Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls

Federal RegisterMar 13, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

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 § 9.10(s)(4) and (5) until a document is published in the

Federal Register

announcing a compliance date and revising or removing § 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,

Rachel.Wehr@fcc.gov,

or Brenda Boykin, Deputy Division Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2062,

Brenda.Boykin@fcc.gov

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This document is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order. The full text of the Report and Order is available for public inspection at

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-4A1.pdf

. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), or to request reasonable accommodations (

e.g.,

accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to

fcc504@fcc.gov

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

to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and real-time text (RTT) communications

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

The Commission has previously found that a one minute increase in response times increases mortality, and that a one minute decrease in response times decreases mortality.

See, e.g., Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements,

Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 2374, 2388-89, para. 33 & n.70 (2014), 79 FR 17820 (March 28, 2014). As stated in the notice of proposed rulemaking and affirmed in the Report and Order, the Commission estimates that the implementation of wireless location-based routing under the rules we adopt in this document will save 13,837 lives annually, assuming a one-minute decrease in response time.

See

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15206-07, para. 61 & n.161.

3. To facilitate the implementation of location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911, we take the following actions:

• We require CMRS providers to deploy location-based routing technology for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 on their internet Protocol (IP)-based

networks (

i.e.,

4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based networks). We also require CMRS providers to use location-based routing to route wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 originating on their IP-based networks when location information meets certain thresholds for accuracy and timeliness.

• We require CMRS providers to use location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 when caller location information available to the CMRS provider's network at time of routing is ascertainable within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. In the absence of these conditions, CMRS providers must use alternative routing methods based on “best available” location information, which may include but is not limited to device-based or tower-based location information.

• We adopt the proposed six-month timeline for nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and provide twenty-four months for non-nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing of wireless 911 voice calls.

In addition, we provide 24 months for all CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for RTT communications to 911.

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

• We require CMRS providers within 60 days of the applicable compliance deadlines to certify and submit evidence of compliance with location-based routing requirements. At that time, CMRS providers also must submit one-time live call data reporting on the routing methodologies for calls in live call areas, and they must certify the privacy of location information used for location-based routing.

• We defer consideration of proposals in the notice of proposed rulemaking to require CMRS providers and covered text providers

to implement location-based routing for Short Message Service (SMS) texts to 911.

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

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

See Facilitating Implementation of Next Generation 911 Services (NG911),

PS Docket No. 21-479, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 23-47, 2023 WL 3946685 (June 9, 2023), 88 FR 43514 (July 10, 2023),

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-action-expedite-transition-next-generation-911-0

(

NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

4. Legacy Enhanced 911 Routing. When the first 911 call was placed in 1968, 911 service was provided to the public over wireline telephone networks, and wireline providers used the fixed location of the calling telephone to route 911 calls to the nearest PSAP.

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).

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.

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.

Other commenters indicate that the percentage of misrouted wireless 911 voice calls is higher in some jurisdictions.

These estimates support the conclusion that tower-based routing causes millions of wireless 911 voice calls to be misrouted annually.

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.

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS), Analysis of Predetermined Cell Sector Routing Outcomes Compared to Caller's Device Location,

ATIS-0500039

at 4 (July 2, 2019),

https://access.atis.org/apps/group_public/document.php?document_id=48697

(

ATIS-0500039

). Intrado cites a 2018 study concluding that 12.96% out of a set of five million wireless 911 calls were misrouted. Intrado Life & Safety, Inc. (Intrado) Public Notice Comments at 3 & n.8, 4 (rec. July 11, 2022) (Intrado PN Comments).

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.

In the Commission's 2023 annual 911 fee report, respondents reported receiving a combined total of approximately 158 million wireless 911 voice calls in calendar year 2022. FCC, Fifteenth Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges at 16, Table 3 (2023),

https://www.fcc.gov/general/911-fee-reports

(Fifteenth Annual 911 Fee Report). Assuming 12% of these calls were misrouted, misroutes would total nearly 19 million calls. NENA: The 9-1-1 Association (NENA) estimates that 23 million wireless 911 voice calls are misrouted annually. NENA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Comments at 2 (rec. Feb. 15, 2023) (NENA NPRM Comments).

