[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18488-18524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03157]



[[Page 18487]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 50

March 13, 2024

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





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





47 CFR Part 9





Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 50 / Wednesday, March 13, 2024 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 18488]]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 9

[PS Docket No. 18-64; FCC 24-4; FR ID 202993]


Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (the FCC or Commission) 
adopted a Report and Order in PS Docket No. 18-64, FCC 24-4, on January 
25, 2024, and released on January 26, 2024. This document is a summary 
of the Commission's Report and Order. The Report and Order adopted 
rules to more precisely route wireless 911 calls and Real-Time Texts 
(RTT) 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 Report and Order requires wireless 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 
their internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and to use location-based 
routing to route 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 
originating on those networks when caller location is accurate and 
timely. The Report and Order provides six months for nationwide 
wireless providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 
voice calls and provides 24 months for non-nationwide wireless 
providers to implement location-based routing of wireless 911 voice 
calls. The Report and Order provides 24 months for all wireless 
providers to implement location-based routing for RTT communications to 
911.

DATES: 
    Effective date: May 13, 2024.
    Compliance date: Compliance will not be required for Sec.  
9.10(s)(4) and (5) until a document is published in the Federal 
Register announcing a compliance date and revising or removing Sec.  
9.10(s)(6).

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 document is a summary of the 
Commission's Report and Order. The full text of the Report and Order is 
available for public inspection at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-4A1.pdf. To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format), or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g., 
accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), 
send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

Congressional Review Act

    The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 
concurs, that this rule is major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 
U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order 
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Synopsis

I. Background

    1. This document is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order. 
In this document, we require Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
providers \1\ to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 
voice calls and real-time text (RTT) communications \2\ to 911 
nationwide. With location-based routing (LBR) as implemented under 
these rules, CMRS providers will use precise location information to 
route wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 to the 
appropriate public safety answering point (PSAP). For the millions of 
individuals seeking emergency assistance each year by wireless 911 
voice call or RTT communication to 911, improving routing for these 
services will reduce emergency response times and save lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this document and the Report and Order, we use the term 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) provider to refer to 
providers of CMRS, as defined in 47 CFR 9.3 (``Commercial mobile 
radio service (CMRS)''). When addressing the record in this 
proceeding, we assume that commenters using terms such as ``wireless 
carriers'' or ``wireless providers'' refer to CMRS providers subject 
to part 9 of the Commission's rules.
    \2\ The Commission defines real-time text as ``[t]ext 
communications that are transmitted over internet Protocol (IP) 
networks immediately as they are created, e.g., on a character-by-
character basis.'' 47 CFR 9.3; accord id. 67(g). In this document 
and the Report and Order, we use the term ``RTT communications'' to 
refer to instances in which an RTT user initiates contact with 911, 
for consistency with our part 9 and part 67 rules. See 47 CFR 
9.10(c), 67.1(g), 67.2(c)(2). When addressing the record in this 
proceeding, we assume that commenters using the terms ``RTT call'' 
or ``RTT message'' refer to the same RTT communications described in 
the Commission's part 9 and part 67 rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. In December 2022, the Commission adopted a notice of proposed 
rulemaking proposing to require CMRS providers and covered text 
providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice 
calls and texts nationwide.\3\ Public safety commenters overwhelmingly 
supported the Commission's proposals. Legacy tower-based routing 
results in millions of 911 voice calls nationwide arriving at the 
incorrect PSAP for the caller's location, which can result in a delay 
of a minute or more in dispatch and response.\4\ The record confirms 
that implementing location-based routing is technologically feasible 
and will significantly reduce wireless 911 voice call transfers, saving 
valuable time for both PSAPs and callers. As a result of the location-
based routing rules we adopt, millions more wireless 911 calls will 
reach the appropriate PSAP without the need for transfer or delay.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls, PS Docket No. 
18-64, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd 15183, 15184, para. 
1 (2022), 88 FR 2565 (January 17, 2023) (notice of proposed 
rulemaking or NPRM).
    \4\ The Commission has previously found that a one minute 
increase in response times increases mortality, and that a one 
minute decrease in response times decreases mortality. See, e.g., 
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, Third Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 2374, 2388-89, para. 33 & n.70 
(2014), 79 FR 17820 (March 28, 2014). As stated in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking and affirmed in the Report and Order, the 
Commission estimates that the implementation of wireless location-
based routing under the rules we adopt in this document will save 
13,837 lives annually, assuming a one-minute decrease in response 
time. See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15206-07, 
para. 61 & n.161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. To facilitate the implementation of location-based routing for 
wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911, we take the 
following actions:
     We require CMRS providers to deploy location-based routing 
technology for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 
on their internet Protocol (IP)-based

[[Page 18489]]

networks (i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based 
networks). We also require CMRS providers to use location-based routing 
to route wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 
originating on their IP-based networks when location information meets 
certain thresholds for accuracy and timeliness.
     We require CMRS providers to use location-based routing 
for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 when caller 
location information available to the CMRS provider's network at time 
of routing is ascertainable within a radius of 165 meters at a 
confidence level of at least 90%. In the absence of these conditions, 
CMRS providers must use alternative routing methods based on ``best 
available'' location information, which may include but is not limited 
to device-based or tower-based location information.
     We adopt the proposed six-month timeline for nationwide 
CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 
voice calls and provide twenty-four months for non-nationwide CMRS 
providers to implement location-based routing of wireless 911 voice 
calls.\5\ In addition, we provide 24 months for all CMRS providers to 
implement location-based routing for RTT communications to 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The Commission defines a ``[n]on-nationwide CMRS provider'' 
for purposes of its part 9 rules as ``[a]ny CMRS provider other than 
a nationwide CMRS provider.'' 47 CFR 9.10(i)(1)(v). A ``[n]ationwide 
CMRS provider'' for purposes of the Commission's part 9 rules is 
``[a] CMRS provider whose service extends to a majority of the 
population and land area of the United States.'' 47 CFR 
9.10(i)(1)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We require CMRS providers within 60 days of the applicable 
compliance deadlines to certify and submit evidence of compliance with 
location-based routing requirements. At that time, CMRS providers also 
must submit one-time live call data reporting on the routing 
methodologies for calls in live call areas, and they must certify the 
privacy of location information used for location-based routing.
     We defer consideration of proposals in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking to require CMRS providers and covered text 
providers \6\ to implement location-based routing for Short Message 
Service (SMS) texts to 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Commission defines ``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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We defer consideration of proposals and issues raised in 
the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning IP-formatted delivery of 
wireless 911 voice calls, texts, and associated routing information for 
consideration in the Commission's pending Next Generation 911 (NG911) 
Transition docket (PS Docket No. 21-479--Facilitating Implementation of 
Next Generation 911 Services).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Facilitating Implementation of Next Generation 911 
Services (NG911), PS Docket No. 21-479, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, FCC 23-47, 2023 WL 3946685 (June 9, 2023), 88 FR 43514 
(July 10, 2023), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-action-expedite-transition-next-generation-911-0 (NG911 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Legacy Enhanced 911 Routing. When the first 911 call was placed 
in 1968, 911 service was provided to the public over wireline telephone 
networks, and wireline providers used the fixed location of the calling 
telephone to route 911 calls to the nearest PSAP.\8\ With the 
deployment of the first generation of cellular service, wireless 911 
voice 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 voice 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls, PS Docket No. 
18-64, Notice of Inquiry, 33 FCC Rcd 3238, 3240, para. 6 (2018) 
(Notice of Inquiry).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Wireless 911 Voice Call Misroutes. Technical limitations of 
legacy E911 routing can result in a CMRS provider routing a wireless 
911 voice call to a PSAP other than the one designated by the relevant 
state or local 911 authority to receive 911 calls from the caller's 
actual location.\9\ The Commission considers wireless 911 voice calls 
routed to a PSAP other than the one designated for the caller's 
location to be ``misrouted,'' although such misroutes generally result 
from tower-based call routing mechanisms working as designed, not from 
technical failure of those mechanisms. The Alliance for 
Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) estimates that on average 
12% of wireless legacy E911 voice calls nationwide are misrouted.\10\ 
Other commenters indicate that the percentage of misrouted wireless 911 
voice calls is higher in some jurisdictions.\11\ These estimates 
support the conclusion that tower-based routing causes millions of 
wireless 911 voice calls to be misrouted annually.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15185-86, para. 
7. For example, a cell tower in Northern Virginia may pick up a 
wireless 911 voice call originating in Washington, DC, but route the 
call to a Virginia PSAP. Id.
    \10\ Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), 
Analysis of Predetermined Cell Sector Routing Outcomes Compared to 
Caller's Device Location, ATIS-0500039 at 4 (July 2, 2019), https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/document.php?document_id=48697 
(ATIS-0500039). Intrado cites a 2018 study concluding that 12.96% 
out of a set of five million wireless 911 calls were misrouted. 
Intrado Life & Safety, Inc. (Intrado) Public Notice Comments at 3 & 
n.8, 4 (rec. July 11, 2022) (Intrado PN Comments).
    \11\ For example, the Fayetteville (Arkansas) Police Department 
reports that ``roughly 30% or more'' of the 911 calls its 
jurisdiction receives are misrouted from neighboring jurisdictions. 
Natisha Claypool, Assistant Dispatch Manager, Fayetteville Police 
Department Public Notice Comments (rec. July 11, 2022). Intrado 
estimates, based on data collected in AT&T's pilot implementation of 
location-based routing in February/March 2022, that Palm Beach 
County, Florida, was experiencing misrouted calls with tower-based 
routing at a rate of at least 11%, and as high as 20-50% along PSAP 
boundaries. Intrado PN Comments at 4-5.
    \12\ In the Commission's 2023 annual 911 fee report, respondents 
reported receiving a combined total of approximately 158 million 
wireless 911 voice calls in calendar year 2022. FCC, Fifteenth 
Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 
911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges at 16, Table 3 (2023), https://www.fcc.gov/general/911-fee-reports (Fifteenth Annual 911 Fee 
Report). Assuming 12% of these calls were misrouted, misroutes would 
total nearly 19 million calls. NENA: The 9-1-1 Association (NENA) 
estimates that 23 million wireless 911 voice calls are misrouted 
annually. NENA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comments at 2 (rec. 
Feb. 15, 2023) (NENA NPRM Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. When a wireless 911 voice 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. Commenters submit anecdotal evidence that a typical misroute 
introduces a delay of about a minute.\13\ NENA estimates that call 
transfers consume over 200,000 hours per year of excess 911 
professional labor. Misrouted wireless 911 voice calls can also 
contribute to confusion and delay in

[[Page 18490]]

emergency response.\14\ This delay can have deadly consequences.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See, e.g., Association of Public-Safety Communications 
Officials International, Inc. (APCO) Public Notice Comments at 2 
(rec. July 11, 2022) (APCO PN Comments) (noting that ``it's possible 
that a misrouted call will introduce a delay of a minute or 
longer''); NENA Public Notice Comments at 4 (rec. July 11, 2022) 
(``[T]he general anecdotal consensus was that a call transfer 
typically takes `about a minute.' ''); Peninsula Fiber Network 
Public Notice Comments at 1 (rec. July 8, 2022) (``Each transfer 
takes between 15 to 90 seconds to set up and complete.'').
    \14\ 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, Loudoun County 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. 19, 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 reported 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.
    \15\ The news media have widely reported on such tragic 
occurrences. For example, in December 2015, 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 (Aug. 12, 2019), 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 incident 
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, although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. Location-Based Routing 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. Historically, generating precise caller 
location information typically required too much time to be used for 
911 call routing. The Commission noted, however, that then-recent 
advances in location technology suggested it was feasible to pinpoint a 
wireless 911 voice caller's location quickly enough to support an 
initial routing determination. The Commission also found that many 
location-based routing methods were promising. The record received in 
response to the Notice of Inquiry confirmed the emergence of potential 
location-based routing solutions but also indicated uncertainty about 
the capabilities of such solutions at the time.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Commenters to the Notice of Inquiry offered varying 
opinions about whether technologies were capable of location-based 
routing without delaying 911 calls. See, e.g., AT&T Notice of 
Inquiry Reply at 11 (rec. June 28, 2018) (``Even the most promising 
of location-based technologies . . . have limits.''); Motorola 
Solutions, Inc. Notice of Inquiry Comments at 2 (rec. May 7, 2018) 
(asserting that testing has confirmed that location-based wireless 
routing is faster and more accurate than legacy wireless routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    8. Location-Based Routing Public Notice. In June 2022, the 
Commission released a Public Notice to refresh the record on location-
based routing developments since the Notice of Inquiry.\17\ Commenters 
confirmed that continued reliance on legacy E911 routing methodology 
results in a considerable number of wireless 911 voice call misroutes, 
which imposes significant burdens on public safety. Public safety 
commenters agreed that early location-based routing implementations by 
CMRS providers had shown that the technology was now technologically 
feasible. Several commenters noted that device-based hybrid (DBH) 
location technologies \18\ were widely available on mobile devices and 
could be used for routing a high percentage of wireless 911 voice 
calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Federal Communications Commission Seeks to Refresh the 
Record on Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls, PS Docket 
No. 18-64, Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd 7196, 7196 (2022) (Public 
Notice).
    \18\ 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 a given environment, 
including crowd-sourced Wi-Fi, A-GNSS, and possibly other handset-
based sensors. Public Notice, 37 FCC Rcd at 7197-98 n.8 (citing 
CSRIC V LBR Report at 16). It also includes an associated 
uncertainty estimate reflective of the quality of the returned 
location. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Location-Based Routing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. On 
December 22, 2022, the Commission adopted the notice of proposed 
rulemaking in this proceeding, which proposed rules for CMRS and 
covered text providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 
911 voice calls and 911 texts \19\ nationwide, including wireless 911 
voice calls and 911 text messages originating in legacy, transitional, 
and NG911-capable public safety jurisdictions.\20\ The Commission 
proposed to establish requirements with respect to the accuracy and 
timeliness of location information CMRS and covered text providers 
would use to comply with location-based routing requirements. In 
particular, the Commission proposed 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%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ A ``911 text message'' is ``a message, consisting of text 
characters, sent to the short code `911' and intended to be 
delivered to a PSAP by a covered text provider, regardless of the 
text messaging platform used.'' 47 CFR 9.10(q)(9). The Commission's 
text-to-911 rules are technology neutral and apply to both Short 
Message Service (SMS) and real-time text (RTT). Transition from TTY 
to Real-Time Text Technology; Petition for Rulemaking to Update the 
Commission's Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to 
Real-Time Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules 
Requiring Support of TTY Technology, CG Docket No. 16-145, GN Docket 
No. 15-178, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 13568, 13593, para. 45 
n.181 (2016), 82 FR 7699 (January 23, 2017) (RTT Order). RTT 
transition obligations only apply to a subset of covered text 
providers: ``those entities that are involved in the provision of 
IP-based wireless voice communication service, and only to the 
extent that their services are subject to existing TTY technology 
support requirements under Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, or 64 of the 
Commission's rules.'' RTT Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 13576-77, para. 12.
    \20\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15184-85, 
para. 3. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission used 
the term ``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). 
Id. at 15184, para. 3 n.5. NG911 relies on IP-based architecture 
rather than the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)-based 
architecture of legacy 911 to provide an expanded array of emergency 
communications services that encompasses both the core 
functionalities of legacy E911 and additional functionalities that 
take advantage of the enhanced capabilities of IP-based devices and 
networks. Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket 
No. 10-255, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 17869, 17877, para. 18 
(2010), 76 FR 2297 (January 13, 2011). NG911 architecture also 
provides for transitional network components to enable delivery of 
legacy 911 calls to ESInets during the transition to full end-state 
NG911. See id. at 17878, para. 20 (explaining that emergency calls 
can be delivered to ESInets from legacy networks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    10. The Commission also proposed that 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 could include 
cell tower coordinates. In addition, to help ensure that public safety 
jurisdictions transitioning to NG911 could realize the benefits of 
location-based routing in an efficient and cost-effective manner, the 
Commission proposed to require CMRS providers and covered text 
providers to deliver wireless 911 voice calls, texts,

[[Page 18491]]

and location information for routing \21\ in IP format upon request of 
911 authorities \22\ who have established the capability to accept 
NG911-compatible IP-based 911 communications. At the time of the notice 
of proposed rulemaking, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon had stated publicly 
in the record or elsewhere that they had deployed or planned to deploy 
location-based routing to some extent on their networks for voice 
calls.\23\ The Commission received twenty-six comments, fourteen 
replies, and several ex parte filings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In NG911 architecture, device-based location information 
embedded in IP-formatted 911 calls is first used by the provider 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. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 
FCC Rcd at 15203, para. 53.
    \22\ While the Commission has not specifically defined the term 
``911 authorities'' in this proceeding, we use this term in this 
document to generally mean ``[t]he state, territorial, regional, 
Tribal, or local agency or entity with the authority and 
responsibility under applicable law to designate the point(s) to 
receive emergency calls.'' NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at 
*21, para. 53 (proposing a definition of the term ``911 Authority'' 
that would define the term for purposes of Commission rules related 
to the NG911 transition).
    \23\ Press Release, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), 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 Dec. 17, 2020 Press Release); T-
Mobile Public Notice Reply at 2 & n.6 (rec. July 25, 2022) (T-Mobile 
PN Reply); AT&T PN Comments at 4; CB Cotton, Verizon plans to update 
911 routing technology after Denver's East Colfax neighborhood calls 
for change, Denver7 (Aug. 5, 2022), https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/verizon-plans-to-update-911-routing-technology-after-denvers-east-colfax-neighborhood-calls-for-change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    11. Virtually all public safety commenters and some additional 
commenters support Commission action to require CMRS providers to 
implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls. Multiple 
public safety commenters and Intrado support the Commission's proposal 
that CMRS providers implement location-based routing nationwide. 
Commenters representing wireless interests urge the Commission to allow 
CMRS providers to implement location-based routing voluntarily or on a 
PSAP-by-PSAP basis, as opposed to a nationwide mandate. With respect to 
text-to-911, numerous commenters support requiring covered text 
providers to implement location-based routing, but some commenters 
contend that such a requirement would be premature. Citing a lack of 
technical standards for routing SMS texts to 911, NENA, ATIS, and 
Southern Linc oppose requiring covered text providers to implement 
location-based routing for SMS but suggest that the Commission should 
require location-based routing for IP-based text solutions such as RTT.
    12. In response to the Commission's proposed timeliness and 
accuracy requirements for use of location-based routing, some 
commenters express support for the proposed requirements,\24\ while 
others oppose the proposed accuracy threshold and request flexibility 
for providers to set their own thresholds. In response to the 
Commission's proposed requirement for CMRS 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 such communications, multiple commenters ask the 
Commission to address such proposals together with corresponding 
proposed requirements for other types of originating service providers 
in a separate proceeding.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ APCO NPRM Comments at 2; Adams County et al. NPRM Comments 
at 3; Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority 
(BRETSA) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Reply at 6 (rec. Mar. 20, 
2023) (BRETSA NPRM Reply); Intrado NPRM Comments at 5; see also AT&T 
NPRM Comments at 4 (supporting a definition of ``device-based 
location information'' that is tied to timeliness and accuracy 
metrics ``that the Commission believes would represent a significant 
improvement over cell-based routing methodologies'').
    \25\ Letter from Christiaan Segura, Director, Regulatory 
Affairs, CTIA--The Wireless Association (CTIA), to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 2 (filed July 3, 
2023) (CTIA July 3, 2023 Ex Parte); Intrado NPRM Comments at 2, 5-6; 
Texas 9-1-1 Entities NPRM Comments at 5-6 n.21; NENA NPRM Reply at 
4-5; Verizon Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Reply at 4-5 (rec. Mar. 
20, 2023) (Verizon NPRM Reply) (recommending the Commission 
``coupl[e] LBR with a framework for i3-based NG911 
implementation''); see also Letter from Joely Denkinger, Regulatory 
Counsel, Federal Affairs, GCI Communication Corp. (GCI), to Marlene 
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket Nos. 18-64, 21-479, at 1 (filed 
July 17, 2023) (GCI July 17, 2023 Ex Parte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    13. NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In June 2023, the 
Commission adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking in PS Docket No. 21-
479 to advance the nationwide transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). In the NG911 Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to require wireline, interconnected 
Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP), and internet-based 
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) providers to complete all 
translation and routing to deliver 911 calls, including associated 
location information, in the requested IP-based format to an Emergency 
Services IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s) that allow 
emergency calls to be answered, upon request of 911 authorities who 
have certified the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. 
This proposal is similar to that proposed for CMRS and covered text 
providers in the notice of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding.
    14. Ongoing Location-Based Routing Deployment. As the Commission 
noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking, several developments 
indicate that location-based routing has become a viable methodology 
for CMRS providers to route wireless 911 voice calls and texts. These 
developments include studies on misroutes and location-based routing 
technology and increased deployment of DBH location technologies on 
consumer handsets.\26\ In 2019, ATIS published two studies on legacy 
E911 misroutes and the feasibility of location-based routing.\27\ In 
those studies, ATIS concluded that ``location-based routing is 
technically feasible within the timing considerations recommended by 
[Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council 
(CSRIC)] V'' \28\ and evaluated where ``sub-optimal routing'' occurred 
for a sample set of wireless emergency calls. ATIS has also issued two 
standards that support location-based routing: ATIS-0700042 (Enhancing 
Location-Based Routing of Emergency Calls) and ATIS-0700015 (ATIS 
Standard for Implementation of 3GPP Common IMS Emergency Procedures for 
IMS Origination and ESInet/Legacy Selective Router

[[Page 18492]]

