Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, 13211-13222 [2019-06012]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13211-13222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06012]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 19-20]


Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) proposes to revise its rules to require Commercial Mobile 
Radio Service providers to deliver accurate vertical location 
information to Public Safety Answering points consistent with a metric 
of plus or minus three meters for wireless 911 calls placed from 
indoors. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal as well as on 
alternatives to improve vertical location accuracy for

[[Page 13212]]

wireless 911 calls made from multi-story buildings.

DATES: Comments are due on or before May 20, 2019 and reply comments 
are due on or before June 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience 
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to 
request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign 
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 
202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Boykin, Policy and Licensing 
Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2062 or 
via email at [email protected]; Nellie Foosaner, Policy and 
Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 
418-2925 or via email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commissions Fourth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 07-114, released 
on March 18, 2019. The full text of this document is available for 
public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference 
Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or 
online at www.fcc.gov.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    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 sections 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).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: 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.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] 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.
    [ssquf] 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).
    The proceeding this Notice initiates 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 two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte 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.

I. Introduction

    1. Since the Commission first adopted its wireless Enhanced 911 
(E911) location accuracy rules in 1996, the wireless landscape has 
undergone major changes. In 2018 the number of Americans with 
smartphones rose to 77%, up from just 35% in Pew Research Center's 
first survey of smartphone ownership conducted in 2011. As the adoption 
of cellphones and smartphones has skyrocketed, they have become an 
indispensable tool to protect consumers' health, property, and 
wellbeing, and many Americans are now relying on mobile phones as their 
only phones. Consumers make 240 million calls to 911 each year, and in 
many areas 80% or more of these calls are from wireless phones. For 
both first responders and consumers, the capability to locate wireless 
911 callers quickly and accurately is of critical importance regardless 
of where the call originates.

[[Page 13213]]

    2. To ensure that first responders and Public Safety Answering 
Points (PSAPs) can find 911 callers quickly and accurately when a 
consumer calls from a multi-story building, we propose a vertical, or 
z-axis, location accuracy metric of plus or minus 3 meters relative to 
the handset for each of the benchmarks and geographic requirements 
previously established in the Commission's E911 wireless location 
accuracy rules. This proposed metric will more accurately identify the 
floor level for most 911 calls, reduce emergency response times, and 
save lives.

II. Background

    3. In the 2014 Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this 
proceeding, the Commission proposed measures and timeframes to improve 
location accuracy for wireless E911 calls originating indoors, 
including, among others, a 3-meter z-axis metric for 80% of such calls. 
In the 2015 Fourth Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission 
established benchmarks and timetables for the deployment of z-axis 
technology or dispatchable location (which includes a vertical location 
component) in the top 50 Cellular Market Areas, but deferred a decision 
on a specific z-axis metric until it received additional testing data. 
Specifically, the Commission required the four nationwide Commercial 
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers to establish a test bed to 
develop a proposed z-axis accuracy metric and to submit the proposed 
metric to the Commission for approval within 3 years (i.e., by August 
3, 2018). The Commission stated that the proposal would be placed out 
for public comment.
    4. On August 3, 2018, CTIA submitted the ``Stage Z Test Report'' 
(Report or Stage Z Test Report) on behalf of the four nationwide CMRS 
providers. According to the Report, Stage Z testing sought to assess 
the accuracy of solutions that use barometric pressure sensors in the 
handset for determining altitude in support of E911. Two vendors, 
NextNav LLC (NextNav) and Polaris Wireless, Inc. (Polaris), 
participated in Stage Z. The test results showed that in 80% of NextNav 
test calls, vertical location was identified to a range of 1.8 meters 
or less, while 80% of Polaris test calls yielded a vertical accuracy 
range of 4.8 meters or less. The Report noted that Polaris' performance 
``could likely be significantly improved should a more robust handset 
barometric sensor calibration approach [than that used in the test bed] 
be applied.''
    5. In its August 3, 2018, cover letter submitting the Report, CTIA 
stated that the test results provided ``helpful insight'' into the 
state of z-axis technologies, but that ``significant questions remain 
about performance and scalability in live wireless 9-1-1 calling 
environments.'' On behalf of the four nationwide wireless providers, 
CTIA therefore proposed a z-axis metric of ``+/- 5 meters for 80% of 
fixes from mobile devices capable of delivering barometric pressure 
sensor-based altitude estimates.'' CTIA also stated that further 
testing of vertical location technologies could yield results to 
validate adoption of a more accurate z-axis metric.
    6. On September 10, 2018, the Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau (Bureau) released a Public Notice seeking comment on the Report 
and the carriers' proposed z-axis metric. The Public Notice sought to 
gather information that would inform the Bureau's recommendations to 
the Commission concerning next steps in the development of the z-axis 
accuracy metric contemplated by the Fourth Report & Order. Fourteen 
entities filed comments and reply comments.
    7. Public safety organizations unanimously opposed CTIA's proposed 
5-meter metric as too imprecise to identify a caller's floor level. 
Some public safety organizations expressed support for a 3-meter 
metric, while others encouraged the Commission to adopt a 2-meter 
metric. NextNav and Polaris asserted that they could meet a 3-meter 
metric for 80% of wireless indoor calls within the prescribed 
timeframes.
    8. In their initial comments, CTIA and some nationwide CMRS 
providers argued that the Commission should defer setting a more 
aggressive z-axis metric than 5 meters pending further testing. In a 
December 2018 ex parte filing, however, CTIA and all four nationwide 
CMRS providers revised their recommendation. These parties recognized 
``that public safety representatives have encouraged the Commission to 
adopt a more aggressive Z-Axis metric of 3 meters in the 
near term.'' While continuing to stress the importance of further 
testing, CTIA and the four providers stated that ``certainty as to the 
Z-Axis metric in the near term, whether via an Order or expeditiously 
seeking public comment, may help advance the development process 
necessary to meet the 2021 and 2023 vertical location accuracy 
benchmarks in the Fourth Report & Order.''
    9. Herein, we take steps to build on the Commission's adoption of 
the Fourth Report and Order by proposing a metric for the z-axis 
compliance standard for wireless 911 calls that is available to those 
providers that do not choose the dispatchable location compliance 
standard for vertical location accuracy.

