[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 28, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59916-59922]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24865]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[PS Docket No. 07-114, GN Docket No. 11-117, WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 
11-107]


Interconnected VoIP Service; Wireless E911 Location Accuracy 
Requirements; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission continues to strengthen its 
existing Enhanced 911 (E911) location accuracy regime for wireless 
carriers by retaining the existing handset-based and network-based 
location accuracy standards and the eight-year implementation period 
established in our September 2010 E911 Location Accuracy Second Report 
and Order but providing for phasing out the network-based standard over 
time. We also require all Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
providers, launching new stand-alone networks, to comply with the 
handset-based location criteria, regardless of the location technology 
they actually use. In addition, we will require wireless carriers to 
periodically test their outdoor E911 location accuracy results and to 
share the results with Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), state 
911 offices, and the Commission, subject to confidentiality safeguards.

DATES: Effective November 28, 2011, except for Sec.  20.18(h)(2)(iv) 
which contains information collection requirements that have not been 
approved by OMB. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a 
document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Donovan, Attorney Advisor, 
(202) 418-2413. For additional information concerning the Paperwork 
Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this 
document, contact Judith Boley-Herman, (202) 418-0214, or send an e-
mail to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Report and Order (Third R&O) in PS Docket No. 07-114, GN Docket No. 11-
117, WC Docket No. 05-196, FCC 11-107, released on July 13, 2011. The 
full text of this document is available for public inspection during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/.

I. Introduction

    1. In the Third Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we enhance the public's 
ability to contact emergency services personnel during times of crisis 
and enable public safety personnel to obtain accurate information 
regarding the location of the caller. In the Report and Order, we 
continue to strengthen our existing Enhanced 911 (E911) location 
accuracy regime for wireless carriers by retaining the existing 
handset-based and network-based location accuracy standards and the 
eight-year implementation period established in our September 2010 E911 
Location Accuracy Second Report and Order but providing for phasing out 
the network-based standard over time. We also require new Commercial 
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) networks to comply with the handset-based 
location criteria, regardless of the location technology they actually 
use. In addition, we will require wireless carriers to periodically 
test their outdoor E911 location accuracy results and to share the 
results with Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), state 911 offices, 
and the Commission, subject to confidentiality safeguards.

II. Background

    2. In 1996, the Commission required CMRS providers to implement 
basic 911 and Enhanced 911 services. Under the Commission's wireless 
E911 rules, CMRS providers are obligated to provide the telephone 
number of the originator of a 911 call and information regarding the 
caller's location to any PSAP that has requested that such information 
be delivered with 911 calls. Recently amended Sec.  20.18(h) of the 
Commission's rules states that licensees subject to the wireless E911 
requirements:
    Shall comply with the following standards for Phase II location 
accuracy and reliability: (1) For network-based technologies: 100 
meters for 67 percent of calls, 300 meters for 90 percent of calls; (2) 
For handset-based technologies: 50 meters for 67 percent of calls, 150 
meters for 90 percent of calls.
    3. In June 2005, the Commission released a First Report and Order 
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking adopting rules requiring providers of 
interconnected VoIP service to supply E911 capabilities to their 
customers as a standard feature from wherever the customer is using the 
service. The rules adopted in the 2005 VoIP 911 Order apply only to 
providers of interconnected VoIP services, which the Commission defined 
as services that (1) enable real-time, two-way voice communications; 
(2) require a broadband connection from the user's location; (3) 
require Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment (CPE); 
and (4) permit users generally to receive calls that originate on the 
public switched telephone network (PSTN) and to terminate calls to the 
PSTN. Interconnected VoIP service providers generally must provide 
consumers with E911 service and transmit all 911 calls, including 
Automatic Number Identification (ANI) and the caller's Registered 
Location for each call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default 
answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority. In 2008, 
Congress codified these requirements and granted the Commission 
authority to modify them.
    4. In June 2007, the Commission released the Location Accuracy 
NPRM, seeking comment on several issues relating to wireless E911 
location accuracy and reliability requirements. Specifically, the 
Commission sought comment on the capabilities and limitations of 
existing and new location technologies; the advantages of combining 
handset-based and network-based location technologies (a hybrid 
solution); the prospect of adopting more

