[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2565-2590]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00519]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 9

[PS Docket No. 18-64; FCC 22-96; FR ID 121633]


Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the 
FCC or Commission) proposes rules to more precisely route wireless 911 
calls and texts to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), which can 
result in faster response times during emergencies. Wireless 911 calls 
have historically been routed to PSAPs based on the location of the 
cell tower that handles the call. Sometimes, however, the 911 call is 
routed to the wrong PSAP because the cell tower is not in the same 
jurisdiction as the 911 caller. This can happen, for instance, when an 
emergency call is placed near a county border. These misrouted 911 
calls must be transferred from one PSAP to another, which consumes time 
and resources and can cause confusion and delay in emergency response. 
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposes to require wireless 
and covered text providers to deploy technology that supports location-
based routing, a method that relies on precise information about the 
location of the wireless caller's device, on some networks and to use 
location-based routing to route 911 voice calls and texts originating 
on those networks when caller location is accurate and timely. In 
addition, the NPRM proposes to require CMRS and covered text providers 
to deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated routing information in 
internet Protocol (IP) format upon request of certain 911 authorities.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 16, 2023, and reply 
comments are due on or before March 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 18-64, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's Website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by commercial 
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service 
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Commercial 
overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, 
MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, 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.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Wehr, Attorney Advisor, Policy 
and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 
(202) 418-1138, [email protected], or Brenda Boykin, Deputy Division 
Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, (202) 418-2062, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 22-96, in PS Docket No. 18-64, 
adopted on December 21, 2022, and released on December 22, 2022. The 
full text of this document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/search-results?t=quick&fccdaNo=22-96.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This NPRM may contain proposed new or modified information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on any information collection requirements 
contained in this document, as required by the PRA. If the Commission 
adopts any new or modified information collection requirements, they 
will be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the 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. In addition, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how 
we might further reduce the information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 
Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998), https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf.
    The Commission will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte 
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any 
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation 
within 2 business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making 
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the 
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was 
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and

[[Page 2566]]

arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule Sec.  1.1206(b). In proceedings governed 
by rule Sec.  1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a 
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and 
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments 
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system 
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format 
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this 
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte 
rules.

Synopsis

Background

    In this NPRM, we propose to require wireless carriers and covered 
text providers to implement location-based routing for 911 calls and 
texts nationwide.\1\ With location-based routing, wireless providers 
that originate 911 calls and texts use precise information about the 
location of the wireless caller's device to route 911 calls and texts 
to the appropriate PSAP for that location.\2\ Nationwide implementation 
of location-based routing will significantly reduce misrouted 911 calls 
and texts and the delays associated with transferring misrouted 911 
calls and texts from one PSAP to another. For the millions of wireless 
911 callers seeking emergency assistance each year, improving call 
routing will reduce emergency response times and save lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this NPRM, we use ``wireless carrier'' to mean Commercial 
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) provider as defined in 47 CFR 9.3. The 
Commission defines the term ``covered text provider'' as including 
``all CMRS providers as well as all providers of interconnected text 
messaging services that enable consumers to send text messages to 
and receive text messages from all or substantially all text-capable 
U.S. telephone numbers, including through the use of applications 
downloaded or otherwise installed on mobile phones.'' 47 CFR 
9.10(q)(1).
    \2\ For purposes of this NPRM, we use the term ``caller'' to 
mean senders of both 911 voice calls and 911 texts except where 
otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2018, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry that sought to 
determine the best way to avoid misrouted 911 calls.\3\ Earlier this 
year, we refreshed the record on location-based routing with a public 
notice that sought to update the record on developments since the 
release of the Notice of Inquiry, including recent technological 
improvements in location-based routing and the extent to which wireless 
carriers have deployed location-based routing in their networks.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls, PS Docket No. 
18-64, Notice of Inquiry, 33 FCC Rcd 3238, 3238 through 40, 
paragraphs 1, 3 through 4 (2018) (Notice of Inquiry).
    \4\ Federal Communications Commission Seeks to Refresh the 
Record on Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls, PS Docket 
No. 18-64, public notice, FCC 22-42, 2022 WL 2128689, at *1 (June 9, 
2022) (public notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Developments since the Notice of Inquiry and comments in response 
to the public notice make clear that location technology has advanced 
significantly since 2018. Location-based routing appears to now be 
technologically feasible, and indeed is already being implemented by 
some wireless carriers. Moreover, implementing location-based routing 
on a nationwide basis has the potential to provide significant public 
safety benefits. Accordingly, in this NPRM, we propose rules to require 
all wireless carriers and covered text providers to implement location-
based routing for all 911 calls and texts nationwide, including calls 
and texts originating in legacy, transitional, and Next Generation 911 
(NG911)-capable \5\ public safety jurisdictions. Specifically, we 
propose to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ In this NPRM, we use ``NG911-capable'' to refer to PSAPs or 
jurisdictions that have implemented IP-based network and software 
components that are capable of supporting the provision of NG911, 
including but not limited to an Emergency Services internet Protocol 
Network (ESInet).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Require all Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
providers to (1) deploy technology that supports location-based routing 
on their IP-based networks (i.e., 4G, 5G, and subsequent generations of 
IP-based networks) and (2) use location-based routing to route all 911 
voice calls originating on their IP-based networks when caller location 
information available during origination of the 911 call meets certain 
requirements for accuracy and timeliness. Nationwide CMRS providers 
would have six months from the effective date of final rules to meet 
these requirements. Non-nationwide CMRS providers would have an 
additional year (i.e., eighteen months from the effective date of final 
rules) to meet the same requirements.
     Require covered text providers to (1) deploy technology 
that supports location-based routing and (2) use location-based routing 
to route all 911 texts originating on their IP-based networks when 
location information available during origination of the 911 text meets 
certain requirements for accuracy and timeliness. Covered text 
providers would have eighteen months from the effective date of final 
rules to meet these requirements.
     Establish baseline requirements with respect to the 
accuracy and timeliness of location information used for location-based 
routing. When location information does not meet one or both of these 
requirements, CMRS providers and covered text providers would be 
required to route 911 calls and texts based on the best available 
location information, which may include latitude/longitude coordinates 
of the cell tower.
    To help ensure that public safety jurisdictions transitioning to 
NG911 can realize the benefits of location-based routing in an 
efficient and cost-effective manner, we also propose to:
     Require CMRS providers and covered text providers to 
deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated routing information in IP 
format upon request of 911 authorities who have established the 
capability to accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911 communications. 
Nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers would be subject 
to this requirement six months from the effective date of final rules 
on location-based routing or within six months of a valid request for 
IP-based service from a local or state public safety authority, 
whichever is later. Non-nationwide CMRS providers would have an 
additional six months to comply with this requirement.
    We believe that the above proposals for location-based routing of 
911 calls and texts will promote the safety of life and property by 
helping to ensure that those in need of emergency assistance can 
receive the help they need in a more timely manner. We seek comment on 
the tentative conclusions, proposals, and analyses set forth in this 
NPRM, as well as on any alternative approaches.

Legacy E911 Routing

    When 911 service was first introduced, all 911 calls originated 
from wireline networks, and wireline providers used the fixed location 
of the calling telephone to route 911 calls to the nearest PSAP. With 
the deployment of the first generation of cellular service,

[[Page 2567]]

wireless 911 calls could originate from any location served by the 
wireless network, and the caller could move locations during the call. 
To enable timely routing of wireless 911 calls, CMRS providers 
typically programmed their networks to use the location of the first 
cell tower receiving the call to determine the nearest PSAP and route 
the call accordingly. This became the basis for routing of wireless 
Enhanced 911 (E911) calls (legacy E911 routing).
    In legacy E911 routing, because the location of the cell tower may 
be some distance from the caller's location, CMRS providers may route a 
wireless 911 call to a PSAP other than the one designated by the 
relevant state or local 911 authority to receive calls from the actual 
location of the caller. For example, a cell tower in Northern Virginia 
may pick up a wireless 911 call originating in Washington, DC, but 
route the call to a Virginia PSAP.\6\ The Commission considers calls 
routed to a PSAP other than the one designated for the actual location 
of the caller to be ``misrouted.'' \7\ Misroutes can occur for several 
reasons, including when more than one PSAP is within the coverage area 
of a cell site or sector.\8\ The record indicates that misroutes are 
frequent where legacy E911 routing is used. NENA: The 9-1-1 Association 
(NENA) estimates that 23 million calls using legacy E911 routing are 
misrouted annually. Other parties estimate that approximately 11-12% of 
legacy E911 calls are misrouted,\9\ and the percentage of misrouted 
calls can vary between and even within jurisdictions. For example, the 
Fayetteville (Arkansas) Police Department reports that 30% of the 911 
calls its jurisdiction receives are misrouted from neighboring 
jurisdictions.\10\ Intrado estimates that Palm Beach County, Florida, 
experiences misrouted calls at a rate as high as 20-50% along PSAP 
boundaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See, e.g., Jodie Fleischer et al., Nearly 100,000 Local 911 
Calls Each Year Sent to Wrong 911 Center, Require Transfer, NBC4 
Washington (Apr. 20, 2021), https://www.nbcwashington.com/investigations/nearly-100000-local-911-calls-each-year-sent-to-wrong-911-center-require-transfer/2646442/ (discussing the number of 
911 calls that require transfer from one jurisdiction to another in 
the Washington, DC, region).
    \7\ Notice of Inquiry, 33 FCC Rcd at 3239, paragraph 2 & n.1. 
The misroutes that are the subject of this proceeding generally 
result from current 911 call routing mechanisms that rely on cell 
tower location and are working as designed, not from technical 
failure of those mechanisms. Id. In addition, the Commission's 
definition of misroute excludes transfers that occur as the result 
of preexisting routing arrangements. E.g., T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-
Mobile) Comments at 2 n.3 (rec. July 11, 2022) (T-Mobile Comments) 
(noting that a state emergency service office may adopt policies 
requiring calls from state highways to be routed to state police 
instead of city or county agencies, ``even if the state highway is 
located in city or county boundaries'').
    \8\ See Communications Security, Reliability and 
Interoperability Council (CSRIC) V, Working Group 1, Evolving 911 
Services, Final Report--Task 2: 911 Location-Based Routing at 9 
(2016), https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric5/WG1_Task2_FinalReport_092016.docx (CSRIC V LBR Report). The CSRIC is 
a Federal advisory committee subject to the requirements of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2, and charged 
with providing recommendations to the Commission to ensure, among 
other things, the security and reliability of communications 
systems. FCC, Communications Security, Reliability, and 
Interoperability Council, https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council-0 (last visited Nov. 22, 2022).
    \9\ E.g., The Association of Public-Safety Communications 
Officials International, Inc. (APCO) Comments at 2 (rec. July 11, 
2022) (APCO Comments) (citing Alliance for Telecommunications 
Industry Solutions (ATIS), Analysis of Predetermined Cell Sector 
Routing Outcomes Compared to Caller's Device Location, ATIS-0500039 
(July 2, 2019), https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/document.php?document_id=48697 (ATIS-0500039)); Intrado Life & 
Safety, Inc. (Intrado) Comments at 3 & n.8, 4 (rec. July 11, 2022) 
(Intrado Comments) (first citing a 2018 Intrado study concluding 
that 12.96% out of a set of five million wireless calls were 
misrouted; and then finding at least 11% of calls in Palm Beach 
County, Florida in February/March 2022 were misrouted due to tower-
based routing).
    \10\ Natisha Claypool, Assistant Dispatch Manager, Fayetteville 
Police Department (rec. July 11, 2022) (Fayetteville Police 
Department Comments) (stating that the jurisdiction has determined 
that ``roughly 30% or more of the 9-1-1 calls received in our county 
are misroutes due to calls hitting cellular towers that border our 
jurisdictions'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    When a 911 call is misrouted, the answering telecommunicator must 
transfer the call to the PSAP that has jurisdiction to dispatch aid to 
the 911 caller's location. This process consumes time and resources for 
both the transferring PSAP and the receiving PSAP and delays the 
dispatch of first responders to render aid.\11\ Commenters submit 
anecdotal evidence that a typical misroute introduces a delay of about 
a minute.\12\ NENA estimates that call transfers consume over 200,000 
hours per year of excess 911 professional labor. Misrouted wireless 
calls can also contribute to confusion and delay in emergency 
response.\13\ This delay can have deadly consequences.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Notice of Inquiry, 33 FCC Rcd at 3239, 3240 through 41, 
paragraphs 2, 8. As the Commission has previously noted, a study in 
Snohomish County, Washington, found that a call transfer adds 
approximately 40 seconds to the total call time. Id. at 3239, 
paragraph 2 n.2 (citing Robert Thurston, GIS Technician, Snohomish 
County, Determining Routing of Wireless Sectors in a Multi PSAP 9-1-
1 System (2018), http://proceedings.esri.com/library/userconf/proc15/papers/19_248.pdf).
    \12\ APCO Comments at 2 (``[I]t's possible that a misrouted call 
will introduce a delay of a minute or longer.''); NENA: The 9-1-1 
Association (NENA) Comments at 4 (rec. July 11, 2022) (NENA 
Comments) (``[T]he general anecdotal consensus was that a call 
transfer typically takes `about a minute.' ''); Peninsula Fiber 
Network Comments at 1 (rec. July 8, 2022) (Peninsula Fiber Network 
Comments) (``Each transfer takes between 15 to 90 seconds to set up 
and complete.'').
    \13\ For example, on June 4, 2020, 16-year-old Fitz Thomas 
drowned at Confluence Park on the Potomac River, which separates 
Loudoun County, Virginia, and Montgomery County, Maryland. Press 
Release, Office of the County Administrator, Public Affairs and 
Communications, Loudoun County Releases Significant Incident Review 
of Goose Creek Drowning at 1 (Aug. 31, 2020), https://www.loudoun.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/10062. Due to the 
incident's proximity to the jurisdictional border of the Potomac 
River and the use of legacy E911 routing, both counties received 
wireless 911 calls routed from the park located on the Virginia side 
of the river. Id. at 2. Efforts to determine Thomas's actual 
location contributed to a delay in dispatching first responders. Id. 
On July 15, 2022, Ma Kaing was shot and killed by a stray bullet 
outside her home in the East Colfax neighborhood of Denver. Jennifer 
Kovaleski, Stuck on the line: Cellphone calls routed to the wrong 
911 center are costing life-saving seconds, Denver7 (Nov. 18, 2022), 
https://www.denver7.com/news/investigations/stuck-on-the-line-cellphone-calls-routed-to-the-wrong-911-center-are-costing-life-saving-seconds. The news media reports that four calls from her 
family and neighbors were misrouted to a neighboring PSAP and 
required transfer; three callers hung up after waiting minutes on 
hold. Id.
    \14\ The news media has widely reported on such tragic 
occurrences. For example, in December 2014, dispatchers were unable 
to locate Shanell Anderson, who drowned after accidentally driving 
off the road and into a pond close to the line between Fulton and 
Cherokee Counties in Georgia. Brendan Keefe and Phillip Kish, Lost 
on the Line: Why 911 is broken, 11alive (Dec. 29, 2016), https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/lost-on-the-line-why-911-is-broken/85-225104578. According to the news media, Shanell Anderson 
was able to call 911, but the call was picked up by a cell tower in 
Fulton County and routed to that county's PSAP, where critical 
minutes were lost while dispatchers sought to determine the county 
in which she was located (Cherokee County). Id. In another case in 
2008, Olidia Kerr Day made a wireless 911 call before she was 
fatally shot in a murder-suicide in front of the Plantation, Florida 
police department. Sofia Santana, Cell Phone 911 Calls Are Often 
Routed to the Wrong Call Centers, Sun Sentinel (June 21, 2008), 
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-flbsafe911calls0621sbjun21-story.html. According to the news media, though she placed the call 
in Plantation, the call was routed to the 911 center in Sunrise, 
Florida, and had to be transferred to Plantation. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2018 Notice of Inquiry

    In 2018, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry seeking 
comment on issues related to misrouted wireless 911 calls, including 
the feasibility of location-based routing.\15\ The Commission observed 
that it had not previously addressed the accuracy of wireless 911 call 
routing. Historically,

[[Page 2568]]

precise caller location information typically took too long to generate 
to be available for routing purposes. The Commission noted, however, 
that then-recent advances in location technology suggested it was 
feasible to pinpoint a 911 caller's location quickly enough to support 
an initial routing determination. The Commission found that many 
location-based routing methods were promising and sought comment on the 
``technical and operational implications, limitations, deployments, and 
best common practices'' of location-based routing. The Commission also 
requested comment on the frequency of wireless 911 call misroutes, the 
impact of misroutes on public safety, and the implementation of 
location-based routing technologies, including location-based routing 
capabilities for jurisdictions that had deployed elements of NG911. In 
addition, the Commission requested specific comment on the findings and 
recommendations of a 2016 report on location-based routing released by 
CSRIC V (CSRIC V LBR Report).\16\ The Commission also sought comment on 
the means available to facilitate improvements to 911 routing and 
reduce the likelihood of misrouted 911 calls, including the promotion 
of voluntary best practices, implementation of incentive-based 
mechanisms, or regulatory action, and on costs and benefits relating to 
location-based routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Notice of Inquiry, 33 FCC Rcd at 3246 through 51, 
paragraphs 17 through 33. The Notice of Inquiry stated that advances 
in location technology suggested it was possible to support initial 
call-routing based on a caller's actual location in many situations. 
Id. at 3240, paragraph 3. The Commission also noted that while many 
location-based routing methods were promising, uncertainty remained 
regarding their reliability, the time required to develop necessary 
standards, and the potential transition costs of implementing 
location-based routing on current wireless 911 systems. Id. at 3240, 
paragraph 4.
    \16\ Id. at 3246 through 50, paragraphs 18 through 29. CSRIC V 
defined location-based routing as ``[a] system of rules to varying 
degrees of complexity dictating to where 9-1-1 calls from various 
locations are routed.'' CSRIC V LBR Report at 6 through 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission received 22 comments and 14 reply comments in 
response to the Notice of Inquiry.\17\ The record reflected uncertainty 
about the capabilities of location-based routing at the time.\18\ In 
particular, nationwide CMRS providers noted the lack of available 
handset-based solutions that could generate a fix within a short period 
of time \19\ and the presumption that any feasible solution would 
require significant investments from PSAPs.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Appendix C for a complete list of entities submitting 
comments and/or reply comments both to the public notice and the 
Notice of Inquiry. Commenters to the Notice of Inquiry included, 
among others, national public safety entities, state and regional 
911 entities, nationwide CMRS providers, emergency 
telecommunications service providers, a handset manufacturer, a 
technical standards organization, a public safety consulting firm, 
and concerned members of the public. The record in this proceeding 
may be viewed at: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/results?q= (proceedings.name:(``18-64'')).
    \18\ Commenters to the Notice of Inquiry offered varying 
opinions about whether technologies were capable of location-based 
routing without delaying 911 calls. E.g., AT&T Reply 11 through 12 
(rec. June 28, 2018) (AT&T NOI Reply) (``Even the most promising of 
location-based technologies . . . have limits.''); Motorola 
Solutions, Inc. (Motorola) Comments at 2 (rec. May 7, 2018) 
(Motorola NOI Comments) (asserting that testing has confirmed that 
location-based wireless routing is faster and more accurate than 
legacy wireless routing).
    \19\ AT&T stated that although location-based routing solutions 
hold potential to reduce wireless 911 call misroutes, regulatory 
requirements were ``premature.'' AT&T NOI Reply at 3. AT&T asserted 
that instead, the Commission should ``encourage further study of 
potential handset-based solutions, which send location information 
directly to the routing element,'' and that ``[g]iven their superior 
speed, such solutions are preferable to network-based solutions''. 
Id.; see also Verizon Comments at 3 (rec. May 7, 2018) (Verizon NOI 
Comments) (``LBR is dependent on the handset's ability to deliver an 
accurate and timely fix which, for well-established reasons, is not 
feasible for every 911 call.''); T-Mobile Comments at 4 (rec. May 7, 
2018) (T-Mobile NOI Comments) (``Even if a `real-time' location fix 
could be obtained in a sufficiently short amount of time so as not 
to disrupt the need to route the call quickly, . . . leveraging any 
location fix for legacy PSAP call routing would require fundamental 
changes to the wireless carrier's legacy call flow logic.'').
    \20\ Verizon NOI Comments at 5 (``PSAP systems, not just 
wireless networks, may require a number of software programming and 
other changes. And PSAPs' and wireless providers' ability to handle 
LBR would require testing to ensure reliability.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Developments Since 2018

    Since the comment period for the Notice of Inquiry closed over four 
years ago, several developments indicate that location-based routing 
has become a viable methodology for CMRS providers to route 911 calls 
and texts. These developments include studies on misroutes and 
location-based routing technology, increased deployment of device-based 
hybrid (DBH) location technologies on consumer handsets,\21\ and 
voluntary implementation of location-based routing on CMRS provider 
networks. In 2018, CTIA announced that the nationwide wireless carriers 
planned to add DBH location technologies to their networks to improve 
911 location accuracy. In 2019, the Alliance for Telecommunications 
Industry Solutions (ATIS) published two studies with new information on 
legacy E911 misroutes and the feasibility of location-based 
routing.\22\ In those studies, ATIS concluded that ``location-based 
routing is technically feasible within the timing considerations 
recommended by CSRIC V'' and evaluated where ``sub-optimal routing'' 
occurred for a sample set of wireless emergency calls. In a 2019 ex 
parte filing in the instant docket, Apple Inc. (Apple) noted that it 
had made DBH location technology available on certain device models 
that would support carrier implementation of location-based 
routing.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Device-based hybrid (DBH) location is an estimation method 
that typically utilizes either a selection or a combination of 
location methods available to the handset in an environment, 
including crowd-sourced Wi-Fi, A-GNSS, and possibly other handset-
based sensors. ATIS, Enhancing Location-Based Routing of Emergency 
Calls, ATIS-0700042 at 2 (July 2019), https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/document.php?document_id=48218 (ATIS-0700042). It also 
includes an associated uncertainty estimate reflective of the 
quality of the returned location. Id.
    \22\ ATIS-0700042; ATIS-0500039. ATIS observed that calls that 
are ``sub-optimally routed'' tend to occur along PSAP boundaries, in 
areas with a dense concentration of PSAPs, around major water 
features, and along narrow strips of jurisdictional territory. ATIS-
0500039 at 12.
    \23\ Letter from Paul Margie, Counsel, Apple, to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 18-64 et al., at 2 (filed 
Sept. 24, 2019) (Apple Ex Parte). Apple also noted that it offers 
wireless carriers the option to enable location-based routing for 
iPhone models 6s and later running iOS 13 and Apple Watch devices 
running watch OS 6. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The three nationwide wireless carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, and 
Verizon) now indicate that they have deployed or plan to deploy 
location-based routing to varying extents on their networks. T-Mobile 
launched location-based routing on its network in the states of Texas 
and Washington in 2020 and as of July 2022 was offering location-based 
routing to 770 PSAPs. AT&T completed the rollout of location-based 
routing on its network in June 2022 and uses location-based routing to 
deliver 911 calls and texts to nearly all PSAPs nationwide, whether 
they are legacy or NG911-capable and without any additional action from 
the receiving PSAP.\24\ Verizon has indicated that it plans to start 
work in the first quarter of 2023 to enable location-based routing 
nationwide.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ AT&T Comments at 4 (rec. July 11, 2022) (AT&T Comments). 
AT&T notes that a few PSAPs are using unique internal routing 
solutions and that the company is working to ensure that its 
implementation of location-based routing meets the needs of these 
PSAPs. Id. at 4 n.3.
    \25\ Noelle Phillips, Verizon agrees to upgrade 911 call-routing 
in wake of complaints from Denver's East Colfax neighborhood, Denver 
Post (Aug. 3, 2022), https://www.denverpost.com/2022/08/03/verizon-911-call-routing-policy-change-east-colfax-ma-kaing/. Verizon did 
not discuss plans to implement location-based routing in its 
comments to the instant docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In June 2022, the Commission released a public notice to refresh 
the record on location-based routing developments since the Notice of 
Inquiry. The Commission sought information on industry trends, the 2019 
ATIS studies on misroutes and location-based routing, increased 
deployment of DBH, the use of location-based routing for text-to-911, 
and implementation of location-based routing on carrier networks. The 
Commission received 15 comments and 6 reply comments in response to the 
public notice. We discuss these comments below in the context of the 
proposals made in this NPRM.

[[Page 2569]]

A. Location Based Routing

1. Wireless 911 Voice Calls
    Developments since the Notice of Inquiry and the record received in 
response to the public notice indicate that nationwide location-based 
routing is now feasible and has the potential to provide significant 
public safety benefits by reducing the number of misrouted calls to 
911. Commenters confirm that continued reliance on cell tower-based 
routing results in a considerable number of 911 calls being misrouted 
\26\ and that this is a significant problem for public safety.\27\ NENA 
estimates that nationwide implementation of location-based routing 
would reduce misrouted wireless 911 calls by 85% from 23 million to 
3.45 million per year. Other commenters agree that implementation of 
location-based routing can significantly mitigate misroutes and, as a 
result, save lives and property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ E.g., Intrado Comments at 3 n.8, 4 through 5 (first finding 
a 12.96% average rate of misroutes for a sample set of five million 
wireless calls in 2018; and then reporting that 20-50% of wireless 
calls may misroute along PSAP boundaries in Palm Beach County, 
Florida); NENA Comments at 2 (estimating 23 million 911 calls are 
misrouted annually); Fayetteville Police Department Comments (noting 
that as many as 30% of wireless 911 calls it receives are misroutes 
from neighboring jurisdictions); see also ATIS-0500039 at 4 
(estimating a 12% national average rate for sub-optimally routed 
wireless 911 calls in 2019).
    \27\ E.g., APCO Comments at 2 (stating that there is a consensus 
among Emergency Communications Centers that ``misroutes are a 
problem''); The Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service 
Authority (BRETSA) Reply at 1 through 3 (rec. July 25, 2022) (BRETSA 
Reply) (calling misroutes ``problematic'' and detailing the 
difficulties of misroutes for PSAPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The record also indicates that carrier deployments of location-
based routing have already had a positive impact. As noted above, two 
nationwide carriers, T-Mobile and AT&T, have already implemented 
location-based routing: as of July 2022, T-Mobile was offering 
location-based routing to 770 PSAPs,\28\ while AT&T has implemented 
location-based routing throughout its network and is using it to 
deliver 911 calls and texts to nearly all PSAPs nationwide.\29\ 
Commenters report that jurisdictions where carriers have implemented 
location-based routing now experience fewer misroutes, fewer transfers, 
and faster dispatch times. AT&T states that in trials and in subsequent 
deployment, its location-based routing solution has significantly 
improved call routing: AT&T estimates that it is able to route 80% of 
911 calls on its network to the correct PSAP using location-based 
routing, and that approximately 10% of these calls would have been 
misrouted (and would have required a transfer) if it had used legacy 
E911 routing based on cell tower location.\30\ The Texas 911 Entities 
state that the rollout of T-Mobile's location-based routing solution 
has had a ``noticeably positive impact'' on PSAPs experiencing 
misrouted calls and has resulted in fewer transfers for some PSAPs.\31\ 
In 2020, T-Mobile announced that some areas where it implemented 
location-based routing experienced 40% fewer call transfers. 
Commenters' reported experiences align with CSRIC V's finding that 
location-based routing would reduce call transfers when a location fix 
is available within a few seconds of call origination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ T-Mobile First to Roll Out Cutting-Edge 911 Capabilities 
(Dec. 17, 2020), https://www.t-mobile.com/news/network/tmobile-next-generation-911-location-based-routing; T-Mobile Reply at 2 n.6 (rec. 
July 25, 2022) (T-Mobile Reply).
    \29\ AT&T Comments at 4. AT&T notes that a few PSAPs are using 
unique internal routing solutions and that the company is working to 
ensure that its implementation of location-based routing meets the 
needs of these PSAPs. Id. at 4 n.3.
    \30\ Id. at 4. Intrado further clarifies that AT&T's solution 
has been able to route 80% of all wireless 911 calls since early 
implementation in February 2022 using device location information 
with a small uncertainty range and high confidence level and that 
most calls using location-based routing route on device locations 
under 50 meters. Intrado Comments at 2, 9.
    \31\ The Texas 9-1-1 Alliance, the Texas Commission on State 
Emergency Communications, and the Municipal Emergency Communication 
Districts Association (Texas 911 Entities) Comments at 2, 4 (rec. 
July 11, 2022) (Texas 911 Entities Comments) (showing that average 
percentage of 911 call transfers for two out of three PSAPs in 
initial beta sites decreased by roughly 4 to 5% after T-Mobile 
implemented location-based routing; the remaining PSAP showed a 
slight increase in transfers of less than 1%).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The record further indicates that it is now technologically 
feasible for all CMRS providers to support location-based routing for a 
significant percentage of wireless 911 calls. In its 2019 feasibility 
study, ATIS concluded that location-based routing is technically 
feasible within the five-second window recommended by CSRIC V.\32\ The 
feasibility of location-based routing has also significantly increased 
as a result of the widespread availability of DBH technologies to 
support 911 location. Android devices using Emergency Location Service 
(ELS) and iOS devices using Hybridized Emergency Location (HELO) are 
capable of generating high accuracy, low latency location information 
in time to support 911 call routing.\33\ In response to the public 
notice released in 2022, several commenters note that these DBH 
location technologies are widely available on mobile devices and can be 
used for routing a high percentage of wireless 911 calls. This is a 
significant change from the comments received in response to the Notice 
of Inquiry, which indicated uncertainty regarding the availability of 
technology that would support location-based routing information.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ See ATIS-0700042 at 22. CSRIC V noted that location 
information must be available to the Mobile Switching Center (MSC) 
in 5 seconds or less in order for a carrier to route the voice 
portion of a wireless 911 call no later than 6 seconds from call 
initiation. CSRIC V LBR Report at 8. CSRIC V determined that if 
location fixes are obtained in 5 seconds or less, location-based 
routing would allow for delivery to a jurisdictionally appropriate 
PSAP. CSRIC V LBR Report at 3.
    \33\ Apple Ex Parte at 2 (indicating that device-based hybrid 
location is available from certain devices during call set-up and 
that location-based routing can be enabled on models 6s and later 
running iOS 13 and Apple Watch devices running watch OS 6); Android, 
Emergency Location Service--How It Works, https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/how-it-works/ (last 
visited Dec. 5, 2022) (``On average, [Android's Emergency Location 
Service (]ELS[)] is able to get a first location 3-4 seconds after 
the call has started.''); Android, Emergency Location Service--
Overview, https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/ (last visited Dec. 5, 2022) (``ELS works on over 
99% of active Android devices running OS4.4 and up, with Google Play 
Services installed--no new hardware or activation required.'').
    \34\ AT&T NOI Reply at 3; Verizon NOI Comments at 3 (``LBR is 
dependent on the handset's ability to deliver an accurate and timely 
fix which, for well-established reasons, is not feasible for every 
911 call.''); T-Mobile NOI Comments at 4 (``Even if a `real-time' 
location fix could be obtained in a sufficiently short amount of 
time so as not to disrupt the need to route the call quickly, . . . 
leveraging any location fix for legacy PSAP call routing would 
require fundamental changes to the wireless carrier's legacy call 
flow logic.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above, we propose to require that all CMRS providers 
(1) deploy technology that supports location-based routing and (2) use 
location-based routing to route all wireless 911 voice calls 
originating on IP-based networks, when timely and accurate information 
about the caller's location is available. When such information is not 
available in time for routing the call, we propose to allow CMRS 
providers to route 911 calls using the best available location 
information, which may include cell tower coordinates. We also propose 
to establish timeframes for compliance with these requirements and to 
define specific terms to clarify the obligations of regulated entities. 
We seek comment on these proposals.
    Public safety commenters agree that early location-based routing 
implementations by CMRS providers have shown that the technology is 
technically feasible. Intrado states that AT&T's deployment of 
location-based routing can serve as a model for other CMRS providers. 
We seek comment on this analysis. For nationwide and non-nationwide 
carriers that have not

[[Page 2570]]

implemented location-based routing across their entire networks, we 
seek comment on the feasibility and cost of network upgrades (including 
hardware, software, Geographic Information System (GIS), and service 
upgrades) and testing that would be required to implement location-
based routing in their service areas by the proposed deadlines.
    We tentatively conclude that a high percentage of consumer handsets 
currently in use on nationwide and non-nationwide networks are 
technically capable of supporting location-based routing using device-
based location technology. We seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion. AT&T states that device-based location routing solutions do 
not require changes to the network core and are relatively easy to 
implement.\35\ However, T-Mobile states that ``not every carrier is 
prepared to use DBH location estimates for routing today,'' \36\ and 
Peninsula Fiber Network states that ``[o]ne major provider has a 99% 
failure rate in providing the caller's location within the 5 second 
window.'' We seek comment on whether there are technology or cost 
barriers that prevent some CMRS providers from supporting device-based 
location solutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ AT&T NOI Reply at 10 (``Provided a device-based location 
solution can generate accurate location information within the 
necessary timeframe, implementing such a solution on the network 
would be relatively straight forward as it would not require changes 
to the network core.'').
    \36\ T-Mobile Comments at 6. But see T-Mobile Reply at 1 through 
2 (``[T]here are commenters that assert that wireless carriers are 
not ready to offer location-based routing even though multiple 
carriers and their vendors confirm that they can, and do, offer 
location-based routing and are i3 compliant. Indeed, T-Mobile has 
deployed location-based routing in twenty-one states; it has also 
converted over 1,900 PSAPs in 24 states from TDM to NG911 SIP.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public safety entities and some technology providers urge the 
Commission to require all CMRS providers to support location-based 
routing.\37\ For example, APCO states that location-based routing 
technology ``is available today, and the Commission should act quickly 
to require service providers to implement it.'' NENA states that the 
Commission should establish rules to implement location-based routing 
nationwide to reduce response times for millions of 911 calls and save 
lives. However, some CMRS providers urge us not to adopt requirements 
and instead to permit carriers to implement location-based routing 
voluntarily. We believe that requiring all CMRS providers to support 
location-based routing would generate substantial public safety 
benefits, whereas allowing CMRS providers to implement location-based 
routing voluntarily would result in inconsistent routing of calls to 
PSAPs and a higher risk of 911 misroutes for subscribers on CMRS 
networks that did not support location-based routing.\38\ We seek 
comment on whether there are countervailing reasons to allow voluntary 
implementation of location-based routing by carriers rather than 
adopting a requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ In a separate docket, APCO also called for a rulemaking to 
require carriers to implement location-based routing in comments on 
a petition from NASNA regarding NG911. APCO Comments, PS Docket No. 
21-479, 4 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022).
    \38\ For example, in Denver, Colorado, carriers have not 
uniformly implemented location-based routing. After 911 calls 
following the fatal shooting of Ma Kaing in the East Colfax 
neighborhood of Denver were misrouted to the city of Aurora, a news 
report indicated that although AT&T and T-Mobile had previously 
implemented location-based routing in Denver, Verizon initially 
declined to do so. Noelle Phillips, 911 calls from cellphones can be 
precisely pinpointed. One carrier won't install the technology in 
Colorado, Denver Post (Aug. 1, 2022), https://www.denverpost.com/2022/08/01/verizon-location-based-routing-denver-aurora/. Verizon 
later agreed to ``start the work [on location-based routing] during 
the first quarter of 2023.'' Noelle Phillips, Verizon agrees to 
upgrade 911 call-routing in wake of complaints from Denver's East 
Colfax neighborhood, Denver Post (Aug. 3, 2022), https://www.denverpost.com/2022/08/03/verizon-911-call-routing-policy-change-east-colfax-ma-kaing/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also seek comment on whether CMRS providers should be required 
to use location-based routing to deliver 911 calls to all PSAPs served 
by their networks, or whether the requirement should be triggered by 
PSAP request or limited to certain categories of PSAPs. T-Mobile and 
Verizon assert that not all PSAPs are currently interested in receiving 
calls routed using device location and that in some instances it could 
adversely impact PSAP operations. However, AT&T provides location-based 
routing to virtually all PSAPs on its network and asserts that it can 
do so without action by the PSAP. We seek comment on whether there have 
been instances in which carrier implementation of location-based 
routing has imposed costs or had an adverse impact on PSAPs or where 
public safety authorities have had ``significant issues with 
implementation.''
    Some commenters contend that location-based routing should only be 
made available to PSAPs that have achieved some level of NG911 
capability. Verizon supports location-based routing only for PSAPs that 
are operating in accordance with NG911 standards. T-Mobile states that 
it deploys NG911 and location-based routing ``where jurisdictions are 
ready,'' noting that it does so for PSAP operational awareness and 
awareness of situations ``where service-area boundaries require 
specific routing to achieve optimal routing improvements.'' CTIA argues 
that providers and PSAPs need flexibility to implement location-based 
routing in a manner that accounts for PSAP capabilities. However, AT&T 
has implemented location-based routing for both legacy and NG911 PSAPs 
across its network, with only very limited exceptions and without a 
requirement that PSAPs take any particular action to receive calls 
using location-based routing. In addition, the ATIS-0700042 standard 
supports location-based routing of 911 calls delivered to both 
Emergency Services internet Protocol Networks (ESInets) and legacy 
selective routers.
    We seek comment on our tentative conclusion that location-based 
routing should be required for wireless 911 calling in legacy E911 
jurisdictions as well as jurisdictions that have achieved partial or 
full NG911 capability. Although many PSAPs are connected to ESInets and 
some have become wholly or partially NG911-capable, approximately half 
of primary PSAPs in the United States are not yet connected to an 
ESInet.\39\ Thus, limiting location-based routing to jurisdictions that 
are ESInet-connected or have developed some level of NG911 capability 
would deprive legacy PSAPs and the communities they serve of the 
benefits of location-based routing. We seek comment on whether the 
requirement for CMRS providers to support location-based routing should 
be conditioned on a determination that jurisdictions are ``ready'' to 
receive location-routed calls, and if so, what criteria should be used 
to make this determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
National 911 Program reports a gradual increase in the number of 
PSAPs connected to an ESInet in the past few years. According to the 
National 911 Program's 2020 National 911 Progress Report, only 2,177 
PSAPs in 47 states connect to an ESInet. National 911 Program, 
National 911 Progress Report: 2020 Data (Feb. 2022) at 64 https://www.911.gov/projects/national-911-annual-report/ (National 911 
Progress Report). For context, the total number of primary PSAPs is 
4,627 based on 48 reporting states. Id. at 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters contend that location-based routing should only be 
required in jurisdictions with the highest incidence of misroutes. T-
Mobile asserts that location-based routing would not improve emergency 
response in all jurisdictions and that the Commission should not 
require location-based routing where it would not improve emergency 
response. ATIS suggests that legacy E911 routing may be preferred for 
cell sectors ``which display a very low (or no) incidence of sub-
optimal routing behavior'' and ``[i]n these cases, the potential time 
delay associated with LBR may not be

[[Page 2571]]

justifiable.'' \40\ We note, however, that AT&T has implemented 
location-based routing across all jurisdictions regardless of the prior 
frequency of misroutes, without a significant impact on call-routing 
time compared to legacy E911 routing.\41\ We tentatively conclude that 
any potential time delay associated with location-based routing is 
likely to be negligible even for sectors that do not have frequent 
legacy E911 misroutes. In addition, CMRS providers or PSAPs may lack 
granular data on misroutes, making it difficult to identify which 
sectors have misroutes most frequently. We seek comment on whether 
attempting to limit location-based routing to sectors prone to 
misroutes would be less costly or provide any greater benefits than 
supporting location-based routing across all jurisdictions. How would 
the Commission determine which jurisdictions or sectors would benefit 
most from location-based routing, and what are the constraints on 
obtaining such information? Are there other approaches the Commission 
should consider for implementing location-based routing?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ While BRETSA supports nationwide implementation of 
location-based routing, BRETSA would also support targeted 
implementation in areas of high misroutes, even if limited delay of 
911 call routing and delivery would occur. BRETSA Reply at 3. BRETSA 
asserts that wireless providers should use PSAP jurisdictional 
boundaries when determining the location and orientation of new 
cell-sites and sectors, that providers should configure their 
systems to identify calls which are Phase I routed from sites and 
sectors with high misroutes, and that providers should indicate the 
percentage of calls misrouted from that location to PSAPs. Id. at 8 
through 9.
    \41\ AT&T Comments at 3 through 4 (stating that latency for 95% 
of location-based routed calls was consistent with latency for 
legacy E911-routed calls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Compliance Timeframe. We propose to require nationwide CMRS 
providers to deploy and commence use of location-based routing for 911 
voice calls within six months from the effective date of final rules on 
location-based routing. The three nationwide CMRS providers have 
already deployed or are actively working toward deploying location-
based routing capabilities on their networks. The six-month 
implementation timeframe is intended to provide the nationwide 
providers adequate time to complete the implementation of location-
based routing. We seek comment on this proposal and on whether a longer 
or shorter compliance timeframe should be considered for nationwide 
CMRS providers.
    We propose to provide non-nationwide CMRS providers an additional 
year (i.e., eighteen months from the effective date of final rules on 
location-based routing) to deploy and commence use of location-based 
routing for 911 voice calls. This would give non-nationwide providers 
additional time to take necessary steps to implement location-based 
routing on their networks. Additionally, we anticipate that location-
based routing solutions will be more readily available to non-
nationwide providers on an extended timeframe. We note that no non-
nationwide providers submitted comments in response to the Notice of 
Inquiry or public notice, and we seek comment on whether a longer or 
shorter compliance period would be appropriate for such providers.
    Calls Originating on IP-Based Networks. To reduce potential cost 
burdens for CMRS providers, we propose to require location-based 
routing for 911 calls originating on IP-based networks, but not for 911 
calls originating on circuit-switched, time-division multiplex (TDM) 
networks. ATIS assumes for purposes of ATIS-0700042 that location-based 
routing is only supported on originating networks supporting Long Term 
Evolution (LTE) and beyond. Intrado asserts that 4G and 5G networks 
provide a ``much more supportive setting for LBR'' and notes that 4G 
LTE and newer networks no longer require call holding to implement 
location-based routing because the routing element has sufficient time 
to transmit and evaluate confidence and uncertainty information and to 
query the location server for PSAP routing instructions before the time 
to route. Nationwide CMRS providers are also in the process of retiring 
or have completed the retirement of TDM 2G and 3G networks,\42\ and 
some non-nationwide providers have announced dates to sunset their 3G 
networks in 2022. In light of the technical obstacles and upcoming 
retirement of these networks, we tentatively conclude that requiring 
location-based routing for 911 calls originating on TDM-based networks 
would be unduly burdensome. Accordingly, we propose to require 
location-based routing only for calls originating on IP-based networks, 
i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based networks. We 
seek comment on this proposal and on our analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ AT&T has phased out its 3G network. AT&T, Get details on 
the 3G network shut down (July 14, 2022), https://www.att.com/support/article/wireless/KM1324171/. Verizon announced it will 
finish shutting down its 3G network by December 31, 2022. Verizon, 
CDMA [(Code-Division Multiple Access)] Network Retirement, https://www.verizon.com/support/knowledge-base-218813/ (last visited Nov. 
29, 2022). T-Mobile announced that it finished shutting down 
Sprint's 3G CDMA network as of March 31, 2022, and Sprint's 4G LTE 
network as of June 30, 2022. T-Mobile Network Evolution, https://www.t-mobile.com/support/coverage/t-mobile-network-evolution (last 
visited Nov. 29, 2022). It also announced it shut down T-Mobile's 3G 
Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS) network as of July 
1, 2022, but has not yet announced a shutdown date for its 2G 
network. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Default to Best Available Location Information. We propose to 
require that when location information does not meet one or both 
requirements for accuracy and timeliness under our rules, wireless 
providers shall route 911 calls based on the best available location 
information available at the time the call is routed, which may include 
cell tower coordinates. We agree with commenters who assert that there 
is a continued need for cell-sector based routing as a fallback method 
because accurate location information is not available to support call 
routing in all scenarios.\43\ Our proposed requirement to default to 
best available location information would be consistent with the ATIS-
0500039 report, which assumes that the fallback for location-based 
routing should be cell sector routing ``for cases wherein no position 
estimate is available in time to be used for [location-based routing] 
or the position estimates lack requisite accuracy.'' It also would be 
consistent with current CMRS provider deployments of location-based 
routing, which default to legacy E911 routing when location does not 
meet carriers' standards of accuracy and timely availability.\44\ In 
addition, we agree with commenters who assert that CMRS providers 
should be able to route based on the best available location 
information at the time of routing. We believe that our proposal would 
allow carriers to take full advantage of the location information 
available at the time of routing while permitting them the flexibility 
to use other information, including cell tower coordinates, when 
precise location is not available in time. We seek comment on our 
proposal. We also seek comment on the percentage of calls that CMRS 
providers would continue to route using legacy E911 routing rather than 
location-based routing under our proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Intrado notes that AT&T's location-based routing solution 
successfully used location-based routing for 80% of 911 calls. 
Intrado Comments at 2.
    \44\ AT&T Comments at 4 (``When location was not available, the 
process defaults to using sector-based routing so that calls may be 
completed without excessive delay.''); T-Mobile Comments at 4 (``T-
Mobile's policy is to route a 911 call based on the cell-sector 
location if a routable, non-Phase I location estimate is not 
generated quickly enough.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Disclosure of Location-Based Routing Information. We seek comment 
on

[[Page 2572]]

whether the proposed rules should require CMRS providers to provide 
information to PSAPs or state or local 911 authorities regarding the 
routing methodology used for each 911 call. NASNA states that ``it is 
important for the telecommunicator dispatching the call to know what 
type of location technology has been used to route a 911 call'' and 
that it is ``critical'' to provide the type of location technology CMRS 
providers used to derive the caller's location, such as ``specific LBR 
technology versus E-911,'' to the PSAP with each call. ATIS states that 
any method providing location-based routing must be transparent to the 
emergency services network and the PSAP.\45\ NENA notes that there are 
already NG911 elements that partly meet NASNA's requirements, and that 
additional standards under development should meet them in full. Given 
the forthcoming development of additional standards by NENA, we do not 
propose to add specific disclosure requirements at this time, but we 
encourage state and local 911 authorities, service providers, and 
vendors to develop mechanisms to provide PSAPs with information on call 
routing methodology that could assist them in identifying the caller's 
location and dispatching emergency response. We also note that our 
proposed accuracy and timeliness criteria for location-based routing 
include confidence and uncertainty metrics to ensure that CMRS 
providers use the best available location information to route the call 
in each instance. We seek comment on this approach. If we were to adopt 
disclosure requirements, what information should be disclosed, what 
would be the public safety benefits, and would such benefits justify 
the cost to CMRS providers of making such disclosures to PSAPs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ ATIS-0700042 at 16. ATIS states that ``the CMRS network may 
acquire a routable location and use it to route to the appropriate 
emergency services network. A NENA i3 ESRP may query for routing 
location and that routing location may be returned. However, when 
the PSAP queries for location to support dispatch (i.e., [emergency 
dispatch]) it should receive the estimated location of the caller.'' 
Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Text-to-911

    Texting to 911 has become an integral component of emergency 
response in many jurisdictions. Currently available data indicate that 
in calendar year 2020, over 3,000 PSAPs in the U.S. supported text-to-
911 and that 11 states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto 
Rico had jurisdiction-wide text-to-911 coverage.\46\ Although the 
volume of 911 texts in these jurisdictions is typically much lower than 
the volume of 911 voice calls, it is equally important that all 911 
texts as well as voice calls be routed to the appropriate PSAP 
responsible for dispatch of emergency response to the texting party's 
location. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth above with respect 
to 911 voice calls, we propose to require covered text providers to use 
location-based routing to route all 911 texts originating on IP-based 
networks, provided that the information used for routing meets the same 
requirements for accuracy and timeliness that would apply to 911 voice 
calls. We further propose that when location information for routing 
texts to 911 does not meet either one or both of these requirements, 
covered text providers would be required to route texts to 911 on the 
basis of the best available location information at time of routing. We 
seek comment on this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ FCC, Thirteenth Annual Report to Congress on State 
Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges 
at 79 through 83, paragraph 59 (2021), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/13th-annual-911-fee-report-2021.pdf (Thirteenth 911 
Fee Report). Eleven states have indicated statewide text-to-911 
capability in response to the Commission's annual 911 fee reporting 
questionnaire: Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 
and Vermont. Id. at 8 through 10, 80, Tbl. 22 (first showing the 
total number of PSAPs per jurisdiction, and then showing how many 
PSAPs are text-to-911 capable per jurisdiction). Puerto Rico and the 
District of Columbia also indicate that they provide jurisdiction-
wide text-to-911 services. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The record indicates that location-based routing for 911 texts is 
technically feasible and already in use by some providers. AT&T reports 
that it has used location-based routing for its text-to-911 service 
since 2016 and that it uses DBH location to route the majority of its 
text messages. The Massachusetts State 911 Department reports that two 
wireless carriers in the state provide location information to its 
NG911 network to route texts to the appropriate PSAP. We also note that 
no commenter has contended that location-based routing for 911 texts is 
not technically feasible or expressed opposition to using location-
based routing for 911 texts as well as voice calls.
    We seek comment on the technical feasibility of location-based 
routing for 911 texts and whether there are any considerations specific 
to 911 texting that would warrant adopting different location-based 
routing requirements from those applicable to 911 voice calls. If so, 
how should the requirements for text to 911 differ? Can providers use 
DBH to support location-based routing of both voice and text? Are there 
routing solutions besides DBH available to covered text providers to 
route 911 texts? We seek comment and specific data on the benefits of 
requiring covered text providers to implement location-based routing 
for texts originating on IP-based networks, as well as the costs 
involved in such a requirement.
    We propose to require covered text providers to deploy and commence 
use of location-based routing for 911 texts within eighteen months from 
the effective date of final rules on location-based routing. This 
proposed implementation timeframe is intended to provide the diverse 
set of covered text providers, which includes nationwide and non-
nationwide CMRS providers offering text service as well as other 
providers, adequate time to take necessary steps to complete the 
implementation of location-based routing on their networks. We seek 
comment on this proposed timeframe and on whether a longer or shorter 
compliance period should be considered.
3. Definitions
    We propose to adopt a definition of ``location-based routing'' that 
requires routing based on the location of the calling device, as 
opposed to the location of network elements such as cell site or 
sector. We therefore propose to define ``location-based routing'' as 
``the use of information on the location of a device, including but not 
limited to device-based location information, to deliver 911 calls and 
texts to point(s) designated by the authorized local or state entity to 
receive wireless 911 calls and texts, such as an Emergency Services 
internet Protocol Network (ESInet) or PSAP, or to an appropriate local 
emergency authority.'' We propose to define ``device-based location 
information'' as ``[i]nformation regarding the location of a device 
used to call or text 911 generated all or in part from on-device 
sensors and data sources.''
    We seek comment on this proposed definition. Specifically, we seek 
comment on whether the proposed definition of ``device-based location 
information'' adequately encompasses current DBH location technologies, 
such as Apple's HELO and Android's ELS, as well as possible future 
location technologies that can determine the location of the calling 
device. We seek comment on whether we should include other specific 
location technologies as examples in our definition, such as Assisted-
Global Navigation Satellite System (A-GNSS) or Wi-Fi.\47\ We note