Termination). The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) states that in 
these and other documents, ``ATIS has defined several architecture 
options that carriers can use to provide location-based routing as well 
as several call flow options from which carriers can choose to employ 
to conduct location-based routing.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Press Release, CTIA, Wireless Industry Announces 
Development in Improving 9-1-1 Location Accuracy (Sept. 5, 2018), 
https://www.ctia.org/news/wireless-industry-announces-development-in-improving-9-1-1-location-accuracy; Letter from Paul Margie, 
Counsel, Apple Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket 
No. 18-64 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 24, 2019) (Apple Sept. 24, 2019 
Ex Parte). Device-based hybrid (DBH) location is ``[a]n 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.'' ATIS-0700042 at 2. ``It also includes 
an associated uncertainty estimate reflective of the quality of the 
returned location.'' Id.
    \27\ ATIS-0700042; ATIS-0500039. ATIS observed that calls that 
are ``sub-optimally routed'' tend to occur ``[a]long PSAP 
boundaries,'' ``[i]n areas having a dense concentration of PSAPs,'' 
``[a]round major water features,'' and ``[a]long narrow strips of 
jurisdictional territory.'' ATIS-0500039 at 12.
    \28\ ATIS-0700042 at 22. 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 Jan. 17, 2023).
    \29\ CCA NPRM Comments at 7. CCA also states that ``3GPP has 
also addressed how to implement location-based routing, and several 
3GPP specifications relate to location services and emergency 
calling.'' CCA NPRM Comments at 9. In particular, CCA identifies TS 
23.167, entitled ``Technical Specification Group Services and System 
Aspects; IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) emergency sessions,'' as 
identifying ``architectural principles, location information 
principles, a reference architecture, functional descriptions, 
procedures for establishing an IMS emergency session, call flows, 
and related information.'' Id. CCA also notes that other 3GPP 
specifications, including TS 36.305--``Stage 2 functional 
specification of User Equipment (UE) positioning in E-UTRAN'' and TS 
38.305--``NG Radio Access Network (NG-RAN); Stage 2 functional 
specification of User Equipment (UE) positioning in NG-RAN,'' 
provide additional pertinent information regarding the 
implementation of location services data. Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. The three nationwide CMRS providers are continuing to deploy 
location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls on their networks. 
AT&T completed the rollout of location-based routing on its network in 
June 2022 and uses location-based routing to deliver wireless 911 voice 
calls to nearly all PSAPs nationwide, regardless of whether such PSAPs 
support legacy E911 or are transitioning to NG911.\30\ T-Mobile 
launched location-based routing on its network in the states of Texas 
and Washington in 2020 and as of December 2023 had deployed location-
based routing for wireless 911 voice calls to 1,591 PSAPs with an 
additional 596 in progress.\31\ In December 2023, Verizon reported that 
it had implemented location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls 
to 414 PSAPs with an additional 277 PSAPs in progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ AT&T PN Comments at 4; AT&T NPRM Comments at 1. 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. AT&T PN 
Comments at 4 n.3.
    \31\ Letter from Eric Hagerson, Government Affairs Director, 
Public Safety and Security, T-Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 18-64 at 1 (filed Dec. 21, 2023) (T-
Mobile Dec. 21, 2023 Ex Parte). T-Mobile reports that it only 
deploys location-based routing in response to a PSAP's request. See, 
e.g., T-Mobile Public Notice Comments at 1, 4-7 (rec. July 11, 2022) 
(T-Mobile PN Comments); T-Mobile PN Reply at 2-4. For context, the 
latest NENA data indicate that 5,748 PSAPs operate in the United 
States. NENA, 9-1-1 Statistics, https://www.nena.org/page/911Statistics (last visited Jan. 17, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    16. For wireless 911 voice calls, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon have, 
to date, implemented their own different thresholds to determine 
whether device location information arriving with the call is 
sufficiently precise for routing. According to Intrado, AT&T's 
location-based routing solution uses a threshold with a radius of 165 
meters and 90% confidence, which has enabled AT&T to use location-based 
routing for over 80% of all wireless 911 voice calls on its network. T-
Mobile reports that it has implemented ``a location estimate 
uncertainty threshold for LBR currently set to 300 meters with a 
confidence level of 90%,'' and reports that more than 95% of location 
estimates available at call routing fall within these metrics.\32\ 
Verizon reports that it uses ``an accuracy threshold of 200 meters 
maximum horizontal uncertainty with confidence of 90 percent.'' AT&T, 
T-Mobile, and Verizon state that they default to legacy E911 routing 
when device location information arriving with the call exceeds the 
radius of the providers' respective thresholds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Letter from Kristine Laudadio Devine, Counsel to T-Mobile 
USA, Inc., HWG LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, P.S. 
Docket Nos. 18-64, 21-479, at 1 (filed July 26, 2023) (T-Mobile July 
26, 2023 Ex Parte). For purposes of this document, we assume that 
when commenters specify an uncertainty measurement for an 
implementation of location-based routing, that they are referring to 
the radius in meters from the reported position at the same 
confidence level. This assumption is consistent with prior 
Commission discussion of confidence and uncertainty data in the 
Wireless Location Accuracy proceeding, i.e., that the uncertainty 
statistical estimate is expressed as a radius in meters around the 
reported position, and the confidence level is expressed as a 
percentage, indicating the statistical probability that the caller 
is within the area defined by the uncertainty. See, e.g., Wireless 
E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, Fourth Report and Order, PS 
Docket No. 07-114, 30 FCC Rcd 1259, 1326-27, para. 182 n.458 (2015), 
80 FR 11806 (March 4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    17. Text Messaging Platforms. Since 2014, all CMRS providers and 
covered text providers have been required to support delivery of 911 
texts to PSAPs that are capable of receiving them. While availability 
of text-to-911 has increased significantly as more PSAPs become text-
capable, the number of 911 texts sent by the public is far smaller than 
the number of wireless 911 voice calls.\33\ The Commission's text-to-
911 rules are technology neutral and apply to both SMS and RTT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ In the Commission's 2023 annual 911 fee report, respondents 
reported receiving a combined total of 824,609 texts to 911 in 
comparison to 157,999,298 wireless 911 voice calls reported by 
respondents in calendar year 2022. Fifteenth Annual 911 Fee Report 
at 13-16, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    18. SMS is the predominant mobile wireless messaging technology in 
use for 911 texts today. SMS is not an IP-native format, though IP-
enabled networks can deliver SMS traffic. All three nationwide CMRS 
providers report that they are using location-based routing for at 
least some SMS texts to 911, but this implementation appears to be 
distinct from and less extensive than the implementation of location-
based routing for 911 voice calls. According to Verizon, ``SMS still 
uses call path, routing and device processing methods that are distinct 
from VoLTE and RTT calls, with architecture configurations that still 
resembles second- and third-generation networks in some respects.'' 
AT&T reports that it provides device-based hybrid location for ``the 
majority of text messages'' but does not provide specifics.\34\ T-
Mobile reports that it is using location-based routing for at least 
some text-to-911 messages.\35\ Verizon indicates that it ``has worked 
with its wireless 911 vendor Comtech to incorporate LBR in Comtech's 
centralized text control center (TCC) in a manner that supports LBR for 
911 text messages nationwide.'' \36\ Moreover, while the nationwide 
providers appear to be capable of using location-based routing for some 
SMS texts, NENA and other commenters indicate that standards have not 
been developed for location-based routing of SMS and that further work 
on standards is needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ AT&T PN Comments at 5. AT&T explains that ``[w]hen the SMS 
message arrives at the TCC, [the TCC] queries [AT&T's] wireless 
network for commercial location estimates to deliver the text 
message to the appropriate PSAP.'' Id.
    \35\ T-Mobile July 26, 2023 Ex Parte at 3. T-Mobile explains 
that texts to 911 are routed from T-Mobile's network to its TCC 
vendor and, ``whenever possible,'' T-Mobile includes device-based 
hybrid location information with those texts. Id.
    \36\ Verizon Dec. 7, 2023 Ex Parte at 1. Verizon states that its 
location-based routing implementation will support location-based 
routing for RTT. Verizon NPRM Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    19. RTT, unlike SMS, is a native IP technology, in which each text 
character appears on the receiving device at roughly the same time it 
is typed on the sending device, allowing for a conversational flow of 
communication. RTT also allows text characters to be sent 
simultaneously with voice, which allows the PSAP to both see the typed 
message and hear background noises and potentially the voice of the 
caller. The Commission's rules require that CMRS providers choosing to 
implement RTT to and from any PSAP served by their network in lieu of 
text telephone (TTY) technology must do so in a manner that fully 
complies with all applicable 911 rules.\37\ The Commission also 
requires CMRS providers who choose to support RTT to make RTT backward-
compatible with TTY devices. This enables PSAPs without end-to-end RTT 
capability to use their existing TTY

[[Page 18493]]

terminals to handle RTT 911 communications.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ RTT Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 13591-92, para. 43. This includes 
the requirement to deliver RTT communications within six months to 
PSAPs that submit a valid request. Id. at 13592-93, para. 45 & 
n.181.
    \38\ RTT Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 13590, para. 39. Currently, RTT 
communications to 911 that are received at many PSAPs are converted 
to TTY. Letter from AnnMarie Killian, Chief Executive Officer, 
TDIforAccess, Inc., and Mark Seeger, Policy Coordinator, 
TDIforAccess, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket 
No. 18-64, at 2 (filed Aug. 31, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. While SMS is used more frequently than RTT for messaging to 
911, CMRS providers are beginning to partner with some PSAPs to 
implement end-to-end RTT capabilities. T-Mobile reports that it is 
currently operating NG911 RTT technology at a PSAP in Hood County, 
Texas. Verizon indicates that it now supports RTT for 911 in Livingston 
Parish, Louisiana, and Logan County, West Virginia. The record does not 
indicate the degree to which CMRS providers have implemented location-
based routing for RTT communications to 911, but the providers and 
other industry commenters state that location-based routing for RTT 
communications to 911 is feasible.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Verizon NPRM Comments at 5 (``Verizon's planned LBR 
implementation for VoLTE will support real-time-text (RTT) 911 
calls.''); see also ATIS NPRM Comments at 3 (urging the Commission 
``to clarify that only providers of such next generation text 
solutions [as defined in ATIS and NENA standards] are required to 
use LBR'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Location-Based Routing

1. Wireless 911 Voice Calls
    21. We adopt requirements for nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS 
providers to implement location-based routing as proposed in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking for voice calls, with certain modifications. 
Specifically, we require all CMRS providers to (1) deploy technology 
that supports location-based routing on their IP-based networks (i.e., 
4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based networks), and (2) 
use location-based routing to route all wireless 911 voice calls 
originating on their IP-based networks when location information meets 
certain requirements for accuracy and timeliness. We note that nothing 
in this decision, including the definition of ``location-based 
routing'' and other rules we adopt, authorizes the use of any non-U.S. 
satellite system in conjunction with the 911 system. CMRS providers 
seeking to employ foreign satellite navigation systems for 911 should 
follow the existing approval process.
    22. We require nationwide CMRS providers to comply with these 
location-based routing requirements for voice calls within six months 
after the effective date of the final rules. We require non-nationwide 
CMRS providers to comply with these location-based routing requirements 
for voice calls within 24 months after the effective date of the final 
rules in recognition of resource constraints faced by these providers. 
As discussed below, we adopt these requirements in light of record 
support that location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls 
promotes public safety, is technologically feasible at reasonable cost 
for both nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers, and has been 
deployed by the three nationwide CMRS providers. We find that these 
requirements are necessary to extend the demonstrated, life-saving 
benefits of location-based routing to all wireless 911 callers 
nationwide.
a. Nationwide and Network-Wide Implementation
    23. We require all CMRS providers to deploy location-based routing 
technologies for voice calls across their IP-based networks. In the 
notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission sought 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. We find that requiring CMRS providers to implement 
this technology across their IP network areas is necessary to ensure 
that wireless 911 callers receive the demonstrated benefits of improved 
routing, regardless of the caller's geographic location or CMRS 
provider.
    24. We find that nationwide implementation of location-based 
routing will reduce 911 call transfers and improve wireless 911 
service. As wireless 911 voice calls account for the vast majority of 
communications to 911, we consider it to be particularly important that 
these calls are routed to the appropriate PSAP.\40\ CMRS providers' 
voluntary deployments of location-based routing have resulted in 
important and evident improvements to 911 wireless voice call routing. 
The record indicates that ongoing deployments of location-based routing 
have significantly reduced the occurrence of transferred wireless 911 
voice calls.\41\ AT&T estimates that, as a result of its nationwide 
implementation, 10% of all wireless 911 voice calls on its network 
received a more optimal route and therefore did not need to be 
transferred. The National Association of State 911 Administrators 
(NASNA) states that uniform implementation of location-based routing 
has the potential to route 911 calls to the right PSAP faster than 
traditional cell sector-based routing in many cases and, in an 
emergency, ``seconds can mean the difference between life and death.'' 
Public safety commenters emphasize, and we agree, that increasing the 
implementation of location-based routing will reduce delays and save 
lives.\42\ We find that it is in the public interest that the benefits 
of location-based routing should extend to all wireless 911 callers, 
regardless of the CMRS provider or jurisdiction from which the call is 
made.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ In the Commission's 2023 annual 911 fee report, respondents 
reported receiving a combined total of 157,999,298 wireless 911 
voice calls in calendar year 2022 out of a total call volume of 
217,654,456 from wireless wireline, VoIP, and other providers. 
Fifteenth Annual 911 Fee Report at 13-16, Table 3.
    \41\ AT&T NPRM Comments at 2; Texas 9-1-1 Entities Public Notice 
Comments at 2-4 (rec. July 11, 2022) (Texas 9-1-1 Entities PN 
Comments) (showing that average percentage of 911 call transfers for 
two out of three PSAPs in initial beta sites decreased by roughly 4-
5% after T-Mobile implemented location-based routing; the remaining 
PSAP showed a slight increase in transfers of less than 1%); T-
Mobile, T-Mobile First to Roll Out Cutting-Edge 911 Capabilities 
(Dec. 17, 2020), https://www.tmobile.com/news/network/tmobile-next-generation-911-location-based-routing (announcing that some areas 
where T-Mobile implemented location-based routing have experienced 
up to 40% fewer call transfers).
    \42\ BRETSA NPRM Comments at 9 (``By eliminating delay in 
delivery of a 9-1-1 call to the correct PSAP, LBR can improve 
outcomes.''); BRETSA NPRM Reply at 4 (``LBR reduces delay in 
processing and dispatching 9-1-1 calls even where 9-1-1 [m]isroutes 
do not occur.''); Industry Council for Emergency Response 
Technologies, Inc. (iCERT) NPRM Comments at 2 (``The improved 
location and routing methodology made available with LBR will reduce 
the potential for 911 voice calls and texts to be directed to Public 
Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) that are not the ones best able to 
provide timely and effective response. As a result, the use of LBR 
technologies should eliminate the delays associated with 911 call 
transfers, improve emergency response times, and save lives.''); 
Intrado NPRM Comments at 2 (``Requiring LBR for all CMRS and text 
providers will ensure the availability of this life saving location 
technology for all 911 callers while increasing the efficiency of 
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) by eliminating the time and 
effort to execute call transfers.''); Defense Information Systems 
Agency (DISA) NPRM Comments at 2 (``The vast majority of 911 calls 
from wireless devices destined for DoD PSAPs are currently being 
misrouted. DoD bases would immediately benefit from the reduction in 
call delivery time has a direct and immediate impact on emergency 
incident response.''); APCO NPRM Comments at 1 (noting that 
location-based routing has saved valuable time for PSAPs and 
callers). In addition, AT&T notes that Kurt Mills, the Executive 
Director of Snohomish County (Washington) 911, has described 
location-based routing as a ``game changer'' that caused the County 
to experience a ``significant decrease in 9-1-1 transfers.'' AT&T 
NPRM Comments at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    25. Further, the public safety community strongly supports 
requiring CMRS providers to deploy location-based routing on a 
nationwide basis. Several public safety organizations urge the 
Commission to require CMRS providers to implement location-based

[[Page 18494]]

routing. Other public safety commenters and Intrado also support a 
nationwide location-based routing requirement.\43\ The record indicates 
that the nationwide CMRS providers have implemented location-based 
routing without increased costs or problems for public safety.\44\ In 
particular, no commenter indicates that AT&T's nationwide 
implementation of location-based routing, completed to ``virtually 
all'' PSAPs in June 2022, has caused additional cost or other problems 
for public safety.\45\ Given the success of nationwide CMRS providers 
in voluntarily implementing location-based routing on their IP-based 
networks, and in particular the success of AT&T's nationwide 
implementation, we agree with Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone 
Service Authority (BRETSA), which states that requiring wireless 
service providers to implement location-based routing at the earliest 
possible moment is ``a no-brainer.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See, e.g., APCO NPRM Comments at 2 (stating that 
``location-based routing should be required of wireless carriers 
nationwide''); DISA NPRM Comments at 2 (``CMRS providers should use 
LBR to deliver 911 calls to all PSAPs served by their networks.'' 
(emphasis in original)); Adams County et al. NPRM Comments at 2 
(``The Commission should require location-based routing on a 
nationwide basis.''); Loudoun County NPRM Comments at 3 (``Loudoun 
strongly supports the proposed rules requiring wireless carriers and 
covered text providers to implement all available technology options 
for location-based routing of 911 calls and texts nationwide using 
the device-based location.''); BRETSA NPRM Comments at 10 (``There 
is no question but that the Commission should require all CMRS 
providers to implement LBR for wireless voice calls and text 
messages as soon as possible.''); Intrado NPRM Comments at 1 
(``Intrado strongly supports the Commission's proposed requirement 
for nationwide implementation of location-based routing (LBR) of 
wireless 911 calls and texts.'').
    \44\ Adams County et al. NPRM Comments at 2 (stating that the 
commenting entities ``have not experienced increased costs, adverse 
impacts, or significant issues with the implementation of location-
based routing''); Colorado Council of Authorities (CCOA) NPRM Reply 
at 3 (stating that ``deployments [of LBR for at least six Colorado 
911 authorities] were successful and without significant issue or 
additional expense'').
    \45\ We note that AT&T indicated in July of last year that it 
had ``very few exceptions'' to its nationwide rollout, and indicated 
that ``a few PSAPs are using unique applications of Emergency 
Services Numbers to implement internal routing solutions. . . and 
that [the company was] working with these PSAPs to ensure [its] 
location-based routing solution meets their unique needs.'' AT&T PN 
Comments at 4, n.3. T-Mobile also notes that it is aware of ``at 
least one instance'' in which ``an emergency calling authority 
requested that another 911 vendor indefinitely suspend using LBR for 
911 calls to its PSAPs because the vendor's LBR implementation 
resulted in a greater number of 911 calls that required transfer to 
another PSAP.'' T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 5. T-Mobile did not 
provide additional details on this occurrence, including when it 
occurred or whether or not the issue was resolved.
    \46\ BRETSA NPRM Comments at 3 (internal quotations omitted). 
Joseph Lyons, Dispatch Supervisor for the City of Poughkeepsie 911 
Communications Center, also states that location-based routing is a 
``no brainer.'' Joseph Lyons NPRM Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    26. We also find that requiring location-based routing to all PSAPs 
nationwide supports the Commission's goal to promote parity of wireless 
911 service across jurisdictions. NASNA states, and we agree, that 
``[a]ttempting to create areas of exclusive enhanced location accuracy 
fosters deployment of disparate levels of service; all those who call 
or text 911 should benefit from LBR.'' NENA points out, and we agree, 
that ``[i]t would be inequitable to restrict the life-saving benefits 
of location-based routing only to residents of and visitors to the 
United States with the good fortune of having an emergency in a 
convenient location.'' Commenters also urge the Commission not to limit 
deployment of this technology to jurisdictions subject to frequent 
misroutes or to jurisdictions that have deployed NG911 capabilities. 
Intrado comments that even in low misroute areas, the implementation of 
location-based routing will result in a significant reduction in 
misroutes compared to relying exclusively on tower-based routing.\47\ 
Public safety commenters also note that implementation of location-
based routing on a nationwide basis will provide technological 
consistency for PSAPs, which will help them provide better service, and 
that technological consistency between CMRS providers is important for 
managing the expectations of 911 callers.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Intrado NPRM Comments at 3, n.6. See also Colorado Public 
Utilities Commission (COPUC) NPRM Comments at 5-6 (``The 
implementation of location-based routing on all cell tower sectors 
is the best way to ensure that instances of misrouted calls are 
minimized to the greatest extent possible.'').
    \48\ Michigan State 911 NPRM Comments at 1 (``[H]aving some 
[CMRS providers] provide LBR while others do not, creates an 
expectation for callers that all wireless calls provide this 
information to 911 centers, and that 911 centers will be able to 
locate them when they are experiencing an emergency.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    27. Wireless industry commenters oppose a mandatory nationwide 
approach,\49\ arguing instead that CMRS providers should implement 
location-based routing voluntarily or only in response to individual 
PSAP requests.\50\ These commenters argue that CMRS providers should 
only be required to use location-based routing for 911 calls to a 
particular PSAP after receiving a valid request from that PSAP. In 
addition, they argue that for a PSAP request to be deemed valid, the 
PSAP should be required to demonstrate that it is ``technically ready'' 
\51\ to receive calls routed using location-based routing and to 
provide shapefiles of PSAP boundaries to CMRS providers.\52\ As 
explained below, we find that the concerns of industry commenters are 
unsupported in the record, contradict the stated preferences of public 
safety for a nationwide approach to deployment, and would unnecessarily 
delay the benefits of location-based routing to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ See, e.g., T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 3 (``T-Mobile cautions 
the Commission from adopting rules that require wireless carriers to 
do nothing more than turn on location-based routing regardless of 
PSAP preference.''); Verizon NPRM Comments at 2 (``[I]nstead of a 
blanket flash-cut nationwide implementation deadline, implementation 
should be based on PSAP requests. . . .''); CTIA NPRM Comments at 4 
(``[A]ny obligation for a provider to commence use of LBR to route 
wireless 9-1-1 voice calls to a PSAP should only be triggered by a 
`valid request' from a state or local 9-1-1 authority.''). One 
public safety commenter, the Colorado Council of Authorities (CCOA), 
also ``gives deference to the comments of T-Mobile, Verizon, and 
CTIA that deployment of LBR for wireless 911 voice calls should be 
initiated by a valid request from a PSAP or governing 911 
authority.'' CCOA NPRM Reply at 1 (footnote omitted).
    \50\ Verizon NPRM Comments at 2; T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 3; 
iCert NPRM Comments at 2; RWA NPRM Comments at 4; Southern Linc NPRM 
Reply at 4; see also AT&T NPRM Comments at 3 (arguing for either a 
per-PSAP approach or ``a process under which a PSAP could signal 
that it requires more time to achieve readiness, and that PSAP would 
be carved out from the six-month requirement.'').
    \51\ CTIA NPRM Comments at 4 (stating that ``[t]o make a valid 
request, a PSAP should be technically ready to receive 9-1-1 calls 
routed using LBR''); CCA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Reply at 6 
(rec. Mar. 20, 2023) (CCA NPRM Reply); RWA NPRM Comments at 3.
    \52\ T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 7 (stating that a valid request 
must be conditioned on ``the provision of accurate shapefiles--and 
the maintenance and update of those shapefiles'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Per-PSAP Implementation. We decline to adopt a per-PSAP 
deployment approach. Contrary to the assertion of industry commenters, 
the record does not demonstrate that individual PSAPs must take 
specific technical steps in order to be ready to receive wireless 911 
calls routed using location-based routing. The generation of location-
based routing information as contemplated in this proceeding occurs 
entirely within CMRS provider networks prior to call delivery to the 
PSAP,\53\ and therefore there are no specific actions that PSAPs need 
to take to be technically ready to receive wireless 911 calls routed by 
device-based rather than tower-based location. As the Colorado Public 
Utilities Commission (COPUC) states, ``Because LBR is performed before 
the call is even delivered to the 9-1-1 system service provider for 
delivery to the PSAP, there

[[Page 18495]]

is no additional preparation that must be made by the PSAP in order for 
carrier-provided LBR to be of benefit.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ As Intrado notes, CMRS providers must implement a 
geospatial routing-capable Gateway Mobile Location Center (GMLC) in 
order to enable their networks to support location-based routing. 
Intrado NPRM Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    29. AT&T's completed rollout of location-based routing on its 
nationwide network provides additional evidence that location-based 
routing can be successfully deployed without requiring PSAPs to 
demonstrate technical readiness. AT&T deployed location-based routing 
in 2022 on a region-by-region basis and completed its nationwide 
rollout in less than six months.\54\ Moreover, although AT&T supports 
the Commission adopting a per-PSAP approach in which each PSAP would 
have to request location-based routing, it is notable that AT&T did not 
use this approach in its own rollout. Instead, AT&T deployed location-
based routing to ``virtually all PSAPs'' in the U.S. without soliciting 
PSAP-by-PSAP requests or requiring each PSAP to demonstrate technical 
readiness. Thus, it does not appear that these are necessary 
prerequisite steps before CMRS providers implement location-based 
routing nationwide on their networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ AT&T Comments at 3. In a news release announcing AT&T's 
rollout of location-based routing, AT&T stated ``The nationwide 
rollout has started and is available in Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, 
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, 
Minnesota, North Dakota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and Guam. 
Additional regions will be rolled out over the next several weeks. 
The nationwide rollout is scheduled to be completed by the end of 
June.'' Press Release, AT&T, AT&T Launches First-Ever Nationwide 
Location-Based Routing with Intrado to Improve Public Safety 
Response for Wireless 9-1-1 Calls (May 10, 2022), at https://about.att.com/story/2022/nationwide-location-based-routing.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    30. We also do not agree with commenters' assertions that PSAPs are 
not ready from an operational perspective to manage changes in call 
distribution or volume resulting from the implementation of location-
based routing on a nationwide basis. T-Mobile asserts that ``[m]any 
emergency authorities want to understand the impact LBR will have on 
operations, call volume, and workflows before deploying it; they often 
also want the ability to implement reporting and tracking of call 
transfers prior to enabling LBR in order to understand and see the 
effects of the new 911 routing.'' \55\ T-Mobile cites its initial 
implementation of location-based-routing in Minnesota and Texas,\56\ 
where T-Mobile states that 911 authorities required First Office 
Applications (FOAs) before expanding deployment to more PSAPs. However, 
T-Mobile's initial deployments in those areas occurred at a time when 
no other carrier had deployed location-based routing for 911 anywhere 
in the U.S., which could reasonably lead the first PSAPs receiving 
location-based routed calls to take a cautious approach. Since then, 
AT&T has implemented location-based routing nationwide to thousands of 
PSAPs with no reported adverse operational impacts. To the contrary, 
the record indicates that PSAPs have reaped operational benefits from 
implementation of location-based routing in the form of reduced 
misroutes and call transfers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 5 (emphasis omitted).
    \56\ See Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, Metropolitan 
Emergency Services Board 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee July 
15, 2021 Draft Meeting Minutes at 7, https://mn-mesb.org/wp-content/uploads/July-TOC-Meeting-Packet-070921.pdf (indicating that at the 
time of deployment in select counties in Minnesota, no other 
carriers had deployed or announced future deployment of location-
based routing); Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, Metropolitan 
Emergency Services Board 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee Agenda 
at 25 (Jan. 21, 2021), https://mn-mesb.org/wp-content/uploads/January-Meeting-911-TOC-Packet-012121.pdf (including a presentation 
from T-Mobile to Greater Harris County, Texas, indicating that 
``[t]oday, T-Mobile is the only wireless carrier positioned to route 
911 calls based on caller location, rather that [sic] cell 
sector'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. CMRS providers' assertions about potential adverse operational 
impacts to PSAPs are also contradicted by virtually all statements of 
public safety commenters on the record. Despite industry commenters' 
preference,\57\ the vast majority of public safety commenters support a 
rapid nationwide rollout of location-based routing and specifically 
oppose the per-PSAP approach advocated by CMRS providers. Only one 
public safety commenter, the Colorado Council of Authorities, Inc. 
(CCOA), supports the per-PSAP approach in order to ensure 
``collaboration'' between PSAPs and service providers. We agree that 
such collaboration is important to the successful implementation of 
location-based routing, and we encourage PSAPs and 911 authorities to 
collaborate during the implementation period established. However, this 
does not require establishing a process in which every PSAP must 
affirmatively opt in to location-based routing. In fact, such a process 
would be far more cumbersome than a uniform nationwide implementation 
timetable and could lead to fragmented and inconsistent deployment. We 
agree with APCO that given the immediate feasibility of nationwide 
implementation, substantial voluntary deployment that has already 
occurred, and the clear public safety benefits of location-based 
routing, deployment and use of location-based routing should not be 
optional or conditional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 5; see also iCERT NPRM Comments 
at 2 (arguing for a per-PSAP approach as location-based routing 
``may impact a PSAP's operations'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    32. We are also not persuaded by commenters who compare 
implementation of location-based routing to past implementation of the 
Commission's E911 Phase I and Phase II location requirements \58\ or 
text-to-911,\59\ which were predicated on individual PSAPs achieving 
the technical capability to receive E911 location data and 911 texts, 
respectively.\60\ For location-based routing, there is no similar 
reason to predicate CMRS provider compliance on PSAP technical 
capability, because AT&T's rollout demonstrates that PSAPs do not need 
to have any specific technical capabilities in place to receive calls 
routed using location-based routing. Accordingly, we agree with COPUC 
that ``[t]here is no compelling reason to require PSAPs to opt in to 
this service or to predicate the use of location-based routing 
methodology on any sort of `readiness' of the PSAP.'' Implementing 
location-based routing on a per-PSAP basis could lead to uneven and 
inconsistent implementation of routing approaches between jurisdictions 
and result in a risk of wireless 911 misroutes for jurisdictions that 
do not request location-based routing service. We find that this would 
be contrary to the public interest and the Commission's interest in 
facilitating improved routing of wireless 911 voice calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 4; CCOA NPRM Reply Comments at 1-
2; see also 47 CFR 9.10(d)(1), (f), (g), (m).
    \59\ T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 4; CTIA NPRM Comments at 4; see 
also 47 CFR 9.10(q)(10)(ii) and (iii).
    \60\ To receive texts, PSAPs must either upgrade their equipment 
to receive text messages or implement text-to-911 capabilities on 
existing equipment. T911 Second Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 
9861, para. 32, 79 FR 55367 (September 16, 2014). To receive Phase I 
location information, PSAPs must use switches, protocols, and 
signaling systems that will allow them to obtain the calling party's 
number from the transmission of ANI. Revision of the Commission's 
Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling 
Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 
18676, 18709, para. 63 n.119 (1996), 61 FR 40348 (August 2, 1996). 
To receive Phase II location information, PSAPs must ``install 
equipment to determine the geographic coordinates of the caller, 
transfer that information through the telephone networks, and have a 
mapping system in place at the PSAP that can display the latitude 
and longitude coordinates of the caller as a map location for 
dispatching assistance.'' General Accounting Office, Uneven 
Implementation of Wireless Enhanced 911 Raises Prospect of Piecemeal 
Availability for Years to Come, GAO-04-55, at 9 (Nov. 2003), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-04-55.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    33. Voluntary Implementation. We also decline to permit CMRS 
providers to deploy location-based routing on a

