[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 222 (Thursday, November 18, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70604-70614]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29007]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 10-176]


Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) amends its rules to require wireless licensees subject to 
standards for wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) Phase II location accuracy 
and reliability to satisfy these standards at either a county-based or 
Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP)-based geographic level. The 
Commission takes this step in order to ensure an appropriate and 
consistent compliance methodology with respect to location accuracy 
standards.

DATES: The rule is effective January 18, 2011, except for Sec. Sec.  
20.18(h)(1)(vi), 20.18(h)(2)(iii), and 20.18(h)(3), which contains 
information collection requirements that have not been approved by OMB. 
The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing the effective date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Donovan, Policy Division, 
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2413.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second 
Report and Order (Order) in PS Docket No. 07-114, FCC 10-176, adopted 
September 23, 2010, and released September 23, 2010. The complete text 
of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 
445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document may also be 
obtained from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., in person at 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at (202) 488-5300, via facsimile at 
(202) 488-5563, or via e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#53151010131110031a0416117d101c1e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="43050000030100130a1406016d000c0e">[email protected]</span></a>. Alternative formats 
(computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are 
available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#084e4b4b3d383c486e6b6b266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="94d2d7d7a1a4a0d4f2f7f7baf3fbe2">[email protected]</span></a> or calling the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau 
at (202) 418-0530, TTY (202) 418-0432. This document is also available 
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.

I. Introduction

    1. One of the most important opportunities afforded by mobile 
telephony is the potential for the American public to have access to 
emergency services personnel during times of crisis, wherever they may 
be. To ensure this benefit is realized, however, public safety 
personnel must have accurate information regarding the location of the 
caller. Without precise location information, public safety's ability 
to provide critical services in a

[[Page 70605]]

timely fashion becomes far more difficult, if not impossible. 
Accordingly, this order requires wireless carriers to take steps to 
provide more specific automatic location information in connection with 
911 emergency calls to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in areas 
where they have not done so in the past. As a result of this order, 
emergency responders will be able to reach the site of an emergency 
more quickly and efficiently. In addition, in a companion Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry that we adopt 
today, we build on the order and explore how to further enhance 
location accuracy for existing and new wireless voice communications 
technologies, including new broadband technologies associated with 
deployment of Next Generation 911 (NG911) networks.
    2. To accomplish these goals, in this Second Report and Order, we 
revise section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules, which specifies 
standards for wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) Phase II location accuracy 
and reliability. Specifically, we now require wireless licensees 
subject to section 20.18(h) to satisfy these standards at either a 
county-based or PSAP-based geographic level. We also revise the 
requirements of section 20.18(h) for handset-based and network-based 
location technologies.

II. Background

    3. On June 1, 2007, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment on the appropriate geographic area 
over which to measure compliance with section 20.18(h), as well as a 
variety of additional questions about how to improve 911 location 
accuracy and reliability. In the NPRM, the Commission indicated that 
carriers should not be permitted to average their accuracy results over 
vast service areas, because carriers thereby could assert that they 
satisfy the requirements of section 20.18(h) without meeting the 
accuracy requirements in substantial segments of their service areas. 
The Commission stated that although measuring location accuracy at the 
PSAP level may present challenges, the public interest demands that 
carriers and technology providers strive to ensure that when wireless 
callers dial 911, emergency responders are provided location 
information that enables them to reach the site of the emergency as 
quickly as possible. Because many carriers were not measuring and 
testing location accuracy at the PSAP service area level, the 
Commission sought comment on whether to defer enforcement of section 
20.18(h) if the Commission adopted its tentative conclusion to require 
compliance at the PSAP level.
    4. On November 20, 2007, the Commission released a Report and Order 
(First Report and Order) requiring wireless licensees to satisfy the 
E911 accuracy and reliability standards at a geographic level defined 
by the service area of a PSAP. The decision to adopt a PSAP-level 
compliance requirement was responsive to a request for declaratory 
ruling filed by the Association of Public-Safety Communications 
Officials-International, Inc. (APCO) asking that the Commission require 
carriers to meet the Commission's location accuracy requirements at the 
PSAP service area level. Specifically, the First Report and Order 
established interim annual requirements leading to an ultimate deadline 
of September 11, 2012 for achieving compliance with section 20.18(h) at 
the PSAP level, for both handset-based and network-based technologies. 
Several carriers filed with the Commission Motions for Stay of the 
First Report and Order, seeking a stay of the effectiveness of the 
rules adopted in the First Report and Order pending judicial review. 
Following petitions for review filed with respect to the First Report 
and Order, on March 25, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit (Court) stayed the First Report and 
Order.
    5. On July 14, 2008, APCO and the National Emergency Number 
Association (NENA) filed an ex parte letter stating that they ``are now 
willing to accept compliance measurements at the county level'' rather 
than at the PSAP level. APCO and NENA added that ``[p]ublic safety and 
wireless carriers are in current discussions on a number of other 
issues associated with E9-1-1, with the goal of improving information 
available to PSAPs. There are areas of agreement in concept; however, 
the details are still being developed.''
    6. On July 31, 2008, the Commission filed with the Court a Motion 
for Voluntary Remand and Vacatur, which requested remand based on the 
proposals contained in the July 14 ex parte letter and ``[i]n light of 
the public safety community's support for revised rules.'' Following 
this filing with the Court, NENA, APCO, Verizon Wireless, Sprint Nextel 
Corporation (Sprint Nextel), and AT&T Inc. (AT&T) submitted written ex 
parte letters with the Commission with proposed new wireless E911 
rules. On September 17, 2008, the Court granted the Commission's Motion 
for Voluntary Remand.
    7. On September 22, 2008, the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau (Bureau) released a public notice seeking comment on the 
proposals submitted in the ex parte letters. The Bureau sought comment 
on the proposed changed accuracy requirements, including the 
benchmarks, limitations, and exclusions, for handset-based and network-
based location technologies. The Bureau also sought comment on pledges 
to convene industry groups to explore related issues, and whether the 
Commission should require the provision of confidence and uncertainty 
data, as well as any alternative modifications to location accuracy 
requirements. The Bureau urged all interested parties to review the 
entirety of the ex parte letters.
    8. On November 4, 2008, the Commission adopted two Orders approving 
applications for transfers of control, involving Verizon Wireless and 
ALLTEL Corporation, and Sprint Nextel and Clearwire Corporation, 
conditioned upon their voluntary agreements to abide by the conditions 
set forth in their respective ex parte letters, which are identical to 
the wireless E911 proposals they submitted in this proceeding. In each 
case, the Commission found that these conditions would ``further ensure 
that consummation of the proposed merger serves the public interest, 
convenience and necessity.''
    9. On November 20, 2009, in light of the passage of time, the 
Bureau released a public notice seeking to refresh the record. 
Specifically, the Bureau sought comment on whether subsequent 
developments in the industry and technology may have affected parties' 
positions on the issues raised. A list of parties submitting comments 
in response to the Second Bureau Public Notice is attached as Appendix 
A.
    10. On June 16, 2010, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) filed an ex 
parte letter stating that it would agree to comply with the benchmarks 
for network-based location technologies that were proposed in the APCO/
NENA/AT&T Aug. 25 Ex Parte, with several modifications. On June 30, 
2010, the Rural Cellular Association (RCA) filed an ex parte letter 
stating that it supports the proposed modifications in the T-Mobile Ex 
Parte. On July 7, 2010, APCO and NENA filed an ex parte letter stating 
that they do not object to the proposed modifications in the T-Mobile 
Ex Parte and urged the Commission to proceed expeditiously to implement 
the modified proposals. On July 29, 2010, General Communication, Inc. 
(GCI) filed an ex parte letter including proposals

[[Page 70606]]

with specific application to rural and regional providers.
    11. This Second Report and Order represents our next step in a 
comprehensive examination of E911 location accuracy and reliability. 
Taken together, the APCO, NENA, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon 
Wireless proposals reflect agreement among leading 911 stakeholders for 
new E911 accuracy requirements for both handset-based and network-based 
location technologies. In the context of our review of the entire 
record in this proceeding, we find that these consensus proposals from 
national public safety organizations and major industry representatives 
will provide public safety agencies with necessary information during 
emergencies, and benefit consumers, in a manner that is technologically 
achievable. Moreover, the timeframe for compliance and permitted 
exclusions will serve to minimize the economic impact on small carriers 
while retaining significant benefits for public safety.

