We note that Zoltar in its Further Reply Comments requests the Commission to modify the Phase II requirements to be applicable only to new wireless phones. Because this issue was not put out for further comments and thus no parties had an opportunity to response to Zoltar's proposal, however, we decide to treat  {O-Zoltar's pleading on this issue as an ex parte request. We may consider reopening the record on this issue upon  {O-a formal request. See Zoltar Further Reply Comments at 34.E  X<-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:F0*&&qq"Ԍ X-x~127.ؠ Other commenters urge that carriers be allowed to provide location information  X-using data other than longitude and latitude.G*c {Ob-ԍ See Ameritech Petition at 7; TIA Petition at 1719; KSI Opposition at 79; Motorola Reply at 79. TIA urges the Commission to eliminate the longitude and latitude requirements and replace them with their equivalent such as UTM coordinates, contending that UTM coordinates do not have the disadvantages of longitude  X-coordinates, which get closer together as the latitude moves away from the equator.?HZ*c yO-ԍ TIA Petition at 1719.? Ameritech also requests the Commission replace the phrase ``longitude and latitude'' in Section 20.18(e) with the phrase ``by longitude and latitude or equivalent, available and feasible technological measurement standards,'' arguing that longitude and latitude  XH-measurements may not be the most suitable for emergency telecommunications purposes.AIH*c yO -ԍ Ameritech Petition at 7.A Motorola also requests that the requirement be modified to require accuracy as ``within a 125 meter radius using measurement and compliance procedures as determined by industry  X -standards group.''=J z*c yO.-ԍ Motorola Reply at 7.= On the other hand, KSI argues that the Commission correctly specified accuracy in terms of longitude and latitude, which has advantages of establishing the basis for common interface and systemapplication designs as well as providing cost effective  X -management of the system in the PSAPs.?K *c yOy-ԍ KSI Opposition at 79.?  X-x128.ؠ We believe that it is not in the public interest to revise our rules at this time. While we recognize the intention of Ameritech and TIA to provide flexible ways to comply with our rules, we believe that revision of the accuracy standard could in fact cause more confusion and delay in the deployment of the ALI systems, particularly for PSAPs that need to upgrade their systems to utilize the ALI data. The comments also do not provide a clear basis for concluding that other methods are superior. It is not apparent, for example, that UTM coordinates are preferable in practice because longitude coordinates are closer together away from the Equator. Latitude and longitude are the most universally known method for unambiguously identifying location. PSAPs, of course, can also translate this information into any other format they find useful.  X-x129.ؠ The successful trial results in New Jersey convince us that the longitude and latitude measurement standard provides reliable location information relating to 911 callers in  Xe-emergency situations without significant delay.cLe*c {O$-ԍ See New Jersey Ex Parte Filing (May 21, 1997).c Moreover, we agree with KSI that the use of the latitudelongitude format, a common standard format for location information, will"N?, L0*&&qq" allow the PSAP facilities to provide for the costeffective management of E911 data. Considering the fact that the record in this proceeding supported the longitude and latitude measurement as a reasonable solution for the emergency situations, and in view of recent developments and actual testing results, we find that there is no need to modify our decision at this time and we thus deny the portion of the Ameritech and TIA petitions that request revision of our ALI accuracy standards. Similarly, we find that Motorola's proposal to allow industry standardssetting groups to determine measurement and compliance procedures could cause unnecessary delay in deployment of the ALI features. To the extent that industry standardssetting groups develop solutions to ALI problems that would improve performance, we will consider appropriate changes to the wireless E911 rules. XxX` ` (#`  X -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:V d *c yO-ԍ AT&T Petition at 78.>  Xy-x133.ؠ In its petition, Ameritech requests that the Commission provide covered carriers with a limitation of liability, or alternatively, establish Federal guidelines for liability limitations and encourage public safety planning groups to work with the states to adopt such  X4-limitations.