    [Federal Register Volume 85, Number 168 (Friday, August 28, 2020)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 53234-53247]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 2020-18795]

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

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    47 CFR Part 9

    [PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 20-98; FRS 16998]

    Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

    AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

    ACTION: Final rule.

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

    SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the
    FCC or Commission) builds upon the Commission's efforts to improve its
    wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) location accuracy rules by enabling 911
    call centers and first responders to more accurately identify the floor
    level for wireless 911 calls made from multi-story buildings. The Sixth
    Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration affirms the April 3,
    2021, and April 3, 2023, z-axis location accuracy requirements for
    nationwide wireless providers and rejects an untimely proposal to
    weaken these requirements; allows wireless providers to deploy
    technologies that focus on multi-story buildings, where vertical
    location information is most vital to first responders, and handset-
    based deployment solutions that meet the z-axis metric; requires
    nationwide wireless providers to deploy z-axis technology nationwide by
    April 3, 2025 (non-nationwide wireless providers would have an
    additional year to deploy z-axis technology throughout their service
    areas (i.e., April 3, 2026)); and requires wireless providers,
    beginning January 6, 2022, to provide dispatchable location with
    wireless 911 calls when it is technically feasible to do so. Finally,
    we deny a Petition for Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order.

    DATES: Effective date: September 28, 2020.
        Compliance date: Compliance will not be required for Sec.
    9.10(i)(4)(iv) and (v), (j)(4), and (k) until the Commission publishes
    a document in the Federal Register announcing the compliance date.

    ADDRESSES: The complete text of this document is available for
    inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
    Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
    A257, Washington, DC 20554. Effective March 19, 2020, and until further
    notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger
    delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect
    the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission
    of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window
    and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19,
    2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy. During the time the
    Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further
    notice.

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Boykin, Attorney-Advisor,
    Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security
    Bureau, (202) 418-2062 or via email at Brenda.Boykin@fcc.gov, and John
    A. Evanoff, Deputy Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety
    and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-

    [[Page 53235]]

    0848 or via email at John.Evanoff@fcc.gov.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth
    Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 20-98, adopted on
    July 16, 2020, and released on July 17, 2020. The complete text of this
    document is available for inspection and copying during normal business
    hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
    Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in
    accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
    electronic files, audio format), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or
    call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
    (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). The complete text of the order also is
    available on the Commission's website at http://www.fcc.gov.

    Synopsis

    I. Introduction

        1. The Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration builds
    upon this framework for improving the delivery and accuracy of vertical
    location requirements, consistent with our commitment to ensuring that
    all Americans have access to timely and effective emergency response
    when calling 911 from indoor and outdoor locations. We affirm the April
    2021 and April 2023 vertical accuracy requirements that nationwide CMRS
    providers must meet in major markets and reject an untimely proposal to
    weaken these requirements. We allow CMRS providers to deploy
    technologies that focus on multi-story buildings, where vertical
    location information is most vital to first responders, and we require
    nationwide CMRS providers to deploy z-axis technology nationwide by
    April 2025. We also afford CMRS providers additional flexibility to
    provide dispatchable location (street address plus additional
    information such as floor level to identify the 911 caller's location),
    and we require dispatchable location to be delivered with wireless 911
    calls when it is technically feasible and cost-effective to do so
    beginning January 6, 2022. Taken together, these actions place wireless
    carriers on track for providing PSAPs and first responders the best
    available vertical location information for the benefit of 911 callers
    seeking emergency assistance.

    II. Background

        2. In the Fifth Report and Order, we adopted a z-axis location
    accuracy metric of 3 meters above or below the handset (plus or minus 3
    meters) for 80% of calls made from z-axis capable devices as
    demonstrated in the test bed. We concluded that implementing the 3-
    meter metric within the existing compliance timeline was technically
    feasible and would yield significant public safety benefits. We
    required CMRS providers to deliver z-axis information to PSAPs in
    Height Above Ellipsoid and to provide floor level information when
    available. Deployment must be consistent with the configuration used in
    the test bed, and CMRS providers must comply with requirements for
    confidence and uncertainty data, compliance certifications, and live
    call data reporting. Finally, we amended our rules to provide explicit
    privacy protection for z-axis location information, stating that such
    information may only be used for 911 purposes, except with prior
    express consent or as required by law.
        3. In the Fifth Further Notice, we sought comment on additional
    issues associated with implementation of vertical location accuracy
    requirements. Specifically, we sought comment on the feasibility of
    phasing in a stricter z-axis standard (e.g., 2 meters) over time, and
    ultimately whether to require CMRS providers to deliver floor level
    information in addition to or instead of z-axis measurements for
    wireless indoor 911 calls. We also proposed to adopt additional z-axis
    deployment options for CMRS providers to choose from as alternatives to
    the CMA-based deployment metric in the current rules. Finally, we
    proposed to revise our dispatchable location rules to allow provision
    of dispatchable location information from sources other than the
    National Emergency Address Database.
        4. In response to the Fifth Further Notice, we received 20 comments
    and 12 reply comments, filed by public safety entities, technology
    vendors, wireless carriers, technology companies, and industry
    associations. In addition, APCO filed a Petition for Clarification of
    the Fifth Report and Order regarding implementation and testing of
    location accuracy technology and certification of compliance by CMRS
    providers. BRETSA filed a Petition for Reconsideration of certain
    portions of the Fifth Report and Order regarding performance testing
    and correlating z-axis information to floor level. CTIA, AT&T, and T-
    Mobile filed oppositions to the BRETSA Petition, and BRETSA filed a
    reply to oppositions.
        5. After the close of the comment and reply comment cycle, the
    Commission received additional submissions. CTIA, on behalf of the 9-1-
    1 Location Technologies Test Bed, LLC (Test Bed), submitted a test bed
    report (Stage Za Report) to update the Commission on the most recent
    testing of 911 z-axis location technologies, Stage Za, by the Test Bed.
    Stage Za testing evaluated Google's Android-based Emergency Location
    Service. According to CTIA, ``Google's [Emergency Location Service]
    achieved 3 meter accuracy for more than half of calls in
    the test bed, and exceeded the 80th percentile metric in one
    morphology.'' On June 25, 2020, the Public Safety and Homeland Security
    Bureau granted the Test Bed and Google's request for confidential
    treatment of the Stage Za Report.
        6. Finally, Polaris filed a Petition for Emergency Declaratory
    Ruling asking the Commission to (1) reaffirm the deadlines established
    in the Fifth Report and Order and (2) dismiss certain alternative
    proposals advanced in comments.

    III. Sixth Report and Order

        7. With this Sixth Report and Order, we adopt our proposals in the
    Fifth Further Notice to expand the options for CMRS providers choosing
    to deploy z-axis technology to meet the April 2021 and April 2023
    compliance benchmarks, with some revisions and clarifications. We also
    require nationwide CMRS providers to deploy z-axis technology
    nationwide by April 2025 and require non-nationwide CMRS providers to
    do the same throughout their service areas by April 2026. We adopt our
    proposal to allow CMRS providers flexibility to develop dispatchable
    location solutions that do not depend on the National Emergency Address
    Database, which has been discontinued. In addition, to make our
    wireless dispatchable location rules consistent with our dispatchable
    location rules for other services adopted pursuant to Section 506 of
    RAY BAUM'S Act, as of January 6, 2022, we require CMRS providers to
    provide dispatchable location for wireless 911 calls when it is
    technically feasible and cost-effective for them to do so. We also
    address implementation issues for dispatchable location solutions that
    are not based on the National Emergency Address Database, including (1)
    privacy and security and (2) confidence and uncertainty data
    requirements.
        8. For the time being, we defer the issues raised in the Fifth
    Further Notice of whether to migrate from 3 meters to a stricter z-axis
    metric or to require CMRS providers to deliver floor level information.
    Based on the comments received on these issues, we believe that further
    work is needed to develop improved location technology that can achieve
    these capabilities and that

    [[Page 53236]]

    adopting a timetable for such requirements at this stage would be
    premature. We direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to
    consider whether to refer certain technical issues to a federal
    advisory committee, such as the Communications Security, Reliability
    and Interoperability Council (CSRIC). In response to APCO's Petition
    for Clarification, we address other implementation matters and clarify
    certain aspects of the Fifth Report and Order.
        9. We deny BRETSA's Petition for Reconsideration of the Fifth
    Report and Order. We defer consideration of a number of other issues
    raised in comments that fall outside the scope of the Fifth Further
    Notice. Finally, we grant Polaris' Petition for Emergency Declaratory
    Ruling to the extent stated herein. Taken together, we conclude that
    the benefits of today's decision outweigh the costs and that our
    actions will assist PSAPs and first responders in locating wireless 911
    callers in the most populous areas in the near term and nationwide over
    the long term.

