[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 4, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11806-11841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-04424]



[[Page 11805]]

Vol. 80

Wednesday,

No. 42

March 4, 2015

Part IV





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 20





 Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 42 / Wednesday, March 4, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 11806]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 15-9]


Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this Fourth Report and Order, the Federal Communications 
Commission (Commission) adopts measures that will significantly enhance 
the ability of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) to accurately 
identify the location of wireless 911 callers when the caller is 
indoors. It also strengthens its existing E911 location accuracy rules 
to improve location determination for outdoor as well as indoor calls.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 3, 2015 except for 47 CFR 
20.18(i)(2)(ii)(A) and (B); 20.18(i)(2)(iii); 20.18(i)(3)(i) and (ii); 
20.18(i)(4)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv); and 20.18(j)(2) and (3), which 
contains information collection requirements that have not been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will 
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing OMB approval and 
the effective date.

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 Benish Shah, (202) 
418-7866, or send an email to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fourth 
Report and Order in PS Docket No. 07-114, released on February 3, 2015. 
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 https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/Query.do?numberFld=15-9&numberFld2=&docket=07-114&dateFld=&docTitleDesc=.

Synopsis of the Fourth Report and Order

I. Introduction and Executive Summary

    1. In this Fourth Report and Order, we adopt measures that will 
significantly enhance the ability of Public Safety Answering Points 
(PSAPs) to accurately identify the location of wireless 911 callers 
when the caller is indoors. We also strengthen our existing E911 
location accuracy rules to improve location determination for outdoor 
as well as indoor calls.
    2. Our actions in this order respond to major changes in the 
wireless landscape since the Commission first adopted its wireless 
Enhanced 911 (E911) location accuracy rules in 1996 and since the last 
significant revision of these rules in 2010. Consumers are increasingly 
replacing traditional landline telephony with wireless phones; the 
majority of wireless calls are now made indoors; and the majority of 
calls to 911 are from wireless phones. This increases the likelihood 
that wireless 911 calls will come from indoor environments where 
traditional location accuracy technologies optimized for outdoor 
calling often do not work effectively or at all. This gap in the 
performance of 911 location service needs to be closed: The public 
rightfully expects 911 location technologies to work effectively 
regardless of whether a 911 call originates indoors or outdoors.
    3. The record in this proceeding also indicates that a range of 
potential solutions to this gap already exist and have the potential to 
be implemented over the next few years through concerted effort by 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers and PSAPs. These 
solutions will both lead to more accurate horizontal location of indoor 
calls, and add the capacity to provide vertical location information 
for calls originating in multi-story buildings. In addition, the record 
makes clear that the potential exists to move beyond coordinate-based 
location and to provide PSAPs with ``dispatchable location'' 
information for many indoor 911 calls, i.e., a street address plus 
sufficient information, such as floor and room number, to identify the 
location of the caller in the building.
    4. To be sure, no single technological approach will solve the 
challenge of indoor location, and no solution can be implemented 
overnight. The requirements we adopt are technically feasible and 
technologically neutral, so that providers can choose the most 
effective solutions from a range of options. In addition, our 
requirements allow sufficient time for development of applicable 
standards, establishment of testing mechanisms, and deployment of new 
location technology in both handsets and networks. Our timeframes also 
take into account the ability of PSAPs to process enhancements in the 
location data they receive. Clear and measurable timelines and 
benchmarks for all stakeholders are essential to drive the improvements 
that the public reasonably expects to see in 911 location performance.
    5. In determining the appropriate balance to strike in our 
requirements and timeframes, we give significant weight to the 
``Roadmap for Improving E911 Location Accuracy'' (Roadmap) that was 
agreed to in November 2014 by the Association of Public Safety 
Communications Officials (APCO), the National Emergency Number 
Association (NENA), and the four national wireless CMRS providers, and 
supplemental commitments related thereto as discussed below. We give 
similar weight to the ``Parallel Path for Competitive Carriers' 
Improvement of E911 Location Accuracy Standards'' (``Parallel Path'') 
that was submitted by the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA). We 
believe the Roadmap and the Parallel Path establish an essential 
foundation for driving improvements to indoor location accuracy, and we 
therefore incorporate their overall timelines and many of their 
provisions into the rules adopted in this order. In addition, to 
provide greater certainty and accountability in areas that the Roadmap 
and the Parallel Path do not fully address, the rules we adopt today 
include additional elements with ``backstop'' requirements derived from 
our proposals in the Third Further Notice, 79 FR 17820 (Mar. 28, 2014), 
and recent ex parte submissions by the parties to the Roadmap.
    6. Incorporating all of these elements, we adopt the following E911 
location rules:

Horizontal Location

     All CMRS providers must provide (1) dispatchable location, 
or (2) x/y location within 50 meters, for the following percentages of 
wireless 911 calls within the following timeframes, measured from the 
effective date of rules adopted in this Order (``Effective Date''):
    [cir] Within 2 years: 40 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    [cir] Within 3 years: 50 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    [cir] Within 5 years: 70 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    [cir] Within 6 years: 80 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
     Non-nationwide CMRS providers (regional, small, and rural 
carriers) can extend the five- and six-year deadlines based on the 
timing of Voice over Long Term Evolution (VoLTE) deployment in the 
networks.

[[Page 11807]]

Vertical Location

     All CMRS providers must also meet the following 
requirements for provision of vertical location information with 
wireless 911 calls, within the following timeframes measured from the 
Effective Date:
    [cir] Within 3 years: All CMRS providers must make uncompensated 
barometric data available to PSAPs from any handset that has the 
capability to deliver barometric sensor data.
    [cir] Within 3 years: Nationwide CMRS providers must use an 
independently administered and transparent test bed process to develop 
a proposed z-axis accuracy metric, and must submit the proposed metric 
to the Commission for approval.
    [cir] Within 6 years: Nationwide CMRS provides must deploy either 
(1) dispatchable location, or (2) z-axis technology that achieves the 
Commission-approved z-axis metric, in each of the top 25 Cellular 
Market Areas (CMAs):
    [ssquf] Where dispatchable location is used: The National Emergency 
Address Database (NEAD) must be populated with a total number of 
dispatchable location reference points in the CMA equal to 25 percent 
of the CMA population.
    [ssquf] Where z-axis technology is used: CMRS providers must deploy 
z-axis technology to cover 80 percent of the CMA population.
    [cir] Within 8 years: Nationwide CMRS providers must deploy 
dispatchable location or z-axis technology in accordance with the above 
benchmarks in each of the top 50 CMAs.
    [cir] Non-nationwide carriers that serve any of the top 25 or 50 
CMAs will have an additional year to meet these benchmarks.

Reporting and Compliance Measures

     Compliance with the above metrics will be determined by 
reference to quarterly live 911 call data reported by CMRS providers in 
six cities (San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver/Front Range, 
Philadelphia, and Manhattan Borough, New York City) and their 
surrounding areas that have been determined to be representative of 
dense urban, urban, suburban, and rural areas nationally. Quarterly 
reporting of this data will begin no later than 18 months from the 
Effective Date.
     Beginning no later than 18 months from the Effective Date, 
CMRS providers in the six cities will also provide quarterly live call 
data on a more granular basis that allows evaluation of the performance 
of individual location technologies within different morphologies 
(e.g., dense urban, urban, suburban, rural). This more granular data 
will be used for evaluation and not for compliance purposes.
     PSAPs will be entitled to obtain live call data from CMRS 
providers and seek Commission enforcement of these requirements within 
their jurisdictions, but they may seek enforcement only so long as they 
have implemented policies that are designed to obtain all 911 location 
information made available by CMRS providers pursuant to our rules.
     In order to gauge progress on the development of improved 
indoor location accuracy solutions and the implementation of these 
rules, nationwide CMRS providers must submit reports on their initial 
plans for implementing improved indoor location accuracy and must 
submit subsequent reports on their progress.

The foregoing rules leverage many aspects of the Roadmap and the 
Parallel Path to improve indoor location accuracy in a commercially 
reasonable manner. They do not change, or seek to change, the voluntary 
commitment that both nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers 
voluntarily have entered into and have already made progress towards. 
The rules are intended to build confidence in the technical solutions 
outlined in the Roadmap and Parallel Path, and to establish clear 
milestones that gauge progress and ensure that there is clear 
accountability for all CMRS providers.
    7. In addition, we revise our regulatory framework for all 911 
calls, both indoor and outdoor, as follows:
     We adopt a 30-second limit on the time period allowed for 
a CMRS provider to generate a location fix in order for the 911 call to 
be counted towards compliance with existing Phase II location accuracy 
requirements that rely on outdoor testing, but we do not extend this 
provision to the new indoor-focused requirements adopted in this order.
     We require that confidence and uncertainty data for all 
wireless 911 calls--whether placed from indoors or outdoors--be 
delivered at the request of a PSAP, on a per-call basis, with a uniform 
confidence level of 90 percent.
     We require CMRS providers to provide 911 call data, 
including (1) the percentage of wireless 911 calls to the PSAP that 
include Phase II location information, and (2) per-call identification 
of the positioning source method or methods used to derive location 
coordinates and/or dispatchable location, to any requesting PSAP. 
Compliance with the 30-second time limit will also be measured from 
this data.
    8. In establishing these requirements, 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 emergency. We also view 
these requirements as a floor, not a ceiling. We encourage CMRS 
providers to take advantage of the potential of rapidly-developing 
location technology to exceed the thresholds and timelines established 
by this order. In addition, we encourage CMRS providers to work with 
public safety organizations and consumer organizations, including 
disability organizations, to develop new and innovative solutions that 
will make all Americans safer.

II. Background

    9. In February 2014, we released the Third Further Notice in which 
we proposed to revise our existing E911 framework to require delivery 
of accurate location information to PSAPs for wireless 911 calls placed 
from indoors. In the near term, we proposed to establish interim indoor 
accuracy metrics that would provide approximate location information 
sufficient to identify the building for most indoor calls, as well as 
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 sought comment on how to develop 
more granular indoor location accuracy requirements that would provide 
for delivery to PSAPs of in-building location information at the room 
or office suite level. In addition, we sought comment on other 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 asked 
whether we should revisit the timeframe established by the Commission 
in 2010 for replacing the current handset- and network-based outdoor 
location 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. A detailed examination of these proposals and the subsequent 
comment record is discussed below.
    10. In setting forth these proposals, we emphasized that our 
ultimate

[[Page 11808]]

objective was that all Americans using mobile phones--whether calling 
from urban or rural areas, from indoors or outdoors--have technology 
that is capable of providing accurate location information in times of 
an emergency. We sought comment on whether our proposals were the best 
way to achieve this objective, and we also ``encourage[d] industry, 
public safety entities, and other stakeholders to work collaboratively 
to develop alternative proposals for our consideration.''
    11. On November 18, 2014, APCO, NENA, AT&T Mobility, Sprint 
Corporation, T-Mobile USA, Inc., and Verizon Wireless (collectively, 
``Roadmap Parties'') submitted the Roadmap. According to the Roadmap 
Parties, the Roadmap ``marks a new course using indoor technologies to 
deliver a `dispatchable location' for indoor 9-1-1 calls'' and 
``contrasts with current and proposed outdoor technologies that provide 
estimates of location and face challenges with indoor location 
accuracy,'' adding that ``the Roadmap commits to meaningful 
improvements and FCC-enforceable timeframes to deliver effective 
location solutions.'' On November 20, 2014, we sought expedited comment 
on the Roadmap. We received extensive comment in response, both 
supportive and critical of the Roadmap.
    12. Following the submission of comments on the Roadmap, CCA 
submitted its Parallel Path proposal on behalf of its members, which 
include most of the nation's non-nationwide CMRS providers, including 
small, regional, and rural carriers. The Parallel Path for the most 
part tracks the Roadmap, and commits the non-nationwide CMRS providers 
to the same approach and requirements for improving indoor location 
that the nationwide CMRS providers committed to in the Roadmap. 
However, the Parallel Path proposes to modify certain Roadmap 
benchmarks and timeframes to afford non-nationwide CMRS providers more 
time and flexibility to meet their commitments.
    13. Most recently, in response to criticism of the Roadmap by some 
commenters and to concerns raised by Commission staff, the Roadmap 
Parties have amended the Roadmap to strengthen certain provisions and 
incorporate additional commitments by the nationwide CMRS providers, 
particularly with respect to deployment of dispatchable location and z-
axis technologies.

III. Indoor Location Accuracy Requirements

    14. The record in this proceeding demonstrates that circumstances 
affecting wireless location accuracy have changed dramatically since 
the Commission first adopted its Phase II location accuracy rules. As 
discussed in the Third Further Notice, the great majority of calls to 
911 now originate on wireless phones, and the majority of wireless 
calls now originate indoors. These changes increase the importance of 
ensuring that indoor 911 calls can be accurately located. The record 
also indicates that, while PSAPs and CMRS providers may be able to 
address some of the challenges through technological and operational 
improvements, the outdoor-oriented focus of the Commission's Phase II 
rules to date has created a regulatory gap: By focusing on outdoor 
requirements for verifying compliance, our rules currently provide no 
remedy to address poor performance of location technologies indoors.
    15. The record in this proceeding--including the CSRIC test bed 
results, the Amended Roadmap and Parallel Path, and other evidence 
indicating further improvements to indoor location technologies--also 
demonstrates that there has also been progress in the development of 
technologies that can support improved indoor location accuracy. 
Accordingly, we find that it is now appropriate to implement 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 911 call indoors or outdoors.

A. Ubiquity and Challenges of Indoor Wireless Calling

    16. Background. In the Third Further Notice, we noted that the 
large increase in indoor wireless usage over the last decade has made 
indoor location accuracy increasingly important. Accordingly, we sought 
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 sought further data on the 
types of indoor environments from which 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; and 
whether it is possible to identify the type of building morphology 
where current location technologies routinely fail to provide accurate 
location information. In response to this inquiry, commenters indicate 
an ``ongoing, dramatic increase'' in the number of wireless calls 
placed from indoors.
    17. In the Third Further Notice, we also noted that indoor 
locations pose particular challenges for first responders attempting to 
find the caller. We sought 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. APCO indicates that location accuracy for wireless 
calls placed from indoors is currently inferior to both wireline calls 
placed from indoors and wireless calls placed from outdoors. The 
Department of Emergency Management for San Francisco (DEMSF) states 
that problems with wireless indoor location accuracy are particularly 
acute ``in dense urban environments with multiple, adjacent high-rise 
buildings.'' Commenters indicate that the increase in wireless 911 
calls from indoors has affected the delivery of E911 information and 
eroded the ability of public safety officials to respond to calls for 
help, and to keep first responders safe.
    18. Discussion. The record confirms that more wireless 911 calls 
are coming from indoors, and indoor 911 calls pose challenges for 
location that will lead to further degradation of 911 services if not 
addressed. In 1996 there were approximately 33 million cellular 
subscribers in the United States. By the end of 2013, there were nearly 
336 million wireless subscriber connections. At the end of 2007, only 
15.8 percent of American households were wireless-only. During the 
first half of 2014, that number increased to 44 percent (more than two 
of every five American homes), an increase of more than 3.0 percentage 
points since the second half of 2013. Furthermore, adults living in or 
near poverty and younger Americans are more likely to live in wireless-
only homes than are higher-income adults. Several major CMRS providers 
reflect this trend by marketing wireless service as a replacement in 
the home for traditional landline service.
    19. The record also indicates that the increase in wireless calls 
to 911 from indoors has reduced the quality of location information 
available to first responders in the absence of compensatory 
technologies to enhance location. Specifically, satellite-based 
location technologies do not provide accurate location data for many 
wireless calls placed from indoor locations, particularly in urban 
areas where a growing number of Americans reside. This highlights the 
critical importance of the enhanced indoor wireless indoor location 
accuracy rules that we adopt

[[Page 11809]]

today, which will enhance public safety and address the need to develop 
alternative technological approaches to address indoor location.

B. E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

    20. In this Fourth Report and Order, we adopt E911 location 
accuracy requirements that codify major elements of the Roadmap, the 
Parallel Path, and the additional commitments that CMRS providers have 
made in recent ex parte filings. These requirements afford CMRS 
providers flexibility to develop dispatchable location solutions, but 
also include requirements and timeframes for provision of x/y and z-
axis information in the event that dispatchable location is not 
available.
    21. CMRS providers must certify at 36 months and again at 72 months 
that they have deployed compliant technology throughout their networks 
to improve indoor location accuracy, consistent with the compliant 
technology's performance in an independent test bed. To demonstrate 
further compliance with these metrics, CMRS providers must submit 
aggregated live 911 call data from the six cities recommended for 
indoor testing by the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry 
Solutions Emergency Services Interconnection Forum (ATIS ESIF). CMRS 
providers that provide dispatchable location must also provide x/y 
coordinates to the PSAP (as well as z coordinates where feasible and 
appropriate). This will enable PSAPs to corroborate the validity of 
dispatchable location information, but the coordinates will not be 
considered for FCC compliance purposes.
1. Incorporation of Roadmap and Parallel Path Commitments
    22. Background. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed that 
within two years of the Effective Date CMRS providers must locate 67 
percent of indoor 911 calls within 50 meters, and that within five 
years, they must achieve 50-meter accuracy for 80 percent of indoor 911 
calls. We further proposed that within three years of the Effective 
Date, CMRS providers must deliver vertical (z-axis) data within 3 
meters accuracy for 67 percent of indoor calls, and 3-meter accuracy 
for 80 percent of calls within five years. We proposed establishment of 
an indoor location accuracy test bed for demonstrating compliance with 
these requirements, and asked about other approaches to validating 
compliance.
    23. We also invited comment on 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 invited 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.
    24. Subsequent to the close of the comment period, NENA, APCO, and 
the four national CMRS providers submitted the Roadmap agreement. The 
Roadmap provides that, within one year, the signatory CMRS providers 
will establish a test bed for 911 location technologies and, within 
three years, they will establish a national location database for 
provision of dispatchable location information from in-building beacons 
and hotspots (e.g., Wi-Fi and Bluetooth). The Roadmap also specifies 
that, beginning at Year 2 of Roadmap implementation and extending 
through Year 8, the CMRS providers will introduce VoLTE-capable 
handsets that (1) support satellite-based location using multiple 
positioning systems (e.g., GLONASS in addition to GPS), (2) can deliver 
Wi-Fi and Bluetooth beacon information, and (3) can deliver z-axis 
information.
    25. As originally proposed, the Roadmap contained the following 
horizontal location accuracy performance benchmarks:
    [cir] Within two years of the Roadmap's execution, CMRS providers 
will use ``heightened location accuracy technologies'' to locate 40 
percent of all 911 calls (indoor and outdoor). ``Heightened location 
accuracy technologies'' consist of: (1) Satellite-based (A-GNSS) 
location, (2) dispatchable location, or (3) ``any other technology or 
hybrid of technologies capable of location accuracy performance of 50 
m[enters].''
    [cir] Within three years, CMRS providers will use the above 
``heightened location accuracy technologies'' to provide location for 
50 percent of all 911 calls (indoor and outdoor).
    [cir] Within five years, CMRS providers will use the above 
``heightened location accuracy technologies'' to provide location for 
75 percent of all VoLTE 911 calls (indoor and outdoor).
    [cir] Within six years, CMRS providers will use the above 
``heightened location accuracy technologies'' to provide location for 
80 percent of all VoLTE 911 calls (indoor and outdoor).
    26. In recent ex parte filings, the nationwide CMRS providers have 
modified the five-year and six-year Roadmap benchmarks so that they 
will apply to all wireless 911 calls, not just VoLTE calls. To adjust 
for the inclusion of non-VoLTE calls, the nationwide CMRS providers 
propose to lower the five-year benchmark from 75 percent to 60 percent. 
No adjustment is proposed to the six-year deadline or the 80 percent 
benchmark for all calls, however.
    27. The Roadmap commits CMRS providers to use live 911 call data to 
demonstrate compliance with these metrics. The data will be collected 
monthly in the six cities that ATIS ESIF has recommended for indoor 
location technology testing (San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver/
Front Range, Philadelphia, and Manhattan). Providers will provide 
reports to APCO and NENA on a quarterly basis, subject to appropriate 
confidentiality protections, with the first report due 18 months after 
the Effective Date. All CMRS providers, along with APCO and NENA, will 
use the data from these reports to assess the trend in positioning 
performance over time.
    28. Rather than propose a specific z-axis metric, the Roadmap 
focuses on dispatchable location solutions to identify floor level. 
After 36 months, the parties will determine if these efforts are ``on 
track,'' and only if they are ``off track'' are the CMRS providers 
obligated to pursue development of a standards-based z-axis solution 
(e.g., use of barometric sensors in handsets). In recent ex parte 
filings, however, the nationwide CMRS providers have committed to begin 
delivering uncompensated barometric data from barometer-equipped 
handsets within three years, and have offered additional commitments 
with respect to deployment of both dispatchable location and z-axis 
solutions.
    29. The Parallel Path incorporates the same two- and three-year 
horizontal accuracy benchmarks as the Roadmap, and proposes slightly 
different five- and six-year benchmarks. Under the Parallel Path, non-
nationwide CMRS providers would use heightened accuracy technologies in 
70 percent of all wireless 911 calls (VoLTE and non-VoLTE) within five 
years or within six months of having a commercially operating VoLTE 
platform in their network, whichever is later. Similarly, non-
nationwide CMRS providers would achieve heightened accuracy for 80 
percent of all wireless 911 calls within six years or within one year 
of having a commercially operating VoLTE platform in their network, 
whichever is later.

[[Page 11810]]

    30. Regarding data reporting, the Parallel Path commits non-
nationwide CMRS providers to collect data for live wireless 911 calls 
that would show the percentage of time that each ``positioning source 
method'' (e.g., dispatchable location, A-GPS, A-GNSS, OTDOA, AFLT, RTT, 
Cell ID, which are discussed in greater detail in Section III.B.3.b(i) 
below) is used to deliver a wireless 911 call. Small CMRS providers 
that operate in one of the six ATIS ESIF regions will collect and 
report data for that region.
    31. For z-axis location information, the Parallel Path provides 
that for small CMRS providers whose service footprints include any 
county or county equivalent with a population density of 20.0 people 
per square mile or more (per most recent U.S. Census data), those 
providers agree to deliver uncompensated barometric pressure data to 
PSAPs from any voice-capable handset that supports such a capability 
within four (4) years of that agreement, while such providers whose 
serve designated areas with population densities of 19.9 or less will 
be exempt from providing any uncompensated barometric pressure data to 
PSAPs.
    32. Some vendors praise the Roadmap as a meaningful step toward 
improved indoor location. For example, TCS states that the proposals in 
the Roadmap are more realistic than the proposals in the Third Further 
Notice because it acknowledges CMRS providers' inability to distinguish 
between indoor and outdoor wireless calls.
    33. However, some public safety entities, consumer advocacy groups, 
and other vendors express strong concern about the Roadmap proposals. 
Multiple commenters argue that the Roadmap dilutes the Commission's 
efforts to adopt indoor location accuracy rules and does not present a 
viable alternative to the proposals in the Third Further Notice. Though 
it regards the Roadmap as a step in the right direction, TDI submits 
that the Roadmap should serve only as a complement, not a replacement, 
to the Commission's rules. The Associated Firefighters of Illinois 
believe that the Roadmap pushes out the timeline for improved location 
accuracy too far. IACP and Fairfax County support the concept of 
dispatchable location, but question the feasibility of the Roadmap's 
dispatchable location provisions. Multiple commenters express concern 
at the Roadmap's blended metric for indoor and outdoor calls. 
TruePosition cautions that the use of GLONASS for 911 may raise 
political and security issues, though APCO, CTIA and TCS dispute that 
use of GLONASS poses a security threat. Numerous parties highlight 
concerns with the Roadmap's proposal for the National Emergency Address 
Database (NEAD). Some Roadmap Parties submit rebuttals to these 
concerns raised in the record.
    34. Discussion. As discussed in detail below, the Roadmap and 
Parallel Path contain numerous positive elements that will help drive 
improvements in indoor location. In particular, they lay the foundation 
for development of a location technology test bed, a national location 
database, and introduction of improved location technology into VoLTE 
handsets and networks. The Roadmap and Parallel Path also for the first 
time commit CMRS providers to using live 911 call data, not just test 
data, to measure progress and compliance with location accuracy 
metrics. They also commit CMRS providers to a timetable for achieving 
improved horizontal and vertical location accuracy in the absence of a 
dispatchable location solution.
    35. Critics of the Roadmap and the Parallel Path have raised 
legitimate concerns regarding the sufficiency of the commitments made 
by CMRS providers therein. However, we believe that the recent 
amendments to both the Roadmap and the Parallel Path have substantially 
strengthened these commitments and provide the basis for ensuring 
measurable improvements in indoor location while holding CMRS providers 
accountable for results. Of particular significance, the horizontal 
accuracy benchmarks in both the Amended Roadmap and the Parallel Path 
now apply uniformly to all wireless 911 calls rather than some 
benchmarks applying to VoLTE calls only. Similarly, the nationwide CMRS 
providers' commitment to begin delivering uncompensated barometric data 
within three years will provide an important near-term opportunity for 
PSAPs that have the strongest interest in obtaining vertical location 
information, while development of enhanced vertical location 
technologies proceeds in parallel. Finally, the new provisions in the 
Amended Roadmap for development of a z-axis standard and the inclusion 
of timeframes for deployment of dispatchable location and z-axis 
technology will drive investment in solutions to the challenge of 
identifying the floor level--or preferably, the dispatchable location--
of 911 calls originated from multi-story buildings.
    36. We applaud the process that resulted in these commitments and 
the benefits that will flow to the American people as a result. To 
ensure that all parties make progress as promised, and to ensure that 
all stakeholders and the Commission have adequate assurances that 
parties are held accountable, we are codifying these commitments 
through the rules we adopt today. We are also including reporting, 
recordkeeping, and retention obligations associated both with the 
technology test bed and live 911 call information that will illuminate 
the implementation of the dispatchable location standard, and the real 
world performance of the horizontal and vertical location technologies 
that have been put forward in the record.
    37. In this respect, to ensure transparency and accountability, we 
require that nationwide CMRS providers report to the Commission on 
their plans and progress towards implementing improved indoor location 
accuracy no later than 18 months from the Effective Date, and that non-
nationwide CMRS providers submit their plans no later than 24 months 
from the Effective Date. These reports should include details as to 
each provider's implementation plan to meet our requirements. For the 
nationwide CMRS providers, this report must also include detail as to 
steps taken and future plans to implement the NEAD, which is discussed 
in further detail below. These reports will provide a baseline for 
measuring the subsequent progress made by each provider toward 
improving indoor location accuracy. In addition we require each CMRS 
provider to file a progress report at 36 months indicating what 
progress the provider has made consistent with its implementation plan. 
Nationwide CMRS providers shall include in their 36-month reports an 
assessment of their deployment of dispatchable location solutions. For 
any CMRS provider participating in the development of the NEAD 
database, this progress report must also include detail as to 
implementation of the database. Furthermore, we encourage CMRS 
providers to share these reports and discuss their implementation plans 
with public safety, consumer, and disability groups. We incorporate 
these requirements into our rules.
    38. In the Roadmap, the CMRS providers state that within six to 
twelve months they intend to test ``improved'' A-GNSS technologies that 
can augment GPS-only geolocation by obtaining positioning information 
from other international satellite positioning systems, including the 
Russian GLONASS system. TruePosition contends that the potential use of 
GLONASS to support E911 location ``raises a wide range of national 
security, reliability, liability, and economic trade issues,'' and 
should be rejected by the Commission. CTIA, however, explains that 
``the Roadmap never states that GLONASS will be the

[[Page 11811]]

exclusive source of user location data, and instead makes clear that 
both GPS and GLONASS will be tested as positioning sources . . . this 
bogeyman is nothing more than a desperate attempt to distract the 
stakeholders and the Commission and undermine the actual merits of the 
Roadmap.'' CTIA asserts that ``the use of GLONASS chips in handsets 
does not give Russia power over U.S. wireless communications,'' and 
that ``[t]here simply is no national security risk whatsoever with the 
Roadmap.''
    39. To date, none of the CMRS provider parties to the Roadmap have 
submitted, nor has the Commission approved, any waiver petition or 
application that would seek authorized use of any non-U.S. 
Radionavigation Satellite Service (RNSS) system to support E911 
location or general location-based services. Indeed, the Roadmap only 
states that the signatory CMRS providers intend to test the potential 
use of non-U.S. systems (such as GLONASS or Galileo) to support E911 
location. It does not call for the Commission to approve operations 
with any non-U.S. satellite systems, either explicitly or implicitly, 
in this proceeding, and we decline to do so. Thus, the parties to the 
Roadmap and other CMRS providers must comply with the location accuracy 
requirements established by this order regardless of the disposition of 
any future request they may make under FCC rules to operate with any 
non-U.S. satellite systems in support of E911 location. Moreover, any 
such request will be subject to a full review and federal inter-agency 
coordination of all relevant issues, including technical, economic, 
national security, and foreign policy implications.
    40. We do not decide the issue of operating with non-U.S. satellite 
signals in this proceeding, which would require consideration of a 
variety of issues, including its potential impact on the use of 
adjacent bands. Therefore, nothing in today's decision authorizes the 
use of any non-U.S. satellite system in conjunction with the 911 
system, including the 911 location accuracy rules we adopt today. 
Moreover, A-GNSS technologies used to augment GPS may increase the 
potential exposure of devices to interference by increasing the number 
of unwanted signals and the number of signals that can introduce data 
integrity problems. We believe that CMRS providers seeking to use non-
U.S. satellites should also conduct testing to ensure that operation 
with these signals does not inadvertently introduce vulnerabilities to 
the devices that could impair E911 performance or compromise data 
integrity. For example, devices that are augmented to receive signals 
from multiple satellite constellations may be more susceptible to radio 
frequency interference than devices that receive signals from GPS 
alone. Devices should also be evaluated to determine their capabilities 
to detect and mitigate the effects of inaccurate or corrupted data from 
any RNSS system that could result in incorrect location information, or 
no information at all, being relayed to a PSAP. We expect CMRS 
providers, at the time they certify their compliance with the 
Commission's location accuracy requirements, to also certify that any 
devices on their network operating with foreign A-GNSS signals for 911 
location accuracy have proper authorizations in place to permit such 
use. Before incorporating foreign A-GNSS into E911, CMRS providers must 
coordinate plans for foreign A-GNSS signal integration with the Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to confirm that signals are 
interoperable with GPS and that measures to prevent interference are 
appropriate. Furthermore, CMRS providers are expected to certify that 
the devices have been tested to determine their ability to detect and 
mitigate the effects of harmful interference.
2. Dispatchable Location
    41. In the Third Further Notice, we identified the delivery by CMRS 
providers to PSAPs of ``dispatchable address'' information as a long-
term objective to improve indoor location. While we proposed indoor 
accuracy requirements based on x/y/z coordinate information, we noted 
that public safety needs would be better served if PSAPs could receive 
the caller's building address, floor level, and suite/room number. 
Therefore, we sought comment on whether to adopt an alternative indoor 
location requirement that CMRS providers could satisfy by delivering a 
caller's building address and floor level.
    42. Although we viewed development of dispatchable location 
capability as a long-term goal in the Third Further Notice, the 
subsequent comment record and the Roadmap indicate the proliferation of 
in-building technology such as small cells and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 
beacons, which can be used together, has made dispatchable location 
solutions technically feasible in a much shorter timeframe than we 
initially anticipated. Therefore, as described below, we conclude that 
CMRS providers should be allowed to use dispatchable location to comply 
with our indoor location accuracy requirements.
a. Definition of Dispatchable Location
    43. The Roadmap uses the term ``dispatchable location'' rather than 
``dispatchable address'' to describe the same objective identified in 
the Third Further Notice. The Roadmap defines ``dispatchable location'' 
as ``the civic address of the calling party plus additional information 
such as floor, suite, apartment or similar information that may be 
needed to adequately identify the location of the calling party.''
    44. For the purposes of this rulemaking, we define ``dispatchable 
location'' as the verified or corroborated street address of the 
calling party plus additional information such as floor, suite, 
apartment or similar information that may be needed to adequately 
identify the location of the calling party. We note that while all 
dispatchable addresses are necessarily civic addresses, not all civic 
addresses are ``dispatchable,'' e.g., P.O. Boxes, diplomatic or armed 
forces pouch addresses, etc. PSAPs currently use street address in 
dispatch systems, the very essence of any ``dispatchable'' location 
solution. Public safety organizations have described dispatchable 
location as the ``gold standard'' in terms of location accuracy and 
utility for allocating emergency resources in the field. Accordingly, 
we adopt a definition similar to the one offered in the Roadmap, but 
substitute the term ``street address'' to provide clarity and ensure 
that dispatchers are not sent to addresses which may not be street 
addresses, and therefore, may not be ``dispatchable.'' Although IMSA 
contends that the Roadmap's definition of dispatchable location lacks 
specificity, we find that this definition strikes the appropriate 
balance between specificity and flexibility.
b. Technological Feasibility and Implementation Issues
    45. In the Third Further Notice, we recognized that provision of a 
dispatchable location would most likely be through the use of in-
building location systems and network access devices, which could be 
programmed to provide granular information on the 911 caller's 
location, including building address and floor level. We noted that 
CMRS providers are already deploying in-building technologies to 
improve and expand their network coverage and speed, and asked how 
these technologies could be leveraged to support indoor 911 location, 
as well as any challenges to implementation. For the reasons stated 
below, we believe the Roadmap commitments, including those

[[Page 11812]]

made in the Addendum, and the comments in the record demonstrate that a 
dispatchable location solution is feasible and achievable on the 
timetable we establish, and that in light of our predictive judgment 
about the future course of development of various wireless location 
technologies, this approach provides appropriate incentives for CMRS 
providers to achieve our foregoing goals as effectively and promptly as 
practicable. In the absence of an approved z-axis metric alternative, 
CMRS providers will be obligated to rely on dispatchable location.
(i) In-Building Infrastructure
    46. Commenters confirm that the feasibility of dispatchable 
location is linked to the proliferation of indoor, infrastructure-based 
technologies, including small cell technology, distributed antenna 
systems (DAS), Wi-Fi access points, beacons, commercial location-based 
services (cLBS), institutional and enterprise location systems, and 
smart building technology. These technologies can be used in a location 
system information ``stack'' that would allow a CMRS provider's 
location server to compile and compare location fixes from multiple 
sources, to identify and disregard inaccurate fixes, and otherwise 
synthesize available location data.
    47. The record also confirms that many of these technologies can 
contribute to the development of dispatchable location solutions in the 
near term. Nearly all wireless phones are now equipped with Bluetooth 
and Wi-Fi capabilities, though some standardization work remains. Small 
cells are increasingly deployed in urban areas, and all four nationwide 
CMRS providers currently sell or plan to sell in-home consumer products 
designed to provide improved wireless coverage indoors, but which could 
also be leveraged to provide dispatchable location information. Indeed, 
the Roadmap commits to making all CMRS provider-provided small cell 
equipment compatible with any dispatchable location solution. 
Additionally, Bluetooth beacons and Wi-Fi hotspots are increasingly 
deployed in public spaces. For example, TCS estimates that there are 
more than 126 million Wi-Fi access points nationwide, with 
approximately 40 million in commercial settings and 86 million in 
residential settings. Cisco and TCS assert that, using Cisco's wireless 
local area network and TCS's gateway client technology for commercial 
location solutions, they can already provide a `` `dispatchable' 
location--indicating street address, building identifier, floor number, 
and suite number--along with a floor plan . . . showing the location of 
the phone,'' with accuracy between five and ten meters. Though much of 
the deployment of indoor location-capable infrastructure thus far has 
been commercial, there are a growing number of residential products 
that easily be used as a source of location in a comprehensive 
dispatchable location solution. Nevertheless, some commenters still 
argue that beacon and Wi-Fi technologies have not been thoroughly 
enough tested to justify reliance on them in any dispatchable location 
solution. Others submit that the Commission should open a separate 
proceeding dedicated to dispatchable location.
    48. CMRS commenters note that much of the in-building 
infrastructure that will be needed to support dispatchable location 
lies outside their control and will require building owners and other 
third-party stakeholders to be involved in the deployment process. T-
Mobile submits that ``[t]o attain truly actionable indoor locations 
requires buy-in and development from all stakeholders--not just 
wireless carriers, but also public safety, . . . state and local 
governments who regulate building codes, and, perhaps most critically, 
premises owners.'' T-Mobile suggests that state and local governments 
should modify building and fire codes to require deployment of such 
devices throughout a building.
(ii) Handset Hardware and Software Changes
    49. Despite the widespread availability of Wi-Fi- and Bluetooth-
equipped phones, commenters observe that implementation of dispatchable 
location solutions may require hardware, firmware, and/or software 
modifications to handsets to enable them to communicate with in-
building infrastructure such as Wi-Fi or Bluetooth beacons. Several 
commenters also note that in order for handsets to use Wi-Fi or 
Bluetooth to search for nearby location beacons when a caller places a 
911 call, handset operating systems will need to be configured to 
activate Wi-Fi and Bluetooth automatically, in the same manner that 
current GPS-capable handsets activate GPS automatically when the user 
calls 911. The Roadmap Parties commit to work with device manufacturers 
and operating system developers in order to implement these changes.
    50. The Roadmap also anticipates the need for deployment of new 
handsets to accommodate dispatchable location technologies, and commits 
the signatory CMRS providers to equip all carrier-provided VoLTE 
handset models with the ``capability to support delivery of beacon 
information, e.g., Bluetooth LE and WiFi, to the network'' no later 
than 36 months after completion of relevant standards, including 
interim benchmarks at the 24 and 30 month timeframes. The parties also 
agree to enable their VoLTE networks to deliver beacon-based location 
information from handsets within 24 months after the completion of 
relevant standards.
    51. The Parallel Path offers similar commitments on a longer 
timeframe, including a suggestion that all VoLTE handset models for 
non-nationwide CMRS providers would support the same delivery of beacon 
information no later than 48 months after the completion of relevant 
standards. The Parallel Path commits to the delivery of beacon 
information by their VoLTE networks within 36 months after completion 
of standards, or 12 months of their VoLTE networks becoming 
operational, with full end to end functionality for dispatchable 
location for their VoLTE networks within 60 months (or 12 months of 
becoming operational).
    52. Some commenters stress the need for further development of 
standards to ensure that location applications originally developed for 
cLBS have the level of quality, reliability and redundancy needed to 
support emergency location. We note that efforts are already under way 
to develop such standards. The 3rd Generation Partnership Project 
(3GPP) and Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) have been in cooperative efforts 
to enhance LTE to meet public safety application requirements, and 3GPP 
has been prioritizing indoor positioning in developing its most recent 
release for LTE. In addition, CSRIC IV Working Group 1 was charged to 
examine whether CMRS providers transitioning to VoLTE platforms should 
still heed recommendations from an earlier CSRIC report on testing 
methodology and parameters as they began ``blending'' GPS handset-based 
location data with network-based data, per Section 20.18(h) of the 
Commission's rules. Among other findings, CSRIC notes that ``[i]n 
addition to the committed LTE location methods discussed . . ., other 
location methods such as Wi-Fi for VoLTE have been standardized. Wi-Fi 
for position calculation has been standardized in Secure User Plane 
(``SUPL'') 2.0 and is available for deployment on GSM, UMTS, CDMA and 
LTE.''
    53. The Roadmap commits the four nationwide CMRS providers to 
promote

[[Page 11813]]

development and approval of standards within 18 months of the date of 
the Agreement, as well as to formally sponsor standards efforts 
regarding the use and delivery of Bluetooth LE and Wi-Fi information to 
the network. Additionally, the Roadmap Parties committed to participate 
actively in standards setting work, as well as to engage with 
technology companies and others in the private sector to promote the 
prioritization and completion of standards setting work. The parties 
also agree to sponsor standards activities to operationalize the 
display of dispatchable location in pre-NG911 PSAPs.
(iii) Location Database Development and Management
    54. We sought comment in the Third Further Notice on the use of 
location databases by CMRS providers to verify location information, as 
well as the privacy and security implications raised by these 
databases. Commenters note that some of the database infrastructure 
that would be needed to support dispatchable location already exists. 
TCS states that it has database access to the location of more than 38 
million Wi-Fi nodes to assist in locating users of cLBS applications. 
However, existing databases that map in-building infrastructure may not 
provide the level of reliability and security needed to support 911 
location. Commenters assert that any database used to support 
dispatchable location will require mechanisms to enable PSAPs to access 
the location data, verify the trustworthiness and accuracy of the data, 
and keep the data up-to-date. CMRS providers also contend that 
developing and managing secure location databases will require the 
cooperation of building owners and state and local governments.
    55. The Roadmap addresses the database issue by proposing a plan 
for the implementation of a National Emergency Address Database (NEAD). 
As envisioned in the Roadmap, the NEAD will contain media access 
control (MAC) address information of fixed indoor access points, which 
a device would ``see'' upon initiating a wireless 911 call. When the 
device ``sees'' the MAC address of this particular device, the CMRS 
network would cross-reference this MAC address with a dispatchable 
address, which would be made available to the PSAP. The Roadmap Parties 
have committed to work together to develop the design, operations, and 
maintenance requirements for the NEAD within 12 months of the 
Agreement. The Parallel Path makes a similar commitment within the 12-
month timeframe. The parties also agree to ``work together to establish 
a database owner, funding mechanisms, provisions for defining security/
privacy, performance, and management aspects, and to launch the initial 
database within 12-24 months after the development of the design 
requirements.'' Finally, the parties agree to work together to 
integrate dispatchable location information from third-party sources 
into the NEAD, and to enlist the support of other organizations to 
achieve this goal.
    56. In response to the Roadmap's NEAD proposal, numerous commenters 
express concern that the proposal lacks critical details and leaves too 
many issues unresolved, some of which could hamper development. For 
example, NASNA states that ``the carriers promised to `take steps to 
make non-NEAD dispatchable location information available for delivery 
of PSAPs,' but did not describe when or how those steps would be taken. 
It may be surmised from the discussion in the Roadmap at 2.b.i, ii and 
iii that this would occur within 30 days of the anniversary of the 
agreement, but that is not clear.'' NASNA also notes that Roadmap does 
not specify how it will incorporate existing legacy location databases 
and new or soon-to-be operational NG911 location databases. To address 
this concern, Sprint submits that the Commission could play an 
important role in the development and implementation of the NEAD: ``the 
Commission could, for example, include in its equipment authorization 
rules, procedures or training materials for telecommunications 
certification bodies a labeling requirement instructing the consumer or 
installer of the equipment to register it in the NEAD.''
    57. Additionally, a number of commenters express concern with 
regard to the preservation of individual privacy throughout the 
implementation and subsequent use of the NEAD. Specifically, Public 
Knowledge cautions that the NEAD would contain sensitive personal 
information, and that the proposal as written in the Roadmap lacks 
safeguards to ensure ``that the database will be secure, used only for 
E911 purposes, and never sold to or otherwise shared with third 
parties, including government entities.'' Public Knowledge suggests 
that the Commission should require communications providers, cable 
operators, and satellite providers offering wireless consumer home 
products to allow consumers to ``opt out'' of including their products 
in such a database. Public Knowledge asks the Commission to clarify 
that location information collected from a consumer's device and stored 
in the NEAD would be considered customer proprietary network 
information (CPNI), and determine what safeguards would apply to 
information that may not constitute CPNI. Public Knowledge urges that 
the Commission address these privacy issues now and encourages the 
Commission to adopt a ``privacy by design'' approach. Public Knowledge 
also recommends that the Commission adopt regulations that ``require 
CMRS carriers and others to treat mobile 911 location information and 
NEAD as protected information and prohibit its sharing with third 
parties.''
    58. On the other hand, TCS states that ``the technologies suggested 
by the Roadmap raise no new privacy concerns that do not already exist 
with today's 9-1-1 solutions; and the security concerns raised are no 
greater than those already facing public safety with regards to [NG911] 
technologies.'' TCS adds that ``our current public safety 
infrastructure contains much more sensitive information than what the 
Roadmap envisions.'' AT&T submits that the Roadmap's proposal is 
``basically analogous to how 911 location has always been performed on 
the PSTN,'' and stresses that the NEAD database would be limited ``to 
access for 911 purposes and only during the processing of 911 calls.'' 
Sprint states that privacy related concerns ``will be addressed in the 
context of working groups.''
    59. In response to these concerns, the Roadmap Parties filed an 
Addendum that sets forth measures they will take to address privacy and 
security concerns related to the implementation of the NEAD. In 
particular, the Roadmap Parties commit to (1) ``engage with various 
industry experts on privacy and security to ensure that best practices 
are followed in the development and operation of the database''; and 
(2) ``require the vendor(s) selected for the NEAD administration to 
develop a Privacy and Security Plan in advance of going live and 
transmit it to the FCC.'' New America, Public Knowledge, and other 
privacy advocates suggest that these measures remain insufficient, 
however, and urge the Commission to take additional actions to promote 
privacy and security.
(iv) PSAPs' Ability To Use Dispatchable Location Information
    60. Finally, we sought comment in the Third Further Notice on 
whether and how PSAPs would be able to use dispatchable location 
information. NASNA submits that ``E911 location databases and call-
handling software