`W4 *c yO-ԍ Ameritech Petition at 1415. Ameritech also argues that many states do not have specific laws limiting the liability of entities involved in the provision of 911 services. It notes that where states have adopted liability protection, it usually applies to the governmental or public safety employees, not to the telephone company, and if the telephone company is mentioned, it is likely that the law applies to wireline telephone companies and not  yO!-to the wireless carriers. Ameritech Reply at 56, citing Fla. Stat. ch. 365.171(14) (1995).` In addition, Ameritech asserts that the Commission could make the 911 service deployment obligation contingent upon public safety organizations indemnifying carriers for negligence and other unintended errors, as suggested by US West's Comment on the"AW0*&&qq "  X-Consensus Agreement in this proceeding.xX*c yOy-ԍ Ameritech Petition at 14, citing US West Comments on Consensus Agreement at 10.x AT&T argues that wireless carriers should be subject to the same ``gross and wanton negligence'' standard applied to wireline carriers by many states, asserting that the Commission's concern about displacing state authority in this  X-context is misplaced.>YX*c yO-ԍ AT&T Petition at 78.> Alternatively, AT&T requests that the Commission require states to treat wireless carriers the same as wireline carriers with respect to liability, contending that such parity is consistent with the statutory goal of according similar regulatory treatment to  Xv-providers of functionally equivalent services.8Zv*c {O -ԍ Id. at 7.8  XH-x134.ؠ SBMS proposes that the Commission impose a liability limitation for providing 911 services and mandate that anyone using the carrier's network who does not have a contractual relationship with a carrier is subject to the carrier's standard terms and  X -conditions.?[ z*c yO.-ԍ SBMS Petition at 811.? In addition, SBMS requests that the Commission determine that a carrier's inability to complete a call or provide the information required by this proceeding shall not be  X -evidence of negligence.9\ *c {O-ԍ Id. at 11.9 BellSouth also argues that carriers cannot control the accuracy of information generated from nonservice initialized handsets, and thus should not be liable for  X -inaccurate information provided to PSAPs with regard to such handsets.A] *c yO-ԍ BellSouth Petition at 9.A  Xy-  x135.ؠ On the other hand, Joint Commenters and TXACSEC oppose the petitions  Xb-seeking reconsideration of our decision not to provide Federal protection from liability.l^b, *c yO?-ԍ Joint Commenters Opposition at 3; TXACSEC Opposition at 46.l They reason that, because existing state laws developed over the years for wireline 911 operations provide substantial protection against the privacy and ordinary negligence claims of most callers, and because state legislatures are to clarify that the same limitation of liability clause would apply to all service providers, it is not necessary for the Commission to preempt  X-state tort law to achieve its goal at this time.2_ *c {O\"-ԍ Id.2 TXACSEC, for example, states that a Texas state district court has held that wireless carriers are covered by the same broad statutory  X-limitation of liability protection as those afforded wireline carriers under Texas law.B`N *c yO%-ԍ TXACSEC Opposition at 4.B In"B`0*&&qq" addition, Joint Commenters argue that state tort laws on wireless carrier liability would be among those powers reserved to nonFederal authorities by Section 332(c)(3) of the  X-Communications Act.Ja*c yOK-ԍ Joint Commenters Opposition at 3.J They also object to Ameritech's and US West's suggestion that  X-public safety organizations indemnify carriers.ObX*c {O-ԍ Id.; TXACSEC Opposition at 46.O  X-x136.ؠ In the September 25, 1997 Joint Letter, the parties request that the Commission defer any decisions regarding carrier liability until the interested parties develop consensus  X_-positions.;c_*c yO -ԍ Joint Letter at 4.; While supporting industry's commitment to continue negotiations with other interested parties, Congresswoman Eshoo urges the Commission not to delay resolution of  X1-issues under reconsideration.Vd1z*c {O\-ԍ Eshoo Ex Parte Letter (Sept. 29, 1997).V Parties filing further comments and reply comments generally support the proposal contained in the Joint Letter to defer any decision regarding the carrier  X -liability issue.e *c {O-ԍ See, e.g., AirTouch Further Comments at 12; BellSouth Further Comments at 3; CTIA Further Comments at 67; Joint Reply Comments at 1. AT&T, however, contends that prompt resolution of the liability issue is  X -critical.Cf f *c yO-ԍ AT&T Further Comment at 3.C To the extent the Commission is concerned about preempting state tort law, AT&T proposes that the Commission ``could issue a temporary default rule that would apply only  X -where states have not resolved the issue.''2g *c {Oe-ԍ Id.2 Nextel in its further comments also reiterates that the Commission should adopt a provision in this proceeding that would protect carriers from liability and that would preempt state laws to the extent they are inconsistent with the  Xy-Commission's rules.Fhy *c yO-ԍ Nextel Further Comments at 9.F  XK- x137.