Home/Federal/Federal Register/2024-03157

Rule2024-03157

Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

March 13, 2024

Effective

May 13, 2024

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

The Federal Communications Commission (the FCC or Commission) adopted a Report and Order in PS Docket No. 18-64, FCC 24-4, on January 25, 2024, and released on January 26, 2024. This document is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order. The Report and Order adopted rules to more precisely route wireless 911 calls and Real-Time Texts (RTT) to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), which can result in faster response times during emergencies. Wireless 911 calls have historically been routed to PSAPs based on the location of the cell tower that handles the call. Sometimes, however, the 911 call is routed to the wrong PSAP because the cell tower is not in the same jurisdiction as the 911 caller. This can happen, for instance, when an emergency call is placed near a county border. These misrouted 911 calls must be transferred from one PSAP to another, which consumes time and resources and can cause confusion and delay in emergency response. The Report and Order requires wireless providers to deploy technology that supports location-based routing, a method that relies on precise information about the location of the wireless caller's device, on their internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and to use location-based routing to route 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 originating on those networks when caller location is accurate and timely. The Report and Order provides six months for nationwide wireless providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and provides 24 months for non-nationwide wireless providers to implement location-based routing of wireless 911 voice calls. The Report and Order provides 24 months for all wireless providers to implement location-based routing for RTT communications to 911.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 89 Issue 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 2024)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 13, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18488-18524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2024-03157]

[[Page 18487]]

Vol. 89

Wednesday,

No. 50

March 13, 2024

Part II

Federal Communications Commission

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

47 CFR Part 9

Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls; Final Rule

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

[[Page 18488]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 9

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

Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (the FCC or Commission)
adopted a Report and Order in PS Docket No. 18-64, FCC 24-4, on January
25, 2024, and released on January 26, 2024. This document is a summary
of the Commission's Report and Order. The Report and Order adopted
rules to more precisely route wireless 911 calls and Real-Time Texts
(RTT) to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), which can result in
faster response times during emergencies. Wireless 911 calls have
historically been routed to PSAPs based on the location of the cell
tower that handles the call. Sometimes, however, the 911 call is routed
to the wrong PSAP because the cell tower is not in the same
jurisdiction as the 911 caller. This can happen, for instance, when an
emergency call is placed near a county border. These misrouted 911
calls must be transferred from one PSAP to another, which consumes time
and resources and can cause confusion and delay in emergency response.
The Report and Order requires wireless providers to deploy technology
that supports location-based routing, a method that relies on precise
information about the location of the wireless caller's device, on
their internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and to use location-based
routing to route 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911
originating on those networks when caller location is accurate and
timely. The Report and Order provides six months for nationwide
wireless providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911
voice calls and provides 24 months for non-nationwide wireless
providers to implement location-based routing of wireless 911 voice
calls. The Report and Order provides 24 months for all wireless
providers to implement location-based routing for RTT communications to
911.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Wehr, Attorney Advisor, Policy
and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
(202) 418-1138, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6b390a08030e07453c0e03192b0d0808450c041d">[email&#160;protected]</a>, or Brenda Boykin, Deputy Division
Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, (202) 418-2062, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87c5f5e2e9e3e6a9c5e8feeceee9c7e1e4e4a9e0e8f1">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document is a summary of the
Commission's Report and Order. The full text of the Report and Order is
available for public inspection at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-4A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-4A1.pdf</a>. To request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), or to request reasonable accommodations (e.g.,
accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.),
send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#70161313454044301613135e171f06">[email&#160;protected]</a> or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

Congressional Review Act

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

Synopsis

I. Background

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18489]]

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

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

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

\6\ The Commission defines ``covered text provider'' as
including ``all CMRS providers as well as all providers of
interconnected text messaging services that enable consumers to send
text messages to and receive text messages from all or substantially
all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers, including through the use
of applications downloaded or otherwise installed on mobile
phones.'' 47 CFR 9.10(q)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

