Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

Published date16 January 2020
Citation85 FR 2683
Record Number2019-28482
SectionProposed rules
CourtFederal Communications Commission
Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)]
                [Proposed Rules]
                [Pages 2683-2692]
                From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
                [FR Doc No: 2019-28482]
                =======================================================================
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
                47 CFR Part 9
                [PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 19-124; FRS 16359]
                Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements
                AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
                ACTION: Proposed rule.
                -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the
                FCC or Commission) proposes rules to improve E911 wireless location
                accuracy. The Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeks
                comment on adopting a timeline narrowing the z-axis (vertical) location
                accuracy metric, and requiring Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
                Providers to deliver floor level information to Public Safety Answering
                Points (PSAPs) in conjunction with a wireless indoor 911 call. The
                FNPRM also seeks comment on alternative methods for carriers to
                demonstrate z-axis technology deployment, and comment on expanding
                dispatchable location solutions. The intended effect of this FNPRM is
                to address long term public safety requirements in the Commission's
                indoor location framework, while balancing technological neutrality and
                flexibility.
                DATES: Comments are due on or before February 18, 2020, and reply
                comments are due on or before March 16, 2020.
                ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114,
                by any of the following methods:
                 Federal Communications Commission's website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
                 Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
                original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
                rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
                must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
                rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
                by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
                Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
                Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
                All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
                Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
                12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
                8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
                rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
                before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than
                U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to
                9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service
                first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
                Street SW, Washington DC 20554.
                 People with Disabilities: To request materials in
                accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
                electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
                call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
                (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
                FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nellie Foosaner, Attorney-Advisor,
                Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security
                Bureau, (202) 418-2925, [email protected]; or Alex Espinoza,
                Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and
                Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0849, [email protected].
                SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth
                Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in PS Docket No. 07-114,
                adopted November 22, 2019, and released November 25, 2019. The full
                text of this document is available for public inspection during regular
                business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445
                12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.
                Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
                 This document does not contain proposed information collection
                requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law
                104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed
                information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
                than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
                of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
                 Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
                47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
                comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
                document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
                Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
                Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998), http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf.
                 The proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
                proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
                making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
                presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 2
                business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
                applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
                parte
                [[Page 2684]]
                presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation
                must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the
                meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize
                all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
                presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
                or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
                memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
                citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
                memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
                paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
                summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
                Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
                parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
                In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
                made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
                presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
                and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
                comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
                in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
                Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
                Commission's ex parte rules.
                Synopsis
                 1. Given the likelihood that vertical location technology will
                continue to improve, we seek comment on whether to establish a long-
                term timeline for migrating to a more stringent z-axis metric than 3
                meters, and ultimately whether to require CMRS providers carriers to
                deliver floor level information in conjunction with wireless indoor 911
                calls. We also propose to amend the rules to expand on the current
                options for demonstrating deployment of z-axis or dispatchable location
                capability.
                Continuing To Improve the Z-Axis Metric
                 2. We seek comment on what additional steps we can take to
                facilitate our long-term location accuracy objectives. Public safety
                commenters that support the 3-meter standard in the short term also
                support taking additional steps to achieve floor level accuracy over
                the longer term. For example, the International Association of Fire
                Chiefs recommends narrowing the 3-meter metric over a five-year
                timeline. Commenters note that vertical location technology solutions
                will continue to improve, thus making application of a narrower metric
                more feasible over time.
                 3. We seek comment on the feasibility of phasing in more granular
                z-axis requirements over time, consistent with the approach that has
                worked well to date for horizontal location accuracy and allowed
                valuable vertical location technologies to evolve. We seek comment on
                whether it would be technologically feasible to achieve a 2 meter
                metric and if so, over what time frame. For example, should we adopt a
                phased five-year timeline for migrating from the 3-meter metric towards
                a 2-meter metric? As part of that phased-in approach should we require
                nationwide CMRS providers to meet a 2-meter metric within four years
                and non-nationwide CMRS providers to comply in the fifth year? Is a 1-
                meter metric feasible over the longer term?
                 4. Are there other alternatives we should consider for a narrower
                vertical location accuracy metric? Should we maintain the same
                requirements as in the current rules for applying future metrics to
                handsets (80% of wireless E911 calls from z-axis capable handsets) and
                for providing C/U data (based on a 90% confidence threshold)?
                Commenters advocating other alternatives and/or a mix of the options
                described here should explain the technical feasibility, benefits, and
                costs of their preferred approach(es).
                 5. To continue to improve the z-axis metric, we seek comment on
                whether enhancements are needed to the vertical location accuracy
                testing process. For example, APCO states that ``[t]he Commission
                should require carriers to take additional steps to verify that real-
                world performance is consistent with test bed evaluation of z-axis
                technology,'' and asserts that the Commission should require more
                comprehensive testing of devices and testing unique public safety use
                cases. Should we require testing to include specific first responder
                scenarios? How does z-axis technology work during power outages? We
                also seek comment on the impact of power outages on horizontal location
                accuracy and address-based dispatchable location technologies, such as
                the NEAD. Should power outage scenarios be included in a z-axis
                technology test bed? APCO also raises concerns about first responders
                trying to ``match'' a 911 caller's altitude when the first responders
                are using one technology vendor and the caller's device uses another.
                Should we require testing protocols to ensure that the ``use of
                different solutions does not produce additional error that exceeds the
                +/- 3 accuracy baseline''? We seek comments on APCO's proposals and
                other improvements to vertical location accuracy testing.
                 6. Some representatives of public safety officials argue that they
                would benefit from actual floor level information. Given the lack of
                current mechanisms that are consistently and reliably capable of
                converting z-axis information to a floor level, we seek additional
                information on efforts to convert z-axis data to precise floor level.
                What resources are available today for public safety entities and CMRS
                providers to convert z-axis information into floor-level information?
                Are there any local or regional tools currently available that could be
                scaled nationally? What tools and resources are being developed, and on
                what time horizon? Is there an appropriate timeline for converting z-
                axis information (as required to be reported above) to floor level
                information, taking into account the time needed to achieve technical
                feasibility and the relative costs of doing so? What are some of the
                technological challenges to delivering floor level and how can we
                overcome these challenges? BRETSA states that floor heights are not
                standard and other commenters note that an authoritative database for
                the mapping of floors in multi-story buildings does not exist. Are
                there initiatives under way to develop resources for mapping building
                heights and floor numbers? What are the costs to carriers and public
                safety to develop database solutions that can be used to convert
                altitude measurements to an actual floor-level?
                 7. One possible technological solution to providing floor or unit
                number data uses Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other wireless signals to query
                privately-maintained databases linking those signals to the location
                data. Our record indicates that significant technical and
                implementation challenges remain with this approach. For example, there
                may be lower densities of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth access points in lower-
                income communities. Privately-maintained reference point databases also
                do not provide outdoor coverage (such as in national parks), may be
                moved or discarded, and may not work at all during power outages. We
                seek to maintain technological neutrality in our z-axis requirements,
                and we do not want to inhibit the development of technological
                solutions that will provide the most accurate location data and,
                ultimately, save lives. At the same time, we encourage commenters to
                assess the reliability of their proposed
                [[Page 2685]]
                technological solutions in foreseeable emergency circumstances and how
                that should affect any future changes to our location data
                requirements.
                 8. Google proposes that the Commission include an option that
                allows carriers to provide floor level estimates instead of HAE-based
                3-meter z-axis measurements. We seek comment on Google's proposal to
                allow provision of floor level information without provision of HAE.
                What are the drawbacks of delivering vertical location information
                without HAE?
                 9. Some public safety commenters encourage us to require CMRS
                providers to report floor-level, rather than simply z-axis information,
                or dispatchable location and z-axis information. If we were to do so,
                would a 5, 7, or 10-year timeline be sufficient to achieve floor level
                accuracy? What interim deadlines should the Commission impose and what
                other actions should the Commission take in order to ensure that CMRS
                providers can provide floor level information and/or multiple data
                points? If CMRS providers meet such a timeline, will PSAPs be ready
                within the same timeframe to accept floor level information? What
                should the testing and development process look like?
                 10. We seek comment on whether to require provision of confidence
                and uncertainty data with floor level information. We also seek comment
                on the costs and benefits associated with a requirement to provide
                floor level in comparison to the costs and benefits of providing z-axis
                information. In the Fifth Report and Order we determine that our
                location accuracy rules, including the 3-meter z-axis metric, would
                improve emergency response times, which, in turn, would improve patient
                outcomes and save lives. Expected benefits far exceed that temporary
                cost amount which lasts only for a few years. The benefit floor from
                enhanced horizontal and vertical accuracy for wireless phones adopted
                in the Fifth Report and Order is expected to account for a large part
                of $97 billion. Are there alternatives beyond a five-year timeline that
                we should consider for implementing a floor-level accuracy metric?
                Commenters advocating a different approach should explain the technical
                feasibility, benefits, and costs of their preferred approach(es).
                Alternative Options for Z-Axis Deployment
                 11. In each CMA where CMRS providers use z-axis technology to
                comply with vertical location requirements, the current rules require
                that CMRS providers deploy z-axis technology to cover 80% of the CMA
                population. We seek comment on whether expanding options beyond the
                population-based CMA coverage requirement would serve the public
                interest.
                 12. Urban and Dense Urban Morphologies. Verizon states that
                deploying the network-level components of z-axis solutions should focus
                on urban and dense urban areas where multi-story buildings are
                concentrated. Verizon reasons that ``[t]he Commission's public safety
                objectives would not be served if deployment of the capability in a
                suburban area helps achieve the 80 percent coverage benchmark, but the
                result is that Z-axis coverage is provided for single-story residential
                dwellings, rather than the multi-story buildings where those residents
                work (but do not live).'' NextNav argues that focusing deployment on
                buildings above three stories would reduce costs and increase benefits
                because such deployment rules ``would permit location service providers
                to focus deployment of their weather calibration reference points where
                they are most needed to achieve the mission (and correspondingly, to
                avoid deployment in areas where they do not add significant value).''
                Precision Broadband proposes mandating the provision of both
                dispatchable location and a z-axis location metric for 911 calls
                originating from ``multi-story'' buildings.
                 13. Some commenters recommend refining the per-CMA requirement in
                the rules to measure deployment based on coverage of 80% of the
                buildings that exceed three stories in each of the top 50 CMAs, rather
                than based on covering 80% of the population. If afforded the option to
                focus z-axis deployment in dense and dense urban morphologies and
                buildings above three stories, how would CMRS providers document their
                deployment? Should the information be provided to the PSAPs so they
                know which areas and buildings are covered? Should the same information
                be provided to the public? Would NextNav and Verizon's proposal reduce
                compliance costs while preserving or increasing the benefits of the z-
                axis backstop? Would deployment criteria focused on urban and dense
                urban morphologies as opposed to population coverage promote deployment
                of handset-based solutions? Should the Commission mandate the provision
                of both dispatchable location and vertical location data for 911 calls
                originating from multi-story buildings?
                 14. Handset Deployment. The two z-axis solutions that have already
                been tested in the test bed (NextNav and Polaris) are handset-based,
                i.e., the location determination is calculated in the handset, rather
                than at an external point within a network. Google also supports
                focusing on handset-based solutions because such solutions have the
                advantage that they can be deployed on a nationwide basis so that all
                wireless users have access to them. Accordingly, we seek 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. What are the benefits and costs associated with handset-
                based z-axis deployment? Would a handset deployment option facilitate
                more rapid and widespread availability of nationwide z-axis solutions
                deployment than other options? Is a handset-based approach more-cost
                effective than a network-based approach? How do the costs change
                between deploying in the top 50 CMAs and nationwide? Can deployment
                nationwide be handled approaches that would require additions or
                modifications to network at the handset level rather than incurring
                infrastructure costs? We additionally seek comment on the costs and
                benefits of both deploying z-axis capable handsets in the top 50 CMAs
                and deploying them nationwide. We seek data on how likely consumers
                carrying z-axis capable handsets may travel in and out of one of the
                top 50 CMAs. What do carriers or other industry actors estimate the
                cost per handset is? Will a nationwide implementation of the instant
                rules reduce costs per handset? Can deployment nationwide be handled at
                the handset level rather than incurring infrastructure costs? We seek
                comment on how a nationwide deployment would impact compliance costs.
                 15. We also recognize that ensuring meaningful deployment of
                handset-based solutions requires z-axis capable devices to be widely
                available to consumers. How should we measure such deployment? Would it
                be sufficient for CMRS providers to show that they have made a certain
                percentage of the handset models that they market to customers z-axis
                capable? If so, what should that percentage be, and should we specify
                additional criteria to ensure that providers offer a reasonable
                selection of low-end handset models as well as higher-end models that
                have z-axis capability? What steps could we take to increase the number
                of older devices and lifeline phones that are z-axis capable?
                Alternatively, should we require CMRS providers to demonstrate actual
                market penetration of z-axis capable handsets, and if so, what
                [[Page 2686]]
                penetration level would be sufficient? Should we take handset churn
                rates into account in setting penetration thresholds, or should we
                require providers to achieve specified penetration levels regardless of
                churn, as we did in implementing our Phase II rules?
                 16. Google suggests adopting an approach analogous to that in the
                European Electronics Communication Code (EECC). Google states that
                ``[b]y December 2020, all European Union member states will be required
                to use handset-derived location in addition to network-based
                information for response to emergency calls.'' By March 17, 2022, ``the
                EECC will require that all smartphones sold in the European Single
                Market be able to provide handset-based location data.'' We seek
                comment on Google's suggestion that we adopt an approach similar to the
                EECC. Should we consider this or other international initiatives as we
                seek to encourage the development and deployment of improved z-axis
                solutions in the U.S.? What are the costs and benefits of such an
                approach?
                 17. Non-Nationwide CMRS Providers. As we consider future z-axis
                requirements for E911 location accuracy nationwide, CCA urges 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.'' APCO notes that ``existing benchmarks in 2022 and 2024 for
                non-nationwide carriers could be adjusted consistent with [its]
                suggested revisions for 2021 and 2023.'' We seek comment on an
                appropriate timeline for affording new z-axis deployment options to
                non-nationwide CMRS providers. Non-nationwide CMRS providers already
                have an additional year to comply with CMA-based deployment metrics
                under our current rules. If we adopt other deployment options based on
                building type or nationwide deployment of handset-based z-axis
                solutions, would the extra year already afforded to non-nationwide
                providers be sufficient to enable them to take advantage of these
                options?
                 18. We also seek comment on costs and benefits associated with top
                50 CMA and a possible nationwide deployment of z-axis technology, which
                would effectively result in a nationwide x, y and z location accuracy
                standard. How do the costs or benefits change between deploying in the
                top 50 CMAs and nationwide? Does a phased implementation approach
                change these costs and benefits? In order to reduce the infrastructure
                costs associated with vertical location, NextNav suggests that the
                Commission ``consider revising its existing requirements regarding the
                geographic locations where z-axis services must be provided.'' NextNav
                argues that ``[i]t is unclear . . . whether accurate vertical location
                information is urgently needed in every portion of the top CMAs,
                particularly in suburban and rural areas with a large preponderance of
                one and two story residences,'' and as such, one way to reduce cost
                would be to require compliance based on ``coverage of 80 percent of the
                buildings that exceed three stories in each of the top 50 CMAs, rather
                than based on the residential locations of 80 percent of the
                population.'' Would such a proposal, for example, minimize carrier
                compliance costs while directing z-axis coverage to the areas that need
                it most? We seek comment on this proposal and solicit comments on any
                other methods to reduce costs while increasing benefits, especially if
                the Commission opts to implement these rules nationwide.
                Dispatchable Location and Alternatives to the NEAD
                 19. In each CMA where dispatchable location is used, our rules
                require nationwide CMRS providers to ``ensure that the NEAD is
                populated with a sufficient number of total dispatchable location
                reference points to equal 25 percent of the CMA population.'' This
                requirement precludes carriers from implementing dispatchable location
                solutions that rely on data sources other than the NEAD, even where
                such solutions might be more viable and cost-effective. Accordingly, we
                propose to allow CMRS providers to demonstrate dispatchable location
                deployment by means other than NEAD reference points. We seek comment
                on this proposal. As NextNav suggests, we also seek comment on ``any
                procedures that would quantify and verify these improvements, such as
                requiring the use of address-based (DL) accuracy testing and reporting
                requirements (including confidence and uncertainty reporting) to ensure
                that any changes to the NEAD or other address-based DL technologies
                actually succeed in improving wireless location accuracy to support
                public safety.'' How do we account for uncertainty in dispatchable
                location data? Should we extend C/U requirements to alternative methods
                of delivery dispatchable location? If, so what should be the required
                C/U percentage?
                 20. We recognize the importance to public safety of obtaining
                dispatchable location information regarding which ``door to kick in.''
                However, the record indicates that the NEAD faces challenges that could
                slow down implementation of dispatchable location. Meanwhile,
                alternatives to the NEAD are emerging that could support dispatchable
                location. As APCO puts it, ``dispatchable location can be provided
                without the NEAD'' and use of the NEAD to provide a caller's location
                does not necessarily mean a ``dispatchable location has been
                provided.'' The Texas 9-1-1 Entities point to location solutions such
                as Apple's HELO, Google's Android ELS, and West Public Safety's
                proximity check. Texas 9-1-1 Entities state that ``[t]o the extent
                additional issues regarding the NEAD or alternative dispatchable
                location solutions can be further clarified early in the development
                process, any such clarifications may enhance the development process.''
                Precision Broadband explains that it will soon propose a fixed
                broadband alternative dispatchable location solution--independent of
                the NEAD--which relies on internet service provider interfaces to
                provide dispatchable location.
                 21. Our proposal to expand the range of possible dispatchable
                location solutions for CMRS providers is also consistent with the
                approach to dispatchable location that we recently adopted for non-CMRS
                providers in the Kari's Law and RAY BAUM's Act proceeding. In that
                proceeding, we sought comment on whether database location solutions,
                including the NEAD, could potentially assist non-CMRS providers in
                determining the ``dispatchable location of MLTS end users.'' Commenters
                in that proceeding generally expressed skepticism that the NEAD has any
                near-term utility for MLTS location, but commenters suggested that
                dispatchable location may be achievable if carriers can leverage other
                data sources, such as third-party databases or crowd-sourced location
                data. To address concerns about relying on database location solutions,
                the Commission adopted a more flexible approach to providing
                dispatchable location for non-CMRS providers. In this proceeding, we
                expect CMRS providers to continue pursuing dispatchable location
                alternatives, even if they choose not to pursue the NEAD.
                 22. Because the Commission has applied specific privacy and
                security safeguards to the NEAD, we propose that any dispatchable
                location alternative used by CMRS providers should include equivalent
                safeguards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. What are the
                costs and benefits of employing alternative information sources, either
                to supplement or replace the NEAD? How reliable are third-party and
                crowd-
                [[Page 2687]]
                sourced location data alternatives? Are there other alternative
                information sources that we should consider? Should, for example, the
                Commission consider fixed broadband location data as a NEAD information
                source? What are the relative costs and benefits of applying NEAD-type
                security and privacy protections to alternative information sources?
                How would such sources meet the validation criteria in the definition
                of dispatchable location applicable to CMRS providers?
                 23. We also seek comment on the possible costs and benefits
                associated with dispatchable location alternatives to the NEAD. For
                example, what are the costs and benefits associated with Precision
                Broadband's multi-faceted proposal to require the reporting of both (1)
                dispatchable location and (2) z-axis information in the top 50 Cellular
                Market Areas. What are the associated costs and benefits of relying on
                alternative data sources for dispatchable location. What are the costs
                and benefits of alternative methods for delivering dispatchable
                location?
                I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
                 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
                amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
                Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
                on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
                proposed in the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Fifth
                Further Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
                Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
                by the deadlines in this Fifth Further Notice. The Commission will send
                a copy of the Fifth Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief
                Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In
                addition, the Fifth Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will
                be published in the Federal Register.
                Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
                 2. In the Fifth Further Notice, we propose changes to, and seek
                comment on, our E911 location accuracy rules to expand options for z-
                axis deployment and provisioning of dispatchable location, in order to
                address long term public safety requirements in the Commission's indoor
                location framework, while balancing technological neutrality and
                flexibility. More specifically, we seek comment on a timeline for
                narrowing the z-axis metric and requiring carriers to deliver floor
                level information to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in
                conjunction with a wireless indoor 911 call. We inquire whether a five-
                year timeline is sufficient to achieve floor level accuracy, and, if
                so, what actions should the Commission take in order to ensure that
                CMRS providers can provide floor level information. For z-axis
                deployment, we seek comment on providing alternative ways for carriers
                to demonstrate that they have deployed z-axis technology, such as
                deploying z-axis capable handsets nationwide. With respect to
                dispatchable location, the Commission seeks comment on expanding
                dispatchable location solutions, provided that any new sources of
                dispatchable locations would be subject to privacy and security
                protection equivalent to those in effect for the National Emergency
                Address Database (NEAD).
                Legal Basis
                 3. The proposed action is authorized under 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, as amended, 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 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and Section 106 of the
                Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of
                2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.
                Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the
                Proposed Rules Will Apply
                 4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
                feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
                affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
                the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
                ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
                jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
                meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
                Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
                and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
                satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
                 5. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
                Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
                are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
                the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
                affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
                standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
                flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
                Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
                fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
                99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8
                million businesses.
                 6. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
                organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
                independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
                Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
                organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
                with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
                 7. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
                jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
                counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
                districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
                Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there
                were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
                purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
                States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments
                (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
                50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school
                districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000.
                The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the
                local government category show that the majority of these governments
                have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate
                that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the
                category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
                1. Telecommunications Service Providers
                a. Wireless Telecommunications Providers
                 8. Pursuant to 47 CFR 9.10(a), the Commission's 911 service
                requirements are only applicable to Commercial Mobile Radio Service
                (CMRS) ``[providers], excluding mobile satellite service operators, to
                the extent that they: (1) Offer real-time, two way switched voice
                service that is interconnected with the public switched network; and
                (2) Utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider
                to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber
                calls. These
                [[Page 2688]]
                requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice service to
                consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale rates from
                CMRS licensees.''
                 9. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as
                a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
                businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
                the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
                Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in
                the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
                implicated.
                 10. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other
                Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily
                engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as
                satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station
                operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged
                in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
                connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of
                transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications
                from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or
                voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied
                telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The
                SBA has developed a small business size standard for All Other
                Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with annual
                receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census
                Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated
                for the entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual
                receipts less than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25
                million to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the
                majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected
                by our action can be considered small.
                 11. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1);
                1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands
                (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the
                Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity with average
                annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40
                million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average annual
                gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million.
                For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for certain which entities
                are likely to apply for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands
                are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal
                communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size
                standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2
                and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to
                the comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues
                involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies,
                and services.
                 12. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs).
                Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
                and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
                has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
                service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired
                Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a
                business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
                Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that
                year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.
                Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of
                Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other
                Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission
                data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision
                of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access
                provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have
                1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that
                they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to
                have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that
                they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or
                fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data,
                the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
                exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service
                Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
                 13. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the
                Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
                specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest
                applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
                Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it
                has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate
                that 3,117 firms operated the entire year. Of this total, 3,083
                operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission
                estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are
                small businesses that may be affected by our actions. According to
                Commission data, one thousand three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent
                Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local
                exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have
                1,500 or fewer employees. Thus using the SBA's size standard the
                majority of incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
                 14. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Two auctions of
                narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been
                conducted. To ensure meaningful participation of small business
                entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered
                small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and
                Order. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41
                licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. A ``small
                business'' is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling
                interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of
                not more than $40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that,
                together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross
                revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million.
                The SBA has approved these small business size standards.
                 15. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on
                several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for
                television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the
                Gulf of Mexico. The closest applicable SBA size standard is for
                Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is an
                entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. U.S. Census Bureau data in
                this industry for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for
                the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
                fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus,
                under this SBA category and the associated small business size
                standard, the majority of Offshore Radiotelephone Service firms can be
                considered small. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in
                this service. However, the Commission is unable to estimate at this
                time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the
                SBA's small business size standard for the category of Wireless
                Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
                 16. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
                [[Page 2689]]
                Equipment Manufacturing. This``'' industry comprises establishments
                primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
                wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
                establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
                television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
                communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
                broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size
                standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census
                Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this
                industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with
                fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between
                1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or
                more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of
                manufacturers in this industry are small.
                 17. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a
                size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
                Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is
                the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The closest
                applicable SBA size standard is for Wireless Telecommunications
                Carriers (except Satellite), which is an entity employing no more than
                1,500 persons. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
                that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
                total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had
                employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the
                associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of
                Rural Radiotelephone Services firm are small entities. There are
                approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and
                the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity
                licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by
                the rules and policies proposed herein.
                 18. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
                fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
                uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless
                communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
                revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a
                ``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15
                million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved
                these small business size standards. In the Commission's auction for
                geographic area licenses in the WCS there were seven winning bidders
                that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one that
                qualified as a ``small business'' entity.
                 19. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
                industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
                switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
                airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
                provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
                services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
                appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
                small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
                Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
                operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment
                of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or
                more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the
                Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications
                carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
                 20. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
                personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
                telephony carriers. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless
                Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small
                business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
                employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
                that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
                total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms had 1,000
                employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size
                standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of these entities
                can be considered small. According to Commission data, 413 carriers
                reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an
                estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
                1,500 employees. Therefore, more than half of these entities can be
                considered small.
                 21. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard
                Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small
                businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining
                their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
                installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity
                that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
                average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
                three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that,
                together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
                gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding
                three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An
                auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6,
                2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned,
                96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small
                businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz
                Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on
                February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to
                three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a
                total of two licenses.
                 22. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted
                criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
                determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
                credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that,
                together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
                gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
                A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
                its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
                that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
                Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small
                business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
                licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that,
                together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
                gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
                three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of
                740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license
                in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August
                27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses
                available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders.
                Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small
                business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A
                second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and
                included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area
                licenses.
                [[Page 2690]]
                Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status
                and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur
                status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the Commission completed
                an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band (Auction No. 60).
                There were three winning bidders for five licenses. All three winning
                bidders claimed small business status.
                 23. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700
                MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz
                licenses commenced January 24, 2008, and closed on March 18, 2008,
                which included: 176 Economic Area licenses in the A-Block, 734 Cellular
                Market Area licenses in the B-Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E-
                Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those
                with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million
                and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49
                licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming very small business
                status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
                not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
                 24. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
                Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz
                licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in
                which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for
                licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block,
                and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on
                March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business
                status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
                not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five
                licenses.
                 25. Wireless Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business
                size standard specifically for Wireless Resellers. The SBA category of
                Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICS code category for
                wireless resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises
                establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from
                owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired
                and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to
                businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell
                telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and
                infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included
                in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is
                small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for
                2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services for the entire
                year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.
                Thus, under this category and the associated small business size
                standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small
                entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that
                they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these,
                an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the
                Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Resellers are small
                entities.
                b. Equipment Manufacturers
                 26. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
                Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
                primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
                wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
                establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
                television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
                communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
                broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size
                standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census
                Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this
                industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with
                fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between
                1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or
                more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of
                manufacturers in this industry can be considered small.
                 27. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry
                comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
                semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products
                made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips,
                microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other
                optoelectronic devices. The SBA has developed a small business size
                standard for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing, which
                consists of all such companies having 1,250 or fewer employees. U.S.
                Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 862 establishments
                that operated that year. Of this total, 843 operated with fewer than
                1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms
                in this industry can be considered small.
                Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
                Requirements for Small Entities
                 28. The Fifth Further Notice proposes and seeks comment on E911
                location accuracy rule changes that may affect reporting,
                recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities. In
                particular, the Fifth Further Notice seeks comment on: (1) Timelines
                for requiring carriers to provide floor-level emergency caller
                information (whether 5 years or an alternative number) to Public Safety
                Access Points (PSAP); (2) focusing z-axis technology deployment on
                building size vs. population coverage, and; (3) use of alternative
                information--third party and crowd sourced information--to provide
                dispatchable location.
                 29. The proposed rules in the Fifth Further Notice if adopted may
                require small entities to hire engineers, consultants, or other
                professionals for compliance. The Commission cannot however, quantify
                the cost of compliance with the potential rule changes and obligations
                that may result in this proceeding. In our discussion of the proposals
                in the Fifth Further Notice we have sought comments from the parties in
                the proceeding, including cost and benefit analyses, and expect the
                information we received in the comments to help the Commission identify
                and evaluate relevant matters for small entities, including any
                compliance costs and burdens that may result from the matters raised in
                the Fifth Further Notice.
                Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
                Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
                 30. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
                specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
                reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
                alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing
                compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
                account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
                clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
                reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
                use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
                from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
                entities.
                 31. The Commission determined in the Fifth Report and Order that
                benefit
                [[Page 2691]]
                floor from the enhanced horizontal and vertical location accuracy
                requirements adopted for wireless phones is expected to be $97 billion
                and far exceeds its costs. In the Fifth Further Notice the Commission
                continues to refine its indoor location accuracy framework to meet long
                term public safety objectives and seeks comment on a variety of
                proposals to best implement its objectives, while ensuring information
                privacy and security. While doing so, the Commission is mindful that
                small entities and other CMRS providers will incur costs should the
                proposals we make, and the alternatives upon which we seek comment in
                the Fifth Further Notice, be adopted. We believe however that the
                economic costs of compliance for small entities will be reduced by some
                of the steps we have taken in the Fifth Further Notice such as our
                proposals, (1) to expand options for the z-axis deployment, (2) to
                expand options for the dispatchable location portion of our rules,
                provided that any new sources of dispatchable locations would be
                subject to privacy and security protection equivalent to those in
                currently in effect.
                 32. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact
                on small entities and other CMRS providers, the Commission seeks
                comment on the costs and benefits of various proposals and alternatives
                in the Fifth Further Notice and specifically on how to reduce
                compliance costs and increase benefits.
                 33. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the costs and
                benefits of narrowing the z-axis metric from 3 meters to 1 meter and
                information on the costs to carriers and public safety to develop
                database solutions that can be used to convert altitude measurements to
                an actual floor-level. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs
                and benefits as applied to a nationwide deployment of the z-axis
                metric, resulting in a nationwide x, y and z location accuracy standard
                and associated with a phased-in, nationwide deployment of the z-axis
                metric; and on how a nationwide deployment would impact compliance
                costs. Further, the Commission seeks comment on alternatives to the
                NEAD including the costs and benefits of requiring the reporting of
                both (1) dispatchable location and (2) z-axis information in the top 50
                Cellular Market Areas, and the associated costs and benefits of relying
                on alternative data sources for dispatchable location.
                 34. Aside from the costs and benefits information in the Fifth
                Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate
                timeline for requiring carriers to provide floor level information--or
                more granular requirements--and considers a five-year timeline for
                doing so. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether
                other timelines would better account for the time needed to achieve
                technical feasibility and the associated costs for the provision of
                floor level information rather than meeting the 3-meter vertical
                location accuracy standard. To help secure E911 location information,
                the Fifth Further Notice also seeks comment on whether alternative
                sources of caller location information would best help provide timely
                and accurate dispatchable location information, and queries whether
                such information can be secured by applying security and privacy
                requirements similar to those of the NEAD.
                 35. The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic
                impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in
                response to the Fifth Further Notice, including costs and benefits
                analyses. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this
                proceeding will shape the final alternatives it considers, the final
                conclusions it reaches, and any final actions it ultimately takes in
                this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may
                occur on small entities.
                Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
                Proposed Rules
                 36. None.
                II. Ordering Clauses
                 37. 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 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-
                First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010,
                Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that this Fifth Report and Order
                and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, is hereby adopted.
                 38. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
                Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
                copy of this Fifth Report and Order and Fifth Further Notice of
                Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial and Final Regulatory
                Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
                Business Administration.
                List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9
                 Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio,
                Federal Communications Commission.
                Cecilia Sigmund,
                Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
                Proposed Rules
                 For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
                Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 9 as follows:
                PART 9--911 REQUIREMENTS
                0
                1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
                 Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151 through 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.
                0
                2. Section 9.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C)(1) and
                (2) and (i)(2)(ii)(D)(1) and (2) to read as follows:
                Sec. 9.10 911 Service Requirements.
                * * * * *
                 (i) * * *
                 (2) * * *
                 (ii) * * *
                 (C) * * *
                 (1) In each CMA where dispatchable location is used: Nationwide
                CMRS providers ensure that the NEAD is populated with a sufficient
                number of total dispatchable location reference points to equal 25
                percent of the CMA population. CMRS providers may demonstrate
                dispatchable location deployment by means other than the NEAD reference
                points, provided that any dispatchable location option that does not
                rely on the NEAD includes equivalent privacy and security safeguards;
                or
                 (2) In each CMA where z-axis technology is used:
                 (i) Nationwide CMRS providers must deploy z-axis technology to
                cover 80 percent of the CMA population; or
                 (ii) CMRS providers may also demonstrate z-axis deployment to cover
                80 percent of the buildings that exceed three stories in the CMA; or
                 (iii) CMRS providers may also demonstrate z-axis deployment by
                deploying z-axis capable handsets nationwide. By 2021, CMRS providers
                choosing nationwide deployment shall ensure that 80 percent of handsets
                on the network are z-axis capable.
                 (D) * * *
                [[Page 2692]]
                 (1) In each CMA where dispatchable location is used: Nationwide
                CMRS providers ensure that the NEAD is populated with a sufficient
                number of total dispatchable location reference points to equal 25
                percent of the CMA population. CMRS providers may demonstrate
                dispatchable location deployment by means other than the NEAD reference
                points, provided that any dispatchable location option that does not
                rely on the NEAD includes equivalent privacy and security safeguards;
                or
                 (2) In each CMA where z-axis technology is used:
                 (i) Nationwide CMRS providers must deploy z-axis technology to
                cover 80 percent of the CMA population; or
                 (ii) CMRS providers may also demonstrate z-axis deployment to cover
                80 percent of the buildings that exceed three stories in the CMA; or
                 (iii) CMRS providers may also demonstrate z-axis deployment by
                deploying z-axis capable handsets nationwide. By 2023, CMRS providers
                choosing nationwide deployment shall ensure that 100 percent of
                handsets on the network are z-axis capable.
                * * * * *
                [FR Doc. 2019-28482 Filed 1-15-20; 8:45 am]
                 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
                

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT