[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 60 (Friday, March 28, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17820-17847]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06618]



[[Page 17819]]

Vol. 79

Friday,

No. 60

March 28, 2014

Part IV





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 20





Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 60 / Friday, March 28, 2014 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 17820]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 14-13]


Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: In this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Federal Communications Commission (Commission) proposes to revise its 
regulatory framework to require delivery of accurate location 
information to PSAPs for wireless 911 calls placed from indoors. In the 
near term, it proposes to establish interim indoor accuracy metrics 
that will provide approximate location information sufficient to 
identify the building for most indoor calls. It also proposes to add a 
requirement for provision of vertical location (z-axis or elevation) 
information that would enable first responders to identify floor level 
for most calls from multi-story buildings. In the long term, the 
Commission proposes to develop more granular indoor location accuracy 
standards, consistent with the evolving capabilities of indoor location 
technology and increased deployment of in-building communications 
infrastructure. These standards would provide for delivery to PSAPs of 
in-building location information at the room or office suite level. The 
Commission also proposes measures to strengthen existing location 
accuracy requirements. The Commission requests comment on these 
proposals to improve location accuracy for wireless 911 calls.

DATES: Submit comments on or before May 12, 2014 and reply comments by 
June 11, 2014. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed 
information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on 
or before May 27, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to the Federal Communications Commission, 
445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Comments may be submitted 
electronically through the Federal Communications Commission's Web 
site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. In addition to filing comments 
with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to 
[email protected] and to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of Management and Budget, 
via email to [email protected] or via fax at 202-395-
5167. For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document. Parties wishing to file materials 
with a claim of confidentiality should follow the procedures set forth 
in Sec.  0.459 of the Commission's rules. Confidential submissions may 
not be filed via ECFS but rather should be filed with the Secretary's 
Office following the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459. Redacted 
versions of confidential submissions may be filed via ECFS.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dana Zelman of the Policy and 
Licensing Division of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 
(202) 418-0546 or [email protected]. 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 email to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 07-114, released 
on February 21, 2014. 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://www.fcc.gov/document/proposes-new-indoor-requirements-and-revisions-existing-e911-rules.

Summary of the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

    1. The wireless landscape has changed significantly since the 
Commission first adopted its wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) location 
accuracy rules in 1996, and even since the last significant revision of 
these rules in 2010. Consumers are increasingly replacing traditional 
landline telephony with wireless phones, and a majority of wireless 
calls are now made indoors. This increase in wireless usage is 
reflected in how Americans call for help when they need it: today, the 
majority of 911 calls come from wireless phones. In light of these 
circumstances, it is increasingly important for Public Safety Answering 
Points (PSAPs) to have the ability to accurately identify the location 
of wireless 911 callers regardless of whether the caller is located 
indoors or outdoors. For purposes of this notice, we use the terms 
``mobile'' and ``wireless'' interchangeably. These terms do not 
encompass, for example, cordless telephones such as those using the 
DECT standard or PBX handsets using Wi-Fi connectivity.
    2. We believe the time has come to propose specific measures in our 
E911 location accuracy rules to ensure accurate indoor location 
information. In this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third 
Further Notice), we propose to revise our regulatory framework to 
require delivery of accurate location information to PSAPs for wireless 
911 calls placed from indoors. We limit the scope of this proceeding 
and the applicability of the proposed requirements set forth in this 
Third Further Notice to CMRS providers (and in limited instances, to 
their E911 System Service Providers, as discussed below) subject to 
Sec.  20.18 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 20.18(a). Our proposal 
includes both near- and long-term components. In the near term, we 
propose to establish interim indoor accuracy metrics that will provide 
approximate location information sufficient to identify the building 
for most indoor calls. We also propose to add a requirement for 
provision of vertical location (z-axis or elevation) information that 
would enable first responders to identify floor level for most calls 
from multi-story buildings. In the long term, we seek comment on how to 
develop more granular indoor location accuracy requirements, consistent 
with the evolving capabilities of indoor location technology and 
increased deployment of in-building communications infrastructure. 
These requirements would provide for delivery to PSAPs of in-building 
location information at the room or office suite level.
    3. In particular, we seek comment on the following proposals, and 
potential alternatives to these proposals, with respect to indoor 
location accuracy:
     CMRS providers would be required to provide horizontal 
location (x- and y-axis) information within 50 meters of the caller for 
67 percent of 911 calls placed from indoor environments within two 
years of the effective date of adoption of rules, and for 80 percent of 
indoor calls within five years.
     CMRS providers would be required to provide vertical 
location (z-axis) information within 3 meters of the caller for 67 
percent of indoor 911 calls within three years of the adoption of 
rules, and for 80 percent of calls within five years.
     As is the case of our existing E911 location rules, CMRS 
providers would

[[Page 17821]]

be required to meet these indoor requirements at either the county or 
PSAP geographic level.
     CMRS providers would demonstrate compliance with indoor 
location accuracy requirements through participation in an 
independently administered test bed program modeled on the indoor test 
bed administered by the Communications Security, Reliability, and 
Interoperability Council (CSRIC), but providers would have the option 
to demonstrate compliance through alternative means so long as they 
provide the same level of test result reliability.
     PSAPs would be entitled to seek Commission enforcement of 
these requirements within their jurisdictions, but only so long as they 
have implemented location bid/re-bid policies that are designed to 
obtain all 911 location information made available by CMRS providers 
pursuant to our rules.
    4. In addition, we examine whether there are additional steps the 
Commission should take to strengthen our existing E911 location 
accuracy rules to ensure delivery of more timely, accurate, and 
actionable location information for all 911 calls. We also seek comment 
on whether we should revisit the timeframe established by the 
Commission in 2010 for replacing the current handset- and network-based 
accuracy requirements with a unitary requirement, in light of the rapid 
proliferation of Assisted Global Navigation Satellite Systems (A-GNSS) 
technology in wireless networks and the prospect of improved location 
technologies that will soon support 911 communication over LTE 
networks.
    5. Specifically, we seek comment on whether to implement the 
following measures:
     Adopt a 30-second requirement for the maximum time period 
allowed for a CMRS provider to generate a location fix (``time to first 
fix'') in order for the 911 call to be counted towards compliance with 
location accuracy requirements.
     When measuring compliance with location accuracy 
requirements, allow CMRS providers to exclude short 911 calls (e.g., 
calls lasting 10 seconds or less) that may not provide sufficient time 
to generate a location fix.
     Standardize the content and the process for delivery of 
confidence and uncertainty data that is generated by CMRS providers for 
each wireless 911 call and delivered to PSAPs on request.
     Require CMRS providers to inform PSAPs of the specific 
location technology or technologies used to generate location 
information for each 911 call.
     Accelerate the previously established timeframe for 
replacing the current handset- and network-based accuracy requirements 
with a unitary requirement.
     Require that CMRS providers periodically report E911 Phase 
II call tracking information, indicating what percentage of wireless 
911 calls include Phase II location information.
     Establish a separate process by which PSAPs or state 911 
administrators could raise complaints or concerns regarding the 
provision of E911 service.
     Require CMRS providers to conduct periodic compliance 
testing.
    6. In setting forth these proposals, we emphasize that our ultimate 
objective is that all Americans using mobile phones--whether they are 
calling from urban or rural areas, from indoors or outdoors--have 
technology that is functionally capable of providing accurate location 
information so that they receive the support they need in times of an 
emergency. We seek comment on whether our proposals in this notice are 
the best way to achieve this objective, and we encourage industry, 
public safety entities, and other stakeholders to work collaboratively 
to develop alternative proposals for our consideration.

II. Background

A. E911 Regulatory History

    7. In 1996, the Commission first adopted rules to require CMRS 
providers to implement basic 911 and E911 services. The Commission 
divided its wireless E911 service requirements into two stages. The 
initial stage--Phase I--required CMRS providers to deliver, by April 
1998, E911 service that includes the telephone number of the wireless 
911 caller and the location of the cell site or base station that 
received the call. Phase II requires delivery, under a phased-in 
schedule extending until January 2019, of E911 service that includes 
the latitude and longitude of the 911 call within specific accuracy and 
reliability parameters, depending on the location technology that the 
carriers have chosen: (1) For network-based technologies, within 100 
meters for 67 percent of calls, and 300 meters for 90 percent of calls; 
(2) for handset-based technologies, within 50 meters for 67 percent of 
calls, and 150 meters for 90 percent of calls.
    8. The Commission's E911 Phase II requirements do not distinguish 
between indoor and outdoor 911 calls. In 2000, the Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET) published Bulletin No. 71, providing 
testing guidelines for wireless licensees to comply with the location 
accuracy requirements set by the Commission. Later that same year, the 
Commission noted that the guidelines expressed a preference for basing 
testing on locations from which 911 calls actually are placed. Further, 
the Commission construed the OET guidelines as confirming that, for 
testing accuracy performance, carriers could exclude areas where 
wireless calls cannot be completed, such as inside high-rise buildings 
and parking garages. The Commission later clarified that its Phase II 
requirements apply to outdoor measurements only.

B. CSRIC Indoor Location Accuracy Test Bed Report

    9. In June 2012, the CSRIC III Working Group 3 (WG3) released a 
report concerning its goals and recommendations for an indoor location 
accuracy test bed WG3 indicated that the purpose of such a test bed 
would be to provide insight into which technologies are technically 
feasible and economically reasonable for providing indoor location for 
wireless emergency calls. WG3 conducted the indoor location test bed 
during the winter of 2012-2013. The test bed examined whether indoor 
location technologies could achieve the location result needed for 
improved public safety response--``actionable location'' with 
dispatchable address within a tight search ring--for the representative 
environments (morphologies) where wireless devices are expected to be 
used, i.e., urban, dense urban, suburban, and rural.
    10. WG3 selected the San Francisco Bay Area because it included a 
variety of different environments within a fairly limited geographic 
area. The area chosen included several building types (steel, glass, 
concrete, and masonry) and different building heights that were 
representative of urban and dense urban environments. WG3 tested the 
indoor location capability of three technologies: (1) AGPS/AFLT by 
Qualcomm, (2) RF fingerprinting by Polaris, and (3) network beacon 
technology by NextNav. The first two technologies are currently 
commercially available. The third technology is an in-building beacon 
technology that is independent of the CMRS provider's wireless network 
and uses calibrated, atmospheric pressure sensors in handsets to 
provide vertical location information.
    11. In March 2013, WG3 issued a report discussing the results of 
the test bed and making recommendations about how best to move forward 
on indoor location accuracy (CSRIC Indoor Location Test Bed Report). In 
general, WG3 found that for the four

[[Page 17822]]

representative environments analyzed, the test bed results ``show 
significant promise with respect to high yield, relatively high 
confidence factors and reliability,'' and ``the ability to achieve 
improved search rings in the horizontal dimension (often identifying 
the target building, or those immediately adjacent).'' WG3 concluded 
that ``additional development is required to ensure'' the provision of 
an ``actionable location,'' especially in urban and dense urban 
environments. Moreover, the test bed found ``substantial progress'' in 
the beacon technology's capability to provide vertical (z-axis) 
location information, providing approximate floor-level accuracy in a 
significant percentage of calls.
    12. Accuracy results varied by technology and the particular 
environment.

                                     Table 1--CSRIC San Francisco Test Bed--Location Accuracy Results by Technology
                                                                       [in meters]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morphology                                                                                          Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      NextNav
                                                                      Polaris
                                                                     Qualcomm
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Calls                                                     67%             90%             67%             90%             67%             90%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dense Urban.............................................              57             102             117             400             156             268
Urban...................................................              63             141             198             448             227             449
Suburban................................................              29              53             232             421              75             205
Rural...................................................              28              45             576          3005.1              48             210
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. Following the WG3 test bed in San Francisco, TruePosition, 
which did not participate in the test bed, commissioned TechnoCom to 
test TruePosition's indoor location solution, which is based on hybrid 
technology consisting of UTDOA and assisted Global Positioning System 
(A-GPS). In February and early March 2013, TechnoCom conducted the 
testing, utilizing similar testing standards and methodology as used in 
the CSRIC test bed. In the urban setting, 67 percent of calls were 
located within 87.3 meters and 90 percent of calls were located within 
140.7 meters. For the suburban environment, 67 percent of test calls 
were located within 66.1 meters and 90 percent of test calls were 
located within 116.2 meters.

C. Recent Comments on E911 Phase II Location Accuracy and Call Tracking 
Data

    14. In August 2013, the California chapter of the National 
Emergency Number Association (CALNENA) filed an ex parte with the 
Commission in PS Docket No. 07-114 raising concerns about what it noted 
to be a ``significant decrease in the percentage of wireless 9-1-1 
calls that delivered Phase II location information'' to its PSAPs. 
According to CALNENA, California State 911 Office data indicated that 
more than 55% of the over 1.5 million wireless 911 calls throughout the 
state in the month of March 2013 did not include Phase II location 
information. CALNENA noted that this phenomenon was much worse in urban 
areas, ``possibly suggesting that whatever 9-1-1 technologies the 
wireless carriers may be using lately are not working for wireless 
calls placed in or near high rise buildings.''
    15. The Commission subsequently received E911 Phase II call 
tracking data sets from several other state and local public safety 
entities that either oversee or administer E911 service, which in some 
cases also indicated a decrease in the percentage of calls to PSAPs 
that included Phase II location. In September 2013, the Commission's 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) announced that it 
would host a public workshop to discuss the issues raised by CALNENA 
and other E911 Phase II call tracking data sets, as well as recent 
developments in wireless location technology. The Bureau also invited 
interested parties to file comments on the E911 call tracking data and 
related topics for discussion, including current trends that may be 
affecting the provision and quality of E911 location information 
delivered to PSAPs.
    16. Twenty-two parties filed comments, including four CMRS 
providers, nine public safety organizations and entities, and eight 
vendors of location technologies, Next Generation system components, or 
PSAP consumer premises equipment. On November 18, 2013, the Bureau 
hosted the E911 Phase II Location Accuracy Workshop.
    17. Providers uniformly attribute the declining rates of delivery 
of Phase II data observed by some PSAPs primarily to PSAPs' not 
``rebidding,'' i.e., affirmatively seeking to ``pull'' the data from 
its source location, to obtain the Phase II data that the carriers are, 
in fact, providing. Carriers indicate that while Phase II data is not 
always available to the PSAP on call set-up, it is subsequently 
delivered to the Mobile Positioning Center (MPC) (for GSM networks) or 
the Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) (for CDMA networks) and is 
available for PSAPs through the ``rebidding'' process. Other commenters 
contend, however, that even if PSAPs were to rebid more frequently, a 
30-second delay in obtaining Phase II information is highly 
undesirable, given that a large percentage of 911 calls are under 30 
seconds.
    18. There was general agreement among public safety commenters that 
the majority of calls to 911 are now coming from wireless phones, that 
this trend is increasing, and that a large number of these calls are 
made from indoor environments. Vendors argue that indoor location 
technology has since evolved considerably, suggesting the provision of 
indoor location information may be within reach.

III. Proposed Indoor Location Accuracy Requirements

    19. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that circumstances 
affecting wireless location accuracy have changed dramatically since 
the Commission adopted its original Phase II location accuracy rules. 
As discussed below, the great majority of calls to 911 now originate on 
wireless phones, and the majority of wireless calls now originate 
indoors. These changes elevate the importance of ensuring that indoor 
911 calls can be accurately located.
    20. While PSAPs and CMRS providers may be able to address some of 
the challenges through technological and operational improvements, the 
record also indicates that the outdoor-oriented focus of the 
Commission's Phase II rules to date has created a regulatory ``gap'':

[[Page 17823]]

By focusing on outdoor measurements for verifying compliance, our rules 
provide no remedy to address poor performance of location technologies 
indoors.
    21. In addition to changes in wireless usage, there has also been 
recent progress in the development of technologies that could support 
improved indoor location accuracy. The CSRIC test bed results, together 
with parties' representations that they have since been working on 
improvements to indoor location technologies, suggest that it is likely 
that location technologies can begin to be deployed in the near term 
that would deliver 50-meter location accuracy for many indoor 
environments with a high degree of reliability. The record also 
contains data suggesting the feasibility of using barometric pressure 
sensors in mobile devices to provide rough z-axis information when 
calls are placed from multi-story buildings. Finally, providers assert 
that the deployment of LTE networks will be accompanied by improvements 
in location technology that could drive improved performance for both 
indoor and outdoor calls, but they also express concern about whether 
they can realistically meet the proposed requirements based on 
currently available technology.
    22. We believe that it is now appropriate to propose measures 
designed to address public safety's critical need for obtaining indoor 
location information, and to ensure that wireless callers receive the 
same protection whether they place a call indoors or outdoors. In the 
following discussion, we propose a regulatory framework for addressing 
indoor location accuracy for wireless calls to 911 from indoors that 
includes a near-term requirement to achieve approximate indoor location 
information, comprised of horizontal (x- and y-axis) and vertical (z-
axis) location information. We also seek comment on how to formulate a 
long-term requirement with an increased degree of location accuracy, 
sufficient to identify the caller's specific address, floor level, and 
suite/room number within a building. We discuss below the achievability 
of these technical requirements on our proposed time frames, the 
potential benefits and costs of our proposed indoor location accuracy 
requirements, a proposed compliance testing framework, and possible 
exclusions from the proposed requirements to ensure they are imposed in 
a way that maximizes the rules' effectiveness while mitigating the 
potential burdens on CMRS providers. We also seek comment on 
alternative approaches and, in this regard, invite relevant 
stakeholders--including public safety and industry--to propose a 
consensus approach that would help ensure that consumers placing 
wireless calls to 911 from indoor environments receive the same 
protections as callers in outdoor environments.

A. Costs and Benefits of Indoor Location Accuracy

    23. In developing a regulatory framework for indoor location 
accuracy, our objective is to implement rules that serve the public 
safety goals established by Congress. While we acknowledge the 
potential difficulty of quantifying benefits and burdens, we seek to 
measure how the availability of indoor location information will 
benefit the public through reduced emergency response times. We also 
seek to maximize these benefits, while taking into consideration the 
burden of compliance to carriers. These costs and benefits can have 
many dimensions and affect many parties, including, for example, more 
efficient use of public safety resources; cost and revenue implications 
for the communications industry; health and financial benefits to the 
public; as well as other less tangible benefits, such as the value of 
any reduced or avoided pain and suffering, or the apprehension of 
criminal suspects. Providing accurate E911 information is particularly 
important in instances where a caller cannot provide information 
directly--either because they do not know or cannot communicate their 
location. We therefore request comment on a wide range of questions 
that will enable us to weigh the costs and benefits associated with the 
rules we propose in this Third Further Notice.
    24. First, in order to assess the potential scope of benefits from 
our proposed rules, we think it is relevant to assess the scope of 
current wireless usage, both indoors and outdoors. Overall wireless 
usage has increased substantially since the Commission adopted its E911 
location accuracy rules in 1996. At that time, there were approximately 
33 million cellular subscribers in the United States. By the end of 
2012, there were more than 326 million wireless subscriber connections. 
At the end of 2007, only 15.8 percent of American households were 
wireless only. During the first half of 2013, that number had increased 
to 39.4 percent (nearly two in every five American homes). Furthermore, 
certain subsets of American consumers are more likely to use wireless 
phones--for example, adults living in poverty (54.7 percent) were more 
likely to be living in households with only wireless phones than adults 
living near poverty (47.5 percent) and higher income adults (35.3 
percent). In addition, younger Americans are more likely to live in 
households with only wireless phones.
    25. Significantly, the majority of 911 calls also now come from 
wireless phones. In January 2011, Consumer Reports reported that 60 
percent of 911 calls were placed through wireless phones. More 
recently, the California Office of Emergency Services indicates that 
the percentage of 911 calls that came from wireless devices increased 
from 55.8 percent in 2007 to 72.7 percent as of June 2013. Furthermore, 
an increasing percentage of wireless calls are placed from indoors. A 
2011 study showed that an average of 56 percent of wireless calls were 
made from indoors, up from 40 percent in 2003. That number is even 
higher for smartphone users, who represent the majority of wireless 
phone owners, as 80 percent of smartphone usage occurs inside 
buildings.
    26. The large increase in indoor wireless usage over the last 
decade has made indoor location accuracy increasingly important. 
Accordingly, we seek more granular information regarding the percentage 
of wireless calls placed from indoors and, to the extent available, the 
percentage of wireless calls to 911 from indoors. We also seek data on 
the types of indoor environments 911 calls are placed, e.g., in the 
caller's own home, his or her work location or in public accommodations 
such as airports, schools and movie theaters. Is it possible to 
identify the type of building morphology where current location 
technologies routinely fail to provide accurate location information?
    27. We know that indoor locations pose particular challenges for 
first responders in finding the caller. Indoor incidents are often not 
visible to the first responder, and a city block in an urban 
environment could potentially contain thousands of apartments. We seek 
comment on whether and how the increase in wireless calls to 911 from 
indoors has affected the delivery of E911 information and the ability 
of public safety officials to respond to calls for help. Has there been 
a market failure in the provision of E911 information for wireless 
calls originating indoors? We seek comment on this issue.
    28. We believe that requiring location information for wireless 
calls to 911 from indoors will result in significant public interest 
benefits, most importantly in ``promoting safety of life and 
property.'' As the Association of Public-Safety Officials (APCO) notes, 
in

[[Page 17824]]

``the absence of accurate location data associated with a wireless 
call, the caller must be questioned in detail to provide verbal 
information regarding their location. This process can be time 
consuming and callers are sometimes unable to speak or provide correct 
information.'' A number of public safety commenters state that 
virtually any improvements in indoor location capabilities would be 
desirable, even if relatively modest or incremental.
    29. We seek comment on the extent to which such improvements would 
result in tangible benefits with respect to safety of life and 
property. A study examining 73,706 emergency incidents during 2001 in 
the Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City Study) area found that on average, a 
one-minute decrease in ambulance response times reduced the likelihood 
of 90-day mortality from 6 percent to 5 percent, i.e., a 17 percent 
reduction in the total number of deaths. This implies that, in the Salt 
Lake City area, a one-minute reduction in response times would have 
resulted in an annual saving of 746 lives. If we assume that this 
outcome is reasonably reflective of the country as a whole, we estimate 
that the location accuracy improvements we propose could save 
approximately 10,120 lives annually, for an annual benefit of 
approximately $92 billion. The Commission has also previously relied on 
a 2002 study focusing on cardiac emergencies in Pennsylvania (Cardiac 
Study), which showed that when location information was provided 
contemporaneously with a 911 call, the reduction in response time 
correlated with an over 34 percent reduction in mortality rates from 
cardiac arrest within the first 48 hours following the incident. Based 
on this study, we estimate that for cardiac incidents alone, the 
proposed indoor location rules may well save at least 932 lives 
nationwide each year, yielding an annual benefit of almost $8.5 
billion. Furthermore, as location information quality improves and 
latency declines, we expect it will result in an even greater 
improvement in patient medical outcomes. We seek comment on the 
reasonableness of our analyses of these studies and our underlying 
assumptions. We also seek comment on whether the time benefit of 
vertical location, given the spread in horizontal location, is likely 
to be more, less, or comparable to the estimated gains in the Salt Lake 
City Study and the Cardiac Study, when moving from basic 911 to 
enhanced 911 services.
    30. We also believe that improving location accuracy for wireless 
calls to 911, including from indoor environments, is particularly 
important for persons with disabilities and for those who may not be 
able to provide their address or otherwise describe their location. We 
seek comment on the increased value and benefits of providing more 
accurate location information to certain populations, such as people 
with disabilities, victims of crime, senior citizens and children. All 
such groups may have less ability to identify and relate to a 911 call-
taker where they are located, especially in an emergency situation. In 
such circumstances, accurate, automatically-generated location 
information can be critical to saving lives. We seek comment regarding 
the value and scope of benefits that improved location accuracy would 
provide in such circumstances.
    31. We understand that implementation of indoor location accuracy 
will likely impose significant costs on providers. We seek comment 
generally on the costs of indoor location accuracy requirements. The 
CSRIC Indoor Location Test Bed Report indicates that while CSRIC 
attempted to provide some initial insight into costs associated with 
implementation of these new technologies, it did not attempt to 
quantify cost to deploy, cost to operate and maintain, and cost impact 
to the handset. According to the report:

    Some technologies have relatively low costs upfront to deploy 
but are relatively costly to operate and maintain. Others have 
relatively high upfront costs and have lower operational/maintenance 
costs. Some methods have cost implications in the handset, some to 
the wireless network, and some impact both. Others require 
infrastructure development independent of the wireless network. Some 
require the development and maintenance of various databases to 
operate. . . Overall, each location technology requires substantial 
investment in both time and resources.

We seek detailed information on all of the costs providers estimate our 
proposed indoor location rules would impose on them, including how 
these costs were determined.
    32. We anticipate that providers may implement different solutions 
to determine a caller's indoor location, and that each of these 
solutions may present unique costs. We seek comment on what universal 
costs would be necessary across all indoor location technologies, as 
well as on any specific costs that are unique to different 
technologies. We understand that the specific manner in which we 
implement any indoor location accuracy requirement, including the 
degree of accuracy required and the timeframe for implementing any such 
requirement, potentially would affect providers' costs of compliance. 
We seek comment on these specific factors and how they might affect 
costs. Additionally, we seek comment on whether additional costs would 
be passed on to consumers, resulting in higher rates. If costs are 
likely to be passed on to consumers, we request information regarding 
how much rates would increase.
    33. Finally, we believe that any costs imposed by our rules might 
be mitigated, at least to some degree, by the fact that providers are 
already undertaking significant indoor location technology research and 
development on their own for commercial, non-911 reasons. We seek 
further comment on the degree to which commercial development--
unrelated to any Commission indoor location capability requirement--
could be leveraged to mitigate the costs of compliance. What additional 
costs would be imposed by the potential indoor location requirements 
set forth in this Third Further Notice above and beyond the costs that 
commercial carriers would already have in implementing indoor location 
capabilities for commercial purposes?

B. Near-Term Indoor E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

    34. As discussed in greater detail below, we propose that after a 
reasonable implementation period, CMRS providers subject to Sec.  20.18 
of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 20.18, must (1) locate callers within 
50 meters for 67 percent and 80 percent of indoor calls within two 
years and five years of the effective date of adoption of rules, 
respectively, and (2) provide vertical (z-axis) data, within 3 meters 
accuracy, for 67 percent and 80 percent of indoor calls within three 
years and five years of the effective date of adoption of rules, 
respectively. We propose that these indoor location accuracy 
requirements be implemented nationwide. Finally, we propose the 
institutionalization of an indoor location accuracy test bed for 
purposes of demonstrating compliance with these requirements and ask 
about other approaches to validating compliance.
    35. We seek to promote several key objectives through these 
proposed rules: (1) Make indoor location as widely available as 
technically and economically feasible, tracking recent improvements in 
location technology; (2) help CMRS providers, public safety entities, 
and the Commission to monitor performance and compliance; and (3) adopt 
rules that are technology-neutral, cost-efficient, and easy to 
understand and administer. We seek comment on how our proposed 
approach, as well as any potential alternatives--particularly

[[Page 17825]]

any consensus proposals from industry and public safety stakeholders--
might promote these objectives most effectively. We also seek comment 
on whether there are any other engineering or other issues, not raised 
in this Third Further Notice, that the Commission should consider with 
regard to promoting the location accuracy goals in this rulemaking 
proceeding.
1. Horizontal Location Information
    36. Background. Prior to the CSRIC Indoor Location Test Bed Report, 
the record generally reflected a consensus that it was premature to 
impose indoor location accuracy requirements. More recently, after 
CSRIC's submission of its indoor location test bed report and 
recommendations in March 2013, some public safety groups and technology 
vendors now urge the Commission to require some level of accuracy for 
indoor 911 calls. At the same time, however, some industry 
representatives suggest that ``future progress [is] needed to meet the 
expressed needs of the public safety community.'' However, as discussed 
above, CMRS providers express concern about the ability to move forward 
with indoor location accuracy requirements at this time.
    37. WG3 concluded approximately a year ago that ``additional 
development is required to ensure'' the provision of an ``actionable 
location,'' especially in urban and dense urban environments. However, 
participants in the WG3 test bed have indicated that they were then in 
the process of making improvements to their technologies. Other parties 
submit that recent developments in hybrid technologies and solutions 
show that improvements in location accuracy are being implemented. Some 
industry representatives note the possibility for improved indoor 
accuracy with the implementation of small cell networks.
    38. Discussion. We propose a near-term requirement to achieve 
``rough'' indoor location information. We propose to require CMRS 
providers subject to Sec.  20.18 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
20.18, to provide horizontal (x- and y-axis) information for wireless 
911 calls that originate indoors. Specifically, we propose to require 
CMRS providers to identify an indoor caller's horizontal location 
within 50 meters. We propose that CMRS providers must satisfy this 
accuracy requirement for 67 percent of calls within two years from the 
effective date of the adoption of any rules, and for 80 percent of 
calls within five years from the effective date of the adoption of any 
rules. Under this proposal, the requirement would apply uniformly to 
all indoor calls and would be technology-neutral; CMRS providers could 
use any location technology or combination of location technologies to 
meet this requirement.
    39. We believe that a search radius of 50 meters will provide 
meaningful information while being attainable in the near-term. A 
larger search ring, while easier to implement, would not yield 
sufficiently granular information to be of use to first responders. In 
the longer term, location information should be sufficiently granular 
to provide a specific residential or business address, including floor 
and suite or apartment information. Nevertheless, based on existing 
technological considerations and the needs of the public safety 
community, we find that the public safety and interest would be better 
served by adopting this requirement in the near term rather than 
allowing a regulatory gap to grow. We agree with CSRIC's observation 
that the objective should ``be for the smallest possible search ring,'' 
and we seek comment on our proposed location accuracy requirement of 50 
meters.
    40. The CSRIC Indoor Location Test Bed Report also observed that 
the participating vendors are currently working on improvements to 
their location technologies that show promise toward achieving more 
precise accuracy performance. Additionally, the record and the CSRIC 
Indoor Location Test Bed Report indicate that other vendors are 
actively working on advances in improving location technologies. We 
seek comment on the extent to which mandating a 50-meter accuracy 
requirement to indoor calls--after a reasonable period of time--would 
encourage CMRS providers to work with location and device vendors to 
implement the advances being made in indoor location technology.
    41. As noted above, the CSRIC test bed examined the RF 
fingerprinting, A-GPS/AFLT, and beacon technologies of Polaris, 
Qualcomm, and NextNav, respectively. Horizontal location accuracy 
varied by technology and the representative environments--dense urban, 
urban, suburban, and rural. For each environment, CSRIC evaluated the 
accuracy of each technology for 67 percent and 90 percent of the total 
number of calls tested. While we acknowledge that the test bed results 
indicate that further improvement is necessary, we are encouraged that, 
at least in suburban and rural environments, a 50-meter (or less) 
search ring can already be produced by existing technology. Further, 
even if technology currently cannot satisfy the proposed near-term 50-
meter accuracy requirement in more challenging indoor environments, the 
adoption of more stringent requirements for indoor location accuracy, 
together with a reasonable implementation timeframe, would afford CMRS 
providers with sufficient time and incentive to develop the necessary 
technology to enable compliance with the proposed requirement 
regardless of the environment.
    42. We propose to combine the 50-meter accuracy requirement with a 
reliability threshold of 67 percent in two years and 80 percent in five 
years. With this requirement, the center point of the uncertainty 
circle should fall within 50 meters of the true location 67 or 80 
percent of the time, as applicable, and must be delivered within 30 
seconds. Thus, under the first two-year benchmark, up to 33 percent of 
calls may either have location outside the accuracy threshold or 
location data that arrives after a delay of more than 30 seconds. We 
seek comment on whether the proposed two-stage reliability thresholds 
of 67 and 80 percent would be useful to public safety entities and 
technically feasible for CMRS providers to achieve. Under the current 
E911 requirements based on outdoor measurements, CMRS providers using 
handset-based location technologies must satisfy a reliability 
requirement of 67 percent for 50 meters. We also note that CSRIC tested 
for location accuracy based on the reliability percentages of 67 
percent and 90 percent of the total number of calls tested. In 
proposing this two-stage reliability requirement, we seek comment on 
whether a reliability metric of 67 percent is adequate to meet the 
needs of public safety in the current environment. CSRIC considered 
that the public safety entities need reliable, ``consistent caller 
location information'' for indoor locations; would a 67 percent 
requirement provide sufficiently reliable indoor location information? 
We note that CSRIC's analysis of accuracy measurements versus 
reliability percentages indicates that an 80 percent reliability 
requirement for indoor calls, while not achievable now, may be 
attainable with a 50-meter accuracy requirement in the proposed near-
term period. We seek comment on whether two-stage approach to adopting 
reliability requirement would adequately address public safety needs, 
and seek comment on any alternative approaches.
    43. We also seek comment on whether the proposed two-stage 
reliability requirements are feasible in light of the types of specific 
challenges that CMRS providers may confront in indoor environments, 
such as the proliferation