III. Discussion

    10. Given the current state of the record, we believe it is 
appropriate to propose a z-axis metric based on a 3-meter standard. 
This will provide the final element of the Commission's existing indoor 
location accuracy regime, which already includes a timetable for CMRS 
providers to deliver vertical location information by deploying either 
dispatchable location or z-axis technology in specific geographic 
areas. Our proposed z-axis metric will provide certainty to all parties 
and establish a focal point for further testing, development, and 
implementation of evolving z-axis location technologies. To ensure a 
complete and comprehensive record on this issue, we seek comment on our 
proposal as discussed below.

A. Floor Level Accuracy

    11. We propose a z-axis metric of 3 meters relative to the handset 
for 80% of wireless E911 calls for each of the benchmarks and 
geographic requirements previously established in the Commission's E911 
wireless location accuracy rules. To certify compliance with this 
proposed requirement, the caller's handset should be located within 3 
meters above or below the vertical location provided by the phone for 
80% of indoor wireless calls to 911, as demonstrated in the test bed. 
Under our proposal, we would amend Section 20.18 of the Commission's 
rules to require that by April 3, 2021, nationwide CMRS providers must 
deploy in each of the top 25 Cellular Market Areas either dispatchable 
location or z-axis technology in compliance with the 3-meter metric. In 
Cellular Market Areas where z-axis technology is used, nationwide CMRS 
providers must deploy z-axis technology to cover 80% of the Cellular 
Market Area population. By April 3, 2023, these requirements would be 
expanded to cover each of the top 50 Cellular Market Areas. Non-
nationwide CMRS providers that serve any of the top 25 or 50 Cellular 
Market Areas would continue to have an additional year to meet each of 
these benchmarks in the relevant Cellular Market Area.
    12. We seek comment on our proposed 3-meter metric. We tentatively 
agree with commenters responding to the Stage Z Test Report who assert 
that

[[Page 13214]]

