[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 112 (Friday, June 11, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31530-31532]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-14930]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR PART 20

[CC Docket No. 94-102; DA 99-1049]


Compatibility of Wireless Services With Enhanced 911; Request for 
Comment on Wireless E911 Phase II Automatic Location Identification 
Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Request for comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document requests comment on several issues relating to 
implementation of Phase II of the Commission's Enhanced 911 (E911) 
service rules. The Commission's E911 Rules require that covered 
wireless carriers deploy Automatic Location Identification (ALI) as 
part of E911 service beginning October 1, 2001, provided certain 
conditions are met. The Commission has expressed concern that the 
effect of this rule may not be technologically or competitively neutral 
for certain technologies, and expressed its willingness to consider 
such issues either in the E911 rulemaking or in response to requests 
for waivers. In response to a document released on December 24, 1998, a 
number of parties filed waiver requests and responsive pleadings. This 
document solicits comments on a variety of related issues in order to 
expedite decisionmaking on whether or not to promulgate Phase II 
standards in light of the potential availability of handset-based 
technologies.

DATES: Comments are due on or before June 17, 1999, and reply comments 
are due on or before July 2, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary, 
445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mindy Littell, 202-418-1310, or Dan 
Grosh, 202-418-1310.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Public Notice in 
CC Docket No. 94-102, DA 99-1049, released June 1, 1999. The complete 
text of the Public Notice is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the Reference Information Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, Court Yard Level, 445 12th Street, 
SW, Washington, DC 20554, and also may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Service, Inc. 
(ITS), CY-B400, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.

Synopsis of the Public Notice

    1. Section 20.18(e) of the Commission's E911 rules currently 
require that covered wireless carriers deploy ALI as part of E911 
service beginning October 1, 2001, provided certain conditions are met. 
This rule was adopted in the First Report and Order (61 FR 40348, 
August 2, 1996) and provides that covered carriers must provide 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, in a Memorandum Opinion and Order in 
this proceeding (63 FR 2631, January 16, 1998) (E911 Reconsideration 
Order), the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (the Bureau) responded 
to concerns that the effect of section 20.18(e) might not be 
technologically and competitively neutral for some technologies that 
might be used to provide ALI, particularly handset-based technologies 
such as those using the Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) system. In 
addition, the Commission indicated its willingness to consider such 
issues either in the E911 rulemaking or in response to requests for 
waivers. In a Public Notice released late last year (64 FR 3478, 
January 22, 1999) (Waiver Public Notice), the Commission set forth 
guidelines and a filing schedule to assist those interested in filing 
waivers to section 20.18(e). The Waiver Public Notice also sought 
comment on the accuracy standards that should apply to handset-based 
solutions as part of the Phase II requirements or as a condition of any 
Phase II waiver that the Commission would grant. A number of parties 
filed waiver requests and other pleadings in response to the Waiver 
Public Notice.
    2. In order to expedite decisionmaking on whether or not to 
promulgate Phase II standards in light of the potential availability of 
handset-based technologies, the Bureau released another Public Notice 
seeking targeted comment on: (1) whether to adopt standards for handset 
approaches similar to those outlined in two specific proposals 
submitted in the proceeding; (2) how specifically to handle the issues 
of roaming and handset turnover; and (3) whether the Commission should 
clarify or modify its methodology for determining ALI accuracy under 
Phase II. Comments submitted in response to this Public Notice will be 
included in the pending wireless E911 docket, and be utilized by the 
Commission in its further development of policies and rules for 
wireless E911 deployment, as well as potentially, in its consideration 
of the pending waiver requests.
    3. First, based on the waiver petitions filed in response to the 
Waiver Public Notice and the comment received on those petitions, the 
Public Notice is seeking targeted comment on certain standards for 
handset-based solutions proposed by interested parties, including two 
proposals filed since the end of the formal pleading cycle on the 
Waiver Public Notice. Under both proposals, carriers deploying a 
handset-based solution would be required to start providing ALI on 
wireless 911 calls before the October 1, 2001, deadline and to provide 
ALI to a greater degree of accuracy than required under the 
Commission's rules.
    4. One proposal was filed by SnapTrack, a developer of a handset-
based solution incorporating GPS technology. SnapTrack has proposed 
conditions under which, it argues, carriers deploying a handset-based 
solution should be deemed compliant with the Phase II requirements. 
According to SnapTrack, the Commission should deem carriers to be in 
compliance if they: (1) begin to deploy location-capable handsets by 
January 1, 2001; (2) deploy only location-capable handsets after 
December 31, 2001; and (3) achieve location accuracy of 90 meters using 
circular error probability (CEP) methodology.
    5. A second proposal was filed by APCO, an association of public 
safety communications officials. APCO proposed that the Commission 
permit a carrier to implement a handset-based

[[Page 31531]]

solution only if it deploys ALI-capable handsets according to a 
specific schedule and meets firm deadlines for achieving specific 
levels of ALI-capable handsets among all of its subscribers. 
Specifically, APCO proposes that the waiver conditions should include 
the following: (1) carriers must begin to offer ALI-capable handsets no 
later than January 1, 2001; at least 80 percent of handsets being 
deployed on the carrier's system must be ALI-capable as of December 31, 
2001; and 100 percent of handsets being deployed on the carrier's 
system must be ALI capable as of December 31, 2002; (2) 25 percent of 
all phones in use on the carrier's system must be ALI-capable by the 
end of 2002, 50 percent must be ALI-capable by the end of 2003; 75 
percent must be ALI-capable by the end of 2004; and 100 percent must be 
ALI-capable by the end of 2005; (3) carriers must commit to a specific 
average accuracy level substantially better than the current Phase II 
requirement; and (4) carriers must agree to implement technologies that 
meet industry standards for interfacing with all carriers and PSAPs.
    6. Other parties proposed similar approaches relating to early 
deployment and increased accuracy. For instance, with regard to 
location accuracy, AirTouch has suggested that the Commission approve 
ALI-capable handsets that provide ALI with 90-meter accuracy and 70 
percent reliability as determined using CEP. Similarly, Ameritech has 
suggested that the Commission require handset-based solutions to meet a 
two-dimensional location accuracy standard of 90 meters with 67 percent 
confidence.
    7. On the other hand, some parties have argued that any change to 
the Commission's rules that permits something less than 100 percent 
compliance by October 1, 2001, will unduly delay the availability of 
ALI to all Americans. These parties assert that the public interest 
would not be served by permitting such a phased-in implementation 
schedule despite any putative benefits from an earlier start date and 
greater degree of accuracy.
    8. Because the SnapTrack and APCO submissions were filed late in 
the waiver proceeding, preventing some interested parties from 
commenting on these proposals, and because the Bureau believes that 
targeted comment focused on specific proposals will expedite 
decisionmaking, it is seeking additional comments on these proposals.
    9. In response to the Waiver Public Notice, petitioners and 
commenters provided limited information concerning steps to minimize 
the problems likely to be encountered by customers without ALI-capable 
handsets roaming outside of service areas that have adopted a network-
based solution and into areas where a carrier has deployed a handset-
based solution. One of the concerns is that, because the handsets of 
such ``roamers'' will lack the necessary equipment or software needed 
for the carrier's handset-based approach, the carrier may not provide 
ALI for all calls, as the Commission's rules require. Waiver proponents 
predict that roamer issues will be insubstantial and will disappear 
over time as a result of handset churn and the fact that manufacturers 
will take advantage of economies of scale and mass produce ALI-capable 
handsets. In addition, several parties contend that, even if a roamer 
cannot be located to Phase II specifications, the carrier will be able 
to provide the PSAP with Phase I-level location information. The Bureau 
requests additional information regarding the extent of roamers who may 
not have ALI-capable handsets and other concerns related to providing 
ALI for roamers without ALI-capable handsets. The Bureau also requests 
additional information with respect to the usefulness of Phase I 
location information as a back-up for wireless users without ALI-
capable handsets.
    10. The Bureau also requests comment on the issues of handset 
turnover and roaming. It noted that only one commenter specifically 
addressed the handling of subscribers who do not replace their handsets 
frequently. There is concern that this type of customer, when served by 
a carrier deploying a handset-based system, may not enjoy the public 
safety benefits of ALI for an extended period of time. One solution may 
be to impose an obligation upon carriers adopting a handset-based 
system to offer either to retrofit or to replace subscriber handsets to 
make them ALI-capable at the carrier's expense or, at a minimum, at a 
very substantial discount, if subscribers have not upgraded their 
handsets by a certain date. This would help ensure that customers who 
do not regularly upgrade their handsets will not be left without ALI 
following the deployment of a handset-based system in their service 
area. The Bureau seeks comment on the potential costs of such an 
approach and request suggestions on what period of time would be 
appropriate before the carrier would be obligated to retrofit or 
replace non-ALI-capable handsets of its subscribers.
    11. Sprint commented that the best solution may be a combination of 
approaches. Specifically, Sprint favors deploying a handset-based 
system for new customers, along with establishing an interim network 
software solution capable of providing location information that would 
exceed Phase I requirements for those customers with non-GPS handsets 
and end users of other carriers roaming into a Sprint service area. 
Sprint argues that this software-based network system, while not as 
accurate as the traditional triangulation devices previously proposed, 
would be substantially less expensive and would provide sufficient 
accuracy to meet public safety needs. Specifically, Sprint contends 
that, were it to adopt a handset-based approach as its principal means 
of implementing Phase II E911 service, it would also install a 
software-based network solution that could provide location information 
with an accuracy within 285 meters for non-ALI-capable handsets. 
Sprint's submission appears to present a means by which carriers 
adopting a handset-based system could provide ALI for all calls, as 
required by the rules. The Bureau requests comment on this approach and 
the level of location accuracy that could be provided using this 
software-based network system.
    12. In addition, the Bureau seeks comment on the appropriate 
methodology for determining ALI accuracy. In the E911 Reconsideration 
Order, Section 20.18(e) was amended to clarify that licensees subject 
to the section--regardless of the ALI technology utilized--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. Since the rule's amendment, 
the Commission has received several filings indicating that it may be 
necessary to reevaluate the appropriate methodology for determining ALI 
accuracy. Specifically, filings and presentations by Ericsson and the 
Wireless E9-1-1 Implementation Ad Hoc (WEIAD) group seek clarification 
of the accuracy requirement. These parties argue that the RMS 
methodology adopted by the Commission should not apply to the ALI 
accuracy for all E911 calls because a small number of measurements that 
are very inaccurate will prevent a carrier from complying with the ALI 
requirement even if the vast majority of ALI measurements are less than 
125 meters. In response to the waiver requests, Cell-Loc commented that 
confusion still exists regarding the meaning of an RMS accuracy 
specification. SnapTrack and other proponents of handset-based 
solutions advocate the use of CEP in evaluating