4. Legacy Enhanced 911 Routing. When the first 911 call was placed
in 1968, 911 service was provided to the public over wireline telephone
networks, and wireline providers used the fixed location of the calling
telephone to route 911 calls to the nearest PSAP.\8\ With the
deployment of the first generation of cellular service, wireless 911
voice calls could originate from any location served by the wireless
network, and the caller could move locations during the call. To enable
timely routing of wireless 911 voice calls, CMRS providers typically
programmed their networks to use the location of the first cell tower
receiving the call to determine the nearest PSAP and route the call
accordingly. This became the basis for routing of wireless Enhanced 911
(E911) calls (legacy E911 routing).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18490]]

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

\13\ See, e.g., Association of Public-Safety Communications
Officials International, Inc. (APCO) Public Notice Comments at 2
(rec. July 11, 2022) (APCO PN Comments) (noting that ``it's possible
that a misrouted call will introduce a delay of a minute or
longer''); NENA Public Notice Comments at 4 (rec. July 11, 2022)
(``[T]he general anecdotal consensus was that a call transfer
typically takes `about a minute.' ''); Peninsula Fiber Network
Public Notice Comments at 1 (rec. July 8, 2022) (``Each transfer
takes between 15 to 90 seconds to set up and complete.'').
\14\ For example, on June 4, 2020, 16-year-old Fitz Thomas
drowned at Confluence Park on the Potomac River, which separates
Loudoun County, Virginia, and Montgomery County, Maryland. Press
Release, Loudoun County Office of the County Administrator, Public
Affairs and Communications, Loudoun County Releases Significant
Incident Review of Goose Creek Drowning at 1 (Aug. 31, 2020),
<a href="https://www.loudoun.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/10062">https://www.loudoun.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/10062</a>. Due to
the incident's proximity to the jurisdictional border of the Potomac
River and the use of legacy E911 routing, both counties received
wireless 911 calls routed from the park located on the Virginia side
of the river. Id. at 2. Efforts to determine Thomas's actual
location contributed to a delay in dispatching first responders. Id.
On July 15, 2022, Ma Kaing was shot and killed by a stray bullet
outside her home in the East Colfax neighborhood of Denver. Jennifer
Kovaleski, Stuck on the line: Cellphone calls routed to the wrong
911 center are costing life-saving seconds, Denver7 (Nov. 19, 2022),
<a href="https://www.denver7.com/news/investigations/stuck-on-the-line-cellphone-calls-routed-to-the-wrong-911-center-are-costing-life-saving-seconds">https://www.denver7.com/news/investigations/stuck-on-the-line-cellphone-calls-routed-to-the-wrong-911-center-are-costing-life-saving-seconds</a>. The news media reported that four calls from her
family and neighbors were misrouted to a neighboring PSAP and
required transfer; three callers hung up after waiting minutes on
hold. Id.
\15\ The news media have widely reported on such tragic
occurrences. For example, in December 2015, dispatchers were unable
to locate Shanell Anderson, who drowned after accidentally driving
off the road and into a pond close to the line between Fulton and
Cherokee Counties in Georgia. Brendan Keefe and Phillip Kish, Lost
on the Line: Why 911 is broken, 11ALIVE (Aug. 12, 2019), <a href="https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/lost-on-the-line-why-911-is-broken/85-225104578">https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/lost-on-the-line-why-911-is-broken/85-225104578</a>. According to the news media, Shanell Anderson
was able to call 911, but the call was picked up by a cell tower in
Fulton County and routed to that county's PSAP, where critical
minutes were lost while dispatchers sought to determine the county
in which she was located (Cherokee County). Id. In another incident
in 2008, Olidia Kerr Day made a wireless 911 call before she was
fatally shot in a murder-suicide in front of the Plantation,
Florida, police department. Sofia Santana, Cell Phone 911 Calls Are
Often Routed to the Wrong Call Centers, Sun Sentinel (June 21,
2008), <a href="https://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-flbsafe911calls0621sbjun21-story.html">https://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-flbsafe911calls0621sbjun21-story.html</a>. According to the news media, although she placed the
call in Plantation, the call was routed to the 911 center in
Sunrise, Florida, and had to be transferred to Plantation. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Location-Based Routing Notice of Inquiry. In 2018, the
Commission released a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on issues
related to misrouted wireless 911 calls, including the feasibility of
location-based routing. Historically, generating precise caller
location information typically required too much time to be used for
911 call routing. The Commission noted, however, that then-recent
advances in location technology suggested it was feasible to pinpoint a
wireless 911 voice caller's location quickly enough to support an
initial routing determination. The Commission also found that many
location-based routing methods were promising. The record received in
response to the Notice of Inquiry confirmed the emergence of potential
location-based routing solutions but also indicated uncertainty about
the capabilities of such solutions at the time.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