[[Page 18496]]

purely voluntary basis. Wireless entities supporting voluntary 
implementation argue that flexibility in implementation is needed to 
account for differences in providers' networks and devices and to allow 
technologies to continue to evolve.\61\ However, public safety 
commenters note that permitting CMRS providers to deploy location-based 
routing on a purely voluntary basis would require additional and 
unnecessary coordination and would only delay the implementation of 
location-based routing as a general matter. The record confirms the 
Commission's reasoning in the notice of proposed rulemaking that 
relying on voluntary implementation 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.'' Thus, we find that allowing CMRS providers to implement 
location-based routing on a voluntary basis would undermine our goal of 
ensuring that this important capability benefits all wireless 911 
callers nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ CTIA NPRM Reply at 3 (urging the Commission to provide 
flexibility for wireless providers to implement location-based 
routing in the manner that meets their ``unique network and handset 
configurations'' and is coordinated with public safety); see also 
CCA NPRM Reply at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Technical Considerations
    34. Technological Feasibility. We find that implementing location-
based routing for wireless 911 voice calls is technologically feasible 
for nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers. The three nationwide 
CMRS providers have implemented location-based routing for wireless 911 
voice calls across or for some part of their networks. CCA, an industry 
association with membership including non-nationwide CMRS providers, 
states that ``wireless carriers can eventually deploy location-based 
routing to any PSAP'' if provided with adequate time and financial 
support. iCERT agrees that location-based routing is technologically 
feasible. NGA 911 also offers support for this conclusion, stating that 
both Google's Emergency Location Service (ELS) and Apple's Hybridized 
Emergency Location (HELO) provide a device location estimate, and these 
mobile operating systems comprise 99.62% of the handset market. NENA 
states that AT&T's nationwide deployment of location-based routing 
demonstrates that ``transitional location-based routing mechanisms are 
technically feasible and improve 9-1-1 outcomes, and are in use 
today.'' No commenter argues that implementing location-based routing 
on CMRS provider networks is technologically infeasible.
    35. Calls originating on IP-based networks. In light of the 
technical obstacles and ongoing retirement of legacy networks, we apply 
our location-based routing requirements to IP-based networks but we 
decline to require location-based routing for 911 calls originating on 
circuit-switched, time-division multiplex (TDM) networks. This is 
consistent with the Commission's proposal in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking and is supported by commenters. For example, the Rural 
Wireless Association (RWA) agrees that requiring location-based routing 
for 911 calls originating on TDM networks would be unduly burdensome. 
CCA asserts that ``TDM networks can lack the speed and capacity 
necessary to transmit and evaluate confidence and uncertainty 
information and query the location server for PSAP routing instructions 
prior to the time for a call to commence.'' ATIS assumes for purposes 
of ATIS-0700042 that location-based routing is only supported on 
originating networks supporting Long Term Evolution (LTE) and 
beyond.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ ATIS-0700042 at 6. CCA argues that limiting location-based 
routing to IP-based wireless networks provides ``an important 
increment of regulatory relief'' but notes that this relief is 
limited because many non-nationwide carriers have already retired 
non IP-based technology. CCA NPRM Comments at 12. CCA also asserts 
that limiting location-based routing to IP networks does not reduce 
costs burdens on the wireless sector. Id. at 12-13. Nonetheless, we 
find that this provision will ease burdens for CMRS providers that 
have not yet transitioned to IP-based networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. PSAP Boundary Maps. Some commenters contend that location-based 
routing requirements should be conditioned on 911 authorities providing 
updated maps or shapefiles of PSAP boundaries to CMRS providers. We 
conclude that such a condition is unnecessary. We recognize that 
accurately mapping PSAP jurisdictional boundaries is important to the 
accurate routing of 911 calls. However, the record demonstrates that 
CMRS providers and the third-party vendors they use to route 911 calls 
already have maps and shapefile records of PSAP boundaries generated to 
support earlier E911 deployments and upgrades,\63\ and that ``numerous 
companies'' maintain PSAP boundary shapefile information to support 
CMRS 911 call routing. CMRS providers have long used this information 
to support legacy tower-based routing of 911 voice calls.\64\ Moreover, 
the Commission has never conditioned the 911 routing obligations of 
CMRS providers on PSAPs or 911 authorities providing mapping data. As 
NASNA explains, legacy and E911 routing ``relies on tabular location 
databases that are updated by the originating service provider,'' and 
911 authorities may support the maintenance and quality assurance of 
these databases, but ``there are no rules addressing how frequently 
this data must be updated, nor is there transparency when data updates 
are operationalized.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See Verizon July 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 1 (``If Verizon has a 
[s]hapefile of the PSAP's boundaries due to earlier E911 deployments 
or upgrades, the PSAP may be able to simply confirm that the earlier 
document remains accurate.''); GCI Aug. 7, 2023 Ex Parte at 5 
(``GCI's network serves geographic areas where the boundaries 
between PSAP service areas are sparsely populated or unpopulated, in 
general. Therefore, the existing shapefiles could likely be used to 
route calls using more precise on-device location as well.'').
    \64\ See NASNA NPRM Comments at 4 (``Legacy and enhanced 911 
relies on tabular location databases that are updated by the 
originating service providers (OSPs), and maintained by the 911 
service provider to act as the authoritative source of location 
information used to validate the location of the 911 caller.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    37. The record indicates that CMRS providers and their vendors can 
use existing PSAP boundary information to support location-based 
routing to the same extent that such information has supported tower-
based routing. The purpose of this information is to associate a 
specified location--whether it is the caller's location or the tower 
location--with the jurisdiction served by a particular PSAP, and CMRS 
providers are already using this information to support their 
implementation of location-based routing. If PSAP boundary maps are not 
updated to reflect current jurisdictional boundaries, it is possible 
that some calls originated near those boundaries could be misrouted 
even when location-based routing is used. However, the overall 
frequency of misroutes is still likely to be lower than with tower-
based location because tower-based location routes all calls in a cell 
sector to the same PSAP regardless of the jurisdiction where the caller 
is located. For example, GCI states that ``existing shapefiles could 
likely be used to route calls using more precise on-device location'' 
information on its network, although the importance of updated maps may 
be affected in some locations by factors such as population density 
near the PSAP boundary area, the number of PSAPs served, and the 
density of cell sites. BRETSA comments that the record does not 
indicate whether the provider of the PSAP boundary maps AT&T is relying 
on ``could and would also provide them to non-national providers and on 
what terms.'' As noted above, we conclude

[[Page 18497]]

that it is not necessary for AT&T's provider of PSAP boundary maps to 
provide them to other CMRS providers, who should be able to use their 
existing sources of boundary maps.
    38. While we do not require PSAPs to provide updated shapefiles as 
a prerequisite to location-based routing, we recognize that location-
based routing is most effective when service providers use up-to-date 
shapefiles that precisely and accurately identify jurisdictional 
boundaries for routing purposes. In addition, we recognize that 911 
authorities and PSAPs are the most authoritative source for current 
jurisdictional boundary information. Therefore, we encourage CMRS 
providers and their third-party vendors to work with 911 authorities 
and PSAPs to ensure that location-based routing decisions on CMRS 
provider networks are based on shapefiles that accurately reflect 
current boundaries. NENA suggests establishment of an ``authoritative 
database for PSAP boundary information'' and states that with 
sufficient funding and appropriate governance, this tool could be 
expanded to serve as the industry's authoritative reference for 
location-based routing purposes. We encourage 911 authorities, relevant 
industry groups, and CMRS providers to consider further whether such a 
database is needed, what steps to take, and what parties should take 
them.
    39. NG911 Geospatial Routing. NASNA and the Texas 9-1-1 Entities 
suggest that as jurisdictions transition to NG911, location-based 
routing by CMRS providers may not be necessary and could cause delay in 
call routing by NG911-capable jurisdictions that will use ESInets and 
geospatial routing to route calls to individual PSAPs.\65\ While these 
parties are correct that NG911 will introduce new geospatial routing 
mechanisms, this does not obviate the need for the location-based 
routing requirements we adopt, nor will these requirements impede NG911 
call routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ NASNA NPRM Comments at 11 (``By definition, LBR will 
introduce delay into the delivery of the 911 call or text to NG911 
that is no longer needed with a fully functional NG911 system that 
is using geospatial routing.''); Texas 9-1-1 Entities NPRM Comments 
at 4 (noting that the NG911 transition in some areas ``may 
potentially make it unnecessary for some CMRS providers to make LBR 
modifications to their existing legacy 9-1-1 solutions, at least in 
those areas'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40. First, while many states have already made significant 
commitments to implementing NG911, the NG911 transition remains 
ongoing, and there are no fully enabled NG911 systems yet operating. As 
COPUC notes, ``most 911 call delivery networks do not have the ability 
to provide geospatial routing at this time and it is unknown when such 
technology will be universally deployed. Requiring CMRS providers to 
deploy LBR in the meantime is essential . . . .'' \66\ We agree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ NASNA NPRM Comments at 6 (``For localities that have 
deployed any form of NG911 this unrestricted access to 911 call 
routing data is mission critical. . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    41. Second, the provision of location-based routing information by 
CMRS providers will remain essential in the NG911 environment because 
NG911 systems will need this information to perform the additional 
geospatial routing functions necessary to direct 911 calls to the 
correct PSAP behind the ESInet.\67\ APCO notes that ``[w]ireless 
service providers perform routing functions before passing a 9-1-1 call 
or text to a 9-1-1 network--regardless of whether the 9-1-1 network is 
legacy or IP-based--and even if such networks are able to perform an 
additional routing function, carriers should remain responsible for 
first engaging in location-based routing.'' BRETSA further notes that 
location-based routing ``is not inconsistent with the eventual 
transition to full i3 NG9-1-1.'' \68\ Finally, we do not agree that 
location-based routing implemented on CMRS networks consistent with the 
proposed rules will introduce delay into NG911 call routing. The 
location-based routing requirements we adopt expressly apply only when 
location information meeting the accuracy threshold is available at 
time of routing. Thus, these requirements will not delay delivery of 
911 calls in either the legacy E911 environment or the NG911 
environment.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ See Verizon NPRM Comments at 3 (stating that some 
jurisdictions ``have implemented their own form of LBR and prefer 
that originating service providers not also perform LBR on a 
call'').
    \68\ BRETSA NPRM Reply Comments at 5; see also Intrado PN 
Comments at 10 n.14 (``Implementing LBR on the carrier side has the 
added benefit of avoiding any potential adverse consequences to the 
present transitional NG911 environment and eventual NG911 end state. 
In fact, LBR (and the enhanced location information behind it) will 
work hand-in-hand with the PSAPs ongoing NG911 adoption of IP-based, 
geospatial ESInets.'').
    \69\ See Intrado NPRM Comments at 5 (``[T]he carrier GMLC now 
has sufficient information and time with 4G/5G to determine, 
transmit and evaluate confidence and uncertainty of device-based 
location information and to query the location server for PSAP 
routing instructions before the time to route.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Compliance Timelines
    42. Overview. We require nationwide CMRS providers to comply with 
the location-based routing requirements within six months after the 
effective date of the final rules, as proposed in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking. We require non-nationwide CMRS providers to comply 
with the location-based routing requirements within 24 months after the 
effective date of the final rules, a time frame which is six months 
longer than the eighteen months proposed in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking. We also permit a PSAP and a CMRS or covered text provider 
to set, by mutual consent, alternative deadlines to implement location-
based routing in the PSAP's jurisdiction that are different from those 
otherwise established by the rules.
    43. Nationwide CMRS Providers. We require nationwide CMRS providers 
to comply with the location-based routing requirements within six 
months after the effective date of the final rules, as proposed in the 
notice of proposed rulemaking. NENA, COPUC, NASNA, DISA, and iCERT 
support the proposed six-month timeline for nationwide CMRS providers, 
and no commenter indicates that it would be infeasible or burdensome 
for nationwide CMRS providers to complete the implementation of 
location-based routing within six months. The three nationwide CMRS 
providers have already deployed or are actively working toward 
deploying location-based routing capabilities on their networks, 
indicating that they have made substantial progress in implementing 
this technology at the network level.\70\ AT&T has already deployed 
location-based routing on a nationwide basis. Verizon has indicated 
that it is ``turning up Location-Based Routing for hundreds of PSAPs 
nationwide'' and directs ``PSAPs that are interested in deploying 
Location Based Routing to contact Verizon engineers.'' This statement 
indicates Verizon's readiness to deploy location-based routing and that 
Verizon has made necessary progress to implement the technology at the 
network level. T-Mobile was the first to deploy this technology on its 
network in 2020 and as of December 2023 had fully implemented location-
based routing for 1,591 PSAPs with an additional 596 PSAPs in progress, 
which indicates that

[[Page 18498]]

it has made progress on implementing the technology on a network level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ AT&T completed the rollout of location-based routing on its 
network in June 2022 and uses location-based routing to deliver 
wireless 911 voice calls and texts to nearly all PSAPs nationwide. 
AT&T PN Comments at 4; AT&T NPRM Comments at 1. T-Mobile launched 
location-based routing on its network in the states of Texas and 
Washington in 2020 and as of December 2023 has fully implemented 
location-based routing for 1,591 PSAPs with an additional 596 PSAPs 
in progress. T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 3-5; T-Mobile PN Reply at 2 
n.6. In December 2023, Verizon reported that it had initiated 
location-based routing for 414 PSAPs with an additional 277 PSAPs in 
progress. Verizon Dec. 7, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    44. The nationwide CMRS providers do not argue for an 
implementation timeline that is longer than six months from the 
effective date of the rules. Instead, T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, and CTIA 
support a six-month timeline for nationwide providers conditioned on 
each PSAP requesting location-based routing and demonstrating technical 
and operational readiness. As discussed above, we have determined that 
a per-PSAP request mechanism would delay the critical benefits of a 
nationwide deployment of location-based routing and is not a necessary 
component to ensure PSAP operational continuity during the transition. 
Industry commenters' arguments nevertheless indicate that nationwide 
providers are capable, from both a technical and cost perspective, of 
deploying location-based routing within a six month timeframe. Indeed, 
if the Commission were to adopt a per-PSAP request mechanism and all or 
virtually all PSAPs opted in immediately, the nationwide CMRS providers 
would effectively be required to deploy location-based routing 
nationwide within six months. Finally, we accord little weight to 
AT&T's request to condition CMRS provider compliance timelines on PSAP 
requests, as AT&T deployed location-based routing on a nationwide basis 
and states that it ``was able to deploy location-based routing to 
virtually all PSAPs within a six-month timeframe,'' with few 
exceptions.
    45. Some commenters point out that the nationwide CMRS providers 
had several years to plan and carry out their voluntary implementation 
of location-based routing. However, we disagree that this argues in 
favor of allowing the nationwide providers more than six months to 
complete nationwide implementation. Location-based routing technology 
is no longer nascent, unknown to PSAPs, or unproven. Use of location-
based routing has expanded significantly since 2020, when T-Mobile 
first deployed it, technical standards now exist for its 
implementation, all three nationwide carriers have deployed it on their 
networks, and public safety is aware of and eager for this improved 
routing technology. Given the extent of this progress, we believe that 
six months is more than adequate for nationwide CMRS providers to 
implement location-based routing nationwide. We therefore find that six 
months from the effective date of the rules provides adequate time for 
these providers to complete the implementation on their networks. NENA, 
COPUC, NASNA, DISA, and iCERT support the proposed six-month timeline 
for nationwide CMRS providers, and no commenter indicates that it would 
be infeasible or burdensome for nationwide CMRS providers to complete 
the implementation of location-based routing within six months.
    46. APCO, Adams County et al., and Fenwick support a timeline 
shorter than six months for nationwide providers to deploy location-
based routing. We decline to adopt a shorter mandatory timeline, as it 
is unclear whether it is feasible for all three nationwide CMRS 
providers to complete their deployment of location-based routing in 
fewer than six months. However, nationwide CMRS providers may deploy 
location-based routing voluntarily prior to the compliance deadline.
    47. Non-Nationwide CMRS Providers. In the notice of proposed 
rulemaking, the Commission proposed an 18-month timeline for non-
nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing.\71\ We 
received mixed comments on this issue. NASNA, iCERT, and COPUC support 
the proposed 18-month timeline for non-nationwide CMRS providers,\72\ 
while other public safety entities argue for a shorter timeline.\73\ On 
the other hand, CMRS provider commenters generally support a longer 
timeline for non-nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based 
routing. CTIA states that ``non-nationwide providers need more time to 
deploy LBR capability than the 18 months proposed in the NPRM due to 
the significant costs and technical modifications necessary to 
implement LBR.'' GCI recommends that non-nationwide CMRS providers be 
given a timeline of at least 24 months or potentially longer. RWA 
recommends that small rural CMRS providers be given 36 months to 
implement location-based routing.\74\ CCA asserts that non-nationwide 
providers need at least four years to ``select, test, modify, perfect, 
and deploy'' location-based routing, stating that AT&T's deployment 
took four years and that ``[m]ost CCA member companies do not possess 
anywhere near the scope and scale of resources that AT&T enjoys.'' 
Southern Linc agrees with CCA's concerns that non-nationwide CMRS 
providers may require considerably longer than 18 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15195, para. 
26.
    \72\ NASNA NPRM Comments at 11 (agreeing with 18-month timeline 
for non-nationwide CMRS providers); iCERT NPRM Comments at 2 
(supporting 18-month timeline for non-nationwide CMRS providers); 
COPUC NPRM Comments at 3 (agreeing with the 18-month timeline for 
non-nationwide CMRS providers); see also NENA Comments at 3 
(stating, as a general matter, that ``the Commission has proposed 
sufficient compromises to avoid undue burden on the wireless 
industry, such as a later implementation date for non-nationwide 
CMRS providers'').
    \73\ Adams County et al. NPRM Comments at 2 (stating that 18-
month implementation schedule for non-nationwide CMRS providers is 
``acceptable,'' but noting that ``[s]ooner is better''); APCO NPRM 
Comments at 3. BRETSA comments that non-nationwide CMRS providers 
have not yet determined the actual cost and time required to 
implement location-based routing, and urges the Commission to 
require non-nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based 
routing within six or twelve months (i.e., rather than eighteen 
months) and to ``grant waivers or extensions upon showings of the 
actual costs of and impediments to deployment.'' BRETSA NPRM Reply 
at ii; id. at 13 (``Such an approach would allow providers a 
reasonable time to implement LBR, while avoiding unnecessary delay 
and impacts upon victims of accidents, illnesses, crimes, and 
fires.''). BRETSA also suggests that in rural areas, which generally 
have a lower incidence of misroutes (e.g., because a single PSAP 
serves the entire county), regional wireless providers should have 
an ``earlier date for implementation of LBR,'' with deployment 
prioritized based on the level of misroutes, and ``allowing a longer 
overall phase-in period.'' BRETSA NPRM Comments at 7-8.
    \74\ RWA NPRM Comments at 1-3. RWA discusses reasons smaller 
carriers require more time and financial support, including that 
``many RWA members are in the midst of efforts to `rip and replace' 
unsecure Huawei and ZTE equipment in their networks,'' id. at 2, 
which is a ``top priority over regulatory compliance unrelated to 
national security.'' Id. at 3. RWA requests small rural CMRS 
providers have 36 months from effective date of final rules to 
implement, ``and then only if the PSAP is capable of handling the 
call routing.'' Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. The Commission has previously recognized that non-nationwide 
CMRS providers can face obstacles that warrant additional time for 
compliance beyond the time afforded to nationwide CMRS providers during 
technology transitions. Smaller CMRS providers may have difficulty 
obtaining necessary commitments from device makers, technology vendors, 
and software service providers to implement location-based routing 
within a time frame that would be feasible for nationwide CMRS 
providers. We therefore adopt a timeline of twenty-four months (two 
years) from the effective date of the rules for non-nationwide CMRS 
providers to deploy and begin using location-based routing. This 
timeline provides an additional 18 months beyond the deadline 
applicable to nationwide CMRS providers. We adopt this extended 
timeline in recognition of the obstacles that non-nationwide CMRS 
providers may encounter in deploying location-based routing on their 
networks. We also anticipate that the additional time will assist non-
nationwide CMRS providers in absorbing capital costs. It is consistent 
with past Commission decisions to permit non-nationwide CMRS providers 
additional time to