ؠ None of the petitioners, however, presents arguments sufficient to persuade us to modify our determination that it is unnecessary to exempt providers of E911 service from  X-liability for certain negligent acts and to preempt state tort law. As we noted in the E911  X-First Report and Order, states have particular interests in telecommunications and public  X-safety matters, including operation of 911 emergency services.ki*c {O$-ԍ E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18727 (para. 99).k Although the Commission may preempt state regulation when preemption is necessary to protect a valid Federal"Ci0*&&qq&"  X-regulatory objective,(j*c {Oy-ԍ E911 Notice, 9 FCC Rcd at 6181 (para. 59); E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18729 (para. 104), citing Louisiana Public Service Comm'n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986); Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. FCC, 833 F.2d 104 (D.C. Cir. 1989); California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Texas Public Utility Comm'n v.  {O-FCC, 886 F.2d 1325 (D.C. Cir. 1989); North Carolina Utilities Comm'n v. FCC, 522 F.2d 1036 (4th Cir.), cert.  {O-denied, 434 U.S. 874 (1977).( we believe it is premature and speculative for the Commission to establish a national standard of liability protection in order to achieve rapid deployment of wireless E911 systems. As the Commission determined in the Order, ``displacing the jurisdiction of state courts over tort suits for negligence in installation, performance, provision, or maintenance of E911 systems is not necessary to the inauguration of E911  X-service.''lk~*c {O -ԍ E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18728 (para. 100).l Petitioners fail to persuade us that our decision to examine the need for specific preemption in the future on a casebycase basis was wrong.  XH-x138.ؠ Petitioners' claims that the limitation of liability is necessary are not convincing,  X1-particularly considering the fact that major carriers are already transmitting all 911 calls and no evidence of liability problems is presented in the record of our reconsideration proceeding. Contrary to petitioners' speculative claim that current state laws are not ``likely'' to provide wireless carriers with adequate protection against liability, the record indicates that state  X -legislative bodies and state courts are developing their own solutions to liability issues.l *c yO-ԍ For example, the Alaska statute states that except for intentional acts of misconduct or gross negligence, a service supplier, local exchange telephone company, or mobile telephone company, including a cellular service company, and their employees and agents, are immune from tort liability that might be incurred in the course of installing, training, maintaining, or providing enhanced 911 systems or transmitting or receiving calls on the  {O-system. Alaska Stat.  29.35.133; see also XYPOINT Ex Parte Filing, ``Master Chart of State E911 Laws''  yO-(Mar. 27, 1997) #Tps7##X\  P6G;ɓP#.  While we recognize that not all states currently provide specific statutory limitation of liability protection for wireless carriers, we believe that state courts and state legislatures are the  X-proper forums in which to raise this issue, not the Commission.FmZ *c yO-ԍ Based on XYPOINT's survey of state 911 legislation, Ameritech and Omnipoint argue that many states  {O-still do not have specific laws limiting the liability of entities involved in the provision of 911 services. See Ameritech Reply at 6; Omnipoint Reply at 34. F For similar reasons, we deny AT&T's proposal that the Commission should ensure that wireless carriers are subject to the same ``gross and wanton negligence'' standard applied to wireline carriers by many  XK-states.9nK*c yO"-ԍ AT&T Reply at 7.9 In addition, as TXACSEC's opposition proves, certain states are trying to revise"KD<n0*&&qq+" their tort laws to provide the same limitation of liability to both wireline and wireless  X-services.Fo*c yOb-ԍ TXACSEC Opposition at 46. F  X-x139.ؠWe also disagree with AT&T that a single uniform national standard of liability is required to achieve the goals of the Communications Act and that the Commission should  X-preempt state tort law under Section 332(c) of the Act.<pX*c yO-ԍ AT&T Petition at 8.