III. Discussion

A. Compliance With Section 20.18(h) at the County Level or PSAP Level

    12. The rule changes we are adopting today further our long-
standing public safety and homeland security goals in this proceeding. 
First, they ensure that all stakeholders--including public safety 
entities, wireless carriers, technology providers, and the public--will 
benefit from an appropriate and consistent compliance methodology. 
Second, by making clear that location accuracy compliance may not be 
achieved on an averaged basis over large geographical areas, the 
revised rules ensure that PSAPs receive meaningful, accurate location 
information from wireless 911 callers in order to dispatch local 
emergency responders to the correct location. As a direct result, the 
new rules will minimize potentially life-threatening delays that may 
ensue when first responders cannot be confident that they are receiving 
accurate location information. As discussed below, major wireless 
carriers either already are subject to most elements of the ex parte 
proposals as a result of merger conditions, or indicate they can comply 
with the changed location accuracy requirements based on existing 
location technologies. These carriers also indicate that it is feasible 
for them to comply with our new requirement that they provide 
confidence and uncertainty data to PSAPs, which is widely supported by 
the public safety community. Also, as explained below, we provide for 
certain exclusions reflective of the technical limitations of existing 
location technologies. Furthermore, carriers facing unique 
circumstances may seek waiver relief based on certain factors.
    13. As an initial matter, some commenters have urged the Commission 
to forego any rulemaking, advocating instead that the Commission 
establish an industry advisory group to draft new rules relating to 
location accuracy. Further, some technology companies presented 
alternate views. For example, Polaris Wireless, Inc. (Polaris) states 
that the ex parte proposals maintain the status quo for handset-based 
carriers and ``spark a migration to predominately handset-based 
technologies even for network-based carriers.'' Therefore, Polaris 
argues that ``this proposed framework will not drive the adoption of 
the best E911 Phase II technologies available today, such as hybrid 
systems, nor will it achieve the greatest or fastest possible outcome 
for the American public.'' S5 Wireless, Inc. (S5) ``believes it is 
currently possible to implement newer technologies, such as that which 
S5 offers, and easily achieve the Commission's accuracy standards.''
    14. We decline to delay taking Commission action, because of the 
importance to public safety of minimizing the potentially life-
threatening delays that may ensue when first responders cannot be 
confident that they are receiving accurate location information. 
Further, while other technologies may hold promise for enhanced 
location accuracy, we find that acting now to adopt clear new 
geographic requirements based on the existing location accuracy 
calculations is the best course for the near-term. In our companion 
proceeding adopted today, we explore how differing technology 
approaches may improve wireless location accuracy going forward.
    15. Comments. A number of commenters generally support requiring 
compliance with section 20.18(h) at the county or PSAP-level. However, 
a few commenters held opposing views. Corr Wireless Communications, LLC 
(Corr) advocates using the Metropolitan Statistical Area as a ``more 
useful measuring stick for this kind of service.'' Corr, however, 
indicates that it would support a county-based metric provided that the 
Commission ``make an exception in its accuracy requirement to account 
for the impossibility or extreme difficulty in meeting that standard in 
rural areas.'' Furthermore, a number of commenters argue that complying 
with the county-level standard would be prohibitively expensive. For 
example, the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA) 
argues that ``it is expected that the new standards will impose 
prohibitive costs on many rural wireless carriers, if compliance is 
even possible.'' The Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG), citing to 
its August 20, 2007 comments, notes that rural carriers ``may need to 
construct an extraordinary number of additional antenna sites,'' and 
that, ``[w]ith fewer customers than large carriers serving urban areas, 
RTG members and other rural wireless carriers are unable to recover the 
substantial cost of constructing a large number of additional cell 
sites solely to triangulate location data.'' GCI argues that the 
county-based metric does ``not take into account the technological and 
economic realities of providing service to low-density, topographically 
challenged service areas, like Alaska,'' adding that ``strict adherence 
to th[e] proposed metrics [w]ould have the perverse result of stifling 
deployments to areas most in need of wireless infrastructure 
investment.'' NENA and APCO favor ``a waiver process to the wholesale 
`exceptions' for rural carriers proposed by Corr Wireless which would 
essentially only require Phase I in many parts of the country.''
    16. Discussion. Based on the complete record in this proceeding, we 
revise the wireless location accuracy rules to require county-level or 
PSAP-level compliance. We agree with APCO and NENA and find that 
requiring compliance at the county level reflects recent consolidation 
efforts by PSAPs to mirror county boundaries. In addition, we agree 
that counties ``are more easily defined than PSAPs and are not prone to 
administrative boundary changes.'' We find that compliance at the 
county level can be achieved with currently available technology, 
particularly in conjunction with the revisions we make to section 
20.18(h) discussed below, including the permitted exclusions. 
Accordingly, we find that a county-level compliance standard provides 
an appropriate, consistent, and achievable compliance methodology with 
respect to wireless location accuracy standards. We conclude that a 
county-level compliance standard will ensure that PSAPs receive 
accurate and meaningful location information in most cases. Moreover, 
nothing in the record persuades us that such costs will be prohibitive 
for participating wireless carriers, including smaller carriers. The 
commenters expressing these concerns provide no quantification of the 
cost of meeting these requirements. As discussed below, however, we 
afford certain exclusions and note that

[[Page 70607]]

financial considerations, among others, will be taken into account 
should a service provider request waiver relief.
    17. We also find that there continues to be merit in a PSAP service 
area-based compliance standard. As APCO and NENA indicate, ``county-
level accuracy would in many cases be identical to PSAP-level 
accuracy.'' In many areas, PSAP service areas are coterminous with 
county boundaries. Where PSAP service areas are larger than counties, 
however, providing location accuracy at the PSAP level would be 
beneficial to the public safety community since the reported accuracy 
would match the exact boundary of the PSAP's service area. Conversely, 
where PSAPs are smaller than counties, providing location accuracy 
information at the PSAP level could be of even more value to the PSAP 
and the public safety community since the information would be provided 
on a more granular basis than that achieved at the larger county level. 
Various public safety organizations continue to express support for 
PSAP-level compliance in comments filed with the Commission.
    18. We therefore find that both PSAP-level compliance and county-
level compliance are beneficial towards meeting the needs of PSAPs and 
public safety first responders, and we will allow carriers to choose 
which standard better meets their needs. Such an approach will permit 
carriers to analyze carrier-specific factors like natural and network 
topographies (for example, foliage levels, terrain characteristics, 
cell site density, overall system technology requirements, etc.) while, 
in either case, ensuring that public safety responders receive timely 
and accurate location information.

B. Handset-Based Location Technologies

    19. On August 20, 2008, NENA, APCO, and Verizon Wireless filed a 
joint proposal for ``compliance measurements for handset-based 
technologies.'' Specifically, they propose the following new rules:
    Two years after the Commission adopts new rules, on a county-by-
county basis, 67% of Phase II calls must be accurate to within 50 
meters in all counties; 80% of Phase II calls must be accurate to 
within 150 meters in all counties, provided, however, that a carrier 
may exclude up to 15% of counties from the 150 meter requirement based 
upon heavy forestation that limits handset-based technology accuracy in 
those counties.
    Eight years after the Commission adopts new rules, on a county-by-
county basis, 67% of Phase II calls must be accurate to within 50 
meters in all counties; 90% of Phase II calls must be accurate to 
within 150 meters in all counties, provided, however, that a carrier 
may exclude up to 15% of counties from the 150 meter requirement based 
upon heavy forestation that limits handset-based technology accuracy in 
those counties.
    20. Verizon Wireless explains that, ``the greatest technical 
barrier to the accuracy of handset-based E911 technologies is the 
presence of terrain obstructions, whether natural or manmade * * * 
Where, for example, an area's topology is characterized by forest, the 
likelihood of a good location fix is reduced because the tree cover 
obstructs the transmission path between the satellites and the handset. 
The more extensive the tree cover, the greater the difficulty the 
system has in generating a GPS-based fix.'' To that end, Verizon 
Wireless states that its joint proposal with NENA and APCO compensates 
for these ``technical realities.''
    21. The parties also pledged ``to convene, within 180 days of the 
Commission's order, an industry group to evaluate methodologies for 
assessing wireless 9-1-1 location accuracy for calls originating 
indoors and report back to the Commission within one year.'' On August 
21, 2008, Sprint submitted a letter in support of the NENA, APCO, and 
Verizon Wireless proposal, stating: The proposed accuracy standard 
meets the concerns of public safety while acknowledging the limitations 
of current technology. Although setting the accuracy standard at the 
county level will impose significant testing costs and require 
substantial time to complete, the accuracy standards articulated should 
be achievable. Sprint commends all those involved in the work required 
to produce this proposal and urges the Commission to adopt this 
compromise.
    22. As mentioned above, the Commission previously adopted two 
Orders approving applications for transfers of control, involving 
Verizon and ALLTEL Corporation and Sprint Nextel and Clearwire 
Corporation, conditioned upon their voluntary agreements to abide by 
the conditions set forth in their respective ex parte letters, which 
are identical to the wireless E911 proposals they submitted in this 
proceeding.
    23. Comments. Sprint Nextel, a handset-based carrier, continues to 
support the NENA, APCO, and Verizon Wireless proposal. Sprint Nextel 
views these benchmarks as ``furthering the goals of public safety; both 
by holding carriers to a higher standard and by ensuring that carriers 
are optimizing their networks at the local level.'' Sprint Nextel adds 
that, ``one of the significant benefits of the compromise will be the 
extensive testing required at the local level.'' Sprint Nextel notes 
that ``[t]o date the Commission has adopted new accuracy requirements 
for two wireless carriers, Sprint and Verizon Wireless'' and the 
Commission should therefore ``work toward developing regulations to 
apply to the industry as a whole.'' NTELOS, however, expresses 
``concerns that any new testing and reporting requirements would be 
burdensome since we are a small, regional carrier and do not have the 
expertise within the company to accomplish this task.'' NTELOS notes 
that it ``depends heavily on outside vendors for support in our 
accuracy testing,'' and ``the unknown cost of reporting requirements 
that would accompany any rule change could have significant 
repercussions for smaller carriers.'' RCA states that ``as currently 
proposed, the [handset based] location accuracy standards provided by 
Verizon Wireless and public safety groups are not technically and 
economically feasible for the Tier II and Tier III carriers that RCA 
represents. Tier II carriers will need at least an additional six 
months after the effective date of any new rules to meet the 67%/80% 
requirement proposed by Verizon Wireless. Tier III carriers will need 
at least an additional 12 months.'' SouthernLINC Wireless 
(SouthernLINC) maintains that the proposals ``fail to give any 
consideration to the circumstances and operational realities faced by 
the nation's smaller regional and rural wireless carriers.'' 
SouthernLINC therefore argues for the ``adoption of alternative 
benchmarks for small and mid-size Tier II and Tier III carriers,'' and 
proposes its own benchmarks in order to ``provide Tier II and Tier III 
carriers sufficient time to implement the measures necessary to conduct 
county-level testing.'' Finally, SouthernLINC notes that ``for regional 
and rural carriers, the impact of any new location accuracy 
requirements is an issue of both the cost of acquiring and deploying 
additional technology * * * and the cost of conducting statistically 
valid testing on a county-by-county basis to determine accuracy at the 
county level.''
    24. Specifically with respect to the parties' proposal to exclude 
fifteen percent of counties based upon heavy forestation, Sprint Nextel 
argues that the exclusion ``acknowledges the technical limitations of 
current technology and does not penalize carriers for those 
exceptionally challenging cases.'' However, Motorola suggests rather 
than excluding 15 percent of counties based on forestation, the 
Commission should

[[Page 70608]]

adopt AT&T's requirement for network-based location technologies and 
allow 85 percent compliance at the final benchmark. Motorola argues 
that ``doing so would provide carriers the flexibility for exclusions 
based not only on forestation, but also other situations such as urban 
canyons and urban/rural buildouts that limit handset-based technology 
accuracy.'' RCA argues that ``the percentage of counties that can be 
excluded from the 150 meter requirement based upon `heavy forestation' 
should be raised to twenty-five percent for purposes of meeting the 
67%/80% requirement and twenty percent for the proposed 67%/90% 
requirement,'' and the Commission ``should[hellip]make clear that the 
[`heavy forestation'] exception includes all terrain obstructions.'' 
United States Cellular Corp. (USCC) states that, ``[t]o date, neither 
APCO, NENA nor Verizon Wireless have explained the rationale for 
setting the exclusion limit at 15 percent nor have they explained why 
this exclusion only applies in counties with heavy forestation.'' 
SouthernLINC recommends that the term ``heavy forestation'' be 
``changed to `challenging environment' in order to clarify the nature 
of the of the 15-percent exclusion and avoid any confusion as to the 
exclusion's applicability.'' Verizon Wireless ``supports an industry-
wide rule that permits any carrier employing a handset-based solution 
(including Verizon Wireless) to exclude up to 15 percent of counties 
for any reason, not solely because of ``heavy forestation.'' APCO and 
NENA disagree with including other terrain obstructions into the 
fifteen percent exception, arguing that this ``would be unacceptable as 
it could lead to the exclusion of large metropolitan counties.'' 
Rather, they state that they wish to restrict the exception only to 
forestation ``on the expectation that it would apply in most cases to 
very sparsely populated counties.'' APCO and NENA also noted that ``a 
broader exclusion could lead to substantial areas receiving substandard 
location accuracy for E911 calls.''
    25. Discussion. We find that the consensus plan, based on the 
agreement of important E911 stakeholders, comprehensively addresses 
location accuracy criteria in connection with handset-based location 
technology. These proposals ensure that carriers using handset-based 
location technologies are subject to appropriate and consistent 
compliance methodology that may not be based on averaging over large 
geographical areas. Additionally, we believe that the important public 
safety issues at stake outweigh the potential cost impact of imposing 
these regulations. As we previously noted, SouthernLINC argues that the 
regulations would impose a significant strain on smaller carriers; 
however, SouthernLINC does not provide a quantification of the cost of 
meeting these requirements. Moreover, as discussed below, financial 
considerations, among others, will be taken into account should a 
service provider request waiver relief. Further, we conclude that the 
proposed compliance timeframes, limitations, and exemptions will 
provide carriers with a sufficient measure of flexibility to account 
for technical and cost-related concerns. Indeed, the approximately two 
year's passage of time since carriers first had an opportunity to raise 
concerns about the timing of the benchmarks negates the request of some 
carriers to extend the benchmarks for up to an additional year. 
Further, the rule changes we adopt today effectively relax the existing 
handset-based requirements by immediately reducing, for two years after 
the effective date, the 150 meter requirement from 95 percent of all 
calls to 80 percent of all calls. Moreover, even after eight years, the 
150 meter requirement rises only to 90 percent.
    26. The proposals also represent an acknowledgement by the public 
safety and commercial communities that they can address the critical 
need to provide public safety agencies with meaningful information in 
the event of an emergency in a technically achievable manner. The 
voluntary commitments to abide by the same proposals by Verizon, with 
respect to its transaction with ALLTEL (a Tier II wireless carrier), 
and Sprint, with respect to Clearwire, is further evidence of the 
flexibility and feasibility afforded by these criteria to enable 
carriers to meet these criteria even in the context of significant 
transactions. Thus, we require wireless licensees subject to section 
20.18(h) of the Commission's rules who use handset-based location 
technology to satisfy these standards either at a county-based 
geographic level or at the PSAP service area level.
    27. Because of the geographical and topographical differences that 
characterize different counties and PSAP service areas, we find that we 
should permit carriers using handset-based location technology to 
exclude up to 15 percent of counties or PSAP service areas from the 150 
meter requirement based upon heavy forestation, consistent with the ex 
parte proposals. In this regard, we agree with NENA and APCO that any 
expansion of this exclusion, whether to an increased percentage or 
based on factors in addition to forestation, would excuse compliance to 
an unacceptable level of risk to public safety. We find that among the 
challenges faced by handset-based technologies, forestation is a 
substantial contributor and that other terrain issues typically would 
overlap with forestation concerns. Therefore, we expect that many of 
these other terrain issues will be addressed through the forestation 
exclusion. The more open-ended approach advocated by commenters may 
lead to overuse or abuse of exceptions and potentially harm public 
safety. The waiver process is thus much more suitable to address 
individual or unique problems, where we can analyze the particular 
circumstances and the potential impact to public safety. Some 
commenters recommended specific criteria for Tier III carrier waivers. 
We address waiver requests in more detail below.
    28. In order to ensure that the public safety community and the 
general public are aware of these instances where carriers cannot meet 
the Phase II location accuracy requirements, and prevent overuse of 
this exclusion, we will require carriers to file a list of those 
specific counties or PSAP service areas where they are utilizing this 
exclusion, within ninety days following approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for the related information collection. 
This list must be submitted electronically into the docket of this 
proceeding, and copies sent to NENA, APCO, and the National Association 
of State 9-1-1 Administrators (NASNA) in paper or electronic form. 
Further, carriers must submit in the same manner any changes to their 
exclusion lists within thirty days of discovering such changes. We find 
that permitting this exclusion, subject to these reporting 
requirements, properly but narrowly accounts for the known technical 
limitations of handset-based location accuracy technologies, while 
ensuring that the public safety community and the public at large are 
sufficiently informed of these limitations. We expect that carriers 
failing to meet any particular benchmark will promptly inform the 
Commission and submit an appropriately supported waiver request. 
Further, we will monitor progress at each benchmark and may request 
status information if necessary.
    29. We also encourage the parties to meet as a group to evaluate 
methodologies for assessing wireless 911 location accuracy for indoor 
calls. Because indoor use poses unique obstacles to handset-based 
location technologies, and in light of the expressed interest of both 
the public

[[Page 70609]]

safety and commercial wireless communities to further explore this 
issue, we clarify that these standards apply to outdoor measurements 
only. Further, we are seeking comment in our companion FNPRM/NOI on how 
best to provide automatic location identification (ALI) in technically 
challenging environments, including indoors.

C. Network-Based Location Technologies

    30. On August 25, 2008, NENA, APCO, and AT&T submitted an ex parte 
letter proposing new compliance measurements specifically addressing 
network-based technologies. NENA, APCO, and AT&T initially explain 
their proposal as follows:
    As network-based providers will be unable to meet the new proposed 
county-level accuracy standards in all areas relying solely upon 
current network-based technology solutions, carriers who employ 
network-based location solutions may be expected to deploy handset-
based solutions as an overlay to existing network-based solutions in 
order to meet the more stringent county-level requirements set forth 
below. To encourage the improvements in location accuracy that may be 
achieved using both network and handset based solutions, this proposal 
provides that network-based carriers may elect to use a system of 
blended reporting for accuracy measurements, as defined below. Carriers 
also may elect to report accuracy in any county based solely on the 
handset-based accuracy standards.
    31. The parties next propose the following as the accuracy 
standards for network-based carriers:
    67%/100M: 67 percent of all calls, measured at the county level, 
shall be located within 100 meters in each county by the end of year 5, 
in accordance with the interim benchmarks below; and
    90%/300M: 90 percent of all calls, measured at the county level, 
shall be located within 300 meters in 85 percent of all counties by the 
end of year 8, in accordance with the interim benchmarks below.
    32. In complying with the above, the parties provide the following 
limitation:
    The county-level location accuracy standards will be applicable to 
those counties, on an individual basis, for which a network-based 
carrier has deployed Phase II in at least one cell site located within 
a county's boundary. Compliance with the 67 percent standard and 
compliance with the 90 percent standard in a given county shall be 
measured and reported independently (i.e. the list of compliant 
counties for the 67 percent standard may be different than for the 90 
percent standard).
    33. Further, consistent with the opening explanation of their 
proposal, the parties propose employing a ``blended'' approach for 
meeting the above accuracy standards. Under this approach, carriers may 
take into account the impact of introducing ``aGPS'' (assisted GPS) 
handsets into their customer bases. Specifically, the parties state:
    Accuracy data from both a network-based solution and a handset-
based solution may be blended to meet the network-based standard. Such 
blending shall be based on weighting accuracy data in the ratio of aGPS 
handsets to non-aGPS handsets in the carrier's subscriber base. The 
weighting ratio shall be applied to the accuracy data from each 
solution and measured against the network-based standards.
    34. In their filing, the parties offer an example of blended 
reporting assuming 60% penetration of aGPS devices in the network. In 
effect, the result of this example is a ``blended average'' for each 
county that achieves better accuracy than a network-based approach 
alone would achieve. AT&T states that environmental factors can 
``render the achievement of the current network-based location 
standards infeasible at the county level.'' However, AT&T suggests that 
``these challenges can be mitigated or overcome through the deployment 
of aGPS technology.'' AT&T concludes, ``[a]ccordingly, using both 
network-based and handset-based E911 technologies in concert will allow 
all carriers over time to significantly improve E911 accuracy 
performance across the majority of service areas.''
    35. The NENA, APCO, and AT&T proposal also sets the following 
network-based solution compliance benchmarks:
    36. First, for the 67%/100 meter standard:
    End of Year 1: Carriers shall comply in 60% of counties, which 
counties shall cover at least 70% of the POPs covered by the carrier, 
network-wide. Compliance will be measured on a per county basis using 
existing network-based accuracy data.
    End of Year 3: Carriers shall comply in 70% of counties, which 
counties shall cover at least 80% of the POPs covered by the carrier, 
network-wide. Compliance will be measured on a per county basis, using, 
at the carrier's election, either (i) network-based accuracy data; or 
(ii) blended reporting.
    End of Year 5: Carriers shall comply in 100% of counties. 
Compliance will be measured on a per county basis, using, at the 
carrier's election, either: (i) network-based accuracy data; (ii) 
blended reporting; or (iii) subject to the following caveat, solely 
handset-based accuracy data (at handset-based accuracy standards).
    A carrier may rely solely on handset-based accuracy data in any 
county if at least 95% of its subscribers, network-wide, use an aGPS 
handset, or if it offers subscribers in that county who do not have an 
aGPS device an aGPS handset at no cost to the subscriber.
    37. Second, for the 90%/300 meter standard:
    End of Year 3: Carriers shall comply in 60% of counties, which 
counties shall cover at least 70% of the POPs covered by the carrier, 
network-wide. Compliance will be measured on a per county basis using, 
at the carrier's election, either: (i) Network-based accuracy data; or 
(ii) blended reporting.
    End of Year 5: Carriers shall comply in 70% of counties, which 
counties shall cover at least 80% of the POPs covered by the carrier, 
network-wide. Compliance will be measured on a per county basis using, 
at the carrier's election, either (i) Network-based accuracy data; or 
(ii) blended reporting.
    End of Year 8: Carriers shall comply in 85% of counties. Compliance 
will be measured on a per county basis using, at the carrier's 
election, either: (i) Network-based accuracy data; (ii) blended 
reporting; or (iii) subject to the caveat above, solely handset-based 
accuracy data (at handset-based accuracy standards).
    38. Further, similar to the NENA, APCO, and Verizon Wireless 
proposal regarding stakeholder efforts to address location accuracy for 
wireless calls originating indoors, APCO, NENA, and AT&T propose the 
establishment of an E911 Technical Advisory Group (ETAG) that would 
``work with the E911 community to address open issues within this 
framework (e.g., updated outdoor and indoor accuracy measurement 
methodologies, tactics for improving accuracy performance in challenged 
areas, testing of emerging technology claims, E911 responsibilities in 
an open-access environment, the development of hybrid network--A-GPS 
technologies, etc.).'' AT&T continues to support the creation of an 
ETAG and notes that ``[t]he Commission has successfully leveraged such 
working groups in the past to drive policy forward, particularly in the 
public safety area, where the Commission's objectives are clear but the 
technical path forward requires further research and development before 
implementation is possible.''

[[Page 70610]]

    39. Comments. In response to the Bureau Public Notice, T-Mobile and 
RCA argued that ``[b]ecause as a practical matter a carrier must 
implement A-GPS and reach certain handset penetration levels in order 
to meet some of the proposed benchmarks, and because implementation of 
A-GPS for GSM carriers is directly tied to implementation of 3G 
service, several of the proposed benchmarks will not be technically and 
economically feasible for carriers other than AT&T unless these other 
carriers have a more nearly comparable period from the introduction of 
their own 3G services to meet the benchmarks.'' Specifically, T-Mobile 
and RCA advocated deferring the first benchmark by six months for Tier 
I and Tier II carriers and deferring the first benchmark by one year 
for Tier III carriers. In addition, they argued that ``[f]or T-Mobile, 
* * * the second, third and fourth benchmarks need to be delayed by at 
least two years in order for T-Mobile to have a timeline from 3G 
deployment similar [to] AT&Ts. For RCA members, the second, third, and 
fourth benchmarks need to be delayed further as their deployment of 3G 
services and A-GPS handsets has not yet begun.'' Nokia agreed with this 
approach, arguing that it would ``allow for a more technically and 
commercially feasible approach for all affected carriers, including 
carriers who are in initial stages of deploying 3G across their 
networks.'' RCA also noted that ``Tier II and Tier III carriers do not 
necessarily have access to the same array or types of handsets * * * as 
Tier I carriers * * * due, in large part, to the growing use of 
exclusivity arrangements between the Nation's largest wireless carriers 
and handset manufacturers.'' NENA and APCO, however, noted that T-
Mobile's plan would ``probably require more than seven years [to reach 
the third benchmark] as they would link the start-date to the 
deployment of A-GPS handsets.'' Moreover, NENA and APCO noted that 
variations among carriers in their deployment of next generation 
technologies ``might be among the factors that could be considered in a 
waiver process.'' Further, AT&T argued that ``[t]he flexibility built 
into the joint proposal * * * will enable carriers to meet the joint 
proposal's ultimate requirements and interim benchmarks through a 
variety of means and incorporating the technologies that are best 
suited to their network and their particular deployment strategy * * * 
Particularly in light of that flexibility, AT&T is confident that the 
APCO/NENA/AT&T joint proposal is technically feasible for carriers that 
currently rely on network-based solutions.''
    40. In response to the Second Bureau Public Notice, T-Mobile, RCA, 
and RTG maintained that upon revisiting their previously submitted 
proposal, ``with the benefit of additional experience * * * it still 
may not be flexible enough to recognize reality.'' As such, T-Mobile, 
RCA, and RTG requested the Commission ``simply to require that all 3G 
handsets manufactured in or imported into the United States be A-GPS-
capable after a date certain.'' T-Mobile, RCA, and RTG also requested 
the Commission to require ``after an appropriate transition period, 
carriers [to] enable their entire network to be able to handle and to 
provide to PSAPs GPS-based location data from an A-GPS-capable handset, 
rather than locating these handsets using network-based technology.'' 
According to T-Mobile, RCA, and RTG, ``[t]his handset requirement 
approach is simpler than the complex combinations of benchmarks and 
exclusions in virtually all of last year's proposals, can be easily 
monitored and enforced, and would ultimately produce the best 
technically feasible results for these ``hard-to-estimate'' areas.'' 
The Blooston Rural Carriers supported the T-Mobile/RCA/RTG proposal and 
noted that ``it would help move network-based carriers toward 
development of handset-based technology in a rapid but realistic 
timeframe.'' NTCA believes that the T-Mobile/RCA/RTG proposal 
``accomplishes the Commission's objectives and makes sense for small 
carriers.'' NENA and APCO opposed the T-Mobile/RCA/RTG proposal, 
however, and ``think the better answer is to establish a timeframe for 
compliance, reporting on efforts to meet elements of the timeframe and, 
where necessary, seek waivers based [on] current information and 
facts.''
    41. Corr Wireless proposes that the Commission ``adopt the county-
based metric but make an exception in its accuracy requirement to 
account for the impossibility or extreme difficulty of meeting that 
standard in a rural area.'' Specifically, Corr advocates that ``in 
areas or counties where a network-solution carrier has fewer than four 
overlapping cell contours * * * only Phase I accuracy would be 
required.'' Corr argues that ``this exception is likely to be temporary 
in nature since Corr agrees with AT&T that the deployment in the near 
future of `A-GPS' technology will enable even network-solution carriers 
to achieve high levels of location accuracy.'' However, Corr also 
states that, ``in order for small carriers like Corr to improve E911 
accuracy through the deployment of advanced A-GPS handsets, they must 
have access to those handsets.'' Therefore, Corr argues that ``the 
Commission should require handset manufacturers to make all handsets 
available on a non-discriminatory basis.'' T-Mobile disagrees, arguing 
that ``this will not meaningfully accelerate deployment of A-GPS 
handsets. Carriers will already be driven by the benchmarks to 
incorporate A-GPS into their handsets * * * Thus Corr's proposed 
mandate is duplicative and unnecessary.'' GCI Communications, in a 
later ex parte, proposes that ``Tier III carriers in Alaska be required 
to measure compliance with the interim and final benchmarks only for 
those areas within a four-mile radius circle that includes at least 
five cell sites, where the test location within such circle has a 
usable signal level greater than -104 dBm to all cell sites within the 
circle.'' GCI Communications also notes that any new benchmarks 
applicable to network-based carriers should ``at the very least exclude 
any geographic area designated for measurement (like county or borough) 
where fewer than three cell sites are deployed and any community, or 
part of a community, where at least three cell sites are not viewable 
to a handset.'' Finally, a number of commenters support the creation of 
an industry advisory group to further study and provide recommendations 
related to location accuracy.
    42. In a later filed ex parte, T-Mobile stated that it would agree 
to comply with the NENA/APCO/AT&T Aug. 25 Ex Parte for network-based 
carriers, with the following modifications.
    First, ``[w]hen using network-based measurements as a component of 
the county-level compliance calculation (i.e., if the carrier is using 
network-only measurements or blending network and A-GPS 
measurements),'' the Commission should permit the carrier to ``exclude 
that county if it has fewer than 3 cell sites.''
    Second, the Commission should ``[p]ermit a carrier to use 
``blending'' as well as ``network-only'' measurements at the first 
benchmark.''
    Third, the Commission should ``[a]llow a carrier to comply with the 
Year-5 (third) benchmark using only handset-based measurements so long 
as it has achieved at least 85% (rather than 95%) AGPS handset 
penetration among its subscribers.''
    In response, RCA ``expressed its support'' for the exclusion of 
counties with less than three cell sites, and APCO and NENA submitted a 
joint letter supporting T-Mobile's

[[Page 70611]]

modifications, and urging prompt resolution of this proceeding.
    43. Discussion. As with the county level location accuracy proposal 
received from handset-based carriers, we find that the NENA, APCO, and 
AT&T proposals, as modified by the T-Mobile Ex Parte, represent a 
consensus from important E911 stakeholders, which comprehensively 
addresses location accuracy criteria in connection with network-based 
technologies. We find that these proposals ensure that carriers using 
network-based location technologies are subject to appropriate and 
consistent compliance methodology that no longer may be based on 
nationwide averaging. Also like the handset-based consensus, the 
proposals represent an acknowledgment by members of both the public 
safety and commercial communities that they can address the critical 
need to provide public safety agencies with meaningful information in 
the event of an emergency in a technically achievable manner. We reject 
earlier proposals by T-Mobile and RCA that would extend the compliance 
benchmarks. We agree with NENA and APCO, and find that extending the 
compliance benchmarks would disserve the important public safety goals 
of this proceeding. Consistent with the views of AT&T, we find that the 
proposed compliance timeframes, limitations, and exemptions will allow 
carriers a sufficient measure of flexibility to account for technical 
and cost-related concerns.
    44. We also find that the T-Mobile Ex Parte includes modifications 
that are reasonable under the circumstances. First, in regard to T-
Mobile's request to exclude counties with fewer than three cell sites, 
we note that it is not technically possible for a carrier to 
triangulate a caller's location with only one or two cell sites. 
Moreover, we are concerned that the absence of an appropriate exception 
may have the unintended consequence of carriers choosing to eliminate 
service where they are unable to triangulate position. In such 
circumstances, clearly the availability of wireless service to enable a 
caller to reach 911 in the first instance outweighs the potential lack 
of ALI capability, at least until blending of A-GPS-enabled handsets 
permits ALI. At the same time, we want to make sure that any exclusion 
we adopt is (1) not overly or unnecessarily employed, (2) specifically 
targeted to the inability, as a technical matter, to determine position 
through triangulation, and (3) time-limited, transparent, and regularly 
revisited. Simply focusing on a county-based exclusion may fail to 
account for all situations. A county-based exclusion may be over-
inclusive by failing to account for cell sites outside a county that 
can be used to triangulate. Some counties, boroughs, parishes, etc. may 
be so large that, even though containing three or more cell sites, may 
still present technical challenges in achieving ALI. This can occur 
when cell sites are configured to provide coverage to specific 
communities that are at great distances from each other, or where 
mountainous or other terrain features prohibit triangulation of cell 
sites that absent such features could permit triangulation. On the 
other hand, triangulation may be possible in only certain portions of a 
county, or due to the proximity of towers available in an adjacent 
county. All the while, the need for this exclusion specific to network-
based location technologies should diminish over time as carriers blend 
A-GPS handsets into their customer base.
    45. Accordingly, we will permit network-based carriers to exclude 
from compliance particular counties, or portions of counties, where 
triangulation is not technically possible, such as locations where at 
least three cell sites are not sufficiently visible to a handset. 
Similar to the 15 percent county exclusion we permit for handset-based 
carriers above, in order to ensure that the public safety community and 
the general public are aware of these instances where carriers cannot 
meet the Phase II location accuracy requirements, and prevent overuse 
of this exclusion, we will require carriers to file a list of those 
specific counties, or portions thereof, where they are utilizing this 
exclusion, within ninety days following approval from OMB for the 
related information collection. This list must be submitted 
electronically into the docket of this proceeding, and copies sent to 
NENA, APCO, and NASNA in paper or electronic form. Further, carriers 
must submit in the same manner any changes to their exclusion lists 
within thirty days of discovering such changes.
    46. At the same time, we find it appropriate to place a time limit 
on this exclusion, because the need for this exclusion will diminish 
over time as network-based carriers incorporate A-GPS handsets into 
their subscriber bases. Accordingly, we will sunset this exclusion 
eight years after the effective date of this Order. Eight years 
following the effective date is the period of time by which the revised 
network-based requirements become fully effective. Network-based 
carriers that continue to lack the technical ability to triangulate 
position in certain areas upon the sunset date may seek extended relief 
from the Commission at that time. We find that permitting this 
exclusion, subject to the initial reporting requirement, the obligation 
to update the list of excluded areas, and the sunset period, properly 
but narrowly accounts for the known technical limitations of network-
based location accuracy technologies, while ensuring that the public 
safety community and the public at large are sufficiently informed of 
these limitations.
    47. T-Mobile also requests that the Commission ``[p]ermit a carrier 
to use `blending' as well as `network-only' measurements at the first 
benchmark.'' We find that in terms of the blending element, there is no 
reason to differentiate among the compliance mechanisms for the three 
benchmarks. Thus, we will permit a carrier to blend accuracy data from 
both a network-based solution and a handset-based solution to meet the 
network-based standard at the first benchmark. Lastly, T-Mobile 
requests that the Commission ``[a]llow a carrier the option to comply 
with the Year 5 (third) benchmark using only handset-based measurements 
so long as it has achieved at least 85% (rather than 95%) A-GPS handset 
penetration among its subscribers.'' We agree with T-Mobile that this 
approach ``is more consistent with a phased transition to 95% A-GPS 
handset penetration over the entire 8-year period.'' We also note that 
without this modification, a carrier's percentage of low-end customers 
could significantly affect its ability to meet the benchmarks. As T-
Mobile and RCA point out, ``[l]ow-end customers are less likely to move 
rapidly to the new 3G services and A-GPS handsets.'' Accordingly, we 
will permit a network-based carrier to comply with the third benchmark 
using only handset-based measurements, as long as it has achieved at 
least 85% A-GPS handset penetration among its subscribers.
    48. Taking into consideration our goals for this proceeding and the 
entire record, we amend the network-based location accuracy rules 
consistent with the NENA, APCO and AT&T proposals, as modified by the 
T-Mobile Ex Parte, and as modified as discussed above with respect to 
the permitted exclusions where triangulation is not technically 
achievable. Accordingly, we require wireless licensees subject to 
section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules using network-based location 
technology to satisfy these standards either at a county-based or PSAP-
based geographic level. We clarify that these standards apply to 
outdoor measurements only. As described above,

[[Page 70612]]

and modified by the T-Mobile Ex Parte, we will also allow accuracy data 
from both a network-based solution and a handset-based solution to be 
blended to meet the network-based standard. We agree with AT&T that 
allowing this type of blending can mitigate perceived challenges 
associated with providing accurate location identification in certain 
areas. As before concerning the handset-based requirements, we expect 
that carriers failing to meet any particular benchmark will promptly 
inform the Commission and submit an appropriately supported waiver 
request. Further, we will monitor progress at each benchmark and may 
request status information if necessary.
    49. Finally, as we previously noted, AT&T commits to creating an 
ETAG that would further examine related E911 issues. We encourage this 
effort, as well as Verizon's offer to convene an industry group to 
explore location accuracy for indoor calls as discussed above. Our 
companion FNPRM/NOI also seeks comment on these issues.

D. Confidence and Uncertainty Data

    50. In the NPRM, we tentatively concluded that carriers should 
automatically provide accuracy data to PSAPs. We asked how and in what 
format that data should be transferred to each applicable PSAP. We also 
asked how often it should be reported or provided and whether it should 
be provided as part of the call information/ALI. Finally, we asked what 
the appropriate level of granularity for such accuracy data should be.
    51. NENA, APCO, and AT&T include in their ex parte submission a 
proposal with respect to the provision of confidence and uncertainty 
data to PSAPs. Specifically:
    Confidence and uncertainty data shall be provided on a per call 
basis upon PSAP request. This requirement shall begin at the end of 
Year 2, to allow testing to establish baseline confidence and 
uncertainty levels at the county level. Once a carrier has established 
baseline confidence and uncertainty levels in a county, ongoing 
accuracy shall be monitored based on the trending of uncertainty data 
and additional testing shall not be required.
    52. This proposal is widely welcomed by the public safety 
community, as well as by representatives of industry. In its original 
request for declaratory ruling, APCO stated, ``[r]egardless of the 
geographic area over which accuracy is measured, it is critical for 
PSAPs to know just how accurate the information is that they do 
receive.'' APCO later explained:
    PSAPs need to know the level of E9-1-1 accuracy to facilitate 
appropriate dispatching of emergency responders. For example, 
responders need to know what to do if they arrive at the ``wrong 
address'' or are unable to see the emergency upon arrival. If the call 
was delivered with a high degree of accuracy, the search for the actual 
emergency can be narrowed without requiring additional personnel. 
However, if the accuracy levels are actually low, then responders need 
to be prepared for a wider area search, and additional scarce resources 
may need to be dispatched. APCO and NENA also stress that providing 
confidence and uncertainty data on a per call basis ``will greatly 
improve the ability of PSAPs to utilize accuracy data and manage their 
9-1-1 calls.'' Industry representatives have similarly expressed the 
importance of confidence and uncertainty data. In this respect, we 
agree with AT&T that ``the delivery of confidence and uncertainty data 
on a per-call basis will markedly improve 911 call takers' ability to 
assess the validity of each call's location information and deploy 
public safety resources accordingly.'' Sprint Nextel notes that ``the 
uncertainty factor provides PSAPs with real time information about the 
quality of location calculation and removes the need to make their own 
assessment regarding the relative reliability of any particular fix.''
    53. Comments. AT&T argues that ``wireless carriers are well 
positioned to develop and transmit C/U data, and our discussions with 
public safety organizations have made clear that, by enabling first 
responders to more accurately identify the relevant search data, the 
data can be very useful for PSAPs that are equipped to receive and 
utilize it.'' AT&T adds that ``it is important that the C/U data 
delivered by carriers adhere to a single, common standard * * * AT&T 
and other carriers have reached consensus that uncertainty estimates 
will be provided by carriers at a confidence level corresponding to one 
standard deviation (`one sigma') from the mean'' (or a confidence level 
of approximately 68 percent). Sprint Nextel supports the proposal to 
transmit confidence and uncertainty data upon PSAP request, but states 
that this is dependent on LECs forwarding this data to PSAPs and that 
``the Commission must require owners of E911 networks to take the steps 
necessary to accommodate such data.'' AT&T likewise notes that, ``for 
the data to provide value * * * the local exchange carrier must deliver 
that [confidence and uncertainty] data to the PSAP, and the PSAP must 
be equipped to receive and use it.'' Verizon states that ``in some 
cases, the emergency services provider does not have the capability to 
transmit confidence and uncertainty information'' and that the 
Commission should ``require wireless carriers to include confidence and 
uncertainty information in the call location information they provide 
to the emergency services providers.'' NENA and APCO state that ``[f]or 
those [System Service Providers] who do not pass uncertainty data to 
PSAPs, the burden should be on the SSP to demonstrate that they do not 
pass uncertainty data at the request of the PSAP or because of 
technical infeasibility, in which case a waiver may be warranted.'' 
However, Telecommunications Systems, Inc. states that the Commission 
should ``reject the unspoken mandate to require extensive initial 
baseline ground truth testing and examine the benefits of using 
horizontal uncertainty as the initial and primary criteria for meeting 
location accuracy standards and the location information provided to 
PSAPs.''
    54. Discussion. Regardless of whether a carrier employs handset-
based or network-based location technology, we require wireless 
carriers to provide confidence and uncertainty data on a per call basis 
upon PSAP request beginning at the end of year two. Although the NENA, 
APCO and AT&T proposal specifically applies to network-based location 
technologies, the record supports a finding that confidence and 
uncertainty data is useful for PSAPs in all cases, and that it is both 
technologically feasible and in the public interest to require both 
handset-based and network-based carriers to provide confidence and 
uncertainty data in the manner proposed. Further, as Telecommunications 
Systems, Inc. notes in its comments, implementation of its proposed 
alternative process would require ``further cooperative study.'' We 
thus decline to adopt its proposal, but do not preclude future 
consideration.
    55. In addition, in light of the importance and usefulness of 
confidence and uncertainty data to public safety as demonstrated in the 
record, we take additional steps to ensure that the requirements we 
impose on wireless carriers are meaningful. Thus, to ensure that 
confidence and uncertainty data is made available to requesting PSAPs, 
we also require entities responsible for transporting this data between 
the wireless carriers and PSAPs, including LECs, CLECs, owners of E911 
networks, and emergency

[[Page 70613]]

service providers (collectively, System Service Providers (SSPs)), to 
implement any modifications to enable the transmission of confidence 
and uncertainty data provided by wireless carriers to the requesting 
PSAPs. Additionally, we agree with APCO and NENA that an SSP that does 
not pass confidence and uncertainty data to PSAPs must demonstrate in a 
request for waiver relief that it cannot pass this data to the PSAPs 
due to technical infeasibility.

E. Waiver Requests

    56. Some commenters recommended specific criteria for Tier III 
carrier waivers. We decline at this time to adopt any changes to the 
Commission's existing waiver criteria, which have been sufficient to 
date in addressing particular circumstances on a case-by-case basis and 
remain available to all carriers. Further, we expect that the rule 
changes we adopt today should minimize the need for waiver relief. For 
handset-based carriers, we are permitting an exclusion of fifteen 
percent of counties due to heavy forestation and similar terrain 
features that impede the ability to obtain accurate location 
information. For network-based carriers, we are permitting exclusion of 
counties or portions of counties where cell site triangulation is not 
technically possible. In addition, the revised benchmarks are based on 
an eight-year compliance period, with the earliest benchmark not taking 
effect until one year following the effective date of this Order. 
Finally, we make clear that the revised location accuracy requirements 
do not apply to indoor use cases.

IV. Procedural Matters

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    57. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the 
Notice. The Commission sought written public comment on the possible 
significant economic impact on small entities regarding the proposals 
addressed in the Notice, including comments on the IFRA. Pursuant to 
the RFA, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set forth in 
Appendix B of the Second Report and Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    58. This document contains proposed new information collection 
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to 
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the OMB to 
comment on the information collection requirements contained in this 
document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public 
Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
seek specific comment on how we might ``further reduce the information 
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees.''

C. Congressional Review Act

    59. The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and Order 
in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).

D. Accessible Formats

    60. To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), 
send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bbddd8d88e8b8ffbddd8d895dcd4cd">[email protected]</a> or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty). Contact the 
FCC to request reasonable accommodations for filing comments 
(accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CARTS, etc.) 
by e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcfaffff898c88fcdadfdf92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a3c39394f4a4e3a1c1919541d150c">[email protected]</span></a>; phone: (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-
0432 (TTY).

V. Ordering Clauses

    61. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 
332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
154(i), 332, that the Second Report and Order in PS Docket No. 07 114 
IS ADOPTED, and that part 20 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Part 20, 
is amended as set forth in Appendix C. The Second Report and Order 
shall become effective 60 days after publication in the Federal 
Register, subject to OMB approval for new information collection 
requirements.
    62. It is further ordered that the Request for Declaratory Ruling 
filed by APCO is granted in part and denied in part to the extent 
indicated herein.
    63. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Federal Communications 
Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Section 20.18(h) is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  20.18  911 Service.

* * * * *
    (h) Phase II accuracy. Licensees subject to this section shall 
comply with the following standards for Phase II location accuracy and 
reliability, to be tested and measured either at the county or at the 
PSAP service area geographic level, based on outdoor measurements only:
    (1) Network-based technologies:
    (i) 100 meters for 67 percent of calls, consistent with the 
following benchmarks:
    (A) One year from January 18, 2011, carriers shall comply with this 
standard in 60 percent of counties or PSAP service areas. These 
counties or PSAP service areas must cover at least 70 percent of the 
population covered by the carrier across its entire network. Compliance 
will be measured on a per-county or per-PSAP basis using, at the 
carrier's election, either
    (1) Network-based accuracy data, or
    (2) Blended reporting as provided in paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this 
section.
    (B) Three years from January 18, 2011, carriers shall comply with 
this standard in 70 percent of counties or PSAP service areas. These 
counties or PSAP service areas must cover at least 80 percent of the 
population covered by the carrier across its entire network. Compliance 
will be measured on a per-county or per-PSAP basis using, at the 
carrier's election, either
    (1) Network-based accuracy data, or
    (2) Blended reporting as provided in paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this 
section.
    (C) Five years from January 18, 2011, carriers shall comply with 
this standard in 100% of counties or PSAP service areas covered by the 
carrier. Compliance will be measured on a per-county or

[[Page 70614]]

per-PSAP basis, using, at the carrier's election, either
    (1) Network-based accuracy data,
    (2) Blended reporting as provided in paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this 
section, or
    (3) Handset-based accuracy data as provided in paragraph (h)(1)(v) 
of this section.
    (ii) 300 meters for 90 percent of calls, consistent with the 
following benchmarks:
    (A) Three years from January 18, 2011, carriers shall comply with 
this standard in 60 percent of counties or PSAP service areas. These 
counties or PSAP service areas must cover at least 70 percent of the 
population covered by the carrier across its entire network. Compliance 
will be measured on a per-county or per-PSAP basis using, at the 
carrier's election, either
    (1) Network-based accuracy data, or
    (2) Blended reporting as provided in paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this 
section.
    (B) Five years from January 18, 2011, carriers shall comply in 70 
percent of counties or PSAP service areas. These counties or PSAP 
service areas must cover at least 80 percent of the population covered 
by the carrier across its entire network. Compliance will be measured 
on a per-county or per-PSAP basis using, at the carrier's election, 
either
    (1) Network-based accuracy data, or
    (2) Blended reporting as provided in paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this 
section.
    (C) Eight years from January 18, 2011, carriers shall comply in 85 
percent of counties or PSAP service areas. Compliance will be measured 
on a per-county or per-PSAP basis using, at the carrier's election, 
either
    (1) Network-based accuracy data,
    (2) Blended reporting as provided in paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this 
section, or
    (3) Handset-based accuracy data as provided in paragraph (h)(1)(v) 
of this section.
    (iii) County-level or PSAP-level location accuracy standards for 
network-based technologies will be applicable to those counties or PSAP 
service areas, on an individual basis, in which a network-based carrier 
has deployed Phase II in at least one cell site located within a 
county's or PSAP service area's boundary. Compliance with the 
requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(i) and paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this 
section shall be measured and reported independently.
    (iv) Accuracy data from both network-based solutions and handset-
based solutions may be blended to measure compliance with the accuracy 
requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(i)(A) through (C) and paragraph 
(h)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this section. Such blending shall be based 
on weighting accuracy data in the ratio of assisted GPS (``A-GPS'') 
handsets to non-A-GPS handsets in the carrier's subscriber base. The 
weighting ratio shall be applied to the accuracy data from each 
solution and measured against the network-based accuracy requirements 
of paragraph (h)(1) of this section.
    (v) A carrier may rely solely on handset-based accuracy data in any 
county or PSAP service area if at least 85 percent of its subscribers, 
network-wide, use A-GPS handsets, or if it offers A-GPS handsets to 
subscribers in that county or PSAP service area at no cost to the 
subscriber.
    (vi) A carrier may exclude from compliance particular counties, or 
portions of counties, where triangulation is not technically possible, 
such as locations where at least three cell sites are not sufficiently 
visible to a handset. Carriers must file a list of the specific 
counties or portions of counties where they are utilizing this 
exclusion within 90 days following approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget for the related information collection. This list 
must be submitted electronically into PS Docket No. 07-114, and copies 
must be sent to the National Emergency Number Association, the 
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, 
and the National Association of State 9-1-1 Administrators. Further, 
carriers must submit in the same manner any changes to their exclusion 
lists within thirty days of discovering such changes. This exclusion 
will sunset on [8 years after effective date].
    (2) Handset-based technologies:
    (i) Two years from January 18, 2011, 50 meters for 67 percent of 
calls, and 150 meters for 80 percent of calls, on a per-county or per-
PSAP basis. However, a carrier may exclude up to 15 percent of counties 
or PSAP service areas from the 150 meter requirement based upon heavy 
forestation that limits handset-based technology accuracy in those 
counties or PSAP service areas.
    (ii) Eight years from January 18, 2011, 50 meters for 67 percent of 
calls, and 150 meters for 90 percent of calls, on a per-county or per-
PSAP basis. However, a carrier may exclude up to 15 percent of counties 
or PSAP service areas from the 150 meter requirement based upon heavy 
forestation that limits handset-based technology accuracy in those 
counties or PSAP service areas.
    (iii) Carriers must file a list of the specific counties or PSAP 
service areas where they are utilizing the exclusion for heavy 
forestation within 90 days following approval from the Office of 
Management and Budget for the related information collection. This list 
must be submitted electronically into PS Docket No. 07-114, and copies 
must be sent to the National Emergency Number Association, the 
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, 
and the National Association of State 9-1-1 Administrators. Further, 
carriers must submit in the same manner any changes to their exclusion 
lists within thirty days of discovering such changes.
    (3) Confidence and uncertainty data: Two years after January 18, 
2011, all carriers subject to this section shall be required to provide 
confidence and uncertainty data on a per-call basis upon the request of 
a PSAP. Once a carrier has established baseline confidence and 
uncertainty levels in a county or PSAP service area, ongoing accuracy 
shall be monitored based on the trending of uncertainty data and 
additional testing shall not be required. All entities responsible for 
transporting confidence and uncertainty between wireless carriers and 
PSAPs, including LECs, CLECs, owners of E911 networks, and emergency 
service providers (collectively, System Service Providers (SSPs)) must 
implement any modifications that will enable the transmission of 
confidence and uncertainty data provided by wireless carriers to the 
requesting PSAP. If an SSP does not pass confidence and uncertainty 
data to PSAPs, the SSP has the burden of proving that it is technically 
infeasible for it to provide such data.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-29007 Filed 11-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>