[[Page 18499]]

accommodate technology transitions.\75\ Based on the progress that 
nationwide CMRS providers have made and that some non-nationwide CMRS 
providers advocate for a 24-month timeline, it is our predictive 
judgment that the 24 months afforded will be sufficient from both 
technological feasibility and cost perspectives for non-nationwide CMRS 
providers to implement location-based routing. If individual CMRS 
providers encounter unique or unusual factual circumstances that 
support a lengthier timeline, they may seek a waiver under the 
Commission's waiver rules.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ For example, for horizontal location accuracy requirements, 
certain benchmarks for non-nationwide CMRS providers are tied to the 
deployment of specifical technical capabilities, which has permitted 
additional time for compliance. See 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(i)(B)(3), (4). 
For vertical location accuracy requirements, certain non-nationwide 
CMRS providers are permitted an additional year to meet relevant 
benchmarks. See 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(F).
    \76\ 47 CFR 1.925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. We decline to extend the timeline for compliance for non-
nationwide CMRS providers to thirty-six months or four years, as 
advocated by RWA and CCA, respectively. RWA argues that small non-
nationwide CMRS providers should have 36 months to comply with 
location-based routing requirements because they are simultaneously 
focusing ``substantial time and attention'' on replacing network 
equipment under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks 
Reimbursement Program (Reimbursement Program), which they assert takes 
``top priority over regulatory compliance unrelated to national 
security.'' We see no basis for extending the 24-month location-based 
routing timeline for non-nationwide CMRS providers based on their 
concurrent obligations under the Reimbursement Program. Protecting 
national security and ensuring effective 911 emergency response are 
both important regulatory obligations that all CMRS providers must 
meet. We reject the view that one takes priority over the other. In 
addition, RWA has failed to show how the timeline for the Reimbursement 
Program would conflict with non-nationwide provider implementation of 
location-based routing when Reimbursement Program removal, replacement, 
and disposal deadlines are determined on an application-specific basis 
\77\ and may be extended pursuant to the conditions set forth in the 
Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act and the Commission's 
rules.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ FCC, Secure and Trusted Communications Networks 
Reimbursement Program Second Report at 4 (July 10, 2023), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-395005A1.pdf. See Protecting 
Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain 
Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Second Report and Order, 
35 FCC Rcd 14284, 14354, para. 170 (2020), 86 FR 2904 (January 13, 
2021). The Commission may grant recipients extensions of this term 
on an individual basis. See Secure and Trusted Communications 
Networks Act of 2019, Public Law 116-124, section 4(d)(6)(C), 134 
Stat. 158, 163 (2020) (Secure Networks Act) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 
1603(d)(6)(C)).
    \78\ A Reimbursement Program recipient may request and the 
Commission may grant an individual extension of a recipient's 
removal, replacement, and disposal term for a period of up to six 
months after the Bureau finds, that due to no fault of such 
recipient, such recipient is unable to complete the permanent 
removal, replacement, and disposal by the end of the term. 47 CFR 
1.50004(h)(2); see also Secure Networks Act section 4(d)(6)(C); see 
also, e.g., Protecting Against National Security Threats to the 
Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-
89, Order, DA 23-875, at 1, para. 1 (WCB Sept. 22, 2023) (granting 
Stealth Communications Services, LLC's request for extension from 
September 29, 2023 until March 29, 2024); Protecting Against 
National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through 
FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Order, DA 23-938 (WCB Oct. 10, 
2023) (granting extension of time requests by WorldCell Solutions, 
LLC, Mediacom Communications Corporation, Virginia Everywhere, LLC, 
James Valley Cooperative Telephone Company, and NE Colorado 
Cellular, Inc. d/b/a Viaero Wireless); Protecting Against National 
Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC 
Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Order, DA 23-1016 at 1, para. 1 (WCB 
Oct. 27, 2023) (granting extension of time requests of Point 
Broadband Fiber Holding, LLC and SI Wireless, LLC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    50. RWA also argues that location-based routing should only be 
required ``to the extent that there is federal financial support 
afforded to small providers for the cost of compliance and additional 
time afforded for compliance beyond that proposed in the NPRM.'' The 
Commission has never conditioned CMRS providers' compliance with 911 
obligations on the receipt of Federal funding and we decline to do so. 
Further, the record does not provide compelling evidence that such 
funding is necessary. RWA fails to provide any specific estimates as to 
the actual cost of compliance for its members or to otherwise document 
a need for Federal financial support.\79\ Without information on the 
actual cost of compliance or specific impacts of such compliance on 
CMRS providers, naked claims that Federal financial support is 
necessary in order for CMRS providers to comply with the Commission's 
911 requirements lack merit. As noted above, if an individual CMRS 
provider encounters unique or unusual factual circumstances, it may 
seek a waiver under the Commission's waiver rules.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ RWA NPRM Comments at 1, n.3 (acknowledging that ``RWA 
members have received no specific vendor estimates as to the actual 
cost of compliance'').
    \80\ 47 CFR 1.925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    51. CCA argues that a four-year timeline is needed to account for 
``levels of support the nation's smaller wireless carriers typically 
receive from device makers, technology vendors, and software service 
providers and with the continued, incremental progress of PSAP systems 
in all areas of the country to support the location-based routing of 
emergency communications.'' However, CCA has not documented the need 
for a four-year timeline as opposed to twenty-four months to address 
the specific obstacles faced by these providers. Once nationwide CMRS 
providers complete their six-month deployment obligation, non-
nationwide providers will have 18 months to engage with device makers, 
vendors, and consultants. In addition, as noted above, the timeline is 
not dependent on PSAPs making ``incremental progress'' to support 
location-based routing because PSAPs do not need to take any specific 
technical steps to be ready to receive location-based routed calls.
    52. CCA and RWA also argue that non-nationwide CMRS providers 
should be afforded a four-year timeline because ``AT&T required four 
years to deploy location-based routing.'' We disagree. First, AT&T 
states that it was able to deploy location-based routing to virtually 
all PSAPs within six months, not four years as asserted by CCA and 
RWA.\81\ Second, even if AT&T or other nationwide CMRS providers took 
additional time to plan early implementation of nationwide location-
based routing across their networks, it does not follow that non-
nationwide CMRS providers need the same amount of time after the 
nationwide CMRS providers have completed their implementations.\82\ 
BRETSA notes that other providers are likely to require less time than 
AT&T to deploy location-based routing because ``AT&T has already 
developed the solution and provided a roadmap for implementation of 
LBR.'' In fact, the nationwide CMRS providers have already done 
critical work to enable location-based routing by adopting highly 
accurate handset-based location, which AT&T has confirmed ``is 
available for location-based routing on the vast majority of iOS and 
Android devices.'' The nationwide carriers have also validated that 
location-based routing can be used for the vast majority of wireless 
911 calls and that it does not result in additional call delay or an 
increase in abandoned 911 calls. We agree with iCERT that existing 
support for location-

[[Page 18500]]

based routing by nationwide carriers ``provides ample evidence that LBR 
will soon be ready for wider implementation.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ AT&T NPRM Comments at 3 (``AT&T was able to deploy 
location-based routing to virtually all PSAPs within a six-month 
timeframe.'').
    \82\ See Intrado PN Comments at 10 (``AT&T's implementation 
model provides a roadmap to the other carriers.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    53. CCA also argues that non-nationwide CMRS providers need longer 
timelines to ensure network reliability and quality of service before 
undertaking network-wide location-based routing implementation. Again, 
CCA fails to provide specific examples of how non-nationwide CMRS 
providers' network reliability and quality of service would be 
compromised by implementing location-based routing within a 24-month 
timeline. CCA also asserts that non-nationwide CMRS providers may use 
``different LTE and 5G-NR network specifications'' than the nationwide 
providers and that it will be challenging for non-nationwide CMRS 
providers to implement location-based routing given the ``array of 
potentially viable standards any one of which might, over time, fail to 
achieve scale and fall behind the other standards in features, support, 
and adoption.'' We believe a 24-month timeline is sufficient to address 
these issues. As BRETSA notes, non-nationwide CMRS providers have not 
provided specific vendor estimates as to the actual cost to implement 
location-based routing. We agree with BRETSA that nationwide CMRS 
providers have provided a path for implementing location-based routing, 
and there is no reason to delay implementation by non-nationwide CMRS 
providers beyond the two years afforded. We conclude that the 
considerable benefits of improved 911 routing should extend to all 
callers, including subscribers to non-nationwide CMRS providers' 
services, and that delaying improved 911 routing by more than 24 months 
would be inequitable for these subscribers.
    54. Some entities representing non-nationwide CMRS providers argue 
that location-based routing will provide minimal improvement in the 
areas which their members serve, and therefore that the Commission 
either should not require location-based routing or should further 
delay compliance with location-based routing rules for non-nationwide 
CMRS providers. CCA asserts that ``location-based routing may not 
provide any meaningful improvement over the status quo at the cost of 
dangerously longer call set up times'' for smaller CMRS providers that 
tend to serve less densely populated areas.\83\ Alaska Telecom notes 
that Alaska's unique situation of geography and low population areas 
means fewer misroutes and less benefit from location-based routing, 
such that ``costs that carriers will bear to implement LBR on a short 
timescale will far outstrip the potential benefits.'' We acknowledge 
that the advantages of location-based routing in comparison to legacy 
E911 routing may not be uniform across all areas or across all CMRS 
providers. However, we agree with Intrado that ``[e]ven in low misroute 
areas, LBR implementation will result in a significant reduction in 
misroutes compared to the current system of exclusively relying on 
tower-based routing.'' The benefits of improved routing should accrue 
to all 911 callers nationwide, across jurisdictions and CMRS providers, 
and 911 authorities have articulated a clear need for consistent 
routing technology across CMRS providers. We therefore decline to 
exempt or postpone location-based routing implementation on the basis 
that it may provide less benefit in some areas than others.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ CCA NPRM Comments at 2-3. As discussed herein, the 
Commission's location-based routing rules require providers to route 
on precise location information that is available at the network at 
time of routing, which renders moot the potential need for call 
holding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    55. Modification of Deadlines by Agreement. We recognize that there 
may be some narrow scenarios in which individual PSAPs need additional 
time to facilitate location-based routing.\84\ AT&T states that while 
it was able to deploy location-based routing to virtually all PSAPs 
within six months, ``some PSAPs required special attention and more 
time.'' To provide flexibility for PSAPs that request it, we adopt a 
rule allowing a PSAP and a CMRS provider to set, by mutual consent, 
deadlines to implement location-based routing in the PSAP's 
jurisdiction that are different from those otherwise established by the 
rules. For example, the parties may mutually agree to extend the 
provider's timeline for location-based routing implementation in the 
PSAP's jurisdiction. We emphasize that parties may not use this 
exception to delay implementation and deployment of location-based 
routing indefinitely. Accordingly, in the event of any agreement to an 
alternate time frame for implementing location-based routing, we 
require the CMRS provider to notify the Commission of the agreed-to 
dates within 30 days of the parties' agreement or 30 days from the 
effective date of the final rules, whichever is later.\85\ The CMRS 
provider must subsequently notify the Commission of the actual date by 
which it comes into compliance with the location-based routing 
requirements, within 30 days of that actual date of compliance or 30 
days from the effective date of the final rules, whichever is later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See, e.g., T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 5 (stating that ``in 
at least one instance, T-Mobile is aware that an emergency calling 
authority requested that another 911 vendor indefinitely suspend 
using LBR for 911 calls to its PSAPs because the vendor's LBR 
implementation resulted in a greater number of 911 calls that 
required transfer to another PSAP''); AT&T PN Comments at 4 & n.3 
(stating that AT&T completed its location-based routing deployment 
by the end of June 2022 ``with very few exceptions'' and stating 
that ``[a] few PSAPs are using unique applications of Emergency 
Services Numbers to implement internal routing solutions'' and that 
AT&T is ``working with these PSAPs to ensure [its] location-based 
routing solution meets their unique needs'').
    \85\ CMRS providers must file such notifications in PS Docket 
No. 18-64.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Text-to-911
    56. We require nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers to 
deploy and use location-based routing for RTT communications to 911 
within 24 months from the effective date of the final rules adopted. 
This is a modification of the rules proposed in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking, which would have required CMRS providers and all other 
covered text providers to deploy and use location-based routing for all 
911 texts within 18 months.\86\ We extend the compliance timeline from 
18 to 24 months in order to align compliance timelines for RTT 
communications to 911 with the compliance timelines for non-nationwide 
providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice 
calls. In addition, we limit our rules to the routing of RTT 
communications to 911 by CMRS providers. We decline at this time to 
extend location-based routing requirements to SMS text messages to 911, 
both because industry has not yet developed standards for implementing 
location-based routing on SMS networks and to avoid requiring providers 
to retrofit legacy SMS networks. We similarly defer extending location-
based routing requirements to interconnected text providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15197, para. 
33. The term ```covered text provider' includes 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    57. Location-Based Routing for RTT. We find that it is 
technologically feasible for CMRS providers to enable location-based 
routing for RTT communications. Because RTT is an IP-native service, 
RTT communications are processed on IP-based networks

[[Page 18501]]

similarly to voice calls originating on IP-based networks. According to 
NENA, an RTT session is ``handled and routed the same way as a voice 
call and delivers location just as a voice call would.'' \87\ We agree 
with NENA that our rules ``should reflect this reality.'' In addition, 
because RTT resembles voice calling in that it is a real-time, two-way 
service, the user experience of RTT is likely to be similarly sensitive 
to the delays associated with misroutes. Given the technical 
similarities with processing voice calls originating on IP-based 
networks and strong support for implementing requirements for location-
based routing for text-to-911 as a general matter, we adopt a 
requirement for location-based routing for RTT communications to 911 
consistent with the requirements we adopt for wireless 911 voice calls 
originating on IP-based CMRS networks. In addition, commenters 
specifically support location-based routing for RTT communications.\88\ 
CMRS providers urge the Commission to incentivize both PSAPs and CMRS 
providers to move toward next generation texting technologies such as 
RTT. We find that these requirements will help to ensure that the 
benefits of location-based routing extend to RTT users as more CMRS 
providers implement RTT service. We note that this rule is not intended 
to expand CMRS providers' existing obligations to deploy RTT 
capabilities to PSAPs beyond what is already required by the 
Commission.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ NENA NPRM Reply at 10. Unlike SMS text-to-911, which uses a 
Text Control Center for routing, ``RTT uses the existing IP-based 
voice architecture.'' NENA, NENA PSAP Readiness for Real-Time Text 
(RTT) Information Document, NENA-INF-042.1-2021 at 10 (Jan. 20, 
2021), https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/standards/nena-inf-042.1-2021_rtt_appv.pdf (NENA RTT Information Document). 
The RTT communication ``enters the Common IMS Network via the Proxy/
Emergency Call Session Control Functions (P/E-CSCF) which provide 
the routing functions.'' NENA RTT Information Document at 13. This 
is also how wireless 911 voice calls originating on IP-based 
networks are processed. See ATIS-0700015.v005 (``[The P-CSCF] 
receives the emergency call from the User Equipment via the Access 
Network. The P-CSCF detects that the call is an emergency call and 
forwards it to/toward the E-CSCF.''). Then, ``[t]he Common IMS 
Network will acquire location using the Location Retrieval Function 
(LRF) and Location Server (LS) and determine the routing using the 
Routing Determination Function (RDF).'' NENA RTT Information 
Document at 13. Again, this is also how wireless 911 voice calls 
originating on IP-based networks are processed. See ATIS-
0700015.v005 at 24 (``The LRF obtains location information 
associated with the emergency call (by interacting with an LS, if 
necessary) and uses that location to acquire routing information for 
the emergency call from the RDF.'').
    \88\ T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 11 (stating that ``stakeholders 
should focus their efforts on supporting more robust means of text-
based communication with PSAPs, including RTT''); Verizon NPRM 
Comments at 5 (``Verizon's planned LBR implementation for VoLTE will 
support real-time-text (RTT) 911 calls.''); NENA NPRM Reply at 9 
(``The Commission's rules should apply to end-to-end RTT calls 
regardless of NG9-1-1 capability.''); ATIS NPRM Comments at 3 
(urging the Commission ``to clarify that only providers of such next 
generation text solutions [as defined in ATIS and NENA standards] 
are required to use LBR''); see also CTIA NPRM Reply at 8.
    \89\ RTT transition obligations apply to ``those entities that 
are involved in the provision of IP-based wireless voice 
communication service, and only to the extent that their services 
are subject to existing TTY technology support requirements under 
Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, or 64 of the Commission's rules.'' RTT Order, 31 
FCC Rcd at 13576-77, para. 12. The Commission requires CMRS 
providers transmitting over an IP network that choose to enable the 
transmission and receipt of communications via RTT, in lieu of TTY 
technology, to and from any PSAP served by their network, to enable 
such service in a manner that fully complies with all applicable 911 
rules. Id. at 13591-92, para. 43. PSAPs require special capabilities 
to receive RTT communications from CMRS providers. Id. at 13592, 
para. 43. We recognize that many PSAPs are not currently capable of 
supporting RTT communications and remain reliant on TTY technology 
to receive calls from people with disabilities. Texas 9-1-1 Entities 
NPRM Comments at 5; see RTT Order at 13592, para. 43; FCC, What 
Public Safety Answering Points Should Know about Real-Time Text at 2 
(Oct. 2, 2018), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/events/fact_sheet_about_real-time_text_for_public_safety_answering_points.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. Compliance Deadlines for Location-Based Routing for RTT. We 
require CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for RTT 
within 24 months after the effective date of the final rules on 
location-based routing. This timeline is six months longer than the 
eighteen-month period the Commission proposed in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking for all covered text providers to route all texts to 911. 
Most of the comments received on timelines address 911 texts in 
general, without specifically addressing issues related to RTT 
implementation in particular.\90\ Some commenters support the 
originally proposed 18-month timeline for text-to 911,\91\ while others 
support a shorter timeline. NASNA suggests that ``it may be more 
appropriate to apply the same implementation timeframes for 911 texts 
that are being applied to voice 911 calls.'' Other commenters urge that 
covered text providers be given a longer timeline to implement 
location-based routing. For example, Verizon notes that several parties 
echo its own comments regarding the need for a longer implementation 
period for 911 texts. Verizon ``expects that an implementation period 
of 18-24 months for a `best available location' approach could be 
technically feasible, provided that the rules afford wireless providers 
flexibility in the location query methods and per-call thresholds 
governing whether precise versus coarse location is used for routing.'' 
\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Verizon does comment on RTT specifically and distinguishes 
it from other 911 texting, with an indication that it may be easier 
for Verizon to implement RTT than SMS location-based routing. 
Verizon states that ``[w]hile Verizon's planned LBR implementation 
for VoLTE will support real-time-text (RTT) 911 calls, LBR for SMS 
is not feasible using our existing platforms and capabilities, and 
would require substantial network- and device-level changes and 
upgrades.'' Verizon NPRM Comments at 5.
    \91\ See, e.g., iCERT NPRM Comments at 2 (supporting 18-month 
timeline for all covered text providers, ``without regard to service 
area''); NENA NPRM Comments at 1; AT&T NPRM Comments at 6 
(supporting 18-month compliance timetable, but conditioned on PSAP 
request and readiness).
    \92\ Verizon NPRM Reply at 2; see also, e.g., RWA NPRM Comments 
at 3 (indicating smaller providers need more time to comply than 
larger providers, and requesting small rural providers be given 36 
months from the effective date of the rules to implement text-to-
911, ``and then only if the PSAP is capable of handling the call 
routing''); Southern Linc NPRM Reply at 6-8 (stating that if 
Commission requires location-based routing for SMS-based texts to 
911, nationwide CMRS providers should have at least 18-24 months 
from the effective date of the rules and non-nationwide CMRS 
providers should have an additional 12-18 months beyond that, in 
recognition of smaller carriers' ``additional challenges and 
resource constraints'' and that a CMRS provider's obligation to 
commence use should only be triggered by a valid request from the 
PSAP or other relevant authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    59. We conclude that a timeline of 24 months after the effective 
date of the rules is technically feasible for CMRS providers to 
implement location-based routing for RTT. We also believe that 24 
months will provide sufficient time for both nationwide and non-
nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for RTT. 
We decline to adopt a shorter timeline for nationwide CMRS providers 
and instead opt, consistent with the notice of proposed rulemaking, to 
apply the same timetable to all providers for implementation of 
location-based routing for RTT communications. Unlike for 911 voice 
calls, the extent to which nationwide CMRS providers have implemented 
location-based routing for RTT is not clear, though we note that T-
Mobile and Verizon explicitly support this step. In addition, few PSAPs 
have developed the capability to receive end-to-end RTT 
communications.\93\ Since RTT remains in the early stages of 
development, we believe that a unified timeline for nationwide and non-
nationwide CMRS providers is consistent with the approach in the 
Commission's existing text-to-911 rules, which do not distinguish 
between nationwide and

[[Page 18502]]

non-nationwide CMRS providers.\94\ In addition, given that RTT uses 
call processing similar to that used for voice calls, we anticipate 
that non-nationwide CMRS providers will be able to implement this 
capability on the same timeline as location-based routing for voice 
calls originating on IP-based networks. However, we encourage CMRS 
providers (nationwide or non-nationwide) to adopt location-based 
routing for RTT before the 24-month deadline if feasible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ See Donny Jackson, APCO speakers say RTT being used 
operationally, could be key platform for 911 in the future, IWCE's 
Urgent Communications (Aug. 8, 2023), https://urgentcomm.com/2023/08/08/apco-speakers-say-rtt-being-used-operationally-could-be-key-platform-for-911-in-the-future/ (Jackson, APCO speakers) (noting 911 
officials stress the ``nascent operation of RTT for emergency 
calling, as only a handful of PSAPs are using the technology at the 
moment'').
    \94\ See 47 CFR 9.10(q)(1), (10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    60. Location-based routing for SMS. Some public safety commenters 
urge the Commission to require location-based routing for all texts to 
911, including SMS, so that improved text routing is available to 
individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech related 
disabilities, and to people in situations where the sound of a voice 
call would place them in peril.\95\ We agree with public safety 
commenters that location-based routing could provide benefits to 
communities that rely on text messaging to contact 911. However, we 
decline to require location-based routing for SMS messages at this time 
because the record indicates that industry has not yet developed 
standards for implementing location-based routing on SMS networks and 
because of the potential cost of requiring covered text providers to 
retrofit legacy SMS networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ COPUC NPRM Comments at 8; BRETSA NPRM Reply at 8; NASNA 
NPRM Comments at 13. DISA also argues that location-based routing 
for text-to-911 could also decrease the response time for 911 texts 
originating outside the three-mile line off U.S. and Territorial 
shores. DISA NPRM Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. In particular, commenters note that enabling location-based 
routing for SMS would require updates to the relevant technical 
standard, ATIS/TIA J-STD-110.\96\ According to NENA, implementing 
standards-based SMS solutions would add at least two years for 
standards development, product development, and deployment. T-Mobile, 
Alaska Telecom, and Verizon also note that implementing location-based 
routing for SMS would require potentially costly retrofitting of legacy 
SMS networks. Verizon argues that enabling location-based routing for 
SMS ``would require substantial upgrades of Short Message Service 
Center (SMSC) and Text Control Center (TCC) facilities . . . and device 
changes to enable the device to override security, privacy and other 
functions to access the caller's device-level location information.'' 
In addition, Verizon argues that requiring location-based routing for 
SMS could impose duplicative cost and implementation burdens that would 
be unnecessary once a jurisdiction launches i3 NG911 capabilities. We 
also note that some PSAPs remain incapable of receiving texts and that 
the volume of 911 texts is far smaller than volume of wireless 911 
voice calls.\97\ In light of these factors, we find that it would not 
serve the public interest to require CMRS providers to retrofit legacy 
SMS networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ Verizon NPRM Comments at 5; Southern Linc NPRM Reply at 7; 
NENA NPRM Reply at 9, n.41; ATIS NPRM Comments at 3. ATIS/TIA J-STD-
110.v002 defines the requirements, architecture, and procedures for 
text messaging to 911 emergency services using native wireless 
operator SMS capabilities for the existing and NG911 PSAPs. ATIS and 
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), Joint ATIS/TIA Native 
SMS/MMS Text to 9-1-1 Requirements and Architecture Specification--
Release 2 at sections 7, 8, and 9 (May 2015), https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/atis/std110 (ATIS/TIA J-STD-110.v002). 
In 2014, the Commission explained that ``The scope of the J-STD-110 
is limited to text messaging to 9-1-1 for native SMS capabilities, 
and it does not address support of text-to-911 for interconnected 
text services using `over-the-top' SMS.'' T911 Second Report and 
Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 9864, para. 39 n.106 (citing to a previous 
version of ATIS/TIA J-STD-110, Section 1.1).
    \97\ As of December 2023, the Commission's Text-to-911 Registry 
lists 3,201 PSAPs as text-capable. See FCC, PSAP Text-to-911 
Readiness and Certification Registry, https://www.fcc.gov/general/psap-text-911-readiness-and-certification-form. In calendar year 
2022, U.S. PSAPs received a combined total of 824,609 texts to 911 
in comparison to 157,999,298 wireless 911 voice calls. Fifteenth 
Annual 911 Fee Report at 13-16, Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    62. We recognize that the three nationwide CMRS providers are using 
non-standardized location-based routing techniques to route some SMS 
texts to 911 today.\98\ We encourage all CMRS providers to deploy 
location-based routing for SMS messages voluntarily to the extent that 
their resources permit, and we intend to monitor the development of 
standards, products, and other advances affecting location-based 
routing for SMS text-to-911. However, we agree with NENA that ``the 
Commission's rules should not back the market into adopting non-
standardized technologies for a legacy platform that the industry is 
actively working to phase out.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \98\ See AT&T PN Comments at 5 (describing AT&T's location-based 
routing for text-to-911 implementation); T-Mobile July 26, 2023 Ex 
Parte at 3; Verizon Dec. 7, 2023 Ex Parte at 1. NENA also states 
``There are non-standards-based mechanisms for supporting location-
based routing for interim text 156 which are available and in-use in 
the market today.'' NENA NPRM Reply at 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    63. We decline to adopt commenters' alternative proposal to require 
CMRS providers to route SMS text messages using ``best available'' 
location information. Instead of a tiered system, in which CMRS 
providers would use precise location information within a radius of 165 
meters at a 90% confidence level and otherwise default to best 
available location information, these commenters suggest a requirement 
to route SMS text messages based on best available location information 
(i.e., there would be no requirement to use highly precise location 
information when it is available from the handset). Intrado argues 
that, unlike wireless 911 voice calls to 911, for SMS ``there is no 
fallback information available for text and no technologic way or need 
to implement LBR for text differently nor any means to apply a specific 
uncertainty/confidence requirement . . . .'' As with the proposed 
requirement to route text messages when available location information 
meets our accuracy and timeliness criteria, solutions that route using 
``best available'' location information are still not standards-based. 
Therefore, we decline to require CMRS providers to implement non-
standard location-based routing solutions for SMS text messages at this 
time. The Commission may reconsider if applicable standards are 
developed.
    64. Under the Commission's existing text-to-911 rules, ``covered 
text providers must obtain location information sufficient to route 
text messages to the same PSAP to which a 911 voice call would be 
routed, unless the responsible local or state entity designates a 
different PSAP to receive 911 text messages . . . .'' \99\ The 
implementation of location-based routing, which uses more precise 
location information than the tower-based routing method, may change 
the PSAP to which a 911 voice call would otherwise be routed. We do not 
interpret this provision to require covered text providers to obtain 
the same precise location information for SMS or other non-RTT text 
messages that would be used for a voice call subject to the 
Commission's location-based routing rules. Instead, this provision 
would continue to require covered text providers to obtain location 
information sufficient to route text messages (other than RTT) to the 
same PSAP to which a wireless 911 voice call would be routed using 
coarse location or other equivalent means, the routing technology in 
use at the time of adoption of this rule.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ 47 CFR 9.10(q)(10)(i).
    \100\ T911 Second Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 9874, para. 57 
(``We require covered text providers to route texts to 911 using 
coarse location (cell ID and cell sector) or other equivalent means 
that allows the covered text provider to route a text to the 
appropriate PSAP.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    65. Location-based routing for other text-messaging platforms. We 
decline to consider location-based routing for other types of text-
messaging platforms, such as Multimedia Messaging Service