9. Location-Based Routing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. On
December 22, 2022, the Commission adopted the notice of proposed
rulemaking in this proceeding, which proposed rules for CMRS and
covered text providers to implement location-based routing for wireless
911 voice calls and 911 texts \19\ nationwide, including wireless 911
voice calls and 911 text messages originating in legacy, transitional,
and NG911-capable public safety jurisdictions.\20\ The Commission
proposed to establish requirements with respect to the accuracy and
timeliness of location information CMRS and covered text providers
would use to comply with location-based routing requirements. In
particular, the Commission proposed to require CMRS providers and
covered text providers to use location-based routing for 911 calls and
texts when they have location information that meets the following
specifications for timeliness and accuracy: (i) the information must be
available to the provider network at the time the call or text is
routed, and (ii) the information must identify the caller's horizontal
location within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at
least 90%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ A ``911 text message'' is ``a message, consisting of text
characters, sent to the short code `911' and intended to be
delivered to a PSAP by a covered text provider, regardless of the
text messaging platform used.'' 47 CFR 9.10(q)(9). The Commission's
text-to-911 rules are technology neutral and apply to both Short
Message Service (SMS) and real-time text (RTT). Transition from TTY
to Real-Time Text Technology; Petition for Rulemaking to Update the
Commission's Rules for Access to Support the Transition from TTY to
Real-Time Text Technology, and Petition for Waiver of Rules
Requiring Support of TTY Technology, CG Docket No. 16-145, GN Docket
No. 15-178, Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 13568, 13593, para. 45
n.181 (2016), 82 FR 7699 (January 23, 2017) (RTT Order). RTT
transition obligations only apply to a subset of covered text
providers: ``those entities that are involved in the provision of
IP-based wireless voice communication service, and only to the
extent that their services are subject to existing TTY technology
support requirements under Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, or 64 of the
Commission's rules.'' RTT Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 13576-77, para. 12.
\20\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15184-85,
para. 3. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission used
the term ``NG911-capable'' to refer to PSAPs or jurisdictions that
have implemented IP-based network and software components that are
capable of supporting the provision of NG911, including but not
limited to an Emergency Services internet Protocol Network (ESInet).
Id. at 15184, para. 3 n.5. NG911 relies on IP-based architecture
rather than the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN)-based
architecture of legacy 911 to provide an expanded array of emergency
communications services that encompasses both the core
functionalities of legacy E911 and additional functionalities that
take advantage of the enhanced capabilities of IP-based devices and
networks. Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket
No. 10-255, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 17869, 17877, para. 18
(2010), 76 FR 2297 (January 13, 2011). NG911 architecture also
provides for transitional network components to enable delivery of
legacy 911 calls to ESInets during the transition to full end-state
NG911. See id. at 17878, para. 20 (explaining that emergency calls
can be delivered to ESInets from legacy networks).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. The Commission also proposed that when location information
does not meet one or both of these requirements, CMRS providers and
covered text providers would be required to route 911 calls and texts
based on the best available location information, which could include
cell tower coordinates. In addition, to help ensure that public safety
jurisdictions transitioning to NG911 could realize the benefits of
location-based routing in an efficient and cost-effective manner, the
Commission proposed to require CMRS providers and covered text
providers to deliver wireless 911 voice calls, texts,

[[Page 18491]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18492]]

