******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. In the Matter of ) ) Revision of the Commission's Rules) CC Docket No. 94-102 To Ensure Compatibility with ) RM-8143 Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems) Third Report and Order Adopted: September 15, 1999 Released: October 6, 1999 By the Commission: Commissioner Tristani issuing a statement. Table of Contents Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 III. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A. ALI Deployment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 1. Handset-Based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 2. Network-Based Solutions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 B. Accuracy and Reliability Standards . . . . . . . . . . 66 C. Technological and Competitive Neutrality. . . . . . . . 78 D. Compliance Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 E. Advance Carrier Reports of E911 Plans. . . . . . . . . 86 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 A. Regulatory Flexibility Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis . . . . . . . 91 C. Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 D. Further Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Appendix A - List of Parties Appendix B - Final Rules Appendix C - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I. Introduction 1. In this Order, the Commission takes another significant step towards enabling wireless callers to obtain emergency assistance more rapidly and efficiently by dialing 911. Wireless phones can be a vital, life-saving way to call for assistance in emergency situations. Indeed, the ability to reach 911 in an emergency is one of the most important reasons Americans give for purchasing wireless phones. But, unlike most wireline phones, which are connected to Enhanced 911 (E911) service that automatically reports the caller's location, when a 911 call is placed using a wireless handset, the dispatcher at the 911 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) does not know where the caller is. 2. The life-saving advantage of being able to know accurately and quickly the location of an emergency is obvious. Emergency police, fire, and medical teams cannot assist a person they cannot find. Less obviously, automatic location identification (ALI) also allows PSAPs and emergency response teams to operate more efficiently. Wireless calls may be received by the carrier at an antenna some distance away from where the call is actually placed, because of the vagaries of radio transmission, terrain, or network congestion. ALI can be applied to route these calls immediately to the proper PSAP, normally that nearest the scene. ALI also allows PSAPs to handle wireless calls more quickly and efficiently, because the dispatcher need not question the caller about his or her location. Finally, ALI can help PSAPs deal with sudden bursts of calls, which often occur after incidents such as highway accidents. Knowing the location of the incoming calls, the PSAP can better distinguish redundant calls about a particular accident from calls concerning a different emergency. 3. Wireless subscribership continues to grow rapidly. From year end 1996 to year end 1998, the number of wireless subscribers grew from 44 million to 67 million, an increase of 52 percent. During that same period, wireless 911 calls grew even more rapidly, from 1.805 million per year (59,180 per day) in 1996 to 2.943 million (98,097 per day) in 1998, an increase of 63 percent. The growing use of wireless phones to make 911 calls clearly represents an important advance in public safety. However, the growing number of wireless 911 calls exacerbates the limitations of wireless 911 service, in particular the continuing inability to automatically locate those calls. While most PSAP operators immediately know the location of wireline callers, because wireline E911 has been widely deployed, PSAPs do not know the location of wireless callers, except in a very general way in those PSAPs where Phase I (providing cell site or cell sector information) has been deployed. As a result, PSAP dispatchers must question all wireless callers to try to determine their location before any help can be sent. This process can delay significantly the arrival of help, especially if the call must be transferred to another PSAP that actually serves the location or if the caller does not know his or her location. 4. These 911 call location difficulties represent a significant public safety problem. Nearly 70 percent of auto accident fatalities occur within two hours after a crash and, according to a conservative estimate, 1,200 lives are lost each year because of delay in discovering accidents. Addressing this problem is especially important for rural areas. According to National Highway Traffic Safety Administration data, for example, emergency communications are most valuable, and improvements are most needed, in rural areas. In 1996, motor vehicle crashes in rural areas accounted for 59 percent of total motor vehicle fatalities that year, 25,000. The fatality rate is also twice as high on rural interstate highways as on urban ones per miles driven, and rural crashes are more severe, more likely to involve both multiple fatalities and severe vehicle damage. Overall, a person is as much as three times as likely to suffer a fatality in a rural crash. 5. To improve public safety and extend ALI to wireless callers, the Commission has established a schedule, subject to certain conditions, for deployment of E911 features by wireless carriers. In Phase I, which began on April 1, 1998, PSAPs were to receive a rough estimate of a caller's location and a dialable call-back number. In Phase II, scheduled for October 1, 2001, or six months after the service is requested, whichever is later, PSAPs are to receive a much more precise location identification, within 125 meters or about 410 feet of the caller's location. 6. When the Commission adopted its Phase II rules in 1996, it was believed that location information could only be effectively provided by technologies based in or overlaid on carrier networks, using approaches such as triangulation of the handset's signal. Since that time, advancements in location technologies that employ new or upgraded handsets have demonstrated important progress. Competition in the development of network and handset-based technologies has yielded significant results. While it does not appear that any single network-based or handset- based location technology is perfect in all situations or for all wireless transmission technologies, both network and handset-based solutions may provide location information by 2001 that meets or exceeds our accuracy requirements. Each type of solution has its advantages and limitations. Each may also be improved or combined with other technologies in the future to support further improvements in 911 service and public safety. 7. The Commission's current rules, however, as a practical matter only permit network-based solutions to meet our Phase II requirements, because they require that ALI be provided for all 911 calls in a requesting PSAP's area as of a fixed date. It is not, we believe, economically or logistically feasible to expect or require that all current handsets be upgraded or replaced to meet that date. Rather, some form of phase-in of new or upgraded handsets is necessary if handset-based solutions are to be a viable competitor for initial deployment under Phase II. The statistical method the Commission adopted to measure location accuracy and reliability, Root Mean Square (RMS), also appears to be unworkable in some respects for both network-based and handset-based solutions. 8. In order to address these issues, we revise our rules in this Order to permit handset-based solutions, or hybrid solutions that require changes both to handsets and wireless networks, to compete in a reasonable way with network-based solutions in providing Phase II ALI. While we believe that the public safety is advanced by the actions we take today, we recognize that these rule revisions involve several trade-offs. Allowing a phase-in for handsets potentially can delay the full availability of Phase II location information for callers and PSAPs. To offset this drawback, we require that handset-based solutions be held to a higher accuracy standard, which will help locate callers more quickly and assist PSAPs in handling 911 calls more efficiently. We also require that handset deployment begin earlier than the current October 1, 2001 deployment date and that this deployment occur, for wireless carriers employing a handset solution, regardless of whether the PSAP has requested Phase II. These steps should promote the rapid rollout of handset-based solutions through normal handset turnover and growth. In addition, we require that wireless carriers employing handset-based solutions take additional steps to provide location information for roamers and callers with non-ALI capable handsets. Finally, we require that carriers take action to ensure that any phase-in for handset-based solutions is brief and complete, so that, so far as possible, all callers and PSAPs will benefit from accurate, automatic location information in emergencies without undue delay. 9. We also replace the RMS reliability methodology with a more workable and understandable standard. This revised standard sets levels of accuracy that must be achieved for 67 percent and 95 percent of all calls. To recognize that handset approaches will generally require a longer phase-in period, we establish, as a compensating factor, a tighter accuracy standard for handset-based solutions (50 meters for 67 percent of calls) than for network-based solutions (100 meters for 67 percent of calls). Further, in view of the likelihood that installing equipment throughout a carrier's network will often require more time than the six months currently allowed under the Commission's Rules, we will allow wireless carriers employing network-based location technology to reach 50 percent coverage within six months of a PSAP request for Phase II services and 100 percent coverage eighteen months after a PSAP request. 10. Taken together, we expect that this revised program for Phase II deployment will encourage the deployment of the best and most efficient technologies, speed actual implementation of E911, and promote competition in E911 location technology and service. We expect that our actions today will provide the clear guidance needed to enable the many necessary participants in wireless E911 deployment to implement Phase II as soon as possible. This Commission will, in other orders in the near future, resolve the remaining issues before it concerning the deployment of Phase II. 11. We recognize that the actions we take today to spur the deployment of Phase II implementation are ambitious and that we may confront challenges as we move forward. The substantial benefits of wireless E911 to the public interest and safety, however, make it crucial that those challenges be met and overcome without undue delay. II. Executive Summary 12. Specifically, we adopt the following revisions to our wireless E911 rules:  Wireless carriers who employ a Phase II location technology that requires new, modified or upgraded handsets (such as Global Positioning Systems (GPS)-based technologies) may phase-in deployment of Phase II subject to the following requirements: Without respect to any PSAP request for Phase II deployment, the carrier shall: 1. Begin selling and activating ALI-capable handsets no later than March 1, 2001; 2. Ensure that at least 50 percent of all new handsets activated are ALI- capable no later than October 1, 2001; and 3. In addition to the 50 percent requirement, ensure that at least 95 percent of all new digital handsets activated are ALI-capable no later than October 1, 2002. Once a PSAP request is received, the carrier shall, in the area served by the PSAP: 1. Within six months or by October 1, 2001, whichever is later: a. Ensure that 100 percent of all new handsets activated are ALI- capable; b. Implement any network upgrades or other steps necessary to locate handsets; and c. Begin delivering to the PSAP location information that satisfies Phase II requirements. 2. Within two years or by December 31, 2004, whichever is later, undertake reasonable efforts to achieve 100 percent penetration of ALI-capable handsets in its total subscriber base. For roamers and other callers without ALI-capable handsets, carriers shall, at a minimum, support Phase I ALI and shall implement other available best practice methods of providing the location of the handset to the PSAP. To be allowable under our rules, an ALI technology that requires new, modified, or upgraded handsets shall conform to general standards and be interoperable, allowing roaming among different carriers employing handset-based location technologies.  For carriers employing network-based location technologies, we replace our current plan, which requires that implementation be fully accomplished within 6 months of a PSAP request, with a revised rule requiring the carrier to deploy Phase II to 50 percent of callers within 6 months of a PSAP request and to 100 percent of callers within 18 months of such a request.  We adopt the following revised standards for Phase II location accuracy and reliability: For network-based solutions: 100 meters for 67 percent of calls, 300 meters for 95 percent of calls; For handset-based solutions: 50 meters for 67 percent of calls, 150 meters for 95 percent of calls.  