[[Page 18503]]

(MMS) platforms, at this time. To the extent that commenters discussed 
other text messaging platforms, such comments combined arguments 
regarding SMS and MMS platforms.\101\ As discussed herein, MMS 
platforms rely on many of the same functional network elements that 
would be used to process SMS messages. We therefore decline to consider 
requirements for location-based routing for MMS for the same reasons 
discussed in this section for SMS text. We also decline consideration 
of location-based routing for over-the-top (OTT) platforms, as no 
commenter discussed OTT platforms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See, e.g., GCI July 17, 2023 Ex Parte at 1 (``LBR for SMS/
MMS text-to-911 would be much more difficult than for IP-originated 
wireless calls . . . .''); NENA NPRM Reply at 8 (discussing that 
``interim text uses SMS/MMS for emergency text calls''); Intrado 
NPRM Comments at 4 (discussing ``SMS/MMS design'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Definitions
    66. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed 
to define ``location-based routing'' as routing based on the location 
of the calling device rather than the location of network elements such 
as cell site or sector. The Commission also proposed a definition of 
``device-based location information'' and sought comment on whether the 
definition adequately encompasses current and future location 
technologies. We adopt these definitions as proposed and find that they 
will add clarity to the rules while remaining flexible and allowing for 
the future evolution of new technologies. We defer consideration of the 
proposed definitions of other terms relating to IP delivery for NG911 
networks to the separate NG911 transition proceeding in PS Docket No. 
21-479.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at *20, para. 51. For 
example, commenters discussed definitions for the terms ``NG911,'' 
`` `IP-based' 911,'' and ``NG911-capable PSAPs,'' which we believe 
would be better addressed in the NG911 proceeding so as to apply to 
a wider array of 911 originating service providers. See APCO NPRM 
Comments at 5; CTIA NPRM Comments at 8; Southern Linc NPRM Reply at 
8-9; NENA NPRM Reply at 4-5, 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. Location-Based Routing. The notice of proposed rulemaking 
proposed 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. Most commenters addressing the issue, including NASNA, NENA, 
COPUC, and Alaska Telecom, support the proposed definition.\103\ Alaska 
Telecom states that the proposed definition is flexible and ``will give 
carriers, 911 vendors, and public safety entities the ability to invest 
time and resources into new and improved location technologies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ NASNA NPRM Comments at 14; COPUC NPRM Comments at 8; 
Alaska Telecom NPRM Reply at 4 (noting also that Alaska Telecom 
``believes that it is important that `location' be limited to the 
autonomous location derived by the device, with accuracy based on 
what is coming from the device, not information derived by the 
carrier network'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    68. APCO and AT&T suggest that the definition avoid reference to 
``device-based location information'' or to ESInets. APCO states that 
it does not disagree with the assumption that ESInets may be a 
potential delivery point for 911 calls, but contends that ``a simpler 
approach that does not reference ESInets could avoid unintentional 
limitations.'' \104\ AT&T argues that identifying ESInets as end points 
that state or local 911 authorities can designate is outside the scope 
of the proceeding and unnecessary.\105\ NENA and Alaska Telecom oppose 
narrowing the definition, and DISA and COPUC support including ESInets 
as an illustrative example. Alaska Telecom states that ``[t]he 
Commission's proposed definition allows for technological development 
and improvement over time, in contrast to the changes suggested by 
APCO'' to define ``location-based routing'' by reference to uncertainty 
and confidence metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ APCO NPRM Comments at 4. APCO does not specifically 
identify what such ``unintentional limitations'' are, but cites to 
its discussion of ``the current state of ESInet capabilities.'' APCO 
NPRM Comments at 4, n.20. APCO asserts that ``ESInets may or may not 
be capable of performing location-based routing after receiving the 
call from a wireless service provider. Thus, the NPRM's 
consideration of `NG9-1-1 capabilities' and ESInets as factors for 
the location-based routing requirements raises concerns. The 
Commission can and should adopt location-based routing requirements 
without considering `NG9-1-1' progress or ESInet deployment.'' Id. 
at 6.
    \105\ AT&T NPRM Comments at 8. However, AT&T also states that 
``individual states and PSAP authorities can designate ESInets as an 
endpoint for the delivery of 911 calls[,]'' and ``encourages the 
Commission . . . to confirm that states and local jurisdictions have 
this authority.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. We adopt the proposed definition in order to provide guidance 
to regulated entities on how to comply with our location-based routing 
rules. This definition of location-based routing does not extend to 
tower-based routing methodologies. We disagree with APCO that referring 
to ESInets in the rules as an illustrative example could 
unintentionally limit the location-based routing definition. APCO 
objects to referencing ESInets in the definition because ``ESInets may 
or may not be capable of performing location-based routing.'' However, 
the term is used in the definition merely to identify ESInets as a 
potential delivery point for 911 voice calls and RTT communications, 
without any reference to the technical capabilities of ESInets. 
Including ESInets as an illustrative example clarifies that providers 
can use location-based routing to deliver 911 calls to ESInets, without 
precluding or limiting use of other network architectures and end 
points. We similarly disagree with the view that use of the term 
``device-based location information'' in the definition is too 
limiting. Again, the term is included as an illustrative example rather 
than a technological restriction. Thus, location technologies that do 
not use device-based location information may also fall within the 
scope of the location-based routing definition.
    70. Device-Based Location Information. The notice of proposed 
rulemaking proposed 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.'' 
The Commission noted that this term is used in the existing rule on 
delivery of 911 text messages and that the proposed definition would 
also apply to that rule. We conclude that this definition of ``device-
based location information'' provides useful guidance to regulated 
entities for compliance with the location-based routing rules, while 
remaining flexible enough to account for future technological 
development. COPUC supports the definition proposed in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking. Several other commenters urge the Commission to 
ensure that the definition is flexible enough to encompass current and 
future technologies.\106\ We find that the definition is sufficiently 
broad and flexible to meet this goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ AT&T NPRM Comments at 3-4 (citing Commission's wording in 
the notice of proposed rulemaking); see also Alaska Telecom NPRM 
Reply at 4 (supporting Commission's proposed definition as allowing 
for technological development and improvement over time); NENA NPRM 
Reply at 4 (citing AT&T NPRM Comments at 3-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    71. We also decline to adopt several suggestions from the record to 
modify the definition of ``device-based location information.'' AT&T 
supports ``a definition of `device-based location information' that is 
tied to timeliness and accuracy metrics . . . .'' However, the 
``device-based location information'' definition is intended to 
describe a mechanism for deriving location

[[Page 18504]]

information rather than determining the timeliness or accuracy of the 
information. In addition, we separately set forth timeliness and 
accuracy metrics elsewhere in the rules. DISA suggests adding language 
to indicate that the location is to be determined ``at origination 
(setup) of [a] voice call.'' We decline to adopt this suggested change, 
as the issue of timeliness of the location information used for 
location-based routing is addressed in other rules we adopt.
4. Timeliness and Accuracy of Location-Based Routing Information
    72. We require CMRS providers to use location-based routing for 
wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 when the 
location information available to the CMRS provider's network at time 
of routing is ascertainable within a radius of 165 meters at a 
confidence level of at least 90%. We anticipate that a substantial 
percentage of wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 
will route on location information meeting the accuracy and timeliness 
threshold under the rules adopted. If location information meeting this 
threshold is not available at the time of routing, we require CMRS 
providers to use the ``best available'' location information for 
routing wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911. Such 
``best available'' location information may include but is not limited 
to device-based location information that does not meet the accuracy 
threshold, tower-based location information (e.g., the centroid of the 
area served by the cell sector that first picks up the call), or other 
location information. The requirements we adopt are those proposed in 
the notice of proposed rulemaking with slight definitional 
modifications.
a. Timeliness Threshold
    73. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking, 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. We adopt the Commission's 
proposal from the notice of proposed rulemaking to require the use of 
location-based routing only if caller location information is available 
to the CMRS provider network at the time that the CMRS provider would 
otherwise route the call.\107\ This timeliness threshold is intended to 
avoid delay in transmitting wireless 911 voice calls and RTT 
communications to PSAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ For CMRS providers, ``all 911 calls'' include ``those [911 
calls CMRS providers] are required to transmit pursuant to subpart C 
of this part [9].'' 47 CFR 9.3. This definition therefore extends to 
texts, which are subject to 47 CFR 9.10(q), a provision which 
resides in subpart C of part 9 of the Commission's rules. In this 
document, we distinguish between 911 wireless voice calls, 911 
texts, and RTT communications for the sake of precision. However, we 
preserve the language from the notice of proposed rulemaking for the 
purposes of this paragraph.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    74. The record indicates that currently available technology is 
routinely capable of delivering location information to CMRS provider 
networks for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 in 
time for routing without delay.\108\ Nationwide CMRS providers' 
implementations have demonstrated that obtaining such location in time 
for routing is feasible. Devices that are capable of producing high 
accuracy, low latency location for emergency calling are in wide use, 
and IP network technology supports rapidly obtaining such precise 
location estimates. The location-based routing deployments of 
AT&T,\109\ T-Mobile,\110\ and Verizon \111\ demonstrate that precise 
location information can be made routinely available to CMRS providers' 
networks in time for routing wireless 911 voice calls. Both Android 
devices using ELS and iOS devices using HELO are capable of generating 
high accuracy, low latency location information in time to support 911 
call routing.\112\ Moreover, iOS and Android devices account for 99.62% 
of the U.S. device market, meaning that this capability is widely 
available to consumers. 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. T-Mobile states 
that the ``IP Multimedia Subsystem (`IMS') technology and advancement 
of device-based hybrid location solutions has enabled the use of a 
caller's estimated device location for call routing without delaying 
call set-up.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15199, 
para. 38 (citing Intrado PN Comments at 6, 8; Apple Sept. 24, 2019 
Ex Parte at 2; and Android, Emergency Location Service--How It 
Works, https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/how-it-works/ (last visited Jan. 17, 2024)); 
Verizon NPRM Comments at 6 (stating that RTT ``will also benefit 
from the same routing improvements and advantages as i3 voice 
calls''); NENA NPRM Comments at 12 (stating that an RTT 
communication in NG911 ``requires no special handling compared [to] 
a `conventional' voice call'').
    \109\ AT&T has used location-based routing for over 80% of all 
AT&T wireless calls. Intrado PN Comments at 2. Intrado further notes 
that AT&T's location-based routing solution provides location-based 
routing ``without any impact to the timeline or call.'' Intrado PN 
Comments at 6.
    \110\ T-Mobile indicates that more than 95% of location 
estimates available at call routing on T-Mobile's network fall 
within the company's threshold, i.e., ``300 meters with a confidence 
level of 90%.'' T-Mobile July 26, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
    \111\ See Verizon July 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 1 (``To determine 
whether device-based hybrid location information provided by the 
device during a call is adequate for routing, Verizon uses an 
accuracy threshold of 200 meters maximum horizontal uncertainty with 
confidence of 90 percent.'').
    \112\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15191, para. 
16. See also Android, Emergency Location Service--How It Works, 
https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/how-it-works/ (last visited Jan. 17, 2024) (``On average, 
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 Jan. 17, 2024) (``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.''); Apple Sept. 
24, 2019 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    75. Some commenters suggest that the Commission should require CMRS 
providers to route 911 calls within five seconds to ``prevent a CMRS 
provider from holding onto a call for eight to ten seconds or even 
longer waiting for a location fix.'' \113\ We decline to adopt this 
requirement because doing so could incentivize CMRS providers to hold 
wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 for the full 
five seconds when location information does not meet the threshold for 
accuracy, which could result in delays for wireless 911 voice calls and 
RTT communications to 911. The requirement that location information be 
available at time of routing, as the Commission stated in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking, ``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.'' Intrado points out 
that deploying location-based routing under the Commission's proposed 
framework ``renders moot the potential need for call holding.'' We 
agree that the framework as adopted avoids

[[Page 18505]]

introducing new delays for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT 
communications to 911. Conversely, if we were to set a maximum five-
second time frame for routing, it could incentivize CMRS providers to 
hold calls and RTT communications at the network for the full five-
second window to ensure routing based on ``best available'' location. 
This in turn could create delays in connecting callers to a PSAP and 
cause some callers to terminate their 911 calls. To avoid such adverse 
impacts, we decline to set a maximum time frame for routing wireless 
911 voice calls or RTT communications to 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ NASNA NPRM Comments at 14; see also COPUC NPRM Comments at 
6-7; iCERT NPRM Comments at 3 (``[W]e support the FCC's proposal to 
require use of LBR when the wireless network provider can determine 
the location of the caller within the recommended five-second 
window. If the caller's location is not available within this 
timeframe, the provider should use traditional cell site-based 
methods.''); see also BRETSA NPRM Reply at 14-15 (arguing that 
minimum hold times might increase the percentage of calls that can 
be routed on device-based hybrid location information where 
providers still operate 3G networks, or that 911 authorities may 
wish to participate in tests to determine whether holding calls 
would allow for additional calls on IP-based networks to be routed 
using location-based routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    76. We also decline to specify, as suggested by DISA, that the 
location information used for routing be determined ``at origination 
(setup) of [a] voice call.'' While we expect that location for most 
calls will be determined at origination, DISA's proposal could 
inadvertently be too restrictive, if location were to arrive after the 
setup of a voice call but before routing. We believe it is sufficient 
to require only that location information be available at the time of 
call routing, regardless of when the location is determined.
    77. NGA 911 asserts that a timeliness requirement ``appears to 
leave a big gap in the implementation because a carrier may always be 
able to claim the information was not available at time of call 
routing.'' The record indicates, however, that CMRS providers are 
already deploying technology that routinely provides the required 
location information at the time of call routing with no delay. For 
example, Intrado states that in AT&T's network, location information 
meeting the threshold is available in time to route wireless 911 voice 
calls 80% of the time, and that routing on the network ``requires no 
call delay.'' We intend to monitor the deployment and use of location-
based routing on CMRS provider networks with reporting requirements 
discussed herein. Should we learn that some CMRS providers are not 
taking full advantage of available technology that provides location-
based routing information at the time of the call, we will consider 
whether additional measures are needed.
b. Accuracy Threshold
    78. Turning to the required accuracy threshold for location-based 
routing, we adopt the requirement that CMRS providers use location-
based routing to route wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications 
to 911 if the location information available at the time of routing 
identifies the horizontal location of the device within a radius of 165 
meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. This requirement is 
consistent with the requirement the Commission proposed in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking.
    79. We adopt the 165-meter threshold with a confidence level of at 
least 90% in light of the demonstrated efficacy of location-based 
routing using such a threshold and because this threshold provides 
enough flexibility to be compatible with nationwide CMRS providers' 
existing implementations of location-based routing. We believe that 
this location accuracy threshold will substantially reduce the number 
of misroutes associated with legacy E911 routing. AT&T has applied a 
location accuracy threshold with a radius of 165 meters at a confidence 
level of 90% in its own network. Intrado states that location 
information meeting this location accuracy threshold is available to 
AT&T's network to route calls 80% of the time, and most calls route on 
information that identifies the location of the device within 50 
meters. As a result, AT&T's solution ``provid[es] a more optimal route 
than sector-based routing for approximately 10% of all wireless 911 
calls'' and ``[t]herefore, 10% of calls will be getting to the correct 
PSAP on the first try and will not require transfers from the 
neighboring PSAP.''
    80. We agree with public safety entities and Intrado that it is 
imperative that we set an accuracy threshold that is realistic in light 
of existing technology while also providing room for future 
technological improvement.\114\ APCO supports the proposed location 
accuracy threshold but remains open to an alternative that ``strikes an 
appropriate balance between how often the device's location will be 
known quickly and accurately enough to use location-based routing 
rather than cell-sector based routing, and how effective the use of 
location-based routing will be at delivering the call to the correct 
ECC [emergency communications center].'' AT&T supports a location 
accuracy threshold ``that the Commission believes would represent a 
significant improvement over cell-based routing methodologies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ APCO NPRM Comments at 2; Adams County et al. NPRM Comments 
at 3 (``The proposed confidence levels are acceptable, but ideally, 
over time, the radiuses and confidence levels in the proposed rule 
should be tightened so that 911 calls are routed more precisely.''); 
BRETSA NPRM Comments at 8 (``Intrado has found that LBR from hybrid 
device location information will allow accurate routing of wireless 
9-1-1 calls over 80 percent of the time using thresholds of 165 
meters and a 90 percent confidence level. The Commission should 
require national and regional wireless providers [to] implement LBR 
at the earliest possible time.'' (Footnote omitted, citing Intrado 
PN Comments at 9)); Intrado NPRM Comments at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    81. Some wireless industry commenters oppose the proposed location 
accuracy threshold and claim that additional flexibility is needed for 
providers to set individualized thresholds.\115\ Verizon argues that a 
rigid location accuracy threshold is unnecessary to meet the 
Commission's public safety objectives and that any particular location 
accuracy threshold should at most serve as a safe harbor. ATIS asserts 
that providers should ``strive'' but not be mandated to produce 
location information for purposes of routing within a radius of 300 
meters or less at a confidence level of 90%.\116\ ATIS also asserts 
that it is developing best practices for carriers to implement 
location-based routing, and T-Mobile states that the Commission should 
wait for these best practices before requiring specific distance and 
confidence metrics for location-based routing.\117\ We encourage ATIS 
to conclude any such efforts on a timeline that is consistent with the 
requirements adopted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ CTIA NPRM Comments at 5; T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 10; 
Verizon NPRM Comments at 3; ATIS NPRM Comments at 3-4; see also 
Southern Linc NPRM Reply at 5-6 (agreeing with ATIS, T-Mobile, 
Verizon, and CTIA that it is premature to adopt specific metrics).
    \116\ ATIS NPRM Comments at 4. We note that a location accuracy 
threshold with a radius of 300 meters would also be an acceptable 
location-based routing implementation under the rules we adopt.
    \117\ T-Mobile July 26, 2023 Ex Parte at 2; T-Mobile NPRM Reply 
at 3-4; T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 9; see also ATIS NPRM Comments at 
4 (``[T]he Commission should defer to the recommendations regarding 
the feasibility of location accuracy from industry groups such as 
ATIS ESIF.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    82. We conclude that a mandatory threshold is necessary. The 
accuracy threshold we set ensures that all CMRS providers will use 
location-based routing nationwide for 911 calls and RTT communications 
to 911 when location information at the time of routing meets a high 
accuracy standard. We also disagree that there is a need to wait for 
the development of best practices, as the location-based routing rules 
we adopt require CMRS providers to use this methodology when the 
location information available to the network is highly accurate, and 
further permit CMRS providers to use location-based routing 
methodologies in additional scenarios. We observe that the nationwide 
CMRS providers have all completed or are currently implementing 
location-based routing on their IP-based networks, and all use 
location-based routing to route wireless 911 voice calls when available 
location meets this mandatory threshold for

[[Page 18506]]

precision.\118\ While no best practices have currently been developed, 
CMRS providers' implementations indicate a practical consensus that 
location-based routing can consistently be used when location 
information meets this threshold. We therefore decline to condition 
compliance with these rules on the completion of best practices by 
ATIS. We encourage ATIS to develop best practices to promote optimal 
routing on CMRS providers' networks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Verizon and T-Mobile also use location-based routing for 
less precise location estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    83. While we require CMRS providers to use location-based routing 
when available location information is within a 165-meter radius at a 
standardized 90% confidence level, we emphasize that CMRS providers may 
also use location-based routing when location information available at 
time of routing is less precise than the accuracy threshold we adopt. 
To this extent, we agree with Verizon that CMRS providers should have 
flexibility to identify ``provider-optimized threshold range[s] to 
accommodate individual service providers' vendor capabilities and user 
device capabilities.'' We therefore provide flexibility to providers to 
set their own thresholds for use of location-based routing at a radius 
exceeding 165 meters at a 90% confidence level. While AT&T uses the 
165-meter accuracy threshold, Verizon and T-Mobile have implemented 
accuracy thresholds of 200 meters and 300 meters, respectively, with a 
standardized 90% confidence level.\119\ This formulation provides 
flexibility for all three nationwide CMRS providers to continue 
applying their respective thresholds for determining when to use 
location-based routing for 911 calls and RTT communications to 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Intrado notes that AT&T's threshold is 165 meters at a 90% 
confidence level. Intrado PN Comments at 9. T-Mobile indicates that 
its threshold is 300 meters at a 90% confidence level. T-Mobile July 
26, 2023 Ex Parte at 1. Verizon indicates that its threshold is 200 
meters at a 90% confidence level. Verizon July 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    84. We confirm that the location accuracy threshold used for 
location-based routing of a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level 
of at least 90% would apply equally to both estimated civic address and 
coordinate-based location. We agree with NENA that a CMRS provider may 
have access to an estimated civic address for a calling device that may 
be used for location-based routing.\120\ Many fixed broadband internet 
access devices, particularly those provided to the consumer by the 
broadband service provider, are permanently located at a civic (street) 
address, which is known to the network provider.\121\ If a CMRS 
provider has access to either an estimated civic address or coordinate-
based location that represents a horizontal location uncertainty level 
of the device within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at 
least 90% and that location is available at time of routing, the CMRS 
provider must use such information to comply with the Commission's 
location-based routing rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ NENA NPRM Comments at 3 (arguing that ``location-based 
routing rules should apply equally to geodetic and civic locations 
known to the originating service provider'').
    \121\ Amending the Definition of Interconnected VoIP Service in 
Section 9.3 of the Commission's Rules; Wireless E911 Location 
Accuracy Requirements; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service 
Providers, GN Docket No. 11-117, PS Docket No. 07-114, WC Docket No. 
05-196, Third Report and Order (76 FR 59916, September 28, 2011) and 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (76 FR 47114, August 4, 2011), 26 FCC Rcd 10074, 10105, 
para. 92 (2011). Examples of scenarios in which the CMRS provider 
would have an estimated civic address include a caller connecting to 
the network using a Wi-Fi access point or femtocell. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Default to Best Available Location Information
    85. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed 
that when location information does not meet one or both thresholds for 
accuracy and timeliness under our rules, CMRS and covered text 
providers would be required to route wireless 911 voice calls and texts 
to 911 based on the best location information available at the time the 
call is routed, which may include cell tower coordinates. We adopt this 
requirement as proposed for CMRS providers' routing of wireless 911 
voice calls and RTT communications to 911. We find that this approach 
allows flexibility for CMRS providers to determine the best available 
location information for routing when the available location 
information does not meet the thresholds for timeliness and accuracy.
    86. Commenters generally support a flexible fallback approach to 
routing of calls and texts that do not meet the timeliness and accuracy 
thresholds for location-based routing.\122\ As the Commission stated in 
the notice of proposed rulemaking, a requirement to default to best 
available location information is consistent with ATIS-0500039, 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.' '' This approach is also consistent with 
current CMRS provider deployments of location-based routing, which 
default to legacy E911 routing when location does not meet carriers' 
individually-set thresholds for accuracy and timely availability. For 
scenarios in which available location information does not meet the 
accuracy or timeliness thresholds, we believe that the CMRS provider is 
best suited to make the determination of the location information that 
is most likely to support accurate call routing. Defaulting to best 
available location information when preferred location is unavailable 
is consistent with other Commission rules regarding the provision of 
location information with 911 calls. In these rules, the Commission 
requires providers to supply highly precise location information when 
technically feasible but permits reliance on alternative location 
information when highly precise location information is not 
available.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ Southern Linc NPRM Reply at 6 (stating that to the extent 
available location information does not meet the requirements for 
timeliness or location accuracy for a particular 911 call, CMRS 
providers are in the best position to determine what kind of 
location information constitutes the ``best available''); CTIA NPRM 
Comments at 4-5; Verizon NPRM Comments at 4 (``Verizon agrees that 
network-based routing will remain necessary as a fallback when 
available location information does not meet the relevant accuracy 
and confidence/uncertainty threshold. This approach serves 911 
callers' needs as a large majority of calls using network-based 
routing will be as reliable as LBR.''); DISA NPRM Comments at 2.
    \123\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 9.16(b)(3)(ii) (stating that ``an on-
premises non-fixed device associated with a multi-line telephone 
system shall provide to the appropriate PSAP automated dispatchable 
location, when technically feasible; otherwise, it shall provide 
dispatchable location based on end user manual update, or 
alternative location as defined in Sec.  9.3'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    87. Some commenters argue that CMRS providers should be required to 
use tower-based routing when the device-based location information 
available to the network at the time of routing exceeds the 
threshold,\124\ or that the Commission should limit tower-based routing 
to scenarios in which ``no other option exists.'' We agree with CTIA 
and iCERT that location information that is less accurate than the 
proposed accuracy threshold but more accurate than cell sector, for 
example, device-based location information that arrives at the network 
in time for routing but exceeds the 165-meter threshold, could still 
enhance the