[[Page 31532]]

the accuracy of those systems. TruePosition, a proponent of a network-
based solution, asserts that SnapTrack has mischaracterized the 
accuracy standard and the degree of market penetration necessary to 
exceed it.
    13. Because of the importance of this issue with respect to all ALI 
technologies, the Bureau seeks additional comment on all of these 
arguments and invites recommendations on the appropriate methodology 
for measuring ALI accuracy, consistent with the Commission's goal of 
providing the best ALI accuracy for all callers.

Filing Schedules and Instructions

    14. Interested parties may file comments on the topics raised in 
this document no later than June 17, 1999; reply comments must be filed 
on or before July 2, 1999.

Administrative Information

    15. To file formally in this proceeding, commenters must file an 
original and five copies of all comments and reply comments. If parties 
want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an 
original and ten copies must be filed. All comments should reference CC 
Docket No. 94-102 and should be filed with the Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, TW-A325, S.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20554. One copy of all comments should be sent to 
Mindy Littell, Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 
12th Street, S.W., 3-B103, Washington, DC 20554. One copy should also 
be sent to: International Transcription Service, Inc. (ITS), CY-B400, 
445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554.
    16. Because these comments will be included in CC Docket No. 94-
102, and may be considered in the context of the ongoing wireless E911 
rulemaking, we believe that it is appropriate to treat this as a 
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's 
ex parte rules. See 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206.

Federal Communications Commission.
James D. Schlichting,
Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 99-14930 Filed 6-10-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P