[[Page 11814]]

products have a field that is used in wireline calls to identify 
apartment numbers. This field could be used to display this 
information.'' In addition, NASNA states that ``[i]f the LBS data are 
converted to lat/long or a civic address, NASNA does not know why it 
would cause any issues.'' Cisco states that ``a 911 Service Provider, 
would query enterprise networks located in and around the cell site 
where a 911 call originates, using a new gateway device to access the 
location data for that particular end user device,'' a process which it 
describes as ``relatively simple straightforward.'' Nevertheless, 
Intrado and TCS caution that changes at the PSAP level would be 
necessary.
    61. The commitments in the Roadmap regarding dispatchable location 
are not contingent on a PSAP's ability to accept such information, but 
the Roadmap does include a caveat that ``implementation and execution 
of the elements within this document may be subject to a number of 
variables, including but not limited to . . . third party resources, 
which may require the signatories to reassess the progress'' of the 
Roadmap. However, the Roadmap also states that the parties ``will work 
with public safety to study and consider further steps to providing 
wireline-equivalent routing for wireless consumer home products that 
provide a dispatchable location.''
c. Discussion
    62. Although we originally proposed dispatchable location as a 
long-term goal, the record shows that technology exists today that 
could be used to implement various dispatchable location solutions in 
the near term, as evidenced by the Amended Roadmap's provisions for 
immediate commencement of development of dispatchable location 
solutions and the Parallel Path's provisions committing to the 
implementation of dispatchable location technologies into wireless 
consumer home products and wireless handsets. Moreover, CMRS providers 
are already incentivized to deploy many of these technologies to expand 
coverage and to manage network capacity more efficiently. For example, 
Cisco notes that in 2013, ``approximately 45 percent of all mobile data 
traffic was offloaded on the fixed network via Wi-Fi or femtocell'' and 
further estimates that ``by 2018, more traffic will be offloaded on to 
Wi-Fi networks than will be carried over cellular networks.'' Given the 
commercial benefits of deploying the technologies that would support 
improved indoor location accuracy, we anticipate that commercial 
location systems will continue to proliferate, providing additional 
resources that could be leveraged for E911 use.
    63. The record also confirms the clear public safety benefits of 
implementing dispatchable location as a core component of our approach 
to improving wireless indoor location. As APCO and NENA point out, 
dispatchable location represents the ``gold standard'' for first 
responders, because it provides the functional equivalent of address-
based location information provided with wireline 911 calls. We note 
that wireline-equivalent location accuracy is of particular importance 
to individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, and/or have 
speech disabilities, and we believe the approach adopted here serves as 
a significant step in the right direction towards achieving such 
location accuracy.
    64. We recognize, nonetheless, that dispatchable location cannot be 
achieved overnight, that the implementation concerns raised by 
commenters must be addressed, and that we must adopt timeframes that 
afford sufficient time to address these concerns. We agree with Verizon 
that any indoor location solution that can be scaled nationwide ``will 
depend on third parties or require cooperation with vendors in order to 
comply with any standards the Commission may adopt,'' but also that 
``[t]he need for engagement with other stakeholders merely reflects the 
diversity of the wireless communications ecosystem consisting of 
service providers, solution vendors, manufacturers, and others and 
already exists today.''
    65. We believe the Amended Roadmap provides the appropriate 
foundation for our approach. With regard to standards, as described 
above, the standards development process for many dispatchable location 
technologies is already under way, and the Amended Roadmap contains 
commitments to advance the development and approval of standards for 
many relevant technologies. The Amended Roadmap also offers a 
reasonable path forward with respect to deployment of in-building 
infrastructure and introducing necessary hardware and software 
modifications into new handsets. The Parallel Path makes similar 
commitments for non-nationwide CMRS providers. In light of the Amended 
Roadmap and Parallel Path, we find that the implementation timeframes 
adopted today sufficiently consider these issues and provide adequate 
time for all CMRS providers to plan for and implement a compliant 
dispatchable location solution if they so choose.
    66. In evaluating dispatchable location, the Addendum also proposes 
that compliance with vertical accuracy requirements would be satisfied 
in a CMA where the total number of ``dispatchable location reference 
points'' in that CMA meets or exceeds the population of the CMA divided 
by a concentration factor of 4 within six years, based on 2010 census 
data. The Addendum commits parties to populate the NEAD with MAC 
address or Bluetooth reference points for dispatchable location 
reference points under their direct control for all CMAs. We agree with 
this approach, and find that a location solution that provides 
dispatchable location information to PSAPs in accordance with the 
prescribed benchmarks and meets the density calculation recommended by 
the Addendum will be considered in compliance with the vertical 
location accuracy requirements adopted herein. We concur that given the 
average population per household in the top 50 CMAs and typical Wi-Fi 
usage scenarios, the density calculation recommended in the Addendum 
should provide adequate coverage, particularly in light of the 
horizontal accuracy benchmarks described below that CMRS providers 
using dispatchable location must ensure that they meet.
    67. The Parallel Path suggests that non-nationwide providers would 
be able to take certain steps in advance of the NEAD's implementation 
to develop dispatchable location ability, and that such CMRS providers 
commit to development, design and implementation of the NEAD, 
population of its data, and support of the database in concert with 
NENA, APCO and other stakeholders. They also commit to certain 
timeframes associated with handset and network design and development 
to support delivery of beacon information.
    68. With respect to the proposal to develop and implement the NEAD 
to support dispatchable location, we recognize that while the NEAD has 
significant public safety value, there are significant privacy and 
security concerns associated with the aggregation of critical 
infrastructure and private intellectual property data. Although some 
commenters contend that the NEAD does not present a greater threat to 
data privacy than already exists today, the Roadmap and Parallel Path 
Parties agree that there is a need for privacy and security measures to 
be implemented with the NEAD. We emphasize that privacy and security 
concerns must be addressed during the design and development of the 
NEAD from its earliest stages. We will hold the

[[Page 11815]]

NEAD administrator, as well as individual CMRS providers that utilize 
the NEAD, accountable for protecting the privacy and security of 
consumers' location information.
    69. Development of the NEAD Privacy and Security Plan. We require 
each of the nationwide CMRS providers to develop and submit for 
Commission approval a detailed Privacy and Security Plan for the NEAD, 
to be submitted with the interim progress reports discussed above, due 
18 months from the Effective Date. We note that the Roadmap Parties 
specifically commit ``to require the vendor(s) selected for the NEAD 
administration to develop a Privacy and Security Plan in advance of 
going live and transmit it to the FCC.'' While we require the 
nationwide CMRS providers (rather than the vendor) to submit the 
Privacy and Security Plan, our approach is otherwise consistent with 
this commitment. The Roadmap Parties also pledge to collaborate with 
``industry experts on privacy and security to ensure that best 
practices are followed in the development and operation of the 
database.'' In this regard, we expect the providers to develop the plan 
in close collaboration with a broad range of relevant stakeholders, 
including network security and reliability experts, equipment 
manufacturers (including device, software and network manufacturers), 
public interest advocacy groups (including privacy advocates, and 
consumer and disabilities rights groups), and other, non-nationwide 
communications service providers. The plan should appoint an 
administrator for the NEAD, prior to the database's activation, who 
will serve as a single point of contact for the Commission on the 
security, privacy, and resiliency measures that will be implemented in 
the NEAD.
    70. We will make the NEAD Privacy and Security Plan available for 
public notice and comment to promote openness and transparency, and to 
ensure that the plan addresses the full range of security and privacy 
concerns that must be resolved prior to use of the database. Upon 
review of the plan and the record generated in response, we will 
evaluate the need to take any additional measures to protect the 
privacy, security, and resiliency of the NEAD and any associated data. 
In this respect, while commenters have raised important issues, we need 
not address their specific concerns regarding the treatment of data 
within the NEAD at this time, as such concerns can be raised and fully 
addressed in connection with our evaluation of any specific plan that 
may be filed.
    71. Privacy and Security Measures Applicable to Individual CMRS 
Providers. In addition to the NEAD Privacy and Security Plan, we 
believe that certain explicit requirements on individual CMRS providers 
are necessary to ensure the privacy and security of NEAD data and any 
other information involved in the determination and delivery of 
dispatchable location. We require that, as a condition of using the 
NEAD or any information contained therein to meet our 911 location 
requirements, and prior to use of the NEAD, CMRS providers must certify 
that they will not use the NEAD or associated data for any purpose 
other than for the purpose of responding to 911 calls, except as 
required by law. Additionally, should aspects of a CMRS provider's 
dispatchable location operations not be covered by the NEAD privacy and 
security plan, the provider should file an addendum to ensure that the 
protections outlined in the NEAD plan will cover the provider's 
dispatchable location transactions end-to-end. We note that there is 
support for this requirement in the record, including by the Roadmap 
Parties. For example, AT&T pledges that the information contained in 
the NEAD will not be used for any non-emergency purposes. Likewise, 
Verizon affirms that ``the Roadmap signatories committed to addressing 
the security and privacy of customers' information as part of the 
NEAD's development, which will be used exclusively for 911 purposes.'' 
To the extent location information (by itself or in conjunction with 
other data concerning the customer) constitutes proprietary information 
protected under Section 222 of the Communications Act, we note that 
Section 222 expressly allows for the provision of a user's call 
location information to certain emergency response providers, in order 
to respond to the user's call for emergency services. In light of the 
Section 222 exception for 911 calls and the required certification by 
CMRS that NEAD data will only be used for 911 location purposes, 
nothing in this Fourth Report and Order should be construed to permit 
any use of customer or location information stored in the NEAD in any 
other context.
    72. PSAP Ability To Use Dispatchable Location Information. We 
disagree with commenters who argue that PSAPs will not be able to 
accept dispatchable location information. First, PSAPs already receive 
location data in street address format (as opposed to geodetic 
coordinates) for wireline 911 calls. This capacity to receive non-
geodetic data can be readily leveraged to accept delivery of 
dispatchable location information from wireless calls as well. Second, 
under the approach we adopt today, PSAPs retain the choice of whether 
to accept dispatchable location information (where available) or to 
request that the CMRS provider provide only geodetic coordinates to 
that PSAP. Even where PSAPs choose to accept dispatchable location 
information with 911 calls, CMRS providers should also make coordinate 
information for such calls available to the PSAP whenever feasible. 
Although PSAPs may need to make adjustments in procedure and additional 
personnel training may be necessary, we do not believe these factors 
justify a delay in adopting indoor location accuracy requirements that 
encourage dispatchable location solutions.
    73. We applaud the commitments for dispatchable location set forth 
in the Amended Roadmap and Parallel Path, as they represent a 
meaningful and actionable plan for achieving dispatchable location for 
wireless 911 calls, particularly indoor calls. The Roadmap and Parallel 
Path also state that the signatory CMRS providers will work with public 
safety to study and consider further steps to providing wireline-
equivalent routing for wireless consumer home products that provide a 
dispatchable location. However, as many commenters point out, the 
Roadmap contains no guarantee that dispatchable location will be 
successfully deployed or will function as intended. Therefore, to 
ensure sufficient location accuracy for all wireless indoor 911 calls, 
we find it necessary to adopt coordinate-based requirements for both 
the x- and y-axes and the z-axis as alternatives to dispatchable 
location. We discuss these requirements below.
3. Horizontal Location Information
    74. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed a horizontal accuracy 
standard of 50 meters for indoor wireless calls, to be achieved by 67 
percent of indoor 911 calls within two years and 80 percent of indoor 
911 calls within five years. As discussed in Section III.B.2, supra, we 
are incorporating the Roadmap's provisions for implementation of 
dispatchable location as an alternative means to provide accurate 
indoor location information with a 911 call. However, the Roadmap also 
provides that CMRS providers will meet their commitments by providing 
coordinate information based on a 50-meter standard, in the event a 
dispatchable location solution is unavailable. Therefore, the rules we 
adopt include a

[[Page 11816]]

standard for coordinate-based location as an alternative to 
dispatchable location. In addition, we modify our originally proposed 
horizontal location benchmarks and timelines to incorporate elements 
from the Roadmap (including the slightly more generous timeframes and 
percentage benchmarks from the Addendum and the Parallel Path), but we 
also include backstop elements adapted from our original proposals:
     Nationwide CMRS providers must provide (1) dispatchable 
location, or (2) x/y location within 50 meters, for the following 
percentages of wireless 911 calls within the following timeframes, 
measured from the effective date of rules adopted in this Order 
(``Effective Date''):
    [cir] Within 2 years: 40 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    [cir] Within 3 years: 50 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    [cir] Within 5 years: 70 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    [cir] Within 6 years: 80 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
     Non-nationwide CMRS providers are subject to the same two- 
and three-year benchmarks as nationwide CMRS providers (i.e., 40 
percent at 2 years, and 50 percent at 3 years). At years 5 and 6, non-
nationwide CMRS providers are subject to the rules as follows:
    [cir] Within the later of five years from the Effective Date or six 
months of having an operational VoLTE platform in their network, 70 
percent of all wireless 9-1-1 calls (including VoLTE calls); and
    [cir] within the later of six years from the Effective Date or six 
months of having an operational VoLTE platform in their network, 80 
percent of all wireless 9-1-1 calls (including VoLTE calls).

We discuss the elements of these requirements below.
a. 50-Meter Search Ring
    75. Background. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed to require 
CMRS providers to identify an indoor 911 caller's horizontal location 
within 50 meters. We reasoned that a search radius of 50 meters had a 
reasonable likelihood of identifying the building from which the call 
originated, while a search radius larger than 50 meters was unlikely to 
assist first responders in building identification. We also proposed to 
implement the 50-meter accuracy requirement in two stages with 
different reliability thresholds (67 percent in two years and 80 
percent in five years). We noted that our current outdoor-based 
location accuracy rules use a ``dual search ring'' approach, with 
separate metrics for 50-meter and 150-meter accuracy. However, given 
the limited utility of a search radius larger than 50 meters for indoor 
location, we proposed a single-ring rather than a dual-ring approach.
    76. Public safety commenters overwhelmingly support the proposed 
50-meter standard, although some express a preference for a smaller 
search radius than 50 meters. Some CMRS providers argue against setting 
a 50-meter standard. AT&T, for example, argues that such a requirement 
is of ``dubious value to public safety'' for indoor location dense-
urban and urban morphologies.'' CMRS providers also argue that it is 
more efficient to concentrate their resources on achieving dispatchable 
location rather than meeting a 50-meter standard that provides only 
approximate location. The Roadmap, however, provides that technologies 
capable of achieving 50-meter indoor horizontal accuracy qualify as 
``heightened location accuracy technologies'' that may be used to meet 
the accuracy benchmarks in the agreement.
    77. Discussion. We find it in the public interest to require CMRS 
providers to provide location information based on a horizontal 50-
meter search radius where a dispatchable location is not available. 
Public safety commenters overwhelmingly confirm that a 50-meter x/y 
capability would be of significant benefit in helping to locate indoor 
911 callers. Moreover, the Roadmap effectively adopts a 50-meter 
standard for indoor horizontal location. The record further indicates 
that provision of tighter geodetic data can contribute to better 
provision of a dispatchable location by, for example, helping to 
incorporate and distinguish accurate WLAN-based signals of opportunity 
as well as by providing more accurate geodetic location information for 
reverse geo-coding.
b. 50-Meter Compliance Thresholds and Timeframes
(i) Background
    78. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed a two-stage 
implementation timeframe for the 50-meter horizontal requirement, with 
a reliability threshold of 67 percent to be achieved in two years and 
an 80 percent threshold to be achieved in five years. We stated our 
belief that even if currently available location technology could not 
satisfy the proposed 50-meter standard in the most challenging indoor 
environments, the proposed timeframe would be sufficient for the 
development of improved technology and deployment of such technology by 
CMRS providers as needed to comply with the proposed requirements. We 
sought comment on our proposed timeframe and various alternatives, and 
received substantial comment on these issues.
    79. CMRS providers generally object to the Third Further Notice 
proposal, contending that the proposed two- and five-year benchmarks 
cannot be met with existing technology and do not provide enough time 
for technological improvements. Many other commenters, however, argue 
that the Third Further Notice's benchmarks and timeframes are both 
achievable and reasonable.
    80. The Roadmap proposes horizontal location benchmarks and 
timeframes that, like those in the Third Further Notice, require CMRS 
providers to achieve a defined level of accuracy for a specified 
percentage of 911 calls over a series of interim and longer-term 
deadlines. The details of the Roadmap proposal, however, differ from 
the Third Further Notice proposal in several respects. First, the 
Roadmap proposes to use live call data that would combine indoor and 
outdoor calls for purposes of measuring location accuracy performance, 
where the Third Further Notice proposed an indoor-specific standard 
with test-bed data used to measure compliance. Second, the Roadmap sets 
forth different compliance percentages and timeframes than the Third 
Further Notice: As an interim threshold, the Third Further Notice 
proposes 50-meter accuracy for 67 percent of indoor calls after two 
years, while the Roadmap would require heightened accuracy for 40 
percent of combined indoor and outdoor calls after two years and for 50 
percent of combined calls after three years. For the longer term, the 
Third Further Notice proposes 50-meter accuracy for 80 percent of 
indoor calls after five years, while the Roadmap sets benchmarks of 75 
and 80 percent of combined indoor and outdoor calls for the fifth and 
sixth years, respectively, and would have limited the calculation to 
VoLTE calls.
    81. The parties to the Roadmap contend that the Roadmap benchmarks 
and timelines offer significant advantages over the corresponding 
proposals in the Third Further Notice. The Roadmap parties also argue 
that the proposals included in the Roadmap are technically achievable, 
whereas the proposals of the Third Further Notice were not. Many other 
commenters cite similar reasons for supporting the proposed Roadmap 
horizontal location metrics. For example, CCA believes the Roadmap ``is 
a well-balanced proposal aimed at improving enhanced location

[[Page 11817]]

accuracy standards for both outdoor and indoor calls to 911, while also 
establishing benchmarks for providing `dispatchable location' to first 
responders.''
    82. However, many other commenters criticize the proposed Roadmap 
benchmarks and timeframes as inadequate to improve indoor location 
accuracy. These commenters contend that because the Roadmap accuracy 
benchmarks blend indoor and outdoor measurements, CMRS providers can 
meet the benchmarks primarily through improvements to satellite-based 
location that enhance outdoor location accuracy without achieving any 
significant improvement to indoor location accuracy. They also 
criticize the fact that the Roadmap sets lower percentage thresholds 
than the Third Further Notice, particularly in the early stages (e.g., 
40 percent of calls compared to 67 percent of calls at the two year 
mark), and extends the overall implementation period from five to six 
years. Many commenters also object strongly to the five- and six-year 
Roadmap benchmarks because they only consider VoLTE 911 calls in 
measuring compliance. These commenters generally argue that the 
Commission should reject the Roadmap and simply adopt the original 
benchmarks and timeframes proposed in the Third Further Notice.
    83. In debating the relative merits of the proposed benchmarks and 
timeframes for horizontal location in the Third Further Notice and the 
Roadmap, commenters present contrasting views of the viability of 
certain location technologies to improve horizontal location accuracy, 
particularly indoors. In particular, commenters focus on the following 
technologies: (1) Observed Time Distance of Arrival (OTDOA), (2) 
terrestrial beacon systems, (3) Uplink Time Distance to Arrival 
(UTDOA), (4) Radio Frequency (RF) fingerprinting, and (5) in-building 
infrastructure, including Wi-Fi and Bluetooth.
    84. OTDOA. OTDOA is a location technology that uses the time 
difference observed by user equipment between the reception of downlink 
signals from two different cells. CMRS providers plan to implement 
OTDOA in conjunction with the rollout of VoLTE. While Qualcomm states 
that initial field trials have shown that OTDOA ``is able to provide 
accuracy to within a few tens of meters both indoors and outdoors when 
carriers deploy and configure their networks appropriately,'' it adds 
that OTDOA has not been sufficiently tested yet and that its deployment 
``will require extensive infrastructure improvements and capital 
expenditures by each carrier.''
    85. Terrestrial Beacons. The principal proponent of terrestrial 
beacons is NextNav, which tested a first-generation version of its 
Metropolitan Beacon System (MBS) in the 2013 CSRIC test bed. NextNav 
asserts that its second-generation system has achieved significantly 
improved horizontal accuracy in urban, dense urban, and suburban areas, 
and could meet a five-year performance metric of 50 meters for 80 
percent of indoor calls. NextNav also believes its technology will be 
standardized in 2015 and that comprehensive network construction would 
require fifteen to eighteen months in most urban markets. Commenters 
challenge NextNav's ability to meet the indoor horizontal requirement 
in the timeframe proposed in the Third Further Notice, arguing, for 
example, that NextNav's claimed indoor location accuracy results may be 
overstated because it has only tested a technology prototype.
    86. UTDOA. This is a network-based system developed by TruePosition 
that determines location based on the time it takes the 911 caller's 
cell phone signal to travel to nearby receivers called Location 
Measurement Units (LMUs). TruePosition claims that 2014 test results 
demonstrate that UTDOA technology could meet the Commission's proposed 
two-year accuracy standard today, and could meet the proposed five-year 
standard assuming sufficient density of LMU deployments; it also 
asserts that UTDOA is commercially available, that LMUs could be 
deployed rapidly, and that implementation does not require replacement 
or upgrading of handsets. CMRS providers dispute these assertions, 
arguing that UTDOA is not compatible with the evolving design of 3G and 
4G networks and that it requires handsets to operate at increased power 
that will cause disruptive interference.
    87. RF Fingerprinting. This technology locates wireless calls by 
analyzing radio frequency measurements from all available sources 
(including A-GNSS, OTDOA, and small cells or Wi-Fi hotspots), and 
matching them against a geo-referenced database of the radio 
environment. Its principal proponent, Polaris, states that it has been 
able to ``demonstrate [ ] indoor location accuracies of approximately 
30-40m across a variety of indoor morphologies'' and that it can meet 
the Commission's proposed horizontal accuracy requirements within the 
proposed timeframe. Some commenters, however, question the viability of 
Polaris' technology, arguing that it has received only limited testing 
and that its accuracy in measuring horizontal location degrades with 
the height of the test point.
    88. In-Building Infrastructure. Several commenters note that 
indoor, infrastructure-based technologies that can support dispatchable 
location, as discussed in Section III.B.2.b infra, may also be able to 
provide geodetic coordinates that could improve indoor location. For 
example, Rx Networks submits that ``proliferation of Wi-Fi enabled 
devices such as door locks, thermostats, security systems, and light 
bulbs will increase the density of indoor Wi-Fi devices thereby 
providing a greater number of points that can be located (either 
through self-location or crowd sourcing the location) which will result 
in improved multilateration fixes,'' while TIA asserts that application 
of this standard to Wi-Fi based location ``will be capable of producing 
10 feet of accuracy on a horizontal X/Y axis 90% of the time.''
(ii) Discussion
    89. As noted, both the Third Further Notice and the Amended Roadmap 
propose horizontal location benchmarks and timeframes that require CMRS 
providers to achieve a defined level of accuracy for a specified 
percentage of 911 calls over a series of deadlines, but the proposals 
diverge in some details. In comparing the two, we conclude that some 
elements of the Amended Roadmap proposal offer advantages over our 
original proposal. In particular, the Amended Roadmap offers more 
clarity by identifying the categories of technologies that would be 
deemed to provide ``heightened location accuracy'' sufficient to meet 
its benchmarks. At the same time, it provides flexibility for CMRS 
providers to choose from a wide array of different technological 
approaches to achieve heightened location accuracy, and provides a 
mechanism for development and test-based validation of new location 
technologies. These elements are consistent with our strong preference 
for flexible and technologically neutral rules, as we stated in the 
Third Further Notice.
    90. Another key strength of the Amended Roadmap is its use of live 
911 call data as opposed to relying solely on test data to measure 
compliance with location accuracy requirements. While test data also 
plays an important role in validating location accuracy performance, 
both in the Amended Roadmap and in the rules we adopt in this Report 
and Order, the Amended Roadmap commitment to use live call data 
establishes for the first time an empirical basis for measuring the use 
and performance of different

[[Page 11818]]

technologies in delivering location data to PSAPs, and holds CMRS 
providers accountable based on actual 911 calls rather than solely on 
test calls. Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to incorporate this 
element of the Amended Roadmap into our rules.
    91. We also modify our original proposal to establish horizontal 
location benchmarks at two and five years, instead adopting benchmarks 
at two, three, five, and six years that are more reflective of the 
Amended Roadmap timetable. While many commenters would prefer us to 
adopt our original timetable, we also received extensive comment 
indicating that adhering to overly aggressive deadlines could end up 
being counterproductive. In this respect, we believe the general 
timeframes and benchmarks offered in the Amended Roadmap, which were 
the product of intense negotiation among the Roadmap parties, are more 
realistic and therefore more likely to result in concrete improvements 
in location accuracy. We also note that Roadmap's six-year timeframe is 
not significantly longer than the five-year timeframe proposed in the 
Third Further Notice.
    92. Regarding horizontal location information, the Parallel Path 
commits the non-nationwide CMRS providers to providing dispatchable 
location or x/y location within 50 meters for the following percentages 
of calls:
     40 percent of all wireless 911 calls within two (2) years;
     50 percent of all wireless 911 calls within three (3) 
years;
     70 percent of all wireless 911 calls (including VoLTE 
calls) within the later of five (5) years, from the date of this 
Agreement or six months of having an operational VoLTE platform in 
their network; and
     80 percent of all wireless 911 calls (including VoLTE 
calls) within the later of six (6) years from the date of this 
Agreement or one year of having an operational VoLTE platform in their 
network.
    93. We conclude that it is in the public interest to codify the 
horizontal location benchmarks in the Amended Roadmap (as modified for 
small CMRS providers in the Parallel Path) in this Report and Order. We 
recognize that this approach differs from that of the Third Further 
Notice, which proposed indoor-specific benchmarks for which compliance 
would be measured by testing in a variety of indoor environments. 
However, the approach adopted here, based on the Amended Roadmap, will 
enable measurement of location accuracy performance based on live 
calls, an approach that has substantial benefits. When using live call 
data, it is difficult to distinguish individual 911 calls based on 
whether they were originated indoors or outdoors, as numerous 
commenters point out. Thus, establishing an indoor-specific benchmark 
that relies solely on live call data may not be practical.
    94. As noted above, some commenters have criticized allowing CMRS 
providers to blend location accuracy data from outdoor as well as 
indoor calls. However, we do not believe it is practical or appropriate 
to establish compliance benchmarks that are limited to indoor calls or 
indoor-oriented solutions, or that the foregoing concerns outweigh the 
substantial benefits of live call data. For example, the record 
indicates that satellite-based A-GNSS location is not only capable of 
providing a location fix of 50 meters or less outdoors, but will also 
be able to locate callers in indoor environments where satellite signal 
reception is not compromised (e.g., in single-story wood frame 
buildings or in larger structures where the caller is located near a 
window). NextNav has cited data from the 2013 CSRIC III test bed report 
indicating that the percentage of successful indoor GPS fixes was 23 
percent in urban environments and 11 percent even in dense urban 
environments. We see no reason to discount reliance by CMRS providers 
on such successful indoor fixes in promoting our goals for indoor 
location accuracy. Conversely, particularly in light of the rapidly 
accelerating trend toward indoor wireless calls, we do not believe 
these figures provide any significant disincentive for CMRS providers 
to pursue alternative solutions for indoor calls in more challenging 
indoor locations. Indeed, CMRS providers have significant incentive in 
many indoor situations to pair A-GNSS with other location technologies. 
As CSRIC notes, ``[m]ultiple combinations of different technologies can 
be combined together to produce a more reliable and accurate position 
estimate than any one system alone.'' In regard to LTE specifically, 
CSRIC notes that ``[location a]ccuracy may be improved because LTE 
supports more flexible hybrid positioning methods than 2G/3G. The 
[Serving Mobile Location Center] can initiate multiple location methods 
at once.''
    95. CMRS providers will be able to choose from a variety of 
technology solutions that are either already commercially available or 
close to commercial availability, because they have already recognized 
the potential need to rely on these technologies to meet their 
commitments if there is no timely dispatchable location solution, and 
because CMRS providers will have substantial time and flexibility to 
implement the best solution or combination of solutions. To the extent 
that CMRS providers choose to move forward with dispatchable location, 
as discussed in Section III.B.2.b, infra, any dispatchable location 
solution will count towards the horizontal benchmark at the appropriate 
thresholds. In addition, CMRS providers have the option of leveraging 
indoor infrastructure such as small cells and Wi-Fi hotspots to provide 
x/y location within 50 meters as opposed to dispatchable location. 
Similarly, providers may use OTDOA to comply with the horizontal 
benchmark to the extent that OTDOA is determined through testing to 
meet the 50-meter standard. This is consistent with the CMRS providers' 
commitment in the Roadmap to deploy OTDOA in their roll-out of VoLTE 
and to use it in conjunction with A-GNSS as a primary location 
solution.
    96. In addition to dispatchable location and OTDOA, CMRS providers 
have several other technologies to choose from. While NextNav's first-
generation beacon technology fell short of 50-meter accuracy in some 
environments in the CSRIC test bed, subsequent testing indicates that 
its second-generation MBS technology can achieve 50-meter accuracy in 
suburban, urban, and dense urban environments. Moreover, the additional 
year CMRS providers will have to meet our benchmarks should provide 
sufficient time for deployment of MBS-capable handsets.
    97. UTDOA technology is also sufficiently developed to present a 
viable option for CMRS providers. Although TruePosition has not tested 
UTDOA with LTE networks, CSRIC notes that ``[l]ocation accuracy of 
UTDOA deployed on LTE networks should be comparable to, or better than, 
the accuracy achieved by UTDOA deployed on 3G or 2G networks . . .'' 
UTDOA is already commercially available from two different vendors and 
does not require any handset replacement, only updates to the CMRS 
providers' networks. While some commenters question UTDOA's viability 
because it relies on ``powering up'' by the handset, this is not an 
insurmountable problem. Powering up already occurs for emergency voice 
calls on GSM networks, adjustment of handset power is incorporated into 
industry standards, and any power-up requirements for emergency calls 
would be fairly brief and limited exclusively to 911 calls. We also 
find that should CMRS providers decide to pursue

[[Page 11819]]

UTDOA as a solution, the additional year afforded them to meet the 
benchmarks should provide sufficient time to address any issues 
regarding the impact of LMU deployment on network performance.
    98. Polaris Wireless' RF fingerprinting technology will also likely 
be able to meet our requirements in many indoor environments when used 
in conjunction with other location technologies. Radio Frequency (RF) 
fingerprinting can be used in conjunction with OTDOA and other location 
technologies, with no handset replacement necessary because the RF 
mapping capability is implemented from the network side. Thus, if CMRS 
providers wish to use RF mapping, the technology is also likely to be 
sufficiently developed that it can be used in a hybrid solution to help 
meet both our horizontal location accuracy requirements.
c. Geographic Scope of Horizontal Location Requirements for Non-
Nationwide CMRS Providers
    99. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed to apply the 
horizontal indoor location accuracy requirements on a nationwide-basis, 
across all geographic areas, under the belief that only a limited 
number of environments would require CMRS providers to deploy 
additional infrastructure to satisfy our proposed indoor accuracy 
requirements, so that applying the requirements nationwide would be 
both technologically feasible and economically reasonable. 
Nevertheless, we sought comment on an alternative proposal to apply the 
proposed indoor location accuracy requirement in a more targeted 
fashion based on population and multi-story building density. We also 
sought comment on whether exclusions based on population density or 
dense forestation should apply, as well as how compliance based on one 
or more test beds would affect the definition of areas to exclude.
    100. In response to the Third Further Notice, several commenters 
express support for a targeted application of indoor location 
requirements based on population density. Taking it a step further, 
several small and regional CMRS providers argue that it would also be 
appropriate to exclude rural areas from indoor-focused location 
accuracy requirements. Absent any such exclusion, RWA expresses 
concerns about the ability of small and rural CMRS providers to achieve 
compliance with the indoor horizontal location accuracy requirements in 
the proposed timeframe. SouthernLINC submits that ``a significant 
proportion of the nation's regional and rural carriers are . . . 
transitioning their networks and systems to LTE'' and adds that if the 
nationwide carriers are able to achieve'' the proposed milestones of 
the Roadmap, ``regional and rural carriers should be able to achieve 
them . . ., but would need additional time because the necessary 
technology, equipment, and vendor support will generally not become 
available to them until after the nationwide carriers have completed . 
. . implementation.'' Similarly, CCA remarks that non-nationwide 
providers are not on the same LTE and VoLTE deployment timelines as the 
nationwide CMRS providers. In the Parallel Path, CCA urges the 
Commission to consider providing non-nationwide providers additional 
time to meet the five and six-year horizontal location accuracy 
benchmarks of the Roadmap, so that those providers can ``gain access'' 
to VoLTE handsets.
    101. Discussion. To ensure compliance with our indoor-focused 
location accuracy standards, we provide an approach that addresses the 
concerns of non-nationwide CMRS providers and provides them flexibility 
as they migrate to VoLTE networks. For purposes of the instant Report 
and Order, we refer to providers with networks that are limited to 
regional and local areas--as ``non-nationwide providers.'' We recognize 
that, compared to the four nationwide CMRS providers that are parties 
to the Roadmap, our indoor-focused location accuracy requirements will 
substantially affect non-nationwide CMRS providers, particularly in 
years five and six under horizontal location accuracy requirements we 
adopt today. In this regard, we decline to phase in our horizontal 
location requirements based on population density. Satellite-based 
location technology has already proven able to meet our horizontal 
location requirements in rural areas and should provide the same 
capability soon in urban clusters. Accordingly, small and rural, as 
well as some regional, CMRS providers will likely need to make little 
additional expenditure to comply with our two and three-year horizontal 
location accuracy requirements. Similarly, we do not expect other 
providers to need to expend substantial additional resources to meet 
our requirements in the less densely populated areas that they serve. 
Rather, the non-nationwide providers can focus their resources on 
investing for and meeting our indoor-focused horizontal location 
requirements in years five and six as set forth below.
    102. Moreover, our existing E911 exclusions apply only to outdoor 
areas in which naturally-formed physical characteristics of the area 
prevent the CMRS provider from obtaining accurate location information 
on the 911 caller. Because the rules we adopt today are focused on 
indoor 911 calls--which are not hindered by naturally-formed physical 
characteristics--there is no need to adopt similar exclusions here. 
Moreover, applying these requirements uniformly nationwide is 
consistent with the principle that improving 911 location is just as 
important in the least populous markets as in the most populous.
    103. First, for compliance with the horizontal indoor location 
metrics, we require that the non-nationwide CMRS providers provide 
either dispatchable location or x/y location within 50 meters for the 
same percentages of all wireless 911 calls, applicable to the 
nationwide providers, 40 and 50 percent at the two-year and three-year 
timeframes, respectively, that are measured from the Effective Date. As 
noted above, the record shows that non-nationwide CMRS providers that 
use handset-based location technologies already rely extensively on 
satellite-based location technologies. Further, our requirement allows 
them to comply with the indoor-based location accuracy requirements by 
using any location technologies or combinations thereof. Similarly, 
current network-based non-nationwide CMRS providers can either continue 
to use their non-satellite technologies that provide x/y coordinates or 
combine them with implementing hybrid location technologies within the 
initial timeframes we require. These providers also have the option and 
incentive to commence working on dispatchable location technologies and 
resources to satisfy both our horizontal and vertical requirements.
    104. Second, compared to the horizontal location metrics for years 
five and six under the Roadmap, we require that non-nationwide CMRS 
providers that have deployed a commercially operating VoLTE platform in 
their network shall provide dispatchable location or x/y location 
within 50 meters for the same percentages of all wireless 911 calls 
applicable to the nationwide providers as follows: (i) 70 percent 
within the later of five years or six months of deploying a 
commercially operating VoLTE platform, and (ii) 80 percent of all 
wireless 911 calls within the later of six years or one year of 
deploying a commercially operating VoLTE platform. We agree with CCA 
that the disadvantages non-nationwide CMRS providers face in deploying 
LTE networks warrant flexibility as they migrate to VoLTE networks over 
the next few years. Non-nationwide

[[Page 11820]]

providers are not on the same LTE and VoLTE deployment timelines as the 
nationwide providers. As CCA notes, non-nationwide providers face 
``resource constraints, spectrum constraints, and lack of equipment 
availability'' that mean they ``are often not able to deploy LTE (much 
less VoLTE) on the same or even similar timeline as the nationwide 
carriers.'' More specifically, due to the limited scale and scope of 
their networks, non-nationwide CMRS providers often have limited access 
to handsets that incorporate the latest technologies driven by the 
handset product cycles of the nationwide CMRS providers. In light of 
these challenges, some non-nationwide provides may face unavoidable 
delays in obtaining VoLTE-capable handsets and testing and deploying 
them in their networks. Therefore, we conclude it is reasonable to 
provide non-nationwide CMRS providers with greater flexibility than the 
nationwide providers to extend the five and six-year benchmarks until 
they have had a reasonable opportunity to deploy and begin offering 
VoLTE on their networks. This additional flexibility will enable non-
nationwide small CMRS providers to integrate the measures needed to 
meet our location accuracy standards into their plans to acquire, test, 
and deploy VoLTE handsets and networks.
4. Vertical Location Information
a. Background
    105. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed that CMRS providers 
identify an indoor caller's vertical location within 3 meters for 67 
percent of calls within three years, and for 80 percent of calls within 
five years. We noted that at least one vendor had developed and tested 
vertical location technology that could locate callers to within 2.9 
meters at the 90th percentile and demonstrated improvements in 
subsequent testing, and other vendors estimated having similar granular 
capabilities within three to five years. Moreover, by the time the 
Third Further Notice was released, nearly all smartphones had been 
equipped with sensors that can determine speed, compass direction, and 
movement, and in some cases, height above sea level. These developments 
indicated that vertical location technology had sufficiently matured to 
propose the inclusion of vertical location information for indoor 
wireless 911 calls. We sought comment on whether an initial benchmark 
of three years would be achievable.
    106. Public safety and consumer commenters urge the Commission to 
adopt indoor location accuracy requirements as quickly as possible, but 
the record is divided with regard to the technical feasibility of the 
proposed vertical location accuracy requirements and timeframe for 
implementation. Some commenters argue that the proposed requirements 
are technically feasible, particularly if multifaceted approaches are 
used. Other commenters, however, argue that current vertical location 
technologies are not sufficiently precise to support the proposed level 
of vertical accuracy, and that it will take significantly more time 
than estimated in the Third Further Notice to achieve such accuracy 
levels.
    107. The comments suggest two potential paths for providing floor-
level information with indoor 911 calls: (1) Programming physical fixed 
infrastructure such as beacons or Wi-Fi access points with accurate 
floor-level information, and (2) using barometric pressure sensors in 
handsets to determine the caller's altitude, which is then used to 
identify the caller's floor level. With respect to the second option, 
commenters note that barometric sensors are increasingly common in 
handsets, and some analysts project that the number of smartphones 
equipped with such sensors will increase to 681 million new units per 
year in 2016. Bosch, a leading international supplier of sensors, notes 
that the large volume of sensors being produced has resulted in 
significant economies of scale, which it estimates will drive the per-
unit cost downward to between $0.24 and $0.35 by 2017.
    108. Despite the widespread commercial availability of barometric 
sensors, CMRS providers question the accuracy of the current generation 
of sensors and argue that it will take significant time to develop and 
standardize barometrically-generated vertical location information for 
911 calls. These commenters stress that barometer readings must be 
calibrated in order to provide first responders with meaningful 
information, a process which is currently unstandardized. However, NENA 
and several vendor commenters submit that calibration is not a 
difficult process, and that while calibrated data would provide more 
accurate information and is preferable, even uncalibrated data would be 
useful to first responders.
    109. The Roadmap, Addendum, and additional filings reflect the 
parties' preference for using dispatchable location as the primary 
means to provide vertical location information, but they also make 
specific and measureable commitments to develop and deploy capabilities 
to determine z-axis vertical location information. First, in the 
Amended Roadmap, the CMRS provider parties commit to develop and 
deliver uncompensated barometric pressure sensor data to PSAPs from 
compatible handsets that support such a delivery capability within 
three years. Second, they commit ``to develop a specific z-axis 
location accuracy metric that would be used as the standard for any 
future deployment of z-axis solutions.'' To demonstrate progress along 
this path, the parties agree to ``promote the development and approval 
of standards'' for barometer-based solutions within 18 months. The 
parties also agree to complete (i) a study within six months to 
evaluate options for using barometric pressure data to obtain a z-axis, 
and (ii) a further study within 24 months that would include test bed 
evaluation of barometric and other z-axis solutions. The Addendum 
further commits the nationwide CMRS providers to deploy z-axis 
solutions according to specific benchmarks for major population centers 
in the event they are unable to provide dispatchable location. The 
Addendum provides a quantifiable z-axis backstop if a provider has not 
met the dispatchable location benchmark by year 6 in any of the most 
populous 50 CMAs. Further, a CMRS provider ``will be deemed to have 
implemented a Z-axis location solution in that CMA if its Z-axis 
solution provides coverage for at least 80% of the population of the 
CMA within 8 years'' and ``at least 50% of all new handset model 
offerings everywhere must be z-capable by year 7, and 100% of all new 
handset models by year 8.''
    110. Numerous commenters oppose the Roadmap's vertical location 
provisions, particularly objecting to the fact that the Roadmap 
proposes no specific standard for providing vertical location 
information in the event that a dispatchable location solution cannot 
be achieved. On the other hand, the parties to the Roadmap offer a 
vigorous defense of its vertical location proposals. For example, 
Verizon submits that ``Roadmap opponents that support the NPRM's 
proposed vertical location rules . . . disregard critical facts that 
would limit the availability of barometric pressure sensor-based 
solutions like NextNav's and Polaris Wireless's to consumers in even 
the best of circumstances,'' as well as ``vendors' dependence on 
spectrum licenses; their ability and willingness to deploy their 
solution throughout its licensed area; and a PSAP's need to update its 
own system and equipment to handle the vertical information.'' NENA 
argues that the Roadmap adequately addresses

[[Page 11821]]

vertical location and does not foreclose the possibility of the four 
nationwide CMRS providers providing a comprehensive vertical location 
accuracy solution independent from dispatchable location. Also, CCA 
supports a requirement for non-nationwide providers operating in the 
top 25 to 50 CMAs ``to count uncompensated barometric pressure data 
towards meeting additional [z-axis] requirements'' following the 36 
month assessment of dispatchable location solutions. Several other 
parties offer their support for the Roadmap's proposals for vertical 
location, including two public safety commenters. iPosi suggests a 
compromise that there be a vertical location accuracy ``target'' of 10 
meters within two years of the adoption of rules. Further still, 
several commenters raise concerns that the Addendum fails to offer 
specific benchmarks for vertical location. Polaris Wireless believes 
that CMRS providers are restricting indoor solutions to just a fraction 
of their networks and questions the impact on communities, including 
two-thirds of state capitols, that are not included within the top 50 
CMAs. TruePosition argues that the Addendum proposes to use ``an 
alternative z-axis solution, but one that is far inferior and much 
later in availability than what the FCC has proposed.''
    111. We also sought comment in the Third Further Notice on whether 
PSAPs are ready to accept z-axis information today, and if not, how 
long it will take for a sufficient number of PSAPs to develop this 
capability so that it would be reasonable to impose a z-axis 
requirement on CMRS providers. Some commenters argue that PSAPs could 
receive and process vertical location information immediately on 
existing consoles, even if they have not upgraded to NG911. Other 
commenters argue that even if vertical location information were 
available, a majority of PSAPs will not be able to use it effectively. 
Verizon argues that any implementation deadlines for vertical location 
information should be tied to PSAP readiness across large regional 
areas. APCO argues that even if many PSAPs currently cannot process 
vertical location information, the Commission should establish vertical 
location accuracy requirements and timetables now because PSAPs are 
unlikely to make the necessary upgrades to their systems without 
certainty that CMRS providers will begin delivery of such information 
by a specified deadline.
b. Discussion
    112. Based on the record, we find that there is a need for vertical 
location information in connection with indoor 911 calls, and that 
adopting clear timelines for providers to deliver vertical location 
information is in the public interest. The Amended Roadmap affirms the 
importance and need for floor-level location information to be provided 
to emergency responders. Moreover, the Roadmap, the Addendum, and 
additional filings provide a backstop mechanism using both 
uncompensated barometric data and a specific z-axis location accuracy 
metric to obtain vertical location information for PSAPs as an 
alternative to dispatchable location. Therefore, while 911 calls that 
provide dispatchable location information, as discussed in Section 
III.B.2 above, will count towards the vertical location accuracy 
requirement, the vertical location rules adopted herein are also 
designed to provide for a potential alternative to the Road Map 
parties' preferred solution.
    113. We find that it is reasonable to establish a z-axis metric 
standard for vertical accuracy as an alternative to providing floor-
level accuracy by means of dispatchable location. Although some 
commenters support immediate adoption of a three-meter standard to 
provide PSAPs with accurate floor-level information, we believe that, 
in light of the substantial dispute in the record about the feasibility 
of achieving a z-axis metric on the timetable proposed in the Third 
Further Notice, additional testing and standardization are appropriate 
in order to determine the appropriate accuracy benchmark. Although 
market availability of devices with barometric devices has increased, 
and multiple vendors, including those who participated in the CSRIC 
test bed, have continued to develop and test vertical location 
technologies, challenges remain. We note that vertical location 
information can be provided at varying levels of accuracy. For example, 
uncalibrated barometric pressure data provides some idea of the 
vertical height of a device, but would become more accurate with 
calibration. Even more accurate than calibrated barometric data would 
be floor-level information included as part of the programmed 
dispatchable location of a fixed beacon or Wi-Fi access point, which 
could be validated as the proper location by a barometric pressure 
sensor on the phone. We recognize the challenges with standardization 
and achieving sufficient handset penetration to be able to implement a 
calibrated barometric pressure-based solution within three years, as 
proposed in the Third Further Notice. We find that at present, vertical 
technologies are not as tested nor widely deployed as horizontal ones, 
which justifies applying tailored implementation timeframes for 
achieving indoor location accuracy in the two different dimensions, as 
reflected in the Addendum proposals and the rules we adopt here. We 
conclude that more than three years is likely to be needed for industry 
to deploy infrastructure, to change out handset models, and to 
configure networks and location systems to incorporate vertical 
location information.
    114. Therefore, we adopt rules that (1) require the provision of 
uncompensated barometric pressure readings to PSAPs from capable 
devices within three years of the Effective Date, and (2) require CMRS 
providers to meet a specific z-axis metric and deploy such technology 
in major CMAs beginning six years from the Effective Date.
    115. Uncompensated Barometric Data. Within three years of the 
Effective Date, all CMRS providers must provide uncompensated 
barometric data to PSAPs from any handset that has the capability of 
delivering barometric sensor data. This codifies the commitment that 
CMRS providers have made in the Roadmap and Parallel Path to provide 
such data. The record indicates that handsets with barometric sensors 
are already widely available and we expect the total number of handsets 
with this capability to increase over the next three years. Moreover, 
while some commenters assert that uncompensated barometric data is not 
reliable, NENA notes that uncompensated barometric pressure data would 
be useful to first responders searching for a 911 caller within a 
building, because once in the building, the first responders could 
compare barometric readings from their own devices to the barometric 
readings from the caller's handset in the same building, eliminating 
the need for compensated data. Uncompensated barometric data also 
serves as a readily available data point for calls for which 
dispatchable location is not available or a z-axis metric solution has 
not yet been deployed. Nevertheless, we do not require CMRS providers 
to begin delivery of uncompensated barometric data immediately. 
Although barometric sensors are available in handsets today, CMRS 
providers, service providers, and PSAPs alike will need time to 
incorporate and configure this new data into their systems. We believe 
that a three-year deadline provides sufficient time for development of 
these

[[Page 11822]]

capabilities. We also recognize that non-nationwide CMRS providers seek 
an additional year before being required to provide this information, 
but we find that is not necessary. The rule we adopt today applies only 
to devices with barometric sensors and delivery capability that the 
CMRS provider may choose to offer to consumers and does not require any 
CMRS provider to make such devices available to subscribers.
    116. Z-Axis Metric. Within three years of the Effective Date, we 
require nationwide CMRS providers to use an independently administered 
and transparent test bed process to develop a proposed z-axis accuracy 
metric and to submit the proposed metric to the Commission for 
approval. We believe the testing, standard setting process and formal 
showing to the Commission will ensure industry-wide cooperation to 
determine the most feasible z-axis metric that can be established 
within the timeframes adopted today. We intend that the proposal will 
be placed out for public comment. Any such z-axis metric approved, and, 
if adopted by the Commission, will serve as an alternate six- and 
eight-year benchmark for vertical location should dispatchable location 
not be utilized by a CMRS provider for compliance.
    117. Within six years of the Effective Date, nationwide CMRS 
providers will be required to either (1) meet the dispatchable location 
benchmark described herein; or (2) deploy z-axis technology that 
achieves any such Commission-approved z-axis metric in each of the top 
25 CMAs and covers 80 percent of the population in each of those CMAs. 
Within eight years of the Effective Date, nationwide CMRS providers 
will be required to either meet the dispatchable location benchmark 
described herein, or (2) deploy z-axis technology that achieves any 
such Commission approved z-axis metric in the top 50 CMAs and covers 80 
percent of the population in each of those CMAs. The same requirements 
will apply to non-nationwide CMRS providers serving the top 25 and top 
50 CMAs, except that the six- and eight-year benchmarks will be 
extended to 7 and 9 years, respectively. Taken together, and based on 
the progress identified to date in concert with the rapid rollout of 
VoLTE phones, it is our predictive judgment that the extended six- and 
eight-year timetable for compliance will be more than adequate for 
nationwide CMRS providers, as will the extension by one year each for 
non-nationwide CMRS providers. Our solution recognizes the substantial 
but still incomplete technological progress achieved to date and makes 
the most effective use of the Amended Roadmap to work toward a backstop 
solution in the event the failure of a dispatchable location approach 
requires it. It also provides reasonable and appropriate incentives for 
CMRS providers to ensure the success of their preferred dispatchable 
location solution and/or a z-axis metric alternative.
    118. To further ensure that nationwide CMRS providers are on track 
to provide a proposed z-axis metric for vertical location at three 
years, we require that they report to the Commission on their progress 
towards testing and developing the proposed metric 18 months from the 
Effective Date. As part of the 18-month report, at a minimum, CMRS 
providers must show how they are testing and developing z-axis 
solutions and, consistent with their commitment in the Roadmap, 
demonstrate their efforts to promote the development and approval of 
standards to support such solutions. We find that the requirements and 
adjusted timeframe we adopt today sufficiently address concerns raised 
by commenters with regard to technical feasibility, the time necessary 
for standards development and deployment of new technologies, and for 
integration into PSAP systems and procedures.
    119. We also find that the current limitations on the ability of 
PSAPs to use vertical location information fail to justify delaying 
adoption of vertical location accuracy requirements beyond the 
timeframes adopted in this order. Indeed, public safety commenters 
argue that even imperfect vertical location information would be of use 
to them. We believe the provision of uncompensated barometric pressure 
data mitigates that problem in the near term. We also agree with APCO 
that PSAPs are unlikely to invest in upgrading their equipment and 
software unless there are requirements in place to ensure that the 
information will soon be available to them. While PSAPs may not be able 
to utilize vertical location information immediately, the six-year 
timeframe associated with this requirement provides ample time for 
PSAPs to develop such capability.
    120. Finally, although we adopt a nationwide requirement for all 
CMRS providers to provide uncompensated barometric pressure data to 
PSAPs from any capable handset, we decline to apply a similar 
requirement at this time to the deployment of z-axis metric solution. 
We anticipate that the provision of dispatchable location obviates the 
need for nationwide deployment within the timeframes adopted today. 
Again, we find that the requirements and adjusted timeframe adopted 
herein sufficiently take into account concerns raised by commenters 
with regard to technical feasibility, the time necessary for standards 
development and deployment of new technologies, and for integration 
into PSAP systems and procedures even in rural areas.
5. Implementation Issues
a. Compliance Testing for Indoor Location Accuracy Requirements
    121. Background. In the Third Further Notice, we found that CSRIC 
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 found 
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. We proposed two 
approaches based on representative real-life call scenarios, one 
centered on participation in an independently administered test bed 
program and the second centered on alternative but equivalent testing 
methodologies. Under either proposal, certification would provide a 
``safe harbor'' in which CMRS providers, upon certification that a 
technology meets our location requirements and 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.
    122. Commenters generally support the establishment of a test bed 
for technology vendors and CMRS providers to demonstrate indoor 
location accuracy. CMRS providers urge establishment of an independent 
test bed, and argued that requiring testing in all markets served by 
CMRS providers could delay or impede identifying candidate 
technologies. A number of commenters agree that testing in 
representative environments that include rural, suburban, urban and 
dense urban morphologies provides an acceptable proxy to conducting 
market-by-market testing. Other commenters argue that live 911 call 
data should be compared to any certified results achieved in a test bed 
environment in order for PSAPs to determine if service providers are 
meeting compliance requirements in their area.
    123. In June 2014, CSRIC IV WG1 released its Final Report on 
specifications for an indoor location

[[Page 11823]]

accuracy test bed that included recommendations for methodology, 
management framework, funding, and logistical processes. CSRIC IV 
recommended adopting the CSRIC III test methodology and establishing 
permanent regional test bed facilities in six representative cities 
distributed across the U.S. While CSRIC IV focused on development of 
the test bed for experimental testing, it did not extend the scope of 
its recommendations to the potential use of test bed data to 
demonstrate compliance with location accuracy benchmarks.
    124. The Roadmap provides for establishment of a test bed modeled 
on the CSRIC III recommendations. The Roadmap test bed would facilitate 
testing of both indoor and outdoor 911 location technologies and would 
include both experimental testing and compliance components. The 
Roadmap signatories pledge to establish the test bed by November 2015 
and to operate it in a technology neutral manner in order to test and 
validate existing and future location technologies, including ``OTDOA/
A-GNSS, dispatchable location solutions, and other possible location 
solutions (including but not limited to technologies described in PS 
Docket No. 07-114).'' The Roadmap also provides for use of the test bed 
data to demonstrate CMRS provider compliance with location accuracy 
performance benchmarks. However, rather that measuring compliance based 
on test data alone, the Roadmap would measure compliance based on 
actual use of the tested technologies in live 911 calls.
    125. Most commenters approve of the Roadmap's commitment to 
establish a test bed consistent with CSRIC III's recommendations. 
However, some commenters question whether test bed performance data can 
provide sufficient certainty that the tested technologies will perform 
as well in the real world environment as in the test environment. Other 
commenters contend that the Roadmap test bed proposal has limited value 
because the Roadmap does not contain sufficiently rigorous requirements 
to deploy successfully tested technologies. Some commenters contend 
that the Roadmap test bed proposal leaves out key performance 
indicators which serve to demonstrate whether a technology meets 
Commission benchmarks. Finally, rural CMRS providers express concern 
that due to the limited number of test bed locations, there will be no 
test bed facilities in their service areas and they therefore may be 
forced to conduct more expensive individualized testing.
    126. Discussion. The record strongly supports establishing a test 
bed regime modeled on the CSRIC III recommendations that CMRS providers 
can use to test and verify that location technologies are capable of 
meeting our indoor accuracy requirements. CSRIC III demonstrated the 
feasibility of establishing a test bed and methodology for purposes of 
evaluating the accuracy of different indoor location technologies 
across various indoor environments. CSRIC IV WG1 further validated this 
approach, formally recommending that the Commission adopt CSRIC III's 
methodologies and outlining additional recommendations regarding the 
management, funding and logistical aspects of operating a test bed. The 
Roadmap builds on these recommendations with its commitment to 
establish a test bed regime consistent with the CSRIC principles.
    127. Test Bed Requirements. While the Roadmap establishes an 
appropriate framework for development of a test bed regime, we believe 
that the test bed must conform to certain minimal requirements in order 
for test results derived from the test bed to be considered valid for 
compliance purposes. Specifically, the test bed must (1) include 
testing in representative indoor environments; (2) test for certain 
performance attributes (known as key performance indicators, or KPIs); 
and (3) require 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.
    128. Representative Environment. The test bed shall reflect a 
representative sampling of the different real world environments in 
which CMRS providers will be required to deliver indoor location 
information. Therefore, each test bed should include dense urban, 
urban, suburban and rural morphologies, as defined by the ATIS-0500013 
standard. We believe these morphologies are sufficiently representative 
and inclusive of the variety of indoor environments in which wireless 
911 calls are made.
    129. Performance Attributes. Testing of any technology in the test 
bed must include testing of the following key performance attributes: 
Location accuracy, latency (Time to First Fix), and reliability 
(yield). For purposes of determining compliance with location accuracy 
and latency requirements, testing should at a minimum follow the CSRIC 
III test bed methodology. 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 CSRIC III encountered in 
testing indoor locations, we adopt the following definition of yield 
for testing purposes: The yield percentage shall 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. CMRS providers 
may exclude test calls that are dropped or otherwise disconnected in 10 
seconds or less from calculation of the yield percentage (both the 
denominator and numerator). We require CMRS providers to measure yield 
separately 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.
    130. Testing to Emulate Actual Network Deployment. CMRS providers 
must show both (1) that any indoor location technology used in 
compliance testing is the same technology that will be deployed in its 
network, and (2) that the technology is being tested as it will 
actually be deployed in the CMRS provider's network. In order to count 
use of any tested technology towards any of our accuracy thresholds, 
CMRS providers must certify that they have deployed the technology 
throughout their networks in the same manner as tested. CMRS providers 
must also update their certifications whenever they introduce a new 
technology into their networks or otherwise modify their technology use 
in such a manner that previous compliance testing in the test bed would 
no longer be representative of the technology's current use.
    131. Confidentiality of Test Results. In the Third Further Notice, 
we noted that under the CSRIC III test bed regime, all parties agreed 
that raw test results would be made available only to the vendors whose 
technology was to be tested, to the participating CMRS providers, and 
to the third-party testing house. In order to protect vendors' 
proprietary information, only summary data was made available to all 
other parties. At this time, we will not require CMRS providers to make 
public the details of test results for technologies that have been 
certified by the independent test bed administrator. We believe the 
test administrators'

[[Page 11824]]

certification is sufficient notification that a technology meets our 
key performance indicators.
    132. With regard to non-nationwide CMRS providers that cannot 
participate directly in the test bed, we find that the test bed 
administrator shall make available to them the same data available to 
participating CMRS providers and under the same confidentiality 
requirements established by the test bed administrator. This will 
enable such CMRS providers to determine whether to deploy that 
technology in their own networks. Enabling non-nationwide CMRS 
providers to access test data under the same confidentiality conditions 
as participating CMRS providers obviates the need for individual 
testing by those providers.
b. Use of Live 911 Call Data To Verify Compliance
    133. Background. The Roadmap submitted by the four nationwide 
providers commits to collecting and reporting live 911 call data in six 
test cities recommended by ATIS ESIF on a quarterly basis to NENA and 
APCO, including data on the ``positioning source method'' used to 
deliver each wireless 911 call.
    134. In response to the Roadmap, multiple commenters support the 
collection and reporting of live call data. For example, Cisco submits 
that ``[l]ive call data is an important step and necessitated by the 
commitments made in the Roadmap.'' NASNA contends that CMRS providers 
should report live call data to NASNA and the Commission as well, 
consistent with existing outdoor location accuracy reporting 
requirements. The Lackawanna County, PA District Attorney argues that 
this information should also be made available to law enforcement upon 
request. Small and rural CMRS providers, however, argue that live 911 
call tracking and reporting would be overly burdensome for them. For 
example, though it supports the use of live call data, CCA notes that 
its members ``may not hold licenses for spectrum or otherwise operate 
in any of the six ATIS ESIF regions, much less the single location 
ultimately selected for the test bed,'' and therefore, the Commission 
should improve upon the proposal included in the Roadmap to accommodate 
smaller CMRS providers. In its Parallel Path proposal, CCA suggests 
that non-nationwide providers would also collect and report data if a 
given provider operates in one of the six regions, and if it operates 
in more than one it would collect and report only in half of the 
regions (as selected by the CMRS provider) in order to minimize 
burdens. For those providers not operating in any of the six regions, 
CCA suggests that a provider would collect and report data based on the 
largest county within its footprint, and in where serving more than one 
of the ATIS ESIF morphologies it would also include a sufficient number 
of representative counties to cover each morphology. They suggest that 
such reports would be provided within 60 days following each of the 
two-, three-, five-, and six-year benchmarks.
    135. Discussion. We adopt a modified version of the Roadmap's 
commitment to quarterly reporting of aggregate live 911 call data for 
nationwide providers. We require the nationwide CMRS providers, subject 
to certain confidentiality protections, to aggregate live 911 call data 
on a quarterly basis and report that data to APCO, NENA, the National 
Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA), and the Commission, 
with the first report due 18 months after the Effective Date of this 
requirement. CMRS providers must retain this data for two years. The 
Commission will not publish provider-specific data, but may publish 
aggregate data on its Web site.
    136. We further adopt the Parallel Path's proposal for non-
nationwide CMRS providers. We modify, however, the frequency of 
reporting for non-nationwide providers to every six months, beginning 
at 18 months following the Effective Date of the reporting requirement. 
In this respect, and as herein, we seek to inform our understanding of 
z-axis technologies by providing clear, real world data to augment the 
record data to date. While this may represent a slight increase in 
burden for smaller providers, we find that the clear benefit of this 
actual data in our future review of z-axis metrics outweighs those 
considerations. However, as discussed in Section IV.D, all CMRS 
providers must retain and will be required to produce live call data to 
requesting PSAPs in their service areas as a check on such 
certification.
    137. We will use this data as a complement to the test bed in 
determining compliance. The performance of positioning source methods, 
whether based on geodetic coordinate information or dispatchable 
location, will first be determined based on performance of the 
technology in the test bed. CMRS providers must then certify to the 
Commission that they have deployed the tested technology throughout 
their service areas in a manner that is consistent with the deployment 
of that technology in the test bed, such that the test bed results can 
be reasonably relied upon as representative of the technology's real-
word performance. Each CMRS provider must make this certification on or 
before our three- and six-year benchmarks, and will need to re-certify 
when implementing new technology or otherwise making a significant 
change to its network, such that previous test bed performance is no 
longer representative of the network or technology as now deployed. The 
certification will establish a presumption that 911 location 
performance results derived from live call data from the six ATIS ESIF 
test cities are representative of the CMRS provider's E911 location 
performance throughout in areas outside the reporting areas.
    138. In this respect, submission of test and live call data will 
augment our understanding of the progress of such technologies as we 
consider the providers' proposal for a six-year benchmark when filed in 
the future. In order to maximize the utility of such data for those 
purposes, as well as for compliance, while balancing the potential 
burden of such reporting, we require all providers to include the 
following in their reports.
    139. First, the live call data will include identification of the 
positioning source method or methods used for each call. The test bed 
performance of each positioning source method will then determine the 
degree to which that method can be counted towards the required 
location accuracy thresholds each time that positioning source method 
is used.
    140. Second, to the extent available, live call data for all 
providers shall delineate based on a per technology basis accumulated 
and so identified for: (1) Each of the ATIS ESIF morphologies; (2) on a 
reasonable community level basis; or (3) by census block. In this 
respect, we expect that data will provide a viable, real world 
evaluation of particular indoor location technologies that will inform 
our ability to evaluate the nationwide providers' six-year bench mark 
proposal, and to prove out the various claims in the record as to 
technical achievability.
    141. Finally, in order to verify compliance based on dispatchable 
location, we adopt the Addendum's proposed calculation regarding 
reference point ``density'' within a CMA. We require that nationwide 
CMRS providers include such calculation for relevant CMAs in their 
quarterly reporting. We find that this formulation will be reasonably 
representative of the capability of a

[[Page 11825]]

provider to utilize dispatchable location in a particular CMA.
c. Enforcement of Location Accuracy Requirements
    142. Background. Under Section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules, 
licensees subject to Section 20.18(h) must satisfy the existing E911 
Phase II requirements at either a county- or PSAP-based geographic 
level. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed to adopt this same 
approach to enforcement for indoor location accuracy requirements, 
noting that CMRS providers could choose different technologies to best 
meet the needs of a given area based on individualized factors like 
natural and network topographies. We also recognized, 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 
discussed above. Ultimately, we proposed that enforcement of our indoor 
location accuracy requirements would be measured with actual call data 
within a PSAP's jurisdiction, but as a precondition, the PSAP 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. We observed that 
accurate and reliable delivery of E911 location information depends 
upon the willingness and readiness of PSAPs and CMRS providers to work 
together.
    143. In response, NASNA supports enforcement on a county/PSAP-level 
basis, and ``agrees with the concept of a CMRS provider being required 
to demonstrate compliance with the test,'' but also expresses concern 
that any presumptive compliance demonstrated in the test bed ``not 
hinder or prevent a state or local jurisdiction from taking effective 
action to resolve a problem with any carrier that does not meet the 
location accuracy requirements.'' NextNav submits that applying a PSAP-
level enforcement regime to indoor calls ``would ensure that compliance 
testing reflects the actual makeup in each county and would ensure the 
performance fulfills the expectations of the callers in each area,'' as 
well as ``facilitate comparison of county or PSAP level compliance 
testing with the actual daily operational results experienced in each 
county or PSAP service area.''
    144. On the other hand, several commenters argue that the proposed 
test bed approach would obviate the need for a county- or PSAP-level 
enforcement regime. Verizon states that compliance testing at the 
county- or PSAP-level ``is not feasible without different test bed 
parameters for each county or PSAP,'' and therefore, enforcement at 
this level would ``defeat the purpose and promised efficiencies of a 
test bed in the first place.'' Sprint submits that the Third Further 
Notice ``does not explain how the specific morphology associated with a 
particular county or PSAP will be defined,'' and that ``[t]here will be 
PSAPs and counties that contain multiple different morphologies, which 
will make it more difficult to assess overall compliance.'' Sprint then 
suggests that ``building morphology districts be identified within PSAP 
jurisdictions. Within each morphology district, the various building 
use types and any exempt spaces within a specific building should be 
identified.'' AT&T argues that the number of jurisdictions and PSAPs 
creates an ``administrative nightmare'' and that ``the only realistic 
and reasonable way to measure compliance would be to establish an 
independently administered and FCC-sanctioned test-bed mechanism that 
accounts for all the morphologies by which conformance to the standards 
could be fairly measured for all PSAPs.''
    145. With respect to whether enforcement should be preconditioned 
on PSAPs' use of all available location data, APCO ``understands the 
Commission's desire to ensure that PSAPs use rebidding before filing 
complaints, but is concerned that the proposed standard is vague as 
there may be differing views regarding what constitutes a `rebidding 
policy.' Moreover, the proposed rebidding condition on complaints will 
be irrelevant and unnecessary to the extent that future location 
technologies do not require rebidding to meet accuracy requirements.''
    146. We also sought comment in the Third Further Notice on whether 
we should establish a specialized complaint process as part of our E911 
enforcement strategy. We proposed that, with the filing of an informal 
complaint, PSAPs would have to demonstrate that they have implemented 
bid/re-bid policies designed to enable PSAPs to obtain the 911 location 
information that CMRS providers make available. Some public safety 
groups support this approach, in hopes of encouraging expeditious 
resolution of location accuracy issues, but CMRS providers generally 
oppose such a process. For example, CTIA submits that ``the test bed 
safe harbor approach will become useless if the FCC entertains 
complaints seeking in-building field testing in particular markets. 
Such a complaint process would effectively require CMRS providers to 
test deployments in all markets, which would be inconsistent with the 
Commission's findings that ubiquitous testing is both costly and 
impractical.'' Verizon and CCA argue that ``a PSAP that believes it is 
experiencing degraded performance in its area should first bring its 
concerns to the service provider before lodging an informal complaint 
with the Commission, so that the provider has an opportunity to work in 
good faith to timely address it.''
    147. Discussion. Consistent with our existing E911 requirements, 
the rules we adopt today will be enforced by measuring the provider's 
performance at the county or PSAP level. In response to commenters' 
arguments that the test bed regime obviates the need for enforcement at 
a more granular level, we note that a CMRS provider's test bed results 
create only a presumption of compliance with the location accuracy 
standards with respect to a particular technology used within the 
provider's network. If that presumption can be rebutted with live call 
data or other objective measurements showing lack of compliance with 
our location accuracy requirements, we must be able to enforce our 
rules.
    148. We agree with Verizon and CCA, however, that PSAPs should 
first engage with relevant service providers to see whether an issue 
could be resolved without Commission involvement. As discussed above, 
we require CMRS providers to collect live call data to the extent of 
their coverage footprint in the six ATIS ESIF test cities, for purposes 
of compliance and quarterly reporting to NENA, APCO, NASNA, and the 
Commission. In addition, we require CMRS providers to collect live 911 
call data for its entire service area to make available to PSAPs upon 
request. By enabling PSAPs to obtain meaningful data regarding the 
quality of location fixes delivered with 911 calls, we intend to 
facilitate the ability of PSAPs and CMRS providers to troubleshoot and 
identify issues regarding E911 location accuracy. Accordingly, before a 
PSAP may seek an enforcement action through the Commission, PSAPs 
should first attempt to resolve the issue with the CMRS provider. We 
also require that, before seeking enforcement action, a PSAP must show 
that (1) it has implemented policies (whether through re-bidding or 
other mechanisms) to retrieve all location information being made 
available by the CMRS provider in conjunction with 911 calls and (2) 
provide the CMRS provider with [30] days written notice of the PSAP's 
intention to seek Commission enforcement, which shall include all of

[[Page 11826]]

the documentation upon which the PSAP intends to rely in demonstrating 
the CMRS provider's noncompliance to the Commission. We believe these 
conditions will serve to foster cooperation and transparency among the 
parties.
    149. PSAPs may also file an informal complaint pursuant to the 
Commission's existing complaint procedures. We find that our existing 
informal complaint procedures should be sufficient to address PSAP 
concerns. At the same time, however, given the critical importance of 
addressing any concerns regarding the delivery of location information 
in connection with wireless 911 calls, we encourage parties submitting 
informal complaints to provide copies to PSHSB staff directly. In this 
regard, we seek to ensure that PSAPs and other stakeholders receive 
immediate consideration in the event there is an issue regarding E911 
location accuracy.
    150. Finally, we emphasize that CMRS providers and other 
stakeholders, such as SSPs, share responsibility to ensure the end-to-
end transmittal of wireless 911 call location information to PSAPs, in 
compliance with our E911 location accuracy requirements. All 
stakeholders must collaborate to ensure the delivery of accurate 
location information, as well as the delivery of associated data to 
help PSAPs interpret location information, such as confidence and 
uncertainty data. PSAP call-takers must be able to quickly evaluate, 
trust, and act on such information to dispatch first responders to the 
correct location. In the event any party in the end-to-end delivery of 
location information fails to satisfy its obligation under our E911 
location accuracy requirements, we reserve the right to pursue 
enforcement action or take other measures as appropriate.
d. Liability Protection
    151. Background. In general, liability protection for provision of 
911 service is governed by state law and has traditionally been applied 
only to local exchange carriers (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.
    152. We understand commenters' arguments that liability protection 
is necessary in order for CMRS providers to fully comply with location 
accuracy requirements. In the Third Further Notice, we noted that the 
recent NET 911 Act and Next Generation 911 Advancement Act 
significantly expanded the scope of available 911 liability protection, 
and that we believe this provides sufficient liability protection for 
CMRS providers. Nevertheless, we sought 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. We also sought comment on liability concerns that may 
be raised in conjunction with the possible adverse effect on indoor 
location accuracy from signal boosters, as CMRS providers commenting in 
the Signal Booster Report and Order were concerned about liability for 
location accuracy when those capabilities are affected by signal 
booster use.
    153. The record in response to the Third Further Notice contains 
little substantive comment with regard to liability protection issues. 
CTIA calls for a nationwide liability protection standard for entities 
providing 911 service. BRETSA emphasizes that liability protection for 
911 services should be a matter of state--not federal--law. Qualcomm 
states that ``[t]o the extent the Commission seeks to encourage CMRS 
providers to incorporate potentially inaccurate Wi-Fi location 
information into the location determinations calculus, clarification of 
liability for such unreliable data sources will be needed.'' No 
commenter discussed how liability protection would be impacted by the 
use of signal boosters.
    154. Discussion. In our Text-to-911 Order, we construed the Next 
Generation 911 Advancement Act's definition of ``other emergency 
communication service providers'' as inclusive of over-the-top 
interconnected text providers to the extent that they provide text-to-
911 service. Similarly, we believe that the term ``other emergency 
communications service providers'' also reasonably includes any 
communications service provider to the extent that it provides E911 
service. We believe that the liability protection set forth in the Next 
Generation 911 Advancement Act and other statutes provide adequate 
liability protection for CMRS providers subject to our rules. Moreover, 
we find that the rules we adopt today serve to mitigate or eliminate 
any regulatory uncertainty about 911 indoor location accuracy 
requirements. We take no action at this time with regard to liability 
protection of E911 service providers.
e. Specialized Waiver Process
    155. Background. We sought comment in the Third Further Notice on 
whether we should adopt a specific waiver process for CMRS providers 
who seek relief from our indoor location accuracy requirements. In 
general, the Commission's rules may be waived for good cause shown, 
pursuant to a request or by the Commission's own motion. 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 implementation issues 
were more precisely identified. Accordingly, we sought comment on 
whether and what criteria would be appropriate for any E911-specific 
waiver process, as well as whether providers who believe they cannot 
comply with a particular indoor location accuracy benchmark, despite 
good faith efforts, may submit a certification to this effect six 
months prior to the applicable benchmark.
    156. A number of commenters support, or at least do not oppose, the 
idea of an E911-specific waiver relief process. TruePosition identifies 
several factors specific to indoor 911 location that may be appropriate 
as a basis for an E911-specific waiver process: ``if a carrier has 
ordered the necessary equipment (network hardware, handsets, etc.) that 
would, if delivered on time, meet the indoor safety standards, that 
type of `good faith' effort should be considered as fair grounds for 
granting the service provider additional time.'' BRETSA submits a 
similar argument for ``good faith efforts'' as a basis for granting 
waiver relief. RWA submits that the Commission ``should adopt a safe 
harbor for waiver applicants based on a showing of technical 
infeasibility or financial difficulty,'' which should ``on its own 
should justify a waiver.'' NTCA notes that ``for the small rural 
carriers who comprise NTCA's membership, the expense of a waiver can 
impose a substantial financial burden, and the regulatory uncertainty 
can be disruptive to business planning and operations,'' but 
nevertheless supports the adoption of a streamlined waiver process if 
the Commission were to adopt the location requirements. However, CTIA 
opposes the establishment of a specific waiver process, arguing that 
``a waiver standard that requires a commitment to achieve compliance 
within a specific timeframe . . . is problematic given the 
uncertainties associated with technology availability and 
deployability.'' CTIA argues further that ``the waiver process should 
not be a

[[Page 11827]]

weigh station [sic] on the way to enforcement.''
    157. Discussion. Any CMRS provider that is unable to comply with 
the rules or deadlines adopted herein may seek waiver relief. The 
Commission may grant relief pursuant to the waiver standards set forth 
in Sections 1.3 and 1.925 of its rules, and we believe these provisions 
are sufficient to address any requests for relief of the indoor 
location accuracy requirements, which we will evaluate based on the 
facts and circumstances of the particular request. Therefore, we 
decline to adopt additional waiver criteria at this time that would be 
specific to waiver requests of our indoor accuracy requirements.

C. Benefits and Costs of Indoor Location Accuracy

    158. In this section, we demonstrate that the benefits of building 
upon the Amended Roadmap and Parallel Path with the wireless location 
accuracy rules we adopt today outweigh the costs. 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 in the Third Further Notice we acknowledged the 
potential difficulty of quantifying benefits and burdens, we sought to 
measure how the availability of indoor location information will 
benefit the public through reduced emergency response times, as well as 
how to maximize these benefits, while taking into consideration the 
burden of compliance to CMRS providers. We discuss these issues here.
1. Benefits of Improved Indoor Wireless Location Accuracy
    159. Background. In the Third Further Notice, we sought comment on 
the extent to which improvements in indoor location accuracy would 
result in tangible benefits with respect to the safety of life and 
property. We also noted our belief that improving location accuracy for 
wireless calls to 911, including from indoor environments, would be 
particularly important for persons with disabilities and for those who 
may not be able to provide their address or otherwise describe their 
location and sought comment on the increased value and benefits of 
providing more accurate location information for certain populations, 
such as people with disabilities, victims of crime, senior citizens and 
children.
    160. We cited to a study examining emergency incidents during 2001 
in the Salt Lake City area which found that a decrease in ambulance 
response times reduced the likelihood of mortality (Salt Lake City 
Study). From the results of this study, we reasoned that the location 
accuracy improvements we proposed could save approximately 10,120 lives 
annually, at a value of $9.1 million per life, for an annual benefit of 
approximately $92 billion. We also noted a 2002 study focusing on 
cardiac emergencies in Pennsylvania, which showed that when location 
information was provided contemporaneously with a 911 call, the 
reduction in response time correlated with a reduction in mortality 
rates from cardiac arrest (Cardiac Study). Based on this study, we 
estimated 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 noted 
our expectation that this will result in an even greater improvement in 
patient medical outcomes. We sought comment on the reasonableness of 
our analyses of these studies and our underlying assumptions, as well 
as 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.
    161. The large majority of commenters affirm the importance of 
improvements to indoor location accuracy. Several commenters state that 
improved location accuracy would lead to more rapid response time by 
eliminating time and resources spent pursuing incorrect addresses and 
locations. The Commission's expectation that improving location 
information quality would lead to a decline in latency was further 
confirmed by recent testing conducted by public safety representatives 
in the CSRIC test bed. Many commenters also agree that shorter response 
times lead to not only reductions in mortality, but better prognoses 
for many non-life-threatening cases. Many commenters also concur that 
improved location information can be particularly important for saving 
the lives of persons with disabilities and for those who may not be 
able to adequately communicate their location to a 911 call-taker. AT&T 
is the only commenter that does not agree that the Salt Lake City 
Study's findings are indicative of benefits that the public should 
expect from the implementation of tighter location accuracy 
requirements.
    162. Discussion. We conclude that the location accuracy rules we 
adopt today will improve emergency response times, which, in turn, will 
improve patient outcomes, and save lives. Requiring location 
information for wireless calls to 911 from indoors is thus consistent 
with our statutory goal of ``promoting safety of life and property.'' 
Further, we must be more inclusive in our requirements than those 
proposed by the Roadmap because its five-year and six-year location 
accuracy metrics risk stranding non-VoLTE consumers without the life-
saving benefits of improved wireless indoor location accuracy 
technology. Finally, by providing a z-axis metric as a backstop to 
dispatchable location for identifying floor level of 911 calls from 
multi-story buildings, we ensure that vertical location accuracy is 
achieved within the timeframe laid out by the Roadmap. These 
commercially reasonable requirements ensure that the full benefits of 
improved wireless indoor location accuracy are realized by addressing 
gaps in the Roadmap proposal while adopting and codifying its major 
elements and adapting our rules to its overall timeframe.
    163. The location accuracy rules we adopt today are a measured 
response to the critical public safety need for improved wireless 
indoor location accuracy. While AT&T makes an array of arguments 
against the benefits the Commission has identified as a likely result 
of improved indoor location accuracy, we find that the Salt Lake City 
Study offers a relevant basis upon which to base the projected benefits 
of the location accuracy requirements we adopt in this item, and that 
the value of statistical life (VSL) offers an appropriate measurement 
for the public's valuation of lives saved as a result of these rules.
    164. The Salt Lake City Study demonstrates that faster response 
time lowers mortality risk. Changes in cellphone usage patterns do not 
undermine this finding. AT&T argues that even if the Salt Lake City 
Study demonstrated that delayed response time might increase mortality, 
it does not necessarily follow that improved response times would 
reduce mortality. However, the record shows that for certain medical 
emergencies like sudden cardiac arrest (SCA), the length of response 
time may be determinative of whether or not a patient survives. Sudden 
cardiac arrest is the leading cause of death of American adults over 
age 40, with 9 out of 10 incidents resulting in death. The Sudden 
Cardiac Arrest Foundation states that ``SCA victims can survive if they 
receive immediate CPR and are treated quickly with defibrillators,'' 
but caveats that ``[t]o be effective, this treatment must be delivered 
quickly--ideally, within three to five minutes after collapse.''

[[Page 11828]]

Considering the high mortality rate and time-sensitive nature of this 
increasingly widespread health risk, it follows that improved location 
accuracy leading to shorter response times would reduce mortality rates 
for this very large group of medical emergencies. We also disagree with 
AT&T's argument that the Salt Lake City Study's findings are inapposite 
because the increase in wireless cellular phone usage has already 
shortened the amount of time that individuals delay before calling 911. 
The time that it takes for an individual to respond appropriately to an 
unexpected emergency is a function of a wide variety of factors beyond 
cellphone proximity.
    165. The DoT's VSL was designed to calculate the value of 
preventing injuries or deaths. That makes VSL an appropriate metric for 
our analysis of the projected benefits of the wireless location 
accuracy rules we adopt today. AT&T argues that our use of DoT's VSL 
statistic is inapposite because those affected by our wireless location 
accuracy rules have already contracted a disease or been seriously 
injured. As stated by AARP, however, the relevant timeframe during 
which a life should be valued for the purpose of our analysis is not 
the moment at which that individual dials 911, but the time when a 
presumptively healthy consumer decides whether to buy a given cellphone 
product based at least in part on their perception that they will be 
able to use that cellphone to timely summon life-saving assistance.
    166. We conclude that the location accuracy improvements we adopt 
today have the potential to save approximately 10,120 lives annually, 
at a value of $9.1 million per life, for an annual benefit of 
approximately $92 billion, or $291 per wireless subscriber. We find 
that our reliance on the Salt Lake City Study to arrive at those 
figures is well-placed, and that our analysis as to the applicability 
of that study to the rules we adopt today is fundamentally sound. We 
are not persuaded by AT&T's counterarguments with respect to the 
projected benefits because of its unsupported assumptions about the 
relationship between response time and mortality risk, and its 
misguided approach to valuing human life that presupposes life-
threatening conditions. Even if we were to adopt AT&T's perspective, 
however, it still stands to reason that the average wireless subscriber 
would likely be willing to pay $291 per year to live an extra 23.7 
days, the average increase in life expectancy that the Salt Lake City 
Study leads us to believe should be expected to result from the rules 
we adopt today.
2. Costs of Improved Indoor Wireless Location Accuracy
    167. Background. In the Third Further Notice we noted that 
implementation of stricter indoor location accuracy requirements will 
likely impose significant costs on providers and sought comment 
generally on the costs of such requirements, as well as detailed 
information on all of the costs providers estimate our proposed indoor 
location rules would impose on them, and how these costs were 
determined. We also sought 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; and on 
whether additional costs would be passed on to consumers, resulting in 
higher rates and, if so, how much rates would increase. Finally, we 
indicated our belief 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 and sought 
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. We asked 
whether additional costs would be imposed by the potential indoor 
location requirements set forth in the Third Further Notice above and 
beyond the costs that CMRS providers would already have in implementing 
indoor location capabilities for commercial purposes.
    168. Technology-Specific Costs. While commenters do not make 
nuanced statements about costs that will confront the industry in order 
to attain compliance with our proposed indoor location accuracy 
standards, they offer a variety of opinions on the costs presented by 
the adoption of specific technologies. Commenters agree that barometric 
pressure sensors are already ``relatively inexpensive,'' and, 
consistent with the general cost-based observations made in Section 
III.B.4.a above, conclude that the price should be expected to continue 
to fall at a rate of approximately 15 percent per year as adoption 
grows. Commenters also agree that establishing improved wireless indoor 
location accuracy through a solution utilizing terrestrial beacons 
would entail an additional per-unit cost of $1,500-$3,000, plus 
additional site lease charges. According to NextNav, receivers 
utilizing UTDOA are already deployed within CMRS networks and are 
already supported by handsets, and such a ``broadcast-only location 
network requires no additional transmitters or spectrum, nor does it 
entail expensive backhaul, or extensive antennae arrays.'' Commenters 
also state that consumer handsets already contain GPS receivers, and 
the technology has robustly responded to technological change, proving 
highly reliable results across multiple generations of technology, and 
avoiding the risk of stranded investment. Finally, Rx Networks, on 
behalf of smaller CMRS providers, advocates for the establishment of a 
centralized and standardized service to process location requests. Such 
a clearinghouse solution would entail a base station almanac of Cell-
IDs and Wi-Fi access point locations, and cost-effective provisioning 
of A-GNSS and barometric pressure data among CMRS providers. Rx 
Networks asserts that such a solution bridges technical gaps, and 
simplifies business relationships while minimizing capital outlays.
    169. Cost Mitigation. Commenters agree that CMRS provider costs can 
be diminished through the sharing of infrastructural solutions and that 
the growth in national demand for these technologies will eventually 
drive these costs down. Commenters also agree that CMRS providers are 
already in the midst of a transition to all-digital, all-IP networks, 
and have already begun work to improve location accuracy within their 
systems for commercial reasons. For these reasons, according to 
Motorola, CMRS providers have already added the permanent employees 
needed to engineer and manage the processes required for further 
improvements to location accuracy. Additionally, TruePosition opines 
that one of the benefits of today's proceeding is that it may entail 
cost savings upwards of $100 billion for CMRS providers who ultimately 
retire their traditional circuit-switched copper-loop networks and 
complete their transition to an all-digital IP ecosystem. Moreover, 
according to NENA, ``[u]nlike 2000, handsets today can already leverage 
existing capabilities for horizontal and, in some cases, vertical 
location determination. This means that carriers need only close the 
gap between already-deployed capabilities and the Commission's proposed 
requirement, rather than starting from scratch.''
    170. Discussion. We find that among the myriad potential costs 
posed by the variety of location accuracy technologies discussed in 
this section, all share the commonality that their price will decline 
as demand grows. In light of our commitment to technology neutrality, 
as we emphasized in the

[[Page 11829]]

Third Further Notice, we do not mandate any particular model for 
implementing the location accuracy rules we adopt today, and apply 
these requirements on a technologically neutral and provider-neutral 
basis. That said, we note that NextNav reports on their Web site that 
it recently secured $70 million in funding to maintain and operate its 
MBS network. This indicates that there are solutions available to 
achieve the indoor wireless location accuracy standards we adopt today 
at a cost that is far less than their $92 billion minimum benefit 
floor. Finally, we acknowledge that the costs imposed by the rules we 
adopt today may present a proportionately greater burden to smaller 
CMRS providers, including the costs associated with participation in 
the test bed. So, although the cost of meeting our indoor location 
accuracy rules has not yet been determined to a dollar amount, 
commenters provide the Commission with a paradigm for understanding the 
shape that such costs will take.

IV. Improving the Delivery of Phase II Location Information

    171. In the following sections, we adopt measures to ensure that 
PSAPs receive Phase II information in a swift and consistent format, 
and to improve the quality of the Phase II information. 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.

A. Latency (Time to First Fix)

    172. Background. The Commission's current E911 location accuracy 
rules do not require CMRS providers to test for or to meet a specific 
latency threshold, commonly known as ``Time to First Fix'' (TTFF). In 
the Third Further Notice, we proposed to require CMRS providers to 
deliver Phase II-compliant location information to the network's 
location information center within 30 seconds in order for the location 
fix to count in a CMRS provider's calculation of percentage of calls 
that comply with our rules. We also proposed to exclude from this 
compliance calculation any wireless 911 calls lasting 10 seconds or 
less, an interval which is often too short for a CMRS network to 
feasibly generate and deliver a location fix to its location 
information center. We ultimately proposed to include calls lasting 
more than 10 seconds in the calculation.
    173. A number of public safety and industry commenters support a 
maximum latency of 30 seconds for obtaining a location fix as 
reasonable based on the performance of current handset and network-
based technologies. Some commenters, however, urge the Commission to 
set maximum latency at less than 30 seconds. Industry commenters also 
oppose the proposal to exclude only calls of less than 10 seconds. They 
argue that it is unreasonable to allow CMRS providers up to 30 seconds 
to obtain a location fix while also including calls lasting more than 
10 but less than 30 seconds in the compliance calculation. AT&T submits 
that ``all calls should be given at least 30 seconds for purposes of 
calculating the location-accuracy success rate'' and that to ``do 
[otherwise] would unfairly mischaracterize the provider's compliance 
with location-accuracy benchmarks.''
    174. Discussion. We add a maximum latency requirement of 30 seconds 
to the existing E911 Phase II rules applicable to outdoor calls, but we 
conclude it is premature to include this requirement as part of the new 
rules adopted in this order for indoor location. Thus, for a 911 call 
to meet Phase II requirements, a CMRS provider must deliver Phase II-
compliant information to its location information center within 30 
seconds, as measured from the start of the call to when the information 
is delivered to the location information center. In calculating 
percentages of Phase II-compliant calls, CMRS providers must include 
calls lasting 30 seconds or more for which they are unable to deliver a 
Phase II location fix. We apply this requirement only to our existing 
E911 regime, which determines compliance based on outdoor measurements 
only. Thus, compliance with our TTFF requirement will be based on the 
results of outdoor testing, and will not be measured from the live 911 
call data from the six test cities.
    175. We find that a 30-second maximum latency period appropriately 
balances the need for first responders to obtain a prompt location fix 
and the need to allow sufficient time for location accuracy 
technologies to work effectively. Excessive delay in the provision of 
location information can undermine or negate its benefits to public 
safety, but providing sufficient time for location technologies to work 
can lead to improved accuracy that reduces overall response time. As 
CSRIC III noted, 30 seconds is ``generally accepted as the de facto 
standard for maximum latency in E9-1-1 location delivery.'' The record 
in this proceeding similarly indicates that a maximum latency interval 
of 30 seconds is technically achievable using current location 
technology, and that improved chipsets in devices will further reduce 
the frequency of calls where the TTFF takes longer than 30 seconds.
    176. In fact, we expect technology to reduce latency for many 
wireless 911 calls to significantly less than 30 seconds. CMRS 
providers indicate that new satellite positioning technologies they are 
planning to implement in conjunction with deployment of VoLTE will 
likely reduce latency fix for wireless 911 calls from outdoor 
locations. For example, newer-generation A-GNSS may be capable of 
generating a location fix within 12-15 seconds. Nevertheless, even in 
such cases, allowing up to 30 seconds provides additional time to 
refine the location information and potentially return a more accurate 
location fix. On balance, we find that a 30-second maximum latency 
period will encourage solutions that deliver location information to 
first responders quickly while providing flexibility for solutions that 
can deliver greater accuracy over a modestly longer time interval. 
Establishing a maximum latency period will also ensure that PSAPs and 
CMRS providers have the same expectations regarding the timeframe for 
delivering location information.
    177. While we adopt the 30-second maximum latency period for 
outdoor calls as proposed in the Third Further Notice, we decline to 
adopt our proposal to exclude calls of 10 seconds or less while 
including calls of 10 to 30 seconds in the compliance calculation. We 
agree with industry commenters that where a call lasts less than 30 
seconds, we should not penalize the provider for failing to obtain a 
Phase II-compliant fix that requires up to 30 seconds to generate and 
that would count towards compliance if the call lasted 30 seconds or 
more. Therefore, we will allow CMRS providers to exclude from their 
compliance calculation any wireless 911 call lasting less than 30 
seconds for which the provider is unable to deliver a Phase II-
compliant fix. On the other hand, to provide an incentive for CMRS 
providers to reduce latency below 30 seconds, CMRS providers may count 
any Phase II-compliant call in which the location fix is delivered in 
less than 30 seconds, regardless of the duration of the call.
    178. Finally, as noted above, we limit the scope of the 30-second 
latency requirement to wireless 911 calls covered by our existing Phase 
II rules, as we believe it is premature to impose a latency standard 
for indoor calls at this time. Compliance will be measured by 
evaluating the results of each CMRS providers' outdoor drive testing. 
CMRS providers have yet to test location for latency, among other 
metrics, in

[[Page 11830]]

generating dispatchable location information derived from various 
indoor access points or beacons. Moreover, although location 
information from beacons and small cells could likely be determined 
almost instantaneously, the various new technologies that are included 
in ``heightened location accuracy technologies'' under the Roadmap have 
not yet been tested for latency. Therefore, while the record suggests 
that existing and developing indoor location technologies should be 
capable of delivering accurate location information in 30 seconds or 
less for most calls, we conclude that consideration of this issue 
should be deferred. Once there has been an opportunity to evaluate the 
performance of indoor location technologies based on test bed results 
and live call data from the six geographic test regions, we will be 
better able to determine whether to extend latency requirements to 
these new location technologies.

B. Retaining E911 Phase II Location Accuracy Standards for Outdoor 
Measurements

    179. Background. In light of advancements made in A-GPS technology 
and the migration of some CMRS providers from GSM networks and network-
based location to 4G and LTE networks and handset-based location, the 
Third Further Notice sought comment on whether all CMRS providers 
reasonably could comply with a 50-meter accuracy/67 percent reliability 
requirement within two years pursuant to a unitary location accuracy 
requirement for both indoor and outdoor calls. Prior to the submission 
of the Roadmap, some public safety and industry commenters supported a 
unitary accuracy standard. Other commenters expressed that it is 
premature for the Commission to establish such a standard. However, 
because CMRS providers do not yet have the technical capability to 
distinguish indoor from outdoor calls, we address below the reasons for 
retaining our existing E911 location rules that are based on outdoor 
testing measurements.
    180. Discussion. We find that it is premature to eliminate the 
current E911 Phase II rules and replace them with a unitary location 
accuracy standard at this time. The current E911 Phase II rules provide 
a set of established outdoor-focused location accuracy benchmarks for 
CMRS providers using either network-based or handset-based location 
technologies and allow the network-based CMRS providers to switch to 
handset-based technologies. The current outdoor-based rules thus serve 
to maintain regulatory certainty for CMRS providers that continue to 
provide service on their legacy systems while they are planning to 
migrate to VoLTE networks. The major CMRS providers that either have 
initiated VoLTE service or plan to deploy it in 2015 must also continue 
to comply with the benchmarks under the Commission's rules for 
measuring the accuracy of outdoor calls. Thus, the additional location 
accuracy requirements we adopt in this order, which focus on improving 
indoor location accuracy, will serve to complement rather than replace 
the existing Phase II rules based on outdoor testing measurements.
    181. We recognize that the six-year timeframe adopted in this order 
for indoor-focused accuracy standards may ultimately moot the issue of 
whether to replace the current outdoor-based accuracy requirements for 
E11 Phase II. The five and six-year benchmarks in the new rules, set to 
take effect in 2020 and 2021, will require 50-meter accuracy for 70 and 
80 percent of all wireless 911 calls, respectively, and will apply to 
indoor and outdoor calls, thus exceeding the current Phase II handset-
based standard of 50-meter accuracy for 67 percent of calls, based on 
outdoor measurements only. The last handset-based benchmark under the 
current Phase II requirements will occur in January 18, 2019. Thus, 
once the last Phase II benchmark has passed, we may revisit the issue 
of when to sunset date the current Phase II requirements and establish 
a unitary accuracy standard.

C. Confidence and Uncertainty (C/U) Data

    182. Background. The Commission's current E911 Phase II rules 
require that CMRS providers provide confidence and uncertainty (C/U) 
data on a per-call basis upon PSAP request. C/U data reflects the 
degree of certainty that a 911 caller is within a specified radius of 
the location provided by the CMRS provider. The Third Further Notice 
recognized, however, that C/U data is not always utilized by PSAPs and 
that sought comment on how C/U data could be provided in a more useful 
manner. In particular, we sought comment on the provision of C/U data 
for all wireless 911 calls, whether outdoor or indoor, on a per-call 
basis at the request of a PSAP, with a uniform confidence level of 90 
percent. Additionally, the Third Further Notice sought comment on 
standardization of the delivery and format for C/U data to PSAPs.
    183. In response, most public safety and industry commenters agree 
that a standardized confidence level of 90 percent would provide 
important, useful information to PSAPs in interpreting the quality of 
location information and would rectify the current CMRS provider 
practice of using varying confidence levels in providing uncertainty 
data.
    184. Discussion. We find that requiring CMRS providers to furnish 
C/U data based on a standardized confidence value will provide 
significant benefits to PSAP call-takers and can be furnished to PSAPs 
at minimal cost to CMRS providers. We therefore require that C/U data 
for all wireless 911 calls--whether placed from indoors or outdoors--be 
delivered on a per-call basis at the request of a PSAP, with a uniform 
confidence level of 90 percent. The record reflects that CMRS providers 
currently use varying levels of confidence in their C/U data, resulting 
in potential confusion among call-takers. We find that a uniform 
confidence level will help PSAPs understand and better utilize location 
information. By standardizing confidence levels, call-takers will more 
easily be able to identify when a location fix is less trustworthy due 
to larger uncertainties. As TCS explains, with a standardized 
confidence value, ``if the uncertainty of the location fix . . . is 
within a reasonable margin,'' the PSAP ``call taker should have enough 
assurance to dispatch emergency services.'' Further, the magnitude of 
the uncertainty value varying with a standardized confidence value 
could also convey meaningful information to the call-taker regarding 
the type of location fix being provided. For example, in the event a 
CMRS provider is delivering dispatchable location information, the 
uncertainty value would either be zero or a very tight geometric figure 
with a radius less than 50 meters.
    185. Moreover, the record indicates that a standardized 90 percent 
confidence value will serve to eliminate confusion on the part of 
emergency call-takers and is supported by numerous commenters. As ATIS 
explains, a 90 percent confidence level will provide ``for the 
consistent interpretation of location data by the PSAP staff without 
significantly affecting the integrity of the calculated 
[uncertainty].'' We note that some commenters recommend an even higher 
standardized confidence value, e.g., 95 percent, either in the near 
term or as new technologies are implemented in the long-term. On the 
other hand, RWA alleges in its initial comments that ``[a] confidence 
level of 90% is too high for rural carriers to meet without the 
expensive construction of additional cell sites.'' We find that a

[[Page 11831]]

confidence level of 90 percent, while accompanied by an uncertainty 
radius that will vary, strikes an appropriate balance. While we 
recognize that a standardized value of 90 percent will result in larger 
reported uncertainties for some 911 calls, there will be a greater 
probability that callers will be found within the area of uncertainty. 
As technology evolves and as location accuracy improves over time, we 
may revisit whether to adopt an even higher required confidence level.
    186. In light of these public interest benefits, we disagree with 
commenters who oppose standardizing a set of confidence and uncertainty 
values. For example, while Verizon ``agrees that there may be value'' 
in establishing a uniform confidence level, it nevertheless asserts 
that the delivery of C/U data should be ``appropriately left to 
standards or best practices, as PSAP[s] need to determine what approach 
makes sense . . .'' Others contend that further study is necessary, 
especially as location technologies evolve. We see no reason to delay 
the delivery of more uniform C/U data. By reducing the variability in 
C/U information, we can help ensure that call-takers more fully 
understand the location information that is provided to them, enabling 
them to respond more efficiently to emergencies.
    187. Requiring a standardized confidence level of 90 percent (with 
varying uncertainty values) will also provide CMRS providers with 
regulatory certainty as they configure C/U data using newly implemented 
location technologies. Ensuring the continued provision of C/U data, in 
a manner that allows PSAPs to fully utilize and understand that data, 
is particularly timely as providers migrate to 4G VoLTE networks. CSRIC 
IV WG1 reports that ``[t]he content of the Phase II location estimate 
delivered to the PSAP'' for a VoLTE 4G network ``includes the same 
position, confidence, and uncertainty parameters used in 2G/3G networks 
for technologies that directly generate geographic (i.e., X,Y) 
location.'' CSRIC IV adds that these parameters can be ``formatted 
appropriately for legacy PSAPs as well as NG9-1-1 PSAPs.''
    188. We find that the costs of implementing a standardized 
confidence level should be minimal. Because CMRS providers are 
currently required to deliver C/U data to requesting PSAPs on a per-
call basis, they have already programmed their networks to furnish a 
confidence value, with some CMRS providers already either delivering or 
testing for it with a 90 percent confidence level. Moreover, RWA does 
not offer support for its allegation that a 90 percent standard 
confidence level would necessitate the construction of additional cell 
sites and therefore create a burden on small CMRS providers. Likewise, 
we find that the costs for SSPs to continue to transport C/U data to 
ensure its delivery to PSAPs would be minimal. Like CMRS providers, 
SSPs currently must ensure that PSAPs receive C/U data on a per-call 
basis. The requirement we adopt for C/U data will continue to apply to 
all entities responsible for transporting C/U data between CMRS 
providers and PSAPs, including LECs, CLECs, owners of E911 networks, 
and emergency service providers, to enable the transmission of such 
data to the requesting PSAP.
    189. Finally, we note that commenters generally support the 
delivery of C/U data to PSAPs using a consistent format. As discussed 
above, we believe that consistency in the delivery of C/U data will 
promote PSAP call-takers' ability to more readily evaluate the C/U data 
being delivered. We therefore urge stakeholders to work together to 
develop a consistent format for the delivery of C/U data that considers 
the different capabilities of PSAPs to receive both geodetic and 
dispatchable location information. We also encourage the public safety 
community to continue to take measures to ensure that PSAP call-takers 
can fully benefit from the availability of C/U data, including 
obtaining upgraded CPE and programming, as well as providing relevant 
education and training.

D. Provision of Live 911 Call Data

    190. Background. The Third Further Notice sought comment on whether 
the Commission should require providers to periodically report E911 
Phase II call tracking information, and if so, on the scope of 
information that should be reported. Numerous commenters support this 
proposal. For instance, Verizon submits that such data could be 
``helpful in evaluating . . . delivery issues associated with 
particular PSAPs, or in assessing if a location solution faces 
particular topology and RF challenges in a particular geographic 
area.'' NextNav submits that reporting the TTFF, yield, and type of 
technology used to obtain a location fix should be sufficient to 
evaluate whether a CMRS provider's performance is consistent with test 
bed performance. RWA, however, contends that ``the cost of providing 
the FCC with call tracking information is high,'' with ``little 
certainty'' as to its utility to the Commission.
    191. Discussion. We require all CMRS providers to collect and 
retain for two years 911 call tracking data for all wireless 911 calls 
placed on their networks. This requirement is separate from, and in 
addition to, the provisions for quarterly reporting of live call data 
by CMRS providers in the six test cities as discussed in Section 
III.B.5.b above, though for CMRS providers in the six test cities, some 
of the data will overlap. Aside from those quarterly aggregate 
reporting requirements, we do not require CMRS providers to report 
general call tracking data. However, upon request of a PSAP within a 
CMRS provider's service area, the CMRS provider must provide the PSAP 
with call tracking data for all 911 calls delivered to that PSAP. The 
call tracking data should include, but need not be limited to: (1) The 
date, time, and length of each call; (2) the class of service of the 
call (i.e., whether a call was delivered with Phase I or Phase II 
information, or other type of information); (3) the percentage of calls 
lasting 30 seconds or more that achieved a Phase II-compliant fix; (4) 
confidence and uncertainty data for each call; and (5) the positioning 
source method used for determining a location fix. In order to comply 
with this requirement and to be able to provide such data upon 
individual PSAP request, CMRS providers must collect data on all 911 
calls throughout their service area. Some commenters suggest that 
delivering this additional information in real time may be confusing to 
PSAP call-takers, but our requirement requires only that CMRS providers 
collect this information; the PSAP must request to receive some or all 
of the data in real time, or in the aggregate on a monthly or quarterly 
basis.
    192. In sum, our call tracking requirements will empower multiple 
stakeholders to monitor and ensure that location information is 
compliant with our E911 requirements, and will provide PSAPs and CMRS 
providers with an objective set of data that can help inform decision-
making in the event of a service issue or dispute between the parties 
as to E911 compliance. In this regard, our call tracking requirement 
will serve to encourage transparency, accountability, and cooperation 
among stakeholders.

E. Outdoor Compliance Testing and Reporting

    193. Background. In the Third Further Notice, we proposed that 
periodic testing would be necessary as providers upgrade their networks 
and migrate to handset-based technologies. We also sought comment on 
the

[[Page 11832]]

recommendations set forth in CSRIC WG3's Outdoor Location Accuracy 
Report. CSRIC WG3's central recommendation was that ``[a]lternative 
testing methods replace full compliance testing'' every 24 months, 
using a testing scheme that rested on certain ATIS Technical Reports. 
Subsequently, CSRIC IV WG1 found the ``location performance with VoLTE 
to be slightly better than or equivalent to 2G and 3G performance,'' 
and recommended that ``these expectations should be validated via the 
maintenance testing methodology, including representative testing or 
`spot-checking,' '' as previously recommended by CSRIC WG3.
    194. Public safety commenters support the periodic testing proposal 
and suggest that testing requirements should cover both indoor and 
outdoor location accuracy performance. For instance, APCO agrees with 
the recommendations in the CSRIC WG3 report and ``urg[ed] the 
Commission to adopt appropriate rules to implement those 
recommendations.''
    195. CMRS providers oppose the Commission's proposal as costly and 
unnecessary. For example, RWA and CCA oppose periodic testing as 
burdensome on small rural CMRS providers. However, both RWA and CCA 
submit that periodic testing is appropriate in case of substantial 
network changes.
    196. Discussion. We believe that conducting periodic testing 
continues to be appropriate to ensure compliance with outdoor location 
accuracy parameters. CMRS providers' efforts to measure for, and ensure 
continuing compliance with, the Commission's outdoor-based location 
accuracy requirements are critical to public safety, particularly as 
new networks and technologies are implemented. Further, we find that 
periodic testing will support the reporting of outdoor call data that 
is included in the Roadmap as part of the live call data. Because CMRS 
providers will blend all 911 call data, CMRS providers should 
incorporate an approach to test for compliance with the current 
outdoor-based location accuracy standards. For instance, CMRS providers 
may need to undertake drive testing in certain counties or PSAP service 
areas where they have migrated to VoLTE and that are outside the six 
test regions.
    197. While we do not codify any particular approach, we find that 
the ongoing maintenance testing framework set forth in the CSRIC III 
WG3 and CSRIC IV WG1 recommendations provides a reasonable and adequate 
basis for ensuring continued compliance with our E911 location accuracy 
requirements. We urge CMRS providers to undertake periodic testing to 
ensure continued compliance accordingly. Moreover, such ongoing testing 
enables CMRS providers to implement testing protocols more efficiently 
and without the cost burdens associated with periodic testing pursuant 
to a mandatory, established timetable (e.g., every two years). 
Consistent with CSRIC's recommendations, CMRS providers should conduct 
testing upon any significant technology changes or upgrades to their 
networks, including those changes accompanying the deployment of VoLTE 
networks. As CSRIC IV WG 1 emphasizes, ``the goal of maintenance 
testing is to identify a method that verifies continued optimal 
performance of E9-1-1 location systems at the local level.'' This 
recommended testing protocol includes several components, including: 
(1) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that ``are routinely monitored to 
help identify instances where system performance has degraded''; and 
(2) ``[s]pot-checking using empirical field-testing . . . on an as 
needed basis, for example, as determined by KPI monitoring or 
legitimate performance concerns from a PSAP.'' We find that this 
emphasis on KPI testing will provide CMRS providers with a testing 
approach that they can apply in a variety of circumstances. Moreover, 
this ongoing testing approach provides CMRS providers with the means to 
validate latency (TTFF) and C/U Data, as standardized in the rule 
changes we adopt today.
    198. Finally, consistent with our views on KPI testing, we are 
revising the Commission's outdoor requirement for C/U data, which 
currently specifies that ``[o]nce a carrier has established baseline 
confidence and uncertainty levels in a county or PSAP service area . . 
. additional testing shall not be required.'' We remove the language 
excluding additional testing. Although CSRIC III WG3 stated that 
``[u]ncertainty estimates, when taken on average over time, can 
indicate a trend that may reflect continued proper system operation or 
system problems,'' CSRIC III WG3 also noted the importance of C/U data 
for monitoring location accuracy as one part of a CMRS providers 
testing program for other KPIs. As discussed above, KPI testing should 
continue as part of CMRS providers' best practices, along with other 
recommended testing procedures, such as spot-testing.

F. Roaming Issues

    199. The Third Further Notice sought comment on whether the 
provision of Phase II information continues to be a concern for 
consumers when they are roaming, or whether this concern has been 
addressed by the evolution of location technology. Specifically, we 
invited comment on whether the implementation of our indoor location 
proposals would create any challenges in the roaming context that the 
Commission should address. The few comments filed generally indicate 
that the migration to VoLTE networks should resolve the roaming issue 
because it is probable ``that all emergency calls (routing and 
location) will either be handled by the visited network or through a 
location roaming scenario.'' As TruePosition submits, ``it is entirely 
likely that complementary technologies will exist and operate side-by-
side in a given city, town or county.''
    200. After considering the views of the commenters, we refrain from 
taking action with respect to roaming at this time. We believe the 
better course is to monitor progress on the roaming issue as CMRS 
providers fully deploy VoLTE, and to examine any problems that may 
arise during this implementation process. We reserve the right to take 
action in the future, if necessary, to ensure that accurate location 
information is provided for wireless calls to 911 while roaming.

V. Procedural Matters

A. Accessible Formats

    201. 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).

B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis

    202. This Fourth Report and Order contains proposed new information 
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing 
effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB 
to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this 
document, as required by Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek 
specific comment on how we might ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''

C. Congressional Review Act

    203. The Commission will send a copy of this Fourth Report and 
Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the

[[Page 11833]]

Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

VI. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    204. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated into the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 
this proceeding. The Commission sought written public comment on the 
proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. Any comments 
received are discussed below. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

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

    205. In this Fourth Report and Order, the Commission adopts 
measures that will significantly enhance the ability of Public Safety 
Answering Points (PSAPs) to accurately identify the location of 
wireless 911 callers when the caller is located indoors, and strengthen 
existing E911 location accuracy rules to improve location determination 
for outdoor as well as indoor calls. These actions respond to major 
changes in the wireless landscape since the Commission first adopted 
its wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) location accuracy rules in 1996 and 
since the last significant revision of these rules in 2010. As 
consumers increasingly replace traditional landline telephony with 
wireless phones, a majority of wireless calls are now made indoors, 
increasing the likelihood that wireless 911 calls will come from indoor 
environments where traditional location accuracy technologies optimized 
for outdoor calling often do not work effectively or at all. A 
significant objective of this proceeding is to close the gap between 
the performance of 911 calls made from outdoors with similar calls made 
indoors.
    206. The Commission adopts rules applicable to CMRS providers that 
reflect technical feasibility and are technologically neutral, so that 
providers can choose the most effective solutions from a range of 
options. Further, the rules allow sufficient time for development of 
applicable standards, establishment of testing mechanisms, and 
deployment of new location technology in both handsets and networks, on 
timeframes that account for the ability of PSAPs to process 
enhancements in the location data they receive. In determining the 
appropriate balance to strike between its requirements and timeframes, 
the Commission gave significant weight to the ``Roadmap for Improving 
E911 Location Accuracy'' (Roadmap) that was agreed to in November 2014 
by the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials (APCO), 
the National Emergency Number Association (NENA), and the four national 
wireless CMRS providers, as well as the ``Parallel Path for Competitive 
Carriers' Improvement of E911 Location Accuracy Standards'' (``Parallel 
Path'') that was submitted by the Competitive Carriers Association 
(CCA). At the same time, in order to provide greater certainty and 
accountability in areas that the Amended Roadmap does not fully 
address, the rules incorporate ``backstop'' requirements derived from 
the Commission's original proposals in the Third Further Notice.
    207. The rules the Commission adopts are designed to increase 
indoor location accuracy in a commercially reasonable manner by 
leveraging many aspects of the Amended Roadmap. They do not change, or 
seek to change, the commitment that the four nationwide CMRS providers 
voluntarily entered into and have already made progress towards. The 
Amended Roadmap is intended to build confidence in the technical 
solutions outlined therein, and it establishes clear milestones to 
gauge progress and ensure that if the signatory parties fail to deliver 
on their commitments, there is clear accountability for the integrity 
of location accuracy using metrics adopted at earlier stages in this 
proceeding. The rules the Commission adopts are in addition to, not a 
replacement of, its existing E911 location rules applicable to outdoor 
calls, which remain in effect, unless otherwise amended herein. In 
establishing these requirements, the Commission's 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 emergency.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    208. No comments were submitted specifically in response to the 
IRFA. Nevertheless, small and rural CMRS providers suggested that 
compliance with the rules (as proposed in both the Third Further Notice 
and the Roadmap) could be burdensome:
     Blooston believes ``that substantial investments in new 
E911 equipment that small rural carriers will be required to make in 
order to comply with the proposed new E911 requirements will soon 
become unrecoverable stranded investments when NG911 technology is 
deployed.''
     CCA is concerned that small and rural CMRS providers may 
not hold licenses for spectrum or otherwise operate in the single 
location defined implied in the Roadmap and will thus be forced to 
commit to individualized testing of a particular heightened location 
accuracy technology should it utilize any component of their network 
(such as an RF-based technology), possibly placing a substantial burden 
on these smaller CMRS providers.
     Several small and regional CMRS providers argue that it 
would also be appropriate either to exclude rural areas from indoor 
location accuracy requirements, or to phase-in any requirements.
     Regarding technology-specific costs, Rx Networks proposes 
establishment of a central and standardized service to process location 
requests. Such a clearinghouse solution would entail a base station 
almanac of Cell-IDs and Wi-Fi access point locations, and cost-
effective provisioning of A-GNSS and barometric pressure data among 
CMRS providers, which could bridge technical gaps while minimizing 
capital outlays.
     Small and rural CMRS providers generally believe that live 
911 call tracking and reporting will be overly burdensome for them.
     Regarding outdoor compliance and reporting, RWA and CCA 
oppose periodic testing as burdensome on small rural CMRS providers, 
but both agree that periodic testing is appropriate in case of 
substantial network changes.
     SouthernLINC Wireless believes that any delays in 
implementing any adopted rules by the nationwide carriers will 
necessarily create downstream delays for regional and rural carriers 
that are beyond the smaller carriers' control.

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

    209. 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

[[Page 11834]]

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).
    210. 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, 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
    211. 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.''
    212. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, 
as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as 
small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily 
represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, 
the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size 
unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment 
issues are implicated.
    213. 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. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 
11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
10,791 establishments had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372 
had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and 
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except 
satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed 
action.
    214. 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. Census Bureau data for 
2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that there 
were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had 
employment of 1000 or more. According to Commission data, 1,307 
carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service 
providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently, 
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.
    215. 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. 
Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 
Census, show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated 
for the entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or 
fewer, and 44 firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus 
under this category and the associated small business size standard, 
the majority of these Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers can be considered small 
entities. According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that 
they were engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange 
services or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 
carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have 
more than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that 
they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 
have 1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported 
that they are Other Local Service Providers. Of the 72, seventy have 
1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. 
Consequently, 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.
    216. 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

[[Page 11835]]

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.
    217. 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.
    218. 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 than $15 million. The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards.
    219. 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 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 adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands 
similar 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. In the AWS-3 auction, 70 applicants were found qualified 
to participate, and 46 of those have claimed themselves eligible for a 
designated entity bidding credit.
    220. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a 
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is 
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (``BETRS''). 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.
    221. 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.
    222. 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.
    223. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and 
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz 
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

[[Page 11836]]

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.
    224. 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.
    225. 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).
    226. 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 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. Census data for 
2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that 
there were 1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 
had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. 
Thus, under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    227. 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.
    228. 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.'' For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,623 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Consequently, 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
    229. 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. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there 
were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for 
part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 784 had less than 500 
employees and 155 had more than 100 employees. Thus, under this size 
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
    230. 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.'' According to data from 
the 2007 U.S. Census, in 2007, there were 954 establishments engaged in 
this business. Of these, 545 had from 1 to 19 employees; 219 had from 
20 to 99 employees; and 190 had 100 or more employees. Based on this 
data, the Commission concludes that the majority of the businesses 
engaged in this industry are small.

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

    231. In this Fourth Report and Order, we require nationwide CMRS 
providers

[[Page 11837]]

report to the Commission on their plans for implementing improved 
indoor location accuracy no later than 18 months from the date when the 
rules contained herein become effective. To address concerns raised by 
small and regional CMRS providers, non-nationwide CMRS providers will 
have an additional six months to submit their plans. These initial 
reports will include details as to the CMRS provider's implementation 
plan to meet our requirements in the three- and six-year timeframes, 
and these one-time reports will ensure that each CMRS provider 
(including small and/or rural) makes at least some progress toward 
improving indoor location accuracy in the near term. Furthermore, all 
CMRS providers must also report to the Commission on their progress 
toward implementation of their plans no later than 36 months from the 
Effective Date. We believe the global data provided through these 
reports may enable the Commission to identify efficiencies and 
facilitate coordination among providers, and may help ensure that CMRS 
providers do not invest too heavily in duplicative technologies or in 
technology and system design that proves unusable.
    232. The rules we adopt today require that:
     All CMRS providers must provide (1) dispatchable location, 
or (2) x/y (horizontal) location within 50 meters, for the following 
percentages of wireless 911 calls within the following timeframes, 
measured from the Effective Date of rules adopted in this Fourth Report 
and Order:
    [cir] Within 2 years: 40 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    [cir] Within 3 years: 50 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    [cir] Within 5 years: 70 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    [cir] Within 6 years: 80 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
     Non-nationwide CMRS providers (regional, small, and rural 
providers) can extend the five and six-year deadlines based on the 
timing of VoLTE deployment in the networks.
    233. All CMRS providers must meet the following requirements for 
provision of vertical location information with wireless 911 calls:
    [cir] Within 3 years, all CMRS providers must make uncompensated 
barometric data available to PSAPs from any handset that has the 
capability to deliver barometric sensor data.
    [cir] Within 3 years, nationwide CMRS providers must use an 
independently administered and transparent test bed process to develop 
a proposed z-axis accuracy metric, and must submit the proposed metric 
to the Commission for approval.
    [cir] Within 6 years, nationwide CMRS provides must deploy either 
(1) dispatchable location, or (2) z-axis technology that achieves the 
Commission-approved z-axis metric, in each of the top 25 CMAs:
    [ssquf] The National Emergency Address Database (NEAD) must be 
populated with a total number of dispatchable location reference points 
in the CMA equal to 25 percent of the CMA population if dispatchable 
location is used.
    [ssquf] CMRS providers must deploy z-axis technology to cover 80 
percent of the CMA population if z-axis technology is used.
    [cir] Within 8 years, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy 
dispatchable location or z-axis technology in accordance with the above 
benchmarks in each of the top 50 CMAs.
    [cir] Non-nationwide carriers that serve any of the top 25 or 50 
CMAs will have an additional year to meet the latter two benchmarks 
(i.e., relating to years 6 and 8).
    234. Quarterly reporting of live 911 data will begin no later than 
18 months from the date the rules become effective; CMRS providers will 
also provide quarterly live call data on a more granular basis that 
allows evaluation of the performance of individual location 
technologies within different morphologies (e.g., dense urban, urban, 
suburban, rural). Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) will be 
entitled to obtain live call data from CMRS providers and seek 
Commission enforcement of these requirements within their 
jurisdictions, but they may seek enforcement only so long as they have 
implemented policies that are designed to obtain all 911 location 
information made available by CMRS providers pursuant to our rules.
    235. We adopt a 30-second limit on the time period allowed for a 
CMRS provider to generate a location fix in order for the 911 call to 
be counted towards compliance with existing Phase II location accuracy 
requirements that rely on outdoor testing, but we do not extend this 
provision to the new indoor-focused requirements adopted in this order. 
We require that confidence and uncertainty data for all wireless 911 
calls--whether placed from indoors or outdoors--be delivered at the 
request of a PSAP, on a per-call basis, with a uniform confidence level 
of 90 percent.
    236. We require CMRS providers to provide 911 call data, including 
(1) the percentage of wireless 911 calls to the PSAP that include Phase 
II location information, and (2) per-call identification of the 
positioning source method or methods used to derive location 
coordinates and/or dispatchable location, to any requesting PSAP. 
Compliance with the 30-second time limit will also be measured from 
this data.

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

    237. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which 
may include the following four alternatives (among others): ``(1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and 
(4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for 
such small entities.''
    238. We received comments from entities representing small and/or 
rural interests, suggesting that the rules would apply a unique burden 
on small and/or rural entities, and raising the possibility of 
exemptions or waivers for small or rural entities. In the Fourth Report 
and Order, we explicitly acknowledge that the costs imposed by the 
rules adopted herein ``may present a proportionately greater burden to 
smaller CMRS providers, including the costs associated with 
participation in the test bed.'' Nevertheless, we conclude that 
overriding public safety concerns require our rules to apply equally to 
all CMRS providers, regardless of location or size--911 location 
accuracy is paramount in all portions of the Nation, and all CMRS 
providers must be on an equal footing in their ability to provide 
correct 911 location accuracy.
    239. To accommodate the unique circumstances facing small and rural 
carriers, the rules we adopt today include the following steps that we 
believe will minimize the impact on such carriers:
     While all CMRS providers (including small providers) must 
provide dispatchable location or x/y (horizontal) location within 50 
meters for certain percentages of wireless 911 calls at Years 2, 3, 5, 
and 6 after the rules in this Fourth Report and Order become effective, 
non-nationwide CMRS providers (i.e., regional, small, and rural 
carriers) can extend the five and six-year deadlines based on the

[[Page 11838]]

timing of Voice-over-LTE (VoLTE) deployment in their networks.
     Regarding vertical location accuracy, while all CMRS 
providers (including small providers) must make uncompensated 
barometric data available to PSAPs from any handset that has the 
capability to deliver barometric sensor data within 3 years of the 
rules in this Fourth Report and Order becoming effective, small 
carriers have an additional year beyond what nationwide carriers must 
comply with (i.e., Year 6 requirements extend to Year 7; Year 8 
requirements extend to Year 9).
     While nationwide CMRS providers must report to the 
Commission on their plans and progress towards implementing improved 
indoor location accuracy no later than 18 months of the date the rules 
in this Fourth Report and Order become effective, smaller CMRS 
providers have 24 months.
     While nationwide CMRS providers must aggregate live 911 
call data on a quarterly basis and report that data to the Association 
of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), National Emergency 
Number Association (NENA), and the National Association of State 911 
Administrators (NASNA), small providers must do so on a biannual basis.
    240. Regarding the overall scope of the indoor 911 location 
accuracy rules we adopt in this Fourth Report and Order, we note that 
in the Third Further Notice, we proposed to apply the horizontal indoor 
location accuracy requirements on a nationwide-basis, across all 
geographic areas. In response, several small and regional CMRS 
providers proposed that rural areas from indoor location accuracy 
requirements be excluded from the rules, either entirely or for a 
certain ``phase-in'' period. Absent any such exclusion, RWA believes 
the ability of small and rural CMRS providers to achieve compliance 
with the indoor horizontal location accuracy requirements in the 
proposed timeframe would be problematic. In response, we state that 
because the rules we adopt today relate to indoor 911 calls--and 
therefore are not hindered by naturally-formed physical 
characteristics--there is no need to adopt similar exclusions. We 
believe that the design of our indoor location accuracy requirements 
and the timeframe allotted for compliance adequately addresses 
commenters' concerns about being able to implement indoor location 
solutions throughout all morphologies within their coverage footprint. 
Moreover, applying these requirements uniformly nationwide is 
consistent with the principle that improving 911 location is just as 
important in the least populous markets as in the most populous.
    241. We sought comment in the Third Further Notice on whether we 
should adopt a specific waiver process for CMRS providers who seek 
relief from our indoor location accuracy requirements. In particular, 
we sought comment on whether and what criteria would be appropriate for 
any E911-specific waiver process, as well as whether providers who 
believe they cannot comply with a particular indoor location accuracy 
benchmark, despite good faith efforts, may certify this six months 
prior to the applicable benchmark. In response, RWA suggests the 
Commission adopt a safe harbor for waiver applicants based on a showing 
of technical infeasibility or financial difficulty, while NTCA notes 
that the expense of a waiver can impose a substantial financial burden 
for small rural carriers, and the regulatory uncertainty can be 
disruptive to business planning and operations. We ultimately 
determined not to adopt a specific waiver standard applicable only to 
the indoor location accuracy requirements we adopt today, noting that 
`[a]ny CMRS provider that is unable to meet the deadlines adopted 
herein may seek waiver relief. The Commission may grant relief pursuant 
to the waiver standards set forth in Sections 1.3 and 1.925 of its 
rules, and we believe these provisions are sufficient to address any 
requests for relief of the indoor location accuracy requirements . . 
.''

F. Report to Congress

    242. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, 
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy 
of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.

VII. Ordering Clauses

    243. 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 Fourth Report and Order 
is hereby adopted.
    244. It is further ordered that part 20 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR part 20, is amended as specified in this order, effective April 
3, 2015, except that those amendments which contain new or modified 
information collection requirements that require approval by the Office 
of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act will become 
effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal 
Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
    245. It is further ordered that the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis in Appendix C hereto is adopted.
    246. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Section 801(a)(1)(A) 
of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission 
shall send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and to the 
Government Accountability Office.
    247. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Fourth Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

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

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
1. The authority 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 revising paragraph (h)(3) and re-
designating paragraphs (i) through (n) as paragraphs (l) through (q), 
and adding new paragraphs (i) through (k), and revising newly 
redesignated paragraph (m)(1) to read as follows:

[[Page 11839]]

Sec.  20.18  911 Service.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) Latency (Time to First Fix). For purposes of measuring 
compliance with the location accuracy standards of this paragraph, a 
call will be deemed to satisfy the standard only if it provides the 
specified degree of location accuracy within a maximum latency period 
of 30 seconds, as measured from the time the user initiates the 911 
call to the time the location fix appears at the location information 
center: Provided, however, that the CMRS provider may elect not to 
include for purposes of measuring compliance therewith any calls 
lasting less than 30 seconds.
    (i) Indoor location accuracy for 911 and testing requirements--(1) 
Definitions: The terms as used in this section have the following 
meaning:
    (i) Dispatchable location: A location delivered to the PSAP by the 
CMRS provider with a 911 call that consists of the street address of 
the calling party, plus additional information such as suite, apartment 
or similar information necessary to adequately identify the location of 
the calling party. The street address of the calling party must be 
validated and, to the extent possible, corroborated against other 
location information prior to delivery of dispatchable location 
information by the CMRS provider to the PSAP.
    (ii) Media Access Control (MAC) Address. A location identifier of a 
Wi-Fi access point.
    (iii) National Emergency Address Database (NEAD). A database that 
utilizes MAC address information to identify a dispatchable location 
for nearby wireless devices within the CMRS provider's coverage 
footprint.
    (iv) Nationwide CMRS provider: A CMRS provider whose service 
extends to a majority of the population and land area of the United 
States.
    (v) Non-nationwide CMRS provider: Any CMRS provider other than a 
nationwide CMRS provider.
    (vi) Test Cities. The six cities (San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, 
Denver/Front Range, Philadelphia, and Manhattan Borough) and 
surrounding geographic areas that correspond to the six geographic 
regions specified by the February 7, 2014 ATIS Document, 
``Considerations in Selecting Indoor Test Regions,'' for testing of 
indoor location technologies.
    (2) Indoor location accuracy standards: CMRS providers subject to 
this section shall meet the following requirements:
    (i) Horizontal location. (A) Nationwide CMRS providers shall 
provide; dispatchable location, or ; x/y location within 50 meters, for 
the following percentages of wireless 911 calls within the following 
timeframes, measured from the effective date of the adoption of this 
rule:
    (1) Within 2 years: 40 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    (2) Within 3 years: 50 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    (3) Within 5 years: 70 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    (4) Within 6 years: 80 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    (B) Non-nationwide CMRS providers shall provide; dispatchable 
location or; x/y location within 50 meters, for the following 
percentages of wireless 911 calls within the following timeframes, 
measured from the effective date of the adoption of this rule:
    (1) Within 2 years: 40 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    (2) Within 3 years: 50 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    (3) Within 5 years or within six months of deploying a 
commercially-operating VoLTE platform in their network, whichever is 
later: 70 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    (4) Within 6 years or within one year of deploying a commercially-
operating VoLTE platform in their network, whichever is later: 80 
percent of all wireless 911 calls.
    (ii) Vertical location. CMRS providers shall provide vertical 
location information with wireless 911 calls as described in this 
section within the following timeframes measured from the effective 
date of the adoption of this rule:
    (A) Within 3 years: All CMRS providers shall make uncompensated 
barometric data available to PSAPs with respect to any 911 call placed 
from any handset that has the capability to deliver barometric sensor 
information.
    (B) Within 3 years: Nationwide CMRS providers shall develop one or 
more z-axis accuracy metrics validated by an independently administered 
and transparent test bed process as described in paragraph (i)(3)(i) of 
this section, and shall submit the proposed metric or metrics, 
supported by a report of the results of such development and testing, 
to the Commission for approval.
    (C) Within 6 years: In each of the top 25 CMAs, nationwide CMRS 
providers shall deploy either;) dispatchable location, or ; z-axis 
technology in compliance with any z-axis accuracy metric that has been 
approved by the Commission,
    (1) In each CMA where dispatchable location is used: nationwide 
CMRS providers must ensure that the NEAD is populated with a sufficient 
number of total dispatchable location reference points to equal 25 
percent of the CMA population.
    (2) In each CMA where z-axis technology is used: nationwide CMRS 
providers must deploy z-axis technology to cover 80 percent of the CMA 
population.
    (D) Within 8 years: In each of the top 50 CMAs, nationwide CMRS 
providers shall deploy either
    (1) Dispatchable location or;
    (2) Such z-axis technology in compliance with any z-axis accuracy 
metric that has been approved by the Commission.
    (E) Non-nationwide CMRS providers that serve any of the top 25 or 
50 CMAs will have an additional year to meet each of the benchmarks in 
paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) of this section.
    (iii) Compliance. Within 60 days after each benchmark date 
specified in paragraphs (i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, CMRS 
providers must certify that they are in compliance with the location 
accuracy requirements applicable to them as of that date. CMRS 
providers shall be presumed to be in compliance by certifying that they 
have complied with the test bed and live call data provisions described 
in paragraph (i)(3) of this section.
    (A) All CMRS providers must certify that the indoor location 
technology (or technologies) used in their networks are deployed 
consistently with the manner in which they have been tested in the test 
bed. A CMRS provider must update certification whenever it introduces a 
new technology into its network or otherwise modifies its network, such 
that previous performance in the test bed would no longer be consistent 
with the technology's modified deployment.
    (B) CMRS providers that provide quarterly reports of live call data 
in one or more of the six test cities specified in paragraph (i)(1)(vi) 
of this section must certify that their deployment of location 
technologies throughout their coverage area is consistent with their 
deployment of the same technologies in the areas that are used for live 
call data reporting.
    (C) Non-nationwide CMRS providers that do not provide service or 
report quarterly live call data in any of the six test cities specified 
in paragraph (i)(1)(vi) of this section must certify that they have 
verified based on their own live call data that they are in compliance 
with the requirements of paragraphs (i)(2)(i)(B) and (ii) of this 
section.
    (iv) Enforcement. PSAPs may seek Commission enforcement within 
their geographic service area of the requirements of paragraphs 
(i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, but only so long as they have 
implemented policies that are

[[Page 11840]]

designed to obtain all location information made available by CMRS 
providers when initiating and delivering 911 calls to the PSAP. Prior 
to seeking Commission enforcement, a PSAP must provide the CMRS 
provider with [30] days written notice, and the CMRS provider shall 
have an opportunity to address the issue informally. If the issue has 
not been addressed to the PSAP's satisfaction within 90 days, the PSAP 
may seek enforcement relief.
    (3) Indoor location accuracy testing and live call data reporting--
(i) Indoor location accuracy test bed. CMRS providers must establish 
the test bed described in this section within 12 months of the 
effective date of this rule. CMRS providers must validate technologies 
intended for indoor location, including dispatchable location 
technologies and technologies that deliver horizontal and/or vertical 
coordinates, through an independently administered and transparent test 
bed process, in order for such technologies to be presumed to comply 
with the location accuracy requirements of this paragraph. The test bed 
shall meet the following minimal requirements in order for the test 
results to be considered valid for compliance purposes:
    (A) Include testing in representative indoor environments, 
including dense urban, urban, suburban and rural morphologies;
    (B) Test for performance attributes including location accuracy 
(ground truth as measured in the test bed), latency (Time to First 
Fix), and reliability (yield); and
    (C) Each test call (or equivalent) shall be independent from prior 
calls and accuracy will be based on the first location delivered after 
the call is initiated.
    (D) In complying with paragraph (i)(3)(i)(B) of this section, CMRS 
providers shall measure yield separately 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. CMRS providers must base the yield percentage 
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. CMRS providers may exclude test calls that are dropped or 
otherwise disconnected in 10 seconds or less from calculation of the 
yield percentage (both the denominator and numerator).
    (ii) Collection and reporting of aggregate live 911 call location 
data. CMRS providers providing service in any of the Test Cities or 
portions thereof must collect and report aggregate data on the location 
technologies used for live 911 calls in those areas.
    (A) CMRS providers subject to this section shall identify and 
collect information regarding the location technology or technologies 
used for each 911 call in the reporting area during the calling period.
    (B) CMRS providers subject to this section shall report Test City 
call location data on a quarterly basis to the Commission, the National 
Emergency Number Association, the Association of Public Safety 
Communications Officials, and the National Association of State 911 
Administrators, with the first report due 18 months from the effective 
date of rules adopted in this proceeding.
    (C) CMRS providers subject to this section shall also provide 
quarterly live call data on a more granular basis that allows 
evaluation of the performance of individual location technologies 
within different morphologies (e.g., dense urban, urban, suburban, 
rural). To the extent available, live call data for all CMRS providers 
shall delineate based on a per technology basis accumulated and so 
identified for:
    (1) Each of the ATIS ESIF morphologies;
    (2) On a reasonable community level basis; or
    (3) By census block. This more granular data will be used for 
evaluation and not for compliance purposes.
    (D) Non-nationwide CMRS providers that operate in a single Test 
City need only report live 911 call data from that city or portion 
thereof that they cover. Non-nationwide CMRS providers that operate in 
more than one Test City must report live 911 call data only in half of 
the regions (as selected by the provider). In the event a non-
nationwide CMRS provider begins coverage in a Test City it previously 
did not serve, it must update its certification pursuant to paragraph 
(i)(2)(iii)(C) of this section to reflect this change in its network 
and begin reporting data from the appropriate areas. All non-nationwide 
CMRS providers must report their Test City live call data every 6 
months, beginning 18 months from the effective date of rules adopted in 
this proceeding.
    (E) Non-nationwide CMRS providers that do not provide coverage in 
any of the Test Cities can satisfy the requirement of paragraph 
(i)(3)(ii) of this section by collecting and reporting data based on 
the largest county within its footprint. In addition, where a non-
nationwide CMRS provider serves more than one of the ATIS ESIF 
morphologies, it must include a sufficient number of representative 
counties to cover each morphology.
    (iii) Data retention. CMRS providers shall retain testing and live 
call data gathered pursuant to this section for a period of 2 years.
    (4) Submission of plans and reports. The following reporting and 
certification obligations apply to all CMRS providers subject to this 
section, which may be filed electronically in PS Docket No. 07-114:
    (i) Initial implementation plan. No later than 18 months from the 
effective date of the adoption of this rule, nationwide CMRS providers 
shall report to the Commission on their plans for meeting the indoor 
location accuracy requirements of paragraph (i)(2) of this section. 
Non-nationwide CMRS providers will have an additional 6 months to 
submit their implementation plans.
    (ii) Progress reports. No later than 18 months from the effective 
date of the adoption of this rule, each CMRS provider shall file a 
progress report on implementation of indoor location accuracy 
requirements. Non-nationwide CMRS providers will have an additional 6 
months to submit their progress reports. All CMRS providers shall 
provide an additional progress report no later than 36 months from the 
effective date of the adoption of this rule. The 36-month reports shall 
indicate what progress the provider has made consistent with its 
implementation plan, and the nationwide CMRS providers shall include an 
assessment of their deployment of dispatchable location solutions. For 
any CMRS provider participating in the development of the NEAD 
database, this progress report must include detail as to the 
implementation of the NEAD database described in paragraphs (i)(4)(iii) 
and (iv) of this section.
    (iii) NEAD privacy and security plan. Prior to activation of the 
NEAD but no later than 18 months from the effective date of the 
adoption of this rule, the nationwide CMRS providers shall file with 
the Commission and request approval for a security and privacy plan for 
the administration and operation of the NEAD. The plan must include the 
identity of an administrator for the NEAD, who will serve as a point of 
contact for the Commission and shall be accountable for the 
effectiveness of the security, privacy, and resiliency measures.
    (iv) NEAD use certification. Prior to use of the NEAD or any 
information contained therein to meet such requirements, CMRS providers 
must

[[Page 11841]]

certify that they will not use the NEAD or associated data for any non-
911 purpose, except as otherwise required by law.
    (j) Confidence and uncertainty data. (1) Except as provided in 
paragraphs (j)(2)-(3) of this section, 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. The data shall specify
    (i) The caller's location with a uniform confidence level of 90 
percent, and;
    (ii) The radius in meters from the reported position at that same 
confidence level. All entities responsible for transporting confidence 
and uncertainty between CMRS providers and PSAPs, including LECs, 
CLECs, owners of E911 networks, and emergency service providers, must 
enable the transmission of confidence and uncertainty data provided by 
CMRS providers to the requesting PSAP.
    (2) Upon meeting the 3-year timeframe pursuant to paragraph 
(i)(2)(i) of this section, CMRS providers shall provide with wireless 
911 calls that have a dispatchable location the C/U data for the x- and 
y-axis (latitude, longitude) required under paragraph (j)(1) of this 
section.
    (3) Upon meeting the 6-year timeframe pursuant to paragraph 
(i)(2)(i) of this section, CMRS providers shall provide with wireless 
911 calls that have a dispatchable location the C/U data for the x- and 
y-axis (latitude, longitude) required under paragraph (j)(1) of this 
section.
    (k) Provision of live 911 call data for PSAPs. Notwithstanding 
other 911 call data collection and reporting requirements in paragraph 
(i) of this section, CMRS providers must record information on all live 
911 calls, including, but not limited to, the positioning source method 
used to provide a location fix associated with the call. CMRS providers 
must also record the confidence and uncertainty data that they provide 
pursuant to paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of this section. This 
information must be made available to PSAPs upon request, and shall be 
retained for a period of two years.
* * * * *
    (m) Conditions for enhanced 911 services--(1) Generally. The 
requirements set forth in paragraphs (d) through (h)(2) and in 
paragraph (j) 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. 2015-04424 Filed 3-3-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P