[[Page 18507]]

likelihood of routing the call to the appropriate PSAP, and the rules 
we adopt allow the use of such information for routing if it is the 
best available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ Intrado NPRM Comments at 5 (``Intrado recommends that when 
the location information does not meet these timing/accuracy 
specifications, the proposed rules require fallback to tower-based 
routing rather than best available location information consistent 
with current CMRS deployments of LBR and industry standards.''); 
NASNA NPRM Comments at 12; COPUC NPRM Comments at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    88. We make minor modifications to the rule to clarify that the 
``best available location information'' to the network at time of 
routing may take several forms. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, 
the proposed rule stated that best available location information ``may 
include the latitude/longitude of the cell tower.'' We emphasize that 
the Commission used the latitude/longitude of the cell tower only as an 
illustrative example and that this language was not intended to limit 
CMRS providers to only using cell tower coordinates as a default or 
fallback. Southern Linc states that the most effective way to minimize 
misroutes is to enable CMRS providers to route calls based on the best 
location information available at the time of the call, regardless of 
the technology or solution. We agree. NENA states that the most 
appropriate geodetic location for each sector would be the centroid of 
the area served by each cell sector, instead of the coordinates of the 
cell tower. We revise the proposed rule language to indicate that when 
information of a device's location does not meet either one or both 
requirements for timeliness and accuracy, CMRS providers must route the 
wireless 911 voice calls or RTT communications to 911 based on the best 
available location information, which may include, but is not limited 
to, device-based location information that does not meet the timeliness 
and accuracy requirements, the centroid of the cell sector that first 
picks up the call, or other location information.
d. Validation
    89. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission sought 
comment on whether to require validation of location information for 
wireless 911 voice calls and texts to 911 for purposes of location-
based routing and, if so, what validation steps CMRS and covered text 
providers should be required to take. Some commenters support 
validation, citing concerns that 911 calls can be spoofed or 
purposefully misrouted for swatting incidents. However, AT&T states 
that in its experience, invalid location under location-based routing 
is ``extremely rare.'' BRETSA contends that requiring validation would 
be counterproductive because ``[v]alidating caller/device locations 
against cell-site (Phase I) location would appear to defeat the purpose 
of device-based LBR.'' \125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ BRETSA NPRM Reply at 10. BRETSA states that ``[r]eference 
to the tower location for verification would simply invalidate the 
caller location in those cases in which the caller is located in a 
jurisdiction other than that in which the PSAP to which 9-1-1 calls 
received by the cell site are default routed. It would result in the 
very misrouting of the call LBR is being implemented to correct.'' 
Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    90. We decline to implement a validation requirement for the 
location information used by CMRS providers for routing at this time, 
as validation protocols are still evolving.\126\ We will continue to 
monitor location information validation and will consider validation 
requirements for CMRS providers if such requirements become necessary. 
To aid in this monitoring, in the certification and reporting 
requirements discussed herein, we adopt requirements for CMRS to 
collect and report information on validation procedures they use with 
location-based routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \126\ Most commenters who address the issue oppose a validation 
requirement. See, e.g., AT&T NPRM Comments at 4-5; T-Mobile NPRM 
Comments at 10; T-Mobile NPRM Reply at 4; Verizon NPRM Comments at 
4; Verizon NPRM Reply at 2; ATIS NPRM Comments at 4-5; BRETSA NPRM 
Reply at i, 10-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Delivery of Wireless 911 Calls and Texts to NG911 Networks

    91. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed 
requiring CMRS 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. In the subsequent NG911 Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed similar requirements 
for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. 
Several commenters express support for addressing IP delivery 
requirements for CMRS and covered text providers as part of a 
consolidated NG911 proceeding.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ CTIA July 3, 2023 Ex Parte at 2; Intrado NPRM Comments at 
2, 5-6; Texas 9-1-1 Entities NPRM Comments at 5-6 n.21; NENA NPRM 
Reply at 5 (``NENA supports Intrado's request to initiate an NG9-1-1 
proceeding to refresh the record on NG9-1-1.''); Verizon NPRM Reply 
at 5 (``[C]oupling LBR with a framework for i3-based NG911 
implementation would promote more efficient deployment by minimizing 
redundant implementation of interim and i3 NG911-based LBR while 
also rewarding wireless providers that have diligently worked to 
support end-to-end i3-based NG911.''); see also GCI July 17, 2023 Ex 
Parte at 1 (``[A]ddressing any new requirements for IP delivery of 
wireless calls to PSAPs as part of the FCC's larger NG911 proceeding 
will facilitate consistent rules across network types and will make 
compliance with any new rules more efficient and effective for all 
service providers.''); Alaska Telecom Association NPRM Comments at 
8-9 (rec. Aug. 9, 2023) (filed in both PS Dockets 21-497 and 18-64) 
(``[T]he FCC should address and align any new requirements for IP 
delivery of wireless calls to PSAPs proposed in the LBR proceeding 
(PS Docket No. 18-64) with any IP-delivery requirements adopted in 
this NG911 proceeding.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    92. We agree that consolidating similar issues and aligning 
requirements for NG911 services across different types of originating 
service providers will result in more consistent rules and avoid 
confusion among stakeholders. Accordingly, we defer consideration of IP 
delivery for CMRS and covered text providers, including all associated 
proposals and issues raised in the notice of proposed rulemaking, to 
the NG911 transition proceeding, PS Docket No. 21-479. We acknowledge 
the comments in the record of this proceeding regarding the 
Commission's proposals on this issue, and we will address those 
comments in the NG911 proceeding.\128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \128\ Commenters who filed comments on this issue in the docket 
for this proceeding (PS Docket No. 18-64) do not need to re-file 
their comments in PS Docket No. 21-479.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Certification and Reporting Requirements

    93. Certification and Reporting Requirements. In the notice of 
proposed rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on whether it should 
implement any new data collections to assist in monitoring compliance 
with the proposed location-based routing rules. The Commission also 
sought comment on what information providers should include and how 
frequently they should be required to report. In addition, the 
Commission asked whether it should require providers to certify that 
they are in compliance with requirements for location-based routing.
    94. NASNA and COPUC support an information collection to assess 
compliance and implementation of location-based routing. To help the 
Commission monitor compliance with the location-based routing 
requirements we adopt, we adopt certain one-time certification and 
reporting requirements. Specifically, we require that within sixty days 
after CMRS providers' respective compliance deadlines, they must 
certify that they are in compliance with the location-based routing 
requirements applicable to them. As part of the certification, CMRS 
providers must substantiate compliance by identifying specific network 
architecture, systems, location validation,\129\ and procedures used to 
comply with the location-based routing requirements. We also require 
CMRS providers on a one-time basis to collect and report aggregate data 
on the routing technologies used for live 911 calls in

[[Page 18508]]

the locations specified for live 911 call location data in Sec.  
9.10(i)(3)(ii) of the Commission's rules. CMRS providers must collect 
these data for a thirty-day period beginning on the applicable 
compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ As we discuss herein, we do not require validation of 
location information used for location-based routing. However, if 
providers perform any validation of routing location data, they 
should identify such practices as part of their certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    95. CTIA requests that we establish a ``presumption of 
confidentiality from disclosure of detailed network information'' that 
is required to be included in the certifications outlined in the Report 
and Order. In support of its request, CTIA states that ``wireless 
providers customarily treat network information as confidential for 
competitive and security reasons'' and cites to a proceeding in which 
the Commission concluded that outage reports should be routinely 
treated as confidential information and are presumptively protected 
from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Based on 
the current state of the record, we decline to establish a presumption 
of confidentiality for the one-time certification and reporting 
requirements adopted in the Report and Order. CMRS providers may 
request confidential treatment under the Commission's existing 
confidentiality rules \130\ for materials submitted pursuant to these 
new requirements, specifying the information they wish to keep 
confidential and providing the required justification. We note that the 
Commission retains the right to release aggregated or anonymized data 
that would not reveal specific information for which confidential 
treatment has been sought, including doing so on its website, in order 
to facilitate transparency and compliance with the rules. In addition, 
nothing in this document or the Report and Order is intended to limit 
the authority of state and local 911 agencies to publish 911 call data 
to the extent authorized under state or local law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See 47 CFR 0.459.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    96. CTIA requests that the Commission permit providers to submit 
certifications in the public docket ``while separately allowing 
providers to submit the required network information and live call data 
directly to Commission staff.'' We direct the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau to issue a Public Notice prior to the deadline 
for nationwide CMRS providers to file compliance certifications and 
live call data. Such a Public Notice will include necessary 
instructions for CMRS providers to file certifications and reports in 
compliance with the requirements adopted.
    97. CMRS providers must file the required certifications and live 
call data within 60 days after the compliance deadlines applicable to 
them under the location-based routing rules. This means that for voice 
calls to 911, a nationwide CMRS provider must file its certification 
and live call data within 60 days after the six-month deadline for 
deploying location-based routing technology on its IP-based networks, 
and a non-nationwide CMRS provider must file its certification and live 
call within 60 days after the 24-month deadline for deploying location-
based routing technology on its IP-based networks. In addition, all 
CMRS providers that have implemented the capability for RTT 
communications to 911 must file a certification within 60 days after 
the 24-month deadline for deploying a technology that supports 
location-based routing for RTT communications. We do not require live 
call data reporting for RTT communications to 911.
    98. Under the one-time reporting requirement for live 911 calls, 
CMRS providers must collect and report on (1) the number and percentage 
of wireless 911 voice calls routed with device-based location 
information that meets the accuracy threshold we adopt (i.e., within a 
radius of 165 meters or less at a confidence level of at least 90%); 
(2) the number and percentage of wireless 911 voice calls routed with 
device-based location information that exceeds that threshold (i.e., 
within a radius larger than 165 meters at a confidence level of 90%); 
and (3) the number and percentage of wireless 911 voice calls routed by 
tower-based routing. We believe that this information will help us 
evaluate each CMRS provider's deployment of location-based routing. We 
also encourage but do not require CMRS providers to include the number 
of device-based location results being discarded as invalid in their 
reports filed with the FCC. To minimize the reporting burden on CMRS 
providers, we require them to collect and report on 911 routing methods 
for live 911 voice calls only once, only for the areas specified for 
live 911 call location data in Sec.  9.10(i)(3)(ii) of the rules,\131\ 
and only for a thirty-day period following specified compliance dates. 
As noted above, we do not require similar reporting for RTT 
communications to 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ CMRS providers providing service in any of the Test Cities 
or portions thereof must collect and report aggregate data on the 
location technologies used for live 911 calls in those areas. 47 CFR 
9.10(i)(3)(ii). Non-nationwide CMRS providers are required to report 
from alternative areas as specified in 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(ii)(D) and 
(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    99. We believe that these limited data collections strike an 
appropriate balance between the public safety community's interest in 
greater transparency with respect to compliance and our goal of 
limiting the burden of responding to mandatory information collections, 
particularly for small entities. These limited information collections 
will promote transparency by ensuring that the public has a clear 
understanding of timelines for providers' implementations of location-
based routing technology and the level of compliance with location-
based routing rules. Moreover, they will promote accountability by 
requiring CMRS providers to show steps they are taking to ensure that 
wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 are routed to 
the appropriate PSAP.
    100. Recurring Reporting Requirements. The Commission also sought 
comment on whether it should adopt recurring or ongoing reporting 
requirements. NASNA and COPUC support requiring CMRS providers to 
disclose on a recurring basis to the FCC how many 911 calls are routed 
by location-based routing and how many are routed using legacy E911 
call routing. NASNA and COPUC argue that ``[t]his will allow the 
Commission to determine if certain carriers are resorting to default 
routing more frequently than others, which may prompt an investigation 
to determine if those carriers are making sufficient efforts to fully 
implement LBR.'' RWA opposes recurring data collection and reporting 
requirements as ``extremely burdensome'' for small providers, although 
it suggests that the Commission could request performance data on a 
voluntary basis. We believe that the one-time certification and 
reporting requirements we adopt will be sufficient for providers to 
demonstrate location-based routing implementation without posing an 
undue burden for providers, particularly small entities. Therefore, we 
decline to adopt ongoing reporting requirements.
    101. Privacy and Security. The Electronic Privacy Information 
Center (EPIC) expresses concern about potential misuse of emergency 
location data and urges the Commission to clarify that the privacy and 
security requirements for dispatchable location and z-axis location 
data also apply to location-based routing data.\132\ EPIC also

[[Page 18509]]

urges the Commission to clarify the data use cases that fall within the 
scope of ``911 purposes'' and to allow the use of such data only for 
routing calls and dispatch assistance. In particular, EPIC urges the 
Commission ``to clarify that law enforcement cannot use 911 location 
data for investigative leads or for enforcement unrelated to the 
purpose of the 911 call.'' EPIC also asks the Commission to clarify 
that carriers are responsible for their third-party vendors' 
collection, use, and disclosure of device-based location data.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \132\ See Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking Comments at 6-7 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) (EPIC NPRM 
Comments). The Commission's data privacy and security requirements 
for dispatchable location and z-axis location information provide 
that prior to use of dispatchable location information or z-axis 
location information, respectively, to meet the location accuracy 
requirements, CMRS providers must certify that neither they nor any 
third party they rely on to obtain such location information will 
use such location information or associated data for any non-911 
purpose, except with prior express consent or as otherwise required 
by law. 47 CFR 9.10(i)(4)(iv) and (v). The certification must state 
that CMRS providers and any third party they rely on to obtain such 
location information will implement measures sufficient to safeguard 
the privacy and security of such location information. Id.
    \133\ EPIC NPRM Comments at 7. EPIC states that ``[t]he location 
data market is a multi-billion-dollar industry. Like many other 
companies that collect location data, carriers have sold their 
customers' information to data brokers who have then sold access to 
anyone willing to buy--from bounty hunters to the government. The 
disclosure and sale of location data has serious implications for 
equity because vulnerable people are most likely to be the targets 
of surveillance.'' Id. at 3 (footnotes omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    102. We agree that it is imperative for service providers to ensure 
the privacy and security of location-based routing information, and we 
adopt a rule clarifying that the Commission's existing rules on the 
privacy and security of dispatchable location and z-axis information 
apply to information used for location-based routing. In particular, we 
require CMRS providers to certify that neither they nor any third party 
they rely on to obtain location information or associated data used for 
compliance with the location-based routing requirements will use such 
information or associated data for any non-911 purpose, except with 
prior express consent or as otherwise required by law. The 
certification also must state that the CMRS providers and any third 
parties they rely on to obtain location information or associated data 
used for compliance with the location-based routing requirements have 
implemented measures sufficient to safeguard the privacy and security 
of such information.\134\ These requirements make clear that CMRS 
providers who work with third-party vendors in the context of location-
based routing are responsible for ensuring that those vendors take 
appropriate measures to address privacy and security concerns.\135\ The 
privacy and security certifications are due at the same time as the 
other location-based routing certifications (i.e., within 60 days after 
the compliance deadlines applicable to the CMRS providers under the 
location-based routing rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Under the definition we adopt, location information used 
for location-based routing may include, but is not limited to, 
device-based location information.
    \135\ Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket 
No. 07-114, Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 35 
FCC Rcd 7752, 7777, at para. 57 (2020), 85 FR 53234 (August 28, 
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    103. EPIC also asks the Commission to clarify how its privacy and 
security rules, including those governing using, disclosing, and 
permitting access to Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), 
apply to device-based location data.\136\ Section 222 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires CMRS providers, among 
others, to protect the confidentiality of location information and 
prohibits them from using, disclosing, or permitting access to location 
information without the customer's express prior authorization, but 
provides an exception for the provision of a customer's call location 
information to a PSAP or other emergency response authority in 
connection with a 911 call.\137\ To help remove uncertainty for CMRS 
providers, we clarify that the obligations that apply to dispatchable 
location data also apply to location information used for location-
based routing, including device-based location data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See EPIC NPRM Comments at 5-6. The Commission's privacy 
rules, including those governing the use, disclosure, and access to 
CPNI, are at 47 CFR 64.2001 through 64.2011.
    \137\ 47 U.S.C. 222(d)(4)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    104. We decline EPIC's request to clarify the definition of ``911 
purposes.'' We believe that the Commission's existing privacy 
protections for 911 location data are sufficiently clear, and that 
determining whether a particular use of location data is for ``911 
purposes'' is likely to be a fact-specific inquiry best addressed on a 
case-by-case basis as the need arises. We decline to address the issue 
of law enforcement's ability to use 911 location data for investigative 
or law enforcement purposes, as this is an area outside the 
Commission's regulatory authority. We also decline EPIC's request to 
require CMRS and covered text providers to delete location data as 
outside the scope of this proceeding, as the notice of proposed 
rulemaking did not propose or seek comment on requirements for data 
minimization. We recognize data minimization as an important tool to 
protect the privacy and security of customers' information, and we 
encourage providers not to retain 911 location routing data longer than 
is necessary to fulfill the 911 purpose of the data or comply with 
applicable law.
    105. Per-Call Disclosure Requirements. The Commission sought 
comment on whether to require CMRS providers to disclose to PSAPs or 
state or local 911 authorities the routing methodology used for each 
911 call, although the Commission declined to propose such a 
requirement. COPUC and BRETSA urge the Commission to require per-call 
disclosure. COPUC states that ``[n]ot knowing whether the call was 
routed using LBR technology or default E911 methodology, the PSAP will 
have to follow up on every misrouted call to determine the cause of the 
misroute.'' \138\ BRETSA states that routing methodology information 
can allow dispatchers to assess the likelihood that they need to 
transfer the call and the reliability of the caller location 
information. However, T-Mobile and NENA argue that such a requirement 
is unnecessary.\139\ T-Mobile asserts that the positioning technology 
used to route each call is not actionable for PSAPs and that in a full 
NG911 environment, positioning technology information will be available 
with each call. NENA similarly states that NG911 system elements 
already ``partly'' meet the need for per-call information on routing 
mechanisms and that additional standards development is under way and 
should meet this need ``in full.'' In light of the forthcoming 
development of NG911 standards that will support disclosure of per-call 
routing methodology, we agree with T-Mobile and NENA that any 
incremental benefit from requiring such disclosures at this time would 
not outweigh the potential costs of this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \138\ COPUC NPRM Comments at 7 (also stating that if a call 
``was routed using LBR and still was delivered to the wrong PSAP, 
that indicates the possibility of an error in the GIS [geographic 
information system] dataset being used by the CMRS provider to 
determine the proper destination for the 911 call'').
    \139\ AT&T NPRM Comments at 5; T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 8; T-
Mobile NPRM Reply at 5-6; NENA NPRM Comments at 6 (stating that 
standards under development make such disclosure requirements 
unnecessary, but also stating that ``[i]t is imperative that the 
positioning source for the 9-1-1 caller is provided with the 
call'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Additional Proposals

    106. Several commenters raised additional issues or proposals in 
response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. We discuss each of these 
issues or proposals in turn below.
    107. Role of Next Generation Core Services (NGCS) Providers. NENA 
and T-Mobile indicate that the proposals in the notice of proposed 
rulemaking

[[Page 18510]]

regarding routing obligations and ESInets may leave a regulatory gap 
with respect to routing functions performed by ESInet administrators 
and next generation core services (NGCS) providers.\140\ T-Mobile notes 
that once a carrier hands the 911 call over to the NGCS provider at the 
ESInet ingress point, the carrier cannot control how the call is 
routed, and the notice of proposed rulemaking ``does not contemplate 
that the NGCS provider is also required to use LBR when routing to the 
appropriate PSAP.'' T-Mobile urges the Commission to ensure that 
carriers do not ``bear the burden of noncompliance'' after the carrier 
routes the 911 call to ESInets. Because the Commission only considered 
requirements for CMRS and covered text providers in the notice of 
proposed rulemaking, we decline to consider the role of NGCS providers 
in routing at this time and defer to the NG911 transition proceeding in 
PS Docket No. 21-479 the consideration of NGCS providers' 
responsibilities with regard to location-based routing and any related 
liabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ NENA NPRM Comments at 11 (``Under the proposal to 
establish an ESInet as a termination point for location, there may 
exist a gap in regulatory coverage. There may be a need to apply 
regulatory coverage to ESInet providers to ensure that calls and 
location are delivered through the ESInet all the way to the 
PSAP.''); T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 7 (asserting that there is a gap 
in the NPRM with respect to routing obligations for calls delivered 
to an ESInet and that ``[t]his raises the question of where the 
burden of compliance rests if a call is misrouted in this 
scenario'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    108. 2019 Wireline Forbearance Memorandum Opinion and Order. We 
received a comment from Mr. Ronald R. Fenwick urging the Commission to 
revisit and revise a 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order in another 
proceeding which granted price cap incumbent Local Exchange Carriers 
(LECs) forbearance from legacy regulatory obligations. Mr. Fenwick 
asserts that the Memorandum Opinion and Order resulted in diminishing 
subscribers to traditional landline services, and that wireless 
customers are not properly apprised of the advantages of wireline 
service. We decline to revisit the 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 
which does not deal with wireless services and is therefore outside the 
scope of this proceeding.
    109. Calls and Texts Originating Outside the United States. We 
received a comment from staff of the Defense Information Systems Agency 
(DISA) asking the Commission to consider location-based routing for 911 
calls and texts originating outside the United States and its 
territories. This request raises legal and policy issues that are 
beyond the scope of this proceeding.
    110. Location-Based Routing for VoIP. We received a comment from 
DISA asking the Commission to apply location-based routing requirements 
to ``landline-based VoIP 9-1-1 calls coming from Ethernet wired end 
instruments and connecting to the Public Switch Telephone Network using 
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) trunks from an IP-PBX.'' We note that 
in the Next Generation 911 proceeding (PS Docket 21-479), the 
Commission proposed rules (NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) 
requiring interconnected VoIP providers to complete all translation 
necessary to deliver 911 calls, including associated location 
information, in the requested IP-based format to an ESInet or other 
designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered. We defer 
consideration of this issue to the Next Generation 911 proceeding.

E. Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion

    111. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission 
is engaged in a continuing effort to advance digital equity for 
all,\141\ 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.\142\ The notice of proposed 
rulemaking invited comment on equity-related considerations and 
benefits, if any, that may be associated with the proposals and issues 
under consideration. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on how 
its proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, 
inclusion, and accessibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ 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.
    \142\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15205-06, 
para. 59. 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 E.O. 13985, 86 FR 
7009, Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (Jan. 20, 
2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    112. Several parties submitted comments on these issues. NENA 
states that location-based routing should be deployed regardless of a 
jurisdiction's NG911 status and that ``[i]t would be inequitable to 
restrict the life-saving benefits of location-based routing'' only to 
those ``with the good fortune of having an emergency in a convenient 
location'' with NG911 capability. As discussed herein, we adopt rules 
that require CMRS providers to implement location-based routing on 
their IP-based networks for wireless 911 voice calls nationwide, 
regardless of whether a particular jurisdiction has NG911 capability. 
These rules will help to ensure that location-based routing is 
available for wireless 911 voice calls nationwide and regardless of the 
service provider the caller has chosen.
    113. NASNA notes that in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the 
Commission sought comment not just on equity-related considerations, 
but also ``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.'' NASNA believes that 
``these two issues are inextricably linked,'' and NASNA raises ``the 
issues facing our members in providing equal access to 911 services to 
all citizens through local NG911 systems.'' Pointing to the NG911 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking comment record as well, NASNA urges that 
``the equity-access consideration for 911 at this point in time should 
begin at the network level in which 911 calls themselves are 
transported.'' NASNA states, ``If all those calling or texting 911 do 
not have a consistent level of access to network functionality, we 
believe the gap in digital disparity in effective and reliable access 
to 911 across the country will widen all the more.'' Because NASNA's 
comments regarding equity and access are more closely related to the 
NG911 proceeding than the instant proceeding, we defer consideration of 
these points to the NG911 proceeding.
    114. COPUC advocates for applying the same implementation time 
frames for 911 texts that are being applied to wireless 911 voice calls 
(i.e., six months for nationwide CMRS providers and eighteen months for 
non-nationwide CMRS providers) as ``a matter of equity for 911 users 
that rely on text-to-911.'' \143\ As discussed herein, at this

[[Page 18511]]

time we decline to require location-based routing for text-to-911 
services other than RTT communications to 911 in the absence of 
technical standards for location-based routing for SMS. However, we 
reiterate our commitment to monitoring the development of standards, 
products, and other advances affecting location-based routing for SMS 
text-to-911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \143\ COPUC NPRM Comments at 8; see also NENA NPRM Reply at 9 
(concurring with NASNA's equity comments on supporting location-
based routing for text-to-911, but arguing that the Commission's 
rules ``should not back the market into adopting non-standardized 
technologies for a legacy platform'' and encouraging only voluntary 
deployment of location-based routing for ``interim'' text-to-911).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    115. EPIC states that government entities, carriers, and others 
have misused location data to target individuals and groups, and says 
that ``the lack of clear privacy and security safeguards would have a 
disproportionately negative impact on certain vulnerable groups.'' 
\144\ As discussed herein and consistent with certain of EPIC's 
requests, we adopt a requirement applying the Commission's existing 
rules on the privacy and security of dispatchable location and z-axis 
information to location-based routing information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ EPIC NPRM Comments at 1; see id. at 2, 8 (noting that 
Microsoft also raised similar privacy and security concerns in 
earlier comments in the instant proceeding).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    116. In sum, we acknowledge the importance of the continuing effort 
to advance digital equity for all. We believe that the rules we adopt, 
requiring CMRS providers to implement location-based routing on their 
IP-based networks for wireless 911 voice calls nationwide and requiring 
CMRS providers to implement location-based routing where they deploy 
RTT capabilities, will help to advance those goals.

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

    117. As we discuss below, the implementation of location-based 
routing has potential annual benefits of over $173 billion in terms of 
reduced mortality and reduced call transfer burdens to PSAPs. We 
determine that the rules we adopt, which will affect CMRS providers, 
will result in an industry-wide compliance cost of $215 million.
1. Benefits of Location-Based Routing
    118. We believe that the Commission's benefit assessment from the 
notice of proposed rulemaking remains valid. The Commission estimated 
that implementation of location-based routing would save 13,837 lives 
annually. While the Commission did not attempt to place a value on 
human life, it relied on the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) 
valuation of a statistical life (VSL) of $11.8 million from base year 
2021.\145\ The Commission estimated that the benefit of reduced 
mortality would be 13,837 x $11.8 million or approximately $163 
billion, but stated that this estimate was conservative.\146\ We 
received no comments on the estimated reduced mortality benefit. Using 
the latest VSL of $12.5 million for base year 2022,\147\ our new 
estimate of reduced mortality benefit is approximately $173 billion for 
wireless voice calls to 911. At this time, we have no data on the 
number of RTT communications to 911 to estimate a benefit from this 
service,\148\ but we anticipate that as RTT usage becomes more 
widespread, significant reduced mortality benefits will accrue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15207-08, 
para. 62 & n.162 (citing U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Departmental Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic 
Analysis (Mar. 4, 2022) (later updated May 1, 2023), https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis).
    \146\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15207-08, 
para. 62 (stating that the estimate does not include ``the value of 
reduced human suffering and property destruction occurring due to a 
delayed arrival of first responders'' or ``the benefits of location-
based routing for text messages'').
    \147\ See U.S. Department of Transportation, Departmental 
Guidance on Valuation of a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis 
(effective May 1, 2023), https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
    \148\ Respondents reported a combined total of 824,609 texts to 
911 in 2022. Fifteenth Annual 911 Fee Report at 12-13, para. 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    119. The Commission sought specificity on the time and cost savings 
to PSAPs and state and local 911 authorities under the proposed rules. 
While we received no specific figures in the record, BRETSA agrees that 
misrouting of 911 calls ties up resources at the PSAP to which the call 
was misrouted and delays receipt of the call at the PSAP that can 
dispatch first responders, while T-Mobile states that call transfers 
can delay emergency response and result in the loss of vital incident 
information, including caller location. The Commission estimated that 
with implementation of location-based routing, ``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.'' \149\ This would result in a time 
savings of 22,800 hours annually for PSAPs, although NENA estimates 
that call transfers consume over 200,000 hours per year of excess 911 
professional labor. We estimate the mean wage of 911 call operators to 
be $25.04 per hour,\150\ which leads to an estimated total labor cost 
of $36.31 per hour after accounting for benefits.\151\ We estimate that 
PSAPs would realize an annual savings benefit range of approximately 
$0.8 million to $74.3 million per year for wireless 911 voice 
calls.\152\ We do not have sufficient data to estimate such a benefit 
for RTT, though we similarly anticipate that time and cost savings 
benefits for PSAPs will accrue for RTT as usage grows.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15206-07, 
para. 61 n.161. 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 (last visited Jan. 17, 
2024). 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 (Laura French), National Association 
of State EMS Officials releases stats on local agencies, 911 Calls 
(Apr. 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. The Commission estimated 
that 12% of the wireless calls for dispatch (or 2,736,000 calls) 
would be misrouted. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 
15206-07, para. 61 n.161 (citing ATIS-0500039 at 4). The Commission 
also estimated that location-based routing with a horizontal 
uncertainty value of 300 meters would resolve approximately 50% of 
these misroutes. Id. (citing ATIS-0500039 at 13). Accordingly, the 
Commission estimated 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. Id.
    \150\ The mean wage for Public Safety Telecommunicators in May 
2022 was $23.74 per hour. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 
Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2022, 43-5031 Public Safety 
Telecommunicators (Apr. 25, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes435031.htm. The average hourly private wage increased by 5.5% 
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics between May 2022 and 
August 2023, so to correct for inflation we increase the wage 
estimate by 5.5% to $25.04 per hour. Federal Reserve Bank of St. 
Louis, Average Hourly Earnings of All Employees, Total Private 
(CES0500000003), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CES0500000003 
(last visited Jan. 17, 2024) (Inflation Adjustment).
    \151\ To account for benefits, we mark up wages by 45%, which 
results in total hourly compensation of $25.04 x 145% = $36.31. 
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of June 2023, 
civilian wages and salaries averaged $29.86/hour and benefits 
averaged $13.39/hour. Total compensation therefore averaged $29.86 + 
$13.39, rounded to $43.26. See Press Release, Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--June 2023 
(Sept. 12, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. 
Using these figures, benefits constitute a markup of $13.39/$29.86 ~ 
45%.
    \152\ PSAPs would realize an annual savings benefit of 1,368,000 
calls x 1 minute (0.0166 hours) x $36.31, or over $828,000 per year. 
Using NENA's estimate, PSAPs would realize a savings benefit of 
200,000 hours x $36.31, or approximately $7.3 million per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Costs of Implementation
    120. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission provided 
separate cost estimates for materials and labor. The Commission sought 
comment

[[Page 18512]]

on, inter alia, hardware, software, services, GIS, and testing; 
provider costs and timelines necessary to work with OS-based location 
providers; costs for providers to implement the required software, 
hardware, and service upgrades to comply with proposed rules; and how 
many work-hours and what kind of workers would be required; and planned 
or expended costs by providers that have implemented or plan to 
implement location-based routing. RWA and BRETSA state that non-
nationwide and smaller carriers have not determined actual costs. We 
did not receive specific cost information to better inform the 
Commission's cost assessments. Commenters provided information about 
network elements, tasks, and burdens that would factor into costs; 
however, commenters generally discussed such factors in the context of 
seeking more time to comply rather than cost aspects.\153\ RWA calls 
for additional time and Federal funding to support carrier 
implementation of location-based routing and alleges that RWA members 
will not be able to comply with an unfunded mandate. As discussed 
herein, we are increasing the timelines for non-nationwide CMRS 
providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice 
calls and RTT communications, and deferring consideration of location-
based routing requirements for texts to 911 and requirements to deliver 
911 calls and texts in IP-based format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ For example, CCA states that location-based routing 
implementation will be economically and practically infeasible in 
the proposed eighteen-month timeline for non-nationwide carriers, 
noting that a nationwide carrier took four years. CCA NPRM Comments 
at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    121. Material Costs. The Commission tentatively concluded that CMRS 
providers implement location-based routing at the PSAP level, while 
CMRS providers incur material costs on a per-PSAP basis. The Commission 
estimated that the average material cost of software features or 
component upgrades for each CMRS provider would be $10,000 per PSAP as 
an upper bound, with an ``implied material cost upper bound [of] 
approximately $106 million.'' \154\ We received no comments to inform 
the Commission's material cost estimate for CMRS providers to deploy 
location-based routing to PSAPs they serve. However, commenters 
identified core network elements necessary to implement location-based 
routing. Intrado states that carriers will need to implement geospatial 
routing capable Gateway Mobile Location Centers (GMLCs) so that routing 
decisions will occur within their networks.\155\ CCA states that 
``[i]ncorporating location-based routing into the wireless ecosystem . 
. . requires a carefully orchestrated series of changes that affects 
the wireless carriers' device inventory, transport networks, and 
several aspects of the core network systems. These potentially include 
access and mobility management, data authentication, geospatial data 
repository functions, session management, and network security.'' CCA 
further states that carriers will need to ``implement the array of 
device upgrades and non-standard, proprietary network solutions needed 
for location-based routing.'' RWA describes hardware and software 
modifications needed to implement location-based routing as a ``massive 
expense,'' and notes that member budgets for capital expenses are 
``already pared close to the bone.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15210-11, 
para. 71. The Commission assumed no material costs for AT&T because 
it has already deployed location-based routing to its network. Id. 
at 15210, para. 71. The Commission stated (at the time of the notice 
of proposed rulemaking) that it is unclear the extent to which 
Verizon plans to implement location-based routing, and did not 
estimate Verizon's material costs. Id. at 15210-11, para. 71. The 
Commission found that T-Mobile has yet to implement location-based 
routing to 4,896 PSAPs, while non-nationwide CMRS providers 
collectively must upgrade 5,728 PSAPs, with any PSAP receiving 
service from usually one non-nationwide CMRS provider along with the 
nationwide CMRS providers. Id. at 15211, para. 71. The Commission 
found that T-Mobile and non-nationwide CMRS providers need to 
implement location-based routing for 10,624 PSAPs (4,896 + 5,728), 
at $10,000 per PSAP, for a cost of approximately $106 million. Id.
    \155\ Intrado NPRM Comments at 3. NENA defines a GMLC as ``the 
point of interface between the GSM [Global Standard for Mobile 
Communications] wireless network and the Emergency Services Network. 
The GMLC retrieves, forwards, stores and controls position data 
associated with wireless callers. This includes the processing of 
location requests and updates (rebids).'' NENA, GMLC/MLC (Gateway 
Mobile Location Center) (Sept. 13, 2021), https://kb.nena.org/wiki/GMLC/MLC_(Gateway_Mobile_Location_Center.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    122. We agree with commenters that providers have certain material 
costs associated with the network core that are not necessarily 
dependent on the number of PSAPs they serve. We clarify, however, that 
the material costs that we calculated on a per-PSAP basis in the notice 
of proposed rulemaking also include other costs that are not 
necessarily incurred at the PSAP. We agree that implementation costs of 
upgrading equipment or software can, for instance, involve changes to 
the network core. We also note that such costs vary with the size of 
the network that remains to be converted to location-based routing, 
especially if any equipment needs to be updated. We therefore chose the 
per-PSAP basis because we find it a convenient proxy of remaining 
network area. T-Mobile and Verizon report partial implementation of 
location-based routing based on the number of PSAPs. For providers with 
no known implementation, the number of their covered PSAPs serves as a 
proxy for the size of their entire network. We therefore continue to 
use the per-PSAP basis as a proxy for network size in our current 
material costs calculations. We note, additionally, that even if the 
per-PSAP cost that we use below were to double, the aggregate expected 
costs of our rules would fall well below the expected benefits.
    123. The latest NENA data indicate that 5,748 PSAPs operate in the 
United States. AT&T has already deployed location-based routing 
nationwide, so our rules impose no additional material costs for AT&T. 
The Commission did not provide an estimate of T-Mobile's material costs 
in the notice of proposed rulemaking. As of December 2023, T-Mobile 
states that it has fully implemented location-based routing for 1,591 
PSAPs, with an additional 596 PSAPs in progress. Thus, T-Mobile must 
implement location-based routing to 3,561 remaining PSAPs. The 
Commission did not provide an estimate of Verizon's material costs in 
the notice of proposed rulemaking, but Verizon states that it has 
``fully implemented LBR for 414 PSAPs; implementation is in progress 
for an additional 277 PSAPs.'' Thus, the rules would impose no 
additional material costs for existing and planned deployments to 
Verizon for 691 PSAPs, which leaves 5,057 PSAPs remaining for Verizon 
to implement location-based routing. The remaining CMRS providers 
collectively must upgrade the full national set of 5,748 PSAPs, 
assuming no more than one remaining CMRS provider serving a particular 
PSAP.\156\ Using the Commission's $10,000 per PSAP upper bound in the 
notice of proposed rulemaking, we estimate that CMRS providers 
collectively need to deploy location-based routing to a total of 14,366 
PSAPs,\157\ resulting in the

[[Page 18513]]

implied material cost of approximately $143.7 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15211, 
para. 71 (citing FCC, Mobile Deployment Form 477 Data (Jul. 29, 
2022), https://www.fcc.gov/mobile-deployment-form-477-data, and 
stating that ``[s]taff 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'').
    \157\ We count 3,561 PSAPs remaining for T-Mobile, 5,057 PSAPs 
remaining for Verizon, and 5,748 PSAPs for the CMRS providers that 
have not yet begun to implement location-based routing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    124. Labor Costs. The Commission estimated that the labor cost per 
CMRS provider is $366,600.\158\ The Commission explicitly mentioned the 
tasks of installing equipment and running trials as part of this labor. 
Commenters described other tasks such as internal planning, outreach, 
and testing. Since these tasks do not involve materials but rather 
involve work burdens, we categorize them as labor costs for the purpose 
of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15211-12, 
para. 72 (estimating that the labor cost of employing software 
workers would be $35.25 per hour; that the 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 1,040 hours per worker; that 
ten simultaneous workers at a time on average is a generous upper 
bound, resulting in 10,400 labor hours per CMRS provider; and that 
the labor cost per CMRS provider is $366,600).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    125. Labor Costs (i): Internal Planning. CCA described CMRS 
providers' internal planning tasks prior to implementation of location-
based routing, which we categorize under labor. CCA states that 
carriers will need to vet and select potentially appropriate technical 
location-based routing solutions, budget for related required 
procurements, and make related plans to allocate and prioritize 
necessary resources to the projects.\159\ CCA states that ``[t]he 
proposed rule would require carriers with IP-based networks to make 
major strategic decisions for their wireless networks'' and ``stand up 
project teams [comprised] of senior engineers and business leaders with 
specialized experience in network operations to assess the needs of the 
marketplace and review the state of technology development globally, 
nationally, and with respect to their individual network 
technologies.'' CCA states that carriers will need to make ``a candid 
assessment of existing network resources, the purposeful allocation of 
limited technical and business resources, and a successful matching of 
technology within the market to the unique features of that carrier's 
network systems and status within the product evolution lifecycle'' and 
conduct ``intensive'' decision making.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ CCA NPRM Reply at 5. The planning costs CCA cites include 
``identifying acceptance of the technical implementation.'' CCA NPRM 
Comments at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    126. Labor Costs (ii): Outreach. Next, CCA described providers' 
outreach tasks, such as collaboration with network and handset vendors; 
and work with device makers, technology vendors, and software service 
providers. However, CCA notes that non-nationwide CMRS providers face 
challenges attracting attention and assistance from global and national 
vendors who are more responsive to larger clients.
    127. Labor Costs (iii): Deployment. Commenters provided few details 
of labor tasks associated with deployment, including equipment and 
device installation and upgrades.
    128. Labor Costs (iv): Testing. Commenters described CMRS 
providers' testing tasks involved with location-based routing 
implementation. RWA states that providers will need to ``test, modify, 
[and] perfect'' location-based routing solutions. CCA states that AT&T 
performed extensive lab testing, performance testing, trials at PSAPs, 
evaluation of results with its vendor Intrado, and additional PSAP 
testing. CCA states that AT&T ``confirm[ed] the metrics, obtain[ed] 
feedback from the PSAPs, and implement[ed] several proprietary 
changes.''
    129. While the notice of proposed rulemaking explicitly mentioned 
the tasks of installing equipment and running trials as part of its 
labor calculation, the estimate was not meant to be solely inclusive of 
all tasks. According to Commission staff experience with typical 
network upgrades, team members will often work on tasks from multiple 
of the above categories of internal planning, outreach, deployment, and 
testing. The notice of proposed rulemaking calculation assumes a large 
team of ten workers over a period of six months to account for the 
various phases of labor and shifting tasks amongst workers.
    130. Absent more specific data in the record on each task category, 
we rely on the Commission's labor cost estimation methodology per CMRS 
provider.\160\ To better reflect the wide array of complex tasks, 
including internal network planning, that would need to be undertaken 
by highly skilled and senior staff, we will assume a higher wage for 
the workers than that assumed in the notice of proposed rulemaking 
because some of the tasks involved will have to be undertaken by senior 
staff. To the extent that less senior staff would be necessary to 
complete any of these tasks, we view the wage that we use as 
conservatively high. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics 75th 
percentile wage for network engineers, we assume worker compensation to 
be $81.29 per hour.\161\ Marking up hourly compensation by 45% to 
account for benefits results in a total hourly compensation estimate of 
$117.87. Assuming that work is completed over 26 work-weeks of five, 8 
work-hour days, and a team of 10, the aggregate upper bound of work-
hours would be 10,400 and the total cost of those work-hours would be 
$1,225,853. While non-nationwide CMRS providers will have 24 months 
rather than six to implement location-based routing, smaller CMRS 
providers have constraints on the number of staff they can assign to 
any one project. In addition, while non-nationwide CMRS providers may 
take longer to implement location-based routing, assigning the same 
amount of work-time as nationwide CMRS providers represents both the 
spreading out of tasks over a longer period and an overestimate since 
non-nationwide CMRS providers have much smaller networks. Given that 
AT&T has already implemented location-based routing, we estimate the 
labor cost associated with implementation for the networks for the 56 
remaining providers, plus T-Mobile and Verizon, to be $71.1 million 
([ap] $1,225,853 x 58 providers = $71,099,474).\162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15211-12, 
para. 72 (estimating that the labor cost of employing software 
workers would be $35.25 per hour; that the 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 1,040 hours per worker; that 
ten simultaneous workers at a time on average is a generous upper 
bound, resulting in 10,400 labor hours per CMRS provider; and that 
the labor cost per CMRS provider is $366,600).
    \161\ The Bureau of Labor Statistics considers the title 
``computer network architect'' to be synonymous with ``network 
engineer.'' U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Computer Network 
Architects: What Computer Network Architects Do (Sept. 12, 2023), 
https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-network-architects.htm#tab-2. To approximate the wages of 
senior network engineers, we use the 75th percentile of the hourly 
wage of computer network architects in May 2022, $77.06 per hour. 
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, 
May 2022, 15-1241 Computer Network Architects (Apr. 25, 2023), 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes151241.htm. After adjusting for 
wage inflation to August 2023, the wage increases to $81.29 per 
hour. See Inflation Adjustment.
    \162\ To the extent that T-Mobile and Verizon have already begun 
implementing location-based routing, this cost may be an 
overestimate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    131. In addition to network costs, several commenters indicate that 
public safety-grade GIS data or shapefiles that precisely define PSAP 
boundaries should be developed or provided, though they differ on which 
parties should be responsible.\163\ We agree with

[[Page 18514]]

NENA that it is the responsibility of providers to maintain their own 
jurisdictional maps. Accordingly, we assign the cost of maps to the 
providers. We anticipate that map costs will largely be labor to update 
already existing maps. To come up with a cost ceiling, we assume that 
every provider will need to update its maps, even though many providers 
likely have up-to-date maps. We anticipate that updating the map will 
only entail labor costs for mapping specialists to update maps. In the 
Supporting Document of Study Area Boundary Data Reporting in Esri 
Shapefile Format, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
estimates that it takes an average of 26 hours for a data scientist to 
modify a shapefile.\164\ We believe that 26 hours would be an upper 
bound of the time required for a party to update its maps. Given that 
the average wage rate is $60.44/hour for data scientists in the 
telecommunications industry,\165\ with a 45% markup for benefits, we 
arrive at $87.63 as the hourly compensation rate for a data scientist. 
We estimate an upper bound for the cost of map updating to be 
approximately $134,000 ([ap] $87.63 per hour x 26 hours x 59 providers 
= $134,424.42).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ Intrado NPRM Comments at 3 (suggesting carriers and the 
PSAPs should develop GIS data); BRETSA NPRM Reply at ii (suggesting 
state and/or local 911 authorities should develop GIS data); T-
Mobile NPRM Comments at 6 (suggesting that PSAPs should provide 
shapefiles, though some PSAPs may not want to provide shapefiles 
because they consider such information confidential); see also CCOA 
NPRM Reply at 3; CTIA NPRM Reply at 3, 6-7 (agreeing with T-Mobile 
regarding the need for accurate shapefiles of PSAP boundaries).
    \164\ See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, 2022 
Study Area Boundary Data Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format, DA 12-
1777 and DA 13-282, Supporting Statement--OMB Control No. 3060-1181, 
at 5, para. 12 (Feb. 15, 2022), https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202202-3060-009; see also Wireless Emergency 
Alerts; Amendments to Part 11 of the Commission's Rules Regarding 
the Emergency Alert System, PS Docket Nos. 15-91 and 15-94, Third 
Report and Order, FCC 23-88, at 37, para. 66 (Oct. 20, 2023).
    \165\ The mean hourly wage for data scientists in the 
telecommunications industry in May 2022 is $57.29. U.S. Bureau of 
Labor Statistics, May 2022 National Industry-Specific Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates NAICS 517000--Telecommunications (Apr. 
25, 2023), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_517000.htm. After 
adjusting for wage inflation to August 2023, the wage increases to 
$60.44 per hour. See Inflation Adjustment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    132. In addition, the one-time certification of compliance with our 
requirements together with the submission of data on call percentages 
by routing methods will impose a one-time cost on CMRS providers. As 
this required information should be available to each provider 
internally, we anticipate work to compile this information to take no 
longer than a week of five business days. We believe that one network 
engineer would be sufficient to complete this task in this time frame, 
resulting in a total provider cost of 40 work-hours. Assuming the same 
hourly labor cost of network engineers as in the previous cost estimate 
for network implementation, the total cost of reporting is $280,000 
([ap] $117.87 per hour x 40 hours x 59 providers = $278,173.20).
    133. The Commission sought comment on costs to state and local 911 
authorities. Intrado and APCO state that PSAPs will not need to make 
changes to their networks or call handling systems. We agree. Likewise, 
because we find that providers must maintain their own jurisdictional 
maps, we do not recognize any costs for state and local 911 authorities 
and PSAPs.
    134. Because we are adopting location-based routing requirements 
for RTT, we also consider the costs for CMRS providers. Given that CMRS 
providers process and route RTT communications similarly to voice 
calls, we assume that CMRS providers' material and labor costs to 
deploy location-based routing for RTT are included in our cost 
estimates above. As part of this analysis, we note that as of the 
release date of the Report and Order, we are aware of only a small 
number of PSAPs that are receiving RTT communications.
    135. In sum, we estimate upper bounds of the costs that CMRS 
providers will bear to be material costs of $143.7 million, network 
implementation costs of $71.1 million, GIS costs of $134,000, and 
certification costs of $280,000. Altogether, the upper bound of costs 
is approximately $215 million. However, we underscore that this cost is 
far outweighed by the benefits of over $173 billion in terms of reduced 
mortality and call transfer time eliminated.

II. Procedural Matters

    136. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA),\166\ requires that an agency prepare a 
regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, 
unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.'' \167\ Accordingly, we have prepared a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule 
changes contained in this document and the Report and Order on small 
entities. The FRFA is set forth below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See 5 U.S.C. 604. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The RFA was 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996 (SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
    \167\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    137. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. This document 
contains new information collection requirements subject to the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under 
section 3507(d) of the PRA.\168\ OMB, the general public, and other 
Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new information 
collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we 
note that, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002,\169\ we previously sought, but did not receive, specific comment 
on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection 
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The 
Commission does not believe that the new information collection 
requirements in Sec.  9.10(s)(4) and (5) will be unduly burdensome on 
small businesses. We describe impacts that might affect small 
businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25 
employees, in the FRFA below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ 44 U.S.C. 3507(d).
    \169\ Public Law 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (2002) (codified at 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    138. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was 
incorporated in the NPRM adopted in December 2022. The Commission 
sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including 
comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

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

    139. Technical limitations of legacy Enhanced 911 (E911) routing 
can result in a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) provider routing 
a wireless 911 call to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) other 
than the one designated by the relevant state or local 911 authority to 
receive calls from the actual location of the caller. Misroutes can 
occur for several reasons, including when more than one PSAP is within 
the coverage area of a cell site or sector. Such legacy tower-based 
routing results in approximately 12% of wireless 911 calls arriving at 
the incorrect PSAP for the caller's location. When a 911 call is 
misrouted, the answering telecommunicator must transfer the call to the 
PSAP that has jurisdiction to

[[Page 18515]]

dispatch aid to the 911 caller's location, resulting in confusion and 
an estimated delay of a minute or more in dispatch and response. This 
delay can have deadly consequences. In addition, misroutes consume time 
and resources for both the transferring PSAP and the receiving PSAP. 
One national public safety organization estimates that these types of 
call transfers consume over 200,000 hours per year of excess 911 
professional labor.
    140. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules and 
procedures to require CMRS providers to implement location-based 
routing (LBR) for wireless 911 voice calls and real-time text (RTT) 
communications to 911 nationwide. With location-based routing as 
implemented under the Commission's rules, CMRS providers will use 
precise location information to route wireless 911 voice calls and RTT 
communications to 911 to the appropriate public safety answering point. 
For the millions of individuals seeking emergency assistance each year 
by wireless 911 voice call or RTT communication to 911, improving 
routing for these services will reduce emergency response time and save 
lives.
    141. To facilitate the implementation of location-based routing for 
wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911, the Commission 
took the following actions:
     The Commission required CMRS providers to deploy location-
based routing technology for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT 
communications to 911 on their internet Protocol (IP)-based networks 
(i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based networks). 
The Commission also required CMRS providers to use location-based 
routing to route wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 
originating on their IP-based networks when location information meets 
certain thresholds for accuracy and timeliness.
     The Commission required CMRS providers to use location-
based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 
911 when caller location information available to the CMRS provider's 
network at time of routing is ascertainable within a radius of 165 
meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. In the absence of these 
conditions, CMRS providers must use alternative routing methods based 
on ``best available'' location information, which may include but is 
not limited to device-based or tower-based location information.
     The Commission adopted the proposed six-month timeline for 
nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for 
wireless 911 voice calls and provided twenty-four months for 
implementation by non-nationwide CMRS providers. In addition, the 
Commission provided 24 months for all CMRS providers to implement 
location-based routing for RTT communications to 911.
     The Commission required CMRS providers within 60 days of 
the applicable compliance deadlines to certify and submit evidence of 
compliance with location-based routing requirements and to certify the 
privacy of location information used for location-based routing. At 
that time, CMRS providers also must submit one-time live call data 
reporting specifying routing methodologies for calls in live call 
areas.
     The Commission deferred consideration of proposals in the 
NPRM to require CMRS providers and covered text providers to implement 
location-based routing for Short Message Service (SMS) texts to 911.
     The Commission deferred consideration of proposals and 
issues raised in the NPRM concerning IP-formatted delivery of wireless 
911 voice calls, texts, and associated routing information, for 
consideration in the Commission's pending Next Generation 911 (NG911) 
Transition docket (PS Docket No. 21-479, Facilitating Implementation of 
Next Generation 911 Services).

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

    142. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the 
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    143. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not 
file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

    144. 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 rules 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.
    145. 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 analysis, according to data from the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) 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 33.2 million businesses.
    146. 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. 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.
    147. 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 indicate there were 
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts 
with

[[Page 18516]]

enrollment populations of less than 50,000. 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.''

IV. Telecommunications Service Providers

A. Wireless Telecommunications Providers

    148. Pursuant to 47 CFR 9.10(a), the Commission's 911 service 
requirements are only applicable to CMRS providers, excluding mobile 
satellite service (MSS) 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.
    149. 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.
    150. 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 internet service providers (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. Based on this data, the Commission estimates 
that the majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms can be 
considered small.
    151. 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 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. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    152. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were 
approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. 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.
    153. 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.
    154. 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. 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 that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated 
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data 
in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 
2021, there were 3,378 providers that reported they were competitive 
local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 3,230 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.
    155. 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. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers 
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 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.
    156. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband 
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses

[[Page 18517]]

services in the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry 
with an 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. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission 
estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be 
considered small.
    157. Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were 
approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. 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 three years. 
Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS 
licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
    158. 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.
    159. 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 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. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
    160. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 4,211 active Narrowband PCS licenses. 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.
    161. 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.
    162. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on 
several ultra high frequency (UHF) television broadcast channels that 
are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states 
bordering the Gulf of Mexico. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with an 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. 
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. 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.
    163. 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, Global Positioning System (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. Thus, 
under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can 
be considered small.
    164. 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 18518]]

(BETRS). Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the 
closest applicable industry with an 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. 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. 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.
    165. 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. 
Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    166. 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.
    167. 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.
    168. 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. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 
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.
    169. 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. Additionally, based on Commission 
data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 
31, 2021, there were 331 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 255 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.
    170. 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 an 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. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
    171. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The 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.
    172. 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

[[Page 18519]]

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.
    173. 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 frequency division 
duplex (FDD)- and time division duplex (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 an 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. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates 
that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    174. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. 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.
    175. 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.
    176. 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. 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest 
industry with an 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. 
Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    177. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. 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.
    178. 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.
    179. Wireless Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have 
developed a small business size standard specifically for Wireless 
Resellers. The closest industry with an 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. Thus, for this industry under the SBA small

[[Page 18520]]

business size standard, the majority of providers can be considered 
small entities.

B. Equipment Manufacturers

    180. 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. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the 
majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.
    181. 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. Thus, under the SBA size 
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.

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

    182. The rules adopted to implement location-based routing for 
wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 will impose new 
or additional reporting, recordkeeping, and/or other compliance 
obligations on small entities. Small and other CMRS providers are 
required to certify their compliance with the applicable location-based 
routing requirements, and inform the Commission of the specific network 
architecture, systems, and location validation procedures used to 
comply with the location-based routing requirements. More specifically, 
the adopted rules require small and other CMRS providers, within 60 
days after their respective deadlines, to deploy location-based routing 
on their IP-based networks, and submit a one-time certification with 
substantiating evidence of compliance with location-based routing 
requirements applicable to them as of the deadline. As part of the 
certification, small and other CMRS providers must: (i) substantiate 
compliance by identifying specific network architecture, systems, 
location validation, and procedures used to comply with the location-
based routing rules; (ii) collect and report aggregate information on 
the routing technologies for all live wireless 911 voice calls in the 
locations specified for live 911 call location data under the 
Commission's rule at 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(ii); and (iii) certify that 
location information used for location-based routing by service 
providers and third parties will only be used for valid 911 purposes. 
Small and other CMRS providers can request confidential treatment of 
any information they submit in accordance with the Commission's 
confidentiality rules.
    183. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comments on the proposals 
in this proceeding and requested cost and benefit information to help 
the Commission identify and evaluate relevant matters for small 
entities. Although several comments filed in response to the NPRM 
discussed categories of potential expenses to comply with location-
based routing requirements, and any related reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, with some asserting that there would be a greater burden 
on smaller providers, these comments and the record as a whole do not 
contain detailed information on costs required for either small or 
large entities. In fact, the Rural Wireless Association (RWA) and the 
Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA) 
expressly indicated that neither non-nationwide nor small carriers have 
determined their implementation costs. Moreover, while stating that 
``[t]he $366,600 figure referenced in the NPRM may be a conservative 
estimate,'' RWA did not provide an alternative to the Commission's 
estimate and noted that to date, RWA members have not received any 
specific vendor estimates regarding their actual cost of compliance.
    184. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed an ``upper bound'' 
estimate for labor costs of $366,600 per CMRS provider, and for 
material costs such as software features or component upgrades for each 
CMRS provider, of $10,000 per PSAP. In response to the comments we 
received, we clarify that material costs estimated in the NPRM are not 
limited to those incurred at the PSAP, but also in the network core, 
and that the per PSAP calculation is a proxy for the size of the 
network that remains to be converted to location-based routing. Using 
the Commission's methodology in the NPRM, we estimate that CMRS 
providers collectively need to deploy location-based routing to a total 
of 14,366 PSAPs, resulting in the implied material cost of 
approximately $143.7 million.
    185. Our total labor costs analysis added internal planning, 
outreach, and testing to the costs for equipment installation and 
conducting trials the Commission proposed and discussed in the NPRM. To 
better reflect the wide array of complex tasks that will be undertaken 
with highly skilled and senior staff, we will assume a higher wage for 
the workers than that assumed in the NPRM because some of the tasks 
involved will have to be undertaken by senior staff. Using the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics 75th percentile wage for network engineers, we 
assume worker compensation to be $81.29 per hour. Marking up hourly 
compensation by 45% to account for benefits results in a total hourly 
compensation estimate of $117.87. Assuming that work is completed over 
26 work-weeks of five, 8 work-hour days, and a team of 10, the 
aggregate upper bound of work-hours would 10,400 and the total cost of 
those work-hours would be $1,225,853. While non-nationwide CMRS 
providers will have 24 months rather than six to implement location-
based routing, smaller CMRS providers have constraints on the number of 
staff they can assign to any one project. In addition, while non-
nationwide CMRS providers may take longer to implement location-based 
routing, assigning the same amount of work-time as nationwide CMRS 
providers represents both the spreading out of tasks over a longer 
period and an overestimate since non-nationwide CMRS providers have 
much smaller networks. Given that AT&T has already implemented 
location-based routing, we estimate the labor cost associated with 
implementation for network for the 56 remaining providers, plus T-
Mobile and Verizon, to be $71 million ([ap] $1,225,853 x 58 providers = 
$71,099,474).
    186. In addition to network costs, several commenters indicate that 
public safety-grade GIS data or shapefiles that precisely define PSAP 
boundaries should be developed or provided, though they differ on which 
parties should be responsible. We agree with

[[Page 18521]]

NENA that it is the responsibility of providers to maintain their own 
jurisdictional maps. Accordingly, we assign the cost of maps to the 
providers. We anticipate that map costs will largely be labor to update 
already existing maps. To come up with a cost ceiling, we assume that 
every provider will need to update its maps, even though many providers 
likely have up-to-date maps. We anticipate that updating the map will 
only entail labor costs for mapping specialists to update maps. In the 
Supporting Document of Study Area Boundary Data Reporting in Esri 
Shapefile Format, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
estimates that it takes an average of 26 hours for a data scientist to 
modify a shapefile. We believe that 26 hours would be an upper bound of 
the time required for a party to update its maps. Given that the 
average wage rate is $60.44/hour for data scientists in the 
telecommunications industry, with a 45% markup for benefits, we arrive 
at $87.63 as the hourly compensation rate for a data scientist. We 
estimate an upper bound for the cost of map updating to be 
approximately $134,000 ([ap] $87.63 per hour x 26 hours x 59 providers 
= $134,424.42).
    187. In addition, the one-time certification of compliance with our 
requirements together with the submission of data on call percentages 
by routing methods will impose a one-time cost on CMRS providers. As 
this required information should be available to each provider 
internally, we anticipate work to compile this information to take no 
longer than a week of five business days. We believe that one network 
engineer would be sufficient to complete this task in this time frame, 
resulting in a total provider cost of 40 work-hours. Assuming the same 
hourly labor cost of network engineers as in the previous cost estimate 
for network implementation, the total cost of reporting is $280,000 
([ap] $117.87 per hour x 40 hours x 59 providers = $278,173.20).
    188. Because we are adopting location-based routing requirements 
for RTT communications to 911, we also consider the costs for CMRS 
providers. Given that CMRS providers process and route RTT 
communications to 911 similarly to voice calls, we assume that CMRS 
providers' material and labor costs to deploy location-based routing 
for RTT are included in our cost estimates above. As part of this 
analysis, we note that as of the release date of the Report and Order, 
we are aware of only a small number of PSAPs that are receiving RTT 
communications.
    189. In sum, we estimate upper bounds of the costs that CMRS 
providers will bear to be material costs of $143.7 million, network 
implementation costs of $71.1 million, GIS costs of $134,000, and 
certification costs of $280,000. Altogether, the upper bound of costs 
is approximately $215 million. We note that the three major CMRS 
providers (AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon) have already implemented 
location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls nationwide, or are 
in the process of implementing it. Although some commenters argue that 
this progress by three major carriers will not necessarily translate 
into reduced costs and greater efficiency for smaller providers to 
implement location-based routing, it appears that this progress by 
larger providers may have at least some measure of positive impact on 
implementation by smaller providers, such as by demonstrating potential 
implementation technologies and strategies, although they may be 
required to hire professionals to fulfill their compliance obligations.
    190. The important public safety benefits that will result from the 
requirements the Commission adopted outweigh the associated 
implementation and compliance burdens for CMRS providers. The rule 
changes to implement nationwide location-based routing will 
significantly decrease misrouted wireless 911 calls and RTT 
communications to 911, reduce emergency response time, save lives, and 
save many PSAP personnel hours and resources lost in 911 transfers. 
Accordingly, these rule changes serve the public interest.

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

    191. The RFA requires an agency to provide ``a description of the 
steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact 
on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, 
and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final 
rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule 
considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was 
rejected.''
    192. In the previous section we described the significant public 
safety benefits to be achieved from requiring all CMRS providers to 
implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT 
messages originating on IP-based networks on a nationwide basis. From 
the record in this proceeding, it appears to be technologically 
feasible for CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for a 
significant percentage of wireless 911 voice calls and RTT messages. In 
the Report and Order we expressly found that it is technologically 
feasible for all CMRS providers, nationwide and non-nationwide, to 
support location-based routing for a significant percentage of wireless 
911 voice calls. The Commission considered comments advocating for a 
voluntary location-based routing approach to allow providers the 
flexibility which would take into account the differences in providers' 
networks, configurations and devices. We found, however, that 
implementing location-based routing on a voluntary basis is not 
consistent with the Commission's goal of ensuring that location-based 
routing is available to all wireless 911 callers on a nationwide basis. 
Accordingly, the rules we adopt require both nationwide and non-
nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing 
consistent with the proposals in the NPRM.
    193. The Commission also considered a per-PSAP approach to 
implement location-based routing but determined that there could be 
uneven and inconsistent implementation in routing approaches between 
jurisdictions, and there was also a risk of 911 misroutes for 
jurisdictions that do not request location-based routing service. The 
Commission found that a per-PSAP approach was not consistent with its 
interest in facilitating improved routing of 911 voice calls, and was 
not in the public interest. Additionally, we determined this approach 
would impose unnecessary cost burdens on PSAPs to affirmatively request 
such service. The rules we adopted in the Report and Order were 
intended to be cost effective and minimally burdensome for small and 
other entities impacted by the rules. Below we discuss the specific 
steps the Commission has taken to minimize costs and reduce the 
economic impact for small entities, as well as various alternatives 
considered.
    194. Location-Based Routing Requirements. Consistent with the 
Commission's proposal in the NPRM and to reduce potential cost burdens 
for small and other wireless providers, our location-based routing 
rules apply only to wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications 
originating on IP-based networks (i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent 
generations of IP-based networks). The record indicated that while 
nationwide CMRS providers are in the process of retiring or have 
completed the retirement of circuit-

[[Page 18522]]

switched, time-division multiplex (TDM) 2G and 3G networks, and some 
non-nationwide providers announced dates to sunset their 3G networks in 
2022, the transition from these networks that are less compatible with 
location-based routing has not been fully completed. In the NPRM, the 
Commission tentatively concluded 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 the Commission considered 
requiring location-based routing for all 911 calls, the Commission in 
the NPRM 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. In the Report and Order, the 
Commission adopted the proposed rule which will minimize some burdens 
and economic impact for small entities, particularly those that are 
non-nationwide providers, due to the limited scope of the requirement.
    195. Rather than imposing a rigid location-based routing 
requirement, the rules the Commission adopted provide flexibility to 
small and other entities to route wireless 911 voice calls or RTT 
communications based on the 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 rules' requirements for accuracy and timeliness. The 
Commission recognized the continued need for legacy E911 routing, at 
least as a fallback method, because accurate device location 
information is not available in all scenarios. Further, the 
Commission's requirement to default to best available location is 
consistent with the ATIS-0500039 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 
estimates lack requisite accuracy. Our requirement is also consistent 
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.
    196. The Report and Order also adopted baseline requirements 
involving the accuracy and timeliness of location information used for 
location-based routing that are consistent with industry standards. 
Under the rules adopted, CMRS providers must use location-based routing 
only if the location information is available to the provider network 
at the time the wireless 911 voice call or RTT communication 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 successful nationwide implementation 
of location-based routing, and received support as a model for other 
wireless carriers to implement location-based routing. In addition, the 
rule's confidence metric is consistent with ATIS's recommendation that 
uncertainty values for location-based routing ``be standardized to a 
90% confidence for effective call handling.'' When location information 
does not meet the baseline accuracy and timeliness requirements, the 
adopted requirements allow CMRS providers to instead route based on 
best available location information, which may include device-based 
location information that does not meet the accuracy threshold, the 
centroid of the area served by the cell sector that first picks up the 
call, or other location information. This will help to minimize any 
significant economic impact on small entities and other CMRS providers.
    197. Compliance Timelines. The rules adopted in the Report and 
Order provide small and other providers flexibility in the compliance 
timelines to implement the location-based routing requirements, which 
should reduce the economic burden for small entities. The compliance 
timelines differ from those the Commission proposed in the NPRM, which 
provided different deadlines for nationwide CMRS providers and non-
nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing on their 
IP-based networks when available location information meets 
requirements for accuracy and timeliness. To further reduce the burden 
on small entities in the rules adopted, the Commission granted longer 
compliance timelines to non-nationwide CMRS providers than those 
proposed in the NPRM and eliminated the requirements for covered text 
providers that are not CMRS providers. Specifically, non-nationwide 
CMRS providers (which includes a substantial number of small entities) 
are required to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice 
calls within 24 months from the effective date of the final rules, 
rather than 18 months as proposed in the NPRM. Nationwide CMRS 
providers are required to implement location-based routing for wireless 
911 voice calls within six months from the effective date of the final 
rules. For RTT, all CMRS providers are required to implement location-
based routing for RTT messages where they implement RTT capability 
within 24 months from the effective date of the final rules, rather 
than the 12 months proposed in the NPRM.
    198. The Commission has also minimized any significant economic 
impact on small entities by limiting the requirement to implement 
location-based routing to operators of IP-based networks only when 
certain requirements are met. Small entities are not required to comply 
with the location-based routing 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. Small entities will further 
benefit from the Commission's adoption of provisions that allow PSAPs 
and CMRS providers to enter into agreements that establish an alternate 
timeframe for meeting the location-based routing requirements. The 
flexibility to negotiate an alternative timeframe that meets a CMRS 
provider's business and financial needs is a significant step by the 
Commission that could minimize the economic impact for small entities.
    199. Reporting and Certification Requirements. The Commission 
considered the level of data collection, reporting, and certification, 
if any, that should be required from CMRS providers on location-based 
routing issues, weighing the potential burden of such requirements on 
small and other entities against the need to ensure compliance with the 
rules. The Commission also considered not adopting a certification 
requirement. However, absent a certification requirement, the 
Commission and the public would have no insight into providers' 
implementation of location-based routing. Furthermore, the Commission's 
ability to easily determine whether carriers are in compliance would be 
limited. Another alternative the Commission evaluated was adopting 
periodic reporting requirements. However, such ongoing reporting 
requirements have the potential to overburden providers, particularly 
small entities. Therefore, the rules adopted do not contain any 
periodic reporting requirements. We believe the one-time certification 
and

[[Page 18523]]

live call data reporting requirement we adopt will be sufficient for 
providers to demonstrate location-based routing implementation. This 
limited data collection best balances the need for transparency on 
compliance with the limited ability of some providers, particularly 
small entities, to respond to mandatory data collections. The adopted 
certification requirement will also help provide important privacy and 
security protections, which we believe greatly outweigh any minor 
burden that this requirement might impose on small or other entities.
    200. Deferral of Certain Proposed Rules and Removal From This 
Rulemaking Proceeding. In the Report and Order, the Commission deferred 
taking action on certain rules that were proposed in the NPRM. 
Specifically, in the NPRM the Commission proposed requiring covered 
text providers to implement location-based routing for all 911 texts 
originating on their IP-based networks when location information meets 
certain accuracy and timeliness requirements. In the Report and Order 
we required CMRS providers to deploy and use location-based routing 
only for RTT communications. We deferred action on requiring covered 
text providers to deploy and use location-based routing for other types 
of text messages to 911, such as Short Message Service (SMS). The 
Commission also proposed requiring CMRS and covered text providers to 
deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated routing information in IP 
format upon request of 911 authorities that have established the 
capability to accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911 communications. To 
align requirements for NG911 services amongst providers and avoid 
confusion among stakeholders, we deferred consideration of CMRS and 
covered text provider NG911 IP delivery requirements to the pending 
NG911 transition proceeding in PS Docket No. 21-479. Our deferral of 
the two proposed requirements above eliminated consideration of these 
rules from the current rulemaking proceeding. By eliminating these 
rules from the proceeding, the Commission has reduced the compliance 
costs for small entities and any related implementation burdens small 
entities may have incurred.

E. Report to Congress

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

V. Ordering Clauses

    1. 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, 302a, 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 the Report and Order is 
adopted.
    2. It is further ordered that the amendments to part 9 of the 
Commission's rules, as set forth in Appendix A of the Report and Order, 
are adopted, effective sixty (60) days after publication in the Federal 
Register. Compliance will not be required for Sec.  9.10(s)(4) and (5) 
until after approval by the Office of Management and Budget. The 
Commission delegates authority to the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau to publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing that compliance date and revising Sec.  9.10(s)(6).
    3. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the 
Secretary, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the 
Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    4. It is further ordered that the Office of the Managing Director, 
Performance Program Management, shall send a copy of the Report and 
Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9

    Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications 
equipment, Internet, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Satellites, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone.

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

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 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 definitions for ``Device-based location 
information'' and ``Location-based routing'' in alphabetical order 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 regarding the 
location of a device, including but not limited to device-based 
location information, to deliver 911 calls and real-time text 
communications to point(s) designated by the authorized local or state 
entity to receive wireless 911 voice calls and real-time text 
communications to 911, 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 revising paragraph (a) introductory text and 
adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:


Sec.  9.10 911  Service.

    (a) Scope of this section. Except as described in paragraph (r) of 
this section, the following requirements of paragraphs (a) through (s) 
of this section are only applicable to CMRS providers, excluding mobile 
satellite service (MSS) operators, to the extent that they:
* * * * *
    (s) Location-based routing requirements--(1) Wireless 911 voice 
calls. (i) By November 13, 2024, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy 
a technology that supports location-based routing for wireless 911 
voice calls on their internet Protocol-based networks (4G LTE, 5G, and 
subsequent generations of internet Protocol-based networks) nationwide. 
At that time, nationwide CMRS providers must route all wireless 911 
voice calls originating on their internet Protocol-based networks 
pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (s)(3) of this section.

[[Page 18524]]

    (ii) By May 13, 2026, non-nationwide CMRS providers must deploy a 
technology that supports location-based routing for wireless 911 voice 
calls on their internet Protocol-based networks (4G LTE, 5G, and 
subsequent generations of internet Protocol-based networks). At that 
time, non-nationwide CMRS providers must route all wireless 911 voice 
calls originating on their internet Protocol-based networks pursuant to 
the requirements of paragraph (s)(3) of this section.
    (2) Real-time text communications to 911. By May 13, 2026, CMRS 
providers must deploy a technology that supports location-based routing 
for real-time text communications to 911 originating on their internet-
Protocol-based networks (4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of 
internet Protocol-based networks). At that time, CMRS providers must 
route all real-time text communications to 911 originating on their 
internet Protocol-based networks pursuant to the requirements of 
paragraph (s)(3) of this section.
    (3) Timeliness and accuracy threshold. (i) Notwithstanding 
requirements for confidence and uncertainty described in paragraph (j) 
of this section, CMRS providers must use location information that 
meets the following specifications for routing wireless 911 voice calls 
and real-time text communications to 911 under paragraphs (s)(1) and 
(2) of this section:
    (A) The location information reports the horizontal location 
uncertainty level of the device within a radius of 165 meters at a 
confidence level of at least 90%; and
    (B) The location information is available to the CMRS provider 
network at the time of routing the wireless 911 voice call or real-time 
text communication to 911.
    (ii) When the location information does not meet either one or both 
of the requirements in paragraphs (s)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, 
CMRS providers must route the wireless 911 voice call or real-time text 
communication to 911 based on the best available location information, 
which may include but is not limited to device-based location 
information that does not meet the requirements in paragraphs 
(s)(3)(i)(A) and (B), the centroid of the area served by the cell 
sector that first picks up the call, or other location information.
    (4) Certification and reporting. Within 60 days after each 
benchmark specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (ii) and (s)(2) of this 
section, CMRS providers must comply with the following certification 
and reporting requirements.
    (i) CMRS providers must:
    (A) Certify that they are in compliance with the requirements 
specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (ii) and (s)(2) of this section 
applicable to them;
    (B) Identify specific network architecture, systems, and procedures 
used to comply with paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (ii) and (s)(2) of this 
section, including the extent to which the CMRS provider validates 
location information for routing purposes and the validation practices 
used in connection with this information; and
    (C) Certify that neither they nor any third party they rely on to 
obtain location information or associated data used for compliance with 
paragraph (s)(1)(i) or (ii) or (s)(2) of this section will use such 
location information or associated data for any non-911 purpose, except 
with prior express consent or as otherwise required by law. The 
certification must state that the CMRS provider and any third parties 
it relies on to obtain location information or associated data used for 
compliance with paragraph (s)(1)(i) or (ii) or (s)(2) have implemented 
measures sufficient to safeguard the privacy and security of such 
location information or associated data.
    (ii) CMRS providers also must:
    (A) Collect and report aggregate data on the routing technologies 
used for all live wireless 911 voice calls in the locations specified 
for live 911 call location data in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this section 
for a thirty-day period which begins on the compliance date(s) 
specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. CMRS 
providers must retain live wireless 911 voice call data gathered 
pursuant to this section for a period of 2 years. CMRS providers must 
collect and report the following data, expressed as both a number and 
percentage of the total number of live wireless 911 voice calls for 
which data is collected pursuant to this section:
    (1) Live wireless 911 voice calls routed with location-based 
routing using location information that meets the timeliness and 
accuracy thresholds defined in paragraphs (s)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this 
section;
    (2) Live wireless 911 voice calls routed with location-based 
routing using location information that does not meet the timeliness or 
accuracy thresholds defined in paragraphs (s)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this 
section; and
    (3) Live wireless 911 voice calls routed using tower-based routing.
    (5) Modification of deadlines by agreement. Nothing in this section 
shall prevent PSAPs and CMRS providers from establishing, by mutual 
consent, deadlines different from those established for CMRS provider 
compliance in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (ii) and (s)(2) of this section. 
The CMRS provider must notify the Commission of the dates and terms of 
the alternate time frame within 30 days of the parties' agreement or 
June 11, 2024, whichever is later. The CMRS provider must subsequently 
notify the Commission of the actual date by which it comes into 
compliance with the location-based routing requirements in paragraph 
(s)(1)(i) or (ii) or (s)(2) within 30 days of that date or June 11, 
2024, whichever is later. CMRS providers must file such notifications 
pursuant to this paragraph (s)(5) in PS Docket No. 18-64. The parties 
may not use this paragraph (s)(5) to delay compliance with paragraph 
(s)(1)(i) or (ii) or (s)(2) of this section indefinitely.
    (6) Compliance dates. Paragraphs (s)(4) and (5) of this section 
contain information collection and recordkeeping requirements. 
Compliance with paragraphs (s)(4) and (5) 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 or removing this paragraph (s)(6) 
accordingly.

[FR Doc. 2024-03157 Filed 3-8-24; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P