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

\26\ Press Release, CTIA, Wireless Industry Announces
Development in Improving 9-1-1 Location Accuracy (Sept. 5, 2018),
<a href="https://www.ctia.org/news/wireless-industry-announces-development-in-improving-9-1-1-location-accuracy">https://www.ctia.org/news/wireless-industry-announces-development-in-improving-9-1-1-location-accuracy</a>; Letter from Paul Margie,
Counsel, Apple Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket
No. 18-64 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 24, 2019) (Apple Sept. 24, 2019
Ex Parte). Device-based hybrid (DBH) location is ``[a]n estimation
method that typically utilizes either a selection or a combination
of location methods available to the handset in a given
environment--including crowd-sourced Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi),
Assisted-Global Navigation Satellite System (A-GNSS), and possibly
other handset-based sensors.'' ATIS-0700042 at 2. ``It also includes
an associated uncertainty estimate reflective of the quality of the
returned location.'' Id.
\27\ ATIS-0700042; ATIS-0500039. ATIS observed that calls that
are ``sub-optimally routed'' tend to occur ``[a]long PSAP
boundaries,'' ``[i]n areas having a dense concentration of PSAPs,''
``[a]round major water features,'' and ``[a]long narrow strips of
jurisdictional territory.'' ATIS-0500039 at 12.
\28\ ATIS-0700042 at 22. CSRIC is a Federal advisory committee
subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and charged with providing recommendations
to the Commission to ensure, among other things, the security and
reliability of communications systems. FCC, Communications Security,
Reliability, and Interoperability Council, <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council-0">https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council-0</a> (last visited Jan. 17, 2023).
\29\ CCA NPRM Comments at 7. CCA also states that ``3GPP has
also addressed how to implement location-based routing, and several
3GPP specifications relate to location services and emergency
calling.'' CCA NPRM Comments at 9. In particular, CCA identifies TS
23.167, entitled ``Technical Specification Group Services and System
Aspects; IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) emergency sessions,'' as
identifying ``architectural principles, location information
principles, a reference architecture, functional descriptions,
procedures for establishing an IMS emergency session, call flows,
and related information.'' Id. CCA also notes that other 3GPP
specifications, including TS 36.305--``Stage 2 functional
specification of User Equipment (UE) positioning in E-UTRAN'' and TS
38.305--``NG Radio Access Network (NG-RAN); Stage 2 functional
specification of User Equipment (UE) positioning in NG-RAN,''
provide additional pertinent information regarding the
implementation of location services data. Id. at 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18493]]

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

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

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

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

A. Location-Based Routing

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

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

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

[[Page 18494]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18495]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18496]]

purely voluntary basis. Wireless entities supporting voluntary
implementation argue that flexibility in implementation is needed to
account for differences in providers' networks and devices and to allow
technologies to continue to evolve.\61\ However, public safety
commenters note that permitting CMRS providers to deploy location-based
routing on a purely voluntary basis would require additional and
unnecessary coordination and would only delay the implementation of
location-based routing as a general matter. The record confirms the
Commission's reasoning in the notice of proposed rulemaking that
relying on voluntary implementation would ``result in inconsistent
routing of calls to PSAPs and a higher risk of 911 misroutes for
subscribers on CMRS networks that did not support location-based
routing.'' Thus, we find that allowing CMRS providers to implement
location-based routing on a voluntary basis would undermine our goal of
ensuring that this important capability benefits all wireless 911
callers nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18497]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18498]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18499]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18500]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\86\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15197, para.
33. The term ```covered text provider' includes all CMRS providers
as well as all providers of interconnected text messaging services
that enable consumers to send text messages to and receive text
messages from all or substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone
numbers, including through the use of applications downloaded or
otherwise installed on mobile phones.'' 47 CFR 9.10(q)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 18501]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18502]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18503]]

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

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

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

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

67. Location-Based Routing. The notice of proposed rulemaking
proposed to define ``location-based routing'' as the use of information
on the location of a device, including but not limited to device-based
location information, to deliver 911 calls and texts to point(s)
designated by the authorized local or state entity to receive wireless
911 calls and texts, such as an Emergency Services internet Protocol
Network (ESInet) or PSAP, or to an appropriate local emergency
authority. Most commenters addressing the issue, including NASNA, NENA,
COPUC, and Alaska Telecom, support the proposed definition.\103\ Alaska
Telecom states that the proposed definition is flexible and ``will give
carriers, 911 vendors, and public safety entities the ability to invest
time and resources into new and improved location technologies.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18504]]

information rather than determining the timeliness or accuracy of the
information. In addition, we separately set forth timeliness and
accuracy metrics elsewhere in the rules. DISA suggests adding language
to indicate that the location is to be determined ``at origination
(setup) of [a] voice call.'' We decline to adopt this suggested change,
as the issue of timeliness of the location information used for
location-based routing is addressed in other rules we adopt.
4. Timeliness and Accuracy of Location-Based Routing Information
72. We require CMRS providers to use location-based routing for
wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 when the
location information available to the CMRS provider's network at time
of routing is ascertainable within a radius of 165 meters at a
confidence level of at least 90%. We anticipate that a substantial
percentage of wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911
will route on location information meeting the accuracy and timeliness
threshold under the rules adopted. If location information meeting this
threshold is not available at the time of routing, we require CMRS
providers to use the ``best available'' location information for
routing wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911. Such
``best available'' location information may include but is not limited
to device-based location information that does not meet the accuracy
threshold, tower-based location information (e.g., the centroid of the
area served by the cell sector that first picks up the call), or other
location information. The requirements we adopt are those proposed in
the notice of proposed rulemaking with slight definitional
modifications.
a. Timeliness Threshold
73. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking, location-based
routing requires information about the caller's location to be
available quickly enough to enable the call to be routed without
delaying the normal call set-up process. We adopt the Commission's
proposal from the notice of proposed rulemaking to require the use of
location-based routing only if caller location information is available
to the CMRS provider network at the time that the CMRS provider would
otherwise route the call.\107\ This timeliness threshold is intended to
avoid delay in transmitting wireless 911 voice calls and RTT
communications to PSAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

74. The record indicates that currently available technology is
routinely capable of delivering location information to CMRS provider
networks for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 in
time for routing without delay.\108\ Nationwide CMRS providers'
implementations have demonstrated that obtaining such location in time
for routing is feasible. Devices that are capable of producing high
accuracy, low latency location for emergency calling are in wide use,
and IP network technology supports rapidly obtaining such precise
location estimates. The location-based routing deployments of
AT&T,\109\ T-Mobile,\110\ and Verizon \111\ demonstrate that precise
location information can be made routinely available to CMRS providers'
networks in time for routing wireless 911 voice calls. Both Android
devices using ELS and iOS devices using HELO are capable of generating
high accuracy, low latency location information in time to support 911
call routing.\112\ Moreover, iOS and Android devices account for 99.62%
of the U.S. device market, meaning that this capability is widely
available to consumers. Intrado states that 4G LTE and newer networks
can obtain device-based location information, calculate confidence and
uncertainty, and query the location server for PSAP routing
instructions within the normal call set-up interval. T-Mobile states
that the ``IP Multimedia Subsystem (`IMS') technology and advancement
of device-based hybrid location solutions has enabled the use of a
caller's estimated device location for call routing without delaying
call set-up.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\108\ See Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15199,
para. 38 (citing Intrado PN Comments at 6, 8; Apple Sept. 24, 2019
Ex Parte at 2; and Android, Emergency Location Service--How It
Works, <a href="https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/how-it-works/">https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/how-it-works/</a> (last visited Jan. 17, 2024));
Verizon NPRM Comments at 6 (stating that RTT ``will also benefit
from the same routing improvements and advantages as i3 voice
calls''); NENA NPRM Comments at 12 (stating that an RTT
communication in NG911 ``requires no special handling compared [to]
a `conventional' voice call'').
\109\ AT&T has used location-based routing for over 80% of all
AT&T wireless calls. Intrado PN Comments at 2. Intrado further notes
that AT&T's location-based routing solution provides location-based
routing ``without any impact to the timeline or call.'' Intrado PN
Comments at 6.
\110\ T-Mobile indicates that more than 95% of location
estimates available at call routing on T-Mobile's network fall
within the company's threshold, i.e., ``300 meters with a confidence
level of 90%.'' T-Mobile July 26, 2023 Ex Parte at 1.
\111\ See Verizon July 13, 2023 Ex Parte at 1 (``To determine
whether device-based hybrid location information provided by the
device during a call is adequate for routing, Verizon uses an
accuracy threshold of 200 meters maximum horizontal uncertainty with
confidence of 90 percent.'').
\112\ Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15191, para.
16. See also Android, Emergency Location Service--How It Works,
<a href="https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/how-it-works/">https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/how-it-works/</a> (last visited Jan. 17, 2024) (``On average,
ELS is able to get a first location 3-4 seconds after the call has
started.''); Android, Emergency Location Service--Overview, <a href="https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/">https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/</a>
(last visited Jan. 17, 2024) (``ELS works on over 99% of active
Android devices running OS4.4 and up, with Google Play Services
installed-no new hardware or activation required.''); Apple Sept.
24, 2019 Ex Parte at 2 (indicating that device-based hybrid location
is available from certain devices during call set-up and that
location-based routing can be enabled on models 6s and later running
iOS 13 and Apple Watch devices running watch OS 6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

75. Some commenters suggest that the Commission should require CMRS
providers to route 911 calls within five seconds to ``prevent a CMRS
provider from holding onto a call for eight to ten seconds or even
longer waiting for a location fix.'' \113\ We decline to adopt this
requirement because doing so could incentivize CMRS providers to hold
wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 for the full
five seconds when location information does not meet the threshold for
accuracy, which could result in delays for wireless 911 voice calls and
RTT communications to 911. The requirement that location information be
available at time of routing, as the Commission stated in the notice of
proposed rulemaking, ``is intended to avoid delay in transmitting 911
calls and texts because there would be no requirement to hold calls and
texts for purposes of obtaining a routing fix.'' Intrado points out
that deploying location-based routing under the Commission's proposed
framework ``renders moot the potential need for call holding.'' We
agree that the framework as adopted avoids

[[Page 18505]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18506]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

c. Default to Best Available Location Information
85. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed
that when location information does not meet one or both thresholds for
accuracy and timeliness under our rules, CMRS and covered text
providers would be required to route wireless 911 voice calls and texts
to 911 based on the best location information available at the time the
call is routed, which may include cell tower coordinates. We adopt this
requirement as proposed for CMRS providers' routing of wireless 911
voice calls and RTT communications to 911. We find that this approach
allows flexibility for CMRS providers to determine the best available
location information for routing when the available location
information does not meet the thresholds for timeliness and accuracy.
86. Commenters generally support a flexible fallback approach to
routing of calls and texts that do not meet the timeliness and accuracy
thresholds for location-based routing.\122\ As the Commission stated in
the notice of proposed rulemaking, a requirement to default to best
available location information is consistent with ATIS-0500039, which
assumes that ``the fallback for location-based routing should be cell
sector routing `for cases wherein no position estimate is available in
time to be used for [location-based routing] or the position estimates
lack requisite accuracy.' '' This approach is also consistent with
current CMRS provider deployments of location-based routing, which
default to legacy E911 routing when location does not meet carriers'
individually-set thresholds for accuracy and timely availability. For
scenarios in which available location information does not meet the
accuracy or timeliness thresholds, we believe that the CMRS provider is
best suited to make the determination of the location information that
is most likely to support accurate call routing. Defaulting to best
available location information when preferred location is unavailable
is consistent with other Commission rules regarding the provision of
location information with 911 calls. In these rules, the Commission
requires providers to supply highly precise location information when
technically feasible but permits reliance on alternative location
information when highly precise location information is not
available.\123\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

[[Page 18507]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

91. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed
requiring CMRS and covered text providers to deliver 911 calls, texts,
and associated routing information in IP format upon request of 911
authorities who have established the capability to accept NG911-
compatible IP-based 911 communications. In the subsequent NG911 Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed similar requirements
for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers.
Several commenters express support for addressing IP delivery
requirements for CMRS and covered text providers as part of a
consolidated NG911 proceeding.\127\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

C. Certification and Reporting Requirements

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

[[Page 18508]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18509]]

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

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

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

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

103. EPIC also asks the Commission to clarify how its privacy and
security rules, including those governing using, disclosing, and
permitting acces

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on March 13, 2024.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.