    A. Timely Z-Axis Deployment

        10. Under the current vertical location accuracy rules, nationwide
    CMRS providers electing the z-axis option for meeting vertical accuracy
    requirements must deploy z-axis technology meeting the 3-meter accuracy
    standard (for 80% of calls made from z-axis capable devices as
    demonstrated in the test bed) in each of the top 25 CMAs by April 3,
    2021, and in each of the top 50 CMAs by April 3, 2023. As a preliminary
    matter, we grant Polaris's Petition for Emergency Declaratory Ruling to
    the extent it asks the Commission to reaffirm the deadlines established
    in the Fifth Report and Order. We did not seek comment on changing
    those deadlines (and no one petitioned to reconsider those deadlines)
    and hence doing so now would be beyond the scope of the current
    proceeding.
    1. Alternative Means To Demonstrate Compliance Within a CMA
        11. Deployment within a CMA is established by deploying the
    technology to cover 80% of the CMA population. In the Fifth Further
    Notice, we sought comment on expanding the z-axis deployment options
    available to CMRS providers for meeting the 80% coverage threshold.
    First, we sought comment on an alternative that would focus on
    deployment where multi-story buildings are concentrated, for example,
    an option to cover 80% of the buildings that exceed three stories in
    the CMA. Second, we sought comment on an alternative that would allow
    CMRS providers to rely on handset-based solutions to hit our benchmark
    (the 3-meter accuracy standard for 80% of calls made from z-axis
    capable devices as demonstrated in the test bed), which would imply a
    nationwide deployment.
        12. Urban and Dense Urban Morphologies. We now afford nationwide
    CMRS providers the option of deploying z-axis technology to cover 80%
    of the buildings that exceed three stories in the CMA rather than 80%
    of the population. Public safety and industry commenters support this
    option, and no commenter opposes it. IAFF states that first responders
    need vertical location information for tall structures, which are not
    limited to the top CMA population centers. IAFF also states that
    transitioning from a population-based compliance approach to one
    focused on tall structures would presumably assist emergency personnel
    by ``ensuring that vertical location capabilities are made available as
    much as possible where they are most needed, and not just in low-rise
    residential areas where the vertical dimension is not a significant
    factor for public safety.'' iCERT asserts that this alternative
    approach will help to ensure that network infrastructure investments
    are directed to areas of the country where there is a greater
    percentage of large, multi-story buildings. NextNav states that tall
    buildings remain relatively clustered in a discrete number of locations
    in each community. NextNav asserts that, as a result, providing
    vertical location coverage to 80% of tall buildings is technically
    feasible and economically efficient, and it redirects the placement of
    z-axis infrastructure to those locations where it is truly needed.
        13. We find that such an alternative may lower the costs for CMRS
    providers of timely deploying a z-axis solution consistent with our
    existing deadlines. NextNav states that its vertical location service
    will be available for use by wireless carriers and public safety within
    the top 25 and top 50 CMAs ``well in advance'' of the Commission's
    April 2021 and April 2023 compliance deadlines, respectively, and that
    its network will be able to provide z-axis service covering more than
    80% of the tall buildings in these CMAs. NextNav also notes that in
    constructing its network, it employed the services of a privately
    managed, commercially-available database of tall multi-tenant buildings
    in the United States to identify the locations of tall buildings. In
    other words, cost-effective mechanisms already exist to identify
    buildings that exceed three stories for providers that choose this
    option, and this additional option will give providers valuable
    flexibility in determining how they meet their obligations. We thus
    disagree with CTIA's assertion that such an alternative may require a
    nationwide database of building structures, which in turn would require
    significant resources to develop. What is more, we find that affording
    CMRS providers an option based on coverage of tall buildings rather
    than population in the CMA will encourage providers to invest in z-axis
    solutions that focus on the areas with the greatest need for vertical
    location information--i.e., those areas with the greatest concentration
    of multi-story buildings.
        14. Handset Deployment. We also adopt our proposal in the Fifth
    Further Notice to afford nationwide CMRS providers the option of
    meeting vertical location accuracy requirements by deploying z-axis
    technology on handsets. No commenter opposes such an option. And we
    find that because a handset-based technology would be expected to be
    available nationwide, it would implicitly be available to 80% of the
    population of a CMA and thus meet our deployment metrics (so long, of
    course, as it meets the 3-meter accuracy standard for 80% of calls made
    from z-axis capable devices as demonstrated in the test bed).\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ We clarify that CMRS providers may use different z-axis
    technologies in different areas to meet the nationwide benchmark, so
    long as all technologies used are validated by testing to meet the
    accuracy requirements. For example, CMRS providers may deploy one z-
    axis technology in a particular morphology (e.g., urban) and another
    technology in the remaining morphologies, so long as the combination
    results in nationwide coverage. This approach adds flexibility by
    allowing CMRS providers to focus infrastructure-based solutions in
    urban and dense urban areas while using handset-based solutions to
    target suburban and rural morphologies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        15. To ensure sufficient coverage for consumers and public safety,
    we sought comment on how to ensure that a handset-based solution would
    be widely available to consumers. The record indicates that the
    principal z-axis location solutions available to CMRS providers in the
    near term can all be delivered via software upgrades to a wide range of
    legacy handsets. Google's Emergency Location Service is already
    installed on most Android devices, and Apple's Hybridized Emergency
    Location is already installed on most iOS devices. In addition, the
    Cover Letter to the Stage Za Report states that Google's Emergency
    Location Service achieved 3-meter accuracy for more than 50% of calls
    in the test bed, ``and exceeded the 80th percentile metric in one
    morphology.'' Google's participation in the test bed underscores that
    z-axis

    [[Page 53237]]

    technology continues to rapidly improve, and commercial solutions such
    as Emergency Location Service are widely available today. Google's
    comments suggest that Google will continue to refine its z-axis
    solution, and we expect that those enhancements could be made available
    in advance of the April 2021 deadline or with even greater likelihood
    before the April 2023 deadline. Further, Apple will test its Hybridized
    Emergency Location solution in the Test Bed's Stage Zb testing
    campaign, which is scheduled to begin field testing in October 2020.
    Consequently, we expect that any upgrade to Google's Emergency Location
    Service or Apple's Hybridized Emergency Location to support z-axis
    capability will be widely available to consumers. We also expect that
    the solutions offered by Polaris and NextNav could be made widely
    available to consumers. Although the latter solutions will only work
    with handsets equipped with barometric sensors, we have previously
    noted that most smartphones in the market are equipped with such
    sensors. Moreover, data show that as of 2019, 81% of Americans owned a
    smartphone.
        16. NENA suggests that the Commission ``require manufacturers and
    carriers take reasonable efforts to measure and report z-axis handset
    penetration during the transition period to a z-axis-only handset
    marketplace.'' We note that CMRS providers must certify their
    compliance with the vertical location accuracy requirements within 60
    days after each benchmark, and we expect these certifications to
    provide information on the extent to which z-axis capable handsets are
    being deployed on carrier networks. We do not believe additional
    reporting is warranted at this time. However, we will continue to
    monitor developments on these issues.
    2. Establishing a Nationwide Z-Axis Deployment Benchmark
        17. Under our existing rules, a nationwide CMRS provider choosing
    the CMA-based deployment option to meet the April 2021 and 2023
    benchmarks would have no further obligation to support vertical
    location outside the top 50 CMAs. In the Fifth Further Notice, we
    sought comment on mandating nationwide deployment of z-axis technology
    with a particular focus on handset-based versus network-based
    solutions.
        18. Commenters generally support deploying z-axis technology on a
    nationwide basis. APCO suggests expanding the requirements in the rules
    beyond the top 50 CMAs, and NENA states that ``the ultimate goal is
    accurate z-axis location information for the entire country.'' iCERT
    states that reliance on a CMA-by-CMA, population-based approach to
    assess conformance ``appears to run counter to the direction of today's
    leading 911 location solutions.'' T-Mobile asserts that as promulgated,
    the Commission's vertical location rules would cover only a percentage
    of the U.S. population, ``thus leaving millions of Americans outside of
    the designated CMAs potentially without any vertical location
    information.'' Google states that carriers should be permitted to
    deploy z-axis capable handsets nationwide and should be encouraged to
    do so if these solutions prove superior overall.
        19. The record also indicates that deploying z-axis technology on a
    nationwide basis is technically feasible--or at least will be in the
    near future. CTIA states that Google's Android Emergency Location
    Service and Apple's Hybridized Emergency Location ``have the potential
    to provide granular location information to [PSAPs] without deployment
    of new network infrastructure and with use of hardware with diverse
    capabilities (i.e., barometric pressure sensors with varying degrees of
    accuracy or non-barometric pressure sensor based solutions).'' Google
    notes that many handset solutions involve determination of location on
    the device itself, without deployment or maintenance of new
    infrastructure, and that this makes deployments ``readily scalable, up
    to nationwide approaches.'' T-Mobile points out that mobile operating
    system (OS) provider z-axis solutions such as those offered by Google
    and Apple ``have the ability to be deployed nationwide and are
    available on nearly all existing devices.''
        20. We agree with commenters who contend that our deployment
    requirements should ultimately ensure that vertical location
    information meeting our accuracy standards is provided nationwide. As
    the Commission stated in the Fourth Report and Order in this
    proceeding, ``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.'' And we conclude that
    requiring nationwide deployment on an appropriate timescale will allow
    CMRS providers to use nascent z-axis technologies that can be widely
    deployed in consumer handsets through software-based upgrades. In
    addition, nationwide deployment means first responders and emergency
    callers everywhere will benefit from these technologies.
        21. Accordingly, we require nationwide CMRS providers to deploy z-
    axis location technology or dispatchable location to all CMAs
    nationwide by April 2025.\2\ This will ensure that all regions of the
    country and all consumers receive the benefits of z-axis location by a
    date certain, even if nationwide providers choose to deploy CMA-focused
    solutions to meet the earlier deadlines. The record strongly supports
    our conclusion that it is technically feasible for all nationwide
    providers to deploy z-axis technology nationwide by April 2025, if not
    sooner. No commenter opposes our conclusion. As evidenced in comments
    responding to the Fifth Further Notice, z-axis technology is improving
    rapidly, and new and innovative solutions are likely to become widely
    available. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to take this further
    action to help make all Americans safer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \2\ As in the case of our 2021 and 2023 deployment benchmarks,
    CMRS providers may deploy dispatchable location as opposed to z-axis
    technology to meet this requirement and we require deployment to
    cover 80% of the population or 3-story buildings in each CMA, which
    may be shown by the deployment of a widely available handset-based
    solution.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        22. In contrast, we reject calls by some quarters to weaken our
    existing benchmarks and replace them with exclusive nationwide
    benchmarks that do not meet our current accuracy target. In their
    comments, CMRS providers propose an alternative timeline for deployment
    of z-axis technology meeting the accuracy standard adopted by the
    Commission in the Fifth Report and Order. T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T
    support an option for nationwide deployment that would require meeting
    the 3-meter vertical location accuracy metric for 50% of
    calls by April 2021, 70% of calls by April 2023, and 80% of calls by
    April 2025. T-Mobile asserts that under this alternative, z-axis
    technology would be available ``across the country on nearly all
    devices'' by April 2021. Verizon and AT&T also support a schedule for
    introducing z-axis capable devices nationwide.
        23. We agree with IAFF: While the Commission ``fully supports
    expanding vertical location requirements beyond the largest 50 CMAs,''
    it does not support any deployment option that delays or diminishes the
    Commission's vertical location accuracy rules. What is more, the CMRS
    providers' alternative proposal constitutes an untimely petition for
    reconsideration of issues

    [[Page 53238]]

    that were settled in the Fifth Report and Order and are outside the
    scope of the issues raised in the Fifth Further Notice. CMRS providers
    propose a weaker accuracy standard and longer timeline based on the
    same arguments they raised prior to the Fifth Report and Order, i.e.,
    that no party has demonstrated in the test bed process that 3-meter
    accuracy for 80% of calls can be met by the 2021 or 2023 deadlines and
    that a phased-in approach starting with a less rigorous metric is
    therefore warranted. We considered and rejected these arguments in the
    Fifth Report and Order when we established the z-axis location accuracy
    standard of plus or minus 3 meters for 80% of wireless E911 calls and
    affirmed the 2021 and 2023 deadlines for implementation of this
    standard.
        24. We disagree with T-Mobile's assertion that our exploration of
    additional z-axis deployment options in the Fifth Further Notice was an
    invitation to commenters to revisit the adopted accuracy standard or
    timetable; the Fifth Further Notice sought comment on how to expand the
    options to implement the earlier adopted requirements or make vertical
    location accuracy available to wireless 911 callers on an equally
    strong basis. The Fifth Further Notice sought comment ``on establishing
    an option for CMRS providers to deploy z-axis capable handsets
    nationwide as a means of complying with our z-axis deployment
    requirements,'' i.e., the requirements and deadlines adopted in the
    Fifth Report & Order. It also sought comment on tightening the 3-meter
    standard over time, e.g., to 2 meters or 1 meter. Thus, contrary to T-
    Mobile's assertion, the alternatives on which the Fifth Further Notice
    sought comment did not include weakening the z-axis metric or extending
    the 2021 or 2023 deadlines. In addition, CMRS providers offer no new
    facts to indicate that they will be unable to meet the Commission's
    longstanding benchmarks, while the vendors of both solutions tested in
    Stage Z of the test bed continue to indicate that their solutions will
    be available to CMRS providers in time to enable them to meet the April
    2021 benchmark. As IAFF states, ``[t]he process of reaching a consensus
    position on these important issues is too demanding on key stakeholders
    to constantly revisit the decision year after year.''
        25. As a separate and independent ground for rejecting CMRS
    providers' alternative proposal, even if the CMRS providers'
    alternative proposal were timely, we conclude that there is no basis
    for taking this approach. We disagree with the assertion by T-Mobile
    and CTIA that their proposal should be preferred because it would
    provide z-axis location information for more 911 calls overall than
    solutions that only support z-axis location for 911 calls in major
    markets. While T-Mobile and CTIA argue that their solution could be
    quickly deployed nationwide and would work in most handsets, the fact
    remains that their solution would not meet the Commission's 3-meter/80%
    of calls accuracy standard by April 2021 or even by April 2023 in any
    market, but would delay compliance in all markets until 2025.
        26. Moreover, as public safety commenters note, if CMRS providers
    intend to use a 911 location technology that is still under development
    and currently incapable of meeting the +/- 3-meter benchmark more than
    50% of the time, the technology needs to be improved within the
    timetable adopted by the Commission to meet the standard; the standard
    should not be weakened to conform to the current status of the
    technology in development when other solutions that meet the standard
    are technically feasible. The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA)
    points out that in an emergency dispatch situation where time is of the
    essence, ``it is critically important that the information that is
    provided to law enforcement officers in the field be accurate and
    reliable.'' Further, ``[a]ny location information that may not be
    sufficiently accurate as much as 50% of the time cannot be used as a
    resource for public safety and must be discarded.'' With only 50%
    reliability, passing such z-axis information to PSAPs could waste
    precious minutes while first responders search in vain the wrong floors
    of a building--and ultimately lead the public safety community to
    simply ignore z-axis information over the longer term. Such an outcome
    would serve no one--not first responders, not the public, and not the
    CMRS providers that invested in such technologies.
        27. We also disagree with T-Mobile's assertion that the CMRS
    providers' alternative is superior because it would be deployed
    nationwide rather than being limited to major markets. T-Mobile's
    preferred solution instead is just a trade-off--potentially earlier
    nationwide deployment of a technology solution that does not meet the
    accuracy levels needed to protect public safety. And T-Mobile ignores
    the reasons why the Commission adopted the market-based approach to z-
    axis deployment in the 2015 Fourth Report and Order--an approach that
    was taken directly from the 2015 Amended Roadmap jointly agreed to and
    submitted by the wireless carriers and public safety entities. The
    parties to the Roadmap proposed deployment of z-axis technology in the
    top 50 markets because identifying a 911 caller's vertical location is
    most crucial for calls coming from multi-story buildings. The
    Commission's analysis of U.S. Geological Survey data indicates that
    more than 84% of census block groups with average building heights of
    three or more stories are located in the top 50 markets. In other
    words, federal data showing the average height of buildings by census
    block group show that over 84% of block groups in the three tallest
    quantiles are in the top 50 markets. As the wireless providers
    acknowledged in the Amended Roadmap, it is much more important to have
    reliable z-axis information for 911 calls from these environments, even
    if they represent a small percentage of overall calls, than for the
    many 911 calls that come from ground level (e.g., calls from outdoor
    locations, single family homes, and other single story buildings). Yet
    the T-Mobile/CTIA alternative would allow CMRS providers to abandon
    this targeted approach to z-axis deployment, which has been in the
    Commission's rules since the 2015 Fourth Report and Order and which
    encourages deployment of vertical location resources in the areas where
    they are most needed.
        28. In addition, we disagree with T-Mobile and CTIA's argument that
    their OS-based alternative would provide greater consumer benefits than
    solutions offered by NextNav and Polaris because (1) the OS-based
    alternative would be available on most current handsets, whereas the
    NextNav and Polaris solutions will only work on handsets equipped with
    barometric sensors, and (2) the OS-based alternative can be made
    available to consumers automatically, whereas the NextNav and Polaris
    solutions require consumers to ``opt in'' and many consumers may
    decline to do so. We find these arguments unpersuasive. NextNav argues
    that the CMRS providers underestimate the availability of barometer-
    equipped handsets and contends that its software ``can be uploaded/
    pushed to capable devices without user opt-in.'' CTIA also provides no
    support, other than conjecture, for its estimate that only 5% of
    consumers asked to opt in to a 911 solution would do so. Moreover, even
    if we assume that the NextNav and Polaris solutions would only benefit
    consumers in major markets who have barometer-equipped handsets and who
    choose to opt in, those consumers would have access by April 2021 to z-
    axis solutions meeting the 3-meter/80% of calls

    [[Page 53239]]

    standard. In addition, consumers without z-axis capable devices would
    have the ability to acquire them. By contrast, the T-Mobile/CTIA
    alternative would provide far less consumer benefit because it would
    deprive all consumers of access to z-axis solutions meeting the 3-
    meter/80% of calls standard for an additional four years--until April
    2025. Aside from failing to quantify how many legacy handsets a change
    in approach might address, T-Mobile's argument fails to address the
    same fundamental problem: Enabling E911 technology that delivers
    accurate location information only 50% of the time is not useful to
    public safety officials, will not be used by PSAPs, and thus eliminates
    the benefits of deployment in 2021 and 2023.
        29. Finally, there is no merit to T-Mobile's argument that our
    rejection of its alternative proposal is arbitrary and capricious
    because we have not undertaken a cost-benefit comparison of its
    preferred OS-based solution against the solutions proffered by NextNav
    and Polaris. First, despite our request in the Fifth Further Notice for
    commenters to provide data on costs and benefits for alternative
    solutions, neither T-Mobile nor any other CMRS provider submitted cost/
    benefit data that would be needed to make such a comparison. Second,
    and more fundamentally, because our location accuracy rules are
    technology-neutral, the purpose of our cost-benefit analysis is not to
    compare the costs and benefits of particular location methodologies,
    but rather to show that the cost ceiling imposed by our location
    requirements is below the expected benefit floor. In the Fifth Report
    and Order, we determined that the cost ceiling imposed by our z-axis
    standard would not exceed $36 million and that this was well below the
    expected annual benefit floor. Once these values are established, CMRS
    providers are free to adopt whatever technology they want, including
    OS-based solutions, as long as it meets our prescribed standards. The
    fact that one technology is more or less costly than another does not
    require us to re-do our cost-benefit analysis or mean that use of
    either one would cause costs to exceed benefits. Finally, while the
    costs of T-Mobile's alternative may be lower in 2021 and 2023 (although
    T-Mobile does not quantify how much lower), the record also shows that
    T-Mobile's proposed approach would largely eliminate the benefits of
    the 2021 and 2023 benchmarks because the results would be
    insufficiently accurate for first responders to actually use them. As a
    result, the net benefits of our approach exceed the net benefits of T-
    Mobile's proposed alternative.
    3. Deployment of Location Software to Z-Axis Capable Handsets
        30. In the Fifth Report and Order, we stated that the 3-meter
    metric should apply to all ``z-axis capable'' handsets, which we
    defined as handsets that ``can measure and report vertical location
    without a hardware upgrade.'' We further used this definition as the
    basis for our deployment requirements, stating that ``any device
    technically capable of measuring and reporting vertical location
    information without a change in hardware must be enabled to do so.''
        31. Several commenters direct their comments toward the definition
    of ``z-axis capable handset,'' while others seek more specification on
    what mechanisms for making handsets z-axis capable will be considered
    sufficient to meet the Commission's deployment requirements. We address
    these issues below and codify our previously adopted definition and
    refinements thereto.
        32. APCO points out that the handset-based location solutions
    offered by NextNav and Polaris require the deployment of external data
    sources such as beacons, weather stations, or location databases to
    support location determination in the handset. APCO asks us to confirm
    that in such instances, our rules require not just deployment of z-axis
    capable handsets, but also deployment of any network infrastructure
    that is necessary to support delivery of location information by the
    handset. We agree. In order to meet deployment thresholds under either
    the CMA-based or the nationwide handset-based alternative, CMRS
    providers must deploy and activate all network infrastructure necessary
    to support z-axis location by z-axis capable handsets throughout the
    deployment area.
        33. Polaris asks the Commission to confirm that for barometric-
    based location solutions, only devices with barometric sensors can be
    considered z-axis capable. We agree that the definition of what
    constitutes a ``z-axis capable'' handset may vary depending on the
    specific location solution being used. Because we defined z-axis
    capability in the Fifth Report and Order to exclude handsets that
    require a hardware upgrade, the applicability of the definition to
    particular handsets may vary depending on what hardware is required for
    a particular 911 location solution to work. Thus, we agree with Polaris
    that for location solutions that rely on barometric pressure sensor
    information, only handsets that have such sensors installed would be
    considered z-axis capable. On the other hand, in the case of location
    solutions that do not require barometric pressure sensor information,
    both handsets with and without barometric sensors would be considered
    z-axis capable, assuming they are software-upgradable.
        34. T-Mobile questions whether CMRS providers can rely on third-
    party apps to deliver location software upgrades. CMRS providers may
    deliver upgrades to handsets either by installing the location software
    as an upgrade to the handset OS or by offering it to end users as an
    over-the-top software upgrade. This approach will give CMRS providers
    additional flexibility in meeting the April 2021 deadline.
        35. AT&T asks whether a handset will be considered z-axis capable
    if activating the software requires customer consent, and the customer
    declines to do so. We recognize, as AT&T points out, that some location
    software upgrades may require affirmative consent by the end user to
    activate the software in the handset. In such instances, the CMRS
    provider will be deemed to have met its deployment obligation so long
    as it either pre-installs or affirmatively ``pushes'' the location
    software to end users so that they receive a prompt or other notice
    informing them that the application or service is available and what
    they need to do to download and enable the technology on their
    phone.\3\ Moreover, the CMRS provider will be deemed in compliance when
    it makes location software available to the end user in this manner
    even if the end user declines to use the software or subsequently
    disables it.\4\ However, we expect CMRS providers to clearly and
    conspicuously disclose the benefits of any location solution they offer
    so that consumers can make informed decisions whether to enable it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \3\ Conversely, it would not be sufficient for the provider
    merely to make the location application available to customers in an
    app store.
        \4\ In other words, handsets that fall into this category will
    not be counted against the CMRS provider in determining compliance
    with the deployment benchmarks herein. The location solution must
    also comply with the privacy protections applicable to 911 location
    information.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        36. Some carriers question whether older barometer-equipped
    handsets can be software-upgraded to support the Polaris or NextNav
    solutions. AT&T contends that only 26% of Android devices ``have the
    capability to be upgraded to support vertical location'' and that ``a
    not-insignificant number of Apple devices may also face limitations in
    receiving updates.'' CTIA states that

    [[Page 53240]]

    NextNav's comments about the challenges of integrating its proprietary
    solution into wireless handsets suggest that it is ``not currently on a
    path that will deliver a scalable and consistent solution that will
    meet the April 2021 deadline.''
        37. We do not share these concerns. First, the record indicates
    that barometric sensor-based solutions, such as those offered by
    Polaris and NextNav, can be made widely available to consumers.
    Although these solutions will only work with handsets equipped with
    barometric sensors, we have previously noted that most smartphones in
    the market are so equipped. Second, Polaris contends that its software
    can be widely deployed as part of an OS upgrade or a carrier upgrade,
    and NextNav states that software updates for its solution can be
    uploaded to most z-axis capable handsets that were previously
    purchased.
        38. Most newer handset models can receive such upgrades because
    they have not reached end-of-life status. Accordingly, they should be
    considered z-axis capable under our rules. In addition, CMRS providers
    can deploy software upgrades by means of over-the-top apps as well as
    operating system or firmware upgrades. In light of this, we require
    that CMRS providers using any z-axis option must affirmatively ``push''
    the z-axis technology to all existing z-axis capable handset models on
    the provider's network that can receive it, and that CMRS providers
    must continue to support the z-axis technology on these handsets
    thereafter. A CMRS provider using the handset-based deployment option
    must make the software available to existing z-axis capable handsets
    nationwide; a provider using a CMA-based deployment option must make it
    available to all z-axis capable handsets in the CMA. For all new z-axis
    capable handsets marketed to consumers, the technology must be pre-
    installed.
        39. Verizon and AT&T ask the Commission to take regulatory action
    directed at device manufacturers to require their cooperation with
    wireless providers to meet the z-axis deadlines. We continue to believe
    that the flexibility, technology neutrality, and privacy protections
    afforded by our rules will enable CMRS providers to negotiate
    requirements with such third parties and establish contractual
    timelines that will enable timely deployment of z-axis solutions. We
    expect device manufacturers and others to cooperate and work in good
    faith with CMRS providers to expedite these efforts as needed to meet
    the upcoming deadlines. Moreover, as we stated in the Fifth Report and
    Order, we will closely monitor the roll-out of z-axis capable devices
    to the American public and will ``take all appropriate action against
    any party that obstructs the effective deployment of such technologies
    in a timely manner.''
        40. Finally, we decline to adopt AT&T's suggestion that we measure
    the deployment of technology to z-axis capable handsets based on the
    percentage of new handset models offered for sale. Such an approach
    would provide vertical location technology only to handsets newly
    introduced to the market, leaving the entire base of legacy handsets
    without this potentially lifesaving technology.
    4. Deployment Timeline for Non-Nationwide Providers
        41. Under our existing rules, non-nationwide CMRS providers serving
    any of the top 25 or 50 CMAs have an additional year to meet each of
    the vertical location benchmarks specified in the rules. Accordingly,
    these non-nationwide providers will have an additional year to
    implement the nationwide deployment requirement we adopt in this order.
    However, the current vertical location requirements do not extend to
    non-nationwide CMRS providers that do not serve any of the top 50 CMAs.
    In the Fifth Further Notice, we noted that CCA has urged the Commission
    to ``implement a glide path for non-nationwide carriers to comply with
    any adopted timeframes, particularly if these carriers operate outside
    of the FNPRM's proposed benchmark of the top 50 markets.'' We also
    sought comment on appropriate timelines for non-nationwide CMRS
    providers to comply with additional z-axis deployment options, such as
    nationwide deployment or deployment on the basis of building type.
        42. In its comments, CCA notes that many non-nationwide providers
    are dependent on vendors to update network capabilities that support
    location accuracy services, and delays by such vendors may be outside
    of a carrier's control. CCA also notes that many non-nationwide
    providers are not privy to the test bed process and the technologies
    that are deemed viable; ``[o]nly once solutions are certified out of
    the test bed do carriers undergo their own interoperability testing, a
    process that could take many months.'' CCA asserts that its small and
    rural carrier members have ``finite resources,'' and cautions that
    ``technical and marketplace barriers may delay small and rural carrier
    deployment beyond a year.'' However, NENA contends that non-nationwide
    providers should not be given additional implementation time beyond the
    one-year period afforded by the current rules.
        43. Consistent with our objectives in this proceeding, we conclude
    that the benefits of improved vertical location accuracy should be
    available to customers of all CMRS providers, including non-nationwide
    providers serving areas outside the major population centers. In light
    of our decision to require nationwide CMRS providers to provide
    nationwide z-axis location by April 2025, we afford non-nationwide
    carriers an additional year, i.e., until April 2026, to provide z-axis
    location throughout their service areas. Accordingly, non-nationwide
    providers that do not serve any of the top 50 CMAs must also support z-
    axis location throughout their network footprint by April 2026. Given
    the constraints and technical challenges non-nationwide CMRS providers
    may face in selecting and deploying z-axis technologies, we find that
    allowing these providers an additional year beyond the 2025 nationwide
    deployment date for nationwide carriers is appropriate. This will
    afford non-nationwide CMRS providers operating outside the top 50 CMAs
    more than five years to comply with our vertical location requirements.
    In addition, like all other CMRS providers already subject to vertical
    location requirements, these providers also must comply with applicable
    requirements for compliance certifications, privacy and security
    protections, provision of confidence/uncertainty data, and live call
    data reporting.

    B. Dispatchable Location Without the National Emergency Address
    Database

        44. The Commission's current dispatchable location rules specify
    that CMRS providers must use the National Emergency Address Database as
    the source of dispatchable location reference points to meet CMA-based
    vertical location requirements. In the Fifth Further Notice, we noted
    the significant challenges facing the National Emergency Address
    Database and proposed to expand the rules to allow CMRS providers to
    use non-National Emergency Address Database based dispatchable location
    solutions to meet these requirements, provided that such solutions
    afforded equivalent privacy and security protections to consumers. We
    observed that our proposal was consistent with the flexible and
    technology-neutral approach to dispatchable location we adopted for
    non-CMRS providers in the Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act proceeding.

    [[Page 53241]]

        45. As proposed, we revise the rules to allow CMRS providers to
    deploy dispatchable location solutions that do not rely on the National
    Emergency Address Database, which was formally terminated shortly after
    the Fifth Further Notice.\5\ Given the National Emergency Address
    Database's demise, commenters uniformly support this change. Commenters
    also affirm that a diverse array of technological approaches could be
    used to provide dispatchable location. CTIA states that ``location
    solution providers are developing a variety of technology approaches to
    derive address-based information, such as reverse geocoding, device
    contextual information, and mapping locations within large buildings or
    other structures such as airports or shopping malls.'' Verizon states
    that it has begun delivering dispatchable location to PSAPs for 911
    calls from certain devices when the information can be determined
    reliably, and that it plans to incorporate dispatchable location
    capabilities into 5G home voice products. AT&T and Google suggest that
    dispatchable location solutions may be technically feasible if carriers
    can leverage other data sources, including handset-based approaches.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \5\ On February 14, 2020, the NEAD, LLC informed us that the
    National Emergency Address Database Platform had ceased operation
    and was ``no longer available to support wireless providers'
    provision of dispatchable location information.'' Although we delete
    the reference to the NEAD in the rules, we retain the metric for
    measuring a carrier's deployment of dispatchable location reference
    points. Specifically, for any CMRS provider that relies on
    dispatchable location to meet the April 2021 or 2023 benchmarks in a
    CMA, we continue to require the provider to provision a total number
    of dispatchable location reference points (e.g., WiFi access points
    or Bluetooth beacons) equal to 25% of the CMA population. Reference
    point data may be stored in any database so long as the database
    meets the privacy and security requirements adopted in the Fifth
    Report and Order.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        46. The Fifth Further Notice also sought comment on alternative
    approaches to dispatchable location, including whether to mandate the
    provision of both dispatchable location and vertical location data for
    911 calls originating from multi-story buildings. Some public safety
    commenters support revising the current rules--which give CMRS
    providers the option of providing either dispatchable location or z-
    axis information--to require provision of dispatchable location for a
    minimum percentage of 911 calls. On the other hand, CMRS providers
    express concerns about requiring dispatchable location, arguing that
    many challenges remain and that solutions are still in early stages of
    development. However, there is broad support for treating dispatchable
    location as the preferred indoor location solution as it becomes
    technically feasible. IAFF states that it ``continues to support
    efforts to develop alternative dispatchable location solutions,
    particularly those that may provide an exact floor label along with
    altitude information.'' Verizon states that ``nothing should stop
    service providers today from generating and delivering dispatchable
    location information to PSAPs when feasible.'' APCO also advocates
    requiring provision of dispatchable location ``when technically
    feasible.''
        47. Dispatchable location is already being provided for some number
    of 911 calls, and dispatchable location solutions are likely to become
    increasingly available with the rollout of 5G networks and improved
    indoor mapping of large buildings and other structures. As these
    solutions are developed and deployed, we believe it is appropriate to
    designate dispatchable location as the preferred approach for any
    indoor wireless 911 call where providing dispatchable location is
    technically feasible and cost-effective.\6\ This is consistent with the
    core goals of this proceeding and with our approach to dispatchable
    location for non-CMRS services pursuant to Section 506 of RAY BAUM'S
    Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \6\ Under our current rules, however, CMRS providers must
    validate any dispatchable location technology intended for indoor
    location accuracy through the test bed process. 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        48. In the Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Report and Order, we adopted
    location accuracy rules for mobile text, multi-line telephone systems
    (MLTS), interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP),
    Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), mobile text, and fixed
    telephony, which require the provision of dispatchable location if it
    is technically feasible to do so (and alternative location information
    if it is not). We also noted that for purposes of this requirement,
    dispatchable location solutions must be cost-effective. For non-fixed
    services, the requirements adopted in the Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act
    Report and Order will take effect on January 6, 2022. We adopt the same
    approach and effective date here. Accordingly, as of January 6, 2022,
    all CMRS providers will be required to provide dispatchable location
    for individual 911 calls if it is technically feasible and cost-
    effective for them to do so.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \7\ As a result of the demise of the National Emergency Address
    Database and the rule changes adopted in this Sixth Report and
    Order, we find good cause to update Section 9.10(i)(2)(ii).
    Specifically, we revise and streamline the organizational structure
    of the rule to clearly reflect the vertical location compliance
    timelines and expanded z-axis and dispatchable location deployment
    options. See infra Appx. A. As part of this restructuring of the
    rule, we reiterate that CMRS providers must continue to comply with
    the testing and live call data reporting requirements in the rules.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        49. Given this requirement, we decline to adopt minimum percentage
    thresholds for dispatchable location 911 calls or to require provision
    of dispatchable location for 911 calls originating from multi-story
    buildings. We agree with CMRS providers that such particularized
    requirements that go beyond what is technically feasible and cost-
    effective are not warranted given that development of dispatchable
    location solutions is still in early stages.
        50. Privacy and Security. In the Fifth Report and Order, we adopted
    privacy and security requirements for z-axis location information. We
    made explicit that CMRS providers and the location vendors upon which
    they rely may only use 911 location information for 911 purposes,
    except with prior express consent or as required by law. We also
    expanded the rules requiring CMRS providers to maintain the privacy and
    security of data stored in the National Emergency Address Database to
    apply to any stored data used for 911 location purposes. We concluded
    that ``all 911 location data should be treated consistently from a
    privacy and security perspective.''
        51. In the Fifth Further Notice, as part of our proposal to allow
    CMRS providers to deploy non-National Emergency Address Database based
    dispatchable location solutions, we proposed that any dispatchable
    location alternative should include equivalent privacy and security
    safeguards to those applied to the National Emergency Address Database.
    Apple and NextNav support our proposal, and no commenter opposes it.
        52. We adopt our proposal to require CMRS providers to implement
    privacy and security safeguards to non-National Emergency Address
    Database dispatchable location technologies equivalent to those that
    applied to the National Emergency Address Database. In approving the
    privacy and security plan in 2017, the Commission found that the
    proposed plan included ``sufficient provisions to safeguard the
    privacy, security, and resiliency of the [National Emergency Address
    Database] when it is launched.'' To ensure compliance, CMRS providers
    must certify that neither they nor any third party they rely on to
    obtain dispatchable location information for 911 purposes will use such
    information for any non-

    [[Page 53242]]

    911 purpose, except with prior express consent or as required by law.
        53. We decline to adopt additional restrictions proposed by Apple,
    which we conclude are unnecessary. In the Fifth Report and Order, we
    declined to adopt a similar prohibition on data-sharing because we
    regarded it as ``needlessly prescriptive, since the broader privacy
    protections apply to any data that is shared.'' Here again, we conclude
    that the broad privacy protections we have adopted are sufficient to
    address Apple's concerns without the need for additional highly
    prescriptive technical requirements. The protections we adopt require
    CMRS providers to safeguard the privacy and security of emergency
    location data throughout all elements of their systems for determining
    911 location and delivering location information to PSAPs. Similarly,
    CMRS providers who work with third-party vendors are responsible for
    ensuring that those vendors take appropriate measures to address
    privacy and security concerns.
        54. T-Mobile and CTIA raise concerns that different z-axis
    solutions might carry different levels of risk to consumer privacy and
    that consumers might disable location technology on their phones for
    privacy reasons. The privacy protections we have adopted in this
    proceeding fully address CMRS providers' obligation to protect consumer
    privacy while also enabling location-accurate E911 technologies, and
    apply uniformly to all z-axis solutions. CMRS providers should fully
    disclose and explain these privacy protections to consumers so that
    consumers can make fully informed decisions where consent is required.
        55. Confidence and Uncertainty. In the Fifth Report and Order, we
    extended the confidence and uncertainty requirements previously adopted
    for x/y location data to also apply to dispatchable location, z-axis
    data, and floor level information under Section 9.10(j) of the rules.
    Thus, as with horizontal confidence and uncertainty data, CMRS
    providers must report vertical confidence and uncertainty data using a
    confidence level of 90%. In the Fifth Further Notice, we sought input
    on how to account for uncertainty in dispatchable location data for a
    broad range of emerging solutions and on whether we should extend
    confidence and uncertainty requirements to alternative dispatchable
    location mechanisms, and, if so, what the required confidence and
    uncertainty percentage should be.
        56. Commenters generally support having dispatchable location
    information accompanied by a confidence and uncertainty value of some
    kind to help PSAPs evaluate the reliability of the location data. No
    commenters disagree with this approach. However, commenters also note
    that determining a dispatchable location confidence and uncertainty
    value is complex because dispatchable location, unlike geodetic
    location, involves the provision of a civic address rather than a
    measurement. NENA notes that there are no established conventions for
    calculating or communicating the uncertainty associated with
    dispatchable location. Apple submits that location systems cannot
    accurately express uncertainty in terms of civic address ranges because
    address ranges--even when available--are not standardized, and do not
    convey information about actual distances or other spatial relations
    between addresses.
        57. Although several commenters suggest that confidence and
    uncertainty values could be developed for dispatchable location, the
    record indicates that no standard currently exists, and additional work
    is needed to develop a standardized approach. We therefore defer
    consideration of this issue to a future proceeding. We also encourage
    carriers, public safety organizations, and other interested parties to
    create standards for conveying uncertainty for dispatchable location in
    a manner that is more useful for first responders.
        58. In the interim, we revise Section 9.10(j)(4) to make explicit
    that when CMRS providers provide dispatchable location or floor level
    information in addition to z-axis information, they must provide
    confidence and uncertainty data for the z-axis location. In addition,
    we amend Section 9.10(k), which requires that ``CMRS providers must
    also record the confidence and uncertainty data that they provide.''
    Currently Section 9.10(k) omits confidence and uncertainty requirements
    for vertical location provided pursuant to Section 9.10(j)(4).
    Accordingly, to eliminate a potential gap in the rule, we amend Section
    9.10(k) to reference paragraph (j)(4) to ensure that CMRS providers
    supply confidence and uncertainty data for dispatchable location and
    floor level information upon request from a PSAP and that they retain
    this information for a period of two years.

    C. Compliance Testing and Certification

        59. Under our existing rules, all CMRS providers will be required
    to certify that the indoor location technology (or technologies) that
    they use to meet the compliance deadlines have been deployed
    consistently with the manner in which they have been tested in the test
    bed. APCO contends that this certification requirement is ``unclear''
    and insufficient to ensure that z-axis technologies will deliver the
    same degree of accuracy in the live 911 environment that they deliver
    in the test bed. APCO argues that CMRS providers should be required to
    certify that their testing has accounted for multiple factors that
    could affect performance during live 911 calls, such as handset
    capabilities, handset behavior, morphology, and weather conditions.
        60. We believe the current testing and certification process is
    sufficient to ensure that z-axis technologies will deliver the same
    level of accuracy for live 911 calls that they deliver in the test bed.
    For each of the upcoming z-axis deployment deadlines, beginning with
    April 2021, the rules require CMRS providers to ``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.'' The rules further require this certification to be
    based on representative and robust compliance testing of each
    technology's performance in a variety of real world environments and
    conditions. Specifically, compliance testing must: (1) Include testing
    in representative indoor environments, including dense urban, urban,
    suburban, and rural morphologies; (2) test for location accuracy
    (ground truth), latency, and reliability (yield); and (3) evaluate each
    test call as independent from prior calls and as based on the first
    location delivered after the call is initiated.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \8\ APCO expresses concern that CMRS providers could deploy z-
    axis technology ``that only complies with the z-axis metric for a
    single device or cherry-picked subset of devices.'' We do not agree.
    Testing a single device or a small subset of devices that are not
    representative of the z-axis capable devices used on the CMRS
    provider's network would be inconsistent with the requirement that
    CMRS providers deploy location technology consistently with the
    manner in which it has been tested. Moreover, if live call data or
    other objective evidence indicates that a CMRS provider is
    delivering inaccurate z-axis information for live 911 calls, PSAPs
    have recourse under Section 9.10(i)(2)(iv) to seek enforcement, so
    long as the PSAP has implemented policies that are designed to
    obtain all location information made available by the provider when
    initiating and delivering 911 calls to the PSAP.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        61. Because the current testing and certification requirements take
    a wide variety of real-world conditions into account, we decline to
    require CMRS providers to test for or certify to additional factors
    such as those proposed by APCO. We recognize that the performance of
    location technology

    [[Page 53243]]

    during individual 911 calls may be affected by specific characteristics
    of the handset being used or the local environment when and where the
    call is made. However, incorporating all of these additional variables
    into our testing and certification requirements would be neither
    practical nor cost-effective.
        62. Although we decline to modify our testing and certification
    requirements for the upcoming vertical location deployment deadlines,
    we encourage CMRS providers to conduct additional periodic testing of
    z-axis technologies once they have been deployed. In addition, we note
    that our rules, testing and certification create only a presumption of
    compliance with location accuracy requirements standards, and this
    presumption ``can be rebutted with live call data or other objective
    measurements showing lack of compliance.'' \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \9\ APCO asks the Commission to clarify when may PSAPs seek
    enforcement of the rules and what steps device manufacturers,
    operating system providers, and others must take to ensure z-axis
    technologies perform as expected. In addition, APCO asks whether
    device manufacturers and operating system providers will be subject
    to enforcement action if they refuse to permit z-axis technologies
    from engaging in battery-intensive processes that interfere with a
    consumer's user experience ``or for any other reason?'' We will
    address any enforcement issues on a case-by-case basis as they
    arise, and we find that it would be premature to provide guidance on
    possible enforcement actions under hypothetical facts at this time.
    Finally, the rules address when PSAPs can seek enforcement of the
    location accuracy rules.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    D. Continuing To Improve the Z-Axis Metric

        63. In the Fifth Further Notice, we sought comment on possible
    measures to improve the quality and usefulness of vertical location
    information over time. Specifically, we sought comment on whether and
    over what time period it would be technologically feasible to achieve a
    2-meter metric, whether to enhance the vertical location accuracy
    testing process, and the long-term feasibility of providing floor level
    information to PSAPs, either by converting Height Above Ellipsoid data
    to a precise floor level or determining floor level independently of
    Height Above Ellipsoid. Commenters responding to these issues generally
    agree on the importance of continuing to seek improvements in the
    quality and usefulness of vertical location information, but there is
    considerable disagreement on when and how such improvements should be
    implemented.
        64. Some commenters support adopting a sub-3-meter metric, based
    primarily on NextNav's Stage Z test results and previous field trials.
    However, others contend that the current state of technology does not
    support tightening the metric. iCERT states that ``establishment of a
    more stringent requirement, without the benefit of technical data to
    support it, would be arbitrary both in terms of the level of accuracy
    achievable and the timeframe in which it could be achieved.'' In
    addition, in terms of prioritizing resources, CTIA argues that CMRS
    providers and their vendors should be allowed to focus on implementing
    the 3-meter metric in the near term before a stricter metric is
    considered.
        65. The record reflects similar disagreement over whether to
    enhance the testing process. Some commenters call for expanding testing
    by CMRS providers to include specific scenarios that may be faced by
    first responders, such as locating 911 callers in buildings when the
    power is out. However, CTIA submits that simulating a power outage or
    similar emergency scenario in the test bed poses significant practical
    and cost challenges because the test bed relies on testing in buildings
    that are occupied and in use. CTIA argues that testing of various first
    responder scenarios would be better addressed by the public safety
    community. NENA agrees that there are significant challenges associated
    with testing of first responder scenarios and suggests that
    stakeholders work with ATIS to develop standards for the test bed.
        66. Commenters also disagree about the feasibility, costs, and
    timeframes associated with converting Height Above Ellipsoid to floor
    level. ATIS ESIF states that there are ``significant'' challenges with
    converting altitude to floor level.\10\ CTIA, NextNav, and Polaris
    express skepticism that Height Above Ellipsoid can be converted to
    floor level in the near future. ESRI proposes development of a national
    3D basemap, which it contends could support a standardized, cost-
    effective conversion of Height Above Ellipsoid to floor level. However,
    such a basemap does not currently exist, and it is uncertain how
    quickly one could be developed or how much it would cost.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \10\ APCO requests clarification that under the existing rules,
    floor level information can be derived by means other than first
    obtaining an estimated Height Above Ellipsoid and then converting
    the Height Above Ellipsoid to a floor level. We clarify that in
    complying with the requirement that floor level information be
    provided when available, CMRS providers are not limited to
    translating floor level from Height Above Ellipsoid but may derive
    floor level information from any source, including carrier-
    provisioned WiFi and in-home products, new 5G technologies, or other
    sources.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        67. Given the continuing lack of consensus in the record, we
    believe it is premature at this time to adopt new requirements or
    deadlines with respect to tightening the 3-meter metric, expanded
    testing, or floor level identification. We also agree with CTIA that at
    least between now and the April 2021 deadline for initial
    implementation of the 3-meter standard, CMRS providers and their
    vendors should be allowed to focus their efforts on that
    implementation. Nonetheless, we encourage and expect industry to
    continue to work with public safety on developing standards and
    solutions for improving indoor location. IAFC, IAFF, IACP, NSA, and
    NASEMSO ask the Commission to biannually evaluate the state of vertical
    location technology and consider narrowing the metric when it is
    technically feasible to do so. We direct the Public Safety and Homeland
    Security Bureau to evaluate the state of vertical location technology
    in July 2022 and to report to the Commission the results of that
    evaluation.\11\ We also direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security
    Bureau to consider whether to refer these technical issues to an
    appropriate federal advisory committee, such as CSRIC, and the
    appropriate timetables for an advisory committee to submit
    recommendations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \11\ The Bureau should also recommend whether further evaluation
    would likely be helpful in 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    E. Summary of Costs and Benefits

        68. We believe our previous cost benefit assessment remains valid
    although we find that, with increased flexibility on options to supply
    vertical location and the amount of time between now and when these
    benchmarks must be met, some carriers might be able to meet the
    requirements at a lower cost than if we did not adopt the revisions
    herein. As we affirmed in the Fourth Further Notice, the new vertical
    information--together with the refinement of existing horizontal
    information--has the potential of saving ``approximately 10,120 lives
    annually at a value of $9.1 million per statistical life, for an annual
    benefit of approximately $92 billion or $291 per wireless subscriber.''
    Due to U.S. Department of Transportation updates for value of a
    statistical life, we presently estimate this annual benefit floor at
    $97 billion. In the Fifth Report and Order, we observed that adding
    vertical location information plays a major role in achieving the $97
    billion benefit.\12\ We also stressed the

    [[Page 53244]]

    unquantifiable benefits of reductions in human suffering and property
    loss. In the Fifth Further Notice, we sought comment on costs and
    benefits associated with top 50 CMAs and a possible nationwide
    deployment of z-axis technology, which would effectively result in a
    nationwide x, y and z location accuracy standard. We also sought
    comment on our proposal to broaden the focus of our dispatchable
    location requirements to encourage emerging technologies that do not
    rely on the National Emergency Address Database. We received no
    explicit input on the costs or benefits associated with our proposals
    in the Fifth Further Notice. Because we are not changing the April 3,
    2021, and April 3, 2023, deployment benchmarks established in the
    Fourth Report and Order and reaffirmed in the Fifth Report and Order,
    we do not anticipate any changes in our previous cost/benefit analysis
    with respect to those benchmarks. We did, however, receive comment on
    the need for increasing flexible options for z-axis and dispatchable
    location technologies, and mandating vertical location information and
    the feasibility of doing so nationwide.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \12\ In the Fifth Report and Order, we determined that the
    benefit floor would be $97 billion which is a nationwide figure.
    Here, we determine that the benefit floor estimate is unaffected by
    the flexible options adopted in this Order.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        69. Flexible Options. We adopt our proposal to provide CMRS
    providers additional flexibility by allowing CMRS providers the option
    of deploying z-axis technology to cover 80% of the buildings that
    exceed three stories in a given CMA or leveraging handset-based
    solutions. The added flexibility associated with these options will
    reduce costs on CMRS providers without reducing the benefits of
    improved vertical location accuracy. Comments reflect a correlation
    between population density and concentration of buildings taller than
    three stories and that providing the flexibility to cover 80% of tall
    buildings in the top 50 CMAs would achieve significant public benefits.
    We anticipate that network-based deployment would at least initially
    start from areas that have the highest concentration of buildings
    taller than three stories. NextNav indicates that it will deploy its
    solution in 105 CMAs. Most, if not all the infrastructure needed for z-
    axis deployment will be used for deploying the multi-story option. Some
    of the costs will involve the deployment of infrastructure, and
    additional weather stations, used to calibrate handset barometric
    sensors, and may involve incurring the cost of 3D mapping to determine
    multi-story building locations. Thus, this option will enable CMRS
    providers to focus resources in those areas where 911 calls from multi-
    story buildings are most likely to occur and improved vertical location
    accuracy will benefit wireless 911 callers in indoor environments.
    Second, affording nationwide CMRS providers the option of meeting
    vertical location accuracy requirements by deploying handset-based
    solutions implies that z-axis technology would be available to 80% of
    the population of a CMA and thus meet our deployment metrics. This
    option would not reduce the benefits of improved vertical location
    accuracy so long as handset-solutions meet the 3-meter accuracy
    standard for 80% of calls made from z-axis capable devices as
    demonstrated in the test bed. In addition, proponents of a nationwide
    handset deployment stress that device-based, commercial solutions can
    calculate z-axis location on the device without the deployment or
    maintenance of new infrastructure.
        70. Nationwide Z-Axis Technology Deployment. Mandating a nationwide
    z-axis deployment will benefit Americans outside of the top 50 CMAs
    without significantly increasing costs for CMRS providers. The Fifth
    Report and Order estimated an approximate annual cost ceiling of $36
    million, based on a $0.12 yearly cost per handset, at 300 million
    handsets presently in use. These 2019 figures are nationwide figures,
    not extrapolated for the top 25 or 50 CMAs, and thus also stand for the
    nationwide handset deployment requirement in 2025. We also defined z-
    axis capability in the Fifth Report and Order to exclude handsets that
    require a hardware upgrade. Because the 2025 nationwide z-axis
    deployment is six years from that 2019 analysis, we can reasonably
    infer that software update costs will be lower by that April 2025
    benchmark, albeit at an unquantifiable amount. Most of the upgradable
    handsets are located in the top 50 CMAs, and will thus have been
    updated at that time (in 2023), and providers will have refined the
    necessary software at scale. Hence, we can reasonably infer that costs
    to update handset software will be the same for subscribers both inside
    and outside the top 25 and 50 CMAs. Further, because CMRS providers
    seek to leverage commercial, device-based location solutions for
    meeting their E911 vertical location accuracy obligations, we expect
    the costs associated with a nationwide handset deployment to be
    minimal. For example, Google states that it ``makes [Emergency Location
    Service] available for free to emergency services dispatchers,
    carriers, and other partners in the emergency services space.''
    Accordingly, we do not anticipate any changes in our cost/benefit
    analysis for nationwide CMRS providers opting for handset-based
    deployment.
        71. Assuming the figures above, we can infer that costs will be
    lower for non-nationwide providers. The brunt of implementation and
    deployment costs will be borne by the nationwide CMRS providers. CTIA
    notes that non-nationwide providers ``will likely follow the nationwide
    wireless providers' assessment of a scalable solution resulting from
    the Test Bed.'' As CCA puts it, ``[m]any non-nationwide carriers are .
    . . at the mercy of what is discovered in the test bed.'' CCA states
    that ``upgrading equipment to meet heightened standards is a costly
    endeavor,'' and that ``[u]nlike nationwide carriers, many CCA members
    are dependent on vendors to update network capabilities that support
    location accuracy services.'' In terms of handset-based deployment,
    however, we anticipate most of the upgrades will have been developed by
    the nationwide CMRS providers, although some independent
    interoperability testing and handset procurement may be necessary
    ``depending on the nature of the solution.'' For the multi-story
    deployment option, as IAFF notes, tall structures are present in
    environments inside and outside the top CMAs. However, tall structures
    are presumably not as prevalent in environments outside the top
    population centers. As a result, this may help defray some, if not all,
    3D mapping costs, as we believe non-nationwide CMRS providers are most
    likely to know where tall structures are located inside their service
    areas without the need for mapping. Accordingly, we can reasonably
    infer that the implementation costs in areas outside the top 50 CMAs
    are not as high as inside those areas. In addition, non-nationwide CMRS
    providers outside the top 50 CMAs have approximately six years as of
    the adoption of this Sixth Report and Order to prepare for deployment,
    which will mean the costs of deploying either the handset or multi-
    story based options will likely be less. We stress that the $97 billion
    nationwide benefit floor in lives saved will far eclipse any cost
    incurred by non-nationwide providers.

    IV. Order on Reconsideration

        72. In this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denies a
    petition for reconsideration requested by BRETSA. BRETSA seeks
    reconsideration of certain aspects of the Fifth Report and Order,
    contending that the order (1) was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse
    of discretion because the Commission

    [[Page 53245]]

    declined to adopt proof-of-performance testing and (2) did not address
    BRETSA's proposal that wireless carriers develop procedures for public
    safety agencies and others to correlate Height Above Mean Sea Level to
    floor level.

    V. Procedural Matters

        73. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. The Regulatory
    Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency
    prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment
    rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if
    promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number
    of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact
    of rule and policy changes adopted in the Sixth Report and Order on
    small entities. As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Fifth Further
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in November 2019 in this
    proceeding (85 FR 2683, January 16, 2020). The Commission sought
    written public comment on the proposals in the Fifth FNPRM, including
    comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This
    FRFA conforms to the RFA. The Commission will send a copy of the Sixth
    Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, including the FRFA, to
    the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
        74. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The requirements in sections
    9.10(i)(4)(iv), 9.10(i)(4)(v), 9.10(j)(4) and 9.10(k), constitute
    modified information collections. They will be submitted to the Office
    of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). OMB, the general public, and
    other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or
    modified information collection requirements contained in this
    proceeding. This document will be submitted to OMB for review under
    section 3507(d) of the PRA. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the
    Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we previously sought, but
    did not receive, specific comment on how the Commission might further
    reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
    with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission does not believe that the
    new or modified information collection requirements in sections
    9.10(i)(4)(iv), 9.10(i)(4)(v), 9.10(j)(4) and 9.10(k), will be unduly
    burdensome on small businesses. Applying these new or modified
    information collections will promote 911 service and emergency
    response, to the benefit of all size governmental jurisdictions,
    businesses, equipment manufacturers, and business associations by
    providing greater confidence in 911 location accuracy and greater
    consistency between the Commission's horizontal and vertical location
    rules. We describe impacts that might affect small businesses, which
    includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA in
    Appendix B of the Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration.
        75. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and
    the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
    Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is ``non-
    major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The
    Commission will send a copy of this Sixth Report and Order and Order on
    Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
    pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

    VI. Ordering Clauses

        76. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7,
    10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, 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, 307, 309, 316, 332; the
    Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-
    81, 47 U.S.C. 615, 615a, 615b; Section 506 of the Repack Airwaves
    Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018, 47
    U.S.C. 615 note; 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 Sixth Report and Order and Order on
    Reconsideration, is hereby Adopted.
        77. It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's
    rules as set forth in Appendix A are adopted, effective thirty days
    from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Sections
    9.10(i)(4)(iv), 9.10(i)(4)(v), 9.10(j)(4) and 9.10(k) contain new or
    modified information collection requirements that require OMB review
    under the PRA. The Commission directs the Public Safety and Homeland
    Security Bureau (Bureau) to announce the effective date of those
    information collections in a document published in the Federal Register
    after the Commission receives OMB approval, and directs the Bureau to
    cause section 9.10(s) to be revised accordingly.
        78. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
    copy of this Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration,
    including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
    Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
        79. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
    copy of this Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration,
    including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to Congress and
    the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional
    Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
        80. It is further ordered that the Association of Public-Safety
    Communications Officials-International, Inc. Petition for Clarification
    is granted to the extent described herein.
        81. It is furthered ordered that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), and
    405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and
    405, and Section 1.429 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the
    Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority Petition for
    Reconsideration is denied.
        82. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), the Petition
    for Emergency Declaratory Ruling filed by Polaris Wireless, Inc., on
    May 27, 2020, is Granted to the extent described herein.

    List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9

        Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio
    Federal Communications Commission.

    Federal Communications Commission.
    Marlene Dortch,
    Secretary.

    Final Rules

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
    Communications Commission amends chapter I of title 47 of the Code of
    Federal Regulations as follows:

    PART 9--911 REQUIREMENTS

    0
    1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

        Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201,
    202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303,
    307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615
    note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721,
    and 1471, unless otherwise noted.

    [[Page 53246]]

    0
    2. Section 9.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C), (D),
    and (E), adding paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(F) through (M), and revising
    paragraphs (i)(4)(iv) and (v), (j)(4), (k), and (s) to read as follows:

    Sec.  9.10  911 Service.

    * * * * *
        (i) * * *
        (2) * * *
        (ii) * * *
        (C) By April 3, 2021: In each of the top 25 cellular market areas
    (CMAs), nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy either dispatchable
    location or z-axis technology.
        (D) By April 3, 2023: In each of the top 50 CMAs, nationwide CMRS
    providers shall deploy either dispatchable location or z-axis
    technology.
        (E) By April 3, 2025: Nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy on a
    nationwide basis either dispatchable location or z-axis technology.
        (F) 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. All non-nationwide
    providers will have an additional year to meet the benchmark in
    paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(E) of this section by deploying either
    dispatchable location or z-axis technology throughout their network
    footprint.
        (G) By January 6, 2022: All CMRS providers shall provide
    dispatchable location with wireless E911 calls if it is technically
    feasible for them to do so.
        (H) CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must do so
    consistent with the following z-axis accuracy metric: Within 3 meters
    above or below (plus or minus 3 meters) the handset for 80% of wireless
    E911 calls made from the z-axis capable device. CMRS providers must
    deliver z-axis information in Height Above Ellipsoid. Where available
    to the CMRS provider, floor level information must be provided in
    addition to z-axis location information.
        (I) CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must do so
    according to the following options:
        (1) In each area where z-axis technology is used, deploy the
    technology to cover 80 percent of the population or 80 percent of the
    buildings that exceed three stories; or
        (2) Deploy z-axis capable handsets enabled with z-axis technology
    on a nationwide basis (or throughout the CMRS provider's network
    footprint, as applicable).
        (J) CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must comply with
    the following:
        (1) CMRS providers must activate all network infrastructure
    necessary to support z-axis location by z-axis capable devices
    throughout the deployment area.
        (2) CMRS providers may deploy z-axis technology upgrades by means
    of over-the-top applications as well as operating system or firmware
    upgrades. CMRS providers deploying z-axis technology must affirmatively
    push the z-axis technology to all existing z-axis capable device models
    on the provider's network that can receive it, and CMRS providers must
    continue to support the z-axis technology on these devices thereafter.
        (3) A CMRS provider using the handset-based deployment option must
    make the technology available to existing z-axis capable devices
    nationwide; a CMRS provider using a CMA-based deployment option must
    make the technology available to all z-axis capable devices in the CMA.
    For all new z-axis capable devices marketed to consumers, the z-axis
    technology must be pre-installed.
        (4) A CMRS provider will be deemed to have met its z-axis
    technology deployment obligation so long as it either pre-installs or
    affirmatively pushes the location technology to end users so that they
    receive a prompt or other notice informing them that the application or
    service is available and what they need to do to download and enable
    the technology on their phone. A CMRS provider will be deemed in
    compliance with its z-axis deployment obligation if it makes the
    technology available to the end user in this manner even if the end
    user declines to use the technology or subsequently disables it.
        (K) CMRS providers must validate dispatchable location technologies
    intended for indoor location in accordance with the provisions of
    paragraph (i)(3)(i) of this section.
        (L) In each CMA where dispatchable location is used, nationwide
    CMRS providers must ensure that dispatchable location is supported by a
    sufficient number of total dispatchable location reference points to
    equal 25 percent of the CMA population.
        (M) A z-axis capable device is one that can measure and report
    vertical location without a hardware upgrade. For z-axis location
    solutions that rely on barometric pressure sensor information, only
    devices that have such sensors installed shall be considered z-axis
    capable. In the case of location solutions that do not require
    barometric pressure sensor information, both devices with and without
    barometric sensors shall be considered z-axis capable, provided that
    they are software-upgradable.
    * * * * *
        (4) * * *
        (iv) Dispatchable location use certification. Prior to use of
    dispatchable location information to meet the Commission's 911
    horizontal and indoor location accuracy requirements in paragraphs
    (i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, CMRS providers must certify that
    neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain dispatchable
    location information will use dispatchable location information or
    associated data for any non-911 purpose, except with prior express
    consent or as otherwise required by law. The certification must state
    that CMRS providers and any third party they rely on to obtain
    dispatchable location information will implement measures sufficient to
    safeguard the privacy and security of dispatchable location
    information.
        (v) Z-axis use certification. Prior to use of z-axis information to
    meet the Commission's 911 vertical location accuracy requirements in
    paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section, CMRS providers must certify that
    neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain z-axis
    information will use z-axis information or associated data for any non-
    911 purpose, except with prior express consent or as otherwise required
    by law. The certification must state that CMRS providers and any third
    party they rely on to obtain z-axis information will implement measures
    sufficient to safeguard the privacy and security of z-axis location
    information.
        (j) * * *
        (4) Upon meeting the timeframes pursuant to paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of
    this section, CMRS providers shall provide with wireless 911 calls that
    have a dispatchable location the confidence and uncertainty data for z-
    axis (vertical) information required under paragraph (j)(1) of this
    section. Where available to the CMRS provider, CMRS providers shall
    provide with wireless 911 calls that have floor level information the
    confidence and uncertainty data for z-axis (vertical) information
    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

    [[Page 53247]]

    data that they provide pursuant to paragraphs (j)(1)-(4) of this
    section. This information must be made available to PSAPs upon request,
    and shall be retained for a period of two years.
    * * * * *
        (s) Compliance date(s). Paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D),
    (i)(4)(iv) and (v), (j)(4), (k), and (q)(10)(v) of this section contain
    information-collection and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with
    paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(iv) and (v), (j)(4), (k) and
    (q)(10)(v) will not be required until after approval by the Office of
    Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the
    Federal Register announcing compliance dates with those paragraphs and
    revising this paragraph (s) accordingly.

    [FR Doc. 2020-18795 Filed 8-26-20; 4:15 pm]
    BILLING CODE 6712-01-P