[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 87 (Wednesday, May 7, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19374-19405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-06865]
[[Page 19373]]
Vol. 90
Wednesday,
No. 87
May 7, 2025
Part II
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Part 9
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 87 / Wednesday, May 7, 2025 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 19374]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 9
[PS Docket No. 07-114; FR ID 290080]
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the
FCC or Commission) proposes rules to strengthen wireless 911 location
accuracy rules and to put more actionable location information in the
hands of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and first responders.
DATES: Comments are due on or before June 6, 2025, and reply comments
are due on or before July 7, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114,
by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
[ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be
addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. by the
FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering
the building.
[ssquf] Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the
U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
[ssquf] Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Eng, Engineer, Policy and
Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202)
418-0019, [email protected], or Brenda Boykin, Deputy Chief, Policy
and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
(202) 418-2062, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), FCC 25-22, in PS Docket
No. 07-114, adopted on March 27, 2025, and released on March 28, 2025.
The full text of this document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-improvements-wireless-e911-location-accuracy-rules.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1998-05-01/pdf/98-10310.pdf.
The Commission will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
Synopsis
Background
In the FNPRM, we propose to strengthen our wireless 911 location
accuracy rules to put more actionable location information in the hands
of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and first responders. In the
FNPRM, we propose to focus our approach on making the information
available to PSAPs more valuable and directly applicable to incident
response. Better location information from the outset of a 911 call
translates to time saved during a response, and that time saved
translates to lives saved. From the handsets in consumers' hands, to
the provider networks and technologies used to derive and deliver
location data to the PSAPs, to the equipment and systems used by the
PSAPs, our goal is to encourage cooperation and collaboration among all
parties involved to achieve the ultimate goal of better location
accuracy, delivered as quickly and reliably as possible, to every PSAP
nationwide.
In 2015, the Commission adopted comprehensive location accuracy
rules requiring CMRS (Commercial Mobile Radio Service) providers to
provide either (1) coordinate-based (horizontal and vertical) location
information or (2) dispatchable location information, with wireless 911
calls.\1\ In the Fourth Report and Order and subsequent orders in this
proceeding, the Commission established minimum horizontal and vertical
accuracy requirements and a timetable for their implementation, and
required that technologies used to meet minimum accuracy thresholds be
validated by testing in an independent test bed. Since 2015, these
requirements have led to significant improvements in the accuracy and
actionability of caller location information delivered to PSAPs with
wireless 911 calls. However, progress has fallen short in some areas.
First, while CMRS providers have tested
[[Page 19375]]
z-axis technologies in the test bed and are now using these
technologies to deliver z-axis information to PSAPs, experience to date
indicates that the z-axis information PSAPs are receiving with
individual calls is frequently not actionable due to lack of precision
and/or the information being delivered in a format that is not easily
usable.\2\ Second, issues have arisen about the transparency of the
industry test bed process and whether current testing methodologies
used to validate z-axis technologies adequately model real-world
conditions. Third, while the Commission's rules require CMRS providers
to deliver dispatchable location--public safety's preferred solution--
whenever technically feasible, the number of wireless 911 calls
currently being delivered with dispatchable location is very small
compared to the number of calls delivered with coordinate-based
location information.\3\ While coordinate-based location information
remains acceptable when providing dispatchable location is not
technically feasible, we seek comment on how industry, handset
manufacturers, carriers, and public safety can work collaboratively
toward improvement, and how we can continue to increase the amount of
dispatchable location being derived and delivered to PSAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No.
07-114, Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1259 (2015), 80 FR 11806
(Mar. 4, 2015) (Fourth Report and Order), corrected by Erratum
(PSHSB Mar. 3, 2015).
\2\ Letter from Jeffrey S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO),
to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 07-114 et al., at 2
(filed Jan. 31, 2024) (APCO Jan. 31, 2024 Ex Parte) (``The
Commission's rules require wireless carriers to provide a height
estimate for 9-1-1 callers expressed as a `height above ellipsoid' .
. . . Few 9-1-1 emergency communications centers (ECCs) have the
resources to even explore how to make use of HAE-based vertical
information . . . .''); see also Letter from Jeffrey S. Cohen, Chief
Counsel, APCO, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 07-
114 and WC Docket No. 18-336, at 1 (filed Sept. 6, 2022) (APCO Sept.
6, 2022 Ex Parte) (``APCO reiterated that ECCs need actionable
location information in the form of dispatchable location as
compared to z-axis information provided as a height above
ellipsoid.''); Letter from Jeffrey S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, Mark S.
Reddish, Senior Counsel, and Alison P. Venable, Government Relations
Counsel, APCO, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 07-
114 et al., at 2 (filed May 20, 2024) (APCO May 20, 2024 Ex Parte).
\3\ APCO Jan. 31, 2024 Ex Parte at 2; Letter from Jeffrey S.
Cohen, Chief Counsel, APCO, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS
Docket Nos. 07-114, 21-479, and 18-64, at 1 (filed Sept. 22, 2023)
(``[T]he Commission [should] explore additional avenues for ensuring
that emergency communications centers receive actionable location
information in the form of dispatchable location.''); APCO Sept. 6,
2022 Ex Parte at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To advance the goal of putting more actionable information in the
hands of PSAPs and first responders, we seek comment on a number of
different proposals. Specifically, in the FNPRM, we propose to
strengthen our vertical location (z-axis) accuracy requirements and to
require CMRS providers to deliver z-axis information to PSAPs in more
actionable formats. In addition, we seek comment on mechanisms to
increase the number of wireless 911 calls for which the CMRS provider
delivers dispatchable location information (i.e., street address plus
in-building identification of the caller's office, apartment, or room
number), rather than coordinate-based information, to the PSAP.\4\ We
also seek comment on some additional proposals that we believe would
improve location accuracy, such as strengthening the existing testing
and compliance framework, revising live call reporting requirements,
developing a centralized online complaint portal for location accuracy
problems, and improving horizontal (x,y) location accuracy for wireless
calls and location accuracy for text-to-911. Finally, we seek comment
on whether certain of our legacy wireless location accuracy rules have
become outdated and should be eliminated, and we also propose to
eliminate certain obsolete information collection requirements
associated with our 911 location accuracy rules. We believe the
measures proposed in the FNPRM will improve the performance of vertical
and dispatchable location technologies, provide more actionable
information to PSAPs, and reduce emergency response times.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ We note that, while seeking comment exploring how
dispatchable location can be provided more often, we are not
proposing to phase out x/y/z location as a location accuracy option.
\5\ APCO states that ``further Commission action is needed to
explore ways to (1) improve the transparency and reliability of
testing to verify that HAE-based z-axis estimates meet the
Commission's +/-3 meter metric and ensure testing is conducted of
currently in use and potential dispatchable location solutions
available through carriers' own products and services as well as by
third party location solutions providers, (2) make carrier reports
more uniform and informative to better understand and compare
dispatchable location methods in use, (3) explore the role of mobile
device manufacturers and mobile operating system developers in
contributing to dispatchable location solutions, and (4) provide
more robust and accountable requirements for carriers to deploy
methods, several of which are likely feasible today, to provide
dispatchable location as soon and as frequently as possible.''
Letter from Jeffrey S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, and Alison P. Venable,
Government Relations Counsel, APCO, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, PS Docket No. 07-114 et al., at 2 (filed Nov. 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertical Location. We propose to strengthen the existing
rules with respect to z-axis location by requiring CMRS providers that
deploy z-axis technology to deliver z-axis information to PSAPs
measured in Height Above Ground Level (AGL), which is likely to be more
actionable than the currently required Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE). In
addition, we seek comment on requiring CMRS providers to provide floor
level estimates.
Testing and Compliance Framework. We propose to strengthen
the test bed validation process and require greater transparency and
accountability with respect to test results. Specifically, we propose
that testing and validation meet the following requirements in order
for test results to be considered valid for compliance purposes:
[cir] We propose to require that validation of a vertical location
technology in the industry test bed must demonstrate compliance of that
technology with accuracy standards in each morphology. Thus, CMRS
providers would not be allowed to base compliance certifications on
aggregating or averaging test bed results across morphologies based on
live call data or other factors.
[cir] We propose to provide non-nationwide CMRS providers and major
public safety organizations (National Emergency Number Association
(NENA), Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials
International, Inc. (APCO), and National Association of State 911
Administrators (NASNA)) with expanded access to test bed data and
results on request. We further propose to allow NENA, APCO, and NASNA
to challenge the validation of particular technologies in the test bed.
Dispatchable Location. We seek comment on mechanisms to
increase the number of wireless 911 calls that convey dispatchable
location and to ensure that CMRS providers use dispatchable location
technologies to their maximum potential as they become available. In
that connection, we seek to refresh the record on the current state of
dispatchable location solutions and initiatives to develop new and
enhanced solutions.
Live Call Reports. We propose to require CMRS providers'
live call data reports to include information on the specific
technologies used to provide dispatchable location and on the
morphologies for live calls providing dispatchable location.
Complaint Portal. We seek comment on requiring CMRS
providers to develop a centralized, online complaint portal that PSAPs
could use to report location accuracy problems to CMRS providers before
seeking FCC enforcement.
Horizontal Location Accuracy. We seek comment on improving
horizontal (x,y) location accuracy for wireless 911 calls.
[[Page 19376]]
Mobile Text. We seek comment on improving location
accuracy for text-to-911 (mobile text).
Eliminating Certain Existing Regulations. We seek comment
on whether to eliminate existing E911 Phase II rules, and we also
propose to eliminate certain other obsolete or superseded 911 location
accuracy rules in 47 CFR 9.10.
In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission adopted
comprehensive 911 location accuracy rules that for the first time
required CMRS providers to provide vertical as well as horizontal
location information with wireless 911 calls. The primary purpose of
these rules was to enable PSAPs and first responders to use the
information to pinpoint the location of wireless 911 callers inside
multi-story buildings, including floor level and, ideally, apartment,
office, or room number.\6\ In order to focus provision of vertical
location in areas with the highest concentration of multi-story
buildings, the Commission required nationwide CMRS providers to deploy
vertical location capability in each of the top 25 Cellular Market
Areas (CMAs) by April 3, 2021, and in each of the top 50 CMAs by April
3, 2023.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1319, paragraph 162
(stating that ``by providing a z-axis metric as a backstop to
dispatchable location for identifying floor level of 911 calls from
multi-story buildings, we ensure that vertical location accuracy is
achieved within the timeframe laid out by the Roadmap'').
\7\ Id. at 1261-62, paragraph 6; see also 47 CFR
9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C), (D). The Commission afforded non-nationwide CMRS
providers an additional year to comply with these requirements. See
47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission established two alternative ways for CMRS providers
to provide this information to PSAPs. The first was to deploy
technology that would provide ``dispatchable location'' with wireless
911 calls, which the Commission defined as ``[a] location delivered to
the PSAP by the CMRS provider with a 911 call that consists of the
street address of the calling party, plus additional information such
as suite, apartment or similar information necessary to adequately
identify the location of the calling party.'' \8\ The Commission
envisioned that CMRS providers would develop dispatchable location
capability by building a national location database of in-building
beacons and hotspots known as the National Emergency Address Database
(NEAD).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1360, Appx. D; accord
47 CFR 9.10(i)(1)(i).
\9\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1279, paragraph 55. A
commitment to build the NEAD was a component of the ``Roadmap''
agreement between the major wireless providers and national public
safety organizations that preceded the Fourth Report and Order. See
Letter from John Wright, APCO, Charles W. McKee, Sprint, Joan Marsh,
AT&T, Kathleen O'Brien Ham, T-Mobile, Christy Williams, NENA, and
Kathleen Grillo, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS
Docket No. 07-114 (filed Nov. 18, 2014), Attach. A, ``Roadmap for
Improving E911 Location Accuracy,'' https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/60000983188/1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The second alternative was to deploy z-axis technology that met a
Commission-approved accuracy metric. However, the Commission deferred
adoption of a z-axis metric pending further testing, directing the
nationwide CMRS providers to conduct testing in the industry test bed
and submit a proposed z-axis accuracy metric to the Commission for
approval by August 2018.\10\ Following testing of z-axis technologies
in the test bed (Stage Z), in August 2018, CTIA submitted the Stage Z
test report and proposed a z-axis accuracy metric to the Commission of
plus or minus 5 meters relative to the handset for 80% of calls.
Following public comment on the industry proposal,\11\ the Commission
proposed \12\ and in the Fifth Report and Order adopted a more
stringent metric of plus or minus 3 meters for 80% of calls made from
``z-axis capable'' devices.\13\ The Commission also required CMRS
providers to deliver z-axis information to PSAPs measured in HAE and to
provide floor level information if the CMRS provider had such
information available.\14\ Finally, the Commission reaffirmed the April
2021 and April 2023 deadlines for meeting these requirements in the top
25 and top 50 CMAs, respectively, as previously established in the
Fourth Report and Order.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1302-04, paragraphs
112 through 114, 116.
\11\ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on
Vertical (Z-Axis) Accuracy Metric Proposed by the Nationwide
Wireless Carriers, PS Docket No. 07-114, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd
8616, 8617 (PSHSB 2018), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/0910993124543/1.
\12\ Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No.
07-114, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd
1650, 1654, paragraph 11 (2019), 84 FR 13211 (Apr. 4, 2019) (Fourth
FNPRM).
\13\ Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No.
07-114, Fifth Report and Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 11592, 11593, 11604-05, paragraphs 2, 24
through 25 (2019), 85 FR 2660 (Jan. 16, 2020) (Fifth Report and
Order), 85 FR 2683 (Jan. 16, 2020) (Fifth FNPRM); see also 47 CFR
9.10(i)(2)(ii)(H).
\14\ Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11608, 11610-11,
paragraphs 32, 37; see also 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(H). HAE is a
global standard for vertical location that measures altitude between
the wireless device that makes the 911 call and a globally defined
(WGS-84) reference ellipsoid. Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at
11608, paragraph 32 n.134.
\15\ Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11596, paragraph 9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the companion Fifth FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on
whether to establish a long-term timeline for migrating to a more
stringent z-axis metric than 3 meters, and ultimately whether to
require CMRS providers to deliver floor level information in
conjunction with wireless indoor 911 calls.\16\ The Commission also
proposed to expand the options for demonstrating deployment of z-axis
or dispatchable location capability.\17\ With respect to dispatchable
location, the Commission sought comment on alternatives to the NEAD,
noting reports that the nationwide CMRS providers were facing
challenges in establishing the NEAD.\18\ Shortly after release of the
Fifth Report and Order, the nationwide CMRS providers announced that
they had ceased work on the NEAD due to challenges with testing and
lack of third-party participation, and that the NEAD would not be
available to support dispatchable location.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id. at 11619, paragraph 61. To continue to improve the z-
axis metric, the Commission sought comment on whether enhancements
are needed to the vertical location accuracy testing process. Id. at
11620, paragraph 65.
\17\ Id. at 11619, 11622-25, 11632-33, paragraphs 61, 71 through
78, Appx. B.
\18\ Id. at 11625-26, paragraph 80.
\19\ See Letter from Thomas C. Power, Secretary, and Thomas K.
Sawanobori, Vice President, NEAD, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 07-114, at 1 (Feb. 14, 2020) (NEAD
Feb. 14 2020 Termination Letter) (informing the Commission that the
NEAD Platform ``has ceased operation and is no longer available to
support wireless providers' provision of dispatchable location
information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2020 Sixth Report and Order, the Commission rejected
proposals by T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T to weaken the 3-meter vertical
location accuracy standard or to extend the previously established
deadlines for implementing it.\20\ The Commission also afforded
nationwide CMRS providers the option of meeting the April 2021 and
April 2023 deadlines by deploying handset-based z-axis technology that
could be used throughout the provider's nationwide footprint.\21\ With
respect to choosing between coordinate-based and dispatchable location,
which had previously been left to the provider's discretion, the
Commission adopted a binding preference for dispatchable location by
requiring CMRS providers to
[[Page 19377]]
provide dispatchable location with wireless E911 calls if it is
technically feasible and cost effective for them to do so.\22\ Finally,
the Commission added a requirement for nationwide CMRS providers to
deploy z-axis location technology or dispatchable location nationwide
by April 2025.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No.
07-114, Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 35 FCC
Rcd 7752 (2020), 85 FR 53234 (Aug. 28, 2020) (Sixth Report and
Order), corrected by Erratum (PSHSB Aug. 28, 2020) and Second
Erratum (PSHSB Oct. 29, 2020).
\21\ Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7759, paragraph 18;
see also 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(I)(2).
\22\ Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7775-76, paragraphs
51 through 53; see also 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(G) (``By January 6,
2022: All CMRS providers shall provide dispatchable location with
wireless E911 calls if it is technically feasible for them to do
so.'').
\23\ Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7763, paragraph 25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTIA and APCO filed petitions for reconsideration of the Sixth
Report and Order.\24\ CTIA argued that the COVID-19 pandemic had
impeded any ability to validate whether z-axis location solutions could
meet the Commission's vertical location accuracy requirements. APCO
urged the Commission to require CMRS providers to deliver dispatchable
location for a minimum percentage of 911 calls--an alternative that the
Commission had previously rejected--rather than tie the Commission's
dispatchable location benchmark to the number of address reference
points in a location database.\25\ In January 2021, the Commission
dismissed the petitions as procedurally defective and, as an
alternative and independent ground for resolving the issues raised,
denied the petitions on the merits.\26\ Regarding dispatchable location
requirements, the Commission upheld the existing rules but stated that
it would monitor progress towards deployable dispatchable location
technologies and exercise future oversight if necessary.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Petition of CTIA for Reconsideration, PS Docket No. 07-114
(filed Sept. 28, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/1092835868478; Petition of APCO International for
Reconsideration, PS Docket No. 07-114 (filed Sept. 23, 2020),
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/109232735502601 (APCO Petition for Reconsideration).
\25\ APCO Petition for Reconsideration at 3 (``Rather than
basing compliance on the number of reference points in a database,
the better approach would be to establish a specific minimum
percentage of calls that must be delivered with a dispatchable
location.'').
\26\ Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No.
07-114, Order on Reconsideration, 36 FCC Rcd 570, 576, 579,
paragraphs 16 through 17, 25 (2021), 86 FR 8714 (Feb. 9, 2021)
(Order on Reconsideration).
\27\ Id. at 592, paragraph 48; see Sixth Report and Order, 35
FCC Rcd at 7782-83, paragraph 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following release of the Sixth Report and Order, CTIA informed the
Commission that the next round of testing of z-axis location
technologies (Stage Zb), originally scheduled to start in September
2020, was being postponed due to the impact of COVID-19 and that
testing would not resume until it could be ``safely and effectively
accomplished within buildings in the test cities.'' \28\ In February
2021, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon sought a waiver of the April 2021
compliance deadline, ``based in part on challenges with testing z-axis
solutions due to the COVID-19 pandemic.'' \29\ The Enforcement Bureau
conducted an inquiry into these providers' compliance with the
Commission's vertical location benchmarks. After the investigation was
concluded, the Enforcement Bureau entered into consent decrees with all
three providers requiring each company to immediately start providing
wireless 911 callers' z-axis location information to PSAPs nationwide,
to implement a compliance plan that included specific testing, to
report periodically on dispatchable location and floor level
information technologies, and to pay a $100,000 settlement amount. In
addition, the consent decrees gave each company until April 3, 2022, to
meet the z-axis requirements that would have been applicable on April
3, 2021.\30\ From December 2021 through May 2022, the test bed
conducted testing of z-axis technologies in Stage Zb, after which CTIA
submitted a summary to the Commission.\31\ On June 2, 2022, the three
providers certified that they had met the 3-meter metric requirements
as of April 3, 2022, as required by the consent decrees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, Senior Vice President,
Regulatory Affairs, and Thomas K. Sawanobori, Senior Vice President
& Chief Technology Officer, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, PS Docket No. 07-114, at 3 (filed Aug. 21, 2020); accord id. at
1; see also Letter from Paul Margie, Counsel for Apple Inc., to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 07-114, at 2 (filed
Nov. 3, 2020) (stating that due to the pandemic, the z-axis location
capabilities of Apple's Hybridized Emergency Location (HELO)
vertical location solution ``may not be suitable for external
testing prior to the end of Q1 2021'').
\29\ Petition of AT&T for Waiver, PS Docket No. 07-114 (filed
Feb. 12, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10212237290677/1;
Petition of T-Mobile for Limited Waiver, PS Docket No. 07-114 (filed
Feb. 12, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1021374367479/1;
Petition of Verizon for Waiver, PS Docket No. 07-114 (filed Feb. 12,
2021), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10213853309676/1 (Verizon
Petition for Waiver).
\30\ T-Mobile USA, Inc., Order and Consent Decree, 36 FCC Rcd
9074, 9078-80, paragraph 11 (EB 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-t-mobile-over-911-vertical-location-accuracy-rules;
Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Order and Consent Decree,
36 FCC Rcd 9084, 9088-90, paragraph 11 (EB 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-verizon-over-911-vertical-location-accuracy-rules; AT&T Services, Inc., Order and Consent Decree, 36
FCC Rcd 9094, 9098-100, paragraph 11 (EB 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-settles-att-over-911-vertical-location-accuracy-rules;
see also Press Release, FCC, FCC Secures Life-Saving Commitment from
Wireless Carriers to Deliver 911 Vertical Location Information
Nationwide within Seven Days (June 3, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-secures-911-vertical-location-commitments-wireless-carriers.
\31\ The providers submitted the Stage Zb summary under a
request for confidentiality. See Letter from Scott K. Bergmann,
Senior Vice President of Regulatory Affairs, CTIA et al., to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 07-114, at 3, 5 (filed June
2, 2022), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/filing/10602197662551 (Stage Zb Cover Letter).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 21, 2024, the Commission's Enforcement Bureau entered
into a consent decree with DISH Wireless L.L.C. (DISH) with respect to
its obligation to deploy vertical location technology for wireless 911
calls in each of the top 25 CMAs where it launched 5G Voice over New
Radio (VoNR) service.\32\ In the consent decree, DISH admitted that on
January 24, 2023, it launched VoNR service in two top 25 CMAs without
deploying vertical location technology and that it subsequently
``continued to launch VoNR service in top 25 CMAs and top 50 CMAs
without deploying vertical location technology.'' \33\ Under the terms
of the consent decree, DISH agreed to pay a civil penalty of $100,000,
and the Enforcement Bureau agreed to terminate the investigation of
this matter.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ DISH Wireless L.L.C., Order and Consent Decree, DA 24-1139,
2024 WL 4880017, at * 1, paragraph 1 (EB Nov. 21, 2024), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-and-dish-settle-dispatchable-location-investigation-100000.
\33\ Id. at * 3, paragraph 4. The consent decree notes that on
April 5, 2024, DISH certified that it was in compliance with the
Commission's vertical location accuracy requirements in each of the
top 50 CMAs where it provided VoNR wireless services. Id.
\34\ Id. at * 4-6, paragraphs 10, 11, 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
In the FNPRM, we propose to build on recent technological
developments and standardization efforts that will enable CMRS
providers to convey more actionable vertical location information with
wireless 911 calls. Specifically, we propose to require CMRS providers
to convey z-axis coordinates in AGL in addition to HAE. We also seek
comment on requiring CMRS providers to provide floor level estimates.
In addition, we seek comment on potential mechanisms to increase the
number of wireless 911 calls that convey dispatchable location (street
address, plus additional information to locate the 911 caller) and on
collaborative approaches among all parties in the call and location
delivery process that might be explored to facilitate an increase in
dispatchable location usage. We also propose to strengthen our wireless
location accuracy testing, compliance, and reporting requirements. We
seek comment on improving location accuracy for mobile texts and on the
benefits and costs associated with our
[[Page 19378]]
proposals. Finally, we seek comment on whether certain of our legacy
wireless location accuracy rules have become outdated and should be
eliminated, and we also propose to eliminate certain obsolete
information collection requirements associated with our 911 location
accuracy rules.
Since the Commission adopted the z-axis location accuracy standard
in 2019, wireless location technologies continue to progress. The speed
and accuracy of E911 location have improved significantly through
integration of device-based hybrid (DBH) location technologies into
most mobile handsets. DBH uses ``a combination of technologies and
sensors--including satellite GPS [Global Positioning System] and crowd-
sourced Wi-Fi measurements--that can supplement wireless providers'
existing 9-1-1 network and device-assisted information to produce a
higher-accuracy location, particularly indoors.'' Both Google and Apple
have developed DBH applications optimized for emergency calls: Google's
Android Emergency Location Service (ELS) supports 911 location in most
Android devices,\35\ and Apple's Hybridized Emergency Location (HELO)
supports 911 location in most iOS devices.\36\ According to live 911
call data reports submitted by CMRS providers, DBH technology has
replaced assisted GPS (A-GPS) as the primary wireless 911 location
technology and is used by CMRS providers for approximately 80% of
wireless 911 calls.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Android, Emergency Location Service, https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/
(last visited Feb. 4, 2025) (describing ELS as ``a tool available on
Android devices that allows first responders to locate emergency
callers and texters faster and with greater accuracy, using a
combination of GPS, cell, Wi-Fi and sensor data'').
\36\ Press Release, Apple, Apple's iOS 12 securely and
automatically shares emergency location with 911 (June 18, 2018),
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/06/apple-ios-12-securely-and-automatically-shares-emergency-location-with-911/ (stating that
``Apple launched HELO (Hybridized Emergency Location) in 2015, which
estimates a mobile 911 caller's location using cell towers and on-
device data sources like GPS and Wi-Fi Access Points'').
\37\ Pursuant to Commission rules, CMRS providers collect and
report aggregate data on the location technologies used for live 911
calls in six representative test cities. 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3). While
the live call data submitted by each provider are confidential,
aggregated call data from the three nationwide carriers show that
the percentage of 911 calls in which DBH is used has risen from 17%
in 2017 to 80% in 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In another significant development, a NENA working group has
drafted consensus requirements and guidelines for operationalizing z-
axis information in the PSAP to support the display of 3D location data
for E911 and Next Generation 911.\38\ Although the NENA requirements
document has not yet turned into a formal standard, it can help
expedite standards development and provide guidelines for transmission
of vertical location information by CMRS providers and other entities
in the location information delivery chain. It can also help to provide
practical guidance for intake, processing, and display of z-axis
information in the PSAP. To illustrate, the NENA requirements document
includes guidance on converting altitude to floor levels, generating 3D
volumes for buildings at low or no cost, available enterprise services,
and consensus standards for operationalizing z-axis information (e.g.,
configuring Automatic Location Identification (ALI) and provisioning 3D
geographic information system (GIS) datasets).\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ NENA, NENA Requirements for 3D Location Data for E9-1-1 and
NG9-1-1 (June 10, 2022), https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/standards/nena-req-003.1-2022_3d_gis_w.pdf (NENA 3D
Location Requirements).
\39\ Id. at 3. NENA's 3D Location Requirements document
references the following five objectives.
1. To provide a technical and regulatory background for 3D 9-1-1
locations.
2. To establish uniform language in reference to z-axis within
the 9-1-1 community for terms ``altitude,'' ``height,'' and
``elevation'' (as they are currently used interchangeably across
specifications).
3. To provide practical guidance for operationalizing 3D
location, such as how the Automatic Location Identification (ALI)
should be configured and provisioning of 3D GIS datasets (including
Digital Elevation Models [DEM] and 3D structures).
4. To provide requirements for future standards development for
3D location, such as how uncertainty should be conveyed for certain
civic address elements.
5. To provide baseline requirements for implementations and
enhancements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Id.
As part of our overarching 911 agenda, and in light of increasing
standardization, we seek to strengthen our wireless location accuracy
rules to provide PSAPs and first responders with actionable information
in the live 911 call environment.
A. Improving Actionability of Z-Axis Information
Under the current rules, CMRS providers providing coordinate-based
location information to PSAPs with wireless 911 calls must deliver the
z-axis component in Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE).\40\ In addition, CMRS
providers must provide floor level information when it is
available.\41\ We propose to make the z-axis information delivered to
PSAPs and first responders with 911 calls more understandable and
actionable by requiring CMRS providers to convert HAE values to Height
Above Ground Level (AGL) and to provide both the HAE and AGL values
with each call. We seek comment on data sources that can be leveraged
to generate floor level information and whether to require CMRS
providers to provide a floor level estimate with all calls. We also
seek comment on how PSAPs use the vertical location information that is
being provided today. Have PSAPs found the information to be useful,
and have they observed any limitations in the accuracy of such
information? To what extent do PSAPs use NENA 3D location guidelines or
other mechanisms to operationalize the information?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(H).
\41\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Converting HAE to AGL
When the Commission mandated use of HAE in the Fifth Report and
Order, the record reflected general consensus around using HAE as the
baseline for measuring vertical location.\42\ The Commission also
acknowledged that HAE values would need to be translated to other
formats to be actionable, but declined to require CMRS providers to
perform the translation, concluding that ``translation mechanisms can
be developed using HAE as a baseline reference, and that for the time
being we should afford industry and public safety flexibility to
develop solutions that are cost-effective for both sides.'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11608, paragraph 33.
\43\ Id. at 11611, paragraph 38 (footnote omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the Fifth Report and Order, there has been significant
progress in the development of data sources and translation tools that
CMRS providers could use to translate HAE to AGL for the z-axis
location of individual wireless 911 calls. As noted above, NENA has
developed guidelines for operationalizing z-axis information. NENA
suggests that HAE to AGL conversion can be performed by subtracting the
terrain height, also expressed with respect to the WGS84 ellipsoid, at
the horizontal location corresponding to the HAE. RapidSOS and GeoComm
have partnered to convert z-axis information into actionable data,
including height above ground and floor level, and 3D visualization of
a caller's location in a building. In 2021, FirstNet unveiled z-axis
capability using NextNav's Pinnacle vertical positioning service as
part of its FirstNet Enhanced Location Services (FirstNet ELS) and
provides z-axis data in Height Above Terrain (HAT) to indicate the
relative altitude or vertical location of first responders. Digital
terrain height information is
[[Page 19379]]
typically available at various resolutions and costs. Currently, the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) provides digital terrain maps at 10m by
10m resolution nationwide at no cost.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ The United States Geological Survey provides a free
topological map of the United States at a \1/3\ arc-second DEM on
its website. United States Geological Survey, The National Map (TNM)
Datasets, https://apps.nationalmap.gov/datasets/ (last visited Feb.
4, 2025). One-third arc-second is equivalent to a resolution of
``approximately 10 meters north/south, but variable east/west due to
convergence of meridians with latitude.'' United States Geological
Survey, About 3DEP Products & Services, https://www.usgs.gov/3d-elevation-program/about-3dep-products-services (last visited Feb. 4,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the availability of HAE-to-AGL translation tools, we propose
to require CMRS providers to convert HAE values for individual 911
calls to AGL and to deliver both the HAE and the AGL values to the
PSAP. We also propose to require CMRS providers to provide floor level
information in addition to z-axis location information, if floor level
information is available to them. This proposal is consistent with the
existing requirement for providing z-axis information in HAE, which
also requires provision of floor level information ``[w]here available
to the CMRS provider.'' \45\ While we do not propose to require floor
level information at this time, we continue to believe that such
information will be helpful to PSAPs and that CMRS providers should
deliver it to the PSAP if it is available. We seek comment on these
proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(H).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGL may be obtained by subtracting the terrain height at any
horizontal (x/y) location from the corresponding HAE value, provided
that both terrain height and HAE are expressed with respect to the same
reference frame.\46\ Providing AGL means that PSAPs receive a vertical
location measurement relative to ground level for the x/y location of
the call, which we tentatively conclude would be more actionable than
the raw HAE value alone.\47\ Receiving both the HAE and AGL values
would enable the PSAP to check the accuracy of the HAE-to-AGL
translation. We seek comment on this proposal. Would receiving AGL z-
axis information benefit PSAPs and first responders? How much more
actionable would the information be than HAE alone? Would it facilitate
the ability of first responders to estimate floor level or integrate
vertical location information into 3D mapping tools? If AGL is indeed
more actionable than HAE, are there any benefits or costs to continuing
to provide HAE values as well?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ NENA 3D Location Requirements at 15, n.6 (``A reference
frame, or geodetic datum, is `an abstract coordinate system with a
reference surface (such as sea level) that serves to provide known
locations to begin surveys and create maps.' '').
\47\ APCO Jan. 31, 2024 Ex Parte at 2 (``The Commission's rules
require wireless carriers to provide a height estimate for 9-1-1
callers expressed as a `height above ellipsoid' . . . . Few 9-1-1
emergency communications centers (ECCs) have the resources to even
explore how to make use of HAE-based vertical information (assuming
this information is indeed accurate), which would require at a
minimum substantial costs and resources including detailed building
plans.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe it is reasonable to require CMRS providers to provide
AGL as part of the information delivered to PSAPs. In a 2020 ex parte
filing in this proceeding, NENA noted that ``the future of public
safety-grade 3D mapping is surprisingly close and surprisingly
feasible.'' \48\ At that time, NENA noted that ``[i]t is close enough,
in fact, that the Commission could reasonably require CMRS providers to
sponsor large-scale, `entry-level' Above Ground Level (AGL) conversion
solutions for public safety. These solutions (presented as supplemental
data alongside elevation in Height Above Ellipsoid [HAE]) would be
understood by public safety to be a reliable stepping stone to more
local, highly accurate vertical data.'' Since then, the availability of
terrain databases and HAE-to-AGL translation tools appears to provide a
low-cost, scalable mechanism for CMRS providers to translate HAE to
AGL. In addition, APCO contends that it is cost prohibitive for most
PSAPs to perform the conversion to HAE on their own. We believe that
requiring CMRS providers to deliver AGL to PSAPs would be a more
efficient and cost-effective approach than placing the translation
burden on thousands of individual PSAPs, as industry commenters have
advocated. We seek comment on this view. Are the above-mentioned tools
and computations viable for use in computing AGL data? To what degree
are location technology vendors and GIS providers already performing
these computations for 911 calls or capable of doing so? Where in the
911 call flow does conversion from HAE to AGL occur? How is the
resulting AGL location information currently being used? What are the
costs of such an approach?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Letter from Daniel Henry, Regulatory Counsel and Director
of Government Affairs, NENA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS
Docket No. 07-114, at 3 (filed Apr. 16, 2020) (NENA Apr. 16, 2020 Ex
Parte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on the requisite level of Digital Terrain Model
(DTM) resolution necessary to accurately convert from HAE to AGL, the
means of achieving such resolution, and the associated costs. We also
seek comment on how to ensure that AGL measurements provided to PSAPs
meet the same or comparable confidence and uncertainty thresholds as
the underlying HAE measurements from which they are derived. Because
HAE conversion to AGL requires reliable terrain data and an accurate
horizontal location fix, it may yield a different uncertainty value
than HAE. Would conversion from HAE to AGL introduce any errors in the
accuracy of the z-axis information that could impact emergency response
and, if so, to what degree? \49\ What technical standards are available
for providers to determine the level of error, if any, introduced by
the HAE to AGL conversion? Would technical standards need to be
developed for this purpose? For purposes of determining AGL
uncertainty, we propose to apply the Commission's prior determination
that 90% is the appropriate confidence value.\50\ Assuming a confidence
value of at least 90%, how will uncertainty associated with the AGL
value be calculated? For example, what uncertainty value will be
generated by HAE conversion to AGL using the USGS 10m by 10m terrain
data map, and by how much will the uncertainty value differ from the
HAE uncertainty value? What uncertainty threshold needs to be achieved
for PSAPs to consider an AGL measurement actionable?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See, e.g., NENA 3D Location Requirements at 83-84 (noting
also that ``transformations SHOULD only be used for internal
processes and the results SHOULD NOT be passed to a downstream
entity'').
\50\ In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission required CMRS
providers to provide vertical confidence and uncertainty data on a
per call basis to requesting PSAPs. As with horizontal confidence
and uncertainty data, the Commission explained, CMRS providers must
report vertical confidence and uncertainty data using a confidence
level of 90%, i.e., they must identify the range above and below the
estimated z-axis position within which there is a 90% probability of
finding the caller's true vertical location. 47 CFR 9.10(j)(1), (4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to timing, we propose to require nationwide CMRS
providers that deploy z-axis technology to deliver z-axis information
in AGL within 12 months after the effective date of final rules, and we
propose to require non-nationwide CMRS providers to deliver AGL within
24 months. As noted in the discussion above, technical feasibility
appears well established, and therefore it appears deployment of this
feature within a year of the effective date of our final rules should
be reasonable. Based on the available information, we believe that the
ability to convert HAE to AGL exists today, that PSAPs can readily
receive the data and, as noted by previous commenters, that it would be
reasonable to require CMRS providers to
[[Page 19380]]
provide AGL conversion services.\51\ We seek comment on this proposed
timeline. Does it provide sufficient time for CMRS providers to develop
and deploy the tools they need to provide z-axis information in AGL? Is
the timeline sufficient for PSAPs to develop the capability to receive
and use information in AGL? If the proposed timeline is not sufficient
for either CMRS providers or PSAPs, what would be the appropriate time
period and why?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See, e.g., NENA Apr. 16, 2020 Ex Parte (indicating that
such a requirement might have been feasible as far back as 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Providing Floor Level Estimates
In the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to
require CMRS providers to provide floor level information to PSAPs,
either by converting HAE to a precise floor level or determining floor
level independently of HAE.\52\ In the Sixth Report and Order, the
Commission deferred action on this issue in light of continued
disagreement over the feasibility, costs, and timeframes associated
with converting HAE to floor level.\53\ We seek to refresh the record
on this issue. Has there been progress since the Sixth Report and Order
in developing mechanisms for calculating floor level, either by
converting HAE to floor level or by other means? If PSAPs receive AGL
in addition to HAE, could AGL be used to provide a reliable floor level
estimate, by either using digital building maps or assuming a uniform
building structure and floor spacing (e.g., 3m per floor)? We seek
comment on the ability of PSAPs to access digital building maps, which
have the potential to provide highly accurate floor level information,
depending on resolution, availability, and cost. What is the current
availability of digital building maps, what is the cost of obtaining
such maps for 911 location purposes, and what mechanisms exist to keep
building map information current? Alternatively, using uniform building
structure and spacing models to estimate floor level would be
considerably less costly than using digital building maps, but also
would yield less accurate information. We seek comment on whether such
an approach would be sufficient to meet public safety requirements for
actionable information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11621-22, paragraphs
66 through 69.
\53\ Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7781-83, paragraphs
70 through 71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also seek comment on the role that third-party vendors play in
providing floor level information to PSAPs. As noted above, some third-
party vendors are providing precise location information directly to
PSAPs, with some claiming to provide AGL and floor level as well as
HAE.\54\ These vendors use a combination approach of multiple sensors
already available in smart devices and the resultant data provided by
the handset location vendors, along with crowd sourcing, via the
increasing availability of ``mesh like'' networks of data points.\55\
To what degree does the information provided to PSAPs by third-party
vendors meet their needs for actionable location information, including
floor level? Are floor level estimates validated against other
information sources to ensure accuracy and, if so, what is the process
for doing so? Are cloud services utilized for these capabilities and,
if so, to what extent? What proportion of PSAPs currently relies on
vendors to convert HAE to AGL or to generate floor level estimates?
What is the cost to PSAPs to procure these services? If we required
CMRS providers to provide floor level to PSAPs, would this reduce the
cost burden on PSAPs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ See, e.g., GeoComm, GeoComm and RapidSOS Empower Emergency
Communications Centers to Convert Raw Z-axis Location Data into
Dispatchable Locations (Oct. 24, 2023), https://www.geocomm.com/rapidsos-dispatchable-locations/. GeoComm notes that this feature is
``[c]urrently available for 9-1-1 calls from Android-based
devices.'' Id.