< While we recognize covered carriers' concern over potential exposure to liability in the provision of 911 services, we do not believe that the lack of a single national standard of liability should cause delay in implementation of effective wireless 911 services. Wireless carriers already transmit 911 calls without Federal preemption of state liability laws. Moreover, we do not believe that state tort laws dealing with 911 services should be considered as prohibited ``rate and entry regulation of CMRS'' under Section 332(c), at least without casebycase evaluation. We find meritless AT&T's argument that the absence of protection against liability could have an unintended consequence of discouraging E911 deployment where PSAPs decline to hold carriers harmless, because covered carriers must deploy E911 services pursuant to our rules regardless of indemnification by the PSAPs.  Xy-x140.ؠ As an alternative to a Federally mandated limitation of liability, petitioners also argue that the Commission should ``require'' states to treat wireless carriers the same as wireline carriers with respect to liability or ``encourage'' the public safety community to work  X4-with states to develop the necessary framework for indemnification agreements.Yq4*c {O-ԍ See AT&T Reply at 8; Ameritech Reply at 7.Y Although we encourage the public safety community, wireless carriers, as well as state governments, to continue their efforts to develop mutually acceptable indemnification agreements, we affirm  X-our prior decision that it is premature or unnecessary to preempt state laws at this time.   We recognize, however, petitioners' claim that they cannot contractually insulate themselves from  X-liability when nonsubscribers use their systems.rz*c yO-ԍ SBMS Petition at 811; Omnipoint Petition at 6; BellSouth Petition at 9; AT&T Petition at 7; Ameritech Petition at 11. Because covered carriers are required to transmit 911 calls from all handsets regardless of subscription, we agree with SBMS that it would appear reasonable for a carrier to attempt to make the use of its network by a nonsub X|-scriber subject to the carrier's terms and conditions for liability.?s|*c yO"-ԍ SBMS Petition at 811.? We do not, however, seek to preempt any applicable state laws. "NEb s0*&&qq"Ԍ X-x141.ؠ We also do not adopt AT&T's proposal that we establish a temporary default  X-rule that would apply only where states have not resolved the issue.Dt*c yOb-ԍ AT&T Further Comments at 3.D This proposal was introduced very late in this proceeding in response to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's October 3 Public Notice, although the Notice did not seek additional comment on liability issues. No other party appears to have responded to this proposal. Despite AT&T's suggestion that its proposal relieves concerns about preemption of state tort law, it would appear that adoption of a default standard would in fact operate to preempt state law. If a default is to have any effect, it presumably must at least preclude state courts from applying state common law or precedent to wireless 911 liability issues. We find no adequate basis for imposing this sort of preemption upon the states. x  X -x142.ؠ With regard to AT&T's request that the Department of Justice's opinion regarding the application of the Wiretap Act be made available for review and comment, we  X -do not believe it is  necessary to seek comment. AT&T expresses its concern about carrier liability for disclosing calling party number, location, and other call related information to  X -emergency personnel under the Wiretap Act.<u X*c yO-ԍ AT&T Petition at 7.< After the petitions for reconsideration were  X-filed, the Commission received the Department of Justice's opinion.v*c {O)-ԍ See Memorandum Opinion for J. Keeney, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, attached to Public Notice, DA 962067. The Commission has already issued a Public Notice announcing the Department of Justice's opinion and the text of the opinion has been included in the docket for review. In a Memorandum Opinion, the Department of Justice concludes that the requirements of the Commission's rules relating to wireless E911 features and functions do not violate either the Wiretap Act, the Electronic  X-Communications Act,xwB*c yO-ԍ Section 2703 of the Electronic Communications Act of 1986, 18 U.S.C.  2703.x or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In particular, with respect to the interpretation of Section 1002(a) of the Wiretap Act, the Department of Justice concludes that the statutory provision, by its terms, does not prohibit a wireless carrier's transmission to local public safety organizations of information regarding the  X-physical location of a wireless 911 caller.Xx*c yOD -ԍ Department of Justice, Memorandum Opinion at 5.X  X-  X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:zZ*c {O-ԍ Id. (para. 90).>  Xv-x 144.ؠ A number of petitioners argue that the Commission should require a Federal cost recovery mechanism or guidance to prevent discrimination against wireless carriers, or  XH-guarantee that the carriers will be paid.{H*c yO -ԍ Ameritech Petition at 1617; AT&T Petition at 24; PrimeCo Petition at 7; PCIA Petition at 1315; Omnipoint Petition at 1920. On the other hand, public safety organizations and state governments urge denial of these petitions, contending that the Commission properly  X -rejected establishing a Federal cost recovery mechanism.| D*c yO-ԍ Alliance Opposition at 78; Chicago Opposition at 23; Joint Commenters Opposition 57; TXACSEC Opposition at 79. In particular, Joint Commenters contend that petitioners reiterate arguments the Commission has already considered and denied  X -in the Order.L} *c yO9-ԍ Joint Commenters Opposition at 56.L They also argue that petitioners have given the Commission no reason to change our decision favoring state and local initiatives for costeffective and creative solutions  X -to funding of wireless compatibility improvements.2~ , *c {O-ԍ Id.2  X-   x145.ؠ We reaffirm our decision and deny petitions to establish a Federal cost recovery  Xy-mechanism for the reasons stated in the E911 First Report and Order. We continue to find no adequate basis on this record for preemption of the various state and local funding mechanisms that are in place or under development, or for concluding that state and local cost recovery mechanisms will be discriminatory or inadequate.  X- x146.ؠ Although some parties argue that the Commission should clarify who would be eligible to recover their costs in implementing E911 systems, we leave these issues to the state and local entities. We agree with the Joint Commenters that, absent failures of local agreement on funding mechanisms for the necessary compatibility upgrades by PSAPs, wireless and wireline carriers, and radiolocation and equipment vendors, national prescriptions are not warranted. "~G ~0*&&qqP"Ԍ X-X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:-ԍ See para.  P20HG20 , supra.X Although the  X-decision of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau in the Stay Order was an appropriate  X-step in this case in light of the continuing pendency of these issues at the time the Stay Order was issued, it also resulted in a continuation of the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the question of whether all users of wireless services provided by covered carriers could expect and rely upon the fact that their 911 calls would go through to emergency service providers. Now that we have resolved this issue by the action we take today, we can find no basis for any failure to end as quickly as possible this confusion and uncertainty regarding the obligations of covered carriers and the public safety expectations of the users of wireless services. x157.ؠ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the remaining rule amendments made by this Order and specified in Appendix B SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after the date of the publication of the rule amendments in the Federal Register.""JZ0*&&qq!"Ԍx158.ؠ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau is hereby delegated authority to grant an additional 3month suspension of enforcement of Section 20.18(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  20.18(c), until January 1, 1999, with respect to wireless carriers who use digital wireless systems, upon reviewing the joint quarterly status reports on TTY compatibility with digital systems filed by the signatories to the TTY Consensus Agreement. x159. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the signatories to the TTY Consensus Agreement SHALL FILE a joint quarterly status report regarding TTY compatibility with digital systems within 10 days after the end of each calendar quarter during the period beginning January 1, 1998 and ending September 30, 1998, with the first report due April 10, 1998, as set forth in the foregoing provisions of this Order. x160.ؠ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Request of an Extension of Time to File the Joint Status Report on TTY Issues, filed by the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association on October 1, 1997, IS GRANTED, and that the signatories to the Consensus Agreement, the Personal Communications Industry Association, and Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. must file a Joint Status Report on or before December 31, 1997. x161. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the information collections contained in the rule amendments set forth in Appendix B WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE following approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document at a later date establishing the effective date. x162.ؠIT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the Director of the Office of Public Affairs  X-shall send a copy of this Order, including the Supplementary Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in  X-accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  601 et seq. X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: