Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, 53234-53247 [2020-18795]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 168 (Friday, August 28, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53234-53247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18795]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 9

[PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 20-98; FRS 16998]


Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the 
FCC or Commission) builds upon the Commission's efforts to improve its 
wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) location accuracy rules by enabling 911 
call centers and first responders to more accurately identify the floor 
level for wireless 911 calls made from multi-story buildings. The Sixth 
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration affirms the April 3, 
2021, and April 3, 2023, z-axis location accuracy requirements for 
nationwide wireless providers and rejects an untimely proposal to 
weaken these requirements; allows wireless providers to deploy 
technologies that focus on multi-story buildings, where vertical 
location information is most vital to first responders, and handset-
based deployment solutions that meet the z-axis metric; requires 
nationwide wireless providers to deploy z-axis technology nationwide by 
April 3, 2025 (non-nationwide wireless providers would have an 
additional year to deploy z-axis technology throughout their service 
areas (i.e., April 3, 2026)); and requires wireless providers, 
beginning January 6, 2022, to provide dispatchable location with 
wireless 911 calls when it is technically feasible to do so. Finally, 
we deny a Petition for Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order.

DATES: Effective date: September 28, 2020.
    Compliance date: Compliance will not be required for Sec.  
9.10(i)(4)(iv) and (v), (j)(4), and (k) until the Commission publishes 
a document in the Federal Register announcing the compliance date.

ADDRESSES: The complete text of this document is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. Effective March 19, 2020, and until further 
notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger 
delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect 
the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission 
of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window 
and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 
2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy. During the time the 
Commission's building is closed to the general public and until further 
notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Boykin, Attorney-Advisor, 
Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau, (202) 418-2062 or via email at [email protected], and John 
A. Evanoff, Deputy Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety 
and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-

[[Page 53235]]

0848 or via email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Sixth 
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, FCC 20-98, adopted on 
July 16, 2020, and released on July 17, 2020. The complete text of this 
document is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 
Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). The complete text of the order also is 
available on the Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. The Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration builds 
upon this framework for improving the delivery and accuracy of vertical 
location requirements, consistent with our commitment to ensuring that 
all Americans have access to timely and effective emergency response 
when calling 911 from indoor and outdoor locations. We affirm the April 
2021 and April 2023 vertical accuracy requirements that nationwide CMRS 
providers must meet in major markets and reject an untimely proposal to 
weaken these requirements. We allow CMRS providers to deploy 
technologies that focus on multi-story buildings, where vertical 
location information is most vital to first responders, and we require 
nationwide CMRS providers to deploy z-axis technology nationwide by 
April 2025. We also afford CMRS providers additional flexibility to 
provide dispatchable location (street address plus additional 
information such as floor level to identify the 911 caller's location), 
and we require dispatchable location to be delivered with wireless 911 
calls when it is technically feasible and cost-effective to do so 
beginning January 6, 2022. Taken together, these actions place wireless 
carriers on track for providing PSAPs and first responders the best 
available vertical location information for the benefit of 911 callers 
seeking emergency assistance.

II. Background

    2. In the Fifth Report and Order, we adopted a z-axis location 
accuracy metric of 3 meters above or below the handset (plus or minus 3 
meters) for 80% of calls made from z-axis capable devices as 
demonstrated in the test bed. We concluded that implementing the 3-
meter metric within the existing compliance timeline was technically 
feasible and would yield significant public safety benefits. We 
required CMRS providers to deliver z-axis information to PSAPs in 
Height Above Ellipsoid and to provide floor level information when 
available. Deployment must be consistent with the configuration used in 
the test bed, and CMRS providers must comply with requirements for 
confidence and uncertainty data, compliance certifications, and live 
call data reporting. Finally, we amended our rules to provide explicit 
privacy protection for z-axis location information, stating that such 
information may only be used for 911 purposes, except with prior 
express consent or as required by law.
    3. In the Fifth Further Notice, we sought comment on additional 
issues associated with implementation of vertical location accuracy 
requirements. Specifically, we sought comment on the feasibility of 
phasing in a stricter z-axis standard (e.g., 2 meters) over time, and 
ultimately whether to require CMRS providers to deliver floor level 
information in addition to or instead of z-axis measurements for 
wireless indoor 911 calls. We also proposed to adopt additional z-axis 
deployment options for CMRS providers to choose from as alternatives to 
the CMA-based deployment metric in the current rules. Finally, we 
proposed to revise our dispatchable location rules to allow provision 
of dispatchable location information from sources other than the 
National Emergency Address Database.
    4. In response to the Fifth Further Notice, we received 20 comments 
and 12 reply comments, filed by public safety entities, technology 
vendors, wireless carriers, technology companies, and industry 
associations. In addition, APCO filed a Petition for Clarification of 
the Fifth Report and Order regarding implementation and testing of 
location accuracy technology and certification of compliance by CMRS 
providers. BRETSA filed a Petition for Reconsideration of certain 
portions of the Fifth Report and Order regarding performance testing 
and correlating z-axis information to floor level. CTIA, AT&T, and T-
Mobile filed oppositions to the BRETSA Petition, and BRETSA filed a 
reply to oppositions.
    5. After the close of the comment and reply comment cycle, the 
Commission received additional submissions. CTIA, on behalf of the 9-1-
1 Location Technologies Test Bed, LLC (Test Bed), submitted a test bed 
report (Stage Za Report) to update the Commission on the most recent 
testing of 911 z-axis location technologies, Stage Za, by the Test Bed. 
Stage Za testing evaluated Google's Android-based Emergency Location 
Service. According to CTIA, ``Google's [Emergency Location Service] 
achieved 3 meter accuracy for more than half of calls in 
the test bed, and exceeded the 80th percentile metric in one 
morphology.'' On June 25, 2020, the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau granted the Test Bed and Google's request for confidential 
treatment of the Stage Za Report.
    6. Finally, Polaris filed a Petition for Emergency Declaratory 
Ruling asking the Commission to (1) reaffirm the deadlines established 
in the Fifth Report and Order and (2) dismiss certain alternative 
proposals advanced in comments.

III. Sixth Report and Order

    7. With this Sixth Report and Order, we adopt our proposals in the 
Fifth Further Notice to expand the options for CMRS providers choosing 
to deploy z-axis technology to meet the April 2021 and April 2023 
compliance benchmarks, with some revisions and clarifications. We also 
require nationwide CMRS providers to deploy z-axis technology 
nationwide by April 2025 and require non-nationwide CMRS providers to 
do the same throughout their service areas by April 2026. We adopt our 
proposal to allow CMRS providers flexibility to develop dispatchable 
location solutions that do not depend on the National Emergency Address 
Database, which has been discontinued. In addition, to make our 
wireless dispatchable location rules consistent with our dispatchable 
location rules for other services adopted pursuant to Section 506 of 
RAY BAUM'S Act, as of January 6, 2022, we require CMRS providers to 
provide dispatchable location for wireless 911 calls when it is 
technically feasible and cost-effective for them to do so. We also 
address implementation issues for dispatchable location solutions that 
are not based on the National Emergency Address Database, including (1) 
privacy and security and (2) confidence and uncertainty data 
requirements.
    8. For the time being, we defer the issues raised in the Fifth 
Further Notice of whether to migrate from 3 meters to a stricter z-axis 
metric or to require CMRS providers to deliver floor level information. 
Based on the comments received on these issues, we believe that further 
work is needed to develop improved location technology that can achieve 
these capabilities and that

[[Page 53236]]

adopting a timetable for such requirements at this stage would be 
premature. We direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to 
consider whether to refer certain technical issues to a federal 
advisory committee, such as the Communications Security, Reliability 
and Interoperability Council (CSRIC). In response to APCO's Petition 
for Clarification, we address other implementation matters and clarify 
certain aspects of the Fifth Report and Order.
    9. We deny BRETSA's Petition for Reconsideration of the Fifth 
Report and Order. We defer consideration of a number of other issues 
raised in comments that fall outside the scope of the Fifth Further 
Notice. Finally, we grant Polaris' Petition for Emergency Declaratory 
Ruling to the extent stated herein. Taken together, we conclude that 
the benefits of today's decision outweigh the costs and that our 
actions will assist PSAPs and first responders in locating wireless 911 
callers in the most populous areas in the near term and nationwide over 
the long term.

A. Timely Z-Axis Deployment

    10. Under the current vertical location accuracy rules, nationwide 
CMRS providers electing the z-axis option for meeting vertical accuracy 
requirements must deploy z-axis technology meeting the 3-meter accuracy 
standard (for 80% of calls made from z-axis capable devices as 
demonstrated in the test bed) in each of the top 25 CMAs by April 3, 
2021, and in each of the top 50 CMAs by April 3, 2023. As a preliminary 
matter, we grant Polaris's Petition for Emergency Declaratory Ruling to 
the extent it asks the Commission to reaffirm the deadlines established 
in the Fifth Report and Order. We did not seek comment on changing 
those deadlines (and no one petitioned to reconsider those deadlines) 
and hence doing so now would be beyond the scope of the current 
proceeding.
1. Alternative Means To Demonstrate Compliance Within a CMA
    11. Deployment within a CMA is established by deploying the 
technology to cover 80% of the CMA population. In the Fifth Further 
Notice, we sought comment on expanding the z-axis deployment options 
available to CMRS providers for meeting the 80% coverage threshold. 
First, we sought comment on an alternative that would focus on 
deployment where multi-story buildings are concentrated, for example, 
an option to cover 80% of the buildings that exceed three stories in 
the CMA. Second, we sought comment on an alternative that would allow 
CMRS providers to rely on handset-based solutions to hit our benchmark 
(the 3-meter accuracy standard for 80% of calls made from z-axis 
capable devices as demonstrated in the test bed), which would imply a 
nationwide deployment.
    12. Urban and Dense Urban Morphologies. We now afford nationwide 
CMRS providers the option of deploying z-axis technology to cover 80% 
of the buildings that exceed three stories in the CMA rather than 80% 
of the population. Public safety and industry commenters support this 
option, and no commenter opposes it. IAFF states that first responders 
need vertical location information for tall structures, which are not 
limited to the top CMA population centers. IAFF also states that 
transitioning from a population-based compliance approach to one 
focused on tall structures would presumably assist emergency personnel 
by ``ensuring that vertical location capabilities are made available as 
much as possible where they are most needed, and not just in low-rise 
residential areas where the vertical dimension is not a significant 
factor for public safety.'' iCERT asserts that this alternative 
approach will help to ensure that network infrastructure investments 
are directed to areas of the country where there is a greater 
percentage of large, multi-story buildings. NextNav states that tall 
buildings remain relatively clustered in a discrete number of locations 
in each community. NextNav asserts that, as a result, providing 
vertical location coverage to 80% of tall buildings is technically 
feasible and economically efficient, and it redirects the placement of 
z-axis infrastructure to those locations where it is truly needed.
    13. We find that such an alternative may lower the costs for CMRS 
providers of timely deploying a z-axis solution consistent with our 
existing deadlines. NextNav states that its vertical location service 
will be available for use by wireless carriers and public safety within 
the top 25 and top 50 CMAs ``well in advance'' of the Commission's 
April 2021 and April 2023 compliance deadlines, respectively, and that 
its network will be able to provide z-axis service covering more than 
80% of the tall buildings in these CMAs. NextNav also notes that in 
constructing its network, it employed the services of a privately 
managed, commercially-available database of tall multi-tenant buildings 
in the United States to identify the locations of tall buildings. In 
other words, cost-effective mechanisms already exist to identify 
buildings that exceed three stories for providers that choose this 
option, and this additional option will give providers valuable 
flexibility in determining how they meet their obligations. We thus 
disagree with CTIA's assertion that such an alternative may require a 
nationwide database of building structures, which in turn would require 
significant resources to develop. What is more, we find that affording 
CMRS providers an option based on coverage of tall buildings rather 
than population in the CMA will encourage providers to invest in z-axis 
solutions that focus on the areas with the greatest need for vertical 
location information--i.e., those areas with the greatest concentration 
of multi-story buildings.
    14. Handset Deployment. We also adopt our proposal in the Fifth 
Further Notice to afford nationwide CMRS providers the option of 
meeting vertical location accuracy requirements by deploying z-axis 
technology on handsets. No commenter opposes such an option. And we 
find that because a handset-based technology would be expected to be 
available nationwide, it would implicitly be available to 80% of the 
population of a CMA and thus meet our deployment metrics (so long, of 
course, as it meets the 3-meter accuracy standard for 80% of calls made 
from z-axis capable devices as demonstrated in the test bed).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We clarify that CMRS providers may use different z-axis 
technologies in different areas to meet the nationwide benchmark, so 
long as all technologies used are validated by testing to meet the 
accuracy requirements. For example, CMRS providers may deploy one z-
axis technology in a particular morphology (e.g., urban) and another 
technology in the remaining morphologies, so long as the combination 
results in nationwide coverage. This approach adds flexibility by 
allowing CMRS providers to focus infrastructure-based solutions in 
urban and dense urban areas while using handset-based solutions to 
target suburban and rural morphologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    15. To ensure sufficient coverage for consumers and public safety, 
we sought comment on how to ensure that a handset-based solution would 
be widely available to consumers. The record indicates that the 
principal z-axis location solutions available to CMRS providers in the 
near term can all be delivered via software upgrades to a wide range of 
legacy handsets. Google's Emergency Location Service is already 
installed on most Android devices, and Apple's Hybridized Emergency 
Location is already installed on most iOS devices. In addition, the 
Cover Letter to the Stage Za Report states that Google's Emergency 
Location Service achieved 3-meter accuracy for more than 50% of calls 
in the test bed, ``and exceeded the 80th percentile metric in one 
morphology.'' Google's participation in the test bed underscores that 
z-axis

[[Page 53237]]

technology continues to rapidly improve, and commercial solutions such 
as Emergency Location Service are widely available today. Google's 
comments suggest that Google will continue to refine its z-axis 
solution, and we expect that those enhancements could be made available 
in advance of the April 2021 deadline or with even greater likelihood 
before the April 2023 deadline. Further, Apple will test its Hybridized 
Emergency Location solution in the Test Bed's Stage Zb testing 
campaign, which is scheduled to begin field testing in October 2020. 
Consequently, we expect that any upgrade to Google's Emergency Location 
Service or Apple's Hybridized Emergency Location to support z-axis 
capability will be widely available to consumers. We also expect that 
the solutions offered by Polaris and NextNav could be made widely 
available to consumers. Although the latter solutions will only work 
with handsets equipped with barometric sensors, we have previously 
noted that most smartphones in the market are equipped with such 
sensors. Moreover, data show that as of 2019, 81% of Americans owned a 
smartphone.
    16. NENA suggests that the Commission ``require manufacturers and 
carriers take reasonable efforts to measure and report z-axis handset 
penetration during the transition period to a z-axis-only handset 
marketplace.'' We note that CMRS providers must certify their 
compliance with the vertical location accuracy requirements within 60 
days after each benchmark, and we expect these certifications to 
provide information on the extent to which z-axis capable handsets are 
being deployed on carrier networks. We do not believe additional 
reporting is warranted at this time. However, we will continue to 
monitor developments on these issues.
2. Establishing a Nationwide Z-Axis Deployment Benchmark
    17. Under our existing rules, a nationwide CMRS provider choosing 
the CMA-based deployment option to meet the April 2021 and 2023 
benchmarks would have no further obligation to support vertical 
location outside the top 50 CMAs. In the Fifth Further Notice, we 
sought comment on mandating nationwide deployment of z-axis technology 
with a particular focus on handset-based versus network-based 
solutions.
    18. Commenters generally support deploying z-axis technology on a 
nationwide basis. APCO suggests expanding the requirements in the rules 
beyond the top 50 CMAs, and NENA states that ``the ultimate goal is 
accurate z-axis location information for the entire country.'' iCERT 
states that reliance on a CMA-by-CMA, population-based approach to 
assess conformance ``appears to run counter to the direction of today's 
leading 911 location solutions.'' T-Mobile asserts that as promulgated, 
the Commission's vertical location rules would cover only a percentage 
of the U.S. population, ``thus leaving millions of Americans outside of 
the designated CMAs potentially without any vertical location 
information.'' Google states that carriers should be permitted to 
deploy z-axis capable handsets nationwide and should be encouraged to 
do so if these solutions prove superior overall.
    19. The record also indicates that deploying z-axis technology on a 
nationwide basis is technically feasible--or at least will be in the 
near future. CTIA states that Google's Android Emergency Location 
Service and Apple's Hybridized Emergency Location ``have the potential 
to provide granular location information to [PSAPs] without deployment 
of new network infrastructure and with use of hardware with diverse 
capabilities (i.e., barometric pressure sensors with varying degrees of 
accuracy or non-barometric pressure sensor based solutions).'' Google 
notes that many handset solutions involve determination of location on 
the device itself, without deployment or maintenance of new 
infrastructure, and that this makes deployments ``readily scalable, up 
to nationwide approaches.'' T-Mobile points out that mobile operating 
system (OS) provider z-axis solutions such as those offered by Google 
and Apple ``have the ability to be deployed nationwide and are 
available on nearly all existing devices.''
    20. We agree with commenters who contend that our deployment 
requirements should ultimately ensure that vertical location 
information meeting our accuracy standards is provided nationwide. As 
the Commission stated in the Fourth Report and Order in this 
proceeding, ``our ultimate objective is that all Americans using mobile 
phones--whether they are calling from urban or rural areas, from 
indoors or outdoors--have technology that is functionally capable of 
providing accurate location information so that they receive the 
support they need in times of emergency.'' And we conclude that 
requiring nationwide deployment on an appropriate timescale will allow 
CMRS providers to use nascent z-axis technologies that can be widely 
deployed in consumer handsets through software-based upgrades. In 
addition, nationwide deployment means first responders and emergency 
callers everywhere will benefit from these technologies.
    21. Accordingly, we require nationwide CMRS providers to deploy z-
axis location technology or dispatchable location to all CMAs 
nationwide by April 2025.\2\ This will ensure that all regions of the 
country and all consumers receive the benefits of z-axis location by a 
date certain, even if nationwide providers choose to deploy CMA-focused 
solutions to meet the earlier deadlines. The record strongly supports 
our conclusion that it is technically feasible for all nationwide 
providers to deploy z-axis technology nationwide by April 2025, if not 
sooner. No commenter opposes our conclusion. As evidenced in comments 
responding to the Fifth Further Notice, z-axis technology is improving 
rapidly, and new and innovative solutions are likely to become widely 
available. Therefore, it is appropriate for us to take this further 
action to help make all Americans safer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ As in the case of our 2021 and 2023 deployment benchmarks, 
CMRS providers may deploy dispatchable location as opposed to z-axis 
technology to meet this requirement and we require deployment to 
cover 80% of the population or 3-story buildings in each CMA, which 
may be shown by the deployment of a widely available handset-based 
solution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    22. In contrast, we reject calls by some quarters to weaken our 
existing benchmarks and replace them with exclusive nationwide 
benchmarks that do not meet our current accuracy target. In their 
comments, CMRS providers propose an alternative timeline for deployment 
of z-axis technology meeting the accuracy standard adopted by the 
Commission in the Fifth Report and Order. T-Mobile, Verizon, and AT&T 
support an option for nationwide deployment that would require meeting 
the 3-meter vertical location accuracy metric for 50% of 
calls by April 2021, 70% of calls by April 2023, and 80% of calls by 
April 2025. T-Mobile asserts that under this alternative, z-axis 
technology would be available ``across the country on nearly all 
devices'' by April 2021. Verizon and AT&T also support a schedule for 
introducing z-axis capable devices nationwide.
    23. We agree with IAFF: While the Commission ``fully supports 
expanding vertical location requirements beyond the largest 50 CMAs,'' 
it does not support any deployment option that delays or diminishes the 
Commission's vertical location accuracy rules. What is more, the CMRS 
providers' alternative proposal constitutes an untimely petition for 
reconsideration of issues

[[Page 53238]]

that were settled in the Fifth Report and Order and are outside the 
scope of the issues raised in the Fifth Further Notice. CMRS providers 
propose a weaker accuracy standard and longer timeline based on the 
same arguments they raised prior to the Fifth Report and Order, i.e., 
that no party has demonstrated in the test bed process that 3-meter 
accuracy for 80% of calls can be met by the 2021 or 2023 deadlines and 
that a phased-in approach starting with a less rigorous metric is 
therefore warranted. We considered and rejected these arguments in the 
Fifth Report and Order when we established the z-axis location accuracy 
standard of plus or minus 3 meters for 80% of wireless E911 calls and 
affirmed the 2021 and 2023 deadlines for implementation of this 
standard.
    24. We disagree with T-Mobile's assertion that our exploration of 
additional z-axis deployment options in the Fifth Further Notice was an 
invitation to commenters to revisit the adopted accuracy standard or 
timetable; the Fifth Further Notice sought comment on how to expand the 
options to implement the earlier adopted requirements or make vertical 
location accuracy available to wireless 911 callers on an equally 
strong basis. The Fifth Further Notice sought comment ``on establishing 
an option for CMRS providers to deploy z-axis capable handsets 
nationwide as a means of complying with our z-axis deployment 
requirements,'' i.e., the requirements and deadlines adopted in the 
Fifth Report & Order. It also sought comment on tightening the 3-meter 
standard over time, e.g., to 2 meters or 1 meter. Thus, contrary to T-
Mobile's assertion, the alternatives on which the Fifth Further Notice 
sought comment did not include weakening the z-axis metric or extending 
the 2021 or 2023 deadlines. In addition, CMRS providers offer no new 
facts to indicate that they will be unable to meet the Commission's 
longstanding benchmarks, while the vendors of both solutions tested in 
Stage Z of the test bed continue to indicate that their solutions will 
be available to CMRS providers in time to enable them to meet the April 
2021 benchmark. As IAFF states, ``[t]he process of reaching a consensus 
position on these important issues is too demanding on key stakeholders 
to constantly revisit the decision year after year.''
    25. As a separate and independent ground for rejecting CMRS 
providers' alternative proposal, even if the CMRS providers' 
alternative proposal were timely, we conclude that there is no basis 
for taking this approach. We disagree with the assertion by T-Mobile 
and CTIA that their proposal should be preferred because it would 
provide z-axis location information for more 911 calls overall than 
solutions that only support z-axis location for 911 calls in major 
markets. While T-Mobile and CTIA argue that their solution could be 
quickly deployed nationwide and would work in most handsets, the fact 
remains that their solution would not meet the Commission's 3-meter/80% 
of calls accuracy standard by April 2021 or even by April 2023 in any 
market, but would delay compliance in all markets until 2025.
    26. Moreover, as public safety commenters note, if CMRS providers 
intend to use a 911 location technology that is still under development 
and currently incapable of meeting the +/- 3-meter benchmark more than 
50% of the time, the technology needs to be improved within the 
timetable adopted by the Commission to meet the standard; the standard 
should not be weakened to conform to the current status of the 
technology in development when other solutions that meet the standard 
are technically feasible. The National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) 
points out that in an emergency dispatch situation where time is of the 
essence, ``it is critically important that the information that is 
provided to law enforcement officers in the field be accurate and 
reliable.'' Further, ``[a]ny location information that may not be 
sufficiently accurate as much as 50% of the time cannot be used as a 
resource for public safety and must be discarded.'' With only 50% 
reliability, passing such z-axis information to PSAPs could waste 
precious minutes while first responders search in vain the wrong floors 
of a building--and ultimately lead the public safety community to 
simply ignore z-axis information over the longer term. Such an outcome 
would serve no one--not first responders, not the public, and not the 
CMRS providers that invested in such technologies.
    27. We also disagree with T-Mobile's assertion that the CMRS 
providers' alternative is superior because it would be deployed 
nationwide rather than being limited to major markets. T-Mobile's 
preferred solution instead is just a trade-off--potentially earlier 
nationwide deployment of a technology solution that does not meet the 
accuracy levels needed to protect public safety. And T-Mobile ignores 
the reasons why the Commission adopted the market-based approach to z-
axis deployment in the 2015 Fourth Report and Order--an approach that 
was taken directly from the 2015 Amended Roadmap jointly agreed to and 
submitted by the wireless carriers and public safety entities. The 
parties to the Roadmap proposed deployment of z-axis technology in the 
top 50 markets because identifying a 911 caller's vertical location is 
most crucial for calls coming from multi-story buildings. The 
Commission's analysis of U.S. Geological Survey data indicates that 
more than 84% of census block groups with average building heights of 
three or more stories are located in the top 50 markets. In other 
words, federal data showing the average height of buildings by census 
block group show that over 84% of block groups in the three tallest 
quantiles are in the top 50 markets. As the wireless providers 
acknowledged in the Amended Roadmap, it is much more important to have 
reliable z-axis information for 911 calls from these environments, even 
if they represent a small percentage of overall calls, than for the 
many 911 calls that come from ground level (e.g., calls from outdoor 
locations, single family homes, and other single story buildings). Yet 
the T-Mobile/CTIA alternative would allow CMRS providers to abandon 
this targeted approach to z-axis deployment, which has been in the 
Commission's rules since the 2015 Fourth Report and Order and which 
encourages deployment of vertical location resources in the areas where 
they are most needed.
    28. In addition, we disagree with T-Mobile and CTIA's argument that 
their OS-based alternative would provide greater consumer benefits than 
solutions offered by NextNav and Polaris because (1) the OS-based 
alternative would be available on most current handsets, whereas the 
NextNav and Polaris solutions will only work on handsets equipped with 
barometric sensors, and (2) the OS-based alternative can be made 
available to consumers automatically, whereas the NextNav and Polaris 
solutions require consumers to ``opt in'' and many consumers may 
decline to do so. We find these arguments unpersuasive. NextNav argues 
that the CMRS providers underestimate the availability of barometer-
equipped handsets and contends that its software ``can be uploaded/
pushed to capable devices without user opt-in.'' CTIA also provides no 
support, other than conjecture, for its estimate that only 5% of 
consumers asked to opt in to a 911 solution would do so. Moreover, even 
if we assume that the NextNav and Polaris solutions would only benefit 
consumers in major markets who have barometer-equipped handsets and who 
choose to opt in, those consumers would have access by April 2021 to z-
axis solutions meeting the 3-meter/80% of calls

[[Page 53239]]

standard. In addition, consumers without z-axis capable devices would 
have the ability to acquire them. By contrast, the T-Mobile/CTIA 
alternative would provide far less consumer benefit because it would 
deprive all consumers of access to z-axis solutions meeting the 3-
meter/80% of calls standard for an additional four years--until April 
2025. Aside from failing to quantify how many legacy handsets a change 
in approach might address, T-Mobile's argument fails to address the 
same fundamental problem: Enabling E911 technology that delivers 
accurate location information only 50% of the time is not useful to 
public safety officials, will not be used by PSAPs, and thus eliminates 
the benefits of deployment in 2021 and 2023.
    29. Finally, there is no merit to T-Mobile's argument that our 
rejection of its alternative proposal is arbitrary and capricious 
because we have not undertaken a cost-benefit comparison of its 
preferred OS-based solution against the solutions proffered by NextNav 
and Polaris. First, despite our request in the Fifth Further Notice for 
commenters to provide data on costs and benefits for alternative 
solutions, neither T-Mobile nor any other CMRS provider submitted cost/
benefit data that would be needed to make such a comparison. Second, 
and more fundamentally, because our location accuracy rules are 
technology-neutral, the purpose of our cost-benefit analysis is not to 
compare the costs and benefits of particular location methodologies, 
but rather to show that the cost ceiling imposed by our location 
requirements is below the expected benefit floor. In the Fifth Report 
and Order, we determined that the cost ceiling imposed by our z-axis 
standard would not exceed $36 million and that this was well below the 
expected annual benefit floor. Once these values are established, CMRS 
providers are free to adopt whatever technology they want, including 
OS-based solutions, as long as it meets our prescribed standards. The 
fact that one technology is more or less costly than another does not 
require us to re-do our cost-benefit analysis or mean that use of 
either one would cause costs to exceed benefits. Finally, while the 
costs of T-Mobile's alternative may be lower in 2021 and 2023 (although 
T-Mobile does not quantify how much lower), the record also shows that 
T-Mobile's proposed approach would largely eliminate the benefits of 
the 2021 and 2023 benchmarks because the results would be 
insufficiently accurate for first responders to actually use them. As a 
result, the net benefits of our approach exceed the net benefits of T-
Mobile's proposed alternative.
3. Deployment of Location Software to Z-Axis Capable Handsets
    30. In the Fifth Report and Order, we stated that the 3-meter 
metric should apply to all ``z-axis capable'' handsets, which we 
defined as handsets that ``can measure and report vertical location 
without a hardware upgrade.'' We further used this definition as the 
basis for our deployment requirements, stating that ``any device 
technically capable of measuring and reporting vertical location 
information without a change in hardware must be enabled to do so.''
    31. Several commenters direct their comments toward the definition 
of ``z-axis capable handset,'' while others seek more specification on 
what mechanisms for making handsets z-axis capable will be considered 
sufficient to meet the Commission's deployment requirements. We address 
these issues below and codify our previously adopted definition and 
refinements thereto.
    32. APCO points out that the handset-based location solutions 
offered by NextNav and Polaris require the deployment of external data 
sources such as beacons, weather stations, or location databases to 
support location determination in the handset. APCO asks us to confirm 
that in such instances, our rules require not just deployment of z-axis 
capable handsets, but also deployment of any network infrastructure 
that is necessary to support delivery of location information by the 
handset. We agree. In order to meet deployment thresholds under either 
the CMA-based or the nationwide handset-based alternative, CMRS 
providers must deploy and activate all network infrastructure necessary 
to support z-axis location by z-axis capable handsets throughout the 
deployment area.
    33. Polaris asks the Commission to confirm that for barometric-
based location solutions, only devices with barometric sensors can be 
considered z-axis capable. We agree that the definition of what 
constitutes a ``z-axis capable'' handset may vary depending on the 
specific location solution being used. Because we defined z-axis 
capability in the Fifth Report and Order to exclude handsets that 
require a hardware upgrade, the applicability of the definition to 
particular handsets may vary depending on what hardware is required for 
a particular 911 location solution to work. Thus, we agree with Polaris 
that for location solutions that rely on barometric pressure sensor 
information, only handsets that have such sensors installed would be 
considered z-axis capable. On the other hand, in the case of location 
solutions that do not require barometric pressure sensor information, 
both handsets with and without barometric sensors would be considered 
z-axis capable, assuming they are software-upgradable.
    34. T-Mobile questions whether CMRS providers can rely on third-
party apps to deliver location software upgrades. CMRS providers may 
deliver upgrades to handsets either by installing the location software 
as an upgrade to the handset OS or by offering it to end users as an 
over-the-top software upgrade. This approach will give CMRS providers 
additional flexibility in meeting the April 2021 deadline.
    35. AT&T asks whether a handset will be considered z-axis capable 
if activating the software requires customer consent, and the customer 
declines to do so. We recognize, as AT&T points out, that some location 
software upgrades may require affirmative consent by the end user to 
activate the software in the handset. In such instances, the CMRS 
provider will be deemed to have met its deployment obligation so long 
as it either pre-installs or affirmatively ``pushes'' the location 
software to end users so that they receive a prompt or other notice 
informing them that the application or service is available and what 
they need to do to download and enable the technology on their 
phone.\3\ Moreover, the CMRS provider will be deemed in compliance when 
it makes location software available to the end user in this manner 
even if the end user declines to use the software or subsequently 
disables it.\4\ However, we expect CMRS providers to clearly and 
conspicuously disclose the benefits of any location solution they offer 
so that consumers can make informed decisions whether to enable it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Conversely, it would not be sufficient for the provider 
merely to make the location application available to customers in an 
app store.
    \4\ In other words, handsets that fall into this category will 
not be counted against the CMRS provider in determining compliance 
with the deployment benchmarks herein. The location solution must 
also comply with the privacy protections applicable to 911 location 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    36. Some carriers question whether older barometer-equipped 
handsets can be software-upgraded to support the Polaris or NextNav 
solutions. AT&T contends that only 26% of Android devices ``have the 
capability to be upgraded to support vertical location'' and that ``a 
not-insignificant number of Apple devices may also face limitations in 
receiving updates.'' CTIA states that

[[Page 53240]]

NextNav's comments about the challenges of integrating its proprietary 
solution into wireless handsets suggest that it is ``not currently on a 
path that will deliver a scalable and consistent solution that will 
meet the April 2021 deadline.''
    37. We do not share these concerns. First, the record indicates 
that barometric sensor-based solutions, such as those offered by 
Polaris and NextNav, can be made widely available to consumers. 
Although these solutions will only work with handsets equipped with 
barometric sensors, we have previously noted that most smartphones in 
the market are so equipped. Second, Polaris contends that its software 
can be widely deployed as part of an OS upgrade or a carrier upgrade, 
and NextNav states that software updates for its solution can be 
uploaded to most z-axis capable handsets that were previously 
purchased.
    38. Most newer handset models can receive such upgrades because 
they have not reached end-of-life status. Accordingly, they should be 
considered z-axis capable under our rules. In addition, CMRS providers 
can deploy software upgrades by means of over-the-top apps as well as 
operating system or firmware upgrades. In light of this, we require 
that CMRS providers using any z-axis option must affirmatively ``push'' 
the z-axis technology to all existing z-axis capable handset models on 
the provider's network that can receive it, and that CMRS providers 
must continue to support the z-axis technology on these handsets 
thereafter. A CMRS provider using the handset-based deployment option 
must make the software available to existing z-axis capable handsets 
nationwide; a provider using a CMA-based deployment option must make it 
available to all z-axis capable handsets in the CMA. For all new z-axis 
capable handsets marketed to consumers, the technology must be pre-
installed.
    39. Verizon and AT&T ask the Commission to take regulatory action 
directed at device manufacturers to require their cooperation with 
wireless providers to meet the z-axis deadlines. We continue to believe 
that the flexibility, technology neutrality, and privacy protections 
afforded by our rules will enable CMRS providers to negotiate 
requirements with such third parties and establish contractual 
timelines that will enable timely deployment of z-axis solutions. We 
expect device manufacturers and others to cooperate and work in good 
faith with CMRS providers to expedite these efforts as needed to meet 
the upcoming deadlines. Moreover, as we stated in the Fifth Report and 
Order, we will closely monitor the roll-out of z-axis capable devices 
to the American public and will ``take all appropriate action against 
any party that obstructs the effective deployment of such technologies 
in a timely manner.''
    40. Finally, we decline to adopt AT&T's suggestion that we measure 
the deployment of technology to z-axis capable handsets based on the 
percentage of new handset models offered for sale. Such an approach 
would provide vertical location technology only to handsets newly 
introduced to the market, leaving the entire base of legacy handsets 
without this potentially lifesaving technology.
4. Deployment Timeline for Non-Nationwide Providers
    41. Under our existing rules, non-nationwide CMRS providers serving 
any of the top 25 or 50 CMAs have an additional year to meet each of 
the vertical location benchmarks specified in the rules. Accordingly, 
these non-nationwide providers will have an additional year to 
implement the nationwide deployment requirement we adopt in this order. 
However, the current vertical location requirements do not extend to 
non-nationwide CMRS providers that do not serve any of the top 50 CMAs. 
In the Fifth Further Notice, we noted that CCA has urged the Commission 
to ``implement a glide path for non-nationwide carriers to comply with 
any adopted timeframes, particularly if these carriers operate outside 
of the FNPRM's proposed benchmark of the top 50 markets.'' We also 
sought comment on appropriate timelines for non-nationwide CMRS 
providers to comply with additional z-axis deployment options, such as 
nationwide deployment or deployment on the basis of building type.
    42. In its comments, CCA notes that many non-nationwide providers 
are dependent on vendors to update network capabilities that support 
location accuracy services, and delays by such vendors may be outside 
of a carrier's control. CCA also notes that many non-nationwide 
providers are not privy to the test bed process and the technologies 
that are deemed viable; ``[o]nly once solutions are certified out of 
the test bed do carriers undergo their own interoperability testing, a 
process that could take many months.'' CCA asserts that its small and 
rural carrier members have ``finite resources,'' and cautions that 
``technical and marketplace barriers may delay small and rural carrier 
deployment beyond a year.'' However, NENA contends that non-nationwide 
providers should not be given additional implementation time beyond the 
one-year period afforded by the current rules.
    43. Consistent with our objectives in this proceeding, we conclude 
that the benefits of improved vertical location accuracy should be 
available to customers of all CMRS providers, including non-nationwide 
providers serving areas outside the major population centers. In light 
of our decision to require nationwide CMRS providers to provide 
nationwide z-axis location by April 2025, we afford non-nationwide 
carriers an additional year, i.e., until April 2026, to provide z-axis 
location throughout their service areas. Accordingly, non-nationwide 
providers that do not serve any of the top 50 CMAs must also support z-
axis location throughout their network footprint by April 2026. Given 
the constraints and technical challenges non-nationwide CMRS providers 
may face in selecting and deploying z-axis technologies, we find that 
allowing these providers an additional year beyond the 2025 nationwide 
deployment date for nationwide carriers is appropriate. This will 
afford non-nationwide CMRS providers operating outside the top 50 CMAs 
more than five years to comply with our vertical location requirements. 
In addition, like all other CMRS providers already subject to vertical 
location requirements, these providers also must comply with applicable 
requirements for compliance certifications, privacy and security 
protections, provision of confidence/uncertainty data, and live call 
data reporting.

B. Dispatchable Location Without the National Emergency Address 
Database

    44. The Commission's current dispatchable location rules specify 
that CMRS providers must use the National Emergency Address Database as 
the source of dispatchable location reference points to meet CMA-based 
vertical location requirements. In the Fifth Further Notice, we noted 
the significant challenges facing the National Emergency Address 
Database and proposed to expand the rules to allow CMRS providers to 
use non-National Emergency Address Database based dispatchable location 
solutions to meet these requirements, provided that such solutions 
afforded equivalent privacy and security protections to consumers. We 
observed that our proposal was consistent with the flexible and 
technology-neutral approach to dispatchable location we adopted for 
non-CMRS providers in the Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act proceeding.

[[Page 53241]]

    45. As proposed, we revise the rules to allow CMRS providers to 
deploy dispatchable location solutions that do not rely on the National 
Emergency Address Database, which was formally terminated shortly after 
the Fifth Further Notice.\5\ Given the National Emergency Address 
Database's demise, commenters uniformly support this change. Commenters 
also affirm that a diverse array of technological approaches could be 
used to provide dispatchable location. CTIA states that ``location 
solution providers are developing a variety of technology approaches to 
derive address-based information, such as reverse geocoding, device 
contextual information, and mapping locations within large buildings or 
other structures such as airports or shopping malls.'' Verizon states 
that it has begun delivering dispatchable location to PSAPs for 911 
calls from certain devices when the information can be determined 
reliably, and that it plans to incorporate dispatchable location 
capabilities into 5G home voice products. AT&T and Google suggest that 
dispatchable location solutions may be technically feasible if carriers 
can leverage other data sources, including handset-based approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ On February 14, 2020, the NEAD, LLC informed us that the 
National Emergency Address Database Platform had ceased operation 
and was ``no longer available to support wireless providers' 
provision of dispatchable location information.'' Although we delete 
the reference to the NEAD in the rules, we retain the metric for 
measuring a carrier's deployment of dispatchable location reference 
points. Specifically, for any CMRS provider that relies on 
dispatchable location to meet the April 2021 or 2023 benchmarks in a 
CMA, we continue to require the provider to provision a total number 
of dispatchable location reference points (e.g., WiFi access points 
or Bluetooth beacons) equal to 25% of the CMA population. Reference 
point data may be stored in any database so long as the database 
meets the privacy and security requirements adopted in the Fifth 
Report and Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    46. The Fifth Further Notice also sought comment on alternative 
approaches to dispatchable location, including whether to mandate the 
provision of both dispatchable location and vertical location data for 
911 calls originating from multi-story buildings. Some public safety 
commenters support revising the current rules--which give CMRS 
providers the option of providing either dispatchable location or z-
axis information--to require provision of dispatchable location for a 
minimum percentage of 911 calls. On the other hand, CMRS providers 
express concerns about requiring dispatchable location, arguing that 
many challenges remain and that solutions are still in early stages of 
development. However, there is broad support for treating dispatchable 
location as the preferred indoor location solution as it becomes 
technically feasible. IAFF states that it ``continues to support 
efforts to develop alternative dispatchable location solutions, 
particularly those that may provide an exact floor label along with 
altitude information.'' Verizon states that ``nothing should stop 
service providers today from generating and delivering dispatchable 
location information to PSAPs when feasible.'' APCO also advocates 
requiring provision of dispatchable location ``when technically 
feasible.''
    47. Dispatchable location is already being provided for some number 
of 911 calls, and dispatchable location solutions are likely to become 
increasingly available with the rollout of 5G networks and improved 
indoor mapping of large buildings and other structures. As these 
solutions are developed and deployed, we believe it is appropriate to 
designate dispatchable location as the preferred approach for any 
indoor wireless 911 call where providing dispatchable location is 
technically feasible and cost-effective.\6\ This is consistent with the 
core goals of this proceeding and with our approach to dispatchable 
location for non-CMRS services pursuant to Section 506 of RAY BAUM'S 
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Under our current rules, however, CMRS providers must 
validate any dispatchable location technology intended for indoor 
location accuracy through the test bed process. 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    48. In the Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Report and Order, we adopted 
location accuracy rules for mobile text, multi-line telephone systems 
(MLTS), interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP), 
Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), mobile text, and fixed 
telephony, which require the provision of dispatchable location if it 
is technically feasible to do so (and alternative location information 
if it is not). We also noted that for purposes of this requirement, 
dispatchable location solutions must be cost-effective. For non-fixed 
services, the requirements adopted in the Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act 
Report and Order will take effect on January 6, 2022. We adopt the same 
approach and effective date here. Accordingly, as of January 6, 2022, 
all CMRS providers will be required to provide dispatchable location 
for individual 911 calls if it is technically feasible and cost-
effective for them to do so.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ As a result of the demise of the National Emergency Address 
Database and the rule changes adopted in this Sixth Report and 
Order, we find good cause to update Section 9.10(i)(2)(ii). 
Specifically, we revise and streamline the organizational structure 
of the rule to clearly reflect the vertical location compliance 
timelines and expanded z-axis and dispatchable location deployment 
options. See infra Appx. A. As part of this restructuring of the 
rule, we reiterate that CMRS providers must continue to comply with 
the testing and live call data reporting requirements in the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    49. Given this requirement, we decline to adopt minimum percentage 
thresholds for dispatchable location 911 calls or to require provision 
of dispatchable location for 911 calls originating from multi-story 
buildings. We agree with CMRS providers that such particularized 
requirements that go beyond what is technically feasible and cost-
effective are not warranted given that development of dispatchable 
location solutions is still in early stages.
    50. Privacy and Security. In the Fifth Report and Order, we adopted 
privacy and security requirements for z-axis location information. We 
made explicit that CMRS providers and the location vendors upon which 
they rely may only use 911 location information for 911 purposes, 
except with prior express consent or as required by law. We also 
expanded the rules requiring CMRS providers to maintain the privacy and 
security of data stored in the National Emergency Address Database to 
apply to any stored data used for 911 location purposes. We concluded 
that ``all 911 location data should be treated consistently from a 
privacy and security perspective.''
    51. In the Fifth Further Notice, as part of our proposal to allow 
CMRS providers to deploy non-National Emergency Address Database based 
dispatchable location solutions, we proposed that any dispatchable 
location alternative should include equivalent privacy and security 
safeguards to those applied to the National Emergency Address Database. 
Apple and NextNav support our proposal, and no commenter opposes it.
    52. We adopt our proposal to require CMRS providers to implement 
privacy and security safeguards to non-National Emergency Address 
Database dispatchable location technologies equivalent to those that 
applied to the National Emergency Address Database. In approving the 
privacy and security plan in 2017, the Commission found that the 
proposed plan included ``sufficient provisions to safeguard the 
privacy, security, and resiliency of the [National Emergency Address 
Database] when it is launched.'' To ensure compliance, CMRS providers 
must certify that neither they nor any third party they rely on to 
obtain dispatchable location information for 911 purposes will use such 
information for any non-

[[Page 53242]]

911 purpose, except with prior express consent or as required by law.
    53. We decline to adopt additional restrictions proposed by Apple, 
which we conclude are unnecessary. In the Fifth Report and Order, we 
declined to adopt a similar prohibition on data-sharing because we 
regarded it as ``needlessly prescriptive, since the broader privacy 
protections apply to any data that is shared.'' Here again, we conclude 
that the broad privacy protections we have adopted are sufficient to 
address Apple's concerns without the need for additional highly 
prescriptive technical requirements. The protections we adopt require 
CMRS providers to safeguard the privacy and security of emergency 
location data throughout all elements of their systems for determining 
911 location and delivering location information to PSAPs. Similarly, 
CMRS providers who work with third-party vendors are responsible for 
ensuring that those vendors take appropriate measures to address 
privacy and security concerns.
    54. T-Mobile and CTIA raise concerns that different z-axis 
solutions might carry different levels of risk to consumer privacy and 
that consumers might disable location technology on their phones for 
privacy reasons. The privacy protections we have adopted in this 
proceeding fully address CMRS providers' obligation to protect consumer 
privacy while also enabling location-accurate E911 technologies, and 
apply uniformly to all z-axis solutions. CMRS providers should fully 
disclose and explain these privacy protections to consumers so that 
consumers can make fully informed decisions where consent is required.
    55. Confidence and Uncertainty. In the Fifth Report and Order, we 
extended the confidence and uncertainty requirements previously adopted 
for x/y location data to also apply to dispatchable location, z-axis 
data, and floor level information under Section 9.10(j) of the rules. 
Thus, as with horizontal confidence and uncertainty data, CMRS 
providers must report vertical confidence and uncertainty data using a 
confidence level of 90%. In the Fifth Further Notice, we sought input 
on how to account for uncertainty in dispatchable location data for a 
broad range of emerging solutions and on whether we should extend 
confidence and uncertainty requirements to alternative dispatchable 
location mechanisms, and, if so, what the required confidence and 
uncertainty percentage should be.
    56. Commenters generally support having dispatchable location 
information accompanied by a confidence and uncertainty value of some 
kind to help PSAPs evaluate the reliability of the location data. No 
commenters disagree with this approach. However, commenters also note 
that determining a dispatchable location confidence and uncertainty 
value is complex because dispatchable location, unlike geodetic 
location, involves the provision of a civic address rather than a 
measurement. NENA notes that there are no established conventions for 
calculating or communicating the uncertainty associated with 
dispatchable location. Apple submits that location systems cannot 
accurately express uncertainty in terms of civic address ranges because 
address ranges--even when available--are not standardized, and do not 
convey information about actual distances or other spatial relations 
between addresses.
    57. Although several commenters suggest that confidence and 
uncertainty values could be developed for dispatchable location, the 
record indicates that no standard currently exists, and additional work 
is needed to develop a standardized approach. We therefore defer 
consideration of this issue to a future proceeding. We also encourage 
carriers, public safety organizations, and other interested parties to 
create standards for conveying uncertainty for dispatchable location in 
a manner that is more useful for first responders.
    58. In the interim, we revise Section 9.10(j)(4) to make explicit 
that when CMRS providers provide dispatchable location or floor level 
information in addition to z-axis information, they must provide 
confidence and uncertainty data for the z-axis location. In addition, 
we amend Section 9.10(k), which requires that ``CMRS providers must 
also record the confidence and uncertainty data that they provide.'' 
Currently Section 9.10(k) omits confidence and uncertainty requirements 
for vertical location provided pursuant to Section 9.10(j)(4). 
Accordingly, to eliminate a potential gap in the rule, we amend Section 
9.10(k) to reference paragraph (j)(4) to ensure that CMRS providers 
supply confidence and uncertainty data for dispatchable location and 
floor level information upon request from a PSAP and that they retain 
this information for a period of two years.

C. Compliance Testing and Certification

    59. Under our existing rules, all CMRS providers will be required 
to certify that the indoor location technology (or technologies) that 
they use to meet the compliance deadlines have been deployed 
consistently with the manner in which they have been tested in the test 
bed. APCO contends that this certification requirement is ``unclear'' 
and insufficient to ensure that z-axis technologies will deliver the 
same degree of accuracy in the live 911 environment that they deliver 
in the test bed. APCO argues that CMRS providers should be required to 
certify that their testing has accounted for multiple factors that 
could affect performance during live 911 calls, such as handset 
capabilities, handset behavior, morphology, and weather conditions.
    60. We believe the current testing and certification process is 
sufficient to ensure that z-axis technologies will deliver the same 
level of accuracy for live 911 calls that they deliver in the test bed. 
For each of the upcoming z-axis deployment deadlines, beginning with 
April 2021, the rules require CMRS providers to ``certify that the 
indoor location technology (or technologies) used in their networks are 
deployed consistently with the manner in which they have been tested in 
the test bed.'' The rules further require this certification to be 
based on representative and robust compliance testing of each 
technology's performance in a variety of real world environments and 
conditions. Specifically, compliance testing must: (1) Include testing 
in representative indoor environments, including dense urban, urban, 
suburban, and rural morphologies; (2) test for location accuracy 
(ground truth), latency, and reliability (yield); and (3) evaluate each 
test call as independent from prior calls and as based on the first 
location delivered after the call is initiated.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ APCO expresses concern that CMRS providers could deploy z-
axis technology ``that only complies with the z-axis metric for a 
single device or cherry-picked subset of devices.'' We do not agree. 
Testing a single device or a small subset of devices that are not 
representative of the z-axis capable devices used on the CMRS 
provider's network would be inconsistent with the requirement that 
CMRS providers deploy location technology consistently with the 
manner in which it has been tested. Moreover, if live call data or 
other objective evidence indicates that a CMRS provider is 
delivering inaccurate z-axis information for live 911 calls, PSAPs 
have recourse under Section 9.10(i)(2)(iv) to seek enforcement, so 
long as the PSAP has implemented policies that are designed to 
obtain all location information made available by the provider when 
initiating and delivering 911 calls to the PSAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    61. Because the current testing and certification requirements take 
a wide variety of real-world conditions into account, we decline to 
require CMRS providers to test for or certify to additional factors 
such as those proposed by APCO. We recognize that the performance of 
location technology

[[Page 53243]]

during individual 911 calls may be affected by specific characteristics 
of the handset being used or the local environment when and where the 
call is made. However, incorporating all of these additional variables 
into our testing and certification requirements would be neither 
practical nor cost-effective.
    62. Although we decline to modify our testing and certification 
requirements for the upcoming vertical location deployment deadlines, 
we encourage CMRS providers to conduct additional periodic testing of 
z-axis technologies once they have been deployed. In addition, we note 
that our rules, testing and certification create only a presumption of 
compliance with location accuracy requirements standards, and this 
presumption ``can be rebutted with live call data or other objective 
measurements showing lack of compliance.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ APCO asks the Commission to clarify when may PSAPs seek 
enforcement of the rules and what steps device manufacturers, 
operating system providers, and others must take to ensure z-axis 
technologies perform as expected. In addition, APCO asks whether 
device manufacturers and operating system providers will be subject 
to enforcement action if they refuse to permit z-axis technologies 
from engaging in battery-intensive processes that interfere with a 
consumer's user experience ``or for any other reason?'' We will 
address any enforcement issues on a case-by-case basis as they 
arise, and we find that it would be premature to provide guidance on 
possible enforcement actions under hypothetical facts at this time. 
Finally, the rules address when PSAPs can seek enforcement of the 
location accuracy rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Continuing To Improve the Z-Axis Metric

    63. In the Fifth Further Notice, we sought comment on possible 
measures to improve the quality and usefulness of vertical location 
information over time. Specifically, we sought comment on whether and 
over what time period it would be technologically feasible to achieve a 
2-meter metric, whether to enhance the vertical location accuracy 
testing process, and the long-term feasibility of providing floor level 
information to PSAPs, either by converting Height Above Ellipsoid data 
to a precise floor level or determining floor level independently of 
Height Above Ellipsoid. Commenters responding to these issues generally 
agree on the importance of continuing to seek improvements in the 
quality and usefulness of vertical location information, but there is 
considerable disagreement on when and how such improvements should be 
implemented.
    64. Some commenters support adopting a sub-3-meter metric, based 
primarily on NextNav's Stage Z test results and previous field trials. 
However, others contend that the current state of technology does not 
support tightening the metric. iCERT states that ``establishment of a 
more stringent requirement, without the benefit of technical data to 
support it, would be arbitrary both in terms of the level of accuracy 
achievable and the timeframe in which it could be achieved.'' In 
addition, in terms of prioritizing resources, CTIA argues that CMRS 
providers and their vendors should be allowed to focus on implementing 
the 3-meter metric in the near term before a stricter metric is 
considered.
    65. The record reflects similar disagreement over whether to 
enhance the testing process. Some commenters call for expanding testing 
by CMRS providers to include specific scenarios that may be faced by 
first responders, such as locating 911 callers in buildings when the 
power is out. However, CTIA submits that simulating a power outage or 
similar emergency scenario in the test bed poses significant practical 
and cost challenges because the test bed relies on testing in buildings 
that are occupied and in use. CTIA argues that testing of various first 
responder scenarios would be better addressed by the public safety 
community. NENA agrees that there are significant challenges associated 
with testing of first responder scenarios and suggests that 
stakeholders work with ATIS to develop standards for the test bed.
    66. Commenters also disagree about the feasibility, costs, and 
timeframes associated with converting Height Above Ellipsoid to floor 
level. ATIS ESIF states that there are ``significant'' challenges with 
converting altitude to floor level.\10\ CTIA, NextNav, and Polaris 
express skepticism that Height Above Ellipsoid can be converted to 
floor level in the near future. ESRI proposes development of a national 
3D basemap, which it contends could support a standardized, cost-
effective conversion of Height Above Ellipsoid to floor level. However, 
such a basemap does not currently exist, and it is uncertain how 
quickly one could be developed or how much it would cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ APCO requests clarification that under the existing rules, 
floor level information can be derived by means other than first 
obtaining an estimated Height Above Ellipsoid and then converting 
the Height Above Ellipsoid to a floor level. We clarify that in 
complying with the requirement that floor level information be 
provided when available, CMRS providers are not limited to 
translating floor level from Height Above Ellipsoid but may derive 
floor level information from any source, including carrier-
provisioned WiFi and in-home products, new 5G technologies, or other 
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    67. Given the continuing lack of consensus in the record, we 
believe it is premature at this time to adopt new requirements or 
deadlines with respect to tightening the 3-meter metric, expanded 
testing, or floor level identification. We also agree with CTIA that at 
least between now and the April 2021 deadline for initial 
implementation of the 3-meter standard, CMRS providers and their 
vendors should be allowed to focus their efforts on that 
implementation. Nonetheless, we encourage and expect industry to 
continue to work with public safety on developing standards and 
solutions for improving indoor location. IAFC, IAFF, IACP, NSA, and 
NASEMSO ask the Commission to biannually evaluate the state of vertical 
location technology and consider narrowing the metric when it is 
technically feasible to do so. We direct the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau to evaluate the state of vertical location technology 
in July 2022 and to report to the Commission the results of that 
evaluation.\11\ We also direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau to consider whether to refer these technical issues to an 
appropriate federal advisory committee, such as CSRIC, and the 
appropriate timetables for an advisory committee to submit 
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Bureau should also recommend whether further evaluation 
would likely be helpful in 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Summary of Costs and Benefits

    68. We believe our previous cost benefit assessment remains valid 
although we find that, with increased flexibility on options to supply 
vertical location and the amount of time between now and when these 
benchmarks must be met, some carriers might be able to meet the 
requirements at a lower cost than if we did not adopt the revisions 
herein. As we affirmed in the Fourth Further Notice, the new vertical 
information--together with the refinement of existing horizontal 
information--has the potential of saving ``approximately 10,120 lives 
annually at a value of $9.1 million per statistical life, for an annual 
benefit of approximately $92 billion or $291 per wireless subscriber.'' 
Due to U.S. Department of Transportation updates for value of a 
statistical life, we presently estimate this annual benefit floor at 
$97 billion. In the Fifth Report and Order, we observed that adding 
vertical location information plays a major role in achieving the $97 
billion benefit.\12\ We also stressed the

[[Page 53244]]

unquantifiable benefits of reductions in human suffering and property 
loss. In the Fifth Further Notice, we sought comment on costs and 
benefits associated with top 50 CMAs and a possible nationwide 
deployment of z-axis technology, which would effectively result in a 
nationwide x, y and z location accuracy standard. We also sought 
comment on our proposal to broaden the focus of our dispatchable 
location requirements to encourage emerging technologies that do not 
rely on the National Emergency Address Database. We received no 
explicit input on the costs or benefits associated with our proposals 
in the Fifth Further Notice. Because we are not changing the April 3, 
2021, and April 3, 2023, deployment benchmarks established in the 
Fourth Report and Order and reaffirmed in the Fifth Report and Order, 
we do not anticipate any changes in our previous cost/benefit analysis 
with respect to those benchmarks. We did, however, receive comment on 
the need for increasing flexible options for z-axis and dispatchable 
location technologies, and mandating vertical location information and 
the feasibility of doing so nationwide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ In the Fifth Report and Order, we determined that the 
benefit floor would be $97 billion which is a nationwide figure. 
Here, we determine that the benefit floor estimate is unaffected by 
the flexible options adopted in this Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    69. Flexible Options. We adopt our proposal to provide CMRS 
providers additional flexibility by allowing CMRS providers the option 
of deploying z-axis technology to cover 80% of the buildings that 
exceed three stories in a given CMA or leveraging handset-based 
solutions. The added flexibility associated with these options will 
reduce costs on CMRS providers without reducing the benefits of 
improved vertical location accuracy. Comments reflect a correlation 
between population density and concentration of buildings taller than 
three stories and that providing the flexibility to cover 80% of tall 
buildings in the top 50 CMAs would achieve significant public benefits. 
We anticipate that network-based deployment would at least initially 
start from areas that have the highest concentration of buildings 
taller than three stories. NextNav indicates that it will deploy its 
solution in 105 CMAs. Most, if not all the infrastructure needed for z-
axis deployment will be used for deploying the multi-story option. Some 
of the costs will involve the deployment of infrastructure, and 
additional weather stations, used to calibrate handset barometric 
sensors, and may involve incurring the cost of 3D mapping to determine 
multi-story building locations. Thus, this option will enable CMRS 
providers to focus resources in those areas where 911 calls from multi-
story buildings are most likely to occur and improved vertical location 
accuracy will benefit wireless 911 callers in indoor environments. 
Second, affording nationwide CMRS providers the option of meeting 
vertical location accuracy requirements by deploying handset-based 
solutions implies that z-axis technology would be available to 80% of 
the population of a CMA and thus meet our deployment metrics. This 
option would not reduce the benefits of improved vertical location 
accuracy so long as handset-solutions meet the 3-meter accuracy 
standard for 80% of calls made from z-axis capable devices as 
demonstrated in the test bed. In addition, proponents of a nationwide 
handset deployment stress that device-based, commercial solutions can 
calculate z-axis location on the device without the deployment or 
maintenance of new infrastructure.
    70. Nationwide Z-Axis Technology Deployment. Mandating a nationwide 
z-axis deployment will benefit Americans outside of the top 50 CMAs 
without significantly increasing costs for CMRS providers. The Fifth 
Report and Order estimated an approximate annual cost ceiling of $36 
million, based on a $0.12 yearly cost per handset, at 300 million 
handsets presently in use. These 2019 figures are nationwide figures, 
not extrapolated for the top 25 or 50 CMAs, and thus also stand for the 
nationwide handset deployment requirement in 2025. We also defined z-
axis capability in the Fifth Report and Order to exclude handsets that 
require a hardware upgrade. Because the 2025 nationwide z-axis 
deployment is six years from that 2019 analysis, we can reasonably 
infer that software update costs will be lower by that April 2025 
benchmark, albeit at an unquantifiable amount. Most of the upgradable 
handsets are located in the top 50 CMAs, and will thus have been 
updated at that time (in 2023), and providers will have refined the 
necessary software at scale. Hence, we can reasonably infer that costs 
to update handset software will be the same for subscribers both inside 
and outside the top 25 and 50 CMAs. Further, because CMRS providers 
seek to leverage commercial, device-based location solutions for 
meeting their E911 vertical location accuracy obligations, we expect 
the costs associated with a nationwide handset deployment to be 
minimal. For example, Google states that it ``makes [Emergency Location 
Service] available for free to emergency services dispatchers, 
carriers, and other partners in the emergency services space.'' 
Accordingly, we do not anticipate any changes in our cost/benefit 
analysis for nationwide CMRS providers opting for handset-based 
deployment.
    71. Assuming the figures above, we can infer that costs will be 
lower for non-nationwide providers. The brunt of implementation and 
deployment costs will be borne by the nationwide CMRS providers. CTIA 
notes that non-nationwide providers ``will likely follow the nationwide 
wireless providers' assessment of a scalable solution resulting from 
the Test Bed.'' As CCA puts it, ``[m]any non-nationwide carriers are . 
. . at the mercy of what is discovered in the test bed.'' CCA states 
that ``upgrading equipment to meet heightened standards is a costly 
endeavor,'' and that ``[u]nlike nationwide carriers, many CCA members 
are dependent on vendors to update network capabilities that support 
location accuracy services.'' In terms of handset-based deployment, 
however, we anticipate most of the upgrades will have been developed by 
the nationwide CMRS providers, although some independent 
interoperability testing and handset procurement may be necessary 
``depending on the nature of the solution.'' For the multi-story 
deployment option, as IAFF notes, tall structures are present in 
environments inside and outside the top CMAs. However, tall structures 
are presumably not as prevalent in environments outside the top 
population centers. As a result, this may help defray some, if not all, 
3D mapping costs, as we believe non-nationwide CMRS providers are most 
likely to know where tall structures are located inside their service 
areas without the need for mapping. Accordingly, we can reasonably 
infer that the implementation costs in areas outside the top 50 CMAs 
are not as high as inside those areas. In addition, non-nationwide CMRS 
providers outside the top 50 CMAs have approximately six years as of 
the adoption of this Sixth Report and Order to prepare for deployment, 
which will mean the costs of deploying either the handset or multi-
story based options will likely be less. We stress that the $97 billion 
nationwide benefit floor in lives saved will far eclipse any cost 
incurred by non-nationwide providers.

IV. Order on Reconsideration

    72. In this Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denies a 
petition for reconsideration requested by BRETSA. BRETSA seeks 
reconsideration of certain aspects of the Fifth Report and Order, 
contending that the order (1) was arbitrary and capricious and an abuse 
of discretion because the Commission

[[Page 53245]]

declined to adopt proof-of-performance testing and (2) did not address 
BRETSA's proposal that wireless carriers develop procedures for public 
safety agencies and others to correlate Height Above Mean Sea Level to 
floor level.

V. Procedural Matters

    73. Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis. The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if 
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the potential impact 
of rule and policy changes adopted in the Sixth Report and Order on 
small entities. As required by the RFA, an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Fifth Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking released in November 2019 in this 
proceeding (85 FR 2683, January 16, 2020). The Commission sought 
written public comment on the proposals in the Fifth FNPRM, including 
comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This 
FRFA conforms to the RFA. The Commission will send a copy of the Sixth 
Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, including the FRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    74. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The requirements in sections 
9.10(i)(4)(iv), 9.10(i)(4)(v), 9.10(j)(4) and 9.10(k), constitute 
modified information collections. They will be submitted to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). OMB, the general public, and 
other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or 
modified information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding. This document will be submitted to OMB for review under 
section 3507(d) of the PRA. In addition, we note that, pursuant to the 
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we previously sought, but 
did not receive, specific comment on how the Commission might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission does not believe that the 
new or modified information collection requirements in sections 
9.10(i)(4)(iv), 9.10(i)(4)(v), 9.10(j)(4) and 9.10(k), will be unduly 
burdensome on small businesses. Applying these new or modified 
information collections will promote 911 service and emergency 
response, to the benefit of all size governmental jurisdictions, 
businesses, equipment manufacturers, and business associations by 
providing greater confidence in 911 location accuracy and greater 
consistency between the Commission's horizontal and vertical location 
rules. We describe impacts that might affect small businesses, which 
includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA in 
Appendix B of the Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration.
    75. 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 ``non-
major'' under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The 
Commission will send a copy of this Sixth Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office 
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

VI. Ordering Clauses

    76. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 
10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of 
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 
160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, 332; the 
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-
81, 47 U.S.C. 615, 615a, 615b; Section 506 of the Repack Airwaves 
Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018, 47 
U.S.C. 615 note; and Section 106 of the Twenty-First Century 
Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 
47 U.S.C. 615c, that this Sixth Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration, is hereby Adopted.
    77. It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's 
rules as set forth in Appendix A are adopted, effective thirty days 
from the date of publication in the Federal Register. Sections 
9.10(i)(4)(iv), 9.10(i)(4)(v), 9.10(j)(4) and 9.10(k) contain new or 
modified information collection requirements that require OMB review 
under the PRA. The Commission directs the Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau (Bureau) to announce the effective date of those 
information collections in a document published in the Federal Register 
after the Commission receives OMB approval, and directs the Bureau to 
cause section 9.10(s) to be revised accordingly.
    78. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
    79. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a 
copy of this Sixth Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to Congress and 
the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional 
Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    80. It is further ordered that the Association of Public-Safety 
Communications Officials-International, Inc. Petition for Clarification 
is granted to the extent described herein.
    81. It is furthered ordered that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), and 
405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i) and 
405, and Section 1.429 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.429, the 
Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority Petition for 
Reconsideration is denied.
    82. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), the Petition 
for Emergency Declaratory Ruling filed by Polaris Wireless, Inc., on 
May 27, 2020, is Granted to the extent described herein.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio 
Federal Communications Commission.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends chapter I of title 47 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 9--911 REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201, 
202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303, 
307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615 
note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721, 
and 1471, unless otherwise noted.


[[Page 53246]]



0
2. Section 9.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C), (D), 
and (E), adding paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(F) through (M), and revising 
paragraphs (i)(4)(iv) and (v), (j)(4), (k), and (s) to read as follows:


Sec.  9.10  911 Service.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) By April 3, 2021: In each of the top 25 cellular market areas 
(CMAs), nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy either dispatchable 
location or z-axis technology.
    (D) By April 3, 2023: In each of the top 50 CMAs, nationwide CMRS 
providers shall deploy either dispatchable location or z-axis 
technology.
    (E) By April 3, 2025: Nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy on a 
nationwide basis either dispatchable location or z-axis technology.
    (F) Non-nationwide CMRS providers that serve any of the top 25 or 
50 CMAs will have an additional year to meet each of the benchmarks in 
paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) of this section. All non-nationwide 
providers will have an additional year to meet the benchmark in 
paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(E) of this section by deploying either 
dispatchable location or z-axis technology throughout their network 
footprint.
    (G) By January 6, 2022: All CMRS providers shall provide 
dispatchable location with wireless E911 calls if it is technically 
feasible for them to do so.
    (H) CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must do so 
consistent with the following z-axis accuracy metric: Within 3 meters 
above or below (plus or minus 3 meters) the handset for 80% of wireless 
E911 calls made from the z-axis capable device. CMRS providers must 
deliver z-axis information in Height Above Ellipsoid. Where available 
to the CMRS provider, floor level information must be provided in 
addition to z-axis location information.
    (I) CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must do so 
according to the following options:
    (1) In each area where z-axis technology is used, deploy the 
technology to cover 80 percent of the population or 80 percent of the 
buildings that exceed three stories; or
    (2) Deploy z-axis capable handsets enabled with z-axis technology 
on a nationwide basis (or throughout the CMRS provider's network 
footprint, as applicable).
    (J) CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must comply with 
the following:
    (1) CMRS providers must activate all network infrastructure 
necessary to support z-axis location by z-axis capable devices 
throughout the deployment area.
    (2) CMRS providers may deploy z-axis technology upgrades by means 
of over-the-top applications as well as operating system or firmware 
upgrades. CMRS providers deploying z-axis technology must affirmatively 
push the z-axis technology to all existing z-axis capable device models 
on the provider's network that can receive it, and CMRS providers must 
continue to support the z-axis technology on these devices thereafter.
    (3) A CMRS provider using the handset-based deployment option must 
make the technology available to existing z-axis capable devices 
nationwide; a CMRS provider using a CMA-based deployment option must 
make the technology available to all z-axis capable devices in the CMA. 
For all new z-axis capable devices marketed to consumers, the z-axis 
technology must be pre-installed.
    (4) A CMRS provider will be deemed to have met its z-axis 
technology deployment obligation so long as it either pre-installs or 
affirmatively pushes the location technology to end users so that they 
receive a prompt or other notice informing them that the application or 
service is available and what they need to do to download and enable 
the technology on their phone. A CMRS provider will be deemed in 
compliance with its z-axis deployment obligation if it makes the 
technology available to the end user in this manner even if the end 
user declines to use the technology or subsequently disables it.
    (K) CMRS providers must validate dispatchable location technologies 
intended for indoor location in accordance with the provisions of 
paragraph (i)(3)(i) of this section.
    (L) In each CMA where dispatchable location is used, nationwide 
CMRS providers must ensure that dispatchable location is supported by a 
sufficient number of total dispatchable location reference points to 
equal 25 percent of the CMA population.
    (M) A z-axis capable device is one that can measure and report 
vertical location without a hardware upgrade. For z-axis location 
solutions that rely on barometric pressure sensor information, only 
devices that have such sensors installed shall be considered z-axis 
capable. In the case of location solutions that do not require 
barometric pressure sensor information, both devices with and without 
barometric sensors shall be considered z-axis capable, provided that 
they are software-upgradable.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) Dispatchable location use certification. Prior to use of 
dispatchable location information to meet the Commission's 911 
horizontal and indoor location accuracy requirements in paragraphs 
(i)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section, CMRS providers must certify that 
neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain dispatchable 
location information will use dispatchable location information or 
associated data for any non-911 purpose, except with prior express 
consent or as otherwise required by law. The certification must state 
that CMRS providers and any third party they rely on to obtain 
dispatchable location information will implement measures sufficient to 
safeguard the privacy and security of dispatchable location 
information.
    (v) Z-axis use certification. Prior to use of z-axis information to 
meet the Commission's 911 vertical location accuracy requirements in 
paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section, CMRS providers must certify that 
neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain z-axis 
information will use z-axis information or associated data for any non-
911 purpose, except with prior express consent or as otherwise required 
by law. The certification must state that CMRS providers and any third 
party they rely on to obtain z-axis information will implement measures 
sufficient to safeguard the privacy and security of z-axis location 
information.
    (j) * * *
    (4) Upon meeting the timeframes pursuant to paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of 
this section, CMRS providers shall provide with wireless 911 calls that 
have a dispatchable location the confidence and uncertainty data for z-
axis (vertical) information required under paragraph (j)(1) of this 
section. Where available to the CMRS provider, CMRS providers shall 
provide with wireless 911 calls that have floor level information the 
confidence and uncertainty data for z-axis (vertical) information 
required under paragraph (j)(1) of this section.
    (k) Provision of live 911 call data for PSAPs. Notwithstanding 
other 911 call data collection and reporting requirements in paragraph 
(i) of this section, CMRS providers must record information on all live 
911 calls, including, but not limited to, the positioning source method 
used to provide a location fix associated with the call. CMRS providers 
must also record the confidence and uncertainty

[[Page 53247]]

data that they provide pursuant to paragraphs (j)(1)-(4) of this 
section. This information must be made available to PSAPs upon request, 
and shall be retained for a period of two years.
* * * * *
    (s) Compliance date(s). Paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), 
(i)(4)(iv) and (v), (j)(4), (k), and (q)(10)(v) of this section contain 
information-collection and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with 
paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(iv) and (v), (j)(4), (k) and 
(q)(10)(v) will not be required until after approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the 
Federal Register announcing compliance dates with those paragraphs and 
revising this paragraph (s) accordingly.

[FR Doc. 2020-18795 Filed 8-26-20; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P