[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