[[Page 17826]]

of signal boosters within buildings. We seek comment on the extent to 
which these types of indoor-specific challenges may affect a providers' 
ability to deliver location information in compliance with our proposed 
reliability thresholds for indoor calls.
    44. At the same time, we recognize that certain in-building systems 
and access devices--such as a Distributed Antenna System (DAS) 
network--could be programmed to provide specific location information, 
including building address and floor level information, for the 
origination of the indoor call. In addition to our proposed 50-meter 
accuracy requirement, should we consider adopting an alternative indoor 
location requirement that CMRS providers can satisfy by delivering a 
caller's building address and floor information? Such a requirement 
would be consistent with our long-term indoor location objective, which 
is the delivery of ``dispatchable address'' information, including the 
caller's building address, floor level, and suite/room number.
    45. Further, we propose that the combined 50-meter accuracy and 67- 
and 80-percent reliability requirements comprise the sole ring for 
testing indoor location accuracy. We seek comment on this proposal. We 
note that, in the context of E911 location accuracy based on outdoor 
measurements, our rules include a ``dual search ring'' system, with 
different reliability thresholds for 50-meter and 150-meter accuracy. 
While a dual search ring requirement was a reasonable approach based on 
outdoor measurements, a search ring larger than 50 meters is unlikely 
to yield sufficiently granular information to prove useful to public 
safety in the context of locating a caller indoors.
    46. We also seek comment on the costs of imposing a 50-meter 
accuracy requirement (versus some other benchmark), and a two-stage 
reliability requirement of 67 and 80 percent (or some other reliability 
benchmark or dual ring system). We anticipate that a more precise 
horizontal 50-meter accuracy requirement would come at a higher cost 
than a less precise accuracy requirement, but to what extent? We seek 
comment on what any cost differential might be, and whether such costs 
could be mitigated. For example, would a single 50-meter/67 or 80 
percent requirement be more costly to CMRS providers than a dual search 
ring? For example, would a 50-meter/67 percent, 150-meter/80-90 percent 
requirement (similar to our existing Phase II E911 requirements based 
on outdoor measurements for handset-based location solutions) serve to 
reduce costs?
    47. We seek comment on alternative approaches to implementing 
indoor location accuracy and reliability requirements. For example, a 
potential alternative approach would be to extend the existing E911 
Phase II location accuracy requirements, which currently apply to 
outdoor measurements only, to indoor environments. While this approach 
would permit providers to simply apply existing outdoor location 
accuracy requirements to indoor calls, such an approach could be 
inconsistent with the Commission's intent to progress towards more 
granular location data for all wireless calls to 911, and, as discussed 
above, would be unlikely to result in a sufficiently narrow search ring 
to be of use to public safety in indoor environments. Further, we think 
that a uniform indoor accuracy requirement, independent from any 
existing outdoor location requirements, acknowledges that indoor 
environments are distinct from outdoor environments. In the CSRIC 
Indoor Location Test Bed Report, CSRIC recommended that the Commission 
treat indoor location accuracy separately from outdoor location 
accuracy due to differences in testing and technologies. We seek 
comment on this analysis and our proposed approach.
    48. We also invite alternative approaches that would best weigh the 
costs and benefits of implementing an indoor location requirement with 
technical feasibility, timing, and other implementation concerns. In 
particular, we invite industry and public safety stakeholders to 
propose consensus-based, voluntary commitments that would address the 
public safety goals set forth in this proceeding and facilitate closing 
the regulatory gap between indoor and outdoor location accuracy without 
the need to adopt regulatory requirements. We seek comment on whether 
there has been a market failure in the provision of E911 information 
and, if not, whether the market could be relied upon to address indoor 
location issues on its own, and within a reasonable period of time. 
Could voluntary commitments, in conjunction with Commission monitoring 
of indoor location accuracy developments and actual performance, be 
sufficient and effective in satisfying the public safety objectives of 
this proceeding? We invite comment on the potential for voluntary 
commitments and other consensus-based proposals to address these 
issues.
    49. Timeframe. In light of recent developments in wireless 
technology and usage trends, we believe it is critical to address the 
gap in our existing E911 regulatory framework regarding indoor location 
accuracy as quickly as possible. Accordingly, we propose a two-stage 
implementation timeframe from the effective date of an order adopting 
indoor E911 location accuracy requirements and seek comment on whether 
such a timeframe would be technically feasible and economically 
reasonable. We recognize that the extent to which a provider is able to 
satisfy a specific accuracy or reliability requirement will be linked 
to the timeframe allowed for implementation of such requirements.
    50. The record, to date, is divided regarding whether location 
accuracy technology is sufficiently developed to support the near-term 
implementation of an indoor location accuracy requirement. However, 
evidence in the record suggests that technology is sufficiently 
developed to support the implementation of an indoor location accuracy 
requirement in the near term. For example, CSRIC observed that the 
participating vendors are currently working on improvements to their 
location technologies that show promise toward achieving more precise 
accuracy performance. These results also indicate that at least one 
indoor location technology is already close to achieving the indoor 
accuracy requirement equivalent to the existing outdoor handset-based 
location requirement (50 meters for 67 percent of calls). The record 
and the CSRIC Indoor Location Test Bed Report indicate that other 
vendors are actively working on advances in improving location 
technologies. In addition, recent filings suggest that the technology 
is sufficiently developed to support a near-term indoor location 
accuracy requirement.
    51. We seek comment on whether a two-year timeframe is sufficient 
for CMRS providers to satisfy the horizontal (x- and y-axis) component 
of the indoor location accuracy requirement discussed above for 67 
percent of indoor 911 calls. We believe that the significant public 
interest benefits of providing indoor location as soon as possible, 
combined with the current pace of technological developments, suggest 
that an expedited timeframe may be feasible and warranted. The CSRIC 
test bed results, which tested three different technologies--all of 
which provided reasonably accurate indoor measurements--and subsequent 
testing by others of their indoor location technology with similar 
results, suggests that location technology, with further advancements, 
could satisfy our proposed accuracy requirement within this timeframe. 
Furthermore, as described above, at least two of the indoor location 
technologies tested in

[[Page 17827]]

the CSRIC test bed are commercially available already, while 
TruePosition asserts that its solution is already in use by two of the 
nationwide CMRS providers and ``can easily be paired with existing AGPS 
capabilities, used by many cell phone networks, in a hybrid solution.'' 
We seek comment on our analysis. In what timeframe could technologies 
meet the proposed 50-meter requirement for 67 percent of all indoor 
calls? Is a five-year timeframe appropriate for technologies to meet 
the proposed 50-meter requirement for 80 percent of all indoor calls? 
How long would standards bodies need to develop any necessary 
standards? What else should the Commission consider with regard to the 
proposed timeframes?
    52. We also seek comment on how any necessary network and handset 
upgrades would impact the proposed timeline. How long would it take 
CMRS providers to deploy location accuracy systems capable of meeting 
the proposed requirements throughout their networks? How long would 
providers need to obtain the hardware necessary for upgrading handsets 
to work with newly deployed location accuracy systems? How much time 
would be necessary for upgraded handsets to enter the marketplace to 
sufficiently penetrate the marketplace, such that providers could meet 
the proposed 67 and 80 percent reliability requirements?
    53. Some commenters suggest a longer implementation timeframe is 
necessary, but we believe that the establishment of firm timeframes--
together with a clear accuracy requirement--will provide the regulatory 
certainty necessary for parties to dedicate resources to improving 
location accuracy technology. Further, the extent and pace of recent 
advancements in indoor location technology suggests that technical 
feasibility will not prove to be a barrier to implementation of a near-
term, two-year indoor location requirement of 50 meters for 67 percent 
of calls. Given that there are several different indoor location 
technology solutions already deployed or under development, we think 
that a two-year timeframe would allow for the development of 
technological alternatives and encourage competition among location 
technology vendors, so that CMRS providers would have a choice of 
solutions to implement. Two years would also allow time necessary to 
establish the indoor location accuracy test bed.
    54. We also seek comment on alternatives to using the effective 
date of rules as the trigger for the timeline to comply with proposed 
indoor location accuracy requirements. For example, to address 
potential uncertainty in the development of technology, should we 
consider initiating the compliance timeline only after the test bed 
administrator certifies that a technology has met the proposed accuracy 
standards in the test bed? Would any process be necessary or 
appropriate for opportunity for comment on and Commission review of 
such a determination? If we used technology certification as the 
timeline trigger, should we require availability of competitive 
technology options? Should we retain the two- and five-year timelines 
proposed above or should they be shortened? Would linkage of the 
timeline to technology certification reduce the incentive to invest in 
technological development or create incentives to delay testing in the 
test bed? What other factors should we consider with regard to the 
impact of test bed certification on proposed timelines?
    55. As another alternative, if the timeline is triggered by the 
adoption of rules, we seek comment on whether the Commission should 
consider reevaluating the compliance timeline at some interim point to 
evaluate the status of testing of location technology. For example, a 
year after the rules go into effect, the Commission could require the 
test bed administrator to report to the Commission on the results of 
technology testing, at which point the Commission could consider 
whether any adjustments to the timeline are necessary based on how 
technologies have performed in the test bed. Such an approach would 
enable the Commission to evaluate progress made during testing while 
retaining control over implementation timeframes and ensuring that 
testing efforts proceed in a timely manner. We seek comment on this 
alternative.
    56. We invite parties who disagree with this proposed timeframe to 
provide specific reasons why more time is necessary, including the 
steps necessary to implement horizontal requirements and the time 
necessary to satisfy each step. We also seek comment on whether there 
have been sufficient advancements in location technology since the 
CSRIC test bed results. We also understand that additional capital 
investment may be necessary to meet any new proposed indoor testing 
requirements. We seek detailed and concrete data regarding the costs of 
implementing horizontal indoor location accuracy requirements within a 
two-year timeframe. We also seek comment on alternative reliability 
standards, as well as on whether we should phase in different 
reliability standards in conjunction with staged implementation 
timeframes, or different requirements for specific types of mobile 
devices (e.g., only 4G-capable devices). Alternatively, would likely 
development timetables and cost considerations warrant a longer 
implementation timeframe that would permit integration of the vertical 
location capability proposed below on the same schedule?
    57. Facilitating Network Migrations and NG911 Transitions. Whether 
we adopt the proposed requirements or another approach, we seek to 
encourage CMRS providers to invest in the near-term as a pathway to 
achieving more precise indoor accuracy in the long term. We also 
believe that any near-term indoor location accuracy requirements should 
take into account long-term E911 and NG911 objectives to avoid 
requiring significant investment in technologies that could become 
stranded. In our view, a technology-neutral indoor accuracy requirement 
should allow CMRS providers flexibility to adopt an indoor location 
accuracy solution that best fits with their long-term business and 
technology plans.
    58. We seek comment on how best to structure a near-term 
requirement so that it will promote our longer-term objectives. For 
instance, what approach would provide incentives to providers to 
leverage existing investments in implementing technologies in the near-
term to facilitate their efforts to meet a long-term accuracy 
requirement? What effect if any would it have on their ability and 
incentive to accelerate deployment of the vertical location accuracy 
goals discussed below? On the transition to NG911? How would the 
adoption of a near-term 50-meter requirement affect the costs, 
deployment, and operation of the network upgrades that providers 
currently are making to deploy 4G technologies? Would the proposed 
near-term requirements have an adverse impact on current and future 
requirements work that could also serve to achieve meeting a long-term 
accuracy requirement? In this regard, we note that CSRIC concluded that 
more standards work will be required ``to allow practical 
implementation of many emerging location technologies for emergency 
services use.''
2. Vertical Location Information
    59. Background. While horizontal location information is a critical 
element to locating a 911 caller, a third dimension of location 
information--a vertical, or ``z-axis'' component--would greatly enhance 
location accuracy. Vertical location information on a caller's floor 
height would substantially

[[Page 17828]]

benefit first responders trying to locate callers in multi-story 
buildings.
    60. CSRIC II's Working Group 4C (WG4C) was responsible for 
examining E911 and public safety location technologies in use today, 
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. Among other findings, 
WG4C identified several challenges with providing a vertical location 
data, noting in particular that ``[c]urrent data formats for sending 
location to a PSAP do not support transmission of Z-height, and 
therefore a change to the relevant standards is required.'' Finally, 
WG4C recommended that there be an in-depth analysis in the future of z-
axis data and how it could be transmitted to PSAP securely.
    61. The Commission later tasked CSRIC II with additional 
investigation of location accuracy. Subsequently, as discussed above, 
in 2012-2013, CSRIC III's WG3 conducted an indoor location test bed to 
explore further currently available and future indoor location 
technologies. Although it did not specifically focus on technologies 
that could provide z-axis information, one participating vendor, 
NextNav, tested its indoor location technology for vertical location 
accuracy in the CSRIC test bed. NextNav provided vertical location 
accuracy within 2.9 meters and 4.8 meters for the 67th and 90th 
percentiles, respectively. NextNav's second-generation technology was 
tested again in 2013 and demonstrated improvements on the results 
reported in the 2012 test bed, including z-axis performance.
    62. WG3 noted that ``[p]ublic safety recognizes that additional 
work remains before actionable altitude measurements can be broadly 
provided and utilized to aid first responders, including 
standardization, commercial availability, and deployment of such 
technologies.'' However, the record indicates that other vendors have 
been developing this capability, suggesting that z-axis technology has 
taken significant strides toward commercial viability since the 
Commission last considered it. For example, several commenters noted 
the feasibility of indoor and vertical location and have strongly urged 
the Commission to develop indoor location accuracy requirements.
    63. Discussion. In light of advancements in indoor location 
technologies with vertical capabilities, and the growing use of 
smartphones with features such as barometric pressure sensors, we 
believe that vertical location technology has sufficiently matured to 
propose the near-term inclusion of z-axis location information for 
wireless 911 calls placed from indoors. Specifically, we propose to 
require CMRS providers to deliver z-axis location information within 3 
meters of the caller's location, for 67 percent and 80 percent of 
indoor wireless 911 calls within three years and five years of the 
effective date of adoption of rules, respectively. By using a 3-meter 
measurement, we are effectively requiring floor level information. A 
vertical search ring greater than 3 meters from the caller could lead 
to mistaken floor identification.
    64. We think a 3-meter vertical location accuracy requirement is 
technically feasible. Significantly, based on the test bed report and 
filings in the record to date, at least one vendor has developed 
vertical location technology that already can locate callers to within 
2.9 meters at the 90th percentile, and others estimate having similar 
granular capabilities within three to five years. Below, we seek 
comment on whether an initial deployment requirement of three years 
from the effective date of our new rules would be achievable, including 
whether such a timeframe ensures that CMRS providers have sufficient 
competitive choices of vendors and time to incorporate, test, and 
deploy their technology of choice, and whether setting such a timetable 
would spur the advancement of vertical location solutions already in 
development.
    65. We also seek comment on the potential costs associated with a 
vertical location requirement. If a provider were to modify handsets to 
incorporate barometers in handsets, for example, what would be the cost 
per handset? We seek comment on how best to structure a vertical 
location accuracy requirement to mitigate potential costs to providers 
while still ensuring PSAPs obtain useful vertical location information. 
We note that our proposed requirement is technology-neutral, and our 
proposed approach affords providers with the flexibility to choose the 
most cost-effective means of integrating vertical location technology 
into their networks.
    66. We also seek comment on whether PSAPs are ready to make use of 
z-axis location information. In recent testimony before the Senate 
Commerce Committee, NENA stated that the existing location databases 
have data fields capable of capturing other location elements, such as 
z-axis readings. NENA opined that many PSAPs are prepared to accept an 
extended range of data, once the provider has the capability to capture 
such data. We note that elevation and floor level information have been 
an optional component of ALI standards for several years. Polaris 
Wireless, however, notes that ``PSAP call takers must be able to 
visualize vertical location information in computer-aided design 
(``CAD'') or other display formats in order to dispatch personnel to 
the correct place'' and that ``significant challenges lie ahead in 
designing and upgrading public safety equipment, databases, and 
procedures in preparing for future availability of vertical 
information.'' In addition, NextNav states that ``many PSAPs are not 
presently prepared to fully utilize Z-axis data in the emergency 
dispatch process because they do not have accurate mapping systems to 
convert Z-axis data into floor-level dispatchable information.'' To the 
extent that PSAPs must take additional measures to be capable of 
receiving z-axis information, we seek comment on what steps must be 
taken and any corresponding costs, as well as the timeframe in which 
these steps reasonably could be completed.
    67. Timeframe. We seek comment on a reasonable timeframe for 
provision of vertical (z-axis) information. We recognize that the 
development of vertical location technology, the incorporation of these 
capabilities into a sufficient number of consumer handsets, and the 
development of any necessary industry standards, may take additional 
time. We therefore propose that CMRS providers must deliver z-axis 
information for 67 percent of calls within a three-year timeframe and 
for 80 percent of calls within a five-year timeframe. We seek comment 
on whether this would afford a sufficient implementation period. We 
seek comment on any necessary developments that must take place in 
order for the delivery of z-axis information would be feasible.
    68. Commenters should explain what the path to implementation of a 
z-axis requirement would look like, including specific steps and 
corresponding timeframe estimates. We note that only one vendor 
participating in CSRIC's indoor location accuracy test bed provided 
location information with a z-axis component. In this regard, CSRIC 
states that, ``even the best location technologies tested have not 
proven the ability to consistently identify the specific building and 
floor, which represents the required performance to meet Public 
Safety's expressed needs. This is not likely to change over the next 
12-24 months.'' Several commenters also argue that vertical

[[Page 17829]]

location technology is not yet sufficiently developed or widely enough 
available to reasonably require providers to support this capability at 
present.
    69. At the same time, however, based on the CSRIC test bed results 
and on filings in the record to date, at least one vendor has developed 
vertical location technology that already can locate callers to a more 
granular degree than what we propose here, and others estimate having 
similar granular capabilities within three to five years. In addition, 
nearly all smartphones are now equipped with sensors that can determine 
speed, compass direction, and movement. Thus, many devices can now 
gauge direction, turns, speed, and height above sea level, and thereby 
generate a three-dimensional view of the user's location. We believe 
that this trend will continue. We seek comment on these developments, 
and how these trends should affect the ability of CMRS providers to 
provide z-axis information for 67 percent of calls within three years 
and 80 percent of calls within five years. As discussed above, we also 
seek comment on whether test bed certification should serve as a 
triggering date rather than the effective date of the adoption of 
rules. Alternatively, if the timeline is triggered by the adoption of 
rules, should the Commission consider reevaluating the compliance 
timeline at some interim point to evaluate the status of testing of 
location technology?
    70. Finally, we seek comment on the timeframe in which a 
significant fraction of PSAPs would be capable of receiving and 
processing z-axis information, and how that should impact the timeframe 
in which a z-axis requirement could reasonably be imposed on CMRS 
providers, or whether PSAPs are ready to accept z-axis information 
today. In addition, we seek comment on any technical, operational, 
manufacturing, or other issues that may impact CMRS providers' ability 
to implement the proposed requirement in the near future.
3. Implementation Issues
a. Compliance Testing for Indoor Location Accuracy Requirements
    71. Background. As noted above, our current Phase II location 
accuracy rules contain no requirement for testing compliance with the 
standards or for reporting the results thereof. Despite the 
acknowledged difficulties with indoor testing, the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police suggested that the Commission 
nevertheless formulate a testing regime that requires periodic indoor 
testing to verify compliance. NENA and APCO concurred. Location 
technology vendors also supported indoor location testing. Many 
commenters also urged the Commission to consider the standard developed 
by ATIS (ATIS-0500013), in collaboration with public safety entities, 
to assess the performance of indoor wireless location technologies. See 
``Approaches to Wireless E9-1-1 Indoor Location Performance Testing,'' 
ATIS Technical Report 0500013.
    72. Discussion. We believe that WG3 demonstrated the feasibility of 
establishing a test bed for purposes of evaluating the accuracy of 
different indoor location technologies across various indoor 
environments. Accordingly, we propose that a test bed approach, 
representative of real-life call scenarios, would be the most practical 
and cost-effective method for testing compliance with indoor location 
accuracy requirements. Specifically, we propose a rule requiring CMRS 
providers to participate in an independently administered test bed 
program that is representative of real-life call scenarios and that 
includes, but is not limited to, the following testing components:
     Testing in representative indoor environments based on 
standards adopted by an industry standards body group;
     Testing for the following performance attributes: location 
accuracy, latency (Time to First Fix), and reliability (yield);
     Requiring CMRS providers to show that the indoor location 
technology used for purposes of its compliance testing is the same 
technology (or technologies) that it is deploying in its network, and 
is being tested as it will actually be deployed in the network.

As an alternative, however, we also propose that CMRS providers may use 
other testing methods that may better suit their particular business 
plans or practices. In order to maintain the same level of test result 
reliability, however, CMRS providers must demonstrate that their 
alternative methodology and testing procedures are at least equivalent 
to the testing methodology and procedural standards used in the 
independently administered indoor location accuracy test bed. In using 
alternative testing methods, CMRS providers would need to provide the 
same information about the location technologies' effectiveness, and 
also show that the indoor location technology used in the test bed is 
the same technology deployed in their network.
    73. Certification under either the proposed test bed or an 
alternative test methodology (of equivalent reliability) would provide 
a safe harbor to demonstrate that the CMRS provider meets the indoor 
location accuracy requirement Under our safe harbor proposal, a 
technology that meets the location requirements in the test bed, upon 
certification by the CMRS provider that it has been deployed in a 
manner consistent with the test bed parameters, would be presumed to 
comply with the Commission's rules, without the need for the provider 
to conduct indoor testing in all locations where the technology is 
actually deployed. We seek comment on the practical effect of this safe 
harbor. What factual showing would be necessary to overcome the 
presumption of compliance? If a compliance issue arises that overcomes 
the presumption, should we afford the provider an opportunity to 
resolve the issue before considering initiation of enforcement action? 
If the provider can demonstrate that it is using best efforts to meet 
the accuracy requirements, but is prevented from doing so by 
circumstances beyond its control, should we limit the scope of 
potential enforcement activity? We seek comment on these issues.
(i) Test Bed Methodology
    74. We propose that CMRS providers may demonstrate compliance with 
indoor location accuracy requirements by participating in an 
independently administered test bed program. Certification by the test 
bed administrator would provide CMRS providers a ``safe harbor'' that 
they meet any indoor accuracy requirements we may adopt in this 
proceeding. As part of the test bed participation, CMRS providers must 
show that the indoor location technology used in the test bed is the 
same technology deployed in their networks, with similar parameters, 
such as beacon or cell tower density and topology. We believe that such 
an independently administered program would provide an objective 
platform for testing the accuracy of the provider's chosen indoor 
location technology in a variety of representative indoor environments 
and building types, without requiring ubiquitous in-building testing, 
and that such an approach would mitigate the potential costs of 
compliance testing.
    75. Based on the record and the methodology used by WG3 for its 
test bed, we propose certain minimal test bed requirements. 
Specifically, the test bed must (1) include testing in representative 
indoor environments; (2) test for certain performance attributes 
(discussed in greater detail below); and (3) require CMRS providers to 
show that

[[Page 17830]]

the indoor location technology used for purposes of its compliance 
testing is the same technology (or technologies) that it is deploying 
in its network, and is being tested as it will actually be deployed in 
the network. We discuss each of these proposed requirements below. We 
also seek comment on which aspects of the testing process--
administrative, technical, and operational--should be set forth in our 
rules and which are better left to the discretion of the test bed 
administrator.
    76. Representative Environment. First, we propose that the test bed 
should reflect, to the extent possible, a representative sampling of 
the different real world environments in which CMRS providers will be 
required to deliver indoor location information. We seek comment on 
whether, by doing so, the test bed could provide reliable information 
about how location technologies perform in different circumstances, 
without necessitating ubiquitous testing in real-world environments. 
Both WG3 and commenters note that the industry standards body group, 
ATIS, has adopted indoor testing standards incorporating representative 
test environments rather than ubiquitous testing. The CSRIC WG3 test 
bed used dense urban, urban, suburban and rural morphologies, as 
defined by the ATIS-0500013 standard. We seek comment on whether these 
morphologies are sufficiently representative and inclusive of the 
variety of indoor environments in which wireless 911 calls are made, or 
whether there are different environments that should be included.
    77. Performance Attributes. We propose that any location accuracy 
test bed must evaluate a CMRS provider's choice of location accuracy 
technology in light of several key performance requirements: Location 
accuracy, latency (TTFF), and reliability (yield). For purposes of 
determining compliance with the location accuracy and TTFF 
requirements, we propose to follow the methodology used by WG3 in its 
test bed. For location accuracy, the CSRIC test bed computed ``the 
error in estimating the location of the device under test by comparing 
each vendor's reported horizontal position . . . to the surveyed ground 
truth position of the test location (determined through a precise land 
survey).'' Further, ``[e]ach test call (or equivalent) was assumed to 
be independent from prior calls and accuracy was based on the first 
location delivered by the vendor after `call initiation.' '' With 
regard to latency, the CSRIC test bed calculated TTFF by ``establishing 
the precise time for call initiation (or an equivalent initiation event 
if the vendor's test configuration did not support the placement of an 
emulated emergency test call).'' More specifically, we propose to 
measure latency from the time the user presses SEND after dialing 9-1-
1, to the time the location fix appears at the location information 
center.
    78. We propose that providers measure yield in the test bed for 
purposes of testing whether a location technology satisfies that 
proposed reliability requirement. With respect to yield, the CSRIC test 
bed defined the ``yield of each technology . . . as the [percentage] of 
calls with delivered location to overall `call attempts' at each test 
point.'' As with indoor calls in real-world scenarios, however, not all 
test call attempts will actually connect with the testing network 
established for the test bed and therefore constitute ``completed'' 
calls. In view of the difficulties that WG3 encountered in testing 
indoor locations, we propose a modified definition of yield for 
purposes of determining compliance with the proposed 67 and 80 percent 
reliability requirements in the test bed. We therefore suggest that the 
yield percentage be based on the number of test calls that deliver a 
location in compliance with any applicable indoor location accuracy 
requirements, compared to the total number of calls that successfully 
connect to the testing network. We propose to exclude calls that are 
dropped or otherwise disconnected in 10 seconds or less, for which 
providers do not get a Phase II fix, from calculation of the yield 
percentage (both the denominator and numerator). We seek comment on 
this proposed calculation of yield.
    79. For purposes of assessing yield, we propose that CMRS providers 
should satisfy the 67 and 80 percent reliability requirements for each 
individual indoor location morphology (dense urban, urban, suburban, 
and rural) in the test bed, and based upon the specific type of 
location technology that the provider intends to deploy in real-world 
areas represented by that particular morphology. We believe this 
approach is consistent with our proposal that providers must satisfy 
the location accuracy requirement at the PSAP- or county-level. We seek 
comment on this approach.
    80. Finally, we seek comment on whether the foregoing metrics are 
sufficient for assessing each performance requirement and our proposed 
indoor location requirements as a whole. What other performance 
requirements, if any, should we require to determine compliance with 
our proposed location accuracy requirements?
    81. Testing to Emulate Actual Network Deployment. We propose that a 
CMRS provider must show both (1) that the indoor location technology 
used for purposes of its compliance testing is the same technology that 
will be deployed in its network, and (2) that this technology is being 
tested as it will actually be deployed in the CMRS provider's network. 
The CSRIC test bed tested both commercially available technologies as 
well as new and emerging technologies. Accordingly, two of the three 
participating vendors could not test their technology as it would be 
deployed in a provider's network to provide an end-to-end E911 location 
solution. For this reason, technical performance in the test bed was 
necessarily different than what could be achieved in an actual 
production implementation. We seek comment on our proposal to require 
testing of the indoor location technology to be used as it will 
actually be deployed in CMRS provider's network. Moreover, we seek 
comment on the feasibility of establishing a test bed that addresses 
our concerns that any compliance test bed provide a close simulation of 
real-world indoor calling scenarios. Are there factors such as beacon 
or cell tower density and topology that may cause the test bed results 
to differ materially from performance for actual 911 calls outside the 
test bed? Should the test bed be constrained to a small geographic 
area, similar to the CSRIC IV example, or should the selection of test 
points change periodically or cover a larger geographic area?
    82. Test Bed Approach. In order to accommodate a technology-neutral 
approach and to encourage advancements in indoor location technology, 
as well as to avoid the costs of unnecessary testing requirements in a 
given situation, we think it appropriate to allow for some flexibility 
in compliance testing procedures. For this reason, we propose allowing 
the indoor test bed administrator sufficient discretion to determine 
the actual test approaches to be used, e.g., the number of test points, 
number of test calls, and the best combination of devices to test 
simultaneously per technology. We seek comment on this proposal.
    83. Test Bed Administration. WG3 indicated that a competent and 
reliable administration is necessary in order to establish and operate 
an effective test bed. There are multiple administrative issues 
inherent in setting up any test bed for purposes of compliance testing, 
including (1) selecting an independent

[[Page 17831]]

test bed administrator; (2) establishing a test bed funding mechanism; 
(3) finding an acceptable third-party test house or houses; (4) 
establishing and maintaining the test bed, including maintenance of any 
data and data confidentiality, and (5) establishing and administering a 
certification process for CMRS providers to demonstrate compliance with 
the Commission's indoor location accuracy requirements. We seek comment 
on these views and on whether there are any other such administration 
issues that we should consider.
    84. The Commission recently renewed the CSRIC charter for an 
additional two years, asking CSRIC IV WG1 to examine many of the 
foregoing issues. Its report on these issues is due in June 2014. While 
CSRIC IV WG1 is not considering requirements for the establishment and 
administration of an ongoing test bed for the specific purpose of 
assessing compliance with location accuracy requirements, we expect 
that its recommendations will be informative. As such, we direct the 
Bureau to seek further comment on them in this proceeding. These 
comments should address whether the test bed being developed by CSRIC 
IV WG1 would be sufficient for the purpose of compliance testing for 
indoor location accuracy.
    85. We also note that the test bed CSRIC IV WG1 is developing would 
not include a certification component. Is such a certification 
requirement necessary or appropriate? Are there other Commission 
compliance regimes (such as for equipment authorizations pursuant to 
part 2 of our rules) that may serve as appropriate models? We seek 
comment on how any compliance certification process should work for the 
indoor location accuracy compliance test bed. We also ask commenters to 
provide us with cost estimates for the certification component of the 
indoor location accuracy compliance test bed.
(ii) Alternative Testing Methods
    86. As an alternative to the test bed method outlined above, we 
propose to allow CMRS providers to demonstrate compliance with our 
indoor location accuracy requirements through alternative means. We 
believe this would serve the public interest by allowing CMRS providers 
the flexibility to test their indoor location accuracy solution in a 
manner that suits their particular business needs while, at the same 
time, maintaining the same level of test result reliability. We also 
propose that CMRS providers could combine resources to develop their 
own test methodology. We propose, however, that CMRS providers choosing 
an alternative approach must demonstrate in any certification 
requirement that their methodology and testing procedures are at least 
equivalent to the rigor and standards used in the independent location 
accuracy test bed approach discussed above. Thus, they would have to 
provide the same information about the technologies' effectiveness and 
also show that the indoor location technology used in the test bed is 
the same technology deployed in their network.
    87. What is the feasibility of allowing CMRS providers to develop 
such an alternative mechanism for testing indoor location accuracy? For 
example, how should the Commission determine whether CMRS providers 
choosing to forego the test bed have demonstrated that their 
methodology and testing procedures are at least equivalent to the rigor 
and standards used in the test bed approach discussed above? Should we 
require providers electing to use an alternative testing approach to 
file their proposed approach with the Commission in advance, in order 
to allow us to review their proposed methodology? What further 
requirements, if any, are appropriate and necessary to ensure that a 
provider using an alternative testing approach is satisfying our 
accuracy requirements? Finally, should the Commission leave it to the 
industry to determine whether and how to establish any jointly used 
program in order to save costs?
(iii) Test Frequency
    88. We seek comment regarding the extent to which CMRS providers 
should be required to re-test the accuracy of their indoor location 
technologies. For example, as CMRS providers make material upgrades to 
their networks and handsets to incorporate new or updated system and 
location technologies, further testing might be appropriate to show 
that the system continues to satisfy any indoor location accuracy 
requirements. What types of changes would be substantive enough to 
warrant re-testing? Alternatively, should we require periodic re-
testing, regardless of whether a provider has made any significant 
updates to its network? We also seek comment on any alternative methods 
that might best ensure that indoor location technologies continue to 
comply with our requirements.
(iv) Confidentiality of Test Results
    89. Under the WG3 test bed regime, all parties agreed that raw 
results would be made available only to the vendors whose technology 
was to be tested, participating wireless providers, and the third-party 
testing house. In order to protect vendors' proprietary information, 
only summary data was made available to all other parties. Should these 
restrictions be carried forward to the proposed indoor location 
accuracy test regime? Or should some or all test data also be made 
available to the Commission, or to requesting PSAPs and other 911 
authorities? We note that APCO states that ``test results need to be 
shared with relevant PSAPs,'' and that ``PSAPs may also want to conduct 
independent tests to verify accuracy data.'' Moreover, given the extent 
to which mobile wireless communications services are becoming 
increasingly central to the day-to-day lives of Americans, should this 
data also be available, at least to some extent, to the public? Can and 
should the Commission's location accuracy requirements and enforcement 
of compliance therewith preempt any state or local determinations to 
the contrary, absent agreements between CMRS providers and PSAPs for 
more stringent requirements?
(v) Cost/Benefit Analysis
    90. We also seek comment on the costs and benefits of all of our 
proposed compliance testing measures, as well as on additional ways to 
reduce the costs of compliance testing, without adversely impacting the 
reliability and accuracy of the test results. CSRIC reported that the 
2013 test bed cost approximately $240,000. We anticipate that the costs 
of the proposed indoor test bed program may exceed that amount for 
several reasons. CSRIC noted that its test bed costs were for only the 
limited San Francisco Bay area, tested with a limited number of test 
points. If a single test bed remains sufficient for determining 
compliance with our indoor location accuracy requirements, we 
anticipate that costs will not increase substantially in this regard. 
However, larger or additional test beds may be necessary for purposes 
of compliance testing, which would increase costs. A larger number of 
test points and the participation of more CMRS providers and location 
technology vendors could also increase costs. Further, CSRIC noted 
that, in some instances, the test bed process did not include testing 
the end-to-end E911 solution as it would be deployed in a carrier's 
network, which may increase costs.
    91. Nevertheless, we believe that the broader test bed approach 
proposed here, based on testing in representative environments, is 
likely to cost significantly less than ubiquitous in-building testing. 
Both the record and CSRIC's report indicate that ubiquitous in-building 
testing is likely to be both costly and impractical due to security

[[Page 17832]]

and permission issues that make it difficult to access private 
buildings. Based on CSRIC's recommendation to test in representative 
environments and on initial CMRS industry comments supporting CSRIC's 
and standards body processes, we find that, by avoiding the need for 
ubiquitous testing, our proposed test bed process would significantly 
lower costs. Moreover, it would reduce the costs of participation by 
CMRS providers, by providing them the opportunity to share costs for 
the test bed. We also propose that CMRS providers may choose an 
alternative testing means. This may afford a way for CMRS providers to 
test their indoor location technology in a more cost-effective manner, 
depending upon their particular business plans. We seek specific cost 
data, where available, and comment on all of the foregoing, and any 
other, factors related to the implementation costs of an indoor 
location accuracy compliance test bed.
b. Applicability of Indoor Location Accuracy Requirements
    92. We propose to apply the indoor location accuracy requirements 
on a nationwide-basis, across all geographic areas. As noted earlier, 
one of our key objectives is to make indoor location as widely 
available as is technologically and economically feasible. While we 
recognize that certain indoor environments are more likely to present 
challenges in identifying a caller's location, other indoor 
environments may not present greater challenges than outdoor 
environments. Based on the CSRIC test bed results, as well as 
additional information regarding the ability of location-based 
technologies to perform indoors, we believe that existing location-
based technology is sufficient to identify a caller's location in a 
number of indoor environments already, and that providers might be 
capable of satisfying indoor location requirements nationwide within a 
reasonable period of time. CMRS providers also confirm that A-GPS 
technology works well in most indoor locations, and U.S. Census data 
suggests that the majority of indoor environments are likely to be the 
types of structures that are suitable for A-GPS location-based 
solutions. A 2011 peer-reviewed journal article, which presented the 
results of a study evaluating the ability of GPS- and A-GPS-enabled 
mobile phones to identify reference locations with known coordinates in 
an indoor two-story structure, found that whenever a valid GPS position 
fix was obtained, the maximum positional error never exceeded 100 
meters, even when considering the indoor tests. See P. A. Zandbergen 
and S. J. Barbeau, ``Positional Accuracy of Assisted GPS Data from 
High-Sensitivity GPS-enabled Mobile Phones,'' 64 Journal of Navigation 
3, pp. 381-399 (July 2011). We anticipate that additional improvements 
in location technologies since that time, together with advancements 
that will take place over the new few years, will reduce this potential 
for error even further. For example, additional global navigation 
satellite systems are being deployed or activated, such as GLONASS, 
Galileo and Compass.
    93. Given the ability of A-GPS to perform well across a large 
number of indoor environments, together with the fact that the majority 
of CMRS providers are already using handset-based, A-GPS solutions, we 
believe that only a limited number of environments would require 
additional infrastructure in order for CMRS providers to comply with 
our proposed indoor accuracy requirements. We therefore believe that 
indoor location across all areas is technologically feasible, as well 
as economically reasonable. We seek comment on this analysis.
    94. Alternatively, we ask whether we should apply our proposed 
indoor location accuracy requirement in a more targeted fashion, and if 
so, how? For example, would it be more effective to phase in 
application of the indoor location accuracy requirements, by first 
focusing on areas throughout the nation with the largest volume of 
indoor calls? If so, should we limit the application of our horizontal 
indoor location accuracy requirements to urban areas? The Census Bureau 
defines ``urban'' as ``[c]ore census block groups or blocks that have a 
population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per 
square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall 
density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square 
kilometer).'' ATIS also provides definitions of ``urban'' and ``dense 
urban'' areas. See ATIS, Define Topologies & Data Collection 
Methodology Technical Report (ATIS-0500011). We seek comment on whether 
the Census Bureau or ATIS definitions would provide a useful basis for 
defining and focusing the application of indoor location requirements.
    95. As another alternative, we seek comment on whether we should 
allow certain exclusions from the indoor location requirements. For 
example, should we exclude certain geographic areas from the indoor 
location requirements and if so, what areas should be excluded and why? 
What other potential distinctions might be appropriate? Should, for 
example, different considerations apply in with respect to vertical 
accuracy? Rather than establishing exclusions, should any exclusions be 
reported on a case-by-case basis? Our current E911 regulatory framework 
currently allows providers to file reports noting certain exclusions, 
such as areas with dense forestation. We also seek comment on how 
compliance based on one or more test beds, as discussed above, would 
affect the definition of areas to exclude. We also seek comment on 
whether we should establish any exceptions for smaller wireless 
providers and, if so, why. Rather than excluding certain areas from 
indoor location requirements, would it be more appropriate to apply a 
different accuracy threshold (for example, 100 meters instead of 50 
meters) in certain indoor environments?
    96. As noted above, we anticipate that the z-axis requirement 
should be applied co-extensively, in the same geographic areas, with 
any x- and y-axis indoor requirements. In the alternative, we seek 
comment on whether we should apply the z-axis requirement to only a 
subset of those environments where we apply the horizontal indoor 
location requirement, or otherwise apply the z-axis requirement in a 
manner that is independent from the application of horizontal indoor 
location requirements.
    97. Finally, we seek comment on any other alternative approaches 
that would enable us to focus the application of indoor location 
requirements in the most effective and cost-efficient way possible. We 
recognize that the implementation of any indoor location accuracy 
requirements will impose costs on CMRS providers, and seek comment on 
the ways in which any implementation requirements could be designed to 
mitigate those costs to the extent possible, without sacrificing our 
important public safety objectives. We seek detailed comment on the 
costs associated with each of the proposed alternatives. We also seek 
comment on how we these different approaches may affect smaller CMRS 
providers and whether there are particular measures we should take to 
minimize the potential burdens on these smaller providers.
c. County/PSAP-Level Measurements; Enforcement Tied to PSAP Readiness
    98. Under Sec.  20.18(h) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
20.18(h), licensees subject to Sec.  20.18(h) must satisfy the existing 
E911 Phase II requirements at either a county-based or PSAP-based 
geographic level. We propose to adopt this standard here, and

[[Page 17833]]

require CMRS providers to satisfy the proposed indoor location accuracy 
requirements on a PSAP-level or county-level basis. This geographic 
requirement has been in place since 2010, and we believe that it 
continues to provide a sufficient degree of accuracy to PSAPs in most 
cases. We also believe that extending this requirement to indoor 
location accuracy requirements would be most efficient and cost-
effective for CMRS providers, by allowing them to choose which 
requirement best meets their needs based on individualized factors like 
natural and network topographies. We recognize, however, that a county- 
or PSAP-based requirement may be difficult to verify if testing is 
performed within a more geographically constrained test bed, as 
proposed above. We seek comment on this proposal.
    99. We intend that CMRS providers' investment in and deployment of 
improved indoor location capabilities are targeted towards those PSAPs 
or counties that are capable of utilizing this location information. In 
this regard, PSAPs would be entitled to seek Commission enforcement of 
these requirements within their jurisdictions, but as a precondition 
would be required to demonstrate that they have implemented bid/re-bid 
policies that are designed to obtain all 911 location information made 
available to them by CMRS providers pursuant to our rules. In this 
manner, we also intend to ensure we receive consistent and reliable 
E911 call tracking data, based on all available E911 information, in 
connection with any claims for enforcement action. We note that the 
accurate and reliable delivery of E911 location information depends 
upon the willingness and readiness of PSAPs and CMRS providers to work 
together. We seek comment on this proposal.
d. Liability Protection
    100. Background. In general, liability protection for provision of 
911 service is governed by state law and has traditionally been applied 
only to LECs. However, Congress has expanded the scope of state 
liability protection by requiring states to provide parity in the 
degree of protection provided to traditional and non-traditional 911 
providers, and more recently, to providers of NG911 service.
    101. Discussion. We recognize that adequate liability protection is 
needed for CMRS providers to proceed with implementation of the indoor 
location accuracy requirements. The recent NET 911 Act and Next 
Generation 9-1-1 Advancement Act have significantly expanded the scope 
of this liability protection, and we believe this provides sufficient 
liability protection for CMRS providers. Nevertheless, we seek comment 
on whether there are additional steps the Commission could or should 
take--consistent with our regulatory authority--to provide additional 
liability protection to CMRS providers. Do CMRS providers have 
sufficient liability protection under current laws to implement our 
proposed indoor location accuracy requirements, or is additional 
protection still necessary or desirable? Have there been instances 
where this liability protection has proven to be insufficient?
    102. More specifically, we seek comment on liability concerns that 
may be raised in conjunction with the possible adverse effect on indoor 
location accuracy from signal boosters. At the time of the Signal 
Booster Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1663 (2013), the Commission noted 
that its existing E911 location accuracy requirements do not apply to 
calls placed indoors, where we expect the vast majority of multiple 
dwelling unit calls will be placed. Because we now propose to apply 
location accuracy requirements to indoor calls, we seek comment 
regarding any liability concerns with regard to the operation of signal 
boosters, and in satisfying our proposed indoor location accuracy 
requirements. CMRS providers commenting in the Signal Booster Report 
and Order were especially concerned about liability for location 
accuracy when those capabilities are affected by signal booster use. 
Have these liability concerns abated in any way, in light of 
technological developments that might improve location accuracy or 
based on liability protection afforded by existing laws? If not, what 
position, if any, could and should the Commission take regarding 
potential liability for interference with location accuracy technology 
from signal booster use, whether in the multiple dwelling unit context 
or otherwise?
e. Waiver Process
    103. We seek comment on whether we should adopt a specific waiver 
process for CMRS providers who seek relief from our indoor location 
accuracy requirements. As discussed above, we seek to adopt cost-
efficient, technology-neutral rules that are easy to understand and 
administer. In doing so, we intend to allow CMRS providers flexibility 
to comply with any indoor location accuracy requirements in a manner 
that suits their particular business plans and technology choices. At 
the same time, however, we recognize that there may be instances where 
a provider may require limited relief. In general, the Commission's 
rules may be waived for good cause shown. In the context of its E911 
Phase II requirements, the Commission recognized that technology-
related issues or exceptional circumstances could delay providers' 
ability to comply with the requirements, and that such cases could be 
dealt with through individual waivers as these implementation issues 
were more precisely identified.
    104. We seek comment on whether our existing waiver processes are 
sufficient for purposes of any indoor location accuracy requirements, 
or whether we should adopt a waiver process that is specific to indoor 
location accuracy. In the event that commenters believe a specific 
waiver process would serve the public interest, we seek comment on how 
such a specific waiver process would be implemented. Furthermore, 
should we establish criteria for a streamlined process for waiver 
relief? For example, under one potential approach, providers who 
believe they cannot comply with a particular indoor location accuracy 
benchmark, despite their good faith efforts, may submit a certification 
to this effect six months prior to the applicable benchmark. The 
certification must include an alternative timeframe for satisfying the 
benchmark, as well as an explanation of how they will achieve 
compliance within this alternative timeframe. In the event a provider 
submits such a certification, and provided the certification is not 
false and the alternative timeframe is not unreasonable, should we 
defer enforcement action during the pendency of the alternative 
timeframe? What additional criteria, if any, might be warranted to 
justify a waiver or extension of time to satisfy an indoor location 
accuracy benchmark? We seek comment on how best to structure a waiver 
process that ensures providers take their obligation to satisfy indoor 
location accuracy requirements seriously, while at the same time 
acknowledging that unforeseeable circumstances might arise that would 
justify limited relief.

C. Long-Term Indoor E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

    105. In developing a framework for E911 location accuracy, we seek 
comment on how any potential near-term requirements would operate in a 
NG911 environment, as well as how these requirements could facilitate 
the Commission's long-term location accuracy objectives. The accuracy 
requirements discussed above only provide for a ``rough'' approximation 
of

[[Page 17834]]

a wireless 911 caller's location. The proposed requirements for 
horizontal location within 50 meters and z-axis information within 3 
meters could still result in building misidentification, and are 
insufficiently granular to provide room or apartment-level location. We 
agree with commenters who assert that public safety would be best 
served through the delivery of a dispatchable address. Commscope, 
however, notes that delivering location information in the form of a 
civic address may be better addressed in the context of NG911, because 
NG911 architecture allows for the explicit communication of floor and 
building address information, rather than conventional Phase II E911.
    106. Over the long term, we seek comment on how to formulate 
requirements that would require sufficiently granular location 
information to provide PSAPs with ``dispatchable'' address information, 
which would include a building address as well as specific floor and 
suite/room number information for indoor calls. We seek comment on this 
goal, including its costs and benefits. We also seek comment on what 
technologies might facilitate the delivery of dispatchable address 
information, and within what timeframe. We also seek comment on what 
future location-based solutions and NG911 technologies may make the 
provision of dispatchable address information easier. In the following 
sections, we seek comment on ways in which we can take steps towards 
achieving our long-term indoor location objectives.
1. Leveraging Indoor Network Access Technologies
    107. We seek comment on ways in which we can take steps towards 
achieving our long-term indoor location objectives by leveraging 
measures that CMRS providers are already taking to expand and enhance 
their networks. For instance, to account for technical difficulties of 
urban and indoor environment, CMRS providers are already deploying both 
small cells and DAS to improve and expand their network coverage and 
speed. In its report on leveraging location-based services for E911 
purposes, CSRIC noted that ``[a]s cell sizes shrink, the location of 
the serving cell itself may suffice for a position estimate for both 
E9-1-1 call routing and first responder dispatch [because] the base 
station itself can be a Phase II positioning technology.'' See CSRIC 
III WG3, Leveraging LBS and Emerging Location Technologies for Indoor 
Wireless E9-1-1 (March 14, 2013) (CSRIC LBS Report).
    108. We seek comment on whether small cells and DAS could be 
leveraged to provide critical location information for public safety 
entities responding to emergencies located indoors, and if so, how. In 
particular, we seek comment on whether, as part of a long-term indoor 
location solution, CMRS providers should be subject to a requirement to 
program all small cell and geographically identifiable DAS extensions 
of their CMRS networks with address information at the time of 
installation and/or prior to the commencement of commercial service 
using the small cell or DAS. We also ask whether wireless providers 
should also program existing small cell and DAS deployments with 
location information whenever those sites and system are upgraded or 
replaced.
    109. We seek comment on the technical feasibility of programming 
both small cells and DAS with location information, as well as the 
feasibility of installing A-GPS chips within small cell nodes and DAS 
antennae. We note that Navanu, a location technology vendor, submits 
that its technology incorporates a passive RF analyzer that can also be 
``embedded within . . . a DAS system . . . or any wireless broadband 
access point'' and ``can isolate a signal from a mobile [device] and 
map the device location.'' Can CMRS providers currently configure small 
cells, DAS, and industrial signal boosters to provide this information? 
If not, what additional developments must be made? Would additional 
work be necessary to develop industry standards? We also seek comment 
on whether configuring DAS and industrial signal boosters to identify 
the address of the building from which the 911 call originated might 
compensate for any potential adverse effect on determining location 
information through network-based methods that otherwise might arise 
from the use of signal boosters and DAS. Finally, we seek comment on 
whether CMRS providers could retroactively program existing small 
cells, DAS, and industrial signal boosters to contain specific address 
information.
    110. We seek comment on the potential costs to CMRS providers to 
program small cell nodes with dispatchable address information. We also 
seek comment on the potential costs of configuring DAS to perform the 
same function. We believe that leveraging actions that CMRS providers 
are already undertaking should lower the potential costs for providers 
to achieve more granular location information that is consistent with 
our long-term E911 objectives.
    111. We also seek comment on what steps, if any, PSAPs would need 
to take to incorporate and use this additional information. Could 
existing information fields be used to display additional address 
information, like floor and apartment number? If not, what additional 
upgrades would be necessary to PSAP equipment? What modifications to 
PSAP operating procedures would be necessary to accommodate any 
additional information from small cell deployments?
2. Differentiating Between Indoor and Outdoor Calls
    112. CMRS providers generally have indicated that it is not 
possible to differentiate between indoor and outdoor calls to 911. We 
seek comment on whether technology has evolved such that CMRS providers 
are able now, or will be able in the foreseeable future, to determine 
whether a call originates from indoors and make this information 
available to PSAPs. If not, what additional technological advancements 
need to take place in order to differentiate between calls that 
originate indoors versus outdoors? In what timeframe would these 
advancements likely take place?
    113. We suggest that one way in which indoor and outdoor calls 
could be differentiated is by using location information provided by 
small cell and DAS infrastructure. If dispatchable address information 
from a small cell or DAS node is available to the PSAP, this 
information would include the floor and suite/room number, thereby 
signifying the call originated indoors. Similarly, to the extent that 
providers convey z-axis information that indicates that a call 
originated above a certain height above ground, it could be reasonable 
to infer that a wireless call originated indoors. Furthermore, 
consistent with the observations in the CSRIC LBS Report, CMRS 
providers may be able to use certain commercial location-based services 
on a device to provide a reasonable estimate of the device's location 
and whether the device is located indoors. We seek comment on these 
methods, as well as on any other ways that CMRS providers could use to 
determine whether a call originates from indoors. In addition, what 
costs would be associated with developing this capability? What steps 
would CMRS providers have to take, if any, to make information on 
whether a call originated from indoors available in its location 
information center?
    114. We also seek comment on whether identifying a wireless 911 
call as originating indoors versus outdoors,

[[Page 17835]]

by itself, would be useful information to public safety entities. Would 
it be sufficient to provide public safety entities with more granular 
location information, which presumably would identify whether a call 
originated indoors within a certain search radius? We also seek comment 
on whether existing PSAP equipment could readily make use of this 
information. What costs could be associated with a PSAP's ability to 
use this kind of information?
3. Leveraging Commercial Location-Based Services, Emerging 
Technologies, and other Sources of Location Information
    115. Commercial location-based services (LBS) are applications that 
CMRS providers load, or consumers download, onto their phones, and are 
independent of any solutions that CMRS providers might be required to 
adopt to comply with our location accuracy requirements. Such 
applications, which typically combine GPS and Wi-Fi, are currently 
implemented in all major commercial mobile operating systems. In a 
prior proceeding, the Commission noted that these commercial LBS could 
potentially permit service providers and applications developers to 
provide PSAPs with more accurate 911 location information, and sought 
comment on whether it should encourage mobile service providers to 
enable the use of commercial LBS for emergency purposes. It also sought 
comment on the value of operational benchmarks to assist consumers in 
evaluating the ability of carriers to provide precise location 
information for emergency purposes based on the location-based 
capabilities of devices. The Commission tasked WG3 with investigating 
how commercial location-based services might be leveraged for indoor 
wireless E911 service.
    116. Numerous commenters supported investigation by CSRIC of the 
use of commercial LBS by public safety, though some commenters 
suggested that further study beyond the CSRIC report--then pending--
would be necessary. CTIA and AT&T urged the Commission to allow the 
industry to come up with best practices for using location-based 
services. Several commenters noted that industry standards work would 
be necessary before commercial LBS would be a viable option for 911 
purposes. Several commenters cautioned against using commercial LBS.
    117. WG3's final report in March 2013 investigated commercial LBS 
and emerging location technologies for indoor wireless E911 use, and 
made recommendations on how they could be best leveraged for E911 
purposes. While the report concluded that few of these technologies are 
presently available for indoor E911 use, it found that ``good progress 
is being made'' in addressing challenges to such use. At the same time, 
the CSRIC LBS Report highlights several concerns with regard to 
leveraging commercial LBS for 911. The CSRIC LBS Report recommends 
further evaluation of LBS.
    118. Since the Commission last sought comment on leveraging 
commercial LBS for 911 purposes, considerable developments have been 
made. Industry bodies have already created wireless E911 standards that 
support a range of technologies that can provide indoor location 
information. Moreover, there is increasing commercial interest in 
developing LBS, particularly services that rely on indoor location, for 
a range of different applications. Indeed, indoor location technology 
has become such a large market that it is bigger than its outdoor 
counterpart, if commercial buildings are included.
    119. Indoor location solutions are also being developed that use 
Wi-Fi and similar in-building technology to locate calls. Cisco's 
technology, for example, uses RF fingerprinting to determine location 
over a Wi-Fi network using signal strength and time of arrival 
lateration techniques. Cisco indicates that, with respect to indoor 
environments, ``location data today is generally available in 
enterprise [Wi-Fi] networks and is technologically feasible in 
residential Wi-Fi networks.'' At the same time, however, Cisco 
acknowledges that ``significant work remains'' on generating civic 
addresses (including floor numbers) and location data for Wi-Fi enabled 
devices that are not authenticated to the Wi-Fi access points. Also, 
Cisco noted that current standards efforts should be ready for Wi-Fi 
Alliance certification some time in 2015. Cisco indicated that 
implementation of Wi-Fi protocols will provide 10 feet of accuracy on a 
horizontal x/y axis 90% of the time.
    120. Location-based technologies are also already being rolled out 
in conjunction with consumer application and device offerings. Indeed, 
commercial location technologies, typically combining GPS and Wi-Fi, 
currently are implemented in all major commercial mobile operating 
systems, with multiple independent Wi-Fi access location databases, 
maintained by Google, Apple, and Skyhook, among others. The use of 
Bluetooth beacon technology is also potentially attractive for indoor 
location although, at present, such technology is less developed than 
that for Wi-Fi. At a recent consumer electronics trade show and the 
2014 Super Bowl, Bluetooth low energy (LE) beacons were demonstrated. 
Moreover, essentially all smartphones now sold have Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 
network interfaces. As noted earlier, these capabilities also provide a 
means of determining indoor location. In fact, indoor location 
applications are now mainstream for iPhone and Android devices, which 
together cover about 80 percent of the smartphone market.
    121. Furthermore, almost all smartphones sold today are equipped 
with multiple sensors that can determine acceleration, magnetic fields 
(compass direction) and movement (gyroscope), which also provide a 
means of determining the operating environment. In addition, a number 
of large mobile device vendors have started to include barometric 
pressure sensors in their devices, which can calculate z-axis 
information. In light of the fact that 61 percent of CMRS subscribers 
owned a smartphone as of May 2013, the majority of wireless subscribers 
already have access to some form of indoor location-based technology. 
Moreover, the performance reached by such indoor location technologies 
has now surpassed GPS for the outdoors, with an average accuracy of a 
few square feet compared to several tens of square feet for GPS. We 
seek comment on these developments and on how they may relate to 
potential location accuracy requirements.
    122. Recent data shows that adults are increasingly using location-
based services and data networks. We seek comment on how providers 
could use commercial LBS to provide or enhance E911 location 
information, assuming CMRS providers can obtain usable location 
information from commercial LBS applications. To what extent can CMRS 
providers access and provide this supplemental information, where 
available, to the location information center for retrieval by the 
PSAP, now or in the foreseeable future? Could smart phones be 
programmed in such a manner that, when the phone initiates a voice call 
to 911, a separate and additional query within the handset is made for 
information on the device's last known location, with all location 
information then being sent to the provider's location information 
center? Moreover, what technical and operational challenges, if any, do 
PSAPs face in receiving location accuracy information from LBS 
services, and in what timeframe could they be addressed? What are the 
associated costs, if any, to meeting those challenges?

[[Page 17836]]

    123. What privacy concerns, if any, might be implicated by sharing 
location information obtained through commercial LBS with CMRS 
providers, in order to enhance the accuracy of E911 location 
information? Many commercially deployed location information systems 
have privacy settings to restrict the amount of information shared by a 
smartphone user. CSRIC noted, however, that despite user privacy 
controls over location data, ``for 9-1-1 calls, GPS or other location 
methods are activated regardless of the user's privacy setting.'' CSRIC 
added that ``[i]t is therefore imperative that any new location 
technology . . . adhere to the same privacy principles,'' and that 
``location technology cannot be downloaded in the form of an 
application, which would be subject to the user's privacy settings.'' 
Could location software application programming interfaces (APIs) be 
more tightly integrated into the user equipment's lower level services, 
such that location capabilities remained activated despite user privacy 
settings or create a separate privacy setting for ``911-only'' 
restricted-use location data, or would it be necessary to require that 
smartphone users affirmatively ``opt in'' to permit the disclosure of 
this information? What other privacy issues should the Commission take 
into account?
    124. We recognize that commercial LBS may present trade-offs. For 
example, location information from LBS applications on the phone may be 
inaccurate and untimely, as the user could have terminated any active 
location-based services session well before that user dials 911. 
Furthermore, continuously maintaining active sessions with location-
based applications could have practical implications for users, 
including a negative effect on the battery life of a user's device and 
increased data usage fees. Nevertheless, given the increasing usage of 
commercial LBS and the importance of determining a 911 caller's 
location, we believe it should be considered as a potential resource 
for E911 purposes.
    125. Institutional and Enterprise-based Location Systems. We also 
seek comment on how institutional and enterprise location systems could 
be leveraged to provide location data for E911. For example, Cisco 
Systems has demonstrated possible use cases for its location 
technologies for hotels, hospitals, higher education campuses, and 
large enterprise settings. Cisco indicates that it ``will be capable of 
producing 10 feet of accuracy on a horizontal X/Y axis 90% of the time 
although more accurate data is possible depending upon implementation 
and the use of `angle of arrival' data.'' Cisco also states ``the 
client can query the network for its own location for use in 
applications such as emergency services,'' but that ``the architecture 
that would allow the delivery of location data to a PSAP is still being 
studied by industry.'' Furthermore, in 2013, Guardly released its 
Indoor Positioning System, a subscription-based mobile security system 
for businesses, school campuses, apartment buildings and parking 
garages which Guardly states can provide ``the building name, floor, 
and room number of the wireless caller in less than 5 seconds'' to 
emergency and/or security personnel.
    126. Because of the numerous commercial and operational incentives 
for location technology in these settings, we anticipate that the 
number of deployed institutional and enterprise-based location systems 
will increase in the near future. We seek comment on whether location 
information from these systems could be provided to CMRS providers and, 
ultimately, made available to public safety entities together with 
other E911 location information. Cisco states that per existing 
standards, ``the client can query the network for its own location for 
use in applications such as emergency services,'' but that ``the 
architecture that would allow the delivery of location data to a [PSAP] 
is still being studied by industry.'' Today many such location systems 
can only interact with--and therefore provide emergency location 
information for--devices that have Wi-Fi or Bluetooth capabilities. Do 
any indoor location systems already make this information available to 
CMRS providers, and if so, what are they? What modifications to Wi-Fi 
hotspots, location beacons, or devices with location information would 
be necessary to enable the transmission of location information to CMRS 
providers?
    127. Smart Building Technology. Indoor location positioning is in 
high demand for commercial uses, and major industry stakeholders are 
investing in the development of indoor positioning technologies for 
applications in retail, health, gaming, entertainment, and advertising. 
Many of these systems are designed to assist smartphone users in 
finding specific locations and estimating walking time, as well as to 
assist retailers with precise marketing and advertising based on a 
customer's movement. Though some ``smart building'' technology is 
already commercially available, its deployment has been largely limited 
to public settings, given the cost of the necessary in-building 
supporting infrastructure. Nevertheless, some residential ``smart 
building'' technologies are available today, which could potentially be 
registered with dispatchable address information, including Wi-Fi-
enabled home security systems, door locks, and thermostats. We seek 
comment on how Bluetooth or Wi-Fi-enabled locks, thermostats, smoke 
detectors, lighted exit signs, security systems and other residential 
``smart building'' technologies could be registered with dispatchable 
address information and, if so, how it could be achieved.

IV. Improving the Delivery of Phase II Location Information

    128. In the following sections, we seek comment on measures to 
ensure that PSAPs receive Phase II information in a swift and 
consistent format. We also seek comment on whether CMRS providers 
should differentiate between the type of location technology used to 
generate a location fix. Further, we seek comment on whether recent 
technological developments, including the proliferation of GPS-enabled 
smartphones capable of providing more granular location information, 
warrants strengthening our current E911 Phase II requirements to 
provide location information within 50 meters for all wireless 911 
calls. We also propose periodic Phase II call tracking requirements, 
measures to facilitate the swift resolution of PSAP Phase II concerns, 
and compliance testing requirements to ensure that we can monitor and 
ensure compliance with our E911 rules. Through these measures, we seek 
to ensure that PSAPs receive the full breadth of information they need 
to respond swiftly and effectively to emergency calls, and that this 
information is provided in a way that is clear and useful.

A. Time to First Fix (TTFF)

    129. Background. The Commission's current E911 location accuracy 
rules do not require CMRS providers to test for and meet a specific 
Time to First Fix (TTFF). Previously, the Commission tasked CSRIC with 
the making recommendations concerning cost-effective and specific 
approaches to testing requirements, methodologies, and implementation 
timeframes, including appropriate updates to OET Bulletin 71. In 
response, CSRIC WG3 noted that, while the OET Bulletin No. 71 
``suggests an acceptable time limit [Time to First Fix] for delivering 
the location estimate of 30 seconds,'' the OET guideline is ``generally 
accepted as

[[Page 17837]]

the de facto standard for maximum latency in E9-1-1 location 
delivery.''
    130. The record shows that with current location technologies, 
there is a trade-off between the accuracy of the location information 
and the time to complete a location fix. This trade-off depends in part 
on the location technology a carrier employs. For instance, the time 
for A-GPS technologies to generate a location fix is typically longer 
than the time needed for network-based location solutions. However, 
while CMRS providers using A-GPS technologies acknowledge that the time 
to generate an initial location fix based on GPS satellite signals may 
take longer than five seconds, they submit that, generally, they can 
deliver Phase II location fixes within 12-15 seconds.
    131. Discussion. We propose that, as part of our existing Phase II 
E911 requirements as well as our proposed indoor requirements, CMRS 
providers must deliver E911 location information, with the specified 
degree of accuracy, within a maximum period of 30 seconds to the 
location information center. We believe this proposal is consistent 
with the record, both in terms of addressing a need for the Commission 
to take action regarding latency, as well as what is technically 
feasible. Public safety commenters call for improvements in TTFF. 
Similarly, Mission Critical Partners emphasizes that ``[a]ny 
improvements to the yield, accuracy, and time to first fix (TTFF) of 
locations would be welcomed by PSAPs nationwide.'' The E911 Location 
Accuracy Workshop also shed light on the need for CMRS providers to 
deliver Phase II location fixes with a level of accuracy and within a 
short time frame, e.g., 30 seconds, in order to be useful to PSAPs, 
depending on the re-bidding practices of each jurisdiction.
    132. The record evidences trends and technological developments 
that may reduce the time in which CMRS providers can obtain and 
transmit location fixes. First, as CSRIC notes and as discussed above, 
there are ongoing developments in hybrid location technologies. As CMRS 
providers refine and deploy hybrid technologies to achieve better 
location accuracy indoors, is it technically feasible for providers to 
leverage those hybrid deployments for wireless 911 calls from outdoor 
environments to achieve improved yield and TTFF? On the one hand, the 
record indicates that implementing hybrid or ``fall-back'' location 
technologies may result in longer TTFFs and less accuracy. TruePosition 
asserts that in challenging environments, whether outdoors or indoors, 
fall-back technologies are unlikely to deliver Phase II compliant 
information as quickly as PSAPs need it. Typically, however, providers 
using A-GPS have built their networks to deliver a location fix using 
hybrid location or ``fall-back'' technologies only if their systems 
cannot obtain an A-GPS fix within a TTFF of 30 seconds. For example, 
Verizon indicates that it has taken ``steps . . . to improve the 
location information delivered to PSAPs,'' such as ``[m]aking caller 
location information available within an average of 12-15 seconds, and 
within 25 seconds for 99 percent of all calls for which the information 
is available.'' Will hybrid technologies, complemented by beacon 
technologies, DAS networks, and small cells, make it possible to 
achieve improvements in TTFF in challenging environments?
    133. The second major factor that is likely to improve the delivery 
of location information is the migration by CMRS providers to 4G VoLTE 
networks, which the record indicates can achieve swifter times to first 
fix. Consequently, we seek comment on how the migration to 4G VoLTE 
might affect a requirement for the specific TTFF level that we propose 
as well as timetables for compliance.
    134. Further, we recognize that wireless 911 calls may terminate 
after a short period of time, before CMRS providers' networks can 
generate a location fix. Therefore, we propose to exclude wireless 911 
calls that are dropped or disconnected in 10 seconds or less, and in 
which CMRS networks have not yet delivered a location fix to the 
location information center, for purposes of determining compliance. We 
seek comment on whether 10 seconds is the right cut-off for an 
exclusion for short calls. Alternatively, should we base the exclusion 
on some other timeframe (e.g., should we instead exclude calls shorter 
than 15 seconds, 20 seconds, or 30 seconds)? If we were to adopt an 
exclusion for short calls, are there other measures to provide the best 
available information, even if the location information is not a full 
Phase II fix? For instance, should CMRS providers share with PSAPs 
Class of Service (COS) information, e.g., whether the location fix is 
Phase I- or Phase II-compliant, in order to alert PSAPs of information 
that might not be Phase II-compliant but may be helpful in the 
emergency? For example, the record indicates that with wider deployment 
of micro-cells, Phase I may be more helpful than PSAPs have recently 
viewed it.
    135. Additionally, we propose that, based on the outdoor testing 
procedures recommended by WG3, CMRS providers should implement periodic 
testing procedures to ensure that they meet a TTFF requirement. We seek 
comment on both the costs of implementing a 30-second TTFF, as well as 
for compliance testing. We would expect providers to measure and test 
for such compliance with the proposed TTFF at the appropriate point in 
their E911 networks. The record shows that CMRS providers already test 
for and collect data on yield and TTFF. We seek comment on whether this 
would mitigate any potential costs of compliance testing. We recognize 
that WG3 found that costs for testing can be high. We seek comment on 
whether this magnitude of costs is accurate. How would the cost ranges 
in WG3's data be affected by the transition to 4G VoLTE networks? Would 
the cost of TTFF improvements likely be incorporated into the 4G 
network upgrades and the roll-out of 4G VoLTE? Would costs decrease 
after providers have fully deployed such networks? Additionally, what 
would the cost burdens be for the regional and smaller CMRS carriers 
who are also planning to migrate to 4G VoLTE networks using A-GPS 
technologies, to meet and test for the proposed TTFF of 30 seconds?
    136. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether voluntary efforts 
are sufficient to improve latency, such that it is unnecessary to 
impose any additional regulations at this time. For instance, would 
more frequent coordination between CMRS providers and PSAPs be 
sufficient to address concerns regarding TTFF performance levels, 
without regulatory metric or testing requirements for TTFF?

B. Confidence and Uncertainty Data

    137. Background. Our current rules require CMRS providers presently 
subject to the Commission's E911 requirements to provide confidence and 
uncertainty (C/U) data on a per-call basis upon PSAP request. See 47 
CFR 20.18(h)(3). C/U data reflects the level of confidence that a 
specific 911 caller is within a specified distance of the location that 
the carrier provides. Confidence data is expressed as a percentage, 
indicating the statistical probability that the caller is within the 
area defined by the ``uncertainty'' statistical estimate, while 
uncertainty is expressed as a radius in meters around the reported 
position.
    138. Public safety entities have indicated that C/U data play a 
meaningful role in assessing the quality of the location information 
that accompanies a wireless 911 call. The record also suggests, 
however, that C/U

[[Page 17838]]

data is not always perceived as useful by PSAPs. The record suggests 
that, to the extent public safety entities do not request or use C/U 
data, it may be due to the variable way in which such information is 
generated or presented.
    139. Given this lack of uniformity in the delivery of C/U data, 
NENA states that it is ``critical that the Commission establish a 
uniform standard for the delivery of such information to PSAPs and for 
the meaning of the data delivered.'' NextNav suggests that ``the 
Commission may wish to follow the guidance of the ATIS Emergency 
Services Interconnection Forum (ESIF), which recommends 90 percent be 
used as a standard required confidence level.'' T-Mobile likewise 
indicates that this ``90% confidence level is recommended by ESIF and 
public safety.''
    140. Discussion. We believe that C/U data is a critical component 
in helping PSAPs understand the quality of the location information 
they receive from providers, whether the 911 calls are made indoors or 
outdoors. We seek to develop a better understanding of why C/U data is 
not always utilized by PSAPs. What are the problems PSAPs have 
encountered with its use? How could C/U data be provided in a more 
helpful fashion?
    141. We also seek comment on NextNav's suggestion to incorporate 
ESIF's recommended 90 percent confidence level as a requirement. Is it 
important that all CMRS providers subject to Commission's E911 
requirements use the same confidence level when calculating C/U data? 
If a standard confidence level is desirable across Phase II data, is 90 
percent the correct level? Why or why not? Moreover, if not, should the 
Commission nevertheless still require CMRS providers to use the same 
confidence level? If so, what should that level be and why? What 
potential costs would be associated with implementing this requirement? 
In the event we establish a uniform confidence level, should CMRS 
providers be required to demonstrate compliance with that confidence 
level to the FCC, and if so, how?
    142. We seek comment regarding the format in which C/U data is 
provided to the PSAPs. What are the various formats in which this data 
is presently provided? Is the fact that horizontal uncertainty is 
expressed either as a circle or an ellipse problematic? Should the 
Commission require that C/U data be provided in a standard, uniform 
format? If so, what should that format be? What are the potential costs 
involved in standardizing C/U data for all stakeholders involved? What 
additional measures, if any, should the Commission take to increase the 
usefulness of C/U data for PSAPs?
    143. Finally, we anticipate that any requirements we adopt 
regarding standardization of the delivery and format of C/U data would 
apply in conjunction with the delivery of both indoor and outdoor 
location information. Is there any reason why the format of C/U 
requirements should differ for indoor versus outdoor calls? We seek 
comment on this issue as well.

C. Identifying the Type of Technology Used to Deliver the E911 Location 
Fix

    144. Background. Typically, when a wireless caller initiates a call 
to 911, CMRS providers first attempt to locate the caller using A-GPS. 
In the event that A-GPS fails to provide a sufficiently accurate 
location fix within the 30 second timeframe recommended in OET Bulletin 
71, CMRS providers then rely on ``fall-back'' technologies, which 
provide location information that may be less accurate. The record 
shows that providers using network-based location solutions also first 
attempt to locate callers with GPS-capable handsets using A-GPS, but 
then ``fall back'' if necessary to a hybrid of A-GPS and Round Trip 
Time (RTT), which calculates the distance between the handset and the 
nearest base station, and subsequently, will attempt a location fix 
using RTT only.
    145. Each location technology presents a trade-off between accuracy 
and latency. For example, though A-GPS can locate wireless 911 callers 
within 10-20 meters, it is dependent on whether the device can reach 
four or more satellites, and it often takes 30 seconds or more to 
generate a precise location, though shorter times are possible. On the 
other hand, a location fix via RTT may provide location information 
within a short period of time, but is significantly less accurate.
    146. Discussion. To ensure that PSAPs can understand and make 
educated assessments regarding the quality of Phase II location 
information, we seek comment on whether to require CMRS providers to 
identify the technology used to determine a location fix and to provide 
this information to PSAPs that have the capability to receive this 
information. We seek comment regarding the technical feasibility of 
determining the type of technology used to identify a caller's location 
on a call-by-call basis. What potential costs might a provider incur to 
implement a requirement that it differentiate between the types of 
technology used to provide a location fix?
    147. We also seek comment on the usefulness of this additional 
information to PSAPs, and whether the benefits of this information 
would exceed any potential costs that might be necessary to make use of 
this information. If PSAPs were aware of the type of location fix 
received, would they be able to assess whether it is necessary to re-
bid for better location information? To what extent would C/U data 
already reflect sufficient information on this score, since that data 
would generally reflect discounted certainty? Could existing 
information fields be used to display information on the type of 
location fix that? If not, would it be possible to add an information 
field to the PSAP console with a software update, or would more 
substantial upgrades of hardware or CPE be necessary? Could CPE be 
programmed to automatically rebid if it receives Phase II location 
information from a fall-back technology? We seek comment on whether and 
to what extent PSAPs might need to reconfigure their call-taking 
processes and console displays in order to make use of this 
information, and whether the benefits of receiving this information 
would outweigh any costs that might be entailed.

D. Updating the E911 Phase II Requirements Based on Outdoor 
Measurements

    148. Background. Among other actions, in 2010 the Commission 
required CMRS providers to satisfy location accuracy requirements over 
an eight-year implementation period, ending in 2019, with interim 
benchmarks. At that time, certain CMRS providers exclusively used 
network-based location technology to identify Phase II location. 
Accordingly, the Commission established E911 requirements and 
exclusions specific to network-based providers, and provided a path by 
which these providers would eventually migrate to handset-based 
technologies. The Commission agreed with T-Mobile that as 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. Because it had recently adopted the existing E911 
benchmarks, however, the Commission decided that it was premature to 
seek comment on a sunset date, but tentatively concluded that the 
network-based standard should sunset at an appropriate point after the 
end of the eight-year implementation period.
    149. Discussion. We seek comment on whether there have been 
sufficient advancements in technology and a sufficient number of 
handsets with A-

[[Page 17839]]

GPS capabilities in the consumer subscriber base to warrant 
modification of our existing Phase II requirements as they apply to 
outdoor calls. We note that CMRS providers are increasingly turning to 
handset-based technologies, namely A-GPS, to provide E911 Phase II 
information, which would support a more granular location accuracy 
requirement. When the current rules were adopted, the CMRS providers 
that used network-based location technology on their GSM networks had 
already begun to migrate to 4G and LTE networks, using handset-based 
location technologies. These CMRS providers have continued to migrate 
away from networks requiring network-based location technology. We also 
note that nearly all handsets are now GPS-enabled.
    150. The record suggests that the migration to handset-based 
technologies can provide more accurate location fixes. In response to 
the E911 Phase II Location Accuracy Workshop, King County submits that 
``[i]n particular, the wireless carriers that use a network-based 
location technology that have recently added A-GPS location technology 
to their Phase II solutions have shown dramatic improvement in accuracy 
since 2005.'' AT&T adds that the migration to A-GPS has resulted in 
``increased accuracy in the Phase II location information provided, 
especially in rural areas where the number and location of cell sites 
made trilateration-based location data less reliable,'' as well as in 
lower costs. On the other hand, TruePosition contends that ``[t]here is 
no direct relationship between a carrier's transition from 2G to 3G or 
4G network technology and . . . the E911 location accuracy that the 
same carrier can deliver.'' In any case, the record indicates that CMRS 
providers and technology vendors have been working steadily to improve 
A-GPS performance.
    151. In particular, and in light of any recent improvements or 
advancements in A-GPS technology, we seek comment on whether all CMRS 
providers reasonably could comply with a 50-meter accuracy/67 percent 
reliability requirement within two years, such that we could adopt a 
unitary requirement for both indoor and outdoor calls. Establishing 
such a unitary requirement for all calls would help standardize the 
information afforded to public safety entities while raising the level 
of accuracy across all calls, both indoors and outdoors. Would it be 
feasible for all CMRS providers to comply with a 50-meter accuracy/67 
percent reliability (single search ring) requirement in two years? Or 
is there a benefit in continuing to allow a dual search ring 
requirement? In the event we were to sunset network-based requirements 
in two years and require a 50-meter accuracy requirement (with either 
an 80 percent or 67 percent reliability requirement), should we adopt 
any exceptions for certain providers who might be adversely affected, 
such as smaller or rural CMRS providers, or allow them a longer 
implementation timeframe? Alternatively, would our existing waiver 
process be sufficient?

E. Monitoring E911 Phase II Call Tracking Data

    152. Background. As discussed earlier in this Third Further Notice, 
CALNENA filed E911 call tracking data with the Commission that suggests 
there may be a decline in the percentage of wireless 911 calls that 
include Phase II location information. In addition, several other state 
and local public safety entities filed similar E911 call tracking data, 
also suggesting a potential decline in the percentage of wireless calls 
that include Phase II location information. As noted above, however, 
various providers responded that CALNENA's reports mischaracterized the 
E911 data, and suggest that PSAPs are not rebidding to obtain, or 
``pull'' the location data.
    153. Discussion. We seek comment on whether the Commission should 
require providers to periodically report E911 Phase II call tracking 
information, similar to the call data provided in conjunction with the 
recently held E911 Location Accuracy Workshop. Would such a requirement 
help promote the delivery of Phase II E911 information? In the event we 
were to require periodic reporting of Phase II E911 call tracking data, 
we seek to implement a requirement that provides meaningful data while 
minimizing the potential burden on providers. We seek comment regarding 
the scope of information required in the reports. What information 
should be provided in Phase II call tracking reports? How frequently 
should providers be required to report Phase II E911 call tracking 
data? We also seek comment on any alternative measures that could 
ensure that providers are delivering Phase II E911 information. Could 
we rely instead on periodic certifications of compliance with 
Commission requirements based on the test bed or alternative 
measurements described above? Are there other ways that the Commission 
could monitor Phase II E911 data without imposing a requirement on CMRS 
providers?
    154. We realize that a reporting requirement would impose a cost on 
providers. We seek comment on the estimated costs of such a 
requirement. Could existing call monitoring mechanisms be leveraged for 
this purpose? We also seek estimates regarding how these costs might 
vary, depending on the nature of the reporting obligations and the size 
of the representative sample of the provider's coverage area that is 
subject to these requirements.

F. Monitoring and Facilitating Resolution of E911 Compliance Concerns

    155. Our objective in proposing indoor location accuracy 
requirements, as well as testing metrics and reporting requirements, is 
to ensure that public safety providers have consistent and reliable 
access to accurate location information on a call-by-call basis, as 
well as for the Commission and public safety entities to have 
sufficient information to monitor E911 performance more generally. 
Filings submitted in conjunction with the E911 Location Accuracy 
workshop, as well as statements made at the workshop itself, indicate 
there have been instances in which public safety believes it is 
receiving inadequate location information and where the Commission can 
help foster a dialogue between CMRS providers and public safety 
entities to help address PSAP concerns and promote a better 
understanding of E911 practices. We seek comment on whether we should 
establish a separate process by which PSAPs or state 911 administrators 
could file an informal complaint specific to the provision of a CMRS 
provider's E911 service, and if so, how the complaint procedure should 
be structured in light of our existing informal complaint process. We 
propose that, in connection with the filing of any informal complaint, 
PSAPs would be required to demonstrate that they have implemented bid/
re-bid policies that are designed to obtain all 911 location 
information made available to them by CMRS providers pursuant to our 
rules.
    156. We also recognize that public safety organizations such as 
NENA or APCO might be well-suited to monitor and facilitate resolution 
of PSAP concerns. We seek comment on additional measures the Commission 
could take to help facilitate discussion and the swift resolution of 
public safety concerns, whether it is through establishment of an 
informal Commission process or through continued coordination with 
public safety organizations such as NENA or APCO.

[[Page 17840]]

G. Periodic Outdoor Compliance Testing and Reporting

    157. Background. In 2010, the Commission held that once a wireless 
service provider has established baseline confidence and uncertainty 
levels in a county or PSAP service area, ongoing accuracy shall be 
monitored based on the trending of uncertainty data and additional 
testing shall not be required. In the 2011, however, the Commission 
found that periodic testing is important to ensure that test data does 
not become obsolete as a result of environmental changes and network 
reconfiguration. The Commission tasked CSRIC with the making 
recommendations concerning cost-effective and specific approaches to 
testing requirements, methodologies, and implementation timeframes, 
including appropriate updates to OET Bulletin 71, issued in 2000.
    158. CSRIC's Outdoor Location Accuracy Report examined several 
issues concerning testing methodologies and procedures and concluded 
that technical reports issued by ATIS since the publication of OET 
Bulletin No. 71 provided more useful, updated methods for CMRS 
providers to conduct initial and periodic testing. See CSRIC III 
Working Group 3, E9-1-1 Location Accuracy Final Report--Outdoor 
Location Accuracy (Mar. 14, 2012) (Outdoor Location Accuracy Report). 
Based on the ATIS technical reports, CSRIC Working Group 3 (WG3) made 
several recommendations for both initial testing and periodic testing.
    159. Further, WG3 found that several standards adopted by ATIS 
since the issuance of OET Bulletin No. 71 ``generally provide more 
current and relevant procedures and guidelines than are available in 
OET 71.'' WG3 made several recommendations for performance and 
maintenance testing, including ``key performance indicators'' (KPIs) 
that CMRS providers would routinely monitor and archive to assess 
system performance and determine when further testing and system 
improvements are needed at the local level. WG3 further indicated that, 
while the costs for empirical testing can be expensive, alternative 
techniques, such as monitoring KPIs, are more cost-efficient.
    160. Discussion. Consistent with the Commission's prior reasons and 
conclusions, we believe that periodic testing is necessary as providers 
upgrade their networks and migrate to handset-based technologies. We 
seek comment on the recommendations in WG3's report. We also invite 
industry and public safety stakeholders to submit a consensus proposal 
that addresses WG3's recommendations, and that provides a technically 
feasible path forward for periodic compliance testing and reporting. 
The CSRIC Outdoor Location Accuracy Report identifies a suite of five 
ATIS technical reports, and we seek comment on whether these reports 
collectively represent the best practices for outdoor location 
accuracy. See ATIS Technical Report numbers 0500001 (High Level 
Requirements for Accuracy Testing Methodologies), 0500009 (High Level 
Requirements for End-to-End Functional Testing), 0500011 (Define 
Topologies & Data Collection Methodology), 0500010 (Maintenance 
Testing), and 0500013 (Approaches to Wireless Indoor Location). These 
ATIS standards will be available for review and download on the ATIS 
Web site during the pendency of the period for filing comments at 
http://www.atis.org/fcc/locationaccuracy.asp. Paper copies will also be 
available for review (but not photocopying) at Commission headquarters 
upon request by contacting Dana Zelman at 202-418-0546 or 
[email protected]. The CSRIC Outdoor Location Accuracy Report also 
identifies several alternative testing concepts developed in ATIS-
05000010 to provide a useful technical foundation for maintenance 
testing. The record demonstrates that providers already have processes 
in place that are capable of testing for yield and TTFF. Should the 
Commission consider any other alternative testing concepts not included 
in ATIS-05000010? To the extent we adopt a rule specifying that a 
particular ATIS technical standard, methodology, or suite of ATIS 
technical standards should be used by CMRS providers for purposes of 
periodic maintenance testing of outdoor location accuracy, we propose 
to accommodate future updates of that standard by delegating rulemaking 
authority to the Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau. We seek comment on this approach.
    161. In addition, WG3 recommends that ``[a]lternative testing 
methods replace full compliance testing every'' 24 months. We seek 
comment on whether 24 months is an appropriate timeframe for conducting 
periodic tests. We also invite comment on what enforcement mechanisms 
would be appropriate to ensure compliance with any required timeframe 
for periodic testing.
    162. Finally, we recognize that our current rules allow the 
monitoring of ongoing accuracy based on the trending of uncertainty 
data. We propose to remove this provision, in light of our proposed 
periodic testing requirement. As NENA has noted, confidence and 
uncertainty trends are not sufficient proxies for location accuracy 
testing because ``[r]eported confidence and uncertainty data are 
themselves subject to systemic error.'' We seek comment on this 
proposal.
    163. Reporting Requirements and Confidentiality Safeguards. We 
recognize that imposing reporting requirements may implicate CMRS 
providers' proprietary information. Accordingly, we seek comment on 
what safeguards should be implemented to ensure that confidential 
information is protected. Under the CSRIC indoor test bed regime, all 
parties agreed that raw results would be made available only to the 
vendors whose technology was to be tested, participating wireless 
providers, and the third-party testing house; only summary data was 
made available to other parties. Would it be sufficient for CMRS 
providers to report only summary data to the Commission, PSAPs within 
their service areas, and state 911 offices in the states or territories 
in which they operate, in order to demonstrate compliance with the 
Commission's requirements? If so, what data should be included in the 
summary? We seek comment on whether public safety's need for 
improvements in yield and TTFF components supports the inclusion of 
specific reporting metrics, such as those that WG3 described in its 
CSRIC Outdoor Location Accuracy Report. Given the extent to which 
mobile wireless communications services are becoming increasingly 
central to the day-to-day lives of Americans, should this data also be 
available, at least to some extent, to the public? If so, what data 
would be useful to the public? For instance, would public disclosure of 
location accuracy test results provide consumers with a reasonable 
``yardstick'' regarding competing providers' abilities to provide Phase 
II location information in the counties or PSAP service areas where 
they are likely to make a wireless 911 call? Finally, should the 
confidentiality safeguards in this regard mirror those that we might 
adopt in relation to the indoor location accuracy compliance testing 
requirement?

H. Roaming Issues

    164. In 2007, the Commission sought comment on location accuracy 
while roaming. The Commission expressed concern that a wireless caller 
whose carrier employs one type of location technology may not be 
provided Phase II service at all when roaming on the network of another 
carrier that relies on a different technology, or when there is

[[Page 17841]]

no roaming agreement between carriers using compatible technologies. In 
2011, CSRIC II's Working Group 4C similarly noted that ``[t]he ability 
to support Phase II location for roamers may be limited in some 
carriers' networks.''
    165. We seek comment on whether the provision of Phase II 
information for roamers continues to be a concern, or whether this 
concern has been addressed by the evolution of location technology 
since the Commission last examined this issue. In earlier comments, 
NENA noted that ``carriers are now migrating to network-assisted GNSS 
positioning solutions, though not all carriers have yet adopted this 
technology,'' and asked the Commission to ``seek input from carriers on 
how best to ensure that E9-1-1 calls in a roaming environment are 
completed.'' AT&T indicated that ``at least in the case of GSM 
carriers, there is no clear problem in locating roamers that requires a 
regulatory solution,'' and stated that it ``can support locating 
roaming handsets as long as the handsets support compatible spectrum.'' 
Verizon similarly stated that it can provide Phase II location for all 
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) roamers using location-capable 
handsets ``in the same manner as for our subscribers.'' However, 
Verizon also noted that it is unable to provide Phase II location 
capability to customers using handsets that are not location-capable 
(i.e., without a GPS chip) or that use a different air interface.
    166. The record suggests that in most cases, handset-based carriers 
and network-based carriers can support Phase II location for roamers on 
their networks because roamers typically use compatible technologies. 
In addition, potential incompatibility in location technology used by 
roamers may be reduced further as both handset and network-based 
carriers migrate to A-GPS and move forward with the planned 
implementation of VoLTE. We seek comment on this analysis. 
Notwithstanding these technology trends, are there circumstances in 
which accurate location of roamers could continue to be hindered by 
technological incompatibilities? Could implementation of our indoor 
location proposals create any challenges in the roaming context that 
the Commission should address?

V. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules

    167. The proceeding of which this Third Further Notice is a part is 
a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the 
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must 
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any 
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation 
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period 
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that 
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons 
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex 
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a 
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments 
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system 
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

B. Comment Filing Procedures

    168. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of 
this document. Comments should be filed in PS Docket No. 13-75. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    1. All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    2. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    3. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must 
be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

C. Accessible Formats

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

D. Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    170. This document contains proposed new information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection 
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.

VI. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    171. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact of the proposals described in the attached Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third Further Notice) on

[[Page 17842]]

small entities. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments in the Third Further Notice. The 
Commission will send a copy of the Third Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Third Further 
Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal 
Register. The full text of the IRFA 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://www.fcc.gov/document/proposes-new-indoor-requirements-and-revisions-existing-e911-rules.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    172. In this Third Further Notice, we propose rules that would 
update and expand the Commission's wireless Enhance 911 (E911) location 
accuracy requirements to include indoor environments and to reflect 
patterns in modern wireless usage and advancements in location-based 
technology. Specifically, we propose that all CMRS providers subject to 
Sec.  20.18(a) of the Commission's rules must provide the caller's 
horizontal (x- and y-axis) location within 50 meters and vertical (z-
axis) data within 3 meters for 67 percent of 911 calls placed from 
indoor environments, within two and three years of the effective date 
of the rules, respectively. Within five years of the effective date of 
the rules, all CMRS providers subject to Sec.  20.18(a) of the 
Commission's rules must provide the caller's horizontal (x- and y-axis) 
location within 50 meters and vertical (z-axis) data within 3 meters 
for 80 percent of 911 calls placed from indoor environments. All CMRS 
providers would be required to meet these indoor requirements at either 
the county or PSAP geographic level. Over a longer period (to be 
determined), indoor requirements would be strengthened to provide for 
delivery of ``dispatchable'' indoor location, i.e., room-level 
identification. We propose that compliance with any indoor location 
requirements would be measured through testing in an independently 
administered test bed program, or through alternative testing 
mechanisms of equivalent reliability. Public Safety Answering Points 
(PSAPs) would be entitled to seek Commission enforcement of these 
requirements, provided they have implemented re-bid policies that are 
designed to obtain all 911 location information made available to them 
by CMRS providers. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt a 
specific waiver process for those providers who seek relief from our 
indoor location accuracy requirements.
    173. Additionally, we seek comment on whether to implement various 
measures for modifying our existing E911 rules for indoor and outdoor 
911 calls. Specifically, we seek comment on whether to adopt a metric 
for time to first location fix (in order to count towards compliance of 
the location accuracy requirements, a location fix must be generated 
within 30 seconds). We note that our proposal would exclude short calls 
(i.e., calls lasting 10 seconds or less) that may not provide 
sufficient time to generate a fix. We also seek comment on whether to 
standardize the content and delivery of confidence/uncertainty data 
generated for wireless 911 calls. We seek comment on whether CMRS 
providers should inform PSAPs of the specific location technology used 
to generate location information for each call. We also seek comment on 
whether to require CMRS providers to inform PSAPs of their specific 
location technology, accelerate the currently established timeframe for 
establishing a unitary compliance requirement for measuring location 
accuracy for outdoor calls, and require CMRS providers to track and 
periodically report aggregate data on E911 performance. We also seek 
comment on whether to establish a process by which PSAPs can report 
concerns regarding the provision of E911 services and whether CMRS 
providers should be required to conduct periodic compliance testing for 
indoor and outdoor calls.
    174. In proposing an indoor location regulatory framework, as well 
as measures to ensure that our existing E911 requirements continue to 
keep pace with technological developments and changing consumer and 
public safety needs, we emphasize that our ultimate objective is that 
all Americans--whether they are calling from urban or rural areas, from 
indoors or outdoors--receive the support they need in times of an 
emergency. Recent data reveals that overall wireless usage has 
increased significantly since the Commission's adoption of E911 
location accuracy rules, and further, that the majority of 911 calls 
also are now placed from wireless phones. Additionally, current trends 
indicate that a significant percentage of Americans resides in urban 
areas where there are high concentrations of multi-story buildings. 
Therefore, improvements to indoor location accuracy have become 
increasingly important. At the same time, we seek comment on whether 
our proposals in this notice are the best way to achieve this 
objective, and we encourage industry, public safety entities, and other 
stakeholders to work collaboratively to develop alternative proposals 
for our consideration.

B. Legal Basis

    175. Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 
303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), and 332, 
of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 
160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 
309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332; the Wireless Communications and 
Public Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 
615a, 615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications 
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Would Apply

    176. 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. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' 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).
    177. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards. 
First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 million 
small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small 
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is 
defined generally as ``governments of cities,

[[Page 17843]]

towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, 
with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 
2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions 
in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 
88,506 entities may qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' 
Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
1. Telecommunications Service Entities
a. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers
    178. Pursuant to 47 CFR 20.18(a), the Commission's 911 service 
requirements are only applicable to Commercial Mobile Radio Service 
(CMRS) ``[providers], excluding mobile satellite service operators, to 
the extent that they: (1) Offer real-time, two way switched voice 
service that is interconnected with the public switched network; and 
(2) Utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider 
to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber 
calls. These requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice 
service to consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale 
rates from CMRS licensees.''
    179. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, 
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services. 
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that 
category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. The Commission estimates that the majority of wireless 
telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that 
may be affected by our proposed action. In addition, the SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for wireless firms within the 
two broad economic census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and 
Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under both categories, the SBA 
deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For the census category of Paging and associated small 
business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. 
For the census category of Cellular and Other Wireless 
Telecommunications, the majority of firms can, again, be considered 
small.
    180. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither 
the Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate 
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business 
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission estimates 
that most providers of local exchange service are small entities that 
may be affected by the rules and policies proposed in the Notice. Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these incumbent local exchange service providers can be 
considered small.
    181. A Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for 
the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size 
standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. 
The Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local 
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities that 
may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Notice.
    182. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six 
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held 
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small 
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average 
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar 
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard 
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more 
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small 
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have 
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved 
small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A 
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status 
in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed 
small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 
licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15, 
1999, the Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-
Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that 
auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
    183. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status. 
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency 
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being 
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an 
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of 
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business 
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed 
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71. 
Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business 
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission 
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS 
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband 
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 
14 licenses.
    184. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. To date, two 
auctions of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses 
have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already 
been held, ``small businesses'' were entities with average gross 
revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less. 
Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure 
meaningful participation of small business entities in future auctions, 
the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in 
the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A ``small business'' is an 
entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than 
$40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that, together with 
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for 
the three preceding years of not more

[[Page 17844]]

than $15 million. The SBA has approved these small business size 
standards.
    185. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands 
(AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the 
Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity with average 
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 
million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average annual 
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. 
In 2006, the Commission conducted its first auction of AWS-1 licenses. 
In that initial AWS-1 auction, 31 winning bidders identified themselves 
as very small businesses. Twenty-six of the winning bidders identified 
themselves as small businesses. In a subsequent 2008 auction, the 
Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses. Four winning bidders identified 
themselves as very small businesses, and three of the winning bidders 
identified themselves as a small business. For AWS-2 and AWS-3, 
although we do not know for certain which entities are likely to apply 
for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to 
those used for cellular service and personal communications service. 
The Commission has not yet adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-
3 bands but has proposed to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to 
broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital 
requirements and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating 
incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and services.
    186. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a 
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service. In the present context, we will use the SBA's small business 
size standard applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite), i.e., an entity employing no more than 1,500 
persons. There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural 
Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission estimates that there are 
1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted herein.
    187. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. The Commission 
defined ``small business'' for the wireless communications services 
(WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million 
for each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' as 
an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the 
three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The 
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In 
the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25, 
1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as 
very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that 
qualified as a small business entity.
    188. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, 
the Commission adopted size standards for ``small businesses'' and 
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility 
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment 
payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three 
years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An auction of 
52 Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses commenced on September 6, 2000, 
and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 
licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small 
businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz 
Guard Band licenses commenced and closed in 2001. All eight of the 
licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was 
a small business that won a total of two licenses.
    189. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. On January 24, 2008, the 
Commission commenced Auction 73 in which several licenses in the Upper 
700 MHz band were available for licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area 
Grouping licenses in the C Block, and one nationwide license in the D 
Block. The auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders 
claiming very small business status (those with attributable average 
annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding 
three years) and winning five licenses.
    190. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) was conducted in 
2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were won 
by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed 
small business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won 
licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 
13, 2003, and included 256 licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed 
small or very small business status, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5 
licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band. All three winning bidders claimed 
small business status.
    191. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of A, B and 
E block 700 MHz licenses was held in 2008. Twenty winning bidders 
claimed small business status (those with attributable average annual 
gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million 
for the preceding three years). Thirty three winning bidders claimed 
very small business status (those with attributable average annual 
gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three 
years).
    192. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on 
several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for 
television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the 
Gulf of Mexico. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this 
service. We are unable to estimate at this time the number of licensees 
that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size 
standard for the

[[Page 17845]]

category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). 
Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered 
small.
    193. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio 
telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business 
size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Trends in 
Telephone Service data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in 
wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 
employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, more than 
half of these entities can be considered small.
    194. The second category, i.e., ``All Other Telecommunications,'' 
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing Internet services or Voice over Internet 
Protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' The Commission 
estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are 
small entities that might be affected by rules proposed in the Third 
Further Notice.
b. Equipment Manufacturers
    195. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as 
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in 
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless 
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing which is: all such firms having 
750 or fewer employees. Under this size standard, the majority of firms 
can be considered small.
    196. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. These 
establishments manufacture ``computer storage devices that allow the 
storage and retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, 
or magnetic/optical media. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500 
or fewer employees storage and retrieval of data from a phase change, 
magnetic, optical, or magnetic/optical media.'' The majority of the 
businesses engaged in this industry are small.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    197. The Third Further Notice proposes a regulatory framework to 
require delivery of accurate location information to PSAPs for wireless 
911 calls placed from indoors. Our proposal includes both near- and 
long-term components. In the near term, the Commission proposes that 
CMRS providers subject to Sec.  20.18 of the Commission's rules provide 
horizontal location information within 50 meters for 67 percent of 911 
calls placed from indoor environments within two years of the effective 
date of the rules and provide vertical location information within 3 
meters for 67 percent of 911 calls placed from indoor environments 
within three years. Within five years of the effective date of the 
rules, the Commission proposes that all CMRS providers subject to Sec.  
20.18(a) of the Commission's rules must provide the caller's horizontal 
(x- and y-axis) location within 50 meters and vertical (z-axis) data 
within 3 meters for 80 percent of 911 calls placed from indoor 
environments. These standards would apply nationwide. For the long 
term, we propose to develop more granular indoor location accuracy 
standards, consistent with the evolving capabilities of indoor location 
technology and increased deployment of in-building communications 
infrastructure that would provide for delivery to PSAPs of in-building 
location information at the room or office/suite level. Additionally, 
the Third Further Notice proposes that CMRS providers demonstrate 
compliance with indoor location accuracy requirements through a test 
bed or through other testing methods, provided that the methodologies 
are equivalent to the test bed approach. The Third Further Notice seeks 
comments on whether CMRS providers should certify compliance with the 
indoor location accuracy requirements.
    198. The Third Further Notice also addresses several ways to 
improve the delivery of Phase II location information. The Third 
Further Notice proposes to require CMRS providers to deliver location 
information within 30 seconds to the location information center (but 
with a provision to exclude short calls of 10 seconds or less that may 
not provide sufficient time to generate a location fix) and identify 
the technology used to determine a location fix and to provide this 
information to the PSAP. The Third Further Notice seeks comment on 
whether the Commission should standardize the content and process for 
delivery of confidence and uncertainty data generated for each wireless 
911 call. Additionally, the Third Further Notice seeks comment on 
whether it would be feasible to expedite the timeframe for implementing 
a unitary location accuracy standard for outdoor calls. The Third 
Further Notice also seeks comment on whether CMRS providers should 
track and periodically report information regarding the percentage of 
wireless calls to 911 that include E911 Phase II information, and 
conduct periodic compliance testing for both indoor and outdoor calls. 
The Third Further Notice also seeks comment on whether CMRS providers 
should track and periodically report E911 call information also seeks 
comment on what safeguards should be implemented to ensure that CMRS 
providers' confidential information is protected in relation to 
reporting requirements. The Third Further Notice also seeks comment on 
whether to adopt a process by which PSAPs or state 911 administrators 
could raise complaints or concerns regarding the provision of E911 
service. Many of the foregoing requirements will likely require the use 
of professionals for compliance, e.g., engineers and attorneys.

E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    199. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into

[[Page 17846]]

account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
    200. The Third Further Notice analyzes a variety of possible means 
of implementing various near- and long-term E911 location accuracy 
requirements, without imposing undue costs or regulatory burdens. The 
Third Further Notice recognizes that the implementation of any indoor 
location accuracy requirements will impose costs on CMRS providers and 
seeks comment on the ways in which any implementation requirements 
could be designed to mitigate those costs to the extent possible, 
without sacrificing important public safety objectives. The Third 
Further Notice seeks comment on how we different approaches may affect 
smaller CMRS providers and whether there are particular measures the 
Commission should take to minimize the potential burdens on these 
smaller providers. The Third Further Notice seeks comment on a wide 
range of questions that will enable the Commission to weigh the costs 
and benefits of its proposals, including whether to establish any 
exceptions for smaller wireless providers. The Third Further Notice 
suggests that costs of compliance are likely to be mitigated by the 
fact that providers are already undertaking various indoor location 
technology research and development efforts for their own commercial, 
non-911 related purposes.
    201. The Third Further Notice proposes to offer CMRS providers 
flexibility in implementing the indoor location requirements. For 
example, the Third Further Notice proposes to allow CMRS providers to 
implement whatever location technology it chooses, and foresees that 
providers may implement different solutions to determine a caller's 
indoor location, each of which may present unique costs. The Third 
Further Notice seeks comment on the technical feasibility and specific 
challenges of its various proposals. The Third Further Notice also 
seeks comment on whether, in order to increase flexibility for CMRS 
providers, the Commission should adopt a specific waiver process for 
those providers who seek relief from our indoor location accuracy 
requirements. In addition, the Third Further Notice seeks comment on 
any other alternative approaches that would enable the Commission to 
focus the application of indoor location requirements in the most 
effective and cost-efficient way possible, and asking for possible 
voluntary approaches agreed upon between CMRS providers and public 
safety as an alternative to regulation. These or other alternatives in 
the comment record can help to reduce the compliance burden on small 
businesses.
    202. The Third Further Notice also seeks comment on various Phase 
II E911 delivery issues. For example, the Third Further Notice seeks 
comment on requiring CMRS providers to satisfy a unitary E911 location 
accuracy standard (for outdoor calls) within an expedited timeframe. In 
doing so, the Third Further Notice seeks comment on how expediting the 
timeframe towards more granular location accuracy standards may affect 
smaller CMRS providers, and specifically seeks comment on the 
implementation timeframe, as well as the sufficiency of the 
Commission's existing waiver process to provide relief.
    203. The Third Further Notice also invites industry and public 
safety stakeholders to collaborate to identify alternative proposals 
for improving indoor location accuracy, including a consensus-based, 
voluntary proposal to address the public safety goals detailed in this 
proceeding. Finally, the proposals in the Third Further Notice do not 
become effective until after the Commission seeks comment and adopts an 
order implementing them. We seek comment on the effect of the various 
proposals described in the Third Further Notice, as summarized above, 
will have on small entities, and on what effect alternative rules would 
have on those entities.

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Proposed Rules

    204. None.

VII. Ordering Clauses

    205. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 
201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), and 332, of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 
U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 
303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332; the 
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-
81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 
Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that this Third Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
    206. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the 
Initial 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, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed rules

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 20 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c.
0
2. Section 20.18 is amended by removing paragraph (h)(3), redesignating 
paragraphs (i) through (n) as paragraphs (l) through (q), adding new 
paragraphs (i) through (k), and revising newly redesignated paragraph 
(m)(l) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.18  911 Service.

* * * * *
    (i) Indoor Location Accuracy for 911 and testing requirements. CMRS 
providers subject to this section must provide to the designated Public 
Safety Answering Point the location of 911 wireless calls, based on 
indoor measurements, within 50 meters (by longitude and latitude) no 
later than two years from [the effective date of the adoption of this 
rule], and, within 3 meters (vertical height) no later than three years 
from [the effective date of the adoption of this rule], for 67 percent 
of all such calls. No later than five years from the [effective date of 
the adoption of this rule], CMRS providers must comply with the 50 
meter (by longitude and latitude) accuracy requirement and the 3 meter 
(vertical height) accuracy requirement, for 80 percent of all such 
calls. CMRS providers shall satisfy these indoor location accuracy 
standards on a PSAP-level or county-level basis, and may demonstrate 
compliance by either:
    (1) Participating in an independently administered test bed program 
that includes a sampling of different

[[Page 17847]]

environments that is representative of real-life indoor call scenarios, 
employs the same technology or technologies actually employed in their 
networks, and relies on tests of how the technology or technologies 
will actually be so employed; or
    (2) Using alternative testing methods, provided that CMRS providers 
demonstrate that their methodology and testing procedures are at least 
equivalent to the testing methodology and procedure standards used in 
the independently administered indoor location accuracy test bed under 
paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
    (j) Latency (Time to First Fix). For purposes of measuring 
compliance with the outdoor location accuracy standards of paragraph 
(h) of this section and the indoor location accuracy standard of 
paragraph (i) of this section, a call will be deemed to satisfy the 
standard only if it provides the specified degree of location accuracy 
within a maximum period of 30 seconds (``Time to First Fix''), as 
measured at the location information center of the E911 network. For 
such purposes, CMRS providers may exclude 911 calls of a duration of 10 
seconds or less.
    (k) Confidence and uncertainty data: CMRS providers subject to this 
section shall provide for all wireless 911 calls, whether from outdoor 
or indoor locations, x- and y-axis (latitude, longitude) confidence and 
uncertainty information (C/U data) on a per-call basis upon the request 
of a PSAP. Such C/U data shall specify
    (1) The caller's location within a specified confidence level, and
    (2) The radius in meters from the reported position at that same 
confidence level. All entities responsible for transporting confidence 
and uncertainty between wireless carriers and PSAPs, including LECs, 
CLECs, owners of E911 networks, and emergency service providers, must 
enable the transmission of confidence and uncertainty data provided by 
wireless carriers to the requesting PSAP.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (1) Generally. The requirements set forth in paragraphs (d) through 
(k) of this section shall be applicable only to the extent that the 
administrator of the applicable designated PSAP has requested the 
services required under those paragraphs and such PSAP is capable of 
receiving and utilizing the requested data elements and has a mechanism 
for recovering the PSAP's costs associated with them.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-06618 Filed 3-27-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P