We direct wireless carriers to report their plans for implementing E911 Phase II, including the technology they plan to use to provide caller location, by October 1, 2000. This report shall provide information to permit planning for Phase II implementation by public safety organizations, equipment manufacturers, local exchange carriers, and this Commission, in order to support Phase II deployment by October 1, 2001. III. Background 13. In the E911 First Report and Order adopting the wireless E911 rules in 1996, the Commission stated that its decisions reflected its "longstanding and continuing commitment to manage use of the electromagnetic spectrum in a manner that promotes the safety and welfare of all Americans." The rapid, effective, and efficient deployment of wireless E911 remains one of the most important ways of fulfilling this commitment. The wireless 911 rules seek both to improve the reliability of wireless 911 services and to provide the enhanced features generally available for wireline calls. To further these goals, the Commission has required wireless carriers to implement Enhanced or E911 service, subject to certain conditions and schedules. With E911 service, a dialable number accompanies each call, which allows the PSAP dispatcher to call back if the call is disconnected or to obtain additional information. Of greatest importance, wireless E911 service allows the dispatcher to immediately know where the caller is located, a capability called Automatic Location Identification or ALI. 14. In adopting the rules and schedule for wireless ALI in 1996, the Commission sought to apply a general policy of technological and competitive neutrality to encourage innovation and efficiency, while continuing to consider the possibility of further improvements in ALI. In the 1997 E911 Reconsideration Order, the Commission took note of inquiries with respect to whether non-network-based technologies, such as handset-based technologies using the GPS satellite system, could comply with the wireless E911 rules. In reaffirming its policy of technological and competitive neutrality, the Commission made clear its willingness to consider waiving or revising its rules to ensure that they permitted and fostered the deployment of the best, most effective and efficient methods of achieving Phase II compliance. CTIA sought clarification of issues raised by handset-based ALI technologies in a petition for further reconsideration of this Order. Further, in a Public Notice released in December 1998, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) established a schedule to assist those interested in filing waivers for handset-based approaches to the Phase II ALI requirements, and requested comment on guidelines that should apply to such waivers. A number of parties filed waiver requests and other pleadings responding to the Waiver Public Notice and the waiver requests. 15. To further supplement the record, the Bureau released a second Public Notice on June 1, 1999, seeking more targeted comment on specific issues relating to whether the Commission should grant waivers or otherwise modify the ALI requirements. These issues included schedules for handset-based solutions, problems in providing ALI to roamers, the likely pace of handset turnover, and the reliability methodology that should be used. It also sought specific comment on submissions by SnapTrack and APCO proposing phased-in implementation schedules for handset-based solutions. In addition, the Bureau asked for further consideration of E911 implementation issues by parties to a 1996 Consensus Agreement, in a Public Notice released June 9, 1999. 16. On June 28, 1999, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), in cooperation with the Bureau, hosted a roundtable discussion of technical issues involved in implementing the performance and accuracy standards for E911 Phase II ALI technologies. Roundtable participants included representatives of network-based solution technologies, handset-based solution technologies, manufacturers, wireless carriers, and public safety representatives. IV. Discussion A. ALI Deployment 17. Background. In initially proposing and adopting the rules for Phase II ALI, the Commission intended and expected that those rules would be technologically and competitively neutral. For example, the Commission anticipated in the 1994 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that either handset-based or network-based ALI technologies might be deployed. Similarly, in the E911 Second NPRM accompanying the E911 First Report and Order, the Commission emphasized the importance of expediting the introduction of new technology that would substantially advance the quality of E911 service to the public, particularly through more accurate and reliable location information. However, at the time of the adoption of the E911 First Report and Order, the record indicated that handset-based ALI technologies were subject to several deficiencies that made them impractical for E911 deployment. The 1996 Consensus Agreement among representatives of both the wireless industry and the public safety community, which helped form the basis for the Commission's wireless E911 rules, was effectively based on the assumption that handset-based technologies would not be able to provide ALI. As the Commission stated in the E911 First Report and Order, "[i]t appears from the Consensus Agreement comments that E911 will generally be implemented by network-based technology, rather than by modification of handsets." The Phase II ALI schedule, which was identical to that proposed in the Consensus Agreement, reflected this assumption, notably in its setting of a flash- cut implementation date. While the Commission set general technical standards for the ALI capabilities that must be achieved, rather than extensive technical standards, it did not consider the possibility of rules or rule modifications that would recognize the specific characteristics of technologies that required new or upgraded handsets. 18. After the rules were adopted, it became apparent that technological advances in handset-based and hybrid ALI technologies were being made, suggesting that those technologies could be effective alternatives to network-based approaches. The Commission specifically addressed this development in the E911 Reconsideration Order, reaffirming the policy of technological and competitive neutrality while inviting petitions for rulemaking or waiver requests that would allow us to consider modifications to the implementation deadline, accuracy standards, or other rules. The Commission suggested, for example, that it would consider phased-in implementation of ALI, especially to the extent a proposal also helps achieve the further improvements in ALI capabilities the Commission anticipated in the E911 Second NPRM. The Bureau, in its Public Notices, sought further comment on both the possible advantages of handset- based solutions (e.g., the possibility of significantly higher accuracy and of earlier implementation) as well as the concerns such solutions raise. The Bureau pointed out, for example, the concern that carriers employing handset-based ALI technologies might not be able to provide reliable ALI service to "roamer" customers whose home carriers adopt network-based solutions. The Bureau sought guidance on steps to minimize problems associated with non-ALI capable handsets and to address roamer situations. In response, the Commission received multiple requests to revise or waive the rules to permit the use of handset-based ALI technologies, as well as oppositions to such changes. 19. Discussion. We conclude that the public safety and welfare support revising our current rules to permit the broadest range of technical solutions to be employed to achieve ALI compliance, including handset-based and hybrid solutions. As revised, our rules for Phase II will allow other ALI technologies to be deployed as effective competitors to network-based solutions. This expanded range of technological options should stimulate greater competition and innovation, helping to improve ALI services while lowering prices and spurring the rapid, universal, and efficient deployment of 911 ALI for wireless callers. It also should make it possible to provide 911 ALI more rapidly and efficiently for rural areas. 20. Commenters that urge us to modify our rules to accommodate handset-based solutions claim that handset-based solutions represent the most realistic methods for implementing Phase II ALI by the October 1, 2001, deadline, but that these solutions can only be deployed if the Commission rapidly revises its rules to preserve the handset alternative as a viable approach. Specifically, they contend that ALI technologies that can out-perform the Phase II benchmarks and save lives will not be deployed until the Commission gives unequivocal direction that a phased-in approach to compliance is acceptable. Opponents of revised rules or waivers for handset-based technologies contend, on the other hand, that network-based technology is available today that meets, and in some cases exceeds, the Commission's accuracy and performance standards. Opponents also contend that serious questions surround the timing and ultimate viability of handset-based approaches, especially their effects on users of current, non- ALI capable handsets and roamers. They argue that a phase-in for handset-based solutions would represent a delay in the Phase II implementation schedule that is not in the public interest. 21. Any delay in deployment and effective, universal operation of E911 ALI is undesirable. The sooner 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. We also believe, under the circumstances here, however, that the benefits of a reasonable a phase-in approach for handset-based ALI solutions justify and outweigh the drawbacks, including any possible additional delays in ALI deployment. 22. As an initial matter, the extent of any actual delay from a phase-in for handset- based solutions is speculative and handset-based solutions may well speed actual ALI deployment in important cases. As APCO and other commenters point out, the current October 1, 2001 start date is conditional - it comes into effect only if PSAPs that are able to use the information request Phase II from carriers and a funding mechanism is in place. Until these conditions are satisfied, carriers are not required to provide ALI. Of equal importance, until PSAPs have taken the necessary steps to upgrade their facilities and processes to receive and use ALI information, the benefits of ALI to public safety will not be realized. Permitting several technologies to compete to provide ALI is likely to spur innovation, lower costs and prices, and encourage the development of ALI systems that can meet the needs of carriers and PSAPs across the range of geographical and operational environments. 23. Rural areas provide one instance where allowing additional ALI technologies may speed rather than delay ALI deployment. Network-based solutions relying on triangulation methods typically require the addition or upgrade of equipment at each transmission tower in order to provide the two or three fixes necessary to furnish an accurate location report. Even this level of additional investment might prove inadequate in some cases, for example, when towers are aligned in a straight line along a highway (a geometry making triangulation difficult or inaccurate) or are at the edge of the area served by the carrier. Hills or other features of the terrain may also prevent more than one tower from receiving the handset's signal. Adequate location accuracy and coverage by network-based solutions may require supplemental towers and equipment in those situations. The cost of such network upgrades, combined with the relatively low number and density of customers in rural areas, could impose high per customer costs for network-based solutions in such rural areas. These costs may discourage PSAPs from requesting ALI or raise subscriber rates substantially, impeding cost recovery. For these reasons, the Rural Cellular Association contends that network-based solutions may not be feasible in many rural wireless markets. 24. By contrast, handset-based solutions seem well-suited to rural areas. Operationally, GPS satellites will usually be easily visible by the handset, in contrast, for example, to the problems handset-based systems may encounter within tall buildings. Handset-based solutions, even hybrid solutions which require some additional support facilities, should also require far less investment in network upgrades and prove overall to be less costly on a per customer basis. In large part, such lower costs would also be recovered when the handset is sold or when a service contract is signed. This should make it easier to develop effective cost recovery mechanisms for rural areas, reducing the problem of recovering the high start-up costs of network-based systems as well as of upgraded PSAPs. 25. We recognize, of course, that network solutions are being improved and may well be able to provide acceptable accuracy at a reasonable cost in rural areas. KSI, for example, claims it is developing a single site location capability. U.S. Wireless has tested its system in rural areas around Billings, Montana and reports positive results. Conversely, some handset- based solutions appear to work more effectively with digital networks which, at the present time, are less extensively deployed in rural areas. Our discussion of the current strengths and weaknesses of each approach is not intended as a judgment that one technology is, or will prove over time to be, superior to the other in rural or other particular environments. Rather, in our view, this analysis simply underscores the public safety and overall public policy benefits from crafting our rules to permit both approaches to continue to develop and to be available to carriers and PSAPs as they proceed with E911 implementation. 26. In addition to possible problems in rural areas, providing location information for Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), the most rapidly growing air interface, may present particular problems for network-based solutions because of its "reverse power control" characteristic. These signals may not be easily received or monitored at more than one base station, an apparent requirement for most network-based solutions. CDMA handsets also incorporate greater processing capability, which may facilitate handset-based location technologies. Although providers of some network-based technologies claim they can provide effective ALI for CDMA or will soon be able to, wireless carriers generally claim that existing network-based technologies are unproven for CDMA. Reports presented at the Bureau's June 28, 1999, roundtable discussion on ALI technologies indicated that proponents of network-based solutions are working on CDMA applications, but that no CDMA application has to date been subjected to independent testing in trials. 27. Handset-based and hybrid CDMA location identification solutions, on the other hand, appear further along. CDMA handset and network manufacturers have begun planning to incorporate GPS-based location technology in handsets. Qualcomm has announced development agreements with Lucent to use its location technology and stated that it will be incorporating GPS-based location capability in its handsets in 2000, with plans to include this technology in all handsets it manufactures soon thereafter. It states that is has allocated resources to ensure, if carriers desire, that all new handset models introduced after October 2001 are ALI-capable. Carriers using CDMA technology, such as Sprint, GTE, and AirTouch have expressed particular interest in handset-based technologies. In addition, IDC's test of its handset-based GPS solution in King County, Washington, yielded significant results, providing accurate location for CDMA calls, the majority of the calls in the test. Other questions have been raised as to when network- based solutions will be commercially available for Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and Global System For Mobile Communication (GSM) technologies, and whether those solutions will be superior to handset-based solutions. 