6. When a wireless 911 voice call is misrouted, the answering telecommunicator must transfer the call to the PSAP that has jurisdiction to dispatch aid to the 911 caller's location. This process consumes time and resources for both the transferring PSAP and the receiving PSAP and delays the dispatch of first responders to render aid. Commenters submit anecdotal evidence that a typical misroute introduces a delay of about a minute.

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

emergency response.

This delay can have deadly consequences.

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.”).

For example, on June 4, 2020, 16-year-old Fitz Thomas drowned at Confluence Park on the Potomac River, which separates Loudoun County, Virginia, and Montgomery County, Maryland. Press Release, Loudoun County Office of the County Administrator, Public Affairs and Communications, Loudoun County Releases Significant Incident Review of Goose Creek Drowning at 1 (Aug. 31, 2020),

https://www.loudoun.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/10062.

Due to the incident's proximity to the jurisdictional border of the Potomac River and the use of legacy E911 routing, both counties received wireless 911 calls routed from the park located on the Virginia side of the river.

Id.

at 2. Efforts to determine Thomas's actual location contributed to a delay in dispatching first responders.

Id.

On July 15, 2022, Ma Kaing was shot and killed by a stray bullet outside her home in the East Colfax neighborhood of Denver. Jennifer Kovaleski,

Stuck on the line: Cellphone calls routed to the wrong 911 center are costing life-saving seconds,

Denver7 (Nov. 19, 2022),

https://www.denver7.com/news/investigations/stuck-on-the-line-cellphone-calls-routed-to-the-wrong-911-center-are-costing-life-saving-seconds.

The news media reported that four calls from her family and neighbors were misrouted to a neighboring PSAP and required transfer; three callers hung up after waiting minutes on hold.

Id.

The news media have widely reported on such tragic occurrences. For example, in December 2015, dispatchers were unable to locate Shanell Anderson, who drowned after accidentally driving off the road and into a pond close to the line between Fulton and Cherokee Counties in Georgia. Brendan Keefe and Phillip Kish,

Lost on the Line: Why 911 is broken,

11ALIVE (Aug. 12, 2019),

https://www.11alive.com/article/news/local/lost-on-the-line-why-911-is-broken/85-225104578.

According to the news media, Shanell Anderson was able to call 911, but the call was picked up by a cell tower in Fulton County and routed to that county's PSAP, where critical minutes were lost while dispatchers sought to determine the county in which she was located (Cherokee County).

Id.

In another incident in 2008, Olidia Kerr Day made a wireless 911 call before she was fatally shot in a murder-suicide in front of the Plantation, Florida, police department. Sofia Santana,

Cell Phone 911 Calls Are Often Routed to the Wrong Call Centers,

Sun Sentinel (June 21, 2008),

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/sfl-flbsafe911calls0621sbjun21-story.html.

According to the news media, although she placed the call in Plantation, the call was routed to the 911 center in Sunrise, Florida, and had to be transferred to Plantation.

Id.

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

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.

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

were widely available on mobile devices and could be used for routing a high percentage of wireless 911 voice calls.

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

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

nationwide, including wireless 911 voice calls and 911 text messages originating in legacy, transitional, and NG911-capable public safety jurisdictions.

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%.

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.

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,

and location information for routing

in IP format upon request of 911 authorities

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.

The Commission received twenty-six comments, fourteen replies, and several ex parte filings.

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.

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).

Press Release, T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile), T-Mobile First to Roll Out Cutting-Edge 911 Capabilities (Dec. 17, 2020),

https://www.t-mobile.com/news/network/tmobile-next-generation-911-location-based-routing

(T-Mobile Dec. 17, 2020 Press Release); T-Mobile Public Notice Reply at 2 & n.6 (rec. July 25, 2022) (T-Mobile PN Reply); AT&T PN Comments at 4; CB Cotton, Verizon plans to update 911 routing technology after Denver's East

Colfax

neighborhood calls for change, Denver7 (Aug. 5, 2022),

https://www.denver7.com/news/local-news/verizon-plans-to-update-911-routing-technology-after-denvers-east-colfax-neighborhood-calls-for-change.

11. Virtually all public safety commenters and some additional commenters support Commission action to require CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls. Multiple public safety commenters and Intrado support the Commission's proposal that CMRS providers implement location-based routing nationwide. Commenters representing wireless interests urge the Commission to allow CMRS providers to implement location-based routing voluntarily or on a PSAP-by-PSAP basis, as opposed to a nationwide mandate. With respect to text-to-911, numerous commenters support requiring covered text providers to implement location-based routing, but some commenters contend that such a requirement would be premature. Citing a lack of technical standards for routing SMS texts to 911, NENA, ATIS, and Southern Linc oppose requiring covered text providers to implement location-based routing for SMS but suggest that the Commission should require location-based routing for IP-based text solutions such as RTT.

12. In response to the Commission's proposed timeliness and accuracy requirements for use of location-based routing, some commenters express support for the proposed requirements,

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.

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”).

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.

In 2019, ATIS published two studies on legacy E911 misroutes and the feasibility of location-based routing.

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”

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

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.”

Press Release, CTIA, Wireless Industry Announces Development in Improving 9-1-1 Location Accuracy (Sept. 5, 2018),

https://www.ctia.org/news/wireless-industry-announces-development-in-improving-9-1-1-location-accuracy;

Letter from Paul Margie, Counsel, Apple Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 18-64 et al., at 2 (filed Sept. 24, 2019) (Apple Sept. 24, 2019

Ex Parte

). Device-based hybrid (DBH) location is “[a]n estimation method that typically utilizes either a selection or a combination of location methods available to the handset in a given environment—including crowd-sourced Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi), Assisted-Global Navigation Satellite System (A-GNSS), and possibly other handset-based sensors.”

ATIS-0700042

at 2. “It also includes an associated uncertainty estimate reflective of the quality of the returned location.”

Id.

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.

ATIS-0700042

at 22. CSRIC is a Federal advisory committee subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2, and charged with providing recommendations to the Commission to ensure, among other things, the security and reliability of communications systems. FCC,

Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council, https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisory-committees/communications-security-reliability-and-interoperability-council-0

(last visited Jan. 17, 2023).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Letter from Eric Hagerson, Government Affairs Director, Public Safety and Security, T-Mobile, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 18-64 at 1 (filed Dec. 21, 2023) (T-Mobile Dec. 21, 2023

Ex Parte

). T-Mobile reports that it only deploys location-based routing in response to a PSAP's request.

See, e.g.,

T-Mobile Public Notice Comments at 1, 4-7 (rec. July 11, 2022) (T-Mobile PN Comments); T-Mobile PN Reply at 2-4. For context, the latest NENA data indicate that 5,748 PSAPs operate in the United States. NENA,

9-1-1 Statistics, https://www.nena.org/page/911Statistics

(last visited Jan. 17, 2024).

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

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.

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.

The Commission's text-to-911 rules are technology neutral and apply to both SMS and RTT.

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.

T-Mobile reports that it is using location-based routing for at least some text-to-911 messages.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

terminals to handle RTT 911 communications.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

AT&T NPRM Comments at 2; Texas 9-1-1 Entities Public Notice Comments at 2-4 (rec. July 11, 2022) (Texas 9-1-1 Entities PN Comments) (showing that average percentage of 911 call transfers for two out of three PSAPs in initial beta sites decreased by roughly 4-5% after T-Mobile implemented location-based routing; the remaining PSAP showed a slight increase in transfers of less than 1%); T-Mobile,

T-Mobile First to Roll Out Cutting-Edge 911 Capabilities

(Dec. 17, 2020),

https://www.tmobile.com/news/network/tmobile-next-generation-911-location-based-routing

(announcing that some areas where T-Mobile implemented location-based routing have experienced up to 40% fewer call transfers).

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

routing. Other public safety commenters and Intrado also support a nationwide location-based routing requirement.

The record indicates that the nationwide CMRS providers have implemented location-based routing without increased costs or problems for public safety.

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.

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.”

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.”).

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”).

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.

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.

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.

Intrado NPRM Comments at 3, n.6.

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.”).

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.

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,

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

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

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.

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.

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

https://about.att.com/story/2022/nationwide-location-based-routing.html.

30. We also do not agree with commenters' assertions that PSAPs are not ready from an operational perspective to manage changes in call distribution or volume resulting from the implementation of location-based routing on a nationwide basis. T-Mobile asserts that “[m]any emergency authorities want to understand the impact LBR will have on operations, call volume, and workflows before deploying it; they often also want the ability to implement reporting and tracking of call transfers prior to enabling LBR in order to understand and see the effects of the new 911 routing.”

T-Mobile cites its initial implementation of location-based-routing in Minnesota and Texas,

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.

T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 5 (emphasis omitted).

See

Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, Metropolitan Emergency Services Board 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee July 15, 2021 Draft Meeting Minutes at 7,

https://mn-mesb.org/wp-content/uploads/July-TOC-Meeting-Packet-070921.pdf

(indicating that at the time of deployment in select counties in Minnesota, no other carriers had deployed or announced future deployment of location-based routing); Metropolitan Emergency Services Board, Metropolitan Emergency Services Board 9-1-1 Technical Operations Committee Agenda at 25 (Jan. 21, 2021),

https://mn-mesb.org/wp-content/uploads/January-Meeting-911-TOC-Packet-012121.pdf

(including a presentation from T-Mobile to Greater Harris County, Texas, indicating that “[t]oday, T-Mobile is the only wireless carrier positioned to route 911 calls based on caller location, rather that [sic] cell sector”).

31. CMRS providers' assertions about potential adverse operational impacts to PSAPs are also contradicted by virtually all statements of public safety commenters on the record. Despite industry commenters' preference,

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.

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

or text-to-911,

which were predicated on individual PSAPs achieving the technical capability to receive E911 location data and 911 texts, respectively.

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.

T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 4; CCOA NPRM Reply Comments at 1-2;

see also

47 CFR 9.10(d)(1), (f), (g), (m).

T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 4; CTIA NPRM Comments at 4;

see also

47 CFR 9.10(q)(10)(ii) and (iii).

To receive texts, PSAPs must either upgrade their equipment to receive text messages or implement text-to-911 capabilities on existing equipment.

T911 Second Report and Order,

29 FCC Rcd at 9861, para. 32, 79 FR 55367 (September 16, 2014). To receive Phase I location information, PSAPs must use switches, protocols, and signaling systems that will allow them to obtain the calling party's number from the transmission of ANI.

Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,

CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18709, para. 63 n.119 (1996), 61 FR 40348 (August 2, 1996). To receive Phase II location information, PSAPs must “install equipment to determine the geographic coordinates of the caller, transfer that information through the telephone networks, and have a mapping system in place at the PSAP that can display the latitude and longitude coordinates of the caller as a map location for dispatching assistance.” General Accounting Office, Uneven Implementation of Wireless Enhanced 911 Raises Prospect of Piecemeal Availability for Years to Come, GAO-04-55, at 9 (Nov. 2003),

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-04-55.pdf.

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

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.

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.

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.

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,

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.

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.”

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.”).

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

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.

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.

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 . . . .”

We agree.

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.

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.”

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.

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”).

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.”).

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.

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

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

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.

We received mixed comments on this issue. NASNA, iCERT, and COPUC support the proposed 18-month timeline for non-nationwide CMRS providers,

while other public safety entities argue for a shorter timeline.

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.

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.

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15195, para. 26.

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”).

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.

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

accommodate technology transitions.

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.

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)(

), (

). 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).

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

and may be extended pursuant to the conditions set forth in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act and the Commission's rules.

FCC,

Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program Second Report

at 4 (July 10, 2023),

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-395005A1.pdf. See Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs,

WC Docket No. 18-89, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14284, 14354, para. 170 (2020), 86 FR 2904 (January 13, 2021). The Commission may grant recipients extensions of this term on an individual basis.

See

Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, Public Law 116-124, section 4(d)(6)(C), 134 Stat. 158, 163 (2020) (Secure Networks Act) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 1603(d)(6)(C)).

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.

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.

RWA NPRM Comments at 1, n.3 (acknowledging that “RWA members have received no specific vendor estimates as to the actual cost of compliance”).

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.

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.

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-

based routing by nationwide carriers “provides ample evidence that LBR will soon be ready for wider implementation.”

AT&T NPRM Comments at 3 (“AT&T was able to deploy location-based routing to virtually all PSAPs within a six-month timeframe.”).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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”).

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.

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.

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

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.”

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.

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.

NENA NPRM Reply at 10. Unlike SMS text-to-911, which uses a Text Control Center for routing, “RTT uses the existing IP-based voice architecture.” NENA, NENA PSAP Readiness for Real-Time Text (RTT) Information Document, NENA-INF-042.1-2021 at 10 (Jan. 20, 2021),

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/standards/nena-inf-042.1-2021_rtt_appv.pdf

(

NENA RTT Information Document

). The RTT communication “enters the Common IMS Network via the Proxy/Emergency Call Session Control Functions (P/E-CSCF) which provide the routing functions.”

NENA RTT Information Document

at 13. This is also how wireless 911 voice calls originating on IP-based networks are processed.

See ATIS-0700015.v005

(“[The P-CSCF] receives the emergency call from the User Equipment via the Access Network. The P-CSCF detects that the call is an emergency call and forwards it to/toward the E-CSCF.”). Then, “[t]he Common IMS Network will acquire location using the Location Retrieval Function (LRF) and Location Server (LS) and determine the routing using the Routing Determination Function (RDF).”

NENA RTT Information Document

at 13. Again, this is also how wireless 911 voice calls originating on IP-based networks are processed.

See ATIS-0700015.v005

at 24 (“The LRF obtains location information associated with the emergency call (by interacting with an LS, if necessary) and uses that location to acquire routing information for the emergency call from the RDF.”).

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.

RTT transition obligations apply to “those entities that are involved in the provision of IP-based wireless voice communication service, and only to the extent that their services are subject to existing TTY technology support requirements under Parts 6, 7, 14, 20, or 64 of the Commission's rules.”

RTT Order,

31 FCC Rcd at 13576-77, para. 12. The Commission requires CMRS providers transmitting over an IP network that choose to enable the transmission and receipt of communications via RTT, in lieu of TTY technology, to and from any PSAP served by their network, to enable such service in a manner that fully complies with all applicable 911 rules.

Id.

at 13591-92, para. 43. PSAPs require special capabilities to receive RTT communications from CMRS providers.

Id.

at 13592, para. 43. We recognize that many PSAPs are not currently capable of supporting RTT communications and remain reliant on TTY technology to receive calls from people with disabilities. Texas 9-1-1 Entities NPRM Comments at 5;

see RTT Order

at 13592, para. 43; FCC, What Public Safety Answering Points Should Know about Real-Time Text at 2 (Oct. 2, 2018),

https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/events/fact_sheet_about_real-time_text_for_public_safety_answering_points.pdf.

58. Compliance Deadlines for Location-Based Routing for RTT. We require CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for RTT within 24 months after the effective date of the final rules on location-based routing. This timeline is six months longer than the eighteen-month period the Commission proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking for all covered text providers to route all texts to 911. Most of the comments received on timelines address 911 texts in general, without specifically addressing issues related to RTT implementation in particular.

Some commenters support the originally proposed 18-month timeline for text-to 911,

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.”

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.

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).

Verizon NPRM Reply at 2;

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

information rather than determining the timeliness or accuracy of the information. In addition, we separately set forth timeliness and accuracy metrics elsewhere in the rules. DISA suggests adding language to indicate that the location is to be determined “at origination (setup) of [a] voice call.” We decline to adopt this suggested change, as the issue of timeliness of the location information used for location-based routing is addressed in other rules we adopt.

4. Timeliness and Accuracy of Location-Based Routing Information

72. We require CMRS providers to use location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 when the location information available to the CMRS provider's network at time of routing is ascertainable within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. We anticipate that a substantial percentage of wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 will route on location information meeting the accuracy and timeliness threshold under the rules adopted. If location information meeting this threshold is not available at the time of routing, we require CMRS providers to use the “best available” location information for routing wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911. Such “best available” location information may include but is not limited to device-based location information that does not meet the accuracy threshold, tower-based location information (

e.g.,

the centroid of the area served by the cell sector that first picks up the call), or other location information. The requirements we adopt are those proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking with slight definitional modifications.

a. Timeliness Threshold

73. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking, location-based routing requires information about the caller's location to be available quickly enough to enable the call to be routed without delaying the normal call set-up process. We adopt the Commission's proposal from the notice of proposed rulemaking to require the use of location-based routing only if caller location information is available to the CMRS provider network at the time that the CMRS provider would otherwise route the call.

107

This timeliness threshold is intended to avoid delay in transmitting wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to PSAPs.

107

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

74. The record indicates that currently available technology is routinely capable of delivering location information to CMRS provider networks for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 in time for routing without delay.

108

Nationwide CMRS providers' implementations have demonstrated that obtaining such location in time for routing is feasible. Devices that are capable of producing high accuracy, low latency location for emergency calling are in wide use, and IP network technology supports rapidly obtaining such precise location estimates. The location-based routing deployments of AT&T,

109

T-Mobile,

110

and Verizon

111

demonstrate that precise location information can be made routinely available to CMRS providers' networks in time for routing wireless 911 voice calls. Both Android devices using ELS and iOS devices using HELO are capable of generating high accuracy, low latency location information in time to support 911 call routing.

112

Moreover, iOS and Android devices account for 99.62% of the U.S. device market, meaning that this capability is widely available to consumers. Intrado states that 4G LTE and newer networks can obtain device-based location information, calculate confidence and uncertainty, and query the location server for PSAP routing instructions within the normal call set-up interval. T-Mobile states that the “IP Multimedia Subsystem (`IMS') technology and advancement of device-based hybrid location solutions has enabled the use of a caller's estimated device location for call routing without delaying call set-up.”

108

See

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15199, para. 38 (citing Intrado PN Comments at 6, 8; Apple Sept. 24, 2019

Ex Parte

at 2; and Android,

Emergency Location Service—How It Works, https://www.android.com/safety/emergency-help/emergency-location-service/how-it-works/

(last visited Jan. 17, 2024)); Verizon NPRM Comments at 6 (stating that RTT “will also benefit from the same routing improvements and advantages as i3 voice calls”); NENA NPRM Comments at 12 (stating that an RTT communication in NG911 “requires no special handling compared [to] a `conventional' voice call”).

109

AT&T has used location-based routing for over 80% of all AT&T wireless calls. Intrado PN Comments at 2. Intrado further notes that AT&T's location-based routing solution provides location-based routing “without any impact to the timeline or call.” Intrado PN Comments at 6.

110

T-Mobile indicates that more than 95% of location estimates available at call routing on T-Mobile's network fall within the company's threshold,

i.e.,

“300 meters with a confidence level of 90%.” T-Mobile July 26, 2023

Ex Parte

at 1.

111

See

Verizon July 13, 2023

Ex Parte

at 1 (“To determine whether device-based hybrid location information provided by the device during a call is adequate for routing, Verizon uses an accuracy threshold of 200 meters maximum horizontal uncertainty with confidence of 90 percent.”).

112

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 37 FCC Rcd at 15191, para. 16.

see also

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

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 Commissio

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.