\55\ See, e.g., Tom Sawanobori, The Wireless Industry's
Commitment to 9-1-1 Location Accuracy (March 31, 2021), https://www.ctia.org/news/blog-the-wireless-industrys-commitment-to-9-1-1-location-accuracy (``Device-based hybrid solutions use a combination
of technologies and sensors--including satellite GPS and crowd-
sourced Wi-Fi measurements--along with wireless providers' other 9-
1-1 network and device information, to produce a higher-accuracy
location.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Strengthening the Wireless 911 Location Accuracy Testing and
Compliance Framework
In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission required independent
testing of all technologies used to meet indoor location accuracy
requirements, and directed industry to establish an independently
administered test bed for this purpose.\56\ The Commission established
baseline requirements in order for test results derived from the test
bed to be considered valid for compliance purposes.\57\ In particular,
the Commission specified that the test bed should ``reflect a
representative sampling of the different real-world environments in
which CMRS providers will be required to deliver indoor location
information,'' and required all technologies to be tested in four
morphologies: dense urban, urban, suburban, and rural.\58\ The
Commission further required location technologies to be tested in the
same manner that they are deployed on provider networks.\59\ The
Commission established that CMRS providers could rely on test bed
results to create a presumption of compliance with the Commission's
location accuracy requirements when tested technologies were used in
live 911 calls on the provider's network.\60\ However, the Commission
did not require CMRS providers to make the details of test results
public, relying on the test administrators' certification as sufficient
notification that a technology ``meets our key performance
indicators.'' \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1307-09, paragraphs
126 through 132; see also 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(i).
\57\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1307, paragraph 127.
Specifically, the Commission stated that ``the test bed must (1)
include testing in representative indoor environments; (2) test for
certain performance attributes (known as key performance indicators,
or KPIs); and (3) require CMRS providers to show that the indoor
location technology used for purposes of its compliance testing is
the same technology (or technologies) that it is deploying in its
network, and is being tested as it will actually be deployed in the
network.'' Id.
\58\ Id. at 1307, paragraph 128.
\59\ Id. at 1308, paragraph 130.
\60\ Id. at 1313, paragraph 147.
\61\ Id. at 1308, paragraph 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the establishment of the test bed, it has been used to test
the capabilities of horizontal and vertical location technologies used
by CMRS providers. The first testing of vertical location technology in
the test bed occurred in Stage Z, conducted in 2018, which provided
information that contributed to the Commission's adoption of the 3-meter accuracy metric.\62\ Following adoption of the metric,
the test bed conducted further vertical location testing in Stage Za
from September 2019 to February 2020, and in Stage Zb from December
2021 to May 2022. Stage Za tested the z-axis performance of Google's
Android ELS.\63\ In Stage Zb, both ELS and Apple's HELO technologies
were tested.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Fourth FNPRM, 34 FCC Rcd at 1651-52, 1654, paragraphs 4,
11.
\63\ Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7755-56, paragraph 9;
Letter from Thomas K. Sawanobori, Senior Vice President & Chief
Technology Officer, CTIA, and Scott K. Bergmann, Senior Vice
President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 07-114 (filed Apr. 29, 2020).
\64\ Stage Zb Cover Letter at 1 (reporting that Stage Zb testing
validated that DBH z-axis location technology solutions, Google's
ELS and Apple's HELO, together achieve 3-meter accuracy
for at least 80% of wireless 911 calls).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stage Zb test results provided the basis for the June 2022
certifications by the three nationwide CMRS providers that as of April
3, 2022, they had achieved compliance with the 3-meter
location accuracy standard as required by the Commission's rules and
the 2021
[[Page 19381]]
consent decrees. However, the underlying test reports and test data
were not made public because they were submitted to the Commission
subject to a request for confidential treatment to protect proprietary
and commercially sensitive information.\65\ This is consistent with
prior test bed reports, which have similarly been submitted subject to
requests for confidentiality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ Stage Zb Cover Letter at 6 (Attachment redacted). CTIA
submitted two Stage Zb reports, one on testing of ELS (Google) and
one on testing of HELO (Apple). CTIA requested confidential
treatment of both reports to protect information submitted by Google
and Apple regarding the ``specifics of ELS's and HELO's respective
performance, that is not publicly available and is protected against
disclosure in the normal course of business.'' Id. In addition, CTIA
requested confidentiality for the Stage Zb Test Summary, noting that
it contained ``morphology-based 9-1-1 call data information from the
nationwide wireless providers (AT&T Mobility, T-Mobile USA, and
Verizon) that is proprietary and commercially sensitive and not
publicly available.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The purpose of the test bed program is to provide a reliable
mechanism for validating the performance of indoor location
technologies without the need for each provider to conduct indoor
testing in all locations where a technology is actually deployed, which
would be impractical and highly burdensome.\66\ In establishing the
test bed approach, the Commission found it to be ``the most practical
and cost-effective method for testing compliance with indoor location
accuracy requirements.'' \67\ Following the 2015 Fourth Report and
Order, CTIA and the nationwide CMRS providers worked with APCO, NENA,
and other stakeholders to establish the test bed, based on the
framework recommended in 2014 by the Communications Security,
Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC), with testing
following guidelines developed in 2017 by the Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions' (ATIS) Emergency Services
Interconnection Forum (ESIF) and input from other stakeholders.\68\
However, in the multiple years since the test bed was established, some
public safety organizations have raised questions about whether the
test bed and compliance certification process for validating vertical
location technologies provides adequate assurance of real-world
performance. In addition, parties have advocated for greater
transparency in the test bed process and have sought expanded access to
test results and underlying test data. As discussed below, we propose
to make certain modifications to the wireless location accuracy testing
and compliance framework to address these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11613, paragraph 45.
\67\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1305, paragraph 121.
\68\ See, e.g., Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11602-03,
paragraph 19 & nn.83-85; CSRIC IV Working Group 1, Final Report:
Specification for Indoor Location Accuracy Test Bed (June 2014),
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG-1_Subgroup3_061814.pdf; Report on Stage Z, 911 Location Technologies
Test Bed, LLC, at 3-4, 12-14 (2018), https://api.ctia.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/911-Location-Test-Bed-Stage-Z-Report-Final.pdf; ATIS, Test Bed and Monitoring Regions Definition and
Methodology, ATIS-0500031.v002 (approved Feb. 13, 2017) (ATIS-
0500031.v002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Requiring Validation on a Per-Morphology Basis
As noted above, the nationwide CMRS providers based their
compliance certifications on the Stage Zb test results submitted by
CTIA. These test results were derived from ``aggregated and
anonymized'' data ``to generate z-axis performance metrics for the DBH
technology solutions deployed in each of the nationwide wireless
providers' networks, consistent with ATIS standards and reporting under
the Commission's live 9-1-1 call data rules.'' According to CTIA,
``[t]he results of Stage Zb validate that ELS's and HELO's DBH z-axis
location technology solutions together achieve the FCC's 3-
meter accuracy metric for at least 80 percent of wireless 9-1-1
calls.''
In relying on the Stage Zb test data to support their compliance
certifications, the nationwide carriers, following the ATIS standards,
averaged test results across morphologies based on the percentage of
live calls that originated in each morphology.\69\ Because live call
data show that the preponderance of 911 calls originate from suburban
areas, this methodology effectively discounted Stage Zb results for
urban and dense urban morphologies, where vertical location technology
is most useful. While such aggregation may be allowable under our
current rules, it raises questions about whether such aggregated test
data accurately reflect the real-world performance of the technologies
being tested. Testing of z-axis technologies in the test bed identifies
the percentage of test calls in each morphology that generated a
location fix of 3 meters.\70\ Live call data, on the other
hand, identifies the relative number of live 911 calls in each
morphology for which a given z-axis technology was used to provide
vertical location.\71\ Thus, live call data provides no information
regarding the actual performance of z-axis technologies in the live
environment, either across morphologies or within any individual
morphology.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ CTIA notes that ``[t]he Test Bed performed the Stage Zb
testing in accordance with ATIS standards and Commission rules.''
Stage Zb Cover Letter at 4 & n.4 (citing ATIS, Unified X/Y and Z
Indoor Test Methodology, ATIS 0500040 (approved Jan. 13, 2020) and
47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(i)(A) through (D)). ATIS 0500040 states that ``the
critical statistics are those obtained for each morphology,
aggregated across the various test regions. These per-morphology
metrics are subsequently entered into the live call weighting
process, as defined in ATIS-0500031.v002 [Ref 1], Clause 8, for
regulatory compliance purposes.''
\70\ The rules require CMRS providers to ``measure yield
separately for each individual indoor location morphology (dense
urban, urban, suburban, and rural) in the test bed, and based upon
the specific type of location technology that the provider intends
to deploy in real-world areas represented by that particular
morphology.'' 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(i)(D).
\71\ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Provides
Guidance to CMRS Providers Regarding Upcoming E911 Indoor Location
Accuracy Reporting Requirements, PS Docket No. 07-114, Public
Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 5584-85 (PSHSB 2017) (revising the instruction
for entering ``yield'' in live call reports).
\72\ We note that in 2000, the Commission's Office of
Engineering and Technology and, subsequently in 2012, the third
CSRIC (CSRIC III) recognized the possible use of weighting based on
911 call densities as a valid testing input to demonstrate
compliance with the overall performance metrics required under the
Commission's 911 location accuracy rules. FCC Office of Engineering
and Technology, OET Bulletin No. 71, Guidelines for Testing and
Verifying the Accuracy of Wireless E911 Location Systems, at 6-7
(Apr. 12, 2000), https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/oet71/oet71.pdf; CSRIC III, Working Group 3, E9-1-1
Location Accuracy, Final Report--Outdoor Location Accuracy, at 12
(Mar. 14, 2012), https://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric3/CSRIC-III-WG3-Final-Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these issues, we propose to modify our rules to require
that validation of a technology in the industry test bed must
demonstrate compliance of that technology with the 3-meter metric in
each morphology. Thus, we would no longer allow CMRS providers to base
compliance certifications on aggregating or averaging test bed results
across morphologies. By eliminating averaging across morphologies, we
would provide greater certainty that vertical location technologies
that have been tested in the test bed will provide the requisite
accuracy level when used with 911 calls in each of the four
morphologies. We also propose to exclude the use of live call data in
the validation of vertical location technologies. Live call data does
not demonstrate performance, either on a per-technology or a per-
morphology basis. In addition, live call data does not distinguish
between indoor and outdoor calls, and thus does not provide a basis for
determining compliance with indoor vertical location requirements.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ The 2015 Fourth Report and Order stated that live call
data, when coupled with test bed performance data for each
positioning source method, ``will then determine the degree to which
that method can be counted towards the required location accuracy
thresholds each time that positioning source method is used.''
Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1311, paragraph 139. In 2017,
ATIS published guidance that enables wireless providers to
demonstrate compliance with the Commission's rules and suggests
weighting test results based on ``the proportion of live indoor
wireless 911 calls in each corresponding morphology'' to come up
with a single number for compliance purposes. ATIS-0500031.v002 at
5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19382]]
We seek comment on these proposals. Should the number or percentage
of total 911 test calls required for validation of a technology be the
same for each morphology? For example, should the number or percentage
be lower for a morphology that has fewer tall buildings, such as rural
or suburban, while maintaining the same level of confidence (e.g., 90%)
in the test results? Are there circumstances where it would be
appropriate to allow CMRS providers to average test data across
morphologies for compliance purposes? Similarly, are there
circumstances where we should allow consideration of live call data or
other factors in determining compliance on a per-morphology basis? How
should we define a technology for purposes of these requirements? For
example, should ELS and HELO be defined as separate technologies?
Should CMRS providers be allowed to average or combine the performance
of different technologies within a morphology (e.g., ELS and HELO) in
support of a compliance showing? \74\ Should we allow weighted
averaging based on the percentage of handsets equipped with each
technology in the provider's subscriber base? Should CMRS providers be
allowed to certify their compliance based on an average of the handset
distribution of multiple providers? How should non-nationwide CMRS
providers that do not conduct their own testing in the test bed use the
test bed data to certify their compliance with the proposed testing and
validation requirements? \75\ Should non-nationwide CMRS providers be
allowed to use performance data from the test bed in a different manner
from nationwide CMRS providers to certify their compliance with our
proposed testing and validation requirements?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ As noted, CTIA states that ``Stage Zb[ ] test results from
the two DBH location technology solutions [HELO and ELS] were
aggregated and anonymized to generate z-axis performance metrics for
the DBH technology solutions deployed in each of the nationwide
wireless providers' networks, consistent with ATIS standards and
reporting under the Commission's live 9-1-1 call data rules.'' Stage
Zb Cover Letter at 5 (citing ATIS Test Bed Monitoring Regions
Definition and Methodology, ATIS 00500031v.002 (Feb. 2017) and 47
CFR 9.10(i)(3)(ii)(C)).
\75\ See infra for discussion of proposals to increase the
transparency of the test bed process for non-nationwide CMRS
providers and other stakeholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We propose to apply these requirements for testing and validation
of technologies in the test bed to all testing of new technologies in
the test bed once the rules become effective. In addition, we propose
that by 24 months after the effective date of the final rules,
nationwide CMRS providers must deploy on a nationwide basis either
dispatchable location or z-axis technology that has been validated in
accordance with the new test bed and validation requirements. We
propose that non-nationwide CMRS providers would have an additional 12
months to meet these requirements by deploying either dispatchable
location or z-axis technology throughout their network footprint. If we
modify testing and validation procedures as proposed, we anticipate
that some z-axis technologies that were previously validated in the
test bed may have to be re-tested under the new requirements, including
the requirement that validation of a technology in the test bed must
demonstrate compliance of that technology with the 3-meter metric in
each morphology. CMRS providers may also need time to determine how to
deploy technologies or combinations of technologies in a way that
complies with the revised rules. Are the timeframes we propose for this
appropriate? If not, what would be appropriate timeframes to allow for
re-testing, certification, and deployment? Is additional testing and
standardization necessary to determine whether any revisions to our
accuracy benchmarks are required due to these new requirements? If so,
how much time is needed to complete such additional testing or
modifications to standards? We seek comment on the potential costs of
any re-testing. Do most deployed and validated z-axis technologies
already meet this proposed per-morphology standard? Should we establish
interim milestones as well as final compliance deadlines?
In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission required the test
bed administrator to ``make available to [non-nationwide CMRS
providers] the same data available to participating CMRS providers and
under the same confidentiality requirements.'' \76\ The Commission
noted that the purpose of this requirement was to ``enable such CMRS
providers to determine whether to deploy that technology in their own
networks'' and to ``obviate[ ] the need for individual testing by those
providers.'' \77\ The test bed administrator has defined procedures and
established a fee structure for non-nationwide CMRS providers to follow
to obtain access to test results. However, there are no deadlines for
providing non-nationwide CMRS providers with access to test data and no
explanation of the costs that the fees are intended to recover. In
addition, location accuracy test data and the reports generated by the
industry test bed are currently subject to confidentiality protections,
and we require only summary information to be provided to most third
parties.\78\ We recognize that some confidentiality protection of test
data and reports is appropriate to enable vendors who submit to testing
to protect proprietary and competitively sensitive information.
However, the restrictions applicable to test bed information have
resulted in virtually no information being available to PSAPs or the
public.\79\ In addition, while APCO and NENA have access to some test
bed information as members of the Test Bed's Technical Advisory
Committee, and some test reports have been disclosed to APCO, NENA, and
NASNA, disclosure is subject to highly restrictive non-disclosure
agreements that limit the ability of these organizations to disseminate
or take action based on the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1309, paragraph 132;
see also Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; The 911
Location Technologies Test Bed, LLC Request for Confidential
Treatment, PS Docket No. 07-114, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6486, 6488-89,
paragraphs 5 through 6 (2020) (Stage Za Report Confidentiality
Order) (granting confidential treatment of the Stage Za Report, in
part because the test results are ``indisputably commercial
information'').
\77\ Id.
\78\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1308, paragraph 131
(``[R]aw test results would be made available only to the vendors
whose technology was to be tested, to the participating CMRS
providers, and to the third-party testing house. In order to protect
vendors' proprietary information, only summary data was made
available to all other parties. At this time, we will not require
CMRS providers to make public the details of test results for
technologies that have been certified by the independent test bed
administrator.''); see also Stage Za Report Confidentiality Order,
35 FCC Rcd at 6486-87, paragraphs 1 through 2.
\79\ See, e.g., APCO May 20, 2024 Ex Parte at 2 (stating that
``[f]urther Commission action is needed to improve the transparency
and reliability of testing to evaluate location technologies and to
provide stronger requirements for carriers to deploy methods,
several of which are feasible today, to derive dispatchable
location'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek to promote greater transparency and accountability in the
test process by creating a standard process for sharing test bed data
and procedures with stakeholders. Specifically, we propose that upon
request from a non-nationwide CMRS provider, NENA, APCO, or NASNA, the
test bed administrator must provide the requesting party the same data
available
[[Page 19383]]
to CMRS providers participating in the test bed, including unaggregated
test bed results by wireless location technology provider, morphology,
and technology, as well as other relevant information sought by the
requesting party (such as information on the test bed process,
including any significant changes to the test bed process). We propose
that this obligation would include providing the requesting party with
test bed data, as well as the full report on the test bed results. In
addition, we propose that the test bed administrator must make this
information available to the requesting party on a timely basis not to
exceed 30 days, at no cost, and subject to the same confidentiality
requirements as those for the nationwide CMRS providers.
We seek comment on these proposals. Should these entities be
required to pay fees to obtain access to test data and, if so, are
guidelines or conditions needed to eliminate unnecessary costs? Is 30
days an appropriate limit on the time for responding to a request? We
also seek comment on whether the test bed administrator should be
required to negotiate a standardized agreement with requesting non-
nationwide CMRS providers and public safety entities that would provide
for access to test bed information on a timely basis and on reasonable
terms. In that connection, we seek comment on what would constitute
reasonable terms for such an agreement. We also seek comment on
narrowing the scope of confidentiality over the test bed validation
process and the extent to which the test bed administrator, CMRS
providers, technology providers, or others should be able to claim
confidentiality with respect to test results or test bed procedures.
Given the critical public importance of providing accurate location
with 911 calls, should we create a presumption that test bed reports
are to be made public? How can the Commission's rules help the test bed
strike a balance between protecting and safeguarding non-public
information (e.g., proprietary business information) in ways that
promote vendor participation in the test bed, while also promoting
greater transparency and accountability for non-nationwide CMRS
providers and public safety stakeholders in the test process?
3. Location Testing Challenge Process
The current rules provide a means for PSAPs to resolve real-world
performance issues after a tested location technology has been deployed
by a CMRS provider. However, our rules do not provide a mechanism for
stakeholders to challenge the validation of a technology in the test
bed before it is deployed. We propose to amend the rules to provide for
greater transparency in the test bed, including a process for
challenging the validation of location technologies in the test bed.
Specifically, we propose that APCO, NENA, or NASNA may submit to the
Commission a challenge to the validation of a particular technology
under the test bed provisions in the rules.\80\ We also propose that
such challenges must be limited to whether the process for validating a
particular technology has met the requirements of the rules and that
such challenges must be made prior to 60 days after the CMRS provider's
certification. Is 60 days after a CMRS provider's certification an
appropriate final deadline for submitting such a challenge? Should we
require particular information to support a challenge? We seek comment
on when to allow such challenges, e.g., while testing is underway,
after the test bed administrator has validated a particular technology,
after a CMRS provider certifies compliance with the rules, and the
proposed scope of such challenges. We also seek comment on whether to
allow additional parties besides APCO, NENA, and NASNA (e.g.,
individual PSAPs) to bring such challenges. In addition, we seek
comment on whether the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
should address challenges to the test bed validation process to ensure
compliance with our rules if the parties cannot resolve the matter,
including seeking public comment on contested technology validation. To
what extent would Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
involvement, or the challenge process as a whole, unreasonably delay
technology deployments necessary to advance our public safety
objectives in this proceeding? Should there be limits, such as time
frames, on such a challenge process to expedite it and ease the burden
on the parties involved? If so, what should those limits be? Would the
existence of a challenge process discourage parties from participating
in the test bed process?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ See 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(i) (requirements for ``Indoor
location accuracy test bed'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Increasing the Provision of Dispatchable Location With Wireless 911
Calls
Throughout this proceeding, the Commission has recognized the
importance of dispatchable location to public safety, and has sought to
encourage the development of dispatchable location solutions that would
reliably identify the precise location of in-building wireless 911
callers. In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission noted that as
part of the ``Roadmap'' agreement between public safety and the major
wireless providers, the wireless industry had committed to build the
NEAD, a national database of in-building access points that would be
leveraged to support dispatchable location. Although the Commission did
not require wireless providers to build or use the NEAD, it modeled its
rules so that wireless providers could use the NEAD as a mechanism for
complying with wireless location accuracy requirements.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ The Commission's 2015 rules specified that ``[i]n each CMA
where dispatchable location is used: nationwide CMRS providers must
ensure that the [National Emergency Address Database] is populated
with a sufficient number of total dispatchable location reference
points to equal 25 percent of the CMA population.'' 47 CFR
20.18(i)(2)(ii)(C)(1) (2015 version; also later renumbered to Sec.
9.10); see Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1361, Appx. A
(containing 2015 version of rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Sixth Report and Order, following the discontinuance of the
NEAD, the Commission modified its rules to encourage the development of
alternatives to the NEAD to support dispatchable location. The
Commission noted that the record reflected a diverse array of
technological approaches that could be used to provide dispatchable
location, including reverse geocoding, device contextual information,
indoor mapping, 5G home voice products, 911 calls using Voice over Wi-
Fi, and DBH.\82\ Given the early development of these solutions,
however, the Commission declined to adopt minimum percentage thresholds
for dispatchable location for 911 calls, finding that such
particularized requirements went beyond what was technically feasible
and cost-effective at the time.\83\ In addition, the Commission
declined to specify confidence and uncertainty values when conveying
dispatchable location, citing the need for standards work in this
area.\84\ However, the Commission adopted the requirement that ``[a]ll
CMRS providers shall provide dispatchable location with wireless E911
calls if it is technically feasible for them to do so.'' \85\ This rule
mirrors the dispatchable location requirement that the Commission
adopted in the 2019 Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Report and Order for 911
calls originated on non-CMRS platforms, including multi-line telephone
systems (MLTS),
[[Page 19384]]
interconnected VoIP, Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), and fixed
telephony.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7773, paragraph 49 &
n.139.
\83\ Id. at 7776, paragraph 53.
\84\ Id. at 7778, paragraph 61.
\85\ 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(G); Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC
Rcd at 7792, Appx. A.
\86\ Implementing Kari's Law and Section 506 of RAY BAUM'S Act;
Inquiry Concerning 911 Access, Routing, and Location in Enterprise
Communications Systems; Amending the Definition of Interconnected
VoIP Service in Section 9.3 of the Commission's Rules, PS Docket
Nos. 18-261 and 17-239, GN Docket No. 11-117, Report and Order, 34
FCC Rcd 6607, 6733-34, Appx. A (2019), 84 FR 66716 (Dec. 5, 2019)
(Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Report and Order), corrected by Erratum,
34 FCC Rcd 11073 (PSHSB 2019), also corrected by Second Erratum, 37
FCC Rcd 10274 (PSHSB 2022); 47 CFR 9.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on the degree to which the current dispatchable
location requirements for CMRS providers have, or have not, been
effective in facilitating the development of dispatchable location
solutions. According to live call data reported by the nationwide CMRS
providers for 2023 and part of 2024, CMRS providers are delivering some
live wireless 911 calls with dispatchable location.\87\ We seek comment
on specific technologies that CMRS providers are using to deliver
dispatchable location with these calls. How do CMRS providers validate
the street address and other in-building location information delivered
with such calls? Do the CMRS providers apply confidence and uncertainty
thresholds to ensure against inaccuracies or errors in the validation
process? When conveying dispatchable location with wireless 911 calls,
do CMRS providers also convey coordinate-based (x/y/z) information and,
if so, do they use the geodetic information and confidence and
uncertainty data to validate the accuracy of the dispatchable location?
When dispatchable location information is available, how often do PSAPs
use this information to support emergency response, and how do they use
it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Total aggregated dispatchable location call totals from the
2023 and 2024 (partial) quarterly reports submitted by the
nationwide CMRS providers amount to 310,542. We note that the
individual carrier data are confidential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also seek comment on how to increase the availability and use of
dispatchable location for wireless 911 calls. The live call data
reported by the nationwide CMRS providers indicate that dispatchable
location calls represent only about 0.9%; of total wireless 911
calls.\88\ To what extent are these percentages attributable to factors
beyond the carriers' control? Given this very low percentage, what
steps, if any, are CMRS providers taking to increase their use of
dispatchable location? Are there technically feasible solutions that
could support provision of dispatchable location for a larger
percentage of calls than current levels? Should we require CMRS
providers to develop plans and timelines for expanding the use of
dispatchable location when 911 calls on their networks originate in
indoor environments provisioned with Wi-Fi access points, femtocells,
or Internet of Things (IoT) devices, the location of which can be
identified and mapped for geolocation purposes? Should we establish
benchmarks or timelines for providing dispatchable location with
wireless 911 calls? Should we establish benchmarks or timelines only
for providing dispatchable location in particular environments that are
likely to have such infrastructure that can be identified and mapped
for geolocation purposes, e.g., individual residences, multi-story
office buildings, apartment buildings, hotels, conference centers, or
other environments? If we establish timelines or benchmarks, should we
provide additional time for non-nationwide CMRS providers?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ The total percentage of live 911 calls with dispatchable
location relative to z-axis information from the 2023 and 2024
(partial) quarterly reports submitted by the nationwide CMRS
providers is 0.89%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite commenters to identify incentives for CMRS providers to
expedite their efforts to find solutions for generating and conveying
dispatchable location for higher percentages of wireless 911 calls.
What is the current state of deployment of in-building infrastructure
that is or could be programmed with street address and floor level
information? Regarding access points, we seek comment on the accuracy
of programming access points with street address and floor level. What
percentage of wireless traffic is offloaded from CMRS networks to
indoor infrastructure, such as Wi-Fi and femtocells, and what
percentage of wireless 911 calls on CMRS networks present as Wi-Fi
calls? Are there circumstances where the Wi-Fi network could provide
dispatchable location information that is more precise and reliable
than the location information provided for the call over the cellular
network? Do CMRS providers currently use or plan to use location
information from indoor infrastructure in combination with geodetic (x/
y/z) coordinates? What are the timelines for planned use of in-building
infrastructure to provide dispatchable location? In that connection, we
seek comment on how combining location technologies and device sensors
can supplement CMRS providers' existing 911 network and device-assisted
information for generating dispatchable location.
We also seek to refresh the record on the current and future
feasibility of leveraging the specific technologies that the Sixth
Report and Order and other sources have identified as having the
potential to support dispatchable location, e.g., reverse geocoding,
commercial location-based services (cLBS), Voice over Wi-Fi, and small
cells.\89\ In the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission concluded that
it was premature to adopt dispatchable location benchmarks or timelines
based on these technologies.\90\ Is that still the case? We seek
comment on the potential for each of these technologies, individually
and in combination with others, to support dispatchable location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See, e.g., Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7773,
paragraph 49 & n.139.
\90\ See, e.g., id. at 7757, 7776, paragraphs 12, 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reverse Geocoding. Reverse geocoding refers to the process of using
geodetic information to generate a civic address and other location
information such as floor level and room number.\91\ We seek comment on
whether reverse geocoding represents a technically feasible solution
for generating dispatchable location and floor level estimates. Is
accurate reverse geocoding widely available and reliable? What data
sources are required for reverse geocoding, and how readily available
are they? How accurate are these data sources? Has horizontal (x/y)
location accuracy achieved sufficient granularity and confidence/
uncertainty levels to support reliable reverse geocoding of civic
addresses with minimal risk of error? As between the CMRS provider and
the PSAP, who should perform these conversions, and why? What are the
costs associated with this process for CMRS providers and PSAPs? Who
should incur these costs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ See, e.g., NENA 3D Location Requirements at 12-17. As
described by NENA, reverse geocoding matches horizontal (x/y)
coordinates to an address database to obtain a civic address, then
uses z-axis information (in HAE) to estimate AGL, and then uses AGL
to estimate the caller's floor level (FL). NENA explains, ``Geodetic
location is fundamental to location in 9-1-1 because it provides a
means for representing a position estimate. Devices, often with the
cooperation of network elements, can estimate their position. This
position estimate is expressed using a standard geodetic reference,
as coordinates within the reference. For emergency services to
correctly identify the appropriate responding agency and for
responders to locate the caller, a high-quality location estimated
in 3D space is essential. Geodetic location expressed as
standardized coordinates allows 9-1-1 networks and elements inside
and outside those networks to exchange and process location
information without conversion.'' NENA 3D Location Requirements at
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Location-Based Services. As a general matter, commercial
location-based services (cLBS) use a variety of techniques to find a
wireless 911 caller's location. For example, new technologies based on
the IEEE 802.11mc (Wi-Fi Round Trip Time or
[[Page 19385]]
Wi-Fi RTT) standard may enable smartphones to measure the distance to
nearby Wi-Fi access points and determine their indoor location without
having to connect to the access point. Have CMRS providers been
successful at leveraging commercial location-based services for 911
use? Could CMRS providers use such technologies to generate and convey
dispatchable location for wireless 911 calls and, if so, under what
conditions? Are there commercial benefits from deploying such
technologies that would support improved indoor location accuracy?
Voice over Wi-Fi (Wi-Fi Calling). The potential to deliver 911
calls over Wi-Fi has been the subject of continued study since the
Sixth Report and Order. In 2021, the Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau submitted a report to Congress on the technical
feasibility of using Wi-Fi access points to support 911 calling.\92\ In
March 2023, CSRIC issued a report on 911 service over Wi-Fi that
included discussion of location determination for Wi-Fi 911 calls.\93\
The report noted that Wi-Fi caller location continues to be heavily
reliant on the user's registered location, which may not identify the
caller's actual location at the time of the call. CSRIC noted, however,
that ``[t]he broad availability of DBH location technologies combined
with the deployment of location-based routing has led to improvements
in location information for 911 over Wi-Fi over supporting networks,
reducing the reliance upon a user-inputted Registered Location and
associated challenges.'' \94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ FCC, Report to Congress: Study on Emergency 911 Access to
Wi-Fi Access Points and Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices When Mobile
Service Is Unavailable (PSHSB Mar. 23, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/report-congress-911-over-wi-fi (Report to Congress on
Emergency 911 Access to Wi-Fi).
\93\ Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability
Council (CSRIC) VIII, Report on 911 Service Over Wi-Fi at 48-49
(2023), https://www.fcc.gov/CSRICReports.
\94\ Id. at 49.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In light of these developments, we seek comment on the current
technical feasibility of CMRS providers using Voice over Wi-Fi (also
referred to as VoWi-Fi or Wi-Fi calling) to deliver wireless 911 calls
with accurate and reliable dispatchable location. What Wi-Fi 911 calls,
if any, do CMRS providers currently deliver to PSAPs with dispatchable
location? How is the caller's location validated at the time of the
call, particularly if it is not the same as the caller's registered
location? Do CMRS providers corroborate Voice over Wi-Fi calls with
geodetic information before transmitting to PSAPs? Do CMRS providers
transmit geodetic information with such wireless 911 calls and, if so,
do they convey confidence and uncertainty data?
Small Cells. CMRS providers already deploy various indoor coverage
and network capacity expansion solutions, such as residential
femtocells, enterprise microcells, and distributed antenna systems,
that can be sources for generating dispatchable location.\95\ Because
these devices typically are deployed at known locations and have a
relatively small coverage footprint, we seek comment on whether
associating a caller to a small cell could be used in some environments
to derive a dispatchable location for the caller. How widely are small
cell \96\ solutions available today? Are they used to generate
dispatchable location or other location information in support of
wireless 911 calls? How is location information provided by the small
cell verified? What are the main issues for using these types of
solutions to generate dispatchable location? For instance, if a
femtocell is moved from its initial location, would the network detect
this and require an update to the femtocell location and prompt the end
user?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ See Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1275-76,
paragraph 46 (stating that ``the feasibility of dispatchable
location is linked to the proliferation of indoor, infrastructure-
based technologies, including small cell technology, distributed
antenna systems (DAS), Wi-Fi access points, beacons, commercial
location-based services (cLBS), institutional and enterprise
location systems, and smart building technology''). See, e.g.,
Verizon Petition for Waiver at 9 (stating that Verizon has begun
delivering dispatchable location to PSAPs for 911 calls from certain
devices when the information can be determined reliably, including
certain 911 calls using Voice over Wi-Fi and indoor Distributed
Antenna System (DAS) configurations); AT&T, AT&T Microcell [supreg]
Terms of Service https://www.att.com/legal/terms.microcellterms.html
(last visited Feb. 4, 2025) (``911 calls placed over your MicroCell
will be routed to the emergency response center responsible for
sending first responders (i.e., police, medical assistance or fire)
to your location based on the address you provide in your online
registration.'').
\96\ The Small Cell Forum has defined a small cell as ``a low-
cost radio access point with low radio frequency (RF) power output,
footprint and range. It can be deployed indoors or outdoors, and in
licensed, shared or unlicensed spectrum.'' Small Cell Forum, About
small cells, https://www.smallcellforum.org/small-cells/ (last
visited Feb. 4, 2025). Types of small cells include femtocells,
picocells, and microcells--broadly increasing in size from
femtocells (the smallest) to microcells (the largest). See, e.g.,
FCC, Small Wireless Facilities: An Introduction to 5G Infrastructure
and the Streamlined Section 106 Review of Small Wireless Facilities
at 11 (Sept. 13, 2022), https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/workshop-09132022-session-3.pdf (FCC Environmental Compliance
Workshop presentation); Press Release, Small Cell Forum, Femto Forum
Becomes Small Cell Forum as Femtocell Technology Extends Beyond the
Home (Feb. 15, 2012), https://www.smallcellforum.org/press-releases/femto-forum-becomes-small-cell-forum-femtocell-technology-extends-beyond-home/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Databases. While CMRS providers are no longer pursuing the
NEAD, the potential remains for providers to create or rely on other
address or location databases to obtain or generate dispatchable
location information. We seek comment on whether CMRS providers have
created in-house address databases or have access to third-party
databases that support 911 caller location. How reliable and accurate
are these databases? If the databases contain access point information,
how are access point locations verified, both initially and if the
access point location changes? Are there any existing standards for
creating such databases and validating addresses? Are CMRS providers
sharing, or do they intend to share, the information in these databases
with each other?
Smart Building/In-building Technologies. We seek comment on whether
the evolution and deployment of ``smart building'' technology could
lead to dispatchable location information being more readily available.
To what degree are buildings equipped with IoT sensors and data-capable
devices capable of collecting, storing, and transmitting location-
specific data that could be used to support dispatchable location for
wireless calls from within the building? Could cloud computing and
indoor mapping applications be leveraged to support expansion of smart
building capabilities into the public safety realm? Can smart building
sensors, devices, and networks be configured in such a way that a
mobile device originating a 911 call could interact with them and
derive relevant location information? Are there infrastructure
requirements to make this a viable approach? What would anticipated
incremental costs be? Would hardware or software modification be
required to handsets, or would the fact that most wireless sensors are
already configured to communicate via Bluetooth and Wi-Fi be a
mitigating factor?
5G Networks. We seek comment on whether 5G networks have the
potential to deliver more precise location information that could
support dispatchable location. Do technology providers envision the
ability to leverage on-device capabilities and analytics with 5G
capabilities to create a more precise location determination
environment? \97\ Do these 5G-based
[[Page 19386]]
improvements include positioning accuracy by combining 5G measurements,
Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), multi-path profiles, sensor
inputs, and Artificial Intelligence-assisted RF sensing using Wi-Fi as
it currently exists today? We understand that this is heavily dependent
on the broader deployment of 5G and on the implementation of updated
and advanced capabilities as defined by 3GPP. However, since public
statements continue to be made touting these benefits,\98\ we believe
there is value in discussing what specific capabilities are either
already deployed, or anticipated to become available in the near future
that support achieving dispatchable location. What is the current state
of 5G capabilities on this front? What is the roadmap for the
implementation of these advanced capabilities? Even absent the use of
Artificial Intelligence, will the deployment of 5G networks result in
greater location accuracy, including vertical location?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ See, e.g., Letter from Jeffrey S. Cohen, Chief Counsel,
APCO International, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket
No. 07-114, at 2 (filed July 10, 2020) (``With increasing news of
carriers deploying in-home and in-office 5G-based fixed wireless
products, the carriers could similarly provide dispatchable location
associated with these technologies.'').
\98\ See, e.g., Verizon Comments, PS Docket No. 07-114, at 8
(rec. Feb. 21, 2020) (Verizon Comments) (``Verizon already plans to
incorporate dispatchable location capabilities into 5G home voice
products.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other Stakeholders. As noted, we understand that it is critical to
foster cooperation and collaboration among multiple stakeholders in the
process of generating and delivering 911 calls and actionable location
information. Those parties include not only the CMRS providers and
PSAPs, but also third parties, including cable and internet service
providers (ISPs), original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and vendors.
We seek comment on the role and responsibilities of these third parties
in facilitating CMRS providers' compliance with any standards that we
may adopt for conveying dispatchable location. In this proceeding,
commenters have noted that CMRS providers, cable companies, ISPs,
device manufacturers, and operating system providers have a role to
play in improving location information for 911 but that challenges to
achieving industry coordination remain.\99\ What companies own or
control these capabilities or systems (e.g., database vendors,
equipment manufacturers, Wi-Fi access point aggregators, indoor small
cells owners or managers, IoT sensor and data-capable device owners or
managers)? To what extent do wireless providers have access or
visibility to information sources owned, controlled, or managed by
these entities? How would access to such information sources enable
CMRS providers to obtain or generate dispatchable location? We seek
comment on the extent to which applying standards or requirements to
parties other than CMRS providers would increase the availability and
use of dispatchable location solutions. Do databases or other
information sources owned, maintained, or controlled by service
providers and other entities have the capability to support location
validation with sufficient reliability to meet public safety
requirements for accurately identifying the caller's location? How
should we engage or require cable companies, ISPs, OEMs, vendors, or
other entities in finding solutions to providing validated street
address and floor level information for wireless 911 calls? Do these
parties have concerns over authentication protocols, privacy, and
security that would need to be addressed? What measures would be needed
to help ensure that location data generated by or with the assistance
of third parties are transmitted and configured to enable compatibility
and interoperability with CMRS providers and the 911 system?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 2 (``Third party providers
of those services and products all have their own business and
policy priorities that may not always coincide with one another, or
with service providers' E911 compliance demands.''); NCTA Reply, PS
Docket No. 07-114, at 10-13 (filed June 18, 2019) (stating that
``customer Wi-Fi access point data is commercially sensitive
information, and NCTA's members are troubled by the potential for
disclosure or other misuse of their customers' Wi-Fi access point
information for competitive purposes''). See also Report to Congress
on Emergency 911 Access to Wi-Fi at 15, paragraph 35 (noting that
``[t]he record reflects that the complex and competitive nature of
today's communications ecosystem impacts 911 service over Wi-Fi
access points and spectrum for unlicensed devices,'' and noting that
NCTA had stated that `` `[a]ll providers likely would need to agree
to support every transmission and compression protocol, or all
providers would need to agree on one standard' '').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We invite CMRS providers, Apple, and Google to provide a status
update on their efforts to improve wireless 911 location accuracy using
DBH. As noted above, live call data reports in the six ATIS test cities
reflect that DBH is used for 80% of wireless 911 calls. We seek comment
on whether there have been developments in DBH since 2022 that might
impact the regulatory proposals in the FNPRM. Specifically, we seek
comment on the status of DBH solutions (i.e., ELS and HELO), whether
individually or combined, and whether these technologies are improving
dispatchable location. In addition, we seek comment on plans for using
DBH and other technologies (e.g., barometric pressure sensors) to help
first responders and PSAPs find 911 callers in multi-story buildings.
Confidence and Uncertainty. We seek updated comment on establishing
confidence and uncertainty values associated with dispatchable
location. In the Fifth FNPRM, the Commission sought input on how to
account for uncertainty in dispatchable location data for a broad range
of emerging solutions, whether we should extend confidence and
uncertainty requirements to alternative dispatchable location
mechanisms and, if so, what the required confidence and uncertainty
percentage should be.\100\ In the Sixth Report and Order, the
Commission deferred consideration of this issue to a future proceeding
but encouraged carriers, public safety organizations, and other
interested parties to create standards for conveying uncertainty for
dispatchable location in a manner that is more useful for first
responders.\101\ As an interim measure, the Commission revised Sec.
9.10(j)(4) of the rules ``to make explicit that when CMRS providers
provide dispatchable location or floor level information in addition to
z-axis information, they must provide confidence and uncertainty data
for the z-axis location.'' \102\ Accordingly, we seek to refresh the
record on the state of standards work for conveying confidence and
uncertainty values associated with dispatchable location.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11625, paragraph 79.
\101\ Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7778, paragraph 61
(``Although several commenters suggest that confidence and
uncertainty values could be developed for dispatchable location, the
record indicates that no standard currently exists, and additional
work is needed to develop a standardized approach. We therefore
defer consideration of this issue to a future proceeding. We also
encourage carriers, public safety organizations, and other
interested parties to create standards for conveying uncertainty for
dispatchable location in a manner that is more useful for first
responders.'').
\102\ Id. at 7778, paragraph 62.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Live Call Reporting and Enforcement
1. Live Call Data Reports
We propose to modify our live call data reporting rules to require
CMRS providers to report the specific technologies they use to provide
dispatchable location with live 911 wireless calls and to report these
data for each morphology. The reporting template for live call data
currently requires providers to identify whether they provide
dispatchable location with live 911 calls, but it does not require them
to identify the specific technology (or combination of technologies)
used to
[[Page 19387]]
provide dispatchable location.\103\ We believe that additional
information would be helpful in evaluating the deployment of
dispatchable location solutions. We propose to revise the rules to
require information on the location technology or technologies used for
each 911 call providing dispatchable location, such as Wi-Fi calling or
femtocells.\104\ This would make the reporting for live calls providing
dispatchable location consistent with the reporting for live calls
conveying geodetic z-axis information.\105\ We additionally seek
comment on whether we should require CMRS providers to provide data not
only for each category of location technology used in live call reports
(e.g., DBH) but also for specific technologies within a category (e.g.,
HELO, ELS). Would such requirements be more burdensome than beneficial?
Would the annual reporting requirement discussed below be a more
appropriate means of collecting this information? We seek comment on
all of these issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Provides
Updated Guidance to CMRS Providers Regarding Reporting of 911 Live
Call Data: Revised Template Provides for Reporting of Vertical
Location Technology Used in Live 911 Calls, PS Docket No. 07-114,
Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd 9193, 9195, Appx. (PSHSB 2021) (Template
Public Notice), https://www.fcc.gov/document/pshsb-provides-updated-template-911-live-call-data-reports.
\104\ Wi-Fi calling is a voice service that allows users to
place and receive calls over a wireless internet connection, as
opposed to using a cellular signal. See Apple, Make a call with Wi-
Fi Calling (Dec. 8, 2023), https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203032.
A femtocell is a small, low-power cellular base station designed for
use in a residence or small business. It connects to an internet
service provider's network through broadband and, unlike Wi-Fi
calling, operates on licensed frequency bands. In most cases,
consumers must purchase a femtocell from their mobile network
operator. See Hussain Kanchwala, What Is a Femtocell and What Does
It Do? (Oct. 19, 2023, https://www.scienceabc.com/innovation/what-are-femtocells.html.
\105\ For example, for live calls delivering z-axis information,
the reporting template requires providers to ``enter each position
technology or combination of technologies used to determine z-axis
coordinates (e.g., DBH, barometric sensor-based technology, etc.).''
Template Public Notice, 36 FCC Rcd at 9195, Appx. (setting similar
requirement for live calls delivering x/y-axis information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Complaint Portal
Our current rules provide that PSAPs may seek Commission
enforcement of location accuracy requirements within their geographic
service area, ``but only so long as they have implemented policies that
are designed to obtain all location information made available by CMRS
providers when initiating and delivering 911 calls to the PSAP.'' \106\
In addition, prior to seeking Commission enforcement, ``a PSAP must
provide the CMRS provider with [30] days written notice, and the CMRS
provider shall have an opportunity to address the issue informally. If
the issue has not been addressed to the PSAP's satisfaction within 90
days, the PSAP may seek enforcement relief.'' \107\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(iv).
\107\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the existing rules provide a mechanism for PSAPs and CMRS
providers to resolve 911 location performance issues at the local
level, we believe transparency and accountability would be enhanced by
establishing a centralized clearinghouse for PSAPs to notify CMRS
providers of complaints. The Commission established such a mechanism in
the 800 MHz rebanding proceeding, requiring CMRS providers to establish
and maintain an online portal for public safety to provide notice of
interference complaints.\108\ Notification in the 800 MHz portal also
initiated the timeline for CMRS providers to address complaints before
Commission enforcement action could be initiated.\109\ We seek comment
on whether we should require CMRS providers to establish a similar
centralized, online complaint portal that PSAPs could use to report
location accuracy problems to CMRS providers before seeking FCC
enforcement. How should such a complaint portal function? For example,
upon receipt of a complaint in the portal, should CMRS providers have a
time limit for attempting to resolve it (e.g., 90 days, as provided by
existing rules)? What would be the costs associated with such a
complaint mechanism?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See 800 MHz Interference Notification, Public Safety
800MHz Interference Notification Site, https://prod.publicsafety800mhzinterference.com/sign-in (last visited Feb.
4, 2025).
\109\ See 47 CFR 90.674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Improving Accuracy of Horizontal Location Information
We seek to refresh the record on improving the accuracy of
horizontal location accuracy information for wireless 911 calls. In
January 2015, the Commission adopted horizontal location accuracy
standards for 911 as part of the Fourth Report and Order.\110\ In
particular, the Commission required all CMRS providers to provide (1)
dispatchable location, or (2) x/y location within 50 meters, for the
following percentages of wireless 911 calls within the following
timeframes, measured from the effective date of the rules adopted in
the Fourth Report and Order:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1259; 47 CFR
9.10(i)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within 2 years: 40 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
Within 3 years: 50 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
Within 5 years: 70 percent of all wireless 911 calls.
Within 6 years: 80 percent of all wireless 911 calls.\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\111\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1261, 1287, 1361,
paragraphs 6, 74, Appx. D; 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The rules allow non-nationwide CMRS providers (regional, small, and
rural carriers) to extend the five- and six-year deadlines based on the
timing of Voice over Long Term Evolution (VoLTE) deployment in their
networks.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1261, 1287, 1361,
paragraphs 6, 74, Appx. D; 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The record in this proceeding underscores the importance of
accurate and reliable horizontal location information for first
responders and in particular the effect that inaccurate horizontal
location can have on the accuracy of vertical location information.
NENA has commented that vertical location accuracy and floor level
estimations would benefit greatly from increased accuracy in the
horizontal plane and that the Commission's existing rules for
horizontal uncertainty ``could easily place the caller on the right
floor but in a building across the street.'' Similarly, the
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC) has pointed out that
``[w]hile a 50-meter horizontal metric may provide enough
information for a PSAP to provide a dispatchable address, it can also
lead to responders arriving at an incorrect building location.'' And
the Texas 9-1-1 Entities have stated that ``the horizontal and vertical
information must work together in order for public safety entities to
be able to convert x-, y-, and z-axis information to the floor level of
the correct building.'' \113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Texas 9-1-1 Entities Comments, PS Docket No. 07-114, at 6
(rec. Feb. 21, 2020) (emphasis omitted); see also NextNav, LLC
(NextNav) Comments, PS Docket No. 07-114, at 23 (rec. Feb. 21, 2020)
(stating that ``the preexisting requirement for 50 meter horizontal
accuracy cannot guarantee that the information provided will always
identify the correct building''); Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Inc. (Esri) Reply, PS Docket No. 07-114, at 3 (rec. Mar.
20, 2020) (Esri Reply) (discussing the current limits of horizontal
accuracy of 50 meters and stating that ``[l]imited horizontal
accuracy could not only result in improperly identifying the
horizontal location of a caller, but--when coupled with less-than-
accurate vertical information--could result in first responders
reporting to the wrong building'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has been a decade since the Commission's horizontal location
accuracy rules were adopted, and location technologies have advanced
considerably since 2015. We seek comment on what progress has been made
since 2015 to develop and deploy
[[Page 19388]]
technological solutions that provide more accurate horizontal location
information for wireless calls to 911. What percentage of wireless 911
calls provide horizontal location information that is more accurate
than the Commission's requirement, and how accurate is the information
provided?
What specific technologies are available to provide improved
horizontal location accuracy? T-Mobile has noted the potential of DBH
technology for providing more accurate horizontal location information.
CTIA similarly has noted that device-based solutions such as Google's
ELS and Apple's HELO ``continue to emerge, and . . . earlier achieved
more granular horizontal location for wireless 9-1-1 calls,
particularly indoors.'' What are the capabilities of DBH solutions such
as ELS and HELO for improving horizontal location accuracy, and how
widely available are these technologies? Are there other technologies
besides DBH that could be used for improving horizontal location
accuracy, either alone or in combination with DBH? Does the use of non-
U.S. satellite signals (e.g., signals from the European Union's Global
Navigation Satellite System (GNSS), known as Galileo), in conjunction
with the existing 911 system, improve indoor horizontal location
accuracy? \114\ Does the transition to Next Generation 911 have an
impact on indoor horizontal location accuracy and, if so, what is that
impact? \115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\114\ See, e.g., Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements;
AT&T Services, Inc. Request for Authorization and Waiver, PS Docket
No. 07-114, Order, 35 FCC Rcd 8805 (2020).
\115\ See, e.g., 47 CFR part 9, subpart J; Facilitating
Implementation of Next Generation 911 Services (NG911); Location-
Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls, PS Docket Nos. 21-479 and 18-
64, Report and Order, FCC 24-78, 2024 WL 3507091 (July 19, 2024), 89
FR 78066 (Oct. 17, 2024), corrected by Erratum, 2024 WL 3507091
(Sept. 5, 2024) and Second Erratum, 2024 WL 3507091 (Oct. 1, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it is technically feasible to strengthen the horizontal location
accuracy requirements, what changes do commenters recommend? Is a
smaller radius than 50 meters feasible and, if so, what specific radius
do commenters support? What percentage of wireless calls should be
required to meet this level of accuracy and within what time frame?
What testing and validation in the test bed should be required to
demonstrate compliance with any new horizontal location accuracy
requirements? Would the current testing and validation processes in the
test bed need to be modified accordingly and, if so, how? Should there
be separate requirements for non-nationwide providers and, if so, what
should these requirements be? We also seek comment on the costs and
benefits of any suggested changes to the existing horizontal location
accuracy requirements. In addition, we seek comment on whether there
are any other engineering or other issues that the Commission should
consider with regard to improving horizontal location accuracy.
F. Mobile Text Location Accuracy
We seek to refresh the record on improving location accuracy for
mobile texts. The Commission's 2014 Second Report and Order on text-to-
911 required covered text providers, which include CMRS providers, to
obtain location information sufficient to route text messages to the
appropriate PSAP.\116\ However, the Commission did not require text
providers to convey additional location information to PSAPs at that
time. The Commission also noted the possibility that Short Message
Service (SMS) text-to-911 would be an interim solution and that CMRS
providers might eventually seek to migrate customers away from
SMS.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next
Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911
Deployment, PS Docket Nos. 11-153 and 10-255, Second Report and
Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd
9851, paragraph 10 (2014), 79 FR 55367 (Sept. 16, 2014) (Text-to-911
Second Report and Order), 79 FR 55413 (Sept. 16, 2014) (Text-to-911
Third NPRM), corrected by Erratum (PSHSB Aug. 22, 2014); see also 47
CFR 9.10(q)(10)(v).
\117\ Text-to-911 Second Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 9867-
68, paragraph 44; see also FCC, Interim Text to 9-1-1 Working Group:
Co-chairs: Brian Daly, AT&T and Gregg Vanderheiden, TRACE (Sept. 14,
2012), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-316315A1.pdf
(selecting SMS as the default texting solution because it was a
standard-based solution and could be rapidly deployed to provide
nationwide access to 911 during the transition to NG911).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2019 Report and Order implementing Kari's Law and RAY BAUM'S
Act, the Commission noted that covered text providers, including CMRS
providers, were starting to transition mobile wireless text services
from SMS to more robust IP-enabled platforms, such as real-time text
(RTT).\118\ The Commission noted that these IP-enabled platforms were
capable of providing location information with 911 texts using some of
the same location methodologies that were used to support IP-based
voice services.\119\ In addition, the Commission noted the potential to
use the DBH location capabilities of mobile handsets (e.g., HELO and
ELS) to generate location information, which could then be sent via
text to the PSAP.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at
6690, paragraphs 217 through 218.
\119\ Id. at 6690, paragraph 218; see also AT&T Comments, PS
Docket Nos. 18-261 and 17-239, at 11 (rec. Dec. 10, 2018) (AT&T KL/
RBA Comments) (stating that because real-time text includes a voice
component, it can access specific caller location updates--and
deliver them to the PSAP); Verizon Comments, PS Docket Nos. 18-261
and 17-239, at 7 (rec. Dec. 10, 2018) (Verizon KL/RBA Comments)
(``The transition to IP-enabled LTE networks, and global text
telephony (GTT) (i.e., real-time text or RTT) solutions, that
leverage VoLTE's E911 capabilities, will most effectively improve
location accuracy for text-based communications to PSAPs.'').
\120\ Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at
6690, paragraph 218 (citing Comtech Comments at 6-7; West Safety
Comments at 12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 2019 order, the Commission reasoned that ``as a practical
matter, covered text providers are unlikely to be capable of providing
dispatchable location for most 911 texts, and . . . the quality of
`best-available' location information provided with 911 texts may
vary.'' \121\ The Commission concluded that it was premature to adopt
dispatchable location requirements for text-to-911 comparable to the
requirements applicable to other services covered by the order and,
instead, adopted a flexible approach to text-to-911 location.\122\
Specifically, the Commission required covered text providers, within
two years of the effective date of the rules (i.e., by January 6,
2022), to provide automated dispatchable location if technically
feasible and otherwise to provide either end-user manual provision of
dispatchable location or enhanced location information, which could be
coordinate-based, consisting of the best available location that can be
obtained from any available existing technology or combination of
technologies at reasonable cost.\123\ The Commission noted that this
rule did not require covered text providers to retrofit SMS-based text
networks or to upgrade legacy mobile handsets that are only SMS-
capable.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at
6691, paragraph 220.
\122\ Id. at 6691, paragraph 220.
\123\ Id. at 6691, paragraph 220; see also 47 CFR
9.10(q)(10)(v).
\124\ Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at
6691, paragraph 220.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on what progress has been made since 2019 to
develop and deploy technological solutions for delivering location with
texts to 911. What percentage of 911 texts currently include location
information? Does the percentage vary between SMS texts and IP-based
texts such as real-time text (RTT)? What specific types of location
information are covered text providers delivering to comply with the
Commission's rules (i.e., automated
[[Page 19389]]
dispatchable location, end-user manual provision of dispatchable
location, or enhanced location information), and what percentage of
total texts to 911 do these types of location information represent?
How accurate is the location information provided? What are the
capabilities of current 4G/5G networks and user devices to provide
high-quality location information for text-to-911? Has progress been
made since 2019 with respect to using DBH to provide location for 911
texts? Are ELS and HELO providing location information for text-to-911?
Does the information provided include z-axis data? Does it include
confidence and uncertainty data? Are there technologies other than DBH
that could be leveraged for providing location with texts to 911? Are
any 911 texts delivered to PSAPs with dispatchable location information
as opposed to coordinate-based information?
We seek comment on whether location technology for text-to-911 has
progressed to the point that the Commission could reasonably require
either dispatchable location or coordinate-based location for 911 texts
at accuracy levels comparable to the accuracy required for 911 voice
calls. If we determine that such a requirement would be appropriate,
when should carriers be required to comply and how should the
requirement be enforced? We also seek comment on whether we should
continue to distinguish between SMS texts and more advanced IP-based
text services. As noted above, CMRS providers argued in the Kari's Law
and RAY BAUM'S Act proceeding that requiring dispatchable location
capabilities for SMS would require major retrofitting of legacy SMS
networks.\125\ Is that still the case? Would adopting stronger
requirements for location accuracy help to encourage the transition
from SMS to next generation texting solutions?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\125\ See id. at 6690-91, paragraph 219; see also, e.g., AT&T
KL/RBA Comments at 11; T-Mobile Reply, PS Docket Nos. 18-261 and 17-
239, at 4 (rec. Feb. 8, 2019); Verizon KL/RBA Comments at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Eliminating Outdated Wireless Location Accuracy Rules
As part of our focus on ensuring that our wireless location
accuracy rules keep pace with technology, we seek comment on whether
certain of our legacy wireless location accuracy rules have become
outdated and should be eliminated. Specifically, we believe that many
of our original E911 Phase II location rules are no longer necessary
because they have been superseded by the comprehensive location
accuracy rules that the Commission adopted in 2015. We also propose to
eliminate certain obsolete information collection requirements
associated with our wireless location accuracy rules, and we invite
commenters to identify any other requirements in Sec. 9.10 of the
rules that could be eliminated.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\ See 47 CFR 9.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The E911 Phase II rules were adopted and revised in a series of
Commission orders dating from 1996 to 2010.\127\ These rules required
CMRS providers to provide horizontal location information for wireless
911 calls in accordance with accuracy thresholds that were tailored to
then-current handset- and network-based location technologies optimized
for location of outdoor wireless calls. The Commission established an
eight-year period for implementing Phase II, ending in 2019, with
interim benchmarks.\128\ In addition, CMRS providers were only required
to provide Phase II location information to PSAPs that requested the
information, were capable of receiving and using it, and had a
mechanism for recovering the costs associated with it.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\ See, e.g., 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 and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18682-84, paragraph 10 (1996), 61 FR
40348 (Aug. 2, 1996) (First E911 Report and Order), 61 FR 40374
(Aug. 2, 1996) (First E911 FNPRM); Wireless E911 Location Accuracy
Requirements; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, PS
Docket No. 07-114, WC Docket No. 05-196, Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 18957 (2010), 75 FR
67321 (Nov. 2, 2010).
\128\ See Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS
Docket No. 07-114, Second Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18909, 18947,
Appx. C (2010), 75 FR 70604 (Nov. 18, 2010); see also 47 CFR
20.18(h)(1)(ii)(C) (2010 version; later renumbered to 47 CFR 9.10)
(setting forth benchmark location accuracy standards to be met
``[e]ight years from January 18, 2011''); FCC, Wireless E911
Location Accuracy Requirements, 75 FR 70604 (Nov. 18, 2010)
(establishing the January 18, 2011 effective date). Compliance will
be measured on a per-county or per-PSAP basis using, at the
carrier's election, either (1) network-based accuracy data, (2)
blended reporting as provided in 47 CFR 20.18(h)(1)(iv), or (3)
handset-based accuracy data as provided in 47 CFR 20.18(h)(1)(v).
See 47 CFR 20.18(h)(1)(ii)(C)(1) through (3) (all referenced Sec.
20.18 provisions later renumbered to 47 CFR 9.10); see also, e.g.,
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Reminds CMRS Providers
Using Network-Based and Handset-Based Location Technologies of the
January 18, 2019 Phase II Deadline for Improved Outdoor E911
Location Accuracy, PS Docket 07-114, Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 524
(PSHSB 2019).
\129\ First E911 Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18684,
paragraph 11; 47 CFR 9.10(m)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2014, the Commission initiated a comprehensive overhaul of its
wireless location accuracy rules. The Commission noted that consumers
were ``increasingly replacing traditional landline telephony with
wireless phones, and a majority of wireless calls are now made
indoors,'' making it imperative for PSAPs ``to have the ability to
accurately identify the location of wireless 911 callers regardless of
whether the caller is located indoors or outdoors.'' \130\ The
Commission also for the first time identified the need for 911 location
to include a vertical as well as a horizontal component.\131\ In 2015,
the Commission adopted the comprehensive rules that remain in effect
today, which require both horizontal (x- and y-axis) and vertical (z-
axis) location accuracy for wireless 911 calls.\132\ These rules make
no distinction based on the technology used to provide 911 location,
and they apply to both indoor and outdoor calls.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\ Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket
No. 07-114, Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd
2374, 2375, paragraph 1 (2014), 79 FR 17819 (Mar. 28, 2014) (Third
FNPRM).
\131\ Third FNPRM, 29 FCC Rcd at 2375-76, paragraph 2.
\132\ See Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1360, Appx. D
(codified at former 47 CFR 20.18(i), later renumbered to 47 CFR
9.10(i)).
\133\ See Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1325-26,
paragraphs 179 through 181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Fourth Report and Order, the Commission discussed whether
the E911 Phase II rules were still needed, noting that the newly
adopted location accuracy requirements ``may ultimately moot the issue
of whether to replace the current outdoor-based accuracy requirements
for [E911] Phase II.'' \134\ However, the Commission declined to
eliminate the Phase II rules at that time, observing that the last
Phase II benchmark would occur in January 2019. Instead, the Commission
stated that ``once the last Phase II benchmark has passed, we may
revisit the issue of when to sunset date the current Phase II
requirements and establish a unitary accuracy standard.'' \135\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\134\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1326, paragraph
181. The Commission explained that the E911 Phase II rules provided
a set of outdoor-focused location accuracy benchmarks for CMRS
providers using either network-based or handset-based location
technologies and allowed the network-based CMRS providers to switch
to handset-based technologies. Id. at 1326, paragraph 180. The
Commission also noted that the Phase II rules would serve to
maintain regulatory certainty for CMRS providers that were providing
service on their legacy systems while they were planning to migrate
to VoLTE networks. Id. at 1326, paragraph 180.
\135\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1326, paragraph
181.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion. We believe the location accuracy rules adopted in the
Fourth Report and Order and refined in subsequent orders have now fully
superseded the E911 Phase II rules. The location accuracy thresholds
now in
[[Page 19390]]
effect are more stringent than the legacy Phase II requirements, and
they apply to both indoor and outdoor calls. The new rules also do not
distinguish between network-based and handset-based technologies, and
they are not conditioned on requests from PSAPs to receive location
information. We therefore seek comment on eliminating the E911 Phase II
rules specified below.
The Phase II rules are primarily codified in Sec. 9.10(h) of the
Commission's rules.\136\ We seek comment on whether to delete this
subsection in its entirety, or whether there are any portions that
should be retained. We also seek comment on whether to streamline or
eliminate additional subsections that reference Phase II compliance
requirements, including the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\136\ 47 CFR 9.10(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 9.10(e) of the rules requires licensees to
``provide to the designated Public Safety Answering Point Phase II
enhanced 911 service, i.e., the location of all 911 calls by longitude
and latitude in conformance with Phase II accuracy requirements'' as
defined in paragraph (h).\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\137\ 47 CFR 9.10(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 9.10(f) provides that licensees who employ a
network-based location technology shall provide Phase II 911 enhanced
service over a phased timeline subject to certain coverage area or
population requirements or PSAP request.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\ 47 CFR 9.10(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 9.10(g) provides that licensees who employ a
handset-based location technology may phase in deployment of Phase II
enhanced 911 service subject to certain requirements.\139\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\139\ 47 CFR 9.10(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 9.10(l) requires licensees to ``report to the
Commission their plans for implementing Phase II enhanced 911 service''
by November 9, 2000, and to ``update these plans within thirty days of
the adoption of any change.'' \140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\140\ 47 CFR 9.10(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would eliminating any of these rules create regulatory gaps? Are
there any aspects of the Phase II rules that we should retain, or
retain with modifications? For example, should we retain the latency
(time to first fix) requirements? \141\ Has technology advanced to the
point that it significantly reduces latency to less than 30 seconds, as
the Commission predicted in 2015? \142\ Similarly, should we retain the
Phase II requirements for resellers and, if not, should we update the
obligations of resellers to provide accurate location information under
47 CFR 9.10(p)(1) and (2)? \143\ In addition, if we eliminate the Phase
II rules, how would roaming be impacted? We invite commenters to
identify any roaming problems that exist today or that may surface if
we eliminate the Phase II requirements.\144\ Finally, if we eliminate
the Phase II rules, what time frame would be appropriate? Is there any
reason to phase out these rules over time rather than eliminating them
immediately?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\ 47 CFR 9.10(h)(3).
\142\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1324-25, paragraph
176.
\143\ 47 CFR 9.10(p)(1), (2).
\144\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1334, paragraph 200
(``We reserve the right to take action in the future, if necessary,
to ensure that accurate location information is provided for
wireless calls to 911 while roaming.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek comment on whether deletion of the Phase II rules would
have any adverse effects on PSAPs or other 911 authorities or cause
these entities to incur any costs. We do not believe that eliminating
the Phase II rules would require any additional action on the part of
PSAPs or require PSAPs to incur any additional costs. We note that most
911 systems continue to use Phase I and Phase II classifications in
their processing of calls, and that the vast majority of wireless calls
to PSAPs arrive as either WPH1 or WPH2 classes of service.\145\ In
proposing to eliminate the Phase II rules, we do not intend for these
service classifications to become obsolete or for PSAPs to have to
purchase updated systems for call routing or handling.\146\ Similarly,
we do not intend for the elimination of these rules to impose any
obligation on a PSAP that is not currently capable of receiving Phase
II information to modify or upgrade its call-handling or location
capabilities. In this regard, we note that the location accuracy rules
adopted in the Fourth Report and Order apply regardless of a PSAP's
readiness to receive such information or any request from the PSAP. We
therefore seek comment on whether to retain or eliminate 47 CFR
9.10(m), which provides a procedure for PSAPs to request Phase I or
Phase II E911 service. While the number is small, there are still Phase
0 and Phase I PSAPs in the United States. Do commenters believe that
maintaining the conditions for these PSAPs to request E911 service from
CMRS providers is still useful? What effect, if any, would eliminating
the PSAP request process have on PSAP costs?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\145\ ``WPH1'' refers to wireless Phase I calls, while ``WPH2''
refers to wireless Phase II calls.
\146\ For example, we emphasize that we do not anticipate that
the elimination or streamlining of Phase II rules and other Sec.
9.10 rules would require any PSAP to purchase, modify, or upgrade
technology, software, or equipment, or to make any other changes or
expenditures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conjunction with the above proposals, we propose to modify the
section heading for the location accuracy rules adopted in the Fourth
Report and Order, codified at 47 CFR 9.10(i).\147\ That section is
titled ``Indoor location accuracy for 911 and testing requirements,''
although the rules apply to both indoor and outdoor calls to 911. To
help clarify the scope of these rules, we propose to remove the word
``indoor'' from the title of this section and headings in Sec.
9.10(i), such as the Sec. 9.10(i)(2) heading. We seek comment on this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\ These rules were originally codified at 47 CFR 20.18(i)
and later renumbered to 47 CFR 9.10(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, we propose to eliminate certain obsolete information
collection requirements from 47 CFR 9.10(i). Specifically, we propose
to delete Sec. 9.10(i)(4)(i) and (ii), which required CMRS providers
to submit initial implementation plans and two progress reports
regarding their implementation of the 2015 location accuracy
rules.\148\ Because CMRS providers have completed their fulfillment of
these reporting obligations, these requirements are no longer
necessary. In addition, we propose to delete information collection
requirements pertaining to the National Emergency Address Database
(NEAD), which discontinued operation in 2020.\149\ Specifically, we
propose to delete the NEAD definition in Sec. 9.10(i)(1)(iii) and
requirements to submit a privacy and security plan for the NEAD under
Sec. 9.10(i)(4)(iii).\150\ We seek comment on these proposals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\148\ 47 CFR 9.10(i)(4)(i) (initial implementation plan) and
(ii) (progress reports).
\149\ The Commission has recognized that the NEAD was formally
terminated in 2020. See Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7773,
paragraph 49 & n.136 (2020) (citing NEAD Feb. 14 2020 Termination
Letter at 1).
\150\ 47 CFR 9.10(i)(1)(iii) (NEAD definition), (i)(4)(iii)
(NEAD privacy and security plan).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We tentatively conclude that the regulatory revisions proposed
above would make our rules easier ``for the average person or business
to understand'' and reduce ``the risk of costs of non-compliance.''
\151\ We seek comment on whether any additional provisions in Sec.
9.10 of the Commission's rules should be eliminated, consolidated, or
streamlined consistent with the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\ See Executive Order 14192 of January 31, 2025, Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation, 90 FR 9065 (Feb. 6, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/unleashing-prosperity-through-deregulation/ (E.O. 14192).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 19391]]
H. Summary of Benefits and Costs
Analysis. As discussed above, we are proposing or seeking comment
on several measures to strengthen our wireless 911 location accuracy
rules and seek comment on the cost and feasibility of those measures.
The strengthening and enhancing of our existing rules would lead to
improved emergency response times through the provision of: (1) more
reliable, accurate, and actionable vertical location information for
PSAPs; (2) a higher percentage of wireless 911 calls conveying
dispatchable location; and (3) increased transparency into the test bed
process for the stakeholder community and a stronger 911 location
accuracy compliance framework.
Any solution for strengthening wireless 911 location accuracy for
voice calls and texts, no matter how effective, must withstand the test
of feasibility and functionality relative to cost. We therefore seek
comment on whether the implementation of our proposals for calls and
texts can improve upon the speeds at which emergency personnel and
services relying on the 911 system can reach the caller, with a
resulting improvement in the health and safety of the caller and
preservation of property, and the magnitude of this presumed benefit.
In the Fourth Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission
concluded that the location accuracy rules, including the z-axis and
dispatchable location requirements, would improve emergency response
times, which, in turn, would improve patient outcomes and save
lives.\152\ The Commission found that the location accuracy
improvements that it adopted had the potential to save approximately
10,120 lives annually and estimated an annual benefit of approximately
$92 billion or $291 per wireless subscriber.\153\ The Commission
characterized this $92 billion as an annual benefit floor value because
it expected substantial benefits from the reduction of loss of life and
property.\154\ The Commission further found that the costs of
implementing the available solutions to achieve the indoor wireless
location accuracy standards were far less than the $92 billion benefit
floor, with the costs further declining as demand grew.\155\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\152\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1319, paragraph
162.
\153\ Id. at 1320, paragraph 166. These values are based on a
study examining emergency incidents during 2001 in the Salt Lake
City area, which found that a decrease in ambulance response times
reduced the likelihood of mortality. Id. at 1317, paragraph 160. The
$9.1 million value referenced in the Fourth Report and Order was
based on the United States Department of Transportation's (DoT) 2013
memorandum on the value of a statistical life (VSL). Id. at 1319,
paragraph 163 n.402. DoT presently estimates the VSL at $9.6
million. See Memorandum from Molly J. Moran, Acting General Counsel,
and Carlos Monje, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, to
Secretarial Officers and Modal Administrators, U.S. Department of
Transportation, ``Guidance on Treatment of the Economic Value of a
Statistical Life (VSL) in U.S. Department of Transportation
Analyses'' (Aug. 8, 2016), https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf.
We do not update our benefits calculation for the 2022 VSL increase
to $12.5 million because the estimated benefits of today's item are
already over fifty times higher than the estimated costs. See U.S.
Department of Transportation, Departmental Guidance on Valuation of
a Statistical Life in Economic Analysis (March 23, 2021), https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis.
\154\ Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1319-20, paragraphs
162, 166.
\155\ Id. at 1322, paragraph 170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When assessing the benefits of adopting a 3-meter metric, in the
Fifth Report and Order, the Commission began with the analysis from
this proceeding's Fourth Report and Order.\156\ In the Fifth Report and
Order, the Commission agreed with comments that the Commission made a
conservative assumption in factoring a one-minute reduction in
emergency response time and that the Commission underestimated the
benefits of providing emergency responders with z-axis
information.\157\ In addition, the Commission reiterated that the
addition of vertical location information--like the further refinement
of horizontal location information--plays a major role in achieving the
$92 billion benefit floor for improving wireless location
accuracy.\158\ Due to U.S. Department of Transportation updates for
reducing the likelihood of mortality, the Commission estimated this
annual benefit floor at $97 billion.\159\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\ Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11617, paragraph 55.
\157\ Id. at 11617-18, paragraph 56.
\158\ Id. at 11618, paragraph 57.
\159\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Sixth Report and Order, the Commission concluded that its
previous cost benefit assessment remained valid as applied to CMRS
providers continuing their efforts to provide increasingly accurate
location information.\160\ The Commission received comments indicating
that one of its proposals--``the flexibility to cover 80% of tall
buildings'' in an area as an alternative for meeting the handset
location-accuracy benchmark of 80% of the population of an area--would
``achieve significant public benefits.'' \161\ The Commission adopted
this flexible deployment option as a part of its rules, and concluded
that the ``costs associated with a nationwide handset deployment''
would be minimal and that the Commission did not ``anticipate any
changes in our [prior] cost/benefit analysis for nationwide CMRS
providers opting for handset-based deployment.'' \162\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\160\ Sixth Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd at 7783-84, paragraph
72.
\161\ Id. at 7784, paragraph 73.
\162\ Id. at 7785, paragraph 74.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek information on how the proposed measures would increase
this benefit established from the Sixth Report and Order and previous
items in this proceeding. If predicted benefits have not been realized,
do the proposed measures help attain those unrealized benefits? We
anticipate improved location information would further reduce first
responders' delays associated with locating emergency victims. For
example, first responders or dispatchers would have to manually convert
an HAE to an AGL in any practical application, so we expect that pre-
calculating this number would save time. We also anticipate that
strengthening the compliance framework would ensure that CMRS providers
comply with the measures in a timely fashion and would help realize
these benefits. We seek comment on these judgments. In particular,
quantitative information on improvements in emergency response times,
adverse health outcomes, or mortality due to additional z-axis
information would be especially valuable.
Providing Actionable Information to PSAPs. By having stronger z-
axis location rules, we anticipate that actionable information such as
floor level reporting would be provided to the PSAPs on a more
consistent and reliable basis than it is currently. One way to achieve
accurate floor level information may be to have CMRS providers that
deploy z-axis technology deliver z-axis information using AGL in
addition to HAE as previously discussed. We seek comment on the level
of effort and the costs for CMRS providers--both nationwide and non-
nationwide--to convert HAE values for individual 911 calls to AGL. We
seek comment and information on the costs associated with other data
sources and best means available that can be leveraged to generate
floor level information.
Strengthening the Wireless 911 Location Accuracy Testing and
Compliance Framework. We propose that having a stronger location
accuracy testing and compliance framework would increase transparency
into the process and accountability for CMRS
[[Page 19392]]
providers, leading to increased public confidence, identification of
weaknesses and strengths of various approaches, and improved public
safety. As discussed herein, we seek comment on the costs associated
with the proposed rules to increase transparency in the test bed and
providing confidence in the real-world performance of the technologies
tested. These proposals include validating performance in the test bed,
requiring test bed data access for non-nationwide CMRS providers and
NENA, APCO, and NASNA, and increasing transparency into test bed
validation procedures. Specifically, we propose:
Validation of a vertical location technology in the
industry test bed must demonstrate compliance of that technology in
each morphology and may not be based on CMRS provider live call data.
Thus, CMRS providers may not rely on test bed results that have been
aggregated or averaged across morphologies or that have been weighted
on the basis of live call data;
Upon receipt of a request from a non-nationwide CMRS
provider or certain public safety associations (i.e., APCO, NENA, and
NASNA), the test bed must share the following information at no cost
and on a timely basis:
[cir] test bed data and results by wireless location technology
provider, morphology, and technology, as well as other relevant
information (such as information on the test bed process, including any
significant changes to the test bed process); \163\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\163\ The Commission already requires CMRS providers to submit
aggregate live call data on a quarterly basis to the Commission as
well as to NENA, APCO, and NASNA. 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(ii)(B); Fourth
Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 1310, paragraph 135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NENA, APCO, or NASNA may file with the Commission a
challenge to the validation of a particular technology in the test bed.
We seek comment on the costs associated with provider compliance
under this strengthened framework of rules. In particular, we seek
comment on the costs associated with CMRS provider compliance as
discussed previously.
Increasing Percentage of Wireless 911 Calls with Dispatchable
Location. At this stage of refreshing the record without a specific
rule proposal, we lack sufficient information to speculate on the costs
of any new dispatchable location requirements. Accordingly, the total
cost estimates of today's item do not include potential costs of a new
dispatchable location requirement. However, we do seek comment on the
costs of any potential rules for increased dispatchable location
technology deployment on a more certain timeline, should the Commission
consider or adopt such a rule in a subsequent proceeding. By increasing
the percentage of wireless 911 calls that convey dispatchable location,
we anticipate that first responders can achieve faster emergency
response times, which would lead to more lives saved.\164\ As discussed
earlier, we seek comment on the costs associated with reverse geocoding
and the costs of implementing that process. In that connection, we seek
to refresh the record on dispatchable location technology solutions in
light of technological developments and broader standardization in IP-
based delivery of 911 traffic. We seek comment on the costs associated
with providers increasing the number of wireless 911 calls with
dispatchable location from the levels currently being reported. Also,
what updated dispatchable location solutions are available to achieve
this goal and what are their associated costs? What will be the
breakdown of these solutions across providers, and will certain kinds
of providers be likely to favor particular implementations? Do the
implementations differ in how much and what kinds of labor or materials
would be required? Will certain solutions be combined in practice?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\164\ Fifth Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 11625, paragraph 80
(``We recognize the importance to public safety of obtaining
dispatchable location information regarding which `door to kick in.'
''); id. at 11625, paragraph 80 n.275 (stating that APCO refers to
dispatchable location as the ``gold standard'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improvements to Horizontal Location Information and Mobile Text
Location Accuracy. The total cost estimates in this item do not include
potential costs of any new requirements for improving horizontal
location accuracy or location accuracy for mobile texts. However, we do
seek comment on the costs of any potential rules pertaining to
improving horizontal location accuracy or location accuracy for mobile
texts should the Commission consider or adopt such a rule or rules in a
subsequent proceeding.
Strengthening Reporting Requirements. As reflected in the history
of this proceeding, there is ample precedent for the Commission to
revive and strengthen the reporting requirements in an effort to
increase public trust and provide transparency.\165\ We seek comment on
the associated costs and level of effort needed by both nationwide and
non-nationwide CMRS providers to comply with our proposed requirements,
as well as the requirements the Commission seeks comment on but has not
proposed. For instance, we seek comment on the costs associated with
requiring CMRS providers to establish a centralized, online complaint
portal that PSAPs could use to report location accuracy problems to
CMRS providers before seeking FCC enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\165\ We look to the already approved assessment of burden hours
and costs associated with the reporting requirements for CMRS
providers in this proceeding. See 47 CFR 9.10(i)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we seek comment on the costs associated with requiring
CMRS providers to provide more detailed information on dispatchable
location technologies in their live call data reports. We also seek
comment on whether we should require CMRS providers to provide data not
only for each category of location technology used in live call reports
(e.g., DBH) but also for specific technologies within a category (e.g.,
HELO, ELS). What additional costs would be incurred from requiring more
detailed and granular information with live call reports? We
tentatively conclude the benefits of these changes would be
significant. Transparency into what specific dispatchable location
technologies are being used by providers will help PSAPs better
understand the source of the data being delivered and the confidence
they should have in it. We believe this would encourage providers to
continue improving their dispatchable location technology solutions,
which would lead to higher PSAP confidence in the information and the
facilitation of faster emergency response times.
Eliminating Certain Existing Regulations. We seek comment on
whether to eliminate existing Phase II rules, and we propose to
eliminate certain other obsolete or superseded 911 location accuracy
rules in 47 CFR 9.10. Would eliminating these rules make our
regulations easier to understand and help simplify compliance issues?
Would having fewer obsolete or superseded rules in existence reduce the
burden on stakeholders, for example, by making our rules easier for the
average person or business to understand and by reducing the risk of
costs of non-compliance? \166\ Would any additional, unexpected costs
be created by the elimination of these rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\166\ See E.O. 14192.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost of Implementation. With respect to costs not exceeding their
benefits, we seek comment on whether implementation of our proposed
measures would result in significant hardware, software, services, GIS,
[[Page 19393]]
testing, or other costs to nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS and
covered text providers, NG911 services providers, or state and local
911 authorities. We seek comment on the amount of those costs and ask
commenters to provide sufficiently detailed information to allow
accurate cost calculations.
In the absence of a detailed record on costs for the proposed
revisions to our rules, we provide estimates below based on previous
estimate calculations in the record, and ask commenters to provide
information to improve these estimates as necessary. To be conservative
in our approach, we seek to provide upper-bound estimates, so that
actual costs will be at or below these levels. The December 2023 Voice
Telephone Services Report lists 53 ``mobile telephony'' providers in
total, so we assume that 53 providers will incur the cost.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\167\ FCC Office of Economics and Analytics, Industry Analysis
Division, Voice Telephone Services: Status as of December 31, 2023
at 10, Table 2 (Nov. 8, 2024), https://www.fcc.gov/voice-telephone-services-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that all of the cost of an HAE to AGL conversion will
be labor. To the best of our understanding, the conversion under all
methodologies is a purely mathematical procedure with proper elevation
data. We believe that free or open-source elevation data are available,
so a provider would not need to incur significant costs to acquire the
data.\168\ New or upgraded equipment or software would not be required.
Service providers would incur a labor cost associated with the labor
needed to incorporate these data into existing systems, a cost to
develop the conversion software, and a cost to deploy the software on
the network. In the Supporting Statement of Study Area Boundary Data
Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format, the Commission estimated that it
takes an average of 26 hours for a data scientist to modify a
shapefile.\169\ We therefore use a conservative upper bound of the time
required for a party to incorporate the new elevation data of twice
that amount, or 52 hours. Given that the average wage rate is $56.24/
hour for data scientists in the telecommunications industry,\170\ with
a 45% markup for benefits,\171\ we arrive at $81.55 as the hourly
compensation rate for a data scientist. As such, we estimate an upper
bound for the cost of updating elevation maps to be approximately $0.2
million ([ap] $81.55 per hour x 52 hours x 53 providers = $224,751.80).
In addition, we understand that the HAE to AGL conversion is relatively
simple from a mathematical perspective and so the associated
programming will not require a large team. We therefore assume that
approximately a month (four forty-hour workweeks) would be an upper
bound of the time that a single software developer and a single
engineer would need to update software so as to implement the
conversion and apply it to service providers' networks. Assuming the
average wage of a software developer is $63.75/hour,\172\ with a 45%
markup for benefits, we arrive at $92.44/hour as the compensation rate
for software developers. We estimate the upper bound for the cost of
software development would be approximately $0.8 million ([ap] $92.44/
hour x 4 weeks x 40 hours x 53 providers = $783,891.20). Assuming the
average wage of network engineers is $54.95/hour,\173\ with a 45%
markup for benefits, we arrive at $79.68/hour as the compensation rate
for network engineers. We estimate the upper bound for the cost of
network engineering would be approximately $0.7 million ([ap] $79.68/
hour x 4 weeks x 40 hours x 53 providers = $675,686.40). Altogether, we
estimate a total cost of the HAE to AGL conversion to be approximately
$1.7 million ([ap] $0.2 million + $0.8 million + $0.7 million). We seek
comment on these cost estimates. In particular, to what extent has
progress in the development of data sources and translation tools that
CMRS providers could use to translate HAE to AGL decreased the costs of
HAE to AGL conversion?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\168\ For example, as noted, the United States Geological Survey
provides a free topological map of the United States at a \1/3\ arc-
second DEM on its website. United States Geological Survey, The
National Map (TNM) Datasets, https://apps.nationalmap.gov/datasets/
(last visited Feb. 4, 2025). One-third arc-second is equivalent to a
resolution of ``approximately 10 meters north/south, but variable
east/west due to convergence of meridians with latitude.'' United
States Geological Survey, About 3DEP Products & Services, https://www.usgs.gov/3d-elevation-program/about-3dep-products-services (last
visited Feb. 4, 2025).
\169\ See Federal Communications Commission, ``Study Area
Boundary Data Reporting in Esri Shapefile Format, DA 12-1777 and DA
13-282,'' Information Collection Request (ICR) Supporting Statement,
Office of Management and Budget Control No. 3060-1181, at 5,
paragraph 12 (Feb. 15, 2022), https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202202-3060-009.
\170\ The mean hourly wage for data scientists in the
telecommunications industry in May 2023 is $56.24. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, May 2023 National Industry-Specific Occupational
Employment and Wage Estimates NAICS 517000--Telecommunications
(April 3, 2024), https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_517000.htm
(BLS Telecommunications Wages).
\171\ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of
September 2023, civilian wages and salaries $32.25/hour and benefits
averaged $14.59/hour. Total compensation therefore averaged $32.25 +
$14.59, rounded to $46.84. See Press Release, Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--September 2024
(Dec. 17, 2024), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf.
Using these figures, benefits constitute a markup of $14.59/$32.25~
45%. We therefore mark up wages by 45% to account for benefits,
which results in total hourly compensation of $56.24 x 145% =
$81.55.
\172\ The mean hourly wage for software developers in the
telecommunications industry in May 2023 is $63.75. See BLS
Telecommunications Wages.
\173\ The mean hourly wage for computer network architects in
the telecommunications industry in May 2023 is $54.95. See BLS
Telecommunications Wages. The Bureau of Labor Statistics considers
the title ``computer network architect'' to be synonymous with
``network engineer.'' 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For our proposals strengthening the testing and compliance
framework and improving live call reporting and enforcement, we
anticipate costs to be primarily labor. These measures would involve
changes to the procedures and new releases of associated data, but not
substantial changes to the equipment involved. Instead, attorneys and
engineers would have to work to adhere to the new compliance framework,
and web designers would have to create the location accuracy complaint
portal. We anticipate three forty-hour workweeks will be an upper bound
to the time to implement required changes based on the Commission's
prior estimates for similar requirements.\174\ Without a further
record, we do not know how many workers are necessary for all tasks,
but we think that three teams of five people is sufficient for the
necessary legal, engineering, and web design work. Assuming the average
wage of an attorney is $104.66/hour,\175\ with a 45% markup for
benefits, we arrive at $151.76/hour as the compensation rate for
attorneys. We estimate the upper bound for the cost of associated legal
work would be approximately $4.8 million ([ap] $151.76/hour x 5 workers
x 40 hours x 3 weeks x 53 providers = $4,825,968.00). Assuming the
average wage of industrial
[[Page 19394]]
engineers is $52.63/hour,\176\ with a 45% markup for benefits, we
arrive at $76.31/hour as the compensation rate for industrial
engineers. We estimate the upper bound for the cost of associated
engineering work would be approximately $2.4 million ([ap] $76.31/hour
x 5 workers x 40 hours x 3 weeks x 53 providers = $2,426,658.00).
Assuming the average wage of web designers is $43.80/hour,\177\ with a
45% markup for benefits, we arrive at $63.51/hour as the compensation
rate for web designers. We estimate the upper bound for the cost of
website development would be approximately $2.0 million ([ap] $63.51/
hour x 5 workers x 40 hours x 3 weeks x 53 providers = $2,019,618.00).
Altogether, we estimate a total cost of strengthening the compliance
framework to be approximately $9.2 million ([ap] $4.8 million + $2.4
million + $2.0 million).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\174\ See Federal Communications Commission, ``Improving 911
Reliability; Reliability and Continuity of Communications Including
Networks, Broadband Technologies,'' Information Collection Request
(ICR) Supporting Statement, Office of Management and Budget Control
No. 3060-1202, at 10 (Oct. 2023), https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202309-3060-007 (estimating 562 total
employee compliance hours per regulated provider for similar
reporting and data collection compliance costs as today's item,
compared to today's estimate of 600 total employee compliance hours
per regulated provider--three forty-hour weeks, or 120 hours, times
five employees per provider).
\175\ The mean hourly wage for lawyers in the telecommunications
industry in May 2023 is $104.66.
\176\ The mean hourly wage for industrial engineers (including
those in health and safety) in the telecommunications industry in
May 2023 is $52.63. See BLS Telecommunications Wages.
\177\ The mean hourly wage for web developers in the
telecommunications industry in May 2023 is $43.80. See BLS
Telecommunications Wages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First-year costs of this item's proposals total to approximately
$10.9 million from the initial conversion from HAE to AGL and changing
the compliance framework ($1.7 million + $9.2 million). We do not
anticipate additional ongoing costs from the HAE to AGL conversion once
it is implemented because regular maintenance to a provider's z-axis
systems is expected regardless of whether AGL is implemented or not.
There may also be additional annual costs with respect to the new
compliance framework, live call reporting, and enforcement, but they
are also likely to be less than the initial year as work shifts to
maintenance of the new framework. Thus, we find treating the first-year
costs as an upper bound for all subsequent annual costs to be
reasonable. That said, we judge that both the initial and ongoing cost
upper bounds will be lower than the billions of dollars of annual
benefits from improved emergency response, but seek comment on the
reasonableness of these judgments and the associated estimates.
I. Timelines and Minimizing Burdens on CMRS Providers
We seek comment on timelines and minimizing burdens on CMRS
providers. The rules we propose to adopt include steps that we believe
will help minimize the impact on CMRS providers, including non-
nationwide CMRS providers.
Vertical Location. We propose to require nationwide CMRS providers
that deploy z-axis technology to make AGL available to PSAPs from any
z-axis capable handset within 12 months after the effective date of the
final rule. We propose to afford non-nationwide CMRS providers an
additional 12 months, i.e., 24 months after the effective date of the
final rule, to comply with this requirement. In addition, we seek
comment on requiring all CMRS providers to convert AGL to floor level
estimates and appropriate timelines for CMRS providers, including non-
nationwide CMRS providers.
Test Bed Requirements. We propose to require the test bed to
validate location technology on a per-morphology basis and to prohibit
test bed reliance on CMRS provider live call data. We also propose that
nationwide CMRS providers must deploy on a nationwide basis either
dispatchable location or z-axis technology that has been validated in
accordance with these proposed requirements within 24 months after the
effective date of the final rule. In addition, we propose that non-
nationwide CMRS providers would have an additional 12 months to deploy
dispatchable location or z-axis technology in compliance with this
requirement. Would the proposed deadlines for these requirements have
any impact on the existing indoor location accuracy requirements,
including upcoming benchmark dates for compliance? \178\ If so, should
we harmonize these requirements and, if so, how? To increase
transparency and minimize burdens on non-nationwide CMRS providers, we
propose to require the test bed to provide data to non-nationwide CMRS
providers and public safety organizations NENA, APCO, and NASNA at no
cost and on a timely basis. We also propose to create an FCC
adjudication process for those three public safety organizations to
challenge test bed validation of location technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\178\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(E), (F) (requiring that
by April 3, 2025, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy on a
nationwide basis either dispatchable location or z-axis technology;
non-nationwide CMRS providers have an additional year to comply with
this requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dispatchable Location. We seek comment on mechanisms to increase
the number of wireless 911 calls that convey dispatchable location and
to ensure that CMRS providers, including non-nationwide CMRS providers,
use dispatchable location technologies to their maximum potential as
they become available. Consistent with the Commission's approach in
this proceeding to existing location accuracy requirements, we seek
comment on extending any deadlines with respect to dispatchable
location for non-nationwide CMRS providers.\179\ For instance, should
non-nationwide CMRS providers have additional time based on the timing
of their location technology deployments?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\179\ See 47 CFR 9.10(i)(2)(i)(B), (i)(2)(ii)(F) (providing
additional time for non-nationwide CMRS providers to meet certain
horizontal and vertical location accuracy benchmarks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Call Reports. We propose to require all CMRS providers to
report the specific technologies they use to provide dispatchable
location with live 911 wireless calls and to report these data for each
morphology. We also propose to maintain the current filing timelines,
i.e., nationwide CMRS providers must aggregate live 911 call data on a
quarterly basis and report that data to APCO, NENA, and NASNA; and non-
nationwide CMRS providers must do so on a biannual basis.
Enforcement. We seek comment on requiring all CMRS providers to
establish a centralized, online complaint portal that PSAPs could use
to report location accuracy problems to CMRS providers before seeking
FCC enforcement. In that connection, we seek to reduce burdens on PSAPs
in reporting issues with location accuracy. In addition, requiring
industry to develop a single interface could lead to standard processes
and protocols for response, including initial meetings, testing, and
documentation. We seek comment on a reasonable timeline for
implementing such a measure.
Eliminating Certain Existing Regulations. We seek comment on
whether the existing E911 Phase II wireless location accuracy rules
have become outdated and should be eliminated, and we propose to
eliminate certain obsolete information collection requirements
associated with the wireless location accuracy rules in 47 CFR 9.10. We
believe eliminating these particular rules would make our 911 location
accuracy regulations easier to understand and would help reduce the
risk of costs of noncompliance, thereby helping to reduce the burden on
CMRS providers. We seek comment on whether each of these rules should
be eliminated immediately or phased out over time, and why.
Procedural Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA),\180\ requires that an
[[Page 19395]]
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.'' \181\ Accordingly, the Commission has prepared an
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning potential
rule and policy changes contained in the FNPRM. The IRFA is set forth
in this document. The Commission invites the general public, in
particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must be
filed by the deadlines for comments on the FNPRM indicated in the DATES
section of this document and must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\180\ 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, was amended by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\181\ 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. The FNPRM contains
proposed new or modified information collection requirements.
Specifically, the proposed requirements in paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(H) and
(N), (i)(3)(i)(F) and (G), and (i)(3)(ii)(A) and (C) of Sec. 9.10 of
the Commission's rules contain new or modified information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection
requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, we
seek specific comment on how we might ``further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.'' \182\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\182\ 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act. Consistent with
the Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-
9, a summary of this document will be available on https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in the FNPRM. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines in the FNPRM.
The Commission will send a copy of the FNPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
The goal of this proceeding is to strengthen the Commission's
wireless location accuracy rules to put more actionable 911 call
location information in the hands of Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs) and first responders. This will help ensure that all Americans
using mobile phones--whether calling from urban or rural areas, from
indoors or outdoors--have technology that is functionally capable of
providing accurate location information to allow users to receive the
necessary assistance in times of an emergency. In the Fourth Report and
Order, released on February 3, 2015, in PS Docket No. 07-114, the
Commission adopted requirements for all Commercial Mobile Radio Service
(CMRS) providers to improve the accuracy of 911 location information
from wireless devices delivered to PSAPs, with benchmark dates for CMRS
providers to achieve horizontal or x/y location accuracy milestones.
The Fourth Report and Order recognized current trends in mobile
wireless usage, particularly that more American households are now
``wireless only'' than ever before. The need to expeditiously provide
accurate 911 location information is made more pressing with the
proliferation of commercial location-based services, and consumer
expectations that 911 location will be as accurate or more accurate
than commercial applications, and because of the crucial role it can
play in protecting life and property.
Commission action in the Fifth Report and Order, released on
November 25, 2019, adopted a vertical or z-axis location accuracy
metric, and required CMRS providers to deliver z-axis information in
Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE). In the Sixth Report and Order, released
on July 17, 2020, the Commission expanded the options for CMRS
providers choosing to deploy z-axis technology to meet the April 2021
and April 2023 compliance benchmarks. The Commission also required
nationwide CMRS providers to deploy z-axis technology nationwide by
April 2025, and required non-nationwide CMRS providers, which are
typically small, regional, and rural providers, to do the same
throughout their service areas by April 2026. In addition, to make the
wireless dispatchable location rules consistent with the Commission's
dispatchable location rules for other services adopted pursuant to
section 506 of RAY BAUM'S Act, the Sixth Report and Order required CMRS
providers by January 6, 2022, to provide dispatchable location for
wireless 911 calls when it is technically feasible and cost-effective
for them to do so. Non-nationwide CMRS providers were given an
additional year to meet this benchmark. The Sixth Report and Order also
included measures allowing CMRS providers flexibility to develop
dispatchable location solutions that do not depend on the National
Emergency Address Database (NEAD), which had been discontinued.
Additionally, the Sixth Report and Order addressed implementation
issues for dispatchable location solutions that are not based on the
NEAD, including (1) privacy and security, and (2) confidence and
uncertainty data requirements.
In the FNPRM, the Commission proposes to build on recent
technological developments and standardization efforts that CMRS
providers, and other stakeholders could leverage to convey more
actionable information with wireless 911 calls. Specifically, we
propose to make z-axis location information more actionable by
including requirements for CMRS providers to provide PSAPs z-axis
information in Height Above Ground Level (AGL), and we seek comment on
requiring CMRS providers to convert AGL to floor level estimates. In
addition, the Commission seeks comment on ways to increase the
percentage of wireless 911 calls that convey dispatchable location
(street address, plus additional information to locate the 911 caller)
and requests to refresh the record on the state of technology capable
of providing dispatchable location. As part of this goal, we seek
comment on how to foster cooperation and collaboration among multiple
stakeholders in the process of generating and delivering 911 calls and
actionable information--not only the CMRS providers and PSAPs, but also
third parties, including cable and internet service providers (ISPs),
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and vendors.
We also propose to strengthen our wireless location accuracy
testing process with proposed rules to improve the test bed validation
process and to require more transparency with respect to test bed
results. Specifically, we propose to modify our rules to require that
testing and validation of vertical location technologies in the
industry
[[Page 19396]]
test bed demonstrate compliance of each technology with the 3-meter
metric in each morphology, and that validation of a technology in the
test bed may not be based on CMRS provider live call data. Thus, we
would no longer allow CMRS providers to base compliance certifications
on aggregating or averaging test bed results across morphologies, or on
live call data. In addition, we propose to provide non-nationwide CMRS
providers and certain major public safety organizations (National
Emergency Number Association (NENA), Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO), and National
Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA)) with expanded access
to test bed data and results on request. We further propose to allow
NENA, APCO, and NASNA to challenge the validation of particular
technologies in the test bed.
Improvements to live call data reporting include a proposal to
require live call data reports to include information on the specific
technologies CMRS providers used to provide dispatchable location. To
strengthen the Commission's enforcement of its wireless location
accuracy rules, we seek comment on requiring CMRS providers to develop
a centralized, online complaint portal that PSAPs could use to report
location accuracy problems to CMRS providers before seeking FCC
enforcement. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on improving
horizontal (x,y) location accuracy for wireless 911 calls. The
Commission also seeks to refresh the record on improving location
accuracy for mobile texts to 911, and requests comment on the current
status of technology solutions for the delivery of location information
for texts to 911. Finally, we seek comment on whether our existing
Phase II location accuracy rules have become outdated and should be
eliminated, and we propose to eliminate certain other obsolete or
superseded 911 location accuracy rules in 47 CFR 9.10. We also request
comment on the benefits and costs associated with our proposals.
B. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332; the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and section 106 of the
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of
2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility 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 34.75 million businesses.
Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were
approximately 530,109 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.
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 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts)
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least
48,724 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 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.
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.
[[Page 19397]]
Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
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.
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.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines
this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities
may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services,
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure
that they operate are included in this industry. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers
or fixed local service providers.
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 4,590 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers,
the Commission estimates that 4,146 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.
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 both incumbent and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers. 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 4,590 providers
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 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.
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.
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.
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA
have developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange 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 that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated
with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on
[[Page 19398]]
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 127 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of interexchange services. Of these providers,
the Commission estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard,
the Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this
industry can be considered small entities.
Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed
a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers.
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. 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; they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for
Telecommunications Resellers classifies a business as 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 for the entire
year. Of that number, 1,375 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 207
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of local
resale services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 202
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.
Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal
communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in the
1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with 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.
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.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small
under the SBA's small business size standard.
Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Narrowband Personal
Communications Services (Narrowband PCS) are PCS services operating in
the 901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 MHz bands. PCS services are
radio communications that encompass mobile and ancillary fixed
communication that provide services to individuals and businesses and
can be integrated with a variety of competing networks. Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry
with 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.
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.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several
UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television
broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of
America,\183\ and is governed by subpart I of part 22 of the
Commission's Rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size
standard applicable to this service.
[[Page 19399]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\183\ E.O. 14172, 90 FR 8630 (Jan. 31, 2025). The Gulf of
America, formerly known as the Gulf of Mexico.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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 (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.
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.
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.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. 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.
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
[[Page 19400]]
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.
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.
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.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band encompasses
spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible operations in
these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses,
including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and
mobile wireless commercial services (including 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.
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.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band encompasses
spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are
nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz
bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed,
mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new
broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services
(including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile
wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive,
cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. 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.
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
[[Page 19401]]
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.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Wireless Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
developed a small business size standard specifically for Wireless
Resellers. The closest industry with 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 business size
standard, the majority of providers can be considered small entities.
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.
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Providers.
Telecommunications relay services enable individuals who are deaf, hard
of hearing, deafblind, or who have a speech disability to communicate
by telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to using voice
communication services. Internet-based TRS connects an individual with
a hearing or a speech disability to a TRS communications assistant
using an Internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than
the public switched telephone network. Video Relay Service (VRS) one
form of internet-based TRS, enables people with hearing or speech
disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice telephone
users over a broadband connection using a video communication device.
Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) another form of
internet-based TRS, permits a person with hearing loss to have a
telephone conversation while reading captions of what the other party
is saying on an internet-connected device. A third form of internet-
based TRS, Internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay), permits an
individual with a hearing or a speech disability to communicate in text
using an Internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than
using a text telephone (TTY) and the public switched telephone network.
Providers must be certified by the Commission to provide VRS and IP CTS
and to receive compensation from the TRS Fund for TRS provided in
accordance with applicable rules. Analog forms of TRS, text telephone
(TTY), Speech-to-Speech Relay Service, and Captioned Telephone Service,
are provided through state TRS programs, which also must be certified
by the Commission.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business
size standard specifically for TRS Providers. All Other
Telecommunications is the closest industry with an SBA small business
size standard. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are 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 Commission data there are 14 certified
internet-based TRS providers and two analog forms of TRS providers. The
Commission however does not compile financial information for these
providers. Nevertheless, based on available information, the Commission
estimates that most providers in this industry are small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The proposed rules in the FNPRM will impose new or additional
reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements on small
and other CMRS providers, if adopted. The changes contained in the
proposed rules are necessary and vital to the effective implementation
of improved wireless location accuracy, which will reduce emergency
response times, improve PSAP dispatch to emergencies, and improve the
ability of first responders to respond to emergencies. Based on the
continuing public safety need for the Commission and other relevant
entities to have information on CMRS provider implementation of
wireless location accuracy, the Commission has proposed certain
modifications in the FNPRM. For example, we propose to revise our live
call data reporting rules by requiring CMRS providers to report on the
specific technologies they use to provide dispatchable location, such
as Wi-Fi calling or femtocells. The FNPRM proposals build on recent
technological developments and standardization efforts that we believe
CMRS providers can leverage to convey to PSAPs more actionable
information with wireless 911 calls.
Next we turn to our discussion of compliance costs for reporting
and other proposals in the FNPRM. As an initial matter the Commission
notes that there is an absence of detail in the record on the costs of
the proposed rule changes and other matters upon which the Commission
seeks comment in the FNPRM. Therefore, the Commission used previous
estimates and calculations in the record to formulate compliance cost
estimates for the proposals in the FNPRM. The Commission used the upper
bound of these prior estimates to produce an outcome where the actual
costs of our
[[Page 19402]]
proposals should be at or less than the previous estimates that were
used. We estimated that 53 CMRS providers would be subject to the
requirements of the FNPRM and would incur costs if the proposed rules
were adopted, based on the December 2023 Voice Telephone Services
Report, which lists a total of 53 ``mobile telephony'' providers. The
first year costs for the 53 CMRS providers to implement the proposals
we discuss are estimated to be approximately $10.9 million, which we
disaggregate and discuss based on the following two categories: HAE to
AGL conversion, and strengthening the testing and compliance framework.
The Commission does not anticipate that there will be any substantial
ongoing costs following the initial implementation, and therefore finds
it reasonable to treat the first-year implementation costs as an upper
bound for all subsequent annual costs.
The $10.9 million total cost to the 53 CMRS providers as a group
consists of the estimated breakout that follows. The HAE to AGL
conversion is estimated to be approximately $1.7 million, which
includes the approximate costs of labor for data scientists ($224,752),
software engineers ($783,891), and network engineers ($675,686). To
strengthen the compliance framework the estimated total cost of
approximately $9.2 million by all CMRS providers encompasses labor
costs for attorneys ($4,825,968), industrial engineers ($2,426,658),
and web designers ($2,019,618). The Commission seeks comment on costs
including but not limited to our estimates, assumptions, calculations,
and costs we did not consider and/or include that are relevant to the
costs for small and other CMRS providers to implement the proposals in
this proceeding. The Commission anticipates that the initial and
ongoing cost upper bounds that we have estimated will be less than the
$97 billion annual benefit of the improved emergency response we cite
in the Fifth Report and Order for improving wireless location accuracy,
and we seek comment in the FNPRM on whether it is reasonable for us to
hypothesize that the benefit of the proposals in the FNPRM will be a
certain increased percentage of the $97 billion annual benefit.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.
Applying the proposed requirements will promote 911 service and
emergency response to the benefit of all small or other governmental
jurisdictions, businesses, equipment manufacturers, and business
associations by providing greater confidence in 911 location accuracy
and providing more actionable information to PSAPs. To accommodate the
unique circumstances facing small entities, including non-nationwide
CMRS providers, the rules we propose to adopt include the steps and
alterative discussed below that we believe will help minimize the
impact on such entities.
Vertical Location. The Commission proposes to require non-
nationwide CMRS providers to make AGL available to PSAPs from any z-
axis capable handset within 24 months after the effective date of the
final rule. This would afford non-nationwide CMRS providers an
additional 12 months beyond the 12 months for nationwide CMRS providers
to comply with this proposed requirement. In addition, we seek comment
on requiring all CMRS providers to convert AGL to floor level
estimates, and appropriate compliance timelines for non-nationwide CMRS
providers. Once AGL information is available, floor level estimation
can be accomplished using digital building maps or assuming a uniform
building structure and floor spacing. If the Commission were to use a
structure and spacing approach, we inquire whether this approach would
meet the needs of public safety, and whether there would be any
critical concerns to public safety or industry. Alternatively, in our
consideration of using digital building maps which could provide more
accurate floor information, we inquire about the associated costs for
this approach since building maps vary in resolution, availability, and
cost.
Test Bed and Compliance Requirements. The proposed rule
modifications to the test bed requirements in the FNPRM are intended to
increase transparency, promote competitive neutrality, and engender
greater public confidence that test bed performance results reflect
real-world location accuracy performance. Specifically, we propose to
modify our rules to require that validation of a vertical location
technology in the industry test bed must demonstrate compliance of that
technology in each morphology, and may not be based on CMRS provider
live call data. Thus, CMRS providers would not be allowed to base
compliance certifications on aggregating or averaging test bed results
across morphologies. In connection with this requirement, we seek
comment on how small or non-nationwide CMRS providers that do not
participate in the test bed should use the existing performance data to
certify their compliance with the FCC requirements. We also propose to
require nationwide CMRS providers to comply with this requirement
within 24 months after the effective date of the final rule, and we
propose to afford non-nationwide CMRS providers an additional 12 months
(for a total of 36 months after the effective date of the final rule)
to comply. In addition, we propose to provide non-nationwide CMRS
providers, and major public safety organizations (NENA, APCO, and
NASNA) expanded access to test bed data and results on request. We
further propose to allow NENA, APCO, and NASNA to challenge the
validation of particular technologies in the test bed. We seek comment
on these proposals. In addition, we seek comment on making test bed
data presumptively public information, and expressly requiring test bed
test procedures and reports to be made public, which we believe will
further reduce burdens for non-nationwide CMRS providers.
Dispatchable Location. The Commission seeks comment on how to
increase the availability and use of dispatchable location for wireless
911 calls by small and other CMRS providers. The FNPRM asks what steps,
if any, CMRS providers are taking to increase their use of dispatchable
location, and whether there are technically feasible solutions that
could support provision of dispatchable location for a larger
percentage of calls than current levels. In addition, the FNPRM seeks
comment on collaborative approaches among all parties in the call and
location delivery process (e.g., CMRS providers, PSAPs, cable
companies, ISPs, OEMs, and vendors) that might be explored to
facilitate an increase in dispatchable location usage. Further, the
FNPRM considers and asks whether we should require CMRS providers to
develop plans and timelines for expanding the use of
[[Page 19403]]
dispatchable location when 911 calls on their networks originate in
indoor environments provisioned with Wi-Fi access points, femtocells,
or IoT devices, the location of which can be identified and mapped for
geolocation purposes. The FNPRM also considers and asks whether the
Commission should establish benchmarks and timelines for providing
dispatchable location with wireless 911 calls originating in particular
environments that are likely to have such infrastructure in place,
e.g., individual residences, multi-story office buildings, apartment
buildings, hotels, conference centers, or other environments.
Consistent with the Commission's approach in this proceeding relative
to horizontal location accuracy requirements, we seek comment on
allowing non-nationwide CMRS providers to extend the deadlines based on
the timing of their location technology deployments.
The Commission also considers and seeks comment on whether we
should establish benchmarks or timelines for providing dispatchable
location with wireless 911 calls. In addition, we seek comment on the
current technical feasibility of CMRS providers using Voice over Wi-Fi
(also referred to as VoWi-Fi or Wi-Fi calling) to deliver wireless 911
calls with accurate and reliable dispatchable location. We considered
alternatives involving location database information, and seek comment
on whether and to what extent CMRS providers and parties other than
wireless carriers that are involved in the 911 call flow should support
the provision of dispatchable location.
Live Call Reports. To realize more robust live call data reporting,
the Commission proposes to require small and other CMRS providers to
report more granular data on position methods. Expanding on our
discussion in section D above, CMRS providers would be required to
provide specific information on dispatchable location technologies they
use to obtain, generate, and deliver dispatchable location with live
911 wireless calls. This proposed requirement is consistent with the
information small and other CMRS providers are currently required to
submit to the Commission for live calls transmitting geodetic
information, and therefore the Commission does not expect this rule
change to impose a significant burden for small entities. We also
propose to maintain the biannual reporting structure for non-nationwide
CMRS providers for live call data, and therefore we do not impose any
additional burdens since we do not propose to modify reporting
intervals.
Enforcement. Similar to the 800 MHz interference complaint portal,
the Commission is considering establishing a centralized, online
complaint portal that PSAPs could use to report location accuracy
problems to CMRS providers before seeking FCC enforcement. We seek
comment on requiring small and other CMRS providers to establish such a
portal. The Commission believes that using such a portal could reduce
burdens on PSAPs and CMRS providers associated with reporting, and
resolving issues with location accuracy. In addition, requiring the
industry to collaboratively develop a single reporting interface should
lead to standard processes and protocols for response, including
initial meetings, testing, and documentation, which should further
reduce the administrative burdens for small and other CMRS providers
when dealing with location accuracy complaints.
Mobile Text Location Accuracy. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks
to refresh the record on how location accuracy for mobile texts can be
improved, and on the current status of technical solutions for the
delivery of location information with text messages to 911. While we
inquire about ways to improve location quality and availability of SMS
texts to 911, at this time the Commission does not propose any
requirements for location-based routing for SMS texts to 911. Instead,
we consider alternatives and raise for discussion issues such as
whether dispatchable location or enhanced location accuracy comparable
to the level of accuracy required for voice services should be required
given the current state of the technology for text-to-911, and whether
the transition to next generation texting solutions can be encouraged
by adopting stronger location accuracy requirements.
Horizontal Location Information Accuracy. In the FNPRM, the
Commission seeks to refresh the record on whether the requirements
pertaining to the accuracy of 911 horizontal location information
should be revised, and on the current status of horizontal location
technology. While we inquire about horizontal location, at this time
the Commission does not propose any new requirements for the accuracy
of 911 horizontal location information.
Eliminating Certain Existing Regulations. The Commission seeks
comment on whether the existing E911 Phase II wireless location
accuracy rules in Sec. 9.10 of the Commission's rules have become
outdated and should be eliminated, and also proposes to eliminate
certain obsolete information collection requirements associated with
the wireless location accuracy rules. We believe eliminating these
particular rules would make our 911 location accuracy regulations
easier to understand, and reduce the risk of costs of noncompliance,
thereby reducing administrative and economic burdens for small and
other CMRS providers. We seek comment on whether each of these rules
should be eliminated immediately or, alternatively, phased out over
time. The Commission does not anticipate that elimination of these
rules should add any costs or additional burdens for small and other
CMRS providers. We seek comment on whether there are any additional
provisions in Sec. 9.10 of the Commission's rules for which
streamlining, consolidating, or eliminating would serve the public
interest.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201,
214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 214, 222, 225,
251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332; the Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, as amended, 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 Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
adopted.
It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set
forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Sixth Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in
the Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the Secretary
shall send a copy of the Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications
equipment, Internet, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Satellites, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone.
[[Page 19404]]
Federal Communications Commission
Katura Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in this document, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 9 as follows:
PART 9--911 REQUIREMENTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201,
202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303,
307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615
note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721,
and 1471, and Section 902 of Title IX, Division FF, Pub. L. 116-260,
134 Stat. 1182, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 9.10 by:
0
a. Revising the heading of paragraph (i);
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (i)(1)(iii);
0
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (i)(2) and paragraph
(i)(2)(ii)(H);
0
d. Adding paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(N), (i)(2)(iii)(D), and (i)(3)(i)(E)
through (G);
0
e. Revising paragraphs (i)(3)(ii)(A) and (C);
0
f. Removing and reserving paragraphs (i)(4)(i) through (iii); and
0
g. Adding paragraph (i)(5).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 9.10 911 Service.
* * * * *
(i) Location accuracy for 911 and testing requirements--
* * * * *
(2) Location accuracy standards. CMRS providers subject to this
section shall meet the following requirements:
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(H) CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must do so
consistent with the following z-axis accuracy metric: Within 3 meters
above or below (plus or minus 3 meters) the handset for 80% of wireless
E911 calls made from the z-axis capable device. CMRS providers must
deliver z-axis information in Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE). Where
available to the CMRS provider, floor level information must be
provided in addition to z-axis location information. CMRS providers
also must deliver z-axis information in the format identified in
paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(H)(1) or (2) of this section, as applicable.
(1) Beginning on [DATE TWELVE MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE], nationwide CMRS providers that deploy z-axis
technology must do so consistent with the z-axis accuracy metric in
this paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(H) and must deliver z-axis information for
individual 911 calls in Height Above Ground Level (AGL), as well as in
Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE), to the PSAP. AGL may be obtained by
subtracting the terrain height at any horizontal (x/y) location from
the corresponding HAE value, provided that both terrain height and HAE
are expressed with respect to the same reference frame.
(2) Beginning on [DATE TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE
OF THE FINAL RULE], non-nationwide CMRS providers that deploy z-axis
technology must do so consistent with the z-axis accuracy metric in
this paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(H) and must deliver z-axis information for
individual 911 calls in Height Above Ground Level (AGL), as well as in
Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE), to the PSAP. AGL may be obtained by
subtracting the terrain height at any horizontal (x/y) location from
the corresponding HAE value, provided that both terrain height and HAE
are expressed with respect to the same reference frame.
* * * * *
(N) By [DATE TWENTY-FOUR MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
FINAL RULE], nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy on a nationwide
basis either dispatchable location or z-axis technology that has been
validated in accordance with the requirements of paragraph (i)(3)(i)(E)
of this section. By [DATE THIRTY-SIX MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE FINAL RULE], non-nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy throughout
their network footprint either dispatchable location or z-axis
technology that has been validated in accordance with the requirements
of paragraph (i)(3)(i)(E) of this section.
(iii) * * *
(D) A CMRS provider certifying its compliance with the benchmark
dates specified in paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(N) of this section may not rely
on test bed results that have been aggregated or averaged across
morphologies or that have been weighted on the basis of live call data.
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) For purposes of complying with the benchmark dates specified in
paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(N) of this section, validation of a technology in
the test bed must demonstrate compliance of that technology in each
morphology and may not be based on CMRS provider live call data.
(F) Upon request from a non-nationwide CMRS provider, the National
Emergency Number Association, the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials International, Inc., or the National
Association of State 911 Administrators, the test bed administrator
shall:
(1) Provide any requesting party the same data available to CMRS
providers participating in the test bed, including unaggregated test
bed results by wireless location technology provider, morphology, and
technology, as well as other relevant information (such as information
on the test bed process, including any significant changes to the test
bed process) sought by the requesting party. This obligation includes
providing the requesting party the test bed data, as well as the full
report on the test bed results; and
(2) Make this information available to any requesting party on a
timely basis not to exceed 30 days, at no cost, and subject to the same
confidentiality requirements as those for the nationwide CMRS
providers.
(G) The National Emergency Number Association, the Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials International, Inc., or the
National Association of State 911 Administrators may submit to the
Commission a challenge to the validation of a particular technology
under the test bed provisions described in this paragraph (i)(3)(i).
Challenges must be limited to whether the process for validating a
particular technology has met the requirements of this paragraph
(i)(3)(i) and must be made prior to sixty (60) days after the CMRS
provider's certification of compliance pursuant to paragraph
(i)(2)(iii) of this section.
(ii) * * *
(A) CMRS providers subject to this section shall identify and
collect information regarding the location technology or technologies
used for each 911 call in the reporting area during the calling period,
including the location technology or technologies used for each 911
call providing dispatchable location with the call (e.g., Wi-Fi calling
or femtocells).
* * * * *
(C) CMRS providers subject to this section shall also provide
quarterly live call data on a more granular basis that allows
evaluation of the performance of individual location technologies,
including dispatchable location technologies, within different
[[Page 19405]]
morphologies (e.g., dense urban, urban, suburban, rural). To the extent
available, live call data for all CMRS providers shall delineate based
on a per technology basis accumulated and so identified for:
(1) Each of the ATIS ESIF morphologies;
(2) On a reasonable community level basis; or
(3) By census block. This more granular data will be used for
evaluation and not for compliance purposes.
* * * * *
(5) Compliance dates. Paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(H) and (N),
(i)(3)(i)(F) and (G), and (i)(3)(ii)(A) and (C) of this section may
contain information collection and recordkeeping requirements.
Compliance with paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(H) and (N), (i)(3)(i)(F) and (G),
and (i)(3)(ii)(A) and (C) will not be required until this paragraph
(i)(5) is removed or contains a compliance date.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2025-06865 Filed 5-6-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P