28. The record contains substantial evidence that a handset-based solution may be the most rapid and effective method of providing 911 ALI in many important applications. To the extent that a phase-in is a practical necessity for such solutions, however, the flash-cut requirement in our current rules would prevent such solutions from being considered. Thus, in many ways, the record indicates that accommodating handset-based solutions through a reasonable phase-in is likely to speed ALI deployment rather than delay it, by allowing carriers and PSAPs the flexibility to deploy the most effective and efficient available technology and, possibly, the only affordable and available technology in certain circumstances. 29. Moreover, to the extent that a phase-in might delay ALI implementation, handset- based solutions may well generate offsetting benefits. For example, it appears that handset-based solutions may achieve greater accuracy. In the six month King County trial, the handset-based technology provided by IDC, based on GPS chips in handsets, located 100 percent of calls from a variety of environments with an average accuracy of about 70 feet or 23 meters; 94 percent of calls were located within 125 meters. Such improvement in accuracy assists in locating the scene of the emergency more quickly, a benefit to both the caller and to emergency service providers. It may also support more reliable selective routing, helping direct calls more consistently to the correct PSAP. 30. In addition, in both rural and other areas, we think that competition among a broad range of technologies and providers will stimulate actual deployment of efficient systems. King County notes that the benefits of the handset-based technology tested in its trials should continue to improve significantly as developments in GPS chips continue; indeed, improved chip sets with higher accuracy levels were already available during the course of the trial. The spur of competition can be expected to help bring down ALI costs and thus reduce cost recovery problems everywhere, in urban and suburban as well as rural areas. To the extent that this occurs, carriers and PSAPs will increasingly be able and willing to move quickly to deploy ALI solutions, spurring ALI deployment. 31. We recognize that handset-based solutions present problems in achieving universal coverage, because callers without ALI-capable handsets, such as roamers and those using older handsets, might not receive Phase II ALI. This is a significant concern, because over 70 million handsets are currently in use in the United States and handset usage continues to grow rapidly. One hundred million handsets or more may be in use by the end of 2001. The fact that a handset- based solution requires the replacement or upgrading of these handsets represents a real and substantial disadvantage to any handset-based solution. However, it appears likely that retrofits of existing handsets will be feasible, such as replacement battery packs with GPS capability. Since handset batteries need to be replaced periodically, such retrofits may prove an affordable way to provide ALI to those who prefer to keep their current handsets. In addition, as we discuss in more detail below, we also believe that concerns associated with non-ALI-capable handsets and roamers can be addressed and minimized or eliminated within a reasonable time. 32. We reiterate that in revising our rules to permit handset-based solutions to meet our Phase II requirements our intent is not to mandate the use of any particular technology, only to allow the broadest range of technologies a reasonable opportunity to compete while taking appropriate steps to enhance public safety. Network-based, handset-based, hybrid, or some other new or combined ALI technology may prove to be most effective generally or in specific situations. Specific solutions may, for example, differ in their accuracy and reliability or in their performance on other significant operational criteria. The relative costs of each type of solution may also change. 33. Overall, based on the current record, and what we believe is a reasonable assessment of future trends, it appears that there is no single perfect ALI solution. Each has its advantages and limitations. Each may be improved in the future. Under these circumstances, we believe that the public interest and public safety will best be served by allowing a broad range of technologies, including handset-based opportunities, a reasonable opportunity to compete in providing 911 ALI. Significantly, this is also the conclusion of many in the public safety community. APCO urges, for example, that "facilitating handset-based technologies as an option may actually speed delivery of Phase II capability." The King County E911 Program's overall assessment of a handset-based technology, based on its lengthy trial, is that "[t]his technology has proven to be highly accurate and reliable, and has the capability of providing PSAPs with the tools they need to accurately locate and provide emergency service to wireless 911 callers." Thus, King County encourages the Commission to ensure that all Phase II location technologies, including handset solutions, be given an equal opportunity to be used in complying with the Commission's E911 rules, and asserts that the benefits to the public and public safety agencies who provide 911 service would "far outweigh slight delays in the implementation schedule." We agree with this assessment. As we discuss below, we also believe that the concerns expressed by NENA, that Phase II might be delayed indefinitely, can be adequately addressed by requirements that should overall speed ALI deployment. 34. In sum, in adopting the E911 rules, the Commission did not reach an affirmative decision to disqualify handset-based solutions; instead, the effect of those rules on handset-based ALI technologies was, in fact, an unintended consequence, as the Commission subsequently recognized and sought to remedy in the E911 Reconsideration Order and in subsequent actions by the Bureau. The Commission's rules were intended and expected to be technologically and competitively neutral. The revisions to those rules that we implement today are aimed at ensuring that the Commission's intent is realized and that we move forward with the deployment of ALI as quickly as possible, recognizing that the public safety will be benefitted by permitting differing technologies to be used to achieve compliance as facts and circumstances dictate. 1. Handset-Based Solutions 35. Background. In response to the Waiver Public Notice, we received several proposals for ALI phase-ins for handset-based solutions. SnapTrack proposed that carriers electing a handset-based approach be required to begin deploying handsets by January 1, 2001 and deploy only ALI-capable handsets by December 31, 2001. Similarly, APCO proposed that deployment begin by January 1, 2001, that 80 percent of handsets sold be ALI-capable by December 31, 2001, and 100 percent by December 31, 2002; it further proposed that carriers meet penetration levels for all handsets in service: (December 31, 2002: 25 percent; December 31, 2002: 50 percent; December 31, 2004: 75 percent; December 31, 2005: 99 percent). The Bureau sought comment on these proposed schedules in its June 1, 1999, Public Notice. In response, a coalition of handset-based technology providers and others, the Advanced E911 Coalition, proposed that carriers electing a handset based solution achieve a 50 percent activation rate for ALI-capable digital handsets within 24 months of a Commission order setting revised rules and a 95 percent activation rate within 36 months of that order. These obligations would apply whether or not a PSAP had requested Phase II. A number of carriers and carrier organizations argued that, rather than prescribing a detailed implementation schedule, the Commission should rely upon the good faith efforts of carriers to implement Phase II E911. 36. Discussion. We conclude that we should revise the deployment schedule established in the Commission's Phase II rules to accommodate a broader range of technical options for ALI compliance, consistent with our goals of implementing accurate and reliable Phase II services as quickly and ubiquitously as possible. Although we recognize that the phase- in for handset-based solutions we adopt here represents a slight delay in the deployment schedule for the handset-based methods of implementing ALI, we have sought to minimize this delay, promote full ALI coverage to the extent possible, improve ALI accuracy and reliability, and encourage competition and innovation that should lower costs and improve performance. Taken together, we believe that the public safety benefits of this plan outweigh the slight delay the phase- in permits. Moreover, carriers who employ a handset-based approach will be required to initiate compliance steps sooner and locate calls more accurately than under our present rules. We believe these additional requirements also serve to mitigate any adverse effects from the practical necessity of employing a phase-in approach to handset implementation. 37. For handset-based approaches and hybrid solutions, both of which require new or upgraded ALI-capable handsets, a near term, fixed deadline by which ALI must be provided for all 911 calls is not a realistic, practical possibility. Commenters universally agree that some transition past October 1, 2001, is necessary to deploy a handset-based or hybrid technology, so that manufacturers have sufficient time to increase production of ALI-capable handsets and customers can begin to purchase and to use them. Although some handset manufacturers are expected to begin producing ALI-capable handsets beginning in early or mid-2000, the rapid replacement or upgrading of any significant portion of the approximately 70 million handsets in use on a nationwide basis, while at the same time meeting current and anticipated demand, would be extremely difficult and disruptive, and may not even be logistically possible, for handset manufacturers. 38. Any "crash" handset replacement program also would be extremely expensive, for at least two reasons. First, it would force rapid deployment of current ALI technology at current costs, though the technology is likely to improve and the costs are likely to decline. Second, such a schedule may be difficult for all manufacturers to meet, reducing competition, and, by artificially stimulating demand, inflating prices. Consumers would ultimately pay the price of such a handset-replacement program. 39. Of greater importance, it is far from clear that the higher costs of "crash" handset replacement would result in corresponding public safety benefits. The expense and practical infeasibility of such a program would likely preclude many carriers from choosing a handset approach even when, in their circumstances, it might prove to be the best way to provide reliable and accurate location information. Such a "crash" program would also result in the untimely interruption of technical progress in the development of ALI capabilities and technologies in order to begin producing massive numbers of handsets. Both network and handset-based approaches are still being improved significantly in many respects. 40. Moreover, the benefits of ALI to public safety will be realized only to the extent that PSAPs upgrade their systems to receive and use the additional information ALI provides for 911 calls. We expect to take further steps to encourage Phase II deployment. Nonetheless, in light of the pace of Phase I deployment and the limited steps that have been taken by PSAPs and other necessary participants to implement Phase II, we conclude that a requirement that carriers employing a handset-based solution accelerate the replacement of current handsets to meet an October 1, 2001 deadline would be of limited benefit to public safety, particularly if that requirement is not linked to actual PSAP upgrades and requests for Phase II service. 41. In adopting our revisions, we have considered the various proposed phase-in schedules. The schedule we adopt is intended to promote public safety while recognizing the practical realities of handset-based and hybrid approaches. The requirements that ALI-capable handsets begin to be sold before both October 1, 2001, and before any PSAP request will ensure that handsets are available to customers, particularly customers who might use the handsets while roaming in areas served by carriers and PSAPs that have upgraded to Phase II. Moreover, we expect that the phase-in schedule will spur other ALI-based services and create an awareness and constituency for Phase II E911. Early introduction is also likely to lead to reduced ALI costs over time as a result of competition, economies of scale, and technological improvements. 42. Specifically, we permit wireless carriers who employ a Phase II location technology that requires new, modified or upgraded handsets (such as GPS-based technologies) to phase-in deployment of Phase II subject to the following requirements. First, without respect to any PSAP request for Phase II deployment, the carrier must (1) begin selling and activating ALI-capable handsets no later than March 1, 2001; (2) ensure that 50 percent of all new handsets activated are ALI-capable no later than October 1, 2001; and (3) in addition to the 50 percent requirement, ensure that at least 95 percent of all new digital handsets activated are ALI-capable no later than October 1, 2002. Second, once a PSAP request is received, we require the carrier, in the area served by the PSAP, to ensure that 100 percent of all new handsets activated are ALI- capable and to implement any network upgrades or other steps necessary to locate handsets, within six months of the PSAP request or by October 1, 2001, whichever is later. The carrier is also obligated to actually begin delivering to the PSAP 911 call location information that satisfies our Phase II requirements. Third, within two years or by December 31, 2004, whichever is later, the carrier must undertake reasonable efforts to achieve 100 percent penetration of ALI-capable handsets in its total subscriber base. 43. On the basis of the record before us, we conclude that the requirements we adopt today represent an achievable program for rolling-out the ALI technology using a handset-based solution that is consistent with the goals of public safety. Indeed, the revisions to our rules reflect, in large measure, a combination of recommendations made by the Advanced E911 Coalition, an industry group interested in handset-based solutions, including handset and network equipment manufacturers and major wireless carriers, and by APCO, a major public safety organization. 44. We expect our rule revisions that require that carriers begin activating ALI-capable handsets sooner than October 1, 2001, and to proceed to 95 percent activation for new digital handsets, even without a PSAP request, to have a number of important benefits. First, we expect the revisions to spur efforts by PSAPs and other necessary participants to implement Phase II, while not imposing the substantial costs and economic losses of a flash-cut requirement. Second, the rule changes should spur competition between and among carriers and technologies, as customers become aware of the availability of the ALI feature. Moreover, by applying the requirement to carrier activation of handsets, we intend to provide substantial incentives to carriers to encourage their customers to purchase ALI-capable handsets. Third, we believe these rule revisions will assure that wireless customers can acquire ALI-capable handsets that will be capable of providing ALI when they are roaming, because the ALI feature will be interoperable. This will assist PSAPs that have upgraded their systems to provide ALI capability to roamers. 45. While we accept and adopt some of the proposals of the Advanced E911 Coalition, we also believe that additional steps to promote ALI deployment are warranted. The Coalition requested that the phase-in apply only to new digital handsets, not to all new handsets. We believe that carriers employing a handset-based solution should be under a reasonable obligation to provide, and minimize the phase-in period for Phase II, for all their subscribers. The requirement that the initial 50 percent benchmark apply to all handsets, not solely to digital, should help accomplish this. We also decline to adopt a proposal from Nextel that we allow carriers, especially those like Nextel with a sole source supplier, additional flexibility such as authorization of temporary waivers or the option of meeting only the October 2002 deadline, to upgrade handsets in a more cost efficient manner. While aggressive, we believe the initial handset deployment schedule we are requiring for such solutions is achievable for wireless carriers. Handset deployment under that schedule is not required for 17 months and the deadline for 50 percent ALI-capable activation is two years away. Moreover, this schedule tracks the schedule proposed by a coalition of handset solution proponents. While such early deployment will impose costs, unnecessary delay in ALI-capable handset deployment would diminish the public safety benefits of handset-based ALI approaches. Overall, we believe the benefits of the schedule we are adopting outweigh the possible costs, especially because the public safety benefits are clear; the extent of higher costs directly attributable to E911, on the other hand, is speculative. We also believe that granting preferential treatment to a carrier because it uses a sole source supplier would unfairly favor one competitor and business model over others. We find no basis in the current record for authorizing waivers of the rules we are adopting today. 46. Further, we remain concerned that the proposed schedule not result in unnecessary delay in full implementation of ALI for many 911 calls and that it adequately encourage PSAPs to take the necessary steps to upgrade their own facilities and request Phase II from carriers. Where the local PSAP is capable of using ALI information and to take advantage of this information to operate more efficiently, any delay in Phase II implementation on the wireless industry's part raises significant questions as a matter of public policy. Once a local PSAP can actually use the location information provided by ALI, each non-ALI call represents an avoidable instance of potential delay in providing emergency assistance, a delay that might prove life-threatening. 47. For these reasons, we believe it is reasonable and appropriate to require carriers employing a handset-based or hybrid solution to undertake heightened efforts to fulfill their E911 responsibilities where PSAPs are capable of making use of ALI. Accordingly, we adopt additional requirements similar in concept to those proposed by APCO, a public safety organization. Specifically, we adopt a more aggressive handset deployment requirement where a PSAP has requested Phase II and is ready and able to use ALI information. APCO persuasively argues that public safety needs justify obligating carriers to ensure that ALI is available to virtually all a carrier's customers. Our requirement that carriers sell or activate only ALI-capable handsets in regions where the PSAP has presented a valid request for Phase II, with six months notice, will help accomplish this. The requirement that carriers sell only ALI-capable handsets once a local PSAP is ready and able to use the ALI information should speed the use of ALI-capable handsets for 911 calls in those areas. Normal turnover of handsets has been rapid as handsets improve and customers shift to new carriers; ALI-capable handsets should represent a rapidly increasing proportion of all handsets. 48. In requiring that carriers sell only ALI-capable handsets by as early as October 1, 2001, in response to PSAP requests, we expect that the practical effect of our rule will be that, as ALI-capable handsets are manufactured, carriers will give priority to marketing and selling them in areas where PSAPs are ready and able to use Phase II ALI. Based on current experience and trends, we believe it is likely that some PSAPs will be ready to request Phase II sooner than others. Implementation of Phase II will require PSAPs, for example, to acquire funds, deploy new equipment, and train 911 attendants. Thus, in practice, Phase II is likely to be phased-in geographically as different PSAPs serving different geographic regions develop the ability to make use of ALI information. By linking the requirement of 100 percent ALI-capable handset activation to the receipt of PSAP requests, we expect that those handsets will be allocated and used first and most quickly in regions where the PSAP and callers will most often benefit. We believe this approach promotes the public safety, because it helps focus deployment of ALI-capable handsets where they can do the most good. 49. We also find it appropriate to link PSAP requests to the completion by the carrier of any other steps needed to provide acceptable Phase II ALI. To the extent that hybrid ALI approaches are deployed, any non-handset based equipment or operations that are needed should be in place when the PSAP has satisfied the applicable conditions and is ready to use ALI information. This requirement is identical to those that we apply to purely network-based technologies and subject to the same conditions. 50. Finally, our requirement that carriers employing a handset-based solution undertake reasonable efforts to ensure complete Phase II coverage for all their customers, by the end of 2004 or within two years of a PSAP request, is intended to limit the phase-in to a reasonable period. The requirements we are adopting for ALI-capable handset deployment are likely to stimulate a substantial level of coverage as a result of normal handset turnover and growth. TruePosition, a network-based ALI vendor, estimates annual churn of wireless subscribers at 25.63 percent and, by adding in expected growth in customers, projects that after four years, 73 percent of handsets would be ALI-capable. More optimistically, handset-based technology provider IDC estimates slightly lower annual churn of 24 percent but, based on projections of new sales, churned handsets, and retrofits, projects that almost 100 percent of handsets would be ALI-capable within less than 3 years without extraordinary measures being taken by carriers. 51. Deployment of ALI-capable handsets may well be rapid and complete, as commenters such as IDC predict. ALI is likely to be an attractive feature for the many wireless customers who especially value the safety provided by wireless phones as well as for the commercial services they provide. Improvements in digital technology, falling prices, and new services may also spur further growth and handset replacements. Methods of upgrading existing handsets are also in development and may further increase the rate of ALI-capable handset deployment. Thus, normal market forces may generate almost complete penetration by ALI- capable handsets within three years or less as IDC predicts. In this case, there will be no need for carriers to do more than comply with the schedule we set for ALI-capable handset activations -- normal market forces will have produced full deployment. However, such predictions are not guarantees. For any of several reasons, (e.g., a recession, declining growth rates, or early deployment of non-ALI-capable digital phones that customers elect not to replace), the actual pace of ALI-capable handset deployment could lag and may take several years. Some customers will undoubtedly elect to economize by keeping their handsets for much longer than average, despite the advantages of ALI-capable handsets. If one or more of these scenarios occurs, delaying full deployment of ALI-capable handsets, it would represent a continuing, possibly lengthy gap in this important public safety program. 52. For these reasons, while we seek largely to rely on market forces, coupled with the requirement that new activations be ALI-capable, to replace or upgrade handsets, we will also adopt additional steps to ensure that the public safety goals of this proceeding are achieved within a reasonable period regardless of normal handset churn. Our requirement that carriers make reasonable efforts to ensure that, to the greatest extent possible, 100 percent of their customers' handsets are ALI capable within two years of the PSAP request or by December 31, 2004, is intended to ensure that Phase II extends to all wireless callers as quickly as is reasonably possible. APCO has suggested that turnover rates could change dramatically depending upon market conditions and the pace of new feature offerings, and proposes that we set a "guaranteed rate" of turnover with the goal of quickly reaching a point at which nearly 100 percent of subscribers have location capable phones. APCO also proposes that we set yearly requirements for penetration rates, concluding on December 31, 2005, when penetration of ALI capable handsets would be required to be 99 percent. Other commenters propose that penetration be left to normal turnover or that carriers be held to a standard of best practices or reasonable efforts. 53. In setting a date of December 31, 2004, we recognize that we are imposing an aggressive schedule for carriers. However, we believe this schedule is achievable and in the public interest. This deadline implies a phase-in period of at least 3 years and 10 months from the required March 1, 2001, starting point for ALI-capable handset deployment, and at least 3 years and 3 months from the time the carrier begins activating only ALI-capable handsets, where there is a PSAP request. This is longer than the period IDC, itself a handset-based technology provider, estimates as necessary. Moreover, this minimum period will apply only in regions where a PSAP request has been made. This should serve as additional incentive for carriers to begin selling and activating ALI-capable handsets even earlier and more aggressively than our rules require, further focusing ALI-capable handset deployment in regions where they will be most beneficial to public safety organizations. Where a PSAP request is delayed beyond December 31, 2002, the carrier will have additional time to comply. During that delay, normal market forces of handset turnover and growth would continue to move ALI-capable usage closer to 100 percent so that a substantial proportion of handsets would be ALI-capable when the PSAP request takes effect. 54. We also are requiring reasonable efforts by the carriers. These could include lower rates for customers using ALI-capable handsets, rebates or generous allowances to encourage trade-ins of non-capable handsets, or actual handset exchanges or retrofitting. We recognize that carriers do not have complete control over their customers' handset choices or over handset manufacturers and that it will likely be impossible to literally achieve 100 percent penetration of ALI-capable handsets, since some subscribers may simply choose to keep their non-ALI handsets. Further, as APCO suggests, we will not require that carriers apply these programs to handsets owned by non-customers, even though those handsets can be used to make 911 calls. Nonetheless, requiring good faith, reasonable efforts should be sufficient to conclude deployment except for what is likely to be a small remaining percentage of handsets. To the extent necessary, we will clarify or provide additional guidance on what we believe constitutes reasonable efforts based on our monitoring of progress in ALI deployment. 55. E911 for roamers and non-ALI-capable handsets. One concern presented by a phase-in for handset-based ALI solutions is that those callers who do not have ALI-capable handsets will not receive Phase II service. Those callers include both the carrier's own customers who do not yet have an ALI-capable handset and roamers from carriers who employ network- based solutions. Moreover, in the case of roamers, there is no assurance that carriers in different parts of the country will adopt the same Phase II technology. If they do not, there is the potential that some roamers could be indefinitely deprived of Phase II ALI. Proponents of handset-based solutions contend that this is a relatively small and temporary problem, because ALI-capable handsets will quickly achieve almost 100 percent penetration and carriers using the same air interfaces are likely to use the same or similar ALI technologies and thus be able to provide service to roamers comparable to what they provide to their own customers. They also note that carriers will be able to provide Phase I location information for these callers. 56. To address these concerns in a reasonable way, we will require that carriers employing a handset-based ALI solution also take a "best practice" approach to providing ALI to callers who do not have ALI-capable handsets where the PSAP is able to receive and use Phase II ALI. This obligation could take several forms, depending upon the transmission technology the carrier uses and the location technologies available to it in particular locations. For example, where only Phase I location is reasonably available, as several commenters suggest, this admittedly rough level of accuracy should be supported and provided to all the carrier's 911 callers. In other cases, a somewhat more accurate form of location information may be available. Sprint and Lucent have indicated that it may be possible to upgrade software in CDMA systems to provide ALI with an accuracy of about 285 meters. This level of accuracy would not satisfy our Phase II rules but would be far more accurate than Phase I cell site location information and should be of far greater assistance to public safety organizations. Other forms of ALI, less accurate than the Phase II standard but superior to Phase I, may also be possible. 57. In other cases, a wireless carrier in the area may have deployed a network-based system that can also be used to provide ALI for other carriers. Network-based ALI providers have claimed that this will often be the case. To the extent such a system is available in a particular area, and a carrier employing a handset-based solution has not implemented other effective means of locating roamers, we believe that it is reasonable and in the public interest to expect the carrier to take steps necessary to make use of this capability as a backup, in order to provide Phase II ALI to its callers whenever its own ALI solution cannot. This could include callers without ALI-capable handsets, roamers, and callers from locations where the handset- based technology fails but the network solution is available, as might happen in tall buildings or tunnels. 58. We do not intend that this "best practice" obligation extend to requiring that carriers employing handset-based solutions must also deploy their own network-based solutions. Such a requirement could be extremely expensive and provide only a marginal benefit to the public safety. But use of other available systems as a backup should be a relatively inexpensive improvement in public safety that would help remedy the shortcomings of handset-based solutions, especially as the backup would largely be temporary, superseded as handset-based solutions improve and become more widely deployed. 59. Interoperability. Handset-based solutions also present another concern for roamers. Several handset-based and hybrid ALI solutions have been proposed and are under development. Others may emerge in the future. It appears quite possible, perhaps likely, that carriers will employ a number of different handset-based solutions. Overall, this potential competition should benefit public safety, encouraging innovation and lower prices. However, it potentially could lead to incompatible ALI formats, such that a caller using a handset that is compatible with his or her home carrier's ALI system could find the handset incompatible with the system used by other carriers when roaming. Incompatibility of this sort would defeat the benefits of the handset in an emergency both for the roaming caller and public safety organizations. 60. To prevent the development of any such gap in 911 ALI, we will further require that, to satisfy our Phase II rules, all handset-based Phase II ALI solutions must be generally interoperable. This means at a minimum that the solution must conform to general standards that permit the system employed by the carrier to provide 911 ALI for any ALI-capable handset that complies with the general standard, regardless of whether the handset uses the same ALI solution as that employed by the carrier. For example, if SnapTrack, IDC, and Lucent all develop and market separate ALI systems, for a particular air interface, handsets using any of these solutions must be interoperable with the others, such that a carrier using any one of the solutions can and does provide ALI for calls coming from a handset using any other solutions. 61. We recognize that the level of accuracy and other performance criteria may be somewhat lower for these roamers, at least initially, and that a carrier's system may not be optimized for other handset solutions. Here again, we expect carriers to meet a good faith, "best practice" standard in providing ALI to roamers. It is our understanding that standards work is well underway toward achieving interoperability among handset-based solutions. We do not believe that this requirement will require any delay or change in the deployment schedules for handset-based solutions. 2. Network-Based Solutions 62. Background. While network-based ALI providers have generally supported retaining the current deployment schedule without change, network-based provider KSI has suggested that any phase-in the Commission adopts should apply to network-based as well as handset-based ALI solutions. Under its proposal, in an approach said to be similar to cellular build-out rules, wireless carriers would be required to provide 50 percent ALI coverage in 2001; 75 percent coverage in 2002; and 95-100 percent coverage in 2003 for all technologies. 63. Discussion. For carriers employing network-based location technologies, we are replacing our current plan, which permits delay if a carrier requests an individual waiver and gives a revised schedule, with a general rule permitting the carrier to deploy Phase II to 50 percent of callers within 6 months of a PSAP request and to 100 percent of callers within 18 months of a PSAP request. 64. Network-based solutions may not require the same phase-in as handset-based solutions, because they do not face the same problems with the embedded base of existing handsets. Nonetheless, it does appear likely that in many cases it will not be possible to deploy network-based solutions within the six-month period permitted in our current rules. Network- based technologies that require installation of new equipment at transmission towers or other sites may require negotiation of contracts and technical issues, review and approval by local authorities, and other administrative steps in addition to the actual time needed to train installation teams and perform the actual installation. Perhaps most importantly, coordination with the wireless carrier's system and testing must be performed before the system is "turned on." In view of the importance of accurate and reliable information for 911 service, we wish to be sure that adequate time is allowed for these essential efforts. Such efforts are especially likely to require longer than six months in situations where a large PSAP, or a group of PSAPs, request Phase II deployment for a large geographic area. 65. Currently, our orders allow wireless carriers to request waivers of the six months rule, and we have anticipated receiving such waivers, especially for rural areas and large geographic areas with a substantial number of cell sites. In view of the fact that we are adopting an express rule setting a transitional, phase-in approach for handset-based technologies, rather than addressing the handset deployment issue through individual waiver requests, we believe this is an appropriate time to extend and apply a similar general rule to network-based solutions. This will provide greater assurance that these solutions can in fact be deployed in compliance with the Phase II rules and reduce substantially the need for and possible delays associated with waiver requests. B. Accuracy and Reliability Standards 66. Background. In the 1996 E911 First Report and Order, the Commission adopted a Phase II accuracy standard of 125 meters using longitude and latitude, as recommended by the parties to the Consensus Agreement. It also adopted the reliability methodology recommended by the Consensus Agreement, Root Mean Square (RMS). The combined accuracy and reliability standard, 125 meters RMS, was expected to mean that 67 percent of calls would be located within 125 meters. At the same time, the Commission stated that one of its objectives was to ensure that wireless E911 continues to benefit from improvements in location information technology. In order to spur continuing efforts to develop improved location information technologies, the Commission thus proposed, in the accompanying Second NPRM, a standard setting a higher degree of ALI accuracy -- 40 feet for longitude, latitude, and vertical location with 90 percent accuracy -- to take effect after the initial five year period, i.e., after October 1, 2001. Further, in the E911 Reconsideration Order, the Commission took note of technological advances, such as those in handset-based technologies, and indicated that, while it did not expect to delay the 2001 deadline, it would consider proposals to phase in implementation, especially to the extent a proposal also helps achieve the further improvements in ALI capabilities discussed in the Second NPRM, such as higher accuracy. 67. In the E911 Reconsideration Order, however, Section 20.18(e) was amended to clarify that licensees subject to the section must provide to the designated PSAP "the location of all 911 calls by longitude and latitude such that the accuracy for all calls is 125 meters or less using a Root Mean Square (RMS) methodology." The Commission explained that 125 meters RMS "would represent approximately a 67 percent to 75 percent probability that the reported location would be within a 125 meter radius of the caller's actual location." 68. A number of parties have urged the Commission to reexamine the reliability standard applicable to E911 ALI, citing practical difficulties and situations in which the RMS methodology would not operate as intended. Specifically, they point out that calculations using an RMS methodology can be skewed by the inclusion of a small number of inaccurate measurements, thus preventing a carrier from being compliant, despite a vast majority of accurate measurements. A single case of failure to deliver any location information might also be interpreted as infinite error, negating all other measurements, however accurate. 69. Discussion. We believe that public safety and the public interest will be improved by revising the accuracy levels, including setting a tighter accuracy standard for handset-based solutions and by replacing the RMS reliability methodology Since the 125-meter accuracy standard was set, substantial progress has been made in improving location information accuracy. Handset-based solutions have reported far better accuracy in trials. For example, IDC's trial in King County produced an accuracy of 150 feet for 74 percent of calls, and IDC claims that the following generation of GPS chips yields still better accuracy in all environments. Lucent claims its handset-based, network-assisted GPS technology can provide accuracy of 15 feet outdoors and 100 feet within buildings. In a trial in Denver, SnapTrack reported accuracy of 4 to 84 meters, depending on the environment, for 68.3 percent of calls for its own handset-based, network-assisted GPS technology and has proposed an accuracy standard of 90 meters at 67 percent Circular Error of Probability (CEP). Providers of network-based technologies also report improved accuracy. KSI states that its network-based approach can do better than the current accuracy requirements and has suggested a 100 meter accuracy standard. U.S. Wireless is reported to have achieved an accuracy of 50 to 59 meters for its network-based "radio fingerprinting" technology. Cell-Loc claims its network-based system can locate callers within 55 meters and can be refined to achieve accuracies as good as 15 meters on many occasions. 70. With respect to the reliability standard, some parties continue to favor RMS, but most commenters favor one of several alternative methodologies. Several parties advocate the use of Circular Error Probability (CEP) because CEP would avoid the drastic impact of occasional erroneous readings associated with RMS. CEP essentially establishes a threshold of 67 percent beyond which "outliers" would not be included in the calculation. CEP has been criticized, however, because it fails to consider the impact of 33 percent of 911 call locations, possibly hiding unlocated calls or large errors and providing carriers with a greater margin of error than may be needed. One possible remedy for this is to adopt a CEP methodology, along with a probability contour somewhat greater than 67 percent to account for a larger number of location measurements. 71. Other parties propose other methods. Motorola suggests the use of Mean Radial Error (MRE), which would calculate accuracy based on the average radial error of location attempts. Lucent proposes adoption of the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF) methodology and specification of 67 percent and 90 percent requirements over a large sample space consisting of data from various geographical environments. TechnoCom argues that the Commission should either require a large percentage of attempts to be included in the RMS calculation, or establish a two-tiered criterion for accuracy based on percentage thresholds similar to CEP. 72. We conclude that the RMS reliability standard should be replaced, as we discuss below, and the base accuracy standard for network-based solutions should be revised to conform to the new reliability standard. Specifically, we conclude that network-based technologies should achieve an accuracy of 100 meters for 67 percent of all calls. In addition, we will require an accuracy level of 300 meters for 95 percent of all calls. This outer level of accuracy recognizes that network-based solutions may not always be able to provide the higher level of accuracy, especially in rural areas. The 300 meter level of accuracy should nonetheless provide a very useful indication of location, particularly in those rural areas. While the new accuracy standard may appear more rigorous than the current standard based on RMS, it is in fact generally comparable because, in contrast to the RMS methodology, this "dual ring" standard ignores the 5 percent of calls with the largest errors, or with no location information at all. The dual ring methodology also does not square the errors, a procedure in RMS that gives greater weight to larger errors. These changes in the reliability methodology effectively reduce the accuracy requirement. KSI, for example, estimates that the current 125 meter RMS standard would be equivalent to 105 meters under its slightly different methodology, which would retain RMS but ignore 10 percent of calls with the greatest errors. Similarly, the revised reliability standard we adopt here is roughly equivalent to the current 125 meter RMS standard in our rules, depending upon the actual distribution of errors. To the extent that this standard is somewhat more stringent than the current standard as the Commission has sometimes described it, 125 meters for 67 percent of calls, the record indicates that the new standard should be achievable by network-based solutions. We are also allowing a phase-in for network-based solutions, which will permit more time to test and fine-tune network-based systems and to improve accuracy. 73. For handset-based solutions, still higher levels of accuracy appear possible. IDC's King County, Washington trial, in association with the King County E-911 Program office, located wireless handsets within 40 to 70 feet, 70 to 80 percent of the time, from a variety of environments. This is a significantly higher level of accuracy than 50 meters, which is about 152 feet. Moreover, these tests were conducted with earlier generation GPS chips and IDC claims newer generation chips are already available that are substantially more accurate. Lucent claims its GPS technology is accurate within 15 feet outdoors and 100 feet indoors. SnapTrack also reported accuracy substantially better than 50 meters in its Denver trial. While these results do not represent actual tests of commercially available handsets and systems, they strongly indicate that the 50 meter standard should be achievable, especially since this technology is likely to improve by 2001 when our rules require implementation to begin. 74. Moreover, we believe that it is appropriate and reasonable to expect that solutions taking advantage of a longer phase-in to achieve full ALI deployment should provide compensating advantages in performance. As the Commission recognized in the E911 Reconsideration Order, and as parties such as APCO have stressed in their comments, achieving a higher level of accuracy is such an advantage. More accurate ALI will reduce the area that must be searched to locate the emergency situation while also making the selective routing of calls to PSAPs more accurate and reliable. Accordingly, for handset-based solutions, by which we mean any Phase II ALI solution that requires replacement, modification, or upgrades of current handsets, we will require an accuracy of 50 meters for 67 percent of all calls employing the handset-based solution. This is a substantially more stringent standard than the 100 meter standard we are adopting for network-based solutions, especially in reducing the area in which the call should be located. The 100 meter radius standard implies a circular area of 31,416 square meters. Under the 50 meter standard, the area enclosed would be only a quarter the size, 7,854 square meters. Having this smaller expected search area should significantly facilitate and speed emergency response. For the outer, 95 percent accuracy ring, we will set an accuracy requirement of 150 meters. The record indicates that this should be achievable and reasonable for handset-based solutions. 75. The dual ring methodology we are adopting for reliability effectively corrects the problems in the current RMS standard. Under RMS, all calls would be included in the calculation and a single failure or a very small number of relatively large errors would result in a failing grade despite very high levels of accuracy for other calls. While we continue to believe the goal of our original reliability methodology was worthy in that it sought to assure accurate locations for all 911 calls, we recognize that any location system may fail or provide highly erroneous readings occasionally. This is especially true because these systems are based on radio technologies, which confront inherent difficulties in achieving 100 percent reliability. 76. The approach we are adopting, which is similar to proposals by TechnoCom and Lucent, combines several elements that have been proposed and offers advantages over either a strict RMS methodology or a single CEP method. This "dual ring" system maintains the intent of our current standard, by requiring that virtually all calls be included in the accuracy calculation, while at the same time recognizing the likelihood that location attempts for some calls may fail or result in a small proportion of relatively large errors. Permitting 5 percent of calls to be ignored in the calculation represents a reasonable accommodation to technical and operational realities. This standard does not, however, permit carriers to ignore an unacceptable and unnecessary 33 percent of all 911 calls, as would the 67 percent CEP standard proposed by some commenters. In contrast to RMS, the dual ring standard does not exaggerate relatively large errors and can also be easily understood by those applying it. Alternative methods appear unnecessarily complex and more difficult to understand, especially for public safety personnel in the field, and do not appear to provide any offsetting advantages. 77. In addition, the dual ring approach encourages the development and use of location technologies that may not be accurate enough to satisfy the more stringent original standard but could provide valuable backstop and adjunct capabilities in a cost-effective manner, for example, in rural areas for network-based solutions or in certain urban settings for handset- based solutions. Overall, this new approach to ALI reliability will clarify the accuracy requirements and ultimately enhance carriers' ability to meet their E911 public safety obligations while correcting the practical problems which resulted from our original standard. C. Technological and Competitive Neutrality 78. Background. Several parties to this proceeding urge the Commission not to revise its E911 Phase II rules to allow a phase-in for handset-based solutions, arguing that the current rules are technologically neutral as written. Proponents of network-based solutions argue, for example, that the current rules were carefully crafted, after much time and attention, and should not be changed. On the other hand, WCA proposes that the Commission mandate GPS chips in all handsets because handset solutions present a more accurate, less expensive means of providing ALI than network-based solutions. 79. Discussion. In formulating these revised ALI rules, we have sought to promote so far as practicable the rapid, universal, and efficient provision of Phase II ALI. We continue to believe that a policy of technological and competitive neutrality will help achieve this goal. Over time, we anticipate that vigorous competition in ALI services will lead to further innovation and efficiencies in the provision of 911 location information. The commenters generally agree. Thus, we do not adopt WCA's proposal to mandate a handset-based solution by requiring that all new handsets include GPS capability. We believe it would be premature at best to interfere with the current competition in location technologies and select a single ALI technology for all wireless air interfaces and all conditions or to mandate a particular technology that may not be the most effective and efficient choice in all cases. 80. We also cannot agree with claims, primarily from network-based technology vendors, that our current rules are in fact technology neutral as they apply to handset-based and hybrid solutions. We did, of course, give careful consideration to the record at hand when we adopted the wireless E911 rules in 1996. That record did not contain any substantial basis for considering a phase-in approach. Nor did it contain any information suggesting that a flash-cut approach would impose substantial costs, or suggest that a phase-in would provide substantial benefits. When information of such a nature was presented to the Commission, however, we clearly indicated our willingness to consider appropriate rule revisions or waivers, consistent with our goal of encouraging improvements in the quality of E911 and our policy of technological and competitive neutrality. We note that while the Consensus Agreement recommended the flash-cut approach and schedule the Commission adopted in 1996, several of its signatory organizations, as well as many individual members of those organizations, now support phase-ins and other rule changes that would allow the consideration and use of handset-based and hybrid approaches to providing Phase II ALI. 81. We reaffirm, consistent with the views of the majority of commenting parties, that a policy of technological and competitive neutrality best promotes the public safety and welfare goals of this proceeding, especially in the critical area of ALI. Although numerous ALI technologies have been proposed and tested since the adoption of our Phase II rules, each has advantages and disadvantages. We believe that continued competition among various rival providers and technologies will be an effective spur to continued improvement in the quality of ALI and will lower costs. 82. At the same time, we also do not believe that public safety or the policy of neutrality require that the rules we adopt be identical for both network-based and handset-based technologies. As we have discussed throughout this Order, each type of technology has its advantages and limitations in meeting public safety needs. In our revised rules we have sought to take these differences into account because it appears that each may effectively contribute to improving public safety. We have adopted accuracy standards and a phase-in that will, we believe, permit the deployment of network-based solutions to meet these public safety needs. We do not believe, on the other hand, that public safety would be advanced by allowing a longer phase-in for network-based solutions, as KSI suggests, in order to achieve ostensible parity. Rather, the phase-in we adopt here is limited to what appears reasonably necessary and achievable, to minimize delay in ALI deployment. Similarly, our rules for handset-based solutions are structured to realize the potential benefits of greater accuracy and, possibly, better service for rural areas and air interfaces such as CDMA, while addressing the specific problems of current handsets and roamers. Those rules as revised today seek to promote the public safety so far as reasonably possible by both types of technologies, as they are now and as they may be improved in the future. These rules also, we believe, achieve our policy of technological and competitive neutrality, not through being identical, but by taking into account the differences in these types of technologies in ways that promote public safety. We believe that these rules will successfully promote public safety while allowing the broadest possible range of technologies, and mixes of technologies, to compete in providing 911 ALI. D. Compliance Verification 83. Background. The development of technical and operational standards to effectuate E911 services largely has been undertaken through the cooperative efforts of a number of parties. Under these circumstances, the Commission concluded in the E911 First Report and Order, the best way to ensure implementation of E911 services is to determine what capabilities must be achieved, rather than micromanaging the process by prescribing detailed technical and operational standards. As a result, the Commission declined to adopt specific methods for measuring compliance with the E911 rules, relying instead upon the parties to resolve technical issues in good faith. 84. Parties have responded by working collaboratively to resolve a number of technical issues associated with Phase II E911. Specific methods for verifying compliance are currently being explored by standards-setting and other technical bodies. Parties are also working together to develop technical standards aimed at achieving interoperability among various technologies. 85. Discussion. We recognize that the entities subject to our rules need guidance on appropriate methods for determining compliance with the location accuracy requirements. Accordingly, we are tasking the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) and the Bureau to expeditiously develop and publish methods that may be used for verifying compliance with our rules governing Phase II. In developing appropriate compliance verification methods, OET and the Bureau should work along with all interested parties, including equipment manufacturers, system operators, public safety organizations, standards groups, and organizations with relevant expertise in performing such measurements. In developing these methodologies, OET and the Bureau are expected to take into account the practical and technical realities. For example, we recognize that in some instances, calls cannot be completed and ALI cannot be provided. Also, the methodology may need to give appropriate weight to the variety of conditions and locations in which wireless equipment is used. E. Advance Carrier Reports of E911 Plans 86. Background. The Commission's current rules require wireless carriers to deploy Phase II by October 1, 2001, provided certain conditions are met, but do not require any particular advance planning to meet that goal. It is clear, however, that in order to be in a position to comply with the October 1, 2001, deadline, advance planning is essential. Possible delays in carrier planning for implementation of Phase II could, in turn, complicate the planning of the various other necessary participants in Phase II implementation -- PSAPs, providers of location technology, investors, manufacturers, local exchange carriers and others. Thus, timely planning and communication among the parties involved in Phase II is critical for successful deployment of these capabilities. 87. Discussion. We conclude that to encourage carrier planning efforts and discussions with other necessary participants, all wireless carriers subject to the E911 rules must prepare and submit a report on their plans for implementing Phase II no later than October 1, 2000. The report should include basic information concerning the carrier's Phase II plans, including the technology it plans to employ and whether this technology requires replacement or upgrades of any wireless handsets. If the carrier employs a handset-based or hybrid approach, the carrier should also report its plans to provide location information to roamers under the best practice obligations. We find that the October 1, 2000, deadline will permit carriers sufficient time to consider available technologies, plans and preferences of PSAPs, and other relevant considerations. We also find that it will allow interested parties a reasonable time in which to respond to carriers' reports, without interfering with the October 1, 2001, deployment deadline. 88. The required advance notification of the manner in which carriers expect to achieve Phase II compliance is intended to further several goals. First, we expect that the advance reports will provide helpful, if not essential, information for coordinating carrier plans with those of manufacturers and PSAPs. Second, they will assist our efforts to monitor Phase II developments and to take necessary actions to maintain the Phase II implementation schedule. Third, the requirement underscores that carriers may not defer consideration and decision on Phase II, but must develop targeted plans to implement Phase II consistent with the Phase II schedule. Finally, we believe that the reports will increase the likelihood of cooperative discussions between public safety organizations and carriers, based on an understanding of carrier plans. In view of the expanded options for ALI compliance that this Order permits, we believe that it is essential that all parties and this Commission have early notice of carriers' plans, including ALI technology plans, prior to the October 1, 2001 implementation date. The report also should provide important information for the earlier deployment schedule we adopt for carriers employing handset-based solutions. 89. We believe that the requirement to provide an advance report should not impose substantial new burdens on carriers. To this end, we permit the electronic filing of the reports, which will be placed on the Commission's E911 web site for ease of accessibility. We also encourage joint filings to the extent possible, for example, filings on behalf of all carriers using a specific air interface or ALI technology. In requiring these reports, we clarify that carriers may make good faith changes in their plans even after the report is filed. We require, however, that carriers file updates notifying the Commission of any changes to their filed plans within thirty days of the adoption of any such change. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 90. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible economic impact on small entities of the policy and rules adopted in this Third Report and Order. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set forth in Appendix C. B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 91. This Report and Order contains a new information collection. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in this Order, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due 60 days after publication of this decision in the Federal Register. OMB comments are due 60 days after this date. Comments should address: þ Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility. þ The accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates. þ Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected. þ Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained in this Order should be submitted to Lex Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1A-804, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to lesmith@fcc.gov, and to Virginia A. Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 - 17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov. C. Authority 92. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 201, 303, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.  151, 154(i), 201, 303, 309, 332. D. Further Information 93. For further information, contact Dan Grosh or Mindy Littell of the Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at 202-418-1310 (voice) or 202-418-1169 (TTY). VI. ORDERING CLAUSES 94. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 20 of the Commission's Rules is amended as set forth in Appendix B. 95. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rule amendments made by this Order and specified in Appendix B SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE 120 days after the date of the publication of the rule amendments in the Federal Register. 96. 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. 97. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, the Office of Public Affairs, Reference Operations Division, SHALL SEND a copy of this Third Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. 98. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all petitions for waiver of the Commission's wireless E911 rules submitted in response to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Waiver Public Notice ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT in light of the rule changes adopted in this Report and Order. 99. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition to Modify the wireless 911 rules filed by the Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. IS DENIED. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Magalie Roman Salas Secretary APPENDIX A LIST OF COMMENTERS Waiver Public Notice, DA 98-2631 (Dec. 24, 1998) (Denoted by "Comments I" or "Reply Comments I") þ List of Pleadings (Feb. 4, 1999) 1. Advantage Cellular Systems, Inc.: Request for Waiver 2. AirTouch: Comments and Petition for Waiver 3. Ameritech: Request for Waiver 4. Arctic Slope Telecommunications and Cellular, Inc. (Arctic Slope): Request for Waiver 5. AT&T Wireless: Comments 6. Brazos Cellular Communications, Ltd. (South #5 RSA Limited Partnership): Request for Waiver 7. Celulares Telefonica (CT): Comments 8. CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. (CenturyTel): Request for Waiver 9. Chariton (Missouri RSA No. 5 Partnership): Request for Waiver 10. Cincinnati Bell Wireless: Comments to support AT&T's Comments 11. CTIA: Comments 12. GTE: Ex Parte Presentation 13. Inland Cellular Telephone Company (on behalf of Eastern Sub-RSA Limited Partnership and Washington RSA Number 8 Limited Partnership): Petition for Waiver 14. New Mexico RSA 6-III Partnership: Request for Waiver 15. Nextel Communications: Request for Waiver 16."Phase II Working Group" -- KSI, TruePosition, Corsair, and SigmaOne Communications: Comments 17. PrimeCo: Petition for Waiver 18. Public Safety Associations (NENA, APCO, and NASNA): Comments 19. Sprint Spectrum: Waiver Request 20. Southern Company: Request for Leave to File Request for Waiver at a Later Date. 21. TeleCorp PCS, Inc.: Request for Waiver 22. Texas RSA 7B3, Inc. (Peoples Cellular): Request for Waiver 23. Tritel, Inc.: Comments 24. Upstate Cellular Network: Petition for Waiver 25. United States Cellular Corporation (USCC): Contingent Request for Waiver 26. US West : Petition for Waiver þ Late Filing/Delivery 1. Aerial Communications (Aerial): Petition for Waiver (Feb. 5) 2. Cellular Phone of Kentucky, Inc. (Ramcell of Kentucky): Petition for Waiver (Feb. 17) 3. Litchfield County Cellular, Inc. (Ramcell of Oregon): Petition for Waiver (Feb. 17) 4. North Carolina RSA 1 Partnership(Ramcell of North Carolina):Petition for Waiver (2/17) 5. Powertel, Inc. (Powertel): Petition for Waiver (Feb. 4) 6. Kurtis & Associates Ex Parte Filings on behalf of the following clients: (Feb. 4, delivered to WTB) - Aliant Cellular Inc. - Cal-One Cellular L.P. - Carolina PCS I Limited Partnership - DiGiPH PCS, Inc. - Hudson Valley RSA Cellular Partnership - Illinois Valley RSA 2-I Partnership - Illinois Valley RSA 2-II Partnership - Illinois Valley RSA 2-III Partnership - McElroy Electronics Corporation - Omaha Cellular Limited Partnership - RSA I Limited Partnership - Virginia 10 RSA Limited Partnership 7. North Alabama Cellular: Waiver Petition (Feb. 22) þ Oppositions/Comments (Feb. 16, 1999) 1. Cell-Loc Inc.: Comments 2. KSI: Reply to Comments and Requests for Waiver 3. PCIA: Comments 4. SigmaOne Communications Corporation: Opposition to Waiver 5. TruePosition: Response to Comments and Waiver Requests 6. Comments of Public Safety Associations in Response to Requests for Waiver [APCO, NENA, NASNA]: Comments (filed on Feb. 22, original was submitted to WT Docket 96-86 on Feb. 16.) þ Replies to Oppositions (Feb. 22, 1999) 1. Consolidated Reply of Advantage Cellular Systems, New Mexico RSA 6-III, South #5 RSA, Texas RSA 7B3. 2. Aerial Communications 3. AirTouch Communications 4. AT&T Wireless 5. Inland Cellular Telephone Company 6. SnapTrack 7. Sprint Spectrum 8. Upstate Cellular Network (UCN) 9. U.S. West Targeted Comments on E911 Phase II ALI: Public Notice DA 99-1049 (Denoted by "Comments II" or "Reply Comments II") þ Comments (June 17, 1999) 1. Aerial Communications 2. AirTouch 3. ALLTEL Communications 4. Ameritech 5. APCO (Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International) 6. AT&T Wireless Services 7. BellSouth 8. Cell-Loc Inc. 9. CTIA (Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association) 10. Ericsson 11. GTE Wireless 12. IDC (Integrated Data Communications) 13. King County E911 Program 14. KSI 15. METROCOM.COM, Inc. 16. Motorola 17. NENA (National Emergency Number Association) 18. Nortel Networks, Inc. 19. Omnipoint Communications 20. Omnipoint Technologies 21. PCIA (Personal Communications Industry Association) 22. PrimeCo 23. Radix Technologies, Inc. 24. RCA (Rural Cellular Association) 25. RTG (Rural Telecommunications Group) 26. SnapTrack 27. Sprint PCS 28. Southwest Research Institute 29. TechnoCom Corporation 30. TIA Wireless Communications Division 31. TruePosition 32. TX-ACSEC (Texas Advisory Commission on State Emergency Communications), NASNA (National Association of State Nine-One-One Administrators), and certain Texas Emergency Communications Districts: Joint commenters 33. US West 34. US Wireless 35. WCA (Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc.). WCA also filed a Petition To Modify the wireless 911 rules on June 1, 1999 which raised issues related to those in the Public Notice and which WCA incorporated by reference in its Comments. þ Reply Comments (July 2, 1999) 1. Aerial 2. AirTouch 3. Allen Telecom 4. APCO 5. Go2 Systems 6. IDC 7. KSI 8. Lucent Technologies 9. METROCOM.COM 10. Motorola 11. NENA 12. NTCA 13. Nextel 14. Omnipoint Communications 15. PCIA 16. PrimeCo 17. SnapTrack 18. Southern 19. Sprint 20. TX-ACSEC 21. Texas PUC 22. TruePosition 23. US West 24. WCA APPENDIX B FINAL RULES Part 20 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: Part 20 - COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES 1. Section 20.3 is amended by adding the following definitions: Handset-based Location Technology. A method of providing the location of wireless 911 callers that requires the use of special location-determining hardware and/or software in a portable or mobile phone. Handset-based location technology may also employ additional location- determining hardware and/or software in the CMRS network and/or another fixed infrastructure. Location-capable handsets. Portable or mobile phones that contain special location- determining hardware and/or software, which is used by a licensee to locate 911 calls. Network-based Location Technology. A method of providing the location of wireless 911 callers that employs hardware and/or software in the CMRS network and/or another fixed infrastructure, and does not require the use of special location-determining hardware and/or software in the caller's portable or mobile phone. 2. Section 20.18 is amended by deleting paragraph (e), redesignating paragraphs (f) and (g) as (i) and (j) and adding the following paragraphs: (e) Phase II enhanced 911 service. Licensees subject to this section must provide to the designated Public Safety Answering Point Phase II enhanced 911 service, i.e., the location of all 911 calls by longitude and latitude in conformance with Phase II accuracy requirements (see paragraph (g) of this Section). (f) Phase-in for Network-based Location Technologies. Licensees subject to this section who employ a network-based location technology shall provide Phase II 911 enhanced service to at least 50 percent of their coverage area or 50 percent of their population beginning October 1, 2001 or within 6 months of a PSAP request, whichever is later; and to 100 percent of their coverage area or 100 percent of their population within 18 months of such a request or by October 1, 2002, whichever is later. (g) Phase-in for Handset-based Location Technologies. Licensees subject to this section who employ a handset-based location technology may phase in deployment of Phase II enhanced 911 service, subject to the following requirements: (1) Without respect to any PSAP request for deployment of Phase II 911 enhanced service, the licensee shall: (A) Begin selling and activating location-capable handsets no later than March 1, 2001; (B) Ensure that at least 50 percent of all new handsets activated are location-capable no later than October 1, 2001; and (C) Ensure that at least 95 percent of all new digital handsets activated are location-capable no later than October 1, 2002. (2) Once a PSAP request is received, the licensee shall, in the area served by the PSAP: (A) Within six months or by October 1, 2001, whichever is later: (i) Ensure that 100 percent of all new handsets activated are location-capable; (ii) Install any hardware and/or software in the CMRS network and/or other fixed infrastructure, as needed, to enable the provision of Phase II enhanced 911 service; and (iii) Begin delivering Phase II enhanced 911 service to the PSAP. (B) Within two years or by December 31, 2004, whichever is later, undertake reasonable efforts to achieve 100 percent penetration of location-capable handsets among its subscribers. (3) For all 911 calls from portable or mobile phones that do not contain the hardware and/or software needed to enable the licensee to provide Phase II enhanced 911 service, the licensee shall, after a PSAP request is received, support, in the area served by the PSAP, Phase I location for 911 calls or other available best practice method of providing the location of the portable or mobile phone to the PSAP. (4) Licensees employing handset-based location technologies shall ensure that location-capable portable or mobile phones shall conform to industry interoperability standards designed to enable the location of such phones by multiple licensees. (g) 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. (h) Reports on Phase II plans. Licensees subject to this section shall report to the Commission their plans for implementing Phase II enhanced 911 service, including the location- determination technology they plan to employ and the procedure they intend to use to verify conformance with Phase II accuracy requirements, by October 1, 2000. Licensees are required to update these plans within thirty days of the adoption of any change. These reports and updates may be filed electronically in a manner to be designated by the Commission. APPENDIX C FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS Third Report and Order 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.  603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further Notice) issued in this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comments in the Further Notice, including comment on the IRFA. The present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this Third Report and Order (Third R&O) conforms to the RFA. I. Need for and Purpose of This Action 2. The Commission adopted rules for implementation of Phase II of the E911 regulatory framework in 1996. At that time, it was believed that automatic location information (ALI) could only be effectively provided by technologies based in or overlaid on carrier networks. Since that time, advancements in location technologies that employ new or upgraded handsets have demonstrated important progress. It now appears that both network and handset-based solutions may provide location information by 2001 that meets or exceeds the Commission's accuracy requirements. Each type of solution has its advantages and limitations, and each may also be improved or combined with other technologies in the future to support further improvements in 911 service and public safety. The Commission's current rules, however, as a practical matter only permit network-based solutions to meet Phase II requirements. The Third R&O thus revises the Commission's 911 rules to permit handset-based solutions, or hybrid solutions that require changes both to handsets and wireless networks, to compete in a reasonable way with the network-based solutions in providing automatic location identification (ALI). The Third R&O is therefore intended to ensure that E911 regulation reflects the most current technological advances possible and accordingly the most effective and responsive E911 service possible. II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 3. No comments were submitted in direct response to the IRFA. However, the Commission made every effort to gather as much data as possible and to solicit public comment on the issues resolved in the Third R&O. The Commission's effort to establish a reliable record culminated in June 1999, when we sponsored a roundtable discussion of technical issues involved in implementing the performance and accuracy standards for E911 Phase II ALI technologies. Roundtable participants included representative of network-based solution technologies, handset- based technologies, manufacturers, wireless carriers, and public safety representatives. III. Description and Estimates of the Number of Entities Affected by This Order on Reconsideration 4. 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, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the term "small business." In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act. 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). 5. SMR Licensees. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R.  90.814(b)(1), the Commission has defined "small business" for purposes of auctioning 900 Mhz SMR licenses, 800 MHz SMR licenses for the upper 200 channels, and 800 MHz SMR licenses for the lower 230 channels as a firm that has had average annual gross revenues of $15 million or less in the three preceding calendar years. This small business size standard for the 800 MHz and 900 MHz auctions has been approved by the SBA. The rule amendment adopted in this Third R&O affects geographic and wide area SMR providers that were not previously subject to the resale rule because they do not offer real-time, two-way PSN-interconnected voice service. Such SMR providers will now be subject to the CMRS resale rule if they offer real-time, two-way voice or data service that is interconnected with the public switched network, provided they use an in-network switching facility. 6. Sixty winning bidders for geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band qualified as small business under the $15 million size standard. It is not possible to determine which of these licensees was not covered by the previous rule but intends to offer real-time, two- way PSN-interconnected voice or data service utilizing an in-network switching facility. Therefore, we conclude that the number of 900 MHz SMR geographic area licensees affected by this rule modification is at least 60. 7. The auction of the 525 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels began on October 28, 1997, and was completed on December 8, 1997. Ten winning bidders for geographic area licenses for the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. It is not possible to determine which of these licensees was not covered by the previous rule but intends to offer real-time, two- way PSN-interconnected voice or data service utilizing an in-network switching facility. Therefore, we conclude that the number of 800 MHz SMR geographic area licensees for the upper 200 channels affected by this rule modification is at least ten. 8. The Commission has determined that 3325 geographic area licenses will be awarded in the 800 MHz SMR auction for the lower 230 channels. Because the auction of these licenses has not yet been conducted, there is no basis to estimate how many winning bidders will qualify as small businesses under the Commission's $15 million size standard. Nor is it possible to determine which of these licensees would not have been covered by the previous rule but will offer real-time, two-way PSN-interconnected voice or data service utilizing an in-network switching facility. Therefore, we conclude that the number of 800 MHz SMR geographic area licensees for the lower 230 channels that may ultimately be affected by this rule modification is at least 3325. 9. With respect to licensees operating under extended implementation authorizations, approximately 6800 such firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz SMR service. However, we do not know how many of these were not covered by the previous rule but intend to offer real-time, two- way PSN-interconnected voice or data service utilizing an in-network switching facility or which of this subset qualify as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. We assumed, for purposes of the FRFA that all of the remaining existing authorizations are held by licensees qualifying as small businesses under the $15 million size standard. Of these, we assume, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this Supplemental FRFA, that none of these licensees was covered by the previous rule but that all of them intend to offer real-time, two-way PSN-interconnected voice or data service utilizing an in-network switching facility. Therefore, we conclude that the number of SMR licensees operating in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands under extended implementation authorizations that may be affected by this rule modification is up to 6800. 10. Cellular Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular licensees. Therefore, the applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules applicable to radiotelephone (wireless) companies. This provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing no more than 1,500 persons. According to the Bureau of the Census, only twelve radiotelephone firms from a total of 1,178 such firms which operated during 1992 had 1,000 or more employees. Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition, we note that there are 1,758 cellular licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several licenses. In addition, according to the most recent Carrier Locator: Interstate Service Providers data, 732 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either cellular service or Personal Communications Service (PCS) services, which are placed together in the data. We do not have data specifying the number of these carriers 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 cellular service carriers that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA's definition. Consequently, we estimate that there are fewer than 732 small cellular service carriers that may be affected by the policies adopted in this Third R&O. 11. Broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS). The broadband 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 less than $40 million in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an additional classification for "very small business" was added and is defined as an entity that, together with their affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These regulations defining "small entity" in the context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved definition 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% of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. Based on this information, we conclude that the number of small broadband PCS licensees will include the 90 winning C Block bidders and the 93 qualifying bidders in the D, E, and F blocks, for a total of 183 small entity PCS providers as defined by the SBA and the Commission's auction rules. 12. Providers of Location Technologies. The Commission's requirement that wireless carriers provide the location of wireless 911 callers has created a business opportunity for companies that are able to develop and provide the technology to meet this obligation. Several apparently small location technology companies have participated in this proceeding, for example by presenting their technologies and filing comments. We estimate that as many as 20 small companies are involved in developing location technologies that may be affected by these rules, either directly in the case of handset-based technology companies or largely indirectly in the case of network-based technology companies. IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements 13. Among the rules enacted by the Third R&O is a requirement that wireless carriers report their plans for implementing E911 Phase II, including the technology they plan to use to provide caller location, by October 1, 2000. This report shall provide information to permit planning for Phase II implementation by public safety organizations, equipment manufacturers, local exchange carriers, and this Commission in order to support Phase II deployment by October 1, 2001. This reporting requirement is discussed in Section IV E of the Third R&O. The Third R&O, in summary, adopts rules that: (1) allow a phase-in for handset-based solutions, (2) establish a higher accuracy standard for handset-based solutions, (3) require that handset deployment begin earlier that the current October 1, 2001, deployment date, and that this deployment occur, for wireless carriers employing a handset solution regardless of whether the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) has requested Phase II, (4) require that wireless carriers employing handset-based solutions take additional steps to provide location information for roamers and callers with non-ALI capable handsets, (5) require that carriers take action to ensure that any phase-in for handset-based solutions is brief and complete, (6) replace the Root Mean Square (RMS) reliability methodology with a more workable and understandable standard, and (7) allow wireless carriers employing network-based location technology to reach 50 percent coverage within six months of a PSAP request for Phase II service and 100 percent coverage eighteen months after a PSAP request. V. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered 14. The Commission is taking this action to provide all affected licensees, regardless of size, with the flexibility to comply with the E911 Phase II regulations in the way that they feel best takes advantage of available technology. The rules adopted in the Third R&O will allow for handset-based solutions, or hybrid solutions, as well as network-based solutions for providing location information. The Third R&O provides for a phase-in for handset-based technologies. This phase-in approach may potentially delay the full availability of phase II location information for callers and PSAPs. To offset the effects of a delay on public safety, the Third R&O requires that handset-based solutions be held to a higher accuracy standard. This will help locate callers more quickly and assist PSAPs in handling 911 calls more efficiently. The Third R&O also requires that handset deployment begin earlier than the current October 1, 2001, deployment date, and that this deployment occur for carriers employing a handset solution, regardless of whether the PSAP has requested Phase II. 15. These steps should promote the rapid rollout of handset-based solutions through normal handset turnover and growth. While it does not appear that any single network-based or handset-based location technology is perfect in all situations or for all wireless transmission technologies, both network and handset-based solutions may provide location information by 2001 that meets or exceeds our accuracy requirements. The Commission is aware that each type of solution has its advantages and limitations, and each may also be improved or combined with other technologies in the future to support further improvements in 911 service and public safety. The Commission is not recommending one method over another, and is aware of the limitations apparent in handset-based solutions; we believe that any disadvantages in our actions in the Third R&O are far outweighed by the possible benefits. 16. All of the actions taken in the Third R&O, as described above, may have a certain amount of negative impact on affected entities, but the Commission expects that few if any small entities will feel an impact from our actions. Providers of network-based technologies may be affected indirectly as they confront more vigorous competition from companies offering handset- based and hybrid solutions, but will also benefit directly from rule revisions that allow more time to install network-based location equipment, a more workable accuracy standard, and a best practice obligation for carriers that may encourage the use of network-based technologies to supplement handset-based technologies. The limited negative affects of the Third R&O are offset by the flexibility that will be provided in allowing use of handset-based technology in complying with E911 regulations. This flexibility should be especially beneficial to small rural wireless carriers. Taken together, the Commission expects that this revised program for Phase II deployment will encourage the deployment of the best and most efficient technologies, speed actual implementation of E911, and promote competition in E911 location technology and service. We expect that our actions in the Third R&O will provide the clear guidance needed to enable the many necessary participants in wireless E911 deployment to implement Phase II as soon as possible. VI. Report to Congress 17. The Commission will send a copy of this Third R&O, including a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C.  801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Third R&O and this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. Finally, the Third R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) and will be published in the Federal Register. See 5 U.S.C.  604(b). Statement of Commissioner Gloria Tristani on Adoption of the Third Report and Order In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems September 15, 1999 As more and more Americans sign up for wireless phone service and usage keeps growing, consumers continue to cite access to emergency services as one of the most important reasons for owning a wireless phone. Every day, Americans make nearly 100,000 emergency calls on their wireless phones. That's 70 calls a minute to report an accident, to stop a crime, to save a life. Today, the Commission takes a meaningful step to ensure that the public safety community has access to Enhanced 911 (E911) capability to locate and respond more rapidly to wireless 911 calls. In our action today, we adopt a sensible approach to promote the rapid deployment of Automatic Location Identification (ALI)-capable technology for wireless 911 calls. The rules we adopt here will provide carriers with the ability to choose the best ALI technology option in light of their geographic coverage and customer base whether it's a network- or handset-based solution. It's clear that there is no one-size-fits-all solution for wireless E911 location identification. The phase-in approach for handset-based solutions which we adopt today involves trade-offs, but I believe that public safety is advanced by requiring increased location accuracy and early deployment for handset-based solutions. Moreover, these rules may speed ALI deployment in rural areas, where a handset-based option may provide a more effective and less costly solution. I recognize that much work remains to be done to ensure that consumers nationwide can benefit from ALI implementation, but I am pleased by the progress we make today.