[[Page 2573]]

that the Commission also uses the term ``device-based location 
information'' in its existing rule on delivery of 911 text messages and 
intend that our proposed definition would also apply to that rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ ATIS defines DBH as an ``estimation method that typically 
utilizes either a selection or a combination of location methods 
available to the handset in a given environment--including crowd-
sourced Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi), Assisted-Global Navigation 
Satellite System (A-GNSS), and possibly other handset-based sensors. 
It also includes an associated uncertainty estimate reflective of 
the quality of the returned location.'' ATIS-0700042 at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also seek comment on our proposal to explicitly identify ESInets 
as an example of an end point that state or local 911 authorities can 
designate for delivery of calls where location-based routing is used. 
Because ESInets are an important component of NG911 networks, we 
believe it is appropriate to identify them as a potential delivery 
point. We also note that this proposed definition is not intended to 
modify CMRS providers' obligation under Sec.  9.10 of the Commission's 
rules, which requires such providers to transmit all wireless 911 calls 
to a PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate 
local emergency authority. Thus, under our proposed definition, state 
and local 911 authorities would retain the authority to specify the 
delivery point for location-routed calls, whether the delivery point is 
an ESInet, a legacy selective router, or some other designated 
facility. We seek comment on this proposal.
4. Timeliness and Accuracy of Location-Based Routing Information
    We propose to require CMRS providers and covered text providers to 
use location-based routing for 911 calls and texts when they have 
location information that meets the following specifications for 
timeliness and accuracy: (i) the information must be available to the 
provider network at the time the call or text is routed, and (ii) the 
information must identify the caller's horizontal location within a 
radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. We discuss 
the timing and accuracy elements of the proposed rule below and seek 
comment on each.
    Timeliness of Location-Based Routing Information. Location-based 
routing requires information about the caller's location to be 
available quickly enough to enable the call to be routed without 
delaying the normal call set-up process. For location-based routing of 
911 voice calls to be feasible without delaying call set-up, caller 
location information would need to be made available to the CMRS 
provider's Mobile Switching Center (MSC) within five seconds or less of 
the call being dialed. At the time of the Notice of Inquiry, commenters 
questioned whether available technology could generate caller location 
information this quickly. However, the record indicates that 
significant technological advances have been made since then and that 
currently available technology is routinely capable of delivering 
caller location information in time to route the call without delay, 
and well within the five-second threshold identified by CSRIC V. 
Intrado states that 4G LTE and newer networks can obtain device-based 
location information, calculate confidence and uncertainty, and query 
the location server for PSAP routing instructions within the normal 
call set-up interval. Intrado further notes that AT&T's location-based 
routing solution provides location-based routing ``without any impact 
to the timeline or the call.'' \48\ In a 2019 filing, Apple stated that 
HELO can normally generate and transmit device location information 
during call set-up. Google has stated that ELS can obtain a first 
location of Android devices 3-4 seconds after a call has been started.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ See also Peninsula Fiber Network Comments at 2 (``Most 
originating service providers can provide accurate location 
information in less than 5 seconds.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on these developments, we propose to require CMRS and covered 
text providers to use location-based routing only if caller location 
information is available at the time that the provider would otherwise 
route the call (and if the information meets the proposed accuracy 
requirements in the rules). Our proposal is intended to avoid delay in 
transmitting 911 calls and texts because there would be no requirement 
to hold calls and texts for purposes of obtaining a routing fix. We 
seek comment on this proposal. For what percentage of calls and texts 
would caller location-based routing information be available at the 
time of routing, as contemplated by our proposal? Does the absence of 
any required holding time protect against the risk of delaying 
transmission of 911 calls and texts?
    Accuracy of Location-Based Information. Location-based routing 
requires caller location information to be sufficiently accurate and 
reliable to support a routing decision that directs the call to the 
correct PSAP for the caller's location and avoids misrouting the call. 
The CSRIC V LBR Report recommends that wireless service providers that 
deliver 911 calls ``must have metrics and procedures in place to ensure 
that internal positioning methodologies used are reliable, consistent 
and performing at expected accuracy and quality requirements.'' ATIS 
notes that location-based routing solutions ``must consider 
uncertainty, in addition to the estimated location, in making the 
decision whether to use'' a location fix for routing purposes.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See also T-Mobile Comments at 4 (cautioning that using low 
accuracy location information for location-based routing could lead 
to more call transfers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the location information used for routing a 911 call 
to the correct PSAP may not need to be as precise as the location 
information required under our location accuracy rules to support 
dispatch to the caller's location. For example, AT&T's location-based 
routing solution uses a horizontal accuracy metric of 165 meters and a 
90% confidence threshold, i.e., if device-based location information 
provided at call set-up establishes the caller's location within a 165-
meter radius at a 90% confidence level, AT&T will use the information 
to route the call. While this is a less granular accuracy threshold 
than the 50-meter horizontal accuracy metric that CMRS providers must 
meet for dispatch purposes, Intrado reports that the 165 meter/90% 
confidence metric has enabled AT&T to use location-based routing for 
80% of 911 calls on its network.
    Consistent with these developments, we propose to require that CMRS 
and covered text providers use location-based routing if the location 
information available at the time of routing identifies the caller's 
horizontal location within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level 
of at least 90%. These metrics are consistent with AT&T's 
implementation of location-based routing. In addition, our proposed 
confidence metric is consistent with ATIS' recommendation that 
uncertainty values for location-based routing ``be standardized to a 
90% confidence for effective call handling.'' We seek comment on this 
proposal. As BRETSA notes, even where location-based routing is used, 
misroutes may still occur, e.g., when a caller is very near a 
jurisdictional boundary. Do our proposed accuracy and confidence 
metrics strike the right balance in terms of maximizing the number of 
calls that will be successfully routed to the correct PSAP while 
minimizing the number of potential misroutes? If not, how should we 
modify those metrics, and what effect would such changes have on our 
goal to reduce misrouted calls and texts? In addition, for calls that 
fall outside the accuracy and confidence thresholds, should we provide 
a minimum standard or standards for the determining the best

[[Page 2574]]

available location information for routing the call?
    Validation. Several commenters recommend that carriers validate 
location estimates for location-based routing against positioning 
information from other sources, such as the originating cell 
sector.\50\ We seek comment on whether we should require validation of 
caller location information for purposes of location-based routing and, 
if so, what validation steps we should require CMRS and covered text 
providers to take. We intend for our proposed confidence and 
uncertainty requirements to ensure that CMRS providers and covered text 
providers use accurate device location for routing purposes when it is 
available. Considering these proposals, do commenters believe that 
additional validation steps are necessary? We also ask commenters to 
address the validation process, including what information CMRS 
providers and covered text providers should use to validate device-
based hybrid location information.\51\ Are there additional costs 
associated with validation and, if so, what are they? In addition, we 
seek comment on which parties should be responsible for validation, at 
what point in the network validation should occur, and whether 
requiring validation would introduce any delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (Comtech) Comments at 5 
through 6 (rec. July 11, 2022) (Comtech Comments) (urging the 
Commission to ensure that DBH location information is only used to 
route 911 calls if checked against cell site-based location 
information); Verizon Comments at 4 (``For DBH-based routing, the 
handset location fix must be validated against the cell radius with 
sufficient accuracy, which will occur in many but not all cases.''). 
These comments are consistent with ATIS' recommendation on the 
matter. ATIS-0500039 at 15.
    \51\ For example, Comtech urges the Commission to ensure that 
device-based hybrid location information is only used for routing if 
it has been checked against cell site-based location information. 
Comtech Comments at 5 through 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Location-Based Routing of Calls and Texts to Next Generation 911 
Networks

    In the Notice of Inquiry and the public notice, the Commission 
sought comment on potential interdependencies between location-based 
routing and the transition to Next Generation 911. As the Commission 
observed in the Notice of Inquiry, NG911 call routing differs from 
legacy E911 call routing because NG911 architecture requires 
originating service providers to route calls to ESInets rather than to 
legacy selective routers, and calls are then routed over the ESInet to 
the appropriate PSAP.\52\ In addition, NG911 differs from legacy E911 
in that it is configured for originating service providers to deliver 
911 calls and associated call routing information in IP-based format. 
Specifically, in NG911 call flow, the originating service provider uses 
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to embed routing information in the 
IP data packets that control call initiation and set-up and uses the 
SIP call routing information to route the call to the appropriate 
ESInet. Then, the ESInet operator directs the call to the appropriate 
PSAP by applying geospatial routing policies to the routing information 
embedded in the call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Notice of Inquiry, 33 FCC Rcd at 3251, paragraph 32. In 
a legacy E911 environment, CMRS providers route wireless calls using 
the pre-registered location of the tower and radio antennas through 
which the 911 call was placed. Id. In a fully implemented NG911 
environment, CMRS providers deliver device location derived from a 
Location Information Server (LIS) to the ESInet, and the state or 
local 911 authority determines how to route a 911 call to the 
appropriate PSAP. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the public notice, we asked how the Commission could help to 
ensure that the delivery of location information to NG911-capable PSAPs 
is consistent with NG911 systems and architecture. In response, 
commenters generally support the end goal of having originating service 
providers deliver IP-formatted calls and SIP-based call routing 
information to NG911-capable PSAPs, and some nationwide CMRS providers 
state that they are already doing so.\53\ Some commenters, including 
NENA, urge the Commission to require carriers to deliver calls and 
routing information in IP-based format to NG911-capable PSAPs that 
request it, arguing that this will speed the NG911 transition and 
reduce transition costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Verizon Comments at 2 (stating that Verizon ``has largely 
addressed the technical issues necessary to establish connectivity 
between its wireless network and i3-capable NG911 networks'' and 
incorporates DBH location into the SIP INVITE to an ESInet); T-
Mobile Reply at 2 (stating that T-Mobile has ``converted over 1,900 
PSAPs in 24 states from TDM to NG911 SIP''); AT&T Comments at 5 
(describing how AT&T calls route to NG911 System Service Providers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to require CMRS and covered text providers to deliver 
911 calls, texts, and associated routing information in IP-based format 
to NG911-capable PSAPs that request it. We seek comment on this 
proposal. We believe that such a requirement, combined with our 
proposed location-based routing requirements described above, would 
help to advance the NG911 transition in several ways. First, it would 
help to address operational and routing issues for jurisdictions that 
have implemented NG911. The Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture 
(TFOPA) report in 2016 concluded that a significant impediment to NG911 
service was that originating service providers were not prepared to 
deliver 911 calls via IP technology with location information to NG911 
service providers. Some 911 authorities contend that the use of legacy 
technology by originating service providers continues to be an obstacle 
to the ability of jurisdictions to transition to NG911.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts State 911 Department 
claims that lack of SIP on an end-to-end basis has created 
operational issues, as only one carrier has connected to the NG911 
network via IP for voice calls. Massachusetts State 911 Department 
Comments at 2 through 3 (rec. July 8, 2022) (Massachusetts 911 
Comments) (stating that lack of SIP has sometimes resulted in 
canceled and redelivered 911 calls, which generate an abandoned call 
and put the 911 caller further back in the queue).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, requiring originating service providers to deliver IP-
formatted calls and routing information to NG911-capable PSAPs would 
alleviate the burden on state and local 911 authorities of maintaining 
transitional gateways and other network elements to process and convert 
legacy calls. While some carriers are already delivering IP-based 
traffic voluntarily to NG911-capable PSAPs, so long as any providers 
continue to deliver 911 calls and routing information in legacy format, 
the state or local 911 authority must fund and operate transitional 
technology to receive the traffic in the ESInet and process it within 
the NG911 system. We seek comment on the degree to which funding and 
operating transitional facilities extend the timeline and add to the 
cost incurred by state and local 911 authorities to transition to 
NG911.
    Third, the proposed IP-based delivery requirement would help 
jurisdictions realize additional public safety benefits available on 
NG911 networks, including enhanced policy routing functions, support 
for communication in multiple languages, and enhanced services to 
disabled communities. When NG911 systems have access to precise IP-
formatted location information for 911 calls, they can use it to 
support geospatial routing and can more frequently update GIS data. IP-
formatted data can also support policy routing that flexibly routes 
calls to PSAPs based on variables such as call volume, available 
telecommunicator resources, or the need for specialized response to 
particular emergencies. In addition, routing on NG911 networks can 
result in material time savings for telecommunicators. For example, the 
Massachusetts State 911 Department reports that using location-based 
routing on its NG911 network has resulted in a reduction of over a half 
million minutes per year in unwanted transfers.
    We seek comment and specific data on the benefits that the public 
would

[[Page 2575]]

derive from our proposals, as well as on the costs to nationwide and 
non-nationwide providers to deliver calls and texts in IP-based format 
when a state or local 911 authority has requested it. We also seek 
comment on what level of NG911 readiness PSAPs should have achieved in 
order to trigger the requirement for providers to begin delivering 
calls, texts, and location information in IP format. Should individual 
PSAPs be able to trigger the requirement or should readiness be 
established at a more aggregated level, e.g., on an ESInet-by-ESInet or 
state-by-state basis?
    Timing of IP Service Delivery. For delivery of IP-formatted calls, 
texts, and location information by nationwide CMRS and covered text 
providers, we propose an implementation timeline of six months from the 
effective date of the location-based routing requirement, or six months 
after a valid request by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is 
later. We also propose to provide non-nationwide CMRS providers an 
extra six months to accommodate these requests. We seek comment on 
these proposed timeframes for implementation. We also propose to allow 
911 authorities and service providers to agree to alternate timeframes 
for delivery of IP-formatted calls and texts, provided that the CMRS 
provider or covered text provider notifies the Commission of the 
alternate timeframe within 30 days of the parties' agreement. We seek 
comment on this proposal.
    Valid Request for IP Service. Because state or local 911 
authorities would need to notify CMRS providers and covered text 
providers of their readiness to receive calls in NG911-compatible 
formats, we propose a framework for providing such notification. 
Consistent with our rules for text-to-911,\55\ we propose to define a 
valid request as one made by a local or state entity that certifies 
that it (1) is technically ready to receive 911 calls and texts in the 
IP-based format requested, (2) is specifically authorized to accept 
calls and/or texts in the IP-based format requested, and (3) has 
provided notification to the CMRS provider or covered text provider via 
either a registry made available by the Commission or by written 
notification reasonably acceptable to the CMRS provider or covered text 
provider. We believe that this approach would minimize miscommunication 
between carriers and 911 authorities \56\ and facilitate the timely 
delivery of IP-based service once state and local 911 authorities 
indicate their readiness. For purposes of determining whether a state 
or local 911 authority could be technically ready to receive calls and 
texts in an IP-based format, we seek comment on the elements that a 
state or local 911 authority would need to have in place before making 
a valid request.\57\ In addition, we seek comment on whether we should 
require separate requests for IP-based call and text delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ See 47 CFR 9.10(q)(10)(iii) (defining a valid request for 
text-to-911 service).
    \56\ See Massachusetts 911 Comments at 2 through 3 (describing 
lack of support for IP connection by some carriers); T-Mobile Reply 
at 2 through 3 & n.3 (noting that multiple carriers are i3 
compliant).
    \57\ As an example of possible readiness elements, we note that 
TFOPA created a ``NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard'' that categorizes 
components of NG911 implementation. TFOPA, Working Group 2: NG9-1-1 
Readiness Scorecard at 17 through 21 (2016), https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_WG2_Supplemental_Report-120216.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To facilitate notification, we seek comment on whether the 
Commission should make available a registry or database that would 
allow state and local 911 authorities to notify CMRS providers and 
covered text providers of readiness to receive calls and texts in IP-
based format with associated location information. Such a registry 
could simplify the request process for state and local 911 authorities 
as well as CMRS providers and covered text providers. State and local 
911 authorities are already familiar with the process of requesting 
text-to-911 and RTT services via a similar process.\58\ We seek comment 
on the granularity of such a registry, including whether to organize it 
by PSAP, state, ESInet, or other level of specificity. Should it be 
combined with our existing Master PSAP Registry and Text-to-911 
Registry? If so, what features would be required in such a combined 
registry?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See PSAP Text-to-911 Readiness and Certification Registry 
(Text-to-911 Registry), https://www.fcc.gov/general/psap-text-911-
readiness-and-certification-form#:~:text=the%20format%20requested.-
,Text%2Dto%2D911%20Registry.,requested%20format%20within%20six%20mont
hs (last visited Nov. 22, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Timing Requirements for NG911 Routing. As previously noted, in 
NG911 architecture, device-based location information embedded in IP-
formatted 911 calls is first used to route the call to an ESInet, and 
the ESInet operator then applies NG911 network routing policies to the 
embedded information to route the call to the appropriate PSAP. Some 
commenters express concern that delay in making device location 
information available to the ESInet operator could inhibit or prevent 
the full application of these routing functions within NG911 networks, 
thus depriving 911 authorities of the potential benefits of location-
based routing in the NG911 environment. T-Mobile, however, asks the 
Commission not to impose mandates on carriers with respect to the use 
of location-based routing in NG911 systems, as such deployments rely on 
multi-stakeholder processes. We do not propose such mandates, but we 
seek comment on whether there are factors that could impact the length 
of time between the completion of the initial device location fix by an 
originating service provider and the availability of device location 
information to an NG911 network. Does our proposal to require delivery 
of IP-formatted calls and texts address commenters' concerns about 
making location information available in time for routing within NG911 
networks?
    Appropriate Requesting Entities. Under our proposed rule, the local 
or state entity with authority and responsibility to designate the 
point(s) to receive wireless 911 calls or texts would be the 
appropriate authority to request IP-based service from CMRS providers 
and covered text providers. However, statewide, regional, or county 
governmental entities may deploy shared resources such as an ESInet, 
and an ESInet may provide services for multiple PSAPs or public safety 
entities. There are also still many PSAPs serving a single jurisdiction 
managed by a city, county, or police or fire department. Should the 
proposed rule include PSAPs, appropriate local emergency authorities, 
state or local 911 authorities, and/or other specified authorities as 
entities that may initiate a valid request for IP-based service? We 
seek comment on the appropriate requesting entity or entities we should 
include in our rule given the varied governance of ESInet deployments.

C. Monitoring and Compliance

    We seek comment on whether the Commission should implement any new 
data collections to assist in monitoring compliance with our proposed 
location-based routing rules. For example, should we require CMRS 
providers and/or covered text providers to provide performance data on 
location-based routing, such as relative percentages of calls or texts 
routed using location-based routing versus other routing methods such 
as cell tower location? Should reporting on routing be included as an 
additional component of the 911 live call data reports that CMRS 
providers already file pursuant to our

[[Page 2576]]

wireless location accuracy rules?\59\ If reporting would be helpful, 
what specific information should providers include and how frequently 
should we require them to report? Should we require CMRS and covered 
text providers to report information on misrouted 911 calls and texts? 
Would a separate data collection from NG911 service providers be 
helpful, as Peninsula Fiber Network suggests? If so, what information 
should the Commission seek in such a data collection? We also seek 
comment on measures the Commission could take to limit the burden of 
reporting on location-based routing. To what extent could the 
Commission limit the burden of any reporting requirements by providing 
increased flexibility for non-nationwide CMRS providers or businesses 
identified as small by the Small Business Administration? \60\ As an 
alternative to reporting, should the Commission require providers to 
certify that they are in compliance with requirements for location-
based routing and/or delivery of calls and texts in IP format?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ Wireless location accuracy live call data reporting 
requirements may be found at 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(ii).
    \60\ For example, the Commission's requirements for live call 
data reporting provide a reduced reporting schedule for non-
nationwide CMRS providers. See 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(ii)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Peninsula Fiber Network suggests that the Commission ``establish a 
reporting system where 9-1-1 system service providers and local 
agencies can report non-compliance information, and the Commission can 
levy forfeiture orders to the providers for non-compliance.'' To the 
extent Peninsula Fiber Network suggests establishment of a separate 
reporting system for location-based routing information, we do not 
believe such a reporting system is necessary. Public safety entities 
and members of the public seeking to report non-compliance with the 
proposed rules would be able to file informal complaints via the Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's Public Safety Support Center or 
the Commission's Consumer Complaint Center, or formal complaints under 
the Commission's enforcement rules.\61\ We tentatively conclude that 
these existing mechanisms should be sufficient for addressing potential 
violations of the proposed location-based routing rules. We seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ The Public Safety Support Center is a web-based portal that 
enables PSAPs and other public safety entities to request support or 
information from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and 
to notify it of problems or issues impacting the provision of 
emergency services. See Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 
Announces Opening of Public Safety Support Center, public notice, 30 
FCC Rcd 10639 (PSHSB 2015); FCC, Public Safety Support Center, 
https://www.fcc.gov/general/public-safety-support-center (last 
visited Nov. 29, 2022). The Consumer Complaint Center handles 
consumer inquiries and complaints, including consumer complaints 
about access to 911 emergency services. FCC, Consumer Complaint 
Center, https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us (last visited 
Nov. 29, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Additional Proposals

    Further Study. Some commenters assert that the Commission should 
facilitate additional study of various aspects of location-based 
routing,\62\ and Comtech asserts that the problem of misrouted 
emergency wireless calls is not yet fully understood or sufficiently 
documented to justify regulatory changes. APCO, on the other hand, 
states that there is a general public safety consensus that misroutes 
are a problem and that the Commission should not delay action while 
waiting for additional data. As discussed above, we believe that 
misroutes resulting from legacy E911 routing are a well-documented 
occurrence and impact a significant percentage of 911 calls.\63\ The 
record also indicates that nationwide location-based routing would 
reduce misrouted 911 calls and save 911 telecommunicators hundreds of 
thousands of hours a year. Therefore, we do not propose to postpone 
regulatory changes pending further study or documentation of misrouted 
emergency calls as Comtech advocates. We seek comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ T-Mobile Reply at 5 (asking the Commission to task the next 
iteration of the CSRIC with a refreshed study of location-based 
routing or encourage ATIS to undertake additional study of the 
technology); BRETSA Reply at 9 (asserting that further analysis 
should be completed to determine whether uncertainty and confidence 
levels can be correlated with the likelihood of calls being 
misrouted).
    \63\ See, e.g., CSRIC V LBR Report at 9; ATIS-0500039 at 4 n.3 
(one GMLC estimates that 12% of its wireless calls are misrouted); 
Intrado Comments at 3 n.8 (estimating that approximately 12.96% of a 
sample set of five million wireless calls were misrouted). Some 
jurisdictions report even higher numbers of misrouted calls. See, 
e.g., Fayetteville Police Department Comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional Measures to Decrease Call Transfer Times. Some 
commenters recommend that the Commission encourage measures that would 
decrease call transfer times.\64\ We encourage PSAPs and relevant state 
and local 911 authorities to pursue these additional capabilities, but 
at this time do not propose to undertake additional regulatory steps to 
do so. We seek comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See CTIA Reply at 5 through 6 (rec. July 25, 2022) (CTIA 
Reply) (urging the Commission to encourage PSAPs to pursue solutions 
to minimize call-transfer times). See also NENA Comments at 4 
through 10 (suggesting the implementation of both standards-based 
and non-standards based solutions to decrease call transfer times); 
BRETSA Reply at 4 through 5 (recommending inter-CAD transfer 
capabilities and updating CAD systems with maps beyond PSAPs' 
jurisdictional boundaries).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion

    The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital 
equity for all,\65\ including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any 
equity-related considerations \66\ and benefits, if any, that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or 
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended 
provides that the FCC ``regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce 
in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] 
available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United 
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, 
religion, national origin, or sex.'' 47 U.S.C. 151.
    \66\ The term ``equity'' is used here consistent with Executive 
Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and 
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who 
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such 
treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American 
persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of 
color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; 
persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality. See Exec. Order No. 
13985, 86 FR 7009, Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and 
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government 
(Jan. 20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Summary of Benefits and Costs for Location-Based Routing

    Benefits of Location-Based Routing. Any solution to the problem of 
misrouted 911 calls and texts, no matter how effective, must withstand 
the test of feasibility and functionality relative to cost. We 
therefore seek comment on whether the implementation of location-based 
routing for calls and texts can improve upon the speeds at which 
emergency personnel and services relying on a legacy 911 system can 
reach the caller, with a resulting improvement in the health and safety 
of the caller and preservation of property, and the magnitude of this 
presumed benefit. The record indicates that location-based routing may 
correct for a substantial percentage of calls that would otherwise be 
misrouted using legacy E911 routing,\67\ thereby minimizing transfers

[[Page 2577]]

and saving time required to transfer calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See AT&T Comments at 4. Approximately 10% of all 911 
wireless calls on AT&T's network would have been misrouted (and 
would have required a transfer) but instead are routed to the 
correct PSAP in the first instance as a result of AT&T's location-
based routing solution. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The potential benefits of location-based routing are very large. 
Our proposed rules are directed at eliminating the estimated 23 million 
misrouted 911 calls which occur annually.\68\ Moreover, NENA, APCO, and 
Peninsula Fiber Network assert that a ``typical'' transfer takes about 
a minute.\69\ Thus, by eliminating the need for transfer, the proposed 
rules would shorten response time for these calls. As discussed above, 
routing these calls accurately would reduce confusion, speed emergency 
response, and save lives and property. The Commission has previously 
relied on a study of emergency response incidents in Salt Lake City 
(Salt Lake City Study) to estimate the reduction in mortality 
attributable to measures that would decrease the total response time to 
a 911 call.\70\ The Commission found that the Salt Lake City Study 
demonstrates that faster response time in response to a 911 call lowers 
mortality risk. The Salt Lake City Study shows a one-minute decrease in 
ambulance response times reduced the likelihood of 90-day mortality 
from approximately 6% to 5%, representing a 17% reduction in the total 
number of deaths.\71\ Using this analysis, the Commission in the Indoor 
Location Accuracy Fourth Report and Order estimated that wireless 
location accuracy for purposes of dispatching first responders would 
save approximately 10,120 lives annually when fully implemented. We 
apply a comparable analysis here to estimate that implementation of 
location-based routing would save 13,837 lives annually.\72\ Despite 
some implementation of location-based routing on CMRS provider 
networks, most of this life-saving benefit has not yet been realized 
because routing for most wireless calls is still heavily reliant on 
cell tower locations. Beyond saving lives, other benefits will also 
accrue, including better health outcomes, less property loss, and 
savings of PSAP resources. In all, we find these benefits to be 
sufficiently large to justify the costs the proposed rules will entail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ See NENA Comments at 2 (estimating that of the 
approximately 240 million calls to 911 that are placed each year, 
80% of all calls or approximately 192 million are placed on wireless 
devices, and that around 12% of wireless calls or 23 million are 
misrouted).
    \69\ This conforms with anecdotal evidence in the record that 
each transfer introduces about a minute of delay. APCO Comments at 2 
(``[I]t's possible that a misrouted call will introduce a delay of a 
minute or longer.''); NENA Comments at 4 (``[T]he general anecdotal 
consensus was that a call transfer typically takes `about a minute.' 
''); Peninsula Fiber Network Comments at 1 (``[E]ach transfer takes 
between 15 to 90 seconds to set up and complete.'').
    \70\ See Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket 
No. 07-114, Fourth Report and Order, 80 FR 11806 (March 4, 2015), 30 
FCC Rcd 1259, 1317, paragraph 160 (2015) (Indoor Location Accuracy 
Fourth Report and Order), corrected by Erratum (PSHSB Mar. 3, 2015). 
The Commission has also relied on a 2002 Pennsylvania study of 911 
calls to provide a basis for estimating the reduction in mortality 
attributable to faster 911 service. Improving 911 Reliability and 
Continuity of Communications Networks, Including Broadband 
Technologies, PS Docket Nos. 13-75 and 11-60, Report and Order, 79 
FR 3123 (Jan. 17, 2014), 28 FCC Rcd 17476, 17501, paragraphs 74 
through 75 (2013) (Reliability Report and Order); see also Susan 
Athey & Scott Stern, The Impact of Information Technology on 
Emergency Health Care Outcomes, 33(3) Rand J. Econ. 399 through 432 
(2002), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12585298/ (assessing the 
impact of E911 on health outcomes using Pennsylvania ambulance and 
hospital records between 1194 and 1996 and showing that E911 reduces 
mortality and hospital costs).
    \71\ See Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket 
No. 07-114, 79 FR 17820 (March 28, 2014), 29 FCC Rcd 2374, 2388 
through 89, paragraph 7 (Indoor Location Accuracy Third Further 
Notice). The Salt Lake City study, which was cited in the Indoor 
Location Accuracy Fourth Report and Order and the Indoor Location 
Accuracy Third Further Notice, examined 73,706 emergency incidents 
during 2001 in the Salt Lake City area and found that, on average, a 
decrease in ambulance response times reduced the likelihood of 90-
day mortality from approximately 6% to 5%, i.e., a 17% reduction in 
the total number of deaths. See Wilde, Elizabeth Ty, ``Do Emergency 
Medical System Response Times Matter for Health Outcomes?,'' 22 
Health Econ. 7, 790 through 806 at 794 (2013), https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22700368/ (Salt Lake City Study); Indoor 
Location Accuracy Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1317, 
paragraph 160; Indoor Location Accuracy Third Further Notice, 29 FCC 
Rcd. at 2388 through 89, paragraph 7 & n.70. Because the regression 
in the Salt Lake City Study is linear, this result implies that a 
one-minute reduction in response time also saves lives at the same 
rate of 17%. Indoor Location Accuracy Third Further Notice, 29 FCC 
Rcd. at 2388, paragraph 7 n.70. In the Salt Lake City sample, the 
study suggested that a one-minute reduction in response times would 
have resulted in an annual saving of 746 lives. Id. at paragraph 7.
    \72\ The Salt Lake City Study estimated a mean 90-day mortality 
rate of 5.95% (4,386 mean number of deaths in the 90 days following 
the 911 call divided by 73,706 emergency incidents during the study 
period). Salt Lake City Study at 794. NENA estimates that 80% or 
more of the total calls to 911 annually are from wireless devices. 
NENA, 9-1-1 Statistics, https://www.nena.org/page/
911Statistics#:~:text=An%20estimated%20240%20million%20calls,more%20a
re%20from%20wireless%20devices (last accessed Nov. 29, 2022). 
According to the National Association of State Emergency Medical 
Services Officials (NASEMSO), local Emergency Medical Services (EMS) 
agencies respond to nearly 28.5 million 911 dispatches each year. 
NASEMSO, National Association of State EMS Officials releases stats 
on local agencies, 911 Calls (April 10, 2020), https://www.ems1.com/ambulance-service/articles/national-association-of-state-ems-officials-releases-stats-on-local-agencies-911-calls-LPQTHJrK2oIpxuR1/. Assuming that 80% of these calls are from 
wireless devices yields an estimate of 22.8 million wireless calls 
for 911 dispatch annually. For purposes of this analysis, we 
estimate that 12% of the 22.8 million annual wireless calls for 
dispatch (or 2,736,000 calls) would be misrouted. See ATIS-0500039 
at 4. We also estimate that location-based routing with a horizontal 
uncertainty value of 300 meters would resolve approximately 50% of 
these misroutes. See id. at 13. Accordingly, we estimate that 
1,368,000 calls would avoid the need for a transfer due to a 
misroute, reducing the response time for these calls by one minute. 
Applying the original mortality rate of 5.95% to this set of calls 
yields an estimate of the original total mortality for calls in need 
of transfer due to a misroute, or 81,396 lives per year. Reducing 
the original total mortality (81,396 lives) by 17%, representing the 
expected benefits of a one minute reduction in response time, 
results in a revised mortality estimate of 67,559 lives. The 
difference between the original and revised mortalities (81,396 
minus 67,559) yields the estimated number of lives saved annually 
due to implementation of location-based routing, or 13,837 lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimating the dollar value of these benefits raises certain 
challenges. While we do not attempt to place a value on human life, 
regulators have estimated the value that consumers place on mortality 
risk reduction by their willingness to purchase safety features on cars 
and other products. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has 
created such an estimate, which concludes that consumers, as a group, 
show a willingness to pay $11.8 million to reduce risk sufficiently 
that one life would likely be saved.\73\ Therefore, to reduce expected 
mortalities by 13,837, the DOT estimate of value would be 13,837 x 
$11.8 million or approximately $163 billion. This estimate is 
conservative. First, it excludes the value of reduced human suffering 
and property destruction occurring due to a delayed arrival of first 
responders. In addition, it does not include the benefits of location-
based routing for text messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See U.S. Department of Transportation, Departmental 
Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis 
(Mar. 4, 2022), https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The record indicates that location-based routing solutions are 
expected to benefit PSAPs by resulting in time savings for 
telecommunicators.\74\ In addition, the proposal to require service 
providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, and location information in IP-
based format to NG911-capable PSAPs could enable

[[Page 2578]]

state and local 911 authorities avoid the cost and inefficiency of 
maintaining legacy and NG911 systems simultaneously.\75\ We therefore 
seek additional specificity on the time and cost savings to PSAPs and 
state and local 911 authorities under these proposed rules. We also 
seek comment on the reasonableness of the underlying assumptions in our 
above analysis of lives expected to be saved under the proposed rules. 
Further, we ask commenters to identify other benefits, such as a 
reduction in both human suffering and property damage, that have been 
or could be accrued from adoption of location-based routing or other 
provisions in our proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ E.g., NENA Comments at 4 (``NENA estimates over 200,000 
hours per year of excess 9-1-1 professional labor is consumed due to 
call transfer events'' (emphasis omitted)). See also Texas 911 
Entities at 2 through 4 (noting that the implementation of location-
based routing has had a noticeably positive impact on PSAPs with 
misrouted 911 calls); Intrado Comments at 6 (recounting feedback 
from Palm Beach County, Florida, that PSAPs have experienced 
improvements in operations after location-based routing, including 
immediate access to granular device information).
    \75\ NENA Comments at 8 (``Routing in NG9-1-1 is more efficient 
and requires much less physical hardware. Many NG9-1-1 systems are 
forced to operate in a transitional environment. The 9-1-1 authority 
is forced to operate both an ESInet and a legacy E9-1-1 system that 
supports Selective Routers. NG9-1-1 transitional environments are 
very costly and inefficient.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs of Implementation. In order to determine whether the proposed 
requirements are reasonable, we must determine whether they are 
feasible and do not impose costs that exceed their benefits. Because 
three nationwide carriers are already providing location-based routing 
and IP-based service to PSAPs now, or plan to do so in the near future, 
we tentatively conclude that the proposed rules are feasible. We seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion. With respect to costs, the record 
does not currently contain detailed information on costs required for 
nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers 
to implement location-based routing and IP-based service delivery. We 
therefore seek comment on whether the implementation of location-based 
routing and IP-based service delivery as proposed under our rules would 
result in significant hardware, software, services, GIS, testing, or 
other costs to CMRS and covered text providers, NG911 services 
providers, or state and local 911 authorities. We seek comment on the 
amount of those costs and ask commenters to provide sufficiently 
detailed information to allow accurate cost calculations.
    T-Mobile asserts that implementing location-based routing may 
involve procedural and technical complexities and that not all carriers 
are prepared to implement location-based routing on their networks 
using DBH location. We seek additional detailed information on whether 
the providers referenced by T-Mobile are unable to implement location-
based routing, and if so, an explanation of why they are unable to do 
so. T-Mobile also notes that it worked closely with Operating System 
(OS)-based location providers to generate DBH location quickly for 
location-based routing. Do other carriers need to make similar 
investments or efforts in working with OS-based location providers? If 
yes, what would be the timeline and cost to do so? We seek additional 
detailed information on the costs for nationwide and non-nationwide 
carriers and covered text providers to implement the required software, 
hardware, and service upgrades to comply with our proposed rules. Where 
specifically would these upgrades need to occur on the end-to-end 
network, e.g., on the device, on specific CMRS providers' network 
elements, or on specific 911 network elements? How many software, 
hardware, and service upgrades would be required for nationwide and 
non-nationwide carriers and covered text providers? How many work-hours 
would be necessary to implement these upgrades and what kind of workers 
would be required to implement these upgrades?
    We are especially interested in cost data on existing deployments 
of location-based routing. We also seek information on planned or 
expended costs by CMRS providers and covered text providers that have 
voluntarily implemented or plan to implement location-based routing to 
any extent on their networks. To what extent would non-nationwide CMRS 
providers and covered text providers be able to leverage costs already 
incurred by nationwide CMRS providers, such as costs to develop and 
test location-based routing solutions, to reduce their own costs to 
comply with our proposed rules? Intrado maintains that CMRS providers 
would need to make ``appropriate investments'' and rigorously test 
location-based routing solutions before implementation, but that once 
these steps are taken ``there should be insignificant cost and 
administrative effort for nationwide deployment[.]'' Are costs to 
implement location-based routing significantly different for different 
network operators? If so, why? We seek comment on the details and the 
amount of these investments as well as the anticipated cost of testing 
location-based routing solutions. We also seek information on what 
equipment and software CMRS providers and covered text providers would 
need to test, how these tests would be performed, and CMRS providers' 
and covered text providers' plans for testing.
    We also seek comment on whether there are differences for CMRS and 
covered text providers with respect to investments required to 
implement location-based routing when the receiving jurisdiction is 
legacy or NG911-capable, and, if so, a detailed explanation of costs 
associated with each scenario. Would the implementation of location-
based routing require public safety investment? APCO comments that 
``[l]ocation-based routing can and should be implemented without 
imposing additional costs on [PSAPs],'' and AT&T states that a PSAP 
``does not need to take any action to receive 911 calls that utilize 
location-based routing when the wireless call originates on AT&T's 
network.'' However, T-Mobile appears to disagree with APCO's assertion 
that location-based routing should not impose costs on public safety, 
noting that ``the single most useful milestone for location-based 
routing would be widespread implementation of NG911,'' and only 
supports location-based routing for certain PSAPs.\76\ What are the 
comparative costs of CMRS provider or covered text provider 
implementations of location-based routing for NG911-capable versus 
legacy jurisdictions? Are additional investments required for CMRS 
providers and covered text providers to implement location-based 
routing when the receiving jurisdiction has not implemented NG911 
components? If so, what are these investments and what are their costs? 
If these investments are services from third-party service providers, 
are these services available for all CMRS providers and covered text 
providers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ T-Mobile Reply at 2 through 3. In addition, T-Mobile has 
stated that it deploys location-based routing ``where jurisdictions 
are ready.'' Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also seek comment on the specific costs to nationwide and non-
nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers to deliver IP-
based 911 calls, texts, and SIP-formatted location information to 
requesting state and local 911 authorities within the specified 
timeframes under our proposed rules. What specific investments would be 
required for hardware, software, and services for CMRS providers and 
covered text providers to deliver IP-based service? Verizon states that 
it will formally launch end-to-end i3 call delivery during 2022. T-
Mobile says it has converted over 1,900 PSAPs from TDM to SIP. Are 
other CMRS providers and covered text providers planning to implement 
IP-based delivery? Is there additional cost to requiring IP-based 
delivery within six months? Would a longer timeframe for IP-based 
delivery result in lower costs to CMRS and

[[Page 2579]]

covered text providers? What specific upgrades would be required to 
comply with the requirement to deliver IP-based service under our 
proposed rules, and what would such upgrades cost?
    We seek information on the costs of nationwide and non-nationwide 
CMRS providers providing text service and other covered text providers 
to implement location-based routing for texts as described under our 
rules, including hardware, software, and service upgrade costs. AT&T 
states that it has already implemented nationwide location-based 
routing for texts. What costs would non-CMRS text providers incur to 
comply with our proposed rules? What costs would non-CMRS text 
providers incur for hardware, software, and service upgrades, as well 
as any other types of upgrades? What other types of costs, such as 
testing, would covered text providers incur?
    In the absence of a detailed record on costs, we provide estimates 
below, and ask commenters to provide information to improve these 
estimates if necessary. To be conservative in our approach, we seek to 
provide upper-bound estimates, so that actual costs will be at or below 
these levels. First, we separate the costs into material costs and 
labor costs. T-Mobile states that it deployed location-based routing to 
some PSAPs and not others, so we rely on this statement in tentatively 
concluding that CMRS providers implement location-based routing at the 
PSAP level and CMRS providers incur material costs on a per-PSAP basis. 
We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. The record also suggests 
that material costs may require the use of additional software features 
\77\ and changes to legacy components if the PSAP has not yet upgraded 
to NG911. There is little in the record to suggest what the average 
material cost of software features or component upgrades would be, so 
as a starting point, we set the total material costs for each CMRS 
provider at $10,000 per PSAP as an upper bound.\78\ We ask commenters 
to provide cost information to inform our estimate of per-PSAP costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ AT&T's implementation of location-based routing uses 
Intrado's ``Locate Before Route'' feature and ``implemented several 
timer changes in the GMLC housing AT&T [Location Information Server 
(LIS)].'' AT&T Comments at 2, 5.
    \78\ Estimate based on staff expertise in absence of a record on 
costs. This may be a very high estimate of costs as Intrado states 
that conditional on nationwide VoLTE there is ``insignificant cost 
and administrative effort'' to implement location-based routing. 
Intrado Comments at 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed upper bound on material costs for CMRS providers is 
then $10,000 per PSAP times the total number of CMRS providers 
communicating to PSAPs. AT&T states that it has already deployed 
location-based routing to its network, so our proposed rules will not 
impose any additional material costs on AT&T. The news media report 
that Verizon plans to implement location-based routing in the future, 
so it is unclear the extent to which Verizon plans to implement 
location-based routing on its network at this time. T-Mobile states 
that it has deployed location-based routing to 770 PSAPs and intends to 
deploy it to another 62, for a total of 832 PSAPS for which our 
proposed rules will impose no additional material costs.\79\ There are 
approximately 5,728 PSAPs nationally, which would mean that T-Mobile 
may have to implement location-based routing for another 4,896 PSAPs. 
Staff analysis of Form 477 data suggests that when that when there is a 
fourth non-nationwide wireless provider in any particular location, it 
is usually the only one.\80\ Thus an upper bound for the number of 
PSAPs non-nationwide wireless providers must upgrade would be the full 
national set of 5,728 PSAPs. Including the 4,896 PSAPs T-Mobile does 
not already plan to upgrade, our upper bound of PSAPs is 10,624, and 
the implied material cost upper bound is approximately $106 
million.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ T-Mobile states it deploys location-based routing and NG911 
to ``jurisdictions when ready.'' Thus, it is a conservative 
overestimate to assume deployment at all deployments at PSAPs not 
yet completed or planned are induced by the Rulemaking. T-Mobile 
Reply at 2 & n.6.
    \80\ FCC, Mobile Deployment Form 477 Data (Jul. 29, 2022), 
https://www.fcc.gov/mobile-deployment-form-477-data.
    \81\ 5,728 PSAP upgrades for non-nationwide CMRS providers plus 
4,896 PSAP upgrades for T-Mobile equals 10,624. Multiplying this 
figure by the cost per PSAP of $10,000 = $106,240,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose to calculate labor costs in line with the 2016 Weather 
Alerts Order,\82\ the 2017 Blue Alerts Order,\83\ and the 2022 
Comprehensible Alerts Order.\84\ The Office of Management and Budget 
approved an estimate of $25 per hour of labor cost for an EAS 
Participant to fill out the Commission online report form for EAS 
National Tests in 2011.\85\ We find that the labor cost of employing 
software workers would be similar and adjust the labor cost upward to 
$35.25 to reflect inflation since 2011.\86\ While some workers may be 
involved in physical labor to install equipment or run trials, they are 
likely to be compensated less than software workers, so assuming they 
are compensated at $35.25 would be an overestimate of their labor 
costs. AT&T reports that their rollout of location-based routing 
nationwide took two months, following several months of trials.\87\ We 
therefore assume that a reasonable upper bound of the time to implement 
the upgrades with trials is 6 months (26 weeks) and workers have a 
forty hour work week, or 1040 hours per worker.\88\ It is unclear how 
many workers are required to implement the upgrades, but we find 10 
simultaneous workers at a time on average is a generous upper bound, 
resulting in 10,400 labor hours per CMRS provider. Multiplying this by 
the hourly labor cost of $35.25, the labor cost per CMRS provider is 
$366,600. Our proposed estimates of labor cost for the 58 non-
nationwide CMRS providers \89\ plus T-Mobile is then $366,600 x 59, or 
$21,629,400, which we round up to $22 million as a labor cost upper 
bound.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding 
Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 15-94, Report and Order, 81 FR 
53039 (Aug. 11, 2016) (Weather Alerts Order).
    \83\ Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding 
Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 15-94, Report and Order, 83 FR 
2557 (Jan. 18, 2018) (Blue Alerts Order).
    \84\ Amendment of Part 11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding 
Emergency Alert System, PS Docket No. 15-94, Report and Order, 87 FR 
67808 (Nov. 10, 2022) (Comprehensible Alerts Order).
    \85\ See FCC, Public Information Collections Approved by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 76 FR 68756 through 01 (Nov. 
7, 2011).
    \86\ The average hourly earnings of private employees increased 
40.5% from November 2011 to October 2022, according to estimates 
provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We therefore find a 41% 
increase in wages ($25 x 1.41 = $35.25) to be an appropriate 
adjustment from the OMB-approved labor cost from November 2011. 
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, Average Hourly Earnings of All 
Employees, Total Private (CES0500000003], https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 (last visited Nov. 29, 
2022) (using statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics).
    \87\ The AT&T Snohomish County (Washington) trial occurred from 
October 2021 to January 2022 and the West Palm Beach County 
(Florida) trial occurred from February 2022 to March 2022. The 
rollout occurred from May 2022 to June 2022. AT&T Comments at 2 
through 4.
    \88\ With available NG911, conversion to location-based routing 
would likely be much less work intensive because it would only 
require reconfiguration of the existing software rather that a full 
upgrade. We assume full upgrade to generate an upper bound on costs.
    \89\ The June 2021 Voice Telephone Services Report lists 61 
wireless carriers in total. FCC Office of Economics and Analytics, 
Industry Analysis Division, Voice Telephone Services: Status as of 
June 30, 2021 at 10 (2022) at 10 & Tbl. 2, https://www.fcc.gov/document/oea-releases-voice-telephone-services-report-june-2021.
    \90\ We lack information in the record to pin down how the 
number of required workers would vary between T-Mobile and non-
nationwide carriers. Non-nationwide carriers may require less work 
for upgrades because they have smaller networks, but may require 
more work because they have less specialized expertise on staff. T-
Mobile may require less work because it has already deployed LBR to 
some PSAPs. We therefore tentatively assume a constant rate of 
workers for all carriers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed upper bound of total material and labor costs we 
estimate is therefore $128 million, which is easily justified by the 
thousands of lives

[[Page 2580]]

projected to be saved by location-based routing of 911 calls. Because 
our conservative estimate of benefits of the proposed rules is in the 
billions of dollars, the prospective benefits to be realized by the 
proposed rules will well exceed their cost even under the conservative 
upper-bound assumptions we make here. We seek comment on the 
reasonableness of the above methodology, assumptions, and estimates.

Procedural Matters

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines in the NPRM.

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

    In the NPRM, we propose requirements for Commercial Mobile Radio 
Service (CMRS) providers and covered text providers to implement 
location-based routing for 911 calls and texts nationwide. In 2018, the 
Commission released a Notice of Inquiry that sought to determine the 
best way to avoid misrouted 911 calls.\91\ We recently refreshed the 
record on location-based routing with a public notice that sought to 
update the record on developments since the release of the Notice of 
Inquiry, including technological improvements in location-based routing 
and the extent to which CMRS providers have deployed location-based 
routing in their networks. Developments since the Notice of Inquiry and 
comments in response to the public notice indicate that location-based 
routing is both feasible and reliable and that implementing it on a 
nationwide basis would provide significant public safety benefits. 
Based on the record, we determine that our proposed rule changes are 
necessary to reduce emergency response time because implementation of 
location-based routing will significantly reduce misrouted 911 calls 
and the delays associated with transferring misrouted calls from one 
public safety answering point (PSAP) to another. Consistent with our 
authority in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, we propose to 
amend our rules to ensure that more people will receive better 911 
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ Notice of Inquiry, 33 FCC Rcd at 3240 paragraph 6 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We propose rules in the NPRM that will require CMRS providers and 
covered text providers to implement location-based routing for 911 
calls and texts nationwide, including calls and texts originating in 
both legacy and Next Generation 911 (NG911) jurisdictions. More 
specifically, we propose the following steps to advance location-based 
routing of wireless calls and texts:
     Require all Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
providers to (1) deploy technology that supports location-based routing 
on their internet Protocol (IP)-based networks (i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and 
subsequent generations of IP-based networks) and (2) use location-based 
routing to route all 911 voice calls originating on their IP-based 
networks when caller location information available during origination 
of the 911 call meets certain requirements for accuracy and timeliness. 
Nationwide CMRS providers would have six months from the effective date 
of final rules to meet these requirements. Non-nationwide CMRS 
providers would have an additional year (i.e., eighteen months from the 
effective date of final rules) to meet the same requirements.
     Require covered text providers to (1) deploy technology 
that supports location-based routing and (2) use location-based routing 
to route all 911 texts originating on their IP-based networks when 
location information available during origination of the 911 text meets 
certain requirements for accuracy and timeliness. Covered text 
providers would have eighteen months from the effective date of final 
rules to meet these requirements.
     Establish baseline requirements with respect to the 
accuracy and timeliness of location information used for location-based 
routing. When location information does not meet one or both of these 
requirements, CMRS providers and covered text providers would be 
required to route 911 calls and texts based on the best available 
location information, which may include latitude/longitude coordinates 
of the cell tower.
    To help ensure that public safety jurisdictions transitioning to 
NG911 can realize the benefits of location-based routing in an 
efficient and cost-effective manner, we also propose to:
     Require CMRS providers and covered text providers to 
deliver 911 calls, texts, associated routing information in IP format 
upon request of 911 authorities who have established the capability to 
accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911 communications. Nationwide CMRS 
providers and covered text providers would be subject to this 
requirement six months from the effective date of final rules on 
location-based routing or within six months of a valid request for IP-
based service from a local or state public safety authority, whichever 
is later. Non-nationwide CMRS providers would have an additional six 
months to comply with this requirement.
    We believe that the above proposals for location-based routing of 
911 calls and texts will promote the safety of life and property by 
helping to ensure that those in need of emergency assistance can 
receive the help they need in a more timely manner.

B. Legal Basis

    The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 10, 
201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 
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 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and Section 106 of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 
Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.

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

    The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility

[[Page 2581]]

analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in 
general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 
500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all 
businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5 million 
businesses.
    Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations.\92\ Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there 
were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. 
reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and 
tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 
50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C. 601(5) that is used to define a small 
governmental jurisdiction. Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been 
used to estimate the number small organizations in this small entity 
description. See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small 
Exempt Organizations--Form 990-N (e-Postcard), ``Who must file,'' 
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard. We 
note that the IRS data does not provide information on whether a 
small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or 
dominant in its field.
    \93\ See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (E.O. 
BMF), ``CSV Files by Region,'' https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf. 
The IRS Exempt Organization Business Master File (E.O. BMF) Extract 
provides information on all registered tax-exempt/non-profit 
organizations. The data utilized for purposes of this description 
was extracted from the IRS E.O. BMF data for businesses for the tax 
year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000 for Region 1-
Northeast Area (58,577), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas 
(175,272), and Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast Areas (213,840) 
that includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. This data 
does not include information for Puerto Rico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments \94\ indicate there 
were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States.\95\ Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose 
governments (county,\96\ municipal, and town or township \97\) with 
populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose 
governments--independent school districts \98\ with enrollment 
populations of less than 50,000.\99\ Accordingly, based on the 2017 
U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 
entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.'' \100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five 
(5) years compiling data for years ending with ``2'' and ``7''. See 
Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cog/about.html.
    \95\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments--
Organization Table 2. Local Governments by Type and State: 2017 
[CG1700ORG02], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. Local governmental jurisdictions are made up 
of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) and special purpose governments (special districts and 
independent school districts). See also tbl.2. CG1700ORG02 Table 
Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017.
    \96\ See id. at tbl.5. County Governments by Population-Size 
Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. There were 2,105 county 
governments with populations less than 50,000. This category does 
not include subcounty (municipal and township) governments.
    \97\ See id. at tbl.6. Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by 
Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG06], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. 
There were 18,729 municipal and 16,097 town and township governments 
with populations less than 50,000.
    \98\ See id. at tbl.10. Elementary and Secondary School Systems 
by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG10], https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. 
There were 12,040 independent school districts with enrollment 
populations less than 50,000. See also tbl.4. Special-Purpose Local 
Governments by State Census Years 1942 to 2017 [CG1700ORG04], 
CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose Local Governments by 
State_Census Years 1942 to 2017.
    \99\ While the special purpose governments category also 
includes local special district governments, the 2017 Census of 
Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on 
population size for the special purpose governments category. 
Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included 
in the special purpose governments category.
    \100\ This total is derived from the sum of the number of 
general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) 
with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of 
special purpose governments--independent school districts with 
enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 
Census of Governments--Organizations tbls.5, 6 & 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Telecommunications Service Providers
a. Wireless Telecommunications Providers
    Pursuant to 47 CFR 9.10(a), the Commission's 911 service 
requirements are only applicable to ``CMRS providers, excluding mobile 
satellite service operators, to the extent that they: (1) Offer real-
time, two way switched voice service that is interconnected with the 
public switched network; and (2) Use an in-network switching facility 
that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless 
hand-offs of subscriber calls. These requirements are applicable to 
entities that offer voice service to consumers by purchasing airtime or 
capacity at wholesale rates from CMRS licensees.''
    Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a 
general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small 
businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent 
the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in 
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 
implicated.
    All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of 
internet services (e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are 
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million.\101\ Based on 
this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard. We also note that according to the U.S. Census Bureau 
glossary, the terms receipts and revenues are used interchangeably, 
see https://www.census.gov/glossary/#term_ReceiptsRevenueServices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)--(1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz 
bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-
2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3); 2000-2020 MHz and 
2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4)). Spectrum is made available and licensed in 
these bands for the provision of various wireless communications 
services. Wireless Telecommunications

[[Page 2582]]

Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small 
business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small 
business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small 
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the 
entire year.\102\ Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.\103\ Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be 
considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Economic Census of the United 
States, Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2017, Table ID: 
EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM, NAICS Code 517312, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?y=2017&n=517312&tid=ECNSIZE2017.EC1700SIZEEMPFIRM&hidePreview=false.
    \103\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Commission data as December 2021, there were 
approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses.\104\ The Commission's small 
business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for 
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for 
these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined 
a ``small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues 
for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very 
small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for 
the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these 
definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small 
businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS 
licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small 
businesses won licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
December 10, 2021, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = AD, AH, AT, 
AW; Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the 
number of active licenses does not equate to the number of 
licensees. A licensee can have one or more licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission 
nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses 
specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these 
services include several types of competitive local exchange service 
providers.\105\ Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest 
industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees.\106\ Additionally, based on Commission data 
in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 
2020, there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive 
local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Competitive Local Exchange Service Providers include the 
following types of providers: Competitive Access Providers (CAPs) 
and Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (CLECs), Cable/Coax CLECs, 
Interconnected VOIP Providers, Non-Interconnected VOIP Providers, 
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, Audio Bridge Service Providers, 
Local Resellers, and Other Local Service Providers.
    \106\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.\107\ 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 providers 
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 929 providers have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local 
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal 
communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in the 
1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with a SBA 
small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business 
size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the 
entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.\108\ Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be 
considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were 
approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service.\109\ 
The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 
Broadband PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment 
payments in the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for 
these licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years, and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual 
gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding

[[Page 2583]]

three years. Winning bidders claiming small business credits won 
Broadband PCS licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
November 16, 2021, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = CW; 
Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the number 
of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees. A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the 
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small 
under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Narrowband Personal 
Communications Services (Narrowband PCS) are PCS services operating in 
the 901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 MHz bands. PCS services are 
radio communications that encompass mobile and ancillary fixed 
communication that provide services to individuals and businesses and 
can be integrated with a variety of competing networks. Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. 
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees.\110\ Thus under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 4,211 active Narrowband PCS licenses.\111\ The 
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Narrowband 
PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in 
the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of these 
licenses, the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity 
that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 
million. A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, 
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross 
revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. 
Pursuant to these definitions, 7 winning bidders claiming small and 
very small bidding credits won approximately 359 licenses. One of the 
winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in 
these Narrowband PCS license auctions had an active license as of 
December 2021.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
December 10, 2021, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = CN; 
Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the number 
of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees. A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.
    \112\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
December 10, 2021, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = CN; 
Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the number 
of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees. A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several 
UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television 
broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of 
Mexico.\113\ Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is 
the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable 
to this service. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that 
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees.\114\ Thus under the SBA size 
standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this 
industry can be considered small. Additionally, based on Commission 
data, as of December 2021, there was one licensee with an active 
license in this service.\115\ However, since the Commission does not 
collect data on the number of employees for this service, at this time 
we are not able to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify 
as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ This service is governed by subpart I of part 22 of the 
Commission's Rules. See 47 CFR 22.1001-22.1037.
    \114\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
    \115\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
December 10, 2021, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = CO; 
Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the number 
of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees. A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms 
had fewer than 250 employees.\116\ Thus, under the SBA size standard, 
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rural Radiotelephone Service. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
have developed a small business size standard specifically for small 
businesses providing Rural Radiotelephone Service. Rural Radiotelephone 
Service is radio service in which licensees are authorized to offer and 
provide radio telecommunication services for hire to subscribers in 
areas where it is not feasible to provide communication services by 
wire or other means. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System

[[Page 2584]]

(BETRS).\117\ Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), 
is the closest applicable industry with a SBA small business size 
standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) classifies firms having 
1,500 or fewer employees as small. For this industry, U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.\118\ Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of Rural Radiotelephone Services firm are 
small entities. Based on Commission data as of December 27, 2021, there 
were approximately 119 active licenses in the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service.\119\ The Commission does not collect employment data from 
these entities holding these licenses and therefore we cannot estimate 
how many of these entities meet the SBA small business size standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ BETRS is defined in 47 CFR 22.757, 22.759.
    \118\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
    \119\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
December 27, 2021. https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = CR; 
Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the number 
of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees. A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services 
(WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and 
digital audio broadcasting satellite services. Wireless spectrum is 
made available and licensed for the provision of wireless 
communications services in several frequency bands subject to part 27 
of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size 
standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire 
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.\120\ Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be 
considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS 
involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the 
auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS. 
When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS 
frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of 
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and 
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in 
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified 
in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules 
for the specific WCS frequency bands.\121\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ The Designated entities sections in Subparts D through Q 
each contain the small business size standards adopted for the 
auction of the frequency band covered by that subpart.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.\122\ Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 
Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there 
were 797 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of 
wireless services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 
715 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the 
SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be 
considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal 
communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony 
carriers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small business 
size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite). The size standard for this industry under SBA rules is that 
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms 
employed fewer than 250 employees.\123\ Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2020, there were 407 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of cellular, personal communications services, 
and specialized mobile radio services. Of these providers, the 
Commission estimates that 333 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band encompasses 
spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz frequency 
bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to 
licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire 
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees.\124\ Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be 
considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses.\125\ The

[[Page 2585]]

Commission's small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz 
Guard Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and 
installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of 
these licenses, the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, 
has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years, and a ``very small business'' an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three 
years. Pursuant to these definitions, five winning bidders claiming one 
of the small business status classifications won 26 licenses, and one 
winning bidder claiming small business won two licenses. None of the 
winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in 
these 700 MHz Guard Band license auctions had an active license as of 
December 2021.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
December 14, 2021, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = WX; 
Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the number 
of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees. A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.
    \126\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
December 14, 2021, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = WX; 
Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the number 
of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees. A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band encompasses 
spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible operations in 
these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, 
including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and 
mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based 
services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, 
internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile 
television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business 
size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. 
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees.\127\ Thus under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses.\128\ The 
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700 
MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and 
installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower 
700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups 
of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the 
preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for 
Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a 
small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning 
bidders claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and 
three winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all 
five auctioned licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
December 14, 2021, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = WY, WZ; 
Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the number 
of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees. A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band encompasses 
spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are 
nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz 
bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, 
mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new 
broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services 
(including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile 
wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, 
cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services.\129\ Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses 
providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.\130\ Thus, under 
the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ See Federal Communications Commission, Economics and 
Analytics, Auctions, Auction 73: 700 MHz Band, Fact Sheet, 
Permissible Operations, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/73/factsheet. We 
note that in Auction 73, Upper 700 MHz Band C and D Blocks as well 
as Lower 700 MHz Band A, B, and E Blocks were auctioned.
    \130\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 152 active Upper 700

[[Page 2586]]

MHz Band licenses.\131\ The Commission's small business size standards 
with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for 
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. 
For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a ``small 
business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and 
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 
million for the preceding three years, and a ``very small business'' an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, 
has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the 
preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, three winning 
bidders claiming very small business status won five of the twelve 
available licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ Based on a FCC Universal Licensing System search on 
December 14, 2021, https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchAdvanced.jsp. Search parameters: Service Group = All, ``Match 
only the following radio service(s)'', Radio Service = WP, WU; 
Authorization Type = All; Status = Active. We note that the number 
of active licenses does not equate to the number of licensees. A 
licensee can have one or more licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning 
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction 
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently 
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Wireless Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Wireless 
Resellers. The closest industry with a SBA small business size standard 
is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications and they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. Under the SBA size standard for this 
industry, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry 
provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,375 firms 
operated with fewer than 250 employees.\132\ Thus, for this industry 
under the SBA small business size standard, the majority of providers 
can be considered small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Equipment Manufacturers
    Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms 
had fewer than 250 employees.\133\ Thus, under the SBA size standard, 
the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products 
made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips, 
microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other 
optoelectronic devices. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies entities having 1,250 or fewer employees as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 729 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 673 firms 
operated with fewer than 250 employees.\134\ Thus under the SBA size 
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a 
more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on implementing new location-
based routing requirements for 911 voice calls and text messages, that 
if adopted, may impose new or modified reporting or recordkeeping, and 
other compliance obligations on small entities. Some of our proposed 
requirements contain written notification and certification 
requirements that will be applicable to small entities. For example, in 
the NPRM we propose to require that not later than six months from the 
effective date of final rules on location-based routing, or within six 
months of a valid request for delivery of IP-formatted calls, texts, 
and location information by a local or state authority, whichever is 
later, CMRS providers and covered text providers must deliver 911 
calls, texts, and associated routing information in IP-based format to 
NG911-capable PSAPs that request it. Non-nationwide providers would 
have an additional six months to comply with this requirement. CMRS and 
covered text providers and state or local 911 authorities would be 
allowed to agree to alternate timeframes for delivery of IP-formatted 
calls, texts, and associated routing information as long as the CMRS or 
covered text provider notifies the Commission of the alternate 
timeframe within 30 days of the parties' agreement.
    Regarding CMRS or covered text providers' receipt of a ``valid 
request,'' the criteria we proposed to constitute a valid request 
includes certification from a requesting local or state entity that is 
technically ready to receive calls and/or texts in the IP-based format 
requested, that it is specifically authorized to accept calls and/or 
texts in the IP-based format requested, and that has provided 
notification to the CMRS or covered text providers via either a 
registry made available by the Commission or any other written 
notification reasonably acceptable to the CMRS provider or covered text 
provider.
    In the NPRM, we seek comment on whether to implement any new data 
collections to assist in monitoring performance and compliance with the 
proposed location-based routing rules. For example, we ask: (1) whether 
to require CMRS providers or covered text providers to provide 
performance data on location-based routing, such as relative 
percentages of calls or texts routed using location-based routing 
versus other routing methods such as

[[Page 2587]]

cell tower location, (2) if so, whether to do so as part of their 
existing live call data reports or as a new and separate reporting 
process, and (3) if reporting would be helpful, what specific 
information should providers include and at what frequency should we 
require them to report it. We also seek information on whether the 
proposed rules should include requirements for disclosures to the PSAP 
or other state or local 911 authority in connection with location-based 
routing.
    Our inquiry into the potential reporting obligations that may be 
necessary to complement our proposed location-based routing rules 
includes requesting comment on measures the Commission could take to 
limit the burden of reporting on location-based routing. In particular, 
we seek information on the extent that the Commission could limit the 
burden of any reporting requirements by providing increased flexibility 
for non-nationwide CMRS providers or businesses identified as small by 
the SBA. We also assess whether we need to adopt requirements and 
systems for reporting non-compliance with the proposed location-based 
routing rules. While we tentatively conclude that our existing 
mechanisms (which would allow public safety entities and members of the 
public seeking to report non-compliance with the proposed rules to file 
complaints via the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's Public 
Safety Support Center or the Commission's Consumer Complaint Center) 
should be sufficient to address any potential violations, we seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion.
    The record in this proceeding does not currently contain detailed 
information on the costs required for nationwide and non-nationwide 
carriers, covered text providers, and other parties to implement 
location-based routing and wireless IP-based service delivery. 
Therefore, at this time, the Commission is not in a position to 
determine whether implementation of location-based routing and IP-based 
service delivery as proposed in the NPRM would result in significant 
costs for small CMRS and covered text providers, NG911 services 
providers, or state and local 911 authorities, or require small 
entities to hire professionals to comply, if our proposals are adopted. 
To help the Commission more fully evaluate the cost of compliance, we 
seek additional detailed information on various cost issues implicated 
by our proposed rules.
    Specifically, we have requested information on the costs for 
nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers 
to implement the required software, hardware, and service upgrades to 
comply with our proposed rules, and specifically where the required 
upgrades need to occur on the end-to-end network, e.g., on the device, 
on specific CMRS providers' network elements, or on specific 911 
network elements. We have also requested information on planned or 
expended costs by CMRS providers that have voluntarily implemented or 
plan to implement location-based routing to any extent on their 
networks, and to what extent would non-nationwide providers be able to 
leverage already incurred costs by nationwide CMRS providers, such as 
costs to develop and test location-based routing solutions, to reduce 
their own costs to comply with our proposed rules. Further, we inquire 
whether the costs to implement location-based routing are significantly 
different for different network operators, and if so, why, and we seek 
information on the details, and the amount of these investments, as 
well as the anticipated cost of testing location-based routing 
solutions. Additionally, we seek information on what equipment and 
software CMRS providers would need to test, how the testing would be 
performed, and what plans CMRS providers have for testing. We expect 
the information that we receive in response to our requested cost 
inquiries will to help the Commission identify and the evaluate 
compliance costs and burdens for small entities that may result from 
the proposals and inquiries we make in the NPRM to implement location-
based routing.

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

    The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; 
and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 
for such small entities.
    The proposals in the NPRM are intended to be cost effective and 
minimally burdensome for small and other entities impacted by the 
rules. There are significant public safety benefits to be achieved from 
requiring all CMRS and covered text providers to implement location-
based routing for 911 calls and texts originating on IP-based networks 
on a nationwide basis. The record indicates a substantial number of 
wireless 911 calls are misrouted, which is a significant problem for 
public safety.\135\ The longer it takes for a 911 call or text to be 
properly routed, the longer it will take for the 911 caller to reach 
and receive the emergency services they may need. By taking action to 
require CMRS and covered text providers to implement location-based 
routing for 911 calls and texts originating on IP-based networks, the 
Commission can help save lives when individuals in need of emergency 
services place 911 calls using wireless devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See, e.g., Intrado Comments at 3, n.8 (citing a 12.96% 
average rate of misroutes for a sample set of five million wireless 
calls in 2018); NENA Comments at 3 (estimating 23 million 911 calls 
are misrouted annually); Intrado Comments at 4 through 5 (reporting 
that 20-50% of wireless calls may misroute along PSAP boundaries in 
Palm Beach County, Florida); Fayetteville Police Department Comments 
(noting that as many as 30% of wireless 911 calls it receives are 
misroutes from neighboring jurisdictions); see also ATIS-0500039 at 
4 (estimating a 12% national average rate for sub-optimally routed 
wireless 911 calls in 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proceeding the record suggests that in jurisdictions where 
CMRS providers have implemented location-based routing, PSAPs are 
experiencing fewer misroutes, fewer transfers, and faster dispatch 
times.\136\ The record also indicates that nationwide implementations 
of location-based routing may be technically feasible for nationwide 
carriers, and high accuracy, low latency location information from 
consumer handsets is generally available to carriers for routing. 
Moreover, the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) estimates 
that universal implementation of location-based routing would reduce 
misrouted wireless calls by 85% from 23 million to 3.45 million per 
year. Public safety entities and some technology providers urge the 
Commission to require all CMRS providers to support location-based

[[Page 2588]]

routing.\137\ It appears to be technologically feasible for CMRS 
providers to implement location-based routing for a significant 
percentage of wireless 911 calls. Below we discuss proposals in the 
NPRM which could minimize any significant economic impact on small 
entities and the alternatives we considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See Texas 911 Entities Comments at 2, 4 (showing that 
average percentage of 911 call transfers for two out of three PSAPs 
in initial beta sites decreased by roughly 4 to 5% after T-Mobile 
implemented location-based routing; the remaining PSAP showed a 
slight increase in transfers of less than 1%); see also Intrado 
Comments at 5 through 6 (rec. July 11, 2022). In a pilot 
implementation in Palm Beach County, Florida, AT&T's location-based 
routing solution resulted in a better route for approximately 14% of 
calls, representing a routing correction for over 1,500 calls. Id.
    \137\ In a separate docket, APCO also called for a rulemaking to 
require carriers to implement location-based routing in comments on 
a petition from NASNA regarding NG911. APCO Comments, PS Docket No. 
21-479, 4 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Location-Based Routing Requirements. To reduce potential cost 
burdens for small and other wireless providers, our location-based 
routing proposal would apply only to calls and texts originating on IP-
based networks (i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-
based networks). The record indicates that while nationwide CMRS 
providers are in the process of retiring or have completed the 
retirement of circuit-switched, time-division multiplex (TDM) 2G and 3G 
networks, and some non-nationwide providers have announced dates to 
sunset their 3G networks in 2022, the transition from these networks 
which are less compatible with location-based routing is not 
universally complete. In the NPRM, we therefore tentatively conclude 
that requiring location-based routing for 911 calls or texts 
originating on TDM-based networks would be unduly burdensome, 
especially for non-nationwide providers who would bear the greatest 
burden, even if given additional time to comply with such a 
requirement. Moreover, although we considered requiring location-based 
routing for all 911 calls, we ultimately proposed to require location-
based routing only for 911 calls originating on IP-based networks, 
i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequently deployed IP-based networks. The 
limited scope of this requirement will minimize some burdens and 
economic impact for small entities, particularly those that are non-
nationwide providers.
    Our proposed location-based routing rules provide flexibility to 
small and other entities to route 911 calls or texts based on best 
available location information, which may include cell tower 
coordinates or other information, when the location information 
available at time of routing does not meet either one or both of the 
requirements for accuracy and timeliness under our rules, rather than 
adopting a rigid location-based routing requirement. We recognize the 
continued need for cell-sector based routing, at least as a fallback 
method, because accurate device location information is not available 
in all scenarios. Further, our proposed requirement to default to best 
available location would be consistent with the ATIS-0700042 standard 
for location-based routing, which assumes that the fallback for 
location-based routing should be cell sector routing for cases where no 
position estimate is available in time to be used for location-based 
routing or the position estimate lacks requisite accuracy, as well as 
with current CMRS provider deployments of location-based routing, which 
default to legacy E911 routing when location does not meet CMRS 
providers' standards of accuracy and timeliness.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ AT&T Comments at 4 (stating that ``[w]hen location was not 
available, the process defaults to using sector-based routing so 
that calls may be completed without excessive delay''); T-Mobile 
Comments at 4 (stating that ``T-Mobile's policy is to route a 911 
call based on the cell-sector location if a routable, non-Phase I 
location estimate is not generated quickly enough'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has also taken steps to minimize the economic impact 
of our proposed location-based routing requiring requirements on small 
and other entities, by proposing definitions relevant to the rules, 
that are consistent with industry standards and existing Commission 
definitions. For example, we propose to define ``location-based 
routing'' as ``use of information on a caller's location, including but 
not limited to device-based location information, to deliver 911 calls 
and texts to point(s) designated by the authorized local or state 
entity to receive wireless 911 calls and texts, such as an ESInet or 
PSAP, or to an appropriate local emergency authority.'' We also propose 
to define ``device-based location information'' as ``information 
regarding the location of a device used to call or text 911 generated 
all or in part from on-device sensors and data sources.'' Having 
definitions and requirements for location-based routing that are 
consistent with industry standards and existing Commission rules should 
lessen the chance that small entities and other providers will be 
burdened by conflicting requirements. To avoid such a conflict, in the 
NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed definition 
of ``device-based location information'' would adequately encompass 
current device-based hybrid (DBH) location technologies currently on 
the market, as well as possible future location technologies that can 
determine the location of the calling device. We also propose to 
interpret the definition of ``device-based location information'' to 
apply to our existing rule on delivery of 911 text messages, which 
includes that term.
    We have also proposed baseline requirements involving the accuracy 
and timeliness of location information used for location-based routing 
which is consistent with industry standards. CMRS and covered text 
providers would use location-based routing only if the location 
information is available to the provider network at the time the call 
or text is routed and the information identifies the caller's 
horizontal location with a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level 
of at least 90%. These metrics are consistent with AT&T's 
implementation of location-based routing. In addition, our proposed 
confidence metric is consistent with ATIS' recommendation that 
uncertainty values for location-based routing ``be standardized to a 
90% confidence for effective call handling.'' To minimize any 
significant economic impact on small entities and other impacted 
providers, when location information does not meet the baseline 
accuracy and timeliness requirements, CMRS and covered text providers 
would be required to route based on best available location 
information, which may include latitude/longitude coordinates of the 
cell tower, as mentioned in the section above.
    Compliance Timelines. We provide flexibility in the proposed 
compliance timelines for implementation of the requirements that should 
reduce the economic burden for small entities. First, we propose 
different implementation deadlines for nationwide and non-nationwide 
CMRS providers to route all 911 voice calls originating on their IP-
based networks using location-based routing, when available location 
information meets requirements for accuracy and timeliness. Nationwide 
providers would be required to implement the requirements no later than 
six months after the effective date of the final rules adopting 
location-based routing. Non-nationwide providers, which would include a 
substantial number of small entities, would be required to implement 
the requirements no later than eighteen months after the effective date 
of the final rules adopting location-based routing.
    Next, when available location information meets requirements for 
accuracy and timeliness, we propose to require covered text providers 
to route all 911 texts originating on their IP-based networks using 
location-based routing, no later than eighteen months after the 
effective date of the final rules adopting location-based routing. We 
minimize any significant economic impact on small entities since this 
requirement is limited to operators of

[[Page 2589]]

IP-based networks when certain requirements are met. In other words, 
small entities would not be required to comply with this requirement if 
they do not operate an IP-based network, or if the location information 
available on the IP-based network does not meet either one or both of 
the requirements for timeliness and accuracy, in which case, small 
entities may use the best available location information for routing.
    Finally, for the requirements we propose to help ensure that 
jurisdictions transitioning to NG911 networks can realize the benefits 
of location-based routing in an efficient and cost-effective manner, we 
also propose different implementation deadlines for nationwide and non-
nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers. We propose to 
require nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers to deliver 
IP-formatted 911 calls, texts, and associated routing information to 
the point(s) designated by state and local 911 authorities no later 
than six months from the effective date of the final rule or within six 
months of a valid request, whichever is later. For non-nationwide CMRS 
providers, we propose a deadline of no later than twelve months from 
the effective date of the final rule or within 12 months of a valid 
request, whichever is later. We also propose that local and state 
entities may enter into agreements with CMRS providers and covered text 
providers that establish an alternate timeframe for meeting these 
requirements. Regardless of whether a small entity is a nationwide or 
non-nationwide CMRS provider or covered text provider, the flexibility 
to negotiate an alternative timeframe which meets their business and 
financial needs is a significant step by the Commission that could 
minimize the economic impact for small entities.
    Costs of Implementation. In the previous section, we discussed the 
absence of detailed information in the record on the costs for 
nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS and covered texts providers to 
implement the required software, hardware, and service upgrades to 
comply with our proposed rules. Having data on the costs and economic 
impact of the proposals to require implementation of located-based 
routing proposals and other matters discussed in the NPRM will allow 
the Commission to better evaluate options and alternatives to minimize 
the economic impact on small entities. Based on our request for 
specific and detailed cost implementation information, and for 
information on the extent that the Commission could limit the burden of 
any reporting requirements by providing increased flexibility for non-
nationwide CMRS or covered text providers or businesses identified as 
small by the SBA, we expect to more fully consider the economic impact 
on small entities following our review of comments filed in response to 
the NPRM, and this IRFA. The Commission's evaluation of this 
information will shape the final alternatives it considers to minimize 
any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities, the 
final conclusions it reaches, and any final rules it promulgates in 
this proceeding.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 10, 
201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 
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 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and Section 106 of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 
Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that this notice of proposed 
rulemaking is adopted.
    It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set 
forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the notice of 
proposed rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days after 
publication in the Federal Register.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9

    Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications 
equipment, internet, Radio, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 9 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, and Section 902 of Title IX, Division FF, Pub. L. 116-260, 
134 Stat. 1182, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Amend Sec.  9.3 by adding the definitions of ``Device-Based Location 
Information'' and ``Location-Based Routing'' to read as follows:


Sec.  9.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Device-Based Location Information. Information regarding the 
location of a device used to call or text 911 generated all or in part 
from on-device sensors and data sources.
* * * * *
    Location-Based Routing. The use of information on the location of a 
device, including but not limited to device-based location information, 
to deliver 911 calls and texts to point(s) designated by the authorized 
local or state entity to receive wireless 911 calls and texts, such as 
an Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet) or PSAP, or to 
an appropriate local emergency authority.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  9.10 by adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:


Sec.  9.10  911 Service.

* * * * *
    (s) Location-Based Routing Requirements.
    (1) By [six months from the effective date of this paragraph 
(s)(1)], nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy a technology that 
supports location-based routing on their networks nationwide. At that 
time, nationwide CMRS providers shall use location-based routing to 
route all wireless 911 calls originating on their Internet Protocol-
based networks, provided that the information used for routing meets 
the requirements of paragraph (s)(4) of this section.
    (2) By [eighteen months from the effective date of this paragraph 
(s)(2)],

[[Page 2590]]

non-nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy a technology that supports 
location-based routing on their networks throughout their service 
areas. At that time, non-nationwide CMRS providers shall use location-
based routing to route all wireless 911 calls originating on their 
Internet Protocol-based networks, provided that the information used 
for routing meets the requirements of paragraph (s)(4) of this section.
    (3) By [eighteen months from the effective date of this paragraph 
(s)(3)], covered text providers as defined in paragraph (q)(1) of this 
section shall deploy a technology that supports location-based routing. 
At that time, covered text providers shall use location-based routing 
to route all 911 texts originating on their Internet Protocol-based 
networks, provided that the information used for routing meets the 
requirements of paragraph (s)(4) of this section.
    (4) Notwithstanding requirements for confidence and uncertainty 
described in paragraph (j) of this section, CMRS providers and covered 
text providers shall use location information that meets the following 
specifications for purposes of location-based routing under this 
paragraph (s):
    (i) The information reports the horizontal location uncertainty 
level of the device within 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 
90%; and
    (ii) The information is available to the provider network at the 
time of routing the call or text.
    (5) When information on a device's location does not meet either 
one or both the requirements in paragraph (s)(4) of this section or is 
otherwise unavailable in time for routing, CMRS providers and covered 
text providers shall route the 911 call or text based on the best 
available location information, which may include the latitude/
longitude of the cell tower.
    (6) By [six months from the effective date of this paragraph 
(s)(6)], or within 6 months of a valid request as defined in paragraph 
(s)(7) of this section for Internet Protocol-based service by the local 
or state entity that has the authority and responsibility to designate 
the point(s) to receive wireless 911 calls or texts, whichever is 
later:
    (i) CMRS providers and covered text providers shall deliver calls 
and texts, including associated location information, in the requested 
Internet Protocol-based format to an Emergency Services Internet 
Protocol Network (ESInet) or other designated point(s).
    (ii) Non-nationwide CMRS providers have an additional 6 months to 
comply with the requirements of this paragraph (s)(6).
    (iii) Local and state entities may enter into agreements with CMRS 
providers and covered text providers that establish an alternate 
timeframe for meeting the requirements of paragraphs (i) or (ii) of 
this paragraph (s)(6). The CMRS provider or covered text provider must 
notify the Commission of the dates and terms of the alternate timeframe 
within 30 days of the parties' agreement.
    (7) Valid request means that:
    (i) The requesting local or state entity is, and certifies that it 
is, technically ready to receive 911 calls and/or texts in the Internet 
Protocol-based format requested;
    (ii) The requesting local or state entity has been specifically 
authorized to accept 911 calls and/or texts in the Internet Protocol-
based format requested; and
    (iii) The requesting local or state entity has provided 
notification to the CMRS provider or covered text provider that it 
meets the requirements in paragraphs (s)(7)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. Registration by the requesting local or state entity in a 
database made available by the Commission in accordance with 
requirements established in connection therewith, or any other written 
notification reasonably acceptable to the CMRS provider or covered text 
provider, shall constitute sufficient notification for purposes of this 
paragraph (s)(7).
    (8) Paragraphs (s)(6) and (s)(7) of this section contain 
information collection and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance 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 that compliance date and revising this paragraph 
accordingly.

[FR Doc. 2023-00519 Filed 1-13-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P