[[Page 59917]]

stringent location accuracy requirements; and compliance testing 
methodologies in different environments, such as indoor versus outdoor 
use and rural versus urban areas. The Commission also invited comment 
on how to address location accuracy issues for 911 calls placed when 
roaming, particularly when roaming between carriers using different 
location technologies. Further, the Commission requested comment on a 
number of tentative conclusions and proposals, including establishing a 
single location accuracy standard rather than the separate accuracy 
requirements for network and handset-based technologies, adopting a 
mandatory schedule for accuracy testing, and applying the same location 
accuracy standards that apply to circuit-switched CMRS services to 
interconnected VoIP services used in more than one location.
    5. In October 2008, as required by the NET 911 Improvement Act (NET 
911 Act), the Commission released a Report and Order adopting rules 
providing ``interconnected VoIP providers rights of access to any and 
all capabilities necessary to provide 911 and E911 service from 
entities that own or control those capabilities.'' In the NET 911 
Improvement Act Report and Order, the Commission declined to ``issue 
highly detailed rules listing capabilities or entities with ownership 
or control of these capabilities'' because the nation's 911 system 
varies depending on the locality and ``overly specific rules would fail 
to reflect these local variations.'' The Commission also declined ``to 
expand the applicability of the rights granted in the NET 911 
Improvement Act to entities beyond those encompassed within that 
statute.''
    6. On March 16, 2010, the Commission staff released the National 
Broadband Plan, which recommended that the Commission examine 
approaches for leveraging broadband technologies to enhance emergency 
communications with the public by moving towards Next Generation 911 
(NG911), because NG911 will provide a ``more interoperable and 
integrated emergency response capability for PSAPs, first responders, 
hospitals and other emergency response professionals.'' Further, the 
National Broadband Plan notes that the Commission is ``considering 
changes to its location accuracy requirements and the possible 
extension of * * * ALI * * * requirements to interconnected VoIP 
services.'' The National Broadband Plan recommends that the Commission 
``expand [the Location Accuracy NPRM] proceeding to explore how NG911 
may affect location accuracy and ALI.''
    7. On September 23, 2010, the Commission adopted the E911 Location 
Accuracy Second Report and Order, addressing wireless E911 location 
accuracy, and the Location Accuracy FNPRM and NOI, seeking comment on 
additional location accuracy issues affecting wireless, VoIP, and 
emerging broadband voice services. The E911 Location Accuracy Second 
Report and Order required CMRS providers to satisfy the E911 Phase II 
location accuracy requirements at either a county-based or PSAP-based 
geographic level. The order provided for implementation of this 
standard over an eight-year period with interim benchmarks. The 
Commission determined, however, that the revised location accuracy 
requirements would apply to outdoor measurements only and not to 
accuracy measurements for indoor locations. Additionally, regardless of 
whether a carrier employs handset-based or network-based location 
technology, the Commission required wireless carriers to provide 
confidence and uncertainty data on a per-call basis upon PSAP request. 
The Commission also extended the requirement to deliver confidence and 
uncertainty data to entities responsible for transporting this data 
between wireless carriers and PSAPs, including LECs, CLECs, owners of 
E911 networks, and emergency service providers (collectively, System 
Service Providers (SSPs)).
    8. In the Location Accuracy FNPRM and NOI, the Commission sought 
comment on several issues with respect to amending the Commission's 
wireless 911 and E911 requirements and extending 911 and E911 
requirements to additional VoIP and wireless services. In the Location 
Accuracy FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on a number of issues 
initially raised in the Location Accuracy NPRM, including: whether the 
Commission should consider more stringent location parameters for 
wireless E911 Phase II location accuracy and reliability; potential 
modifications to the accuracy standard, including adoption of a unitary 
or single standard; the methodology carriers should use to verify 
compliance, both initially and during ongoing testing; the format in 
which accuracy data should be automatically provided to PSAPs; how to 
address location accuracy while roaming; how to improve location 
information and accuracy in more challenging environments, such as 
indoors; and whether the Commission's location accuracy standards 
should include an elevation (z-axis) component. In the NOI, the 
Commission requested comment on a number of 911 and E911 issues related 
to VoIP services, including whether the Commission should require 
interconnected VoIP service providers to automatically identify the 
geographic location of a customer without the customer's active 
cooperation and whether the Commission should apply its E911 
regulations to VoIP services that are not fully interconnected to the 
PSTN.
    9. In March 2011, the Communications Security, Reliability, and 
Interoperability Council's (CSRIC's) Working Group 4C released a report 
entitled ``Technical Options for E9-1-1 Location Accuracy.'' CSRIC is a 
Federal Advisory Committee that was tasked with providing guidance and 
expertise on the nation's communications infrastructure and public 
safety communications. CSRIC Working Group 4C was responsible for 
examining E911 and public safety location technologies currently in 
use, identifying current performance and limitations for use in next 
generation public safety applications, examining emerging E911 public 
safety location technologies, and recommending options to CSRIC for the 
improvement of E911 location accuracy timelines. The CSRIC 4C Report 
made a number of recommendations, including that the FCC should: 
establish an E9-1-1 Technical Advisory Group to address specific 
location technology issues for 911, such as how to improve location 
accuracy in challenging environments, including indoor settings; 
actively engage in discussion on how to implement 911 auto-location for 
nomadic VoIP services; and consider extending E911 and location 
obligations to providers of over-the-top VoIP applications that are not 
subject to the FCC's interconnected VoIP regulations.

III. Third Report and Order

A. Unitary Location Accuracy Standard

    10. Background. In the Location Accuracy FNPRM, the Commission 
sought comment on whether to change the current location accuracy 
requirements in Section 20.18(h) of our rules, including whether to 
adopt a unitary standard, rather than maintaining separate standards 
for network- and handset-based carriers. The Commission also sought to 
refresh the record developed on this issue in response to the Location 
Accuracy NPRM, in which the Commission had tentatively concluded that 
it should adopt a unitary location accuracy requirement.
    11. Comments. Some commenters support the adoption of a unitary

[[Page 59918]]

location accuracy requirement. APCO supports the adoption of a unitary 
standard ``to the extent feasible,'' while NENA urges the FCC to ``lay 
out a regulatory vision for achieving [one] harmonized accuracy 
standard.'' Verizon Wireless and Intrado also support the use of a 
unitary standard, contending that the bifurcated handset and network 
standards create ``an unacceptable disparity'' among wireless users.
    12. Other commenters oppose adoption of a unitary location accuracy 
standard. AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, the Telecommunications 
Industry Association (TIA), Andrew Corporation, Motorola, and CTIA 
contend that a unitary standard is not technically or economically 
feasible at this time. For instance, T-Mobile asserts that ``[f]or 
carriers using network-based E911 solutions * * * the [E911 Location 
Accuracy Second Report and Order] establishes a migration path from 
those technologies to the handset-based A-GPS solution.'' T-Mobile 
submits that the ``[Second Report and Order] already contemplates a 
handset change out for all non-A-GPS-capable handsets'' and urges the 
Commission to be ``reluctant to order another handset change out, 
especially before it can fully evaluate the results of the [Second 
Report and Order].'' T-Mobile contends that ``[d]oing so would likely 
impose significant additional unnecessary costs on consumers and 
providers without an ascertainable benefit[,]'' while ``continued 
refinements in GPS receiver performance and location algorithms, and 
the likely availability of additional navigation satellite systems will 
improve A-GPS capabilities during the eight-year transition.'' Also, 
TIA ``encourages the Commission not to impose a single uniform standard 
for location accuracy rules[,]'' because ``[m]andating a single 
standard for both network and device location accuracy will drive 
technological innovation and investment towards meeting such a 
standard, rather than developing location accuracy enhancements that go 
beyond any new requirements.'' Polaris argues that a single location 
accuracy standard should not be implemented ``until [the Commission] 
adopts a hybridization timeline.''
    13. Discussion. Given the Commission's recent revisions to the 
handset- and network-based location accuracy requirements in the E911 
Location Accuracy Second Report and Order and the establishment of an 
eight-year implementation period for these requirements, we find that 
it would be premature to replace the existing location accuracy rules 
with a unitary location accuracy standard. To comply with the E911 
Location Accuracy Second Report and Order, CMRS providers are already 
making substantial efforts to improve their ability to provide accurate 
location information. We see no reason, at this time, to alter the 
amount of time provided to carriers under the E911 Location Accuracy 
Second Report and Order to comply with the rules adopted there.
    14. Nevertheless, the record in this proceeding clearly signals 
that the wireless industry is engaged in a broad migration away from 
the dichotomy between network- and handset-based approaches to location 
accuracy. Current handset-based carriers are increasingly combining A-
GPS technologies with refinements based on location determinations 
using network-based technologies. For instance, Sprint uses ``a 
combination of handset-based and network-based location technologies,'' 
and while its ``Phase II E-911 solution for its CDMA network has been 
categorized as a handset-based solution,'' it also deploys ``network-
based components.'' Similarly, Verizon Wireless submits that it uses a 
mix of technologies, including ``A-GPS (network-assisted), Hybrid (A-
GPS & AFLT), AFLT, and several default location technologies (cell 
sector with timing, mixed cell sector, cell sector) to provide location 
information for 9-1-1 calls.'' T-Mobile adds that besides ``A-GPS 
improvements, carriers have also made improvements in the use of the 
timing and triangulation technologies that serve as fallback location 
technologies implemented today as complements to A-GPS.''
    15. As network-based carriers migrate to A-GPS and increase the 
penetration of A-GPS-capable handsets in accordance with our 
implementation benchmarks for location accuracy, the technological 
distinctions between handset- and network-based wireless E911 solutions 
will continue to diminish. We concur with T-Mobile that ``[a]s carriers 
transition to A-GPS, they will also transition from network-based 
accuracy standards to handset-based standards, moving toward a de facto 
unified standard'' and that ``the likely result * * * at least for 
major nationwide carriers, is that all will be using similar A-GPS E911 
location technologies across nearly their entire subscriber base by the 
end of the ordered eight-year transition.''
    16. Therefore, we decide not to alter the rules adopted in the E911 
Location Accuracy Second Report and Order as they apply to existing 
wireless carriers and networks. Rather, we conclude that the network-
based standard should sunset at an appropriate point after the end of 
the eight-year implementation period, at which point all carriers would 
be obligated to meet the handset-based location accuracy standard in 
the Commission's current rules. In adopting this approach, we assess 
the benefits of requiring, at a later date, the handset-based location 
accuracy standard as the unitary standard. The handset-based standard 
is more stringent than the network-based standard. This stricter 
standard is consistent with the Commission's chief objective of 
``ensur[ing] that PSAPs receive accurate and meaningful location 
information'' while considering that ``compliance timeframes, 
limitations, and exemptions * * * provide carriers with a sufficient 
measure of flexibility to account for technical and cost-related 
concerns.'' With the more precise handset-based standard as the unitary 
standard, we expect it to be easier for first responders to locate 
wireless customers in emergency situations. It is reasonable to expect 
that the more accurate location information under the handset-based 
location accuracy parameters will lead to more direct and quicker 
response by first responders addressing wireless 911 calls, and that 
expediting their response time will have significant public safety 
benefits. For instance, we note that, in cardiac arrest emergencies, 
reducing response times by even three minutes improves a victim's 
chances of survival ``almost four-fold.''
    17. There are substantial benefits to retaining the existing 
location accuracy rules with the eight-year implementation periods for 
both handset-based and network-based location accuracy solutions. The 
record shows convincing support from wireless carriers and the public 
safety community for retaining the Commission's current bifurcated 
approach for cost reasons. We agree with T-Mobile that adopting a 
unitary location accuracy standard now ``would likely impose 
significant additional unnecessary costs on consumers and providers 
without an ascertainable benefit.'' AT&T adds that ``mandating a 
specific technology or standard would prevent carriers from 
implementing E911 solutions that fully leverage their unique network 
characteristics,'' especially since, as we note above, carriers are 
currently taking initial steps to comply with our first location 
accuracy benchmarks. Also, although NENA supports a unitary location 
accuracy standard, it recognizes that the bifurcated regulatory regime 
in effect ``represent[s] a reasonable compromise between cost [and] 
capability.'' We thus

[[Page 59919]]

conclude that continuing this approach will provide the benefit of 
regulatory certainty without the likely precipitate costs of a unitary 
standard at this time, as the growing migration to A-GPS handsets 
continues and network-based carriers increasingly incorporate those 
handsets in accordance with their respective location accuracy 
benchmarks.
    18. The phasing out of the network-based standard that we are 
adopting will allow carriers using network-based technologies to spread 
over the eight-year implementation period their actions to comply with 
the location accuracy benchmarks. Because in 2010 almost all 2G and 3G 
handsets shipped by manufacturers were equipped with GPS-chips, by the 
end of the eight-year implementation period, network-based carriers 
will likely have complied with their location accuracy benchmarks by 
``blending in'' such location-capable handsets. Therefore, the costs of 
meeting the handset-based standard within a reasonable sunset period 
after 8 years should be minimal. Moreover, the fact that the eight-year 
benchmark permits ``a network-based carrier to comply * * * using only 
handset-based measurements, as long as it has achieved at least 85% A-
GPS handset penetration among its subscribers'' should provide 
incentives to network-based carriers to achieve 85 percent A-GPS 
handset penetration by the end of the eight years and thereby 
contribute to minimizing subsequent costs. Nevertheless, given the 
constantly evolving nature of location technologies, we recognize that 
it is premature to adopt a specific sunset date at this time. Instead, 
we will seek comment on selecting a sunset date and on considering the 
costs and benefits associated with a particular sunset date at a later 
time. We believe that as the end of the eight-year period draws closer, 
the public safety community, wireless carriers, location technology 
vendors and other stakeholders will have a significantly better 
understanding of how much time network-based carriers will need 
following the conclusion of the eight-year implementation period to 
come into compliance with the handset-based standard.
    19. In addition, we conclude that all new CMRS network providers 
that meet the definition of covered CMRS providers in Section 20.18 
must comply with the handset-based location accuracy standard. We 
concur with Verizon and Verizon Wireless that due to the broad 
migration toward use of A-GPS-capable handsets, it is reasonable to 
harmonize our location accuracy requirements with regard to new CMRS 
networks. We define a ``new CMRS network'' as a CMRS network that is 
newly deployed subsequent to the effective date of this Report and 
Order and that is not associated with an existing CMRS network. In 
other words, our definition of ``new CMRS network'' excludes network 
changes or deployments that are part of an upgrade or expansion of an 
existing CMRS network. In adopting this definition, our intent is to 
require covered CMRS providers that are launching new stand-alone 
networks to meet the handset-based location accuracy standard from the 
start, rather than to accelerate the eight-year implementation period 
for existing covered CMRS providers that opt to upgrade their networks 
during the implementation period.
    20. We find that requiring all new CMRS network providers to comply 
with our handset-based location accuracy standard is consistent with 
the regulatory principle of ensuring technological neutrality. 
Providers deploying new CMRS networks are free to use network-based 
location techniques, or to combine network and handset-based 
techniques, to provide 911 location information, provided that they 
meet the accuracy criteria applicable to handset-based providers. Given 
the long-term goal of universal support for one location accuracy 
standard, we believe that such a mandate allows appropriate planning 
and ensures that new technology will comply with the most stringent 
location accuracy standard that applies to existing technology. 
Additionally, as A-GPS-capable handsets become more widely available, 
and as consumer demand increases for handsets that provide GPS-based 
navigation and location-based services, new CMRS providers will have 
substantial incentive to provide such handsets to most if not all of 
their customers, thus minimizing the incremental cost to such carriers 
of complying with the Commission's handset-based location accuracy 
standard.
1. Outdoor Location Accuracy Testing
    21. In April 2000, the Commission's Office of Engineering and 
Technology (OET) issued Bulletin No. 71 (OET Bulletin 71) to provide 
assistance in determining whether wireless licensees are in compliance 
with the location accuracy standards set by the Commission. The 
bulletin stated that compliance with the OET guidelines would establish 
``a strong presumption that appropriate means have been applied to 
ensure that an [automatic location identification] (ALI) system 
complies with the Commission's Rules.''
    22. Background. In the Location Accuracy FNPRM, the Commission 
sought comment on whether it should make wireless location accuracy 
compliance testing mandatory and whether to establish a mandatory 
testing schedule. The Commission also sought comment on whether OET 
Bulletin 71 should serve as the basis for a mandatory testing 
methodology, and the Commission sought to refresh the record on testing 
methodologies developed in response to the Location Accuracy NPRM.
    23. Comments. A number of commenters support mandatory periodic 
testing of CMRS providers' compliance with the Commission's location 
accuracy rules. NENA argues that ``[s]uch testing is the PSAP's only 
real assurance that emergency services personnel will be able to locate 
callers in times of distress.'' NENA, however, acknowledges ``that 
compliance testing is an expensive and burdensome process for 
carriers'' and therefore proposes that the ``baseline compliance 
testing interval should be five years.'' NENA also advocates that in 
PSAP service areas where Phase II service capabilities have been 
deployed, new or upgraded base stations should undergo compliance 
testing before entering service. NENA reasons that without such a 
requirement, current rules ``could permit carriers to delay testing of 
location accuracy for newly-deployed base stations (or sectors in these 
areas) for up to six months'' and that this risks ``the creation of 
`islands' where E9-1-1 Phase II level service is unavailable to 
consumers who have a reasonable expectation of service.'' NENA also 
recommends that ``[m]aterial changes to the wireless operational 
environment within a PSAP service area should trigger localized out-of-
cycle testing.'' Finally, NENA argues that carriers should be required 
to share test results with relevant PSAPs and State 9-1-1 offices, 
``subject to stringent confidentiality provisions,'' to foster 
collaboration between carriers and public safety agencies and to 
improve PSAPs' situational awareness.
    24. APCO also supports mandatory accuracy testing but does not 
propose a specific schedule or timeframe. APCO argues that 
``[c]ompliance testing must * * * be repeated within a reasonable time 
frame,'' as ``wireless system updates such as `re-homing' a cellular 
network or modifying internal databases have been known to have a 
negative impact on location and 9-1-1 delivery.'' APCO urges the 
Commission to ``seriously consider mandating that

[[Page 59920]]

compliance testing conforms to OET 71.'' APCO also argues that test 
results should be shared with relevant PSAPs and presented in a 
standardized format.
    25. TruePosition also recommends periodic mandatory accuracy 
testing. TruePosition argues that ``[t]o identify the impact of the 
numerous changes that occur over time * * * it is necessary to 
characterize system performance periodically.'' TruePosition argues 
that ``such testing often turns up hidden problems that can usually be 
rectified quickly once discovered'' and that periodic testing ``also 
has the benefit of identifying common issues such that procedures can 
be put in place to address them on an on-going basis.'' Further, 
TruePosition argues that ``test calls from a specific cell site should 
be weighted according to the percentage of 911 calls originating on 
that cell site'' and that ``[w]hile accuracy is the main criteria for 
compliance, it is meaningless unless yield is also taken into 
account.''
    26. Texas 9-1-1 Agencies argue that ``[w]ireless carriers must be 
required to do initial pre-deployment testing of Phase 2 service before 
turning up any new towers with live traffic or any new coverage areas 
with live traffic in 9-1-1 authority areas that have full Phase 2 
service.'' Texas 9-1-1 Agencies argue further that ``[Section] 20.18 
should not be interpreted to create an automatic loophole extension of 
up to six-months for wireless carriers to deploy Phase 2 service at a 
later date after they start handling live end user traffic.''
    27. The Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions' (ATIS) 
Emergency Services Forum (ESIF), an organization with wireless carriers 
as members, has developed and published several industry-accepted 
methodologies related to testing. In particular, ATIS's ESIF has 
published a technical report (ATIS Report) that specifies events that 
should trigger maintenance testing. These events include: (1) Major 
network changes that may significantly impact location accuracy; (2) 
problems such as unexplained significant degradation of service, 
systematic failed delivery of service and catastrophic events; and (3) 
every two years, at a minimum, consistent with NRIC VII Focus Group 1A 
recommendations. ATIS states that examples of major network changes 
that should trigger location accuracy testing include:
    (a) Changes to core location technology;
    (b) Major system software upgrades that impact location algorithms;
    (c) Changes in radio frequency (RF) configuration that would result 
in a significant impact to location accuracy in the area being 
considered; and
    (d) Natural disasters that alter the topology of a significant 
portion of the infrastructure in an area of consideration.''
    According to AT&T, the ATIS report ``should be the starting point 
for [an advisory group] evaluation.''
    28. Carrier commenters generally oppose mandatory testing. T-Mobile 
argues that periodic testing is not necessary because ``once initial 
data is collected indicating certain accuracy levels have been 
achieved, that data does not lose validity. In fact, performance 
generally tends to improve rather than degrade over time.'' T-Mobile 
further contends that ``[r]equiring periodic re-testing would * * * be 
unnecessary and impose a huge burden. At a minimum, the Commission is 
obligated by the Paperwork Reduction Act to evaluate the Second Report 
and Order mechanisms before imposing additional information collection 
requirements.'' AT&T also opposes a testing requirement, arguing that 
``[t]he NPRM's discussion of these topics ignores the Commission's 
decision in the Second R&O to trend uncertainty data to validate 
accuracy in an ongoing manner.'' T-Mobile similarly contends that 
``trending of confidence and uncertainty data * * * provides a way of 
better targeting areas where remedial measures may be needed,'' while 
``[n]etworkwide accuracy retesting is a costly and unnecessary burden 
absent any clear evidence of need.''
    29. However, according to NENA, confidence and uncertainty trends 
are not sufficient proxies for location accuracy testing because 
``reported confidence and uncertainty data are themselves subject to 
systemic error.'' NENA disputes T-Mobile's claim that network 
performance does not materially change with time, noting that ``routine 
changes in deployed networks can adversely affect location accuracy.''
    30. Commenters also urge caution regarding using OET Bulletin 71 as 
the basis for testing procedures, arguing that the bulletin is outdated 
and further work on testing criteria is required. Andrew Corporation 
supports mandatory testing but cautions that ``in order to ensure that 
such testing is as meaningful as possible, the compliance verification 
methodology should be based on empirical test data collected at a 
statistically significant number of test points representative of 
calling patterns in the targeted compliance area.'' Andrew Corporation 
also argues that ``compliance testing parameters should account for the 
fact that performance among individual handset models may vary for 
handset-based location methods and can strongly influence measured 
results for GPS-based location technology.''
    31. Discussion. We conclude that requiring CMRS providers to 
periodically test their outdoor location accuracy results and to share 
these results with PSAPs within their service areas, state 911 offices 
in the states or territories in which they operate, and the Commission, 
subject to confidentiality safeguards, is important to ensure that our 
location accuracy requirements are being met. Indeed, as NENA, APCO, 
and TruePosition note, the current lack of available data on location 
accuracy results has made it difficult for public safety entities, the 
Commission, and the public to assess whether the Commission's rules are 
effectively ensuring that CMRS providers are providing meaningful 
location information to PSAPs. The lack of available data has also made 
it difficult to assess the effects of emerging technologies on location 
accuracy results and has negatively affected the ability of public 
safety personnel to have confidence in the location information they do 
receive.
    32. As noted, there is disagreement in the record regarding the 
need for periodic testing of carriers' networks. T-Mobile contends that 
only initial test data on accuracy levels is necessary and that 
periodic retesting yields no public safety benefit. Other commenters, 
including NENA and TruePosition, cite examples of common environmental 
and network changes that can affect the reliability of previous test 
results, such as new construction or development, new Phase II 
capabilities, re-homing of cellular networks, and rectifying problems 
discovered in previous testing. They argue that in the absence of 
periodic retesting, these changes can result in degradation of location 
accuracy performance that would not be identifiable based on initial 
test results.
    33. We find that periodic testing is important to ensure that test 
data does not become obsolete as a result of environmental changes and 
network reconfiguration. Indeed, even ATIS, which is comprised of 
wireless carriers, notes that ``major network change * * * could 
significantly impact location accuracy and trigger accuracy maintenance 
testing.'' In addition, carrier disclosure to PSAPs and 911 offices 
will enable them to better gauge whether they are receiving accurate 
location information from CMRS providers and thus base their responses 
to emergencies accordingly. Disclosure of the information to the 
Commission

[[Page 59921]]

will enable the Commission to monitor trends in location accuracy and 
thereby ensure that its regulations are appropriately tailored to 
enhance location accuracy without imposing unnecessary costs or 
administrative burdens. We also recognize that test results subject to 
disclosure may contain proprietary information. Therefore, before the 
Commission implements any disclosure requirements, we will seek comment 
on safeguards that should be implemented to ensure the protection of 
confidential information in the test results.
    34. No entity has suggested a means other than periodic testing to 
ensure the accuracy of location information. However, further work is 
needed to develop approaches to testing criteria, procedures, and 
timeframes that are reasonable and cost-effective. We also agree with 
commenters that basing testing criteria and procedures on the current 
OET Bulletin 71, developed eleven years ago, would be inappropriate at 
this time. Rather, we conclude that development of these issues should 
be referred to the newly re-chartered CSRIC. More specifically, the 
CSRIC should be tasked with making recommendations to the Commission 
within six months regarding cost-effective and specific approaches to 
testing requirements, methodologies, and implementation timeframes that 
will substantially meet the goals articulated above, including 
appropriate updates to OET Bulletin 71. The Commission will then 
subject these recommendations to further notice and comment prior to 
implementing specific testing requirements and procedures.
    35. We encourage the CSRIC to consider the feasibility of flexible 
testing criteria and methodologies. To the extent that any stakeholders 
have concerns about the potential expense of periodic testing, we 
expect them to substantiate such concerns by providing the CSRIC with 
detailed cost data relating to particular testing methodologies. 
Overall, the CSRIC's recommendations should attempt to find cost-
effective testing solutions.
 2. Legal Authority
    36. We act pursuant to well-established legal authority. Since 
1996, the Commission has required CMRS providers to implement basic 911 
and E911 services. As the Commission has explained before, sections 301 
and 303(r) of the Act give us the authority to require CMRS providers 
to implement these services. E911 requirements also further the 
Commission's mandate to ``promot[e] safety of life and property through 
the use of wire and radio communication.'' Our actions in this item 
enhance E911 service to ``promote safety of life and property'' and 
fall within this authority.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Accessible Formats

    37. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Analyses

    38. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 
U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small 
entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document. The FRFA 
is set forth in Appendix B of the document.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    39. The Report and Order contains new information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on 
the new information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding.
    40. We note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might 
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.'' In addition, we have described 
impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes most 
businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA in Appendix C, 
infra.

D. Congressional Review Act

    41. The Commission will send a copy of the Third R&O in a report to 
be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant 
to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

E. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    42. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
included in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of 
Inquiry (``FNPRM'') in PS Docket No. 07-114. The Commission sought 
written public comment on the proposals in these dockets, including 
comment on the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 
conforms to the RFA.

V. Ordering Clauses

    43. Accordingly, It Is Ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 301, 
303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 301, 303(r), and 332, that the Third R&O in PS 
Docket No. 07-114 Is Adopted and that parts 20 and 9 of the 
Commission's Rules, 47 CFR part 20 and 47 CFR part 9, are amended as 
set forth in Appendix C. The Third R&O shall become effective November 
28, 2011, subject to OMB approval for new information collection 
requirements.
    44. It Is Further Ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, Shall Send a 
copy of the Third R&O, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 301, 303, 316, and 
332 unless otherwise noted. Section 20.12 is also issued under 47 
U.S.C. 1302.


0
2. Section 20.18 is amended by adding paragraph (h)(2)(iv) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  20.18  911 Service.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) Providers of new CMRS networks that meet the definition of 
covered CMRS providers under paragraph (a) of this section must comply 
with the requirements of paragraphs (h)(2)(i) through (iii) of this 
section. For this purpose, a ``new CMRS network'' is a CMRS network 
that is newly deployed subsequent to the effective date of the Third 
Report and Order in PS Docket No. 07-114 and that is not an expansion

[[Page 59922]]

or upgrade of an existing CMRS network.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-24865 Filed 9-27-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P