3 meters will provide sufficient accuracy to identify the caller's 
floor level in most cases. For example, IAFF comments that the 
Commission should require vertical location information that provides 
true floor level accuracy, ``i.e., no more than 3 meters.'' NENA states 
that ``[c]itizens and public safety require, in the absence of a 
dispatchable location solution, a z-axis accuracy benchmark of +/-3 
meters.'' The Texas 911 Entities assert that a metric greater than 3 
meters for 80% of calls ``would not satisfy the critical requirements 
of public safety.'' We acknowledge that a 3-meter metric is not always 
certain to yield floor level accuracy. If the indoor wireless caller's 
handset is located at the vertical center of a floor with an average 
height of 3.1 to 3.9 meters, the margins of a 3-meter metric allow for 
a variance of up to six meters, which would extend the search range to 
one floor above and one floor below the location of the handset. 
Nevertheless, we believe this search range will significantly narrow 
the scope of the search and can provide a reasonable basis for 
identifying the correct floor in most cases. We seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion. Do commenters agree that the metric should be set 
at 3 meters? If not, what vertical location metric should the 
Commission adopt, and why?
    13. We also tentatively conclude that a 5-meter metric should not 
be adopted because the record indicates it would not yield the floor 
level accuracy that first responder commenters consider necessary. APCO 
states that a 5-meter metric ``translates to a range of up to two 
floors below, or up to two floors above, the actual floor where a 911 
caller may be located, and some lesser degree of accuracy for one in 
five calls to 911.'' APCO and NENA also assert that adopting a metric 
of 5 meters would undermine incentives for CMRS providers to invest in 
the development of more accurate z-axis solutions. We seek comment on 
our tentative conclusion.
    14. We also seek comment on other elements of the proposed metric. 
Should the metric apply to 80% of wireless calls? If not, what 
percentage of calls is appropriate? CTIA's proposed metric would apply 
only to ``mobile devices capable of delivering barometric pressure 
sensor-based altitude estimates.'' Should the z-axis metric apply only 
to calls from such devices, only devices manufactured after a date 
certain, or should it apply to wireless calls from all mobile devices, 
as we propose? Additionally, NPSTC asserts that reporting vertical 
location information as height above ground level (AGL) would be 
preferable to height above mean sea level (MSL) which is how carriers' 
data would otherwise be provided by default. Should the Commission 
specify that CMRS providers must report z-axis information as AGL, as 
NPSTC suggests, or are there advantages to keying height estimates to 
MSL? Should the Commission require CMRS providers to identify the floor 
level when reporting z-axis information, as suggested by APCO? What 
would be the technical and/or operational issues in requiring CMRS 
providers to provide either AGL height or floor level information? 
Should the Commission require all CMRS providers to provide the same 
type of z-axis information (e.g., MSL, AGL, or floor level) to avoid 
potential confusion at the PSAP? Alternatively, should we decline to 
specify this level of detail so that entities developing z-axis 
solutions have more flexibility?

B. Technical Feasibility

    15. We tentatively conclude that our proposed 3-meter z-axis metric 
is technically feasible under the timeframes established in the Fourth 
Report and Order.
    16. The test bed results show that in 80% of NextNav test calls, 
vertical location was identified to a range of 1.8 meters or less. 
NextNav achieved a vertical accuracy within 2 meters for 67% of test 
calls and within 3 meters for 90% of test calls in the dense urban, 
urban, and suburban morphologies. NextNav also achieved a vertical 
accuracy within 2 meters for 80% of test calls for every handset 
tested. According to NextNav, these results ``were consistent across 
age of handsets, with the oldest devices (2016 models) performing 
identically to the newest (2018).'' NextNav asserts that the results 
demonstrate reasonable consistency between handsets, weather, building 
types, environments, and time of day and that they demonstrate ``the 
efficacy of the overall altitude determination system (<1m @ 80%).''
    17. In addition, Polaris states that it was able to achieve 
aggregate accuracy performance of 2.8 meters for 80% of test calls by 
using additional available location data to recalibrate and refine its 
Stage Z data. This also supports our tentative conclusion in favor of a 
3-meter metric. Polaris also indicates that in a real-world deployment 
its solution would use an active compensation correction model that 
operates in an application running continuously in the background of 
the device. As stated by Dr. R. Michael Buehrer of Virginia Tech, we 
also expect that this calibration process would be at least as accurate 
as the limited (once per month) calibration process Polaris used in 
reprocessing its Stage Z data. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude 
that Polaris' reprocessing of the data presents a reasonably accurate 
picture of the capabilities of its solution. We seek comment on this 
view.
    18. Additionally, we are encouraged that entities outside the test 
bed have reported on technologies that may be able to achieve an 
equivalent degree of vertical location accuracy, and in this respect, 
we note that our rules do not require the use of a particular 
technology to achieve the necessary metric. For instance, on September 
18, 2018, Google announced the launch of its Emergency Location Service 
in the United States. According to Google, Emergency Location Service 
is ``a supplemental service that sends enhanced location directly from 
Android handsets to emergency services when an emergency call is 
placed.'' Emergency Location Service works on ``99 percent of Android 
devices (version 4.0 and above).'' Emergency Location Service is part 
of the Android operating system and does not require any special 
hardware or updates. Regarding vertical location accuracy, Google 
states that it is working to provide accurate altitude and floor 
location and ``improve [Emergency Location Service] location quality, 
especially for challenging locations, such as urban canyons and 
indoors.''
    19. We recognize that some public safety commenters urge us to 
adopt a 2-meter metric, which would increase the likelihood of 
providing floor-level accuracy. However, we believe it is not yet 
established that such a metric is technically achievable on a 
consistent basis, although it may become achievable in the long term as 
technology continues to evolve. While NextNav's test bed results 
demonstrate that its solution can achieve an accuracy of 1.8 meters or 
less for 80% of test calls overall, it could only achieve an accuracy 
of 2.5 meters or less for 80% of test calls in the dense urban 
morphology, where calls from multi-story buildings are most likely to 
occur. Similarly, even after reprocessing its data, Polaris' solution 
yielded only 2.8 meters or less for 80% of test calls. Because the 
existing record does not indicate that 2-meter accuracy is currently 
achievable by either vendor in the dense urban morphology, we 
tentatively conclude that it would be premature to adopt a 2-meter 
metric. We believe, however, that our proposed 3-meter metric will 
encourage CMRS providers to work with NextNav, Polaris, and emerging 
location and

[[Page 13215]]

device vendors to achieve more precise vertical location accuracy 
solutions. We seek comment on this view.

C. Testing

    20. We propose to adopt a 3-meter z-axis metric instead of 
deferring the matter for further testing. Although CTIA initially 
maintained that additional testing was needed before a metric could be 
adopted, it has since taken the opposite view. Additionally, vendors' 
comments suggest that the 3-meter metric is technically feasible, and 
public safety commenters acknowledge that such a metric, while not as 
precise as they might like, would nevertheless be a worthwhile step to 
take. Although we tentatively conclude that the benefits of further 
testing are insufficient to warrant any more delay in the progress of 
this proceeding, to the extent that the proponents of additional 
testing conduct tests or studies that yield more accurate and efficient 
vertical location solutions, we encourage these stakeholders to file 
them in this docket. We observe that CTIA recently announced that in 
July 2019, the test bed will begin the next round of z-axis testing, 
which CTIA has designated as ``Stage Za.'' We encourage all technology 
vendors that are developing potential z-axis solutions to participate 
in Stage Za. We note, however, that in the interest of providing 
certainty in the near term to all parties, the Commission envisions 
proceeding on this rulemaking while additional testing occurs.
    21. We also tentatively conclude based on our own assessment of the 
Report that the limitations on testing described therein do not 
preclude us from adopting a 3-meter metric without requiring additional 
testing. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
    22. For example, in Stage Z, Chicago was added as a test region to 
provide a more extreme cold-weather environment for evaluating z-axis 
technologies, but NextNav was unable to test there. NextNav also did 
not test its solution in rural morphologies. We do not believe that the 
lack of NextNav test data in either environment is a sufficient reason 
to delay consideration of a z-axis metric.
    23. In particular, with respect to extreme cold-weather testing, 
the Report states that very cold weather was not available during 
testing and that this is likely because the test campaign started in 
late February. Accordingly, the test results would not have been 
conclusive even if NextNav had participated. In addition, if we were to 
require additional cold-weather testing, it could not be scheduled 
before next winter, which would entail at least a year's delay in 
adopting a metric.
    24. Similarly, we do not believe that the absence of NextNav test 
data in rural morphologies warrants a delay in our consideration of a 
z-axis metric. The Report notes that the rural morphology is ``the 
sparsest environment overall'' and is mostly residential, with most 
structures between 1 and 2 stories high. Moreover, the Commission's 
vertical location accuracy requirements apply only to the top 50 
Cellular Market Areas, which are most likely to feature the urban and 
dense urban morphologies. In these morphologies, the test bed shows 
that NextNav's solution would meet a 3-meter metric. Additionally, 
NextNav's technology was tested for vertical accuracy in rural areas 
during the original CSRIC Test Bed conducted in 2012, and NextNav's 
results from that testing fell within 3 meters for 80% of all calls.
    25. We also do not believe that testing of additional devices, such 
as older and lower-end devices, is needed prior to adoption of a z-axis 
metric. NextNav and Polaris each tested six handsets, for a total of 
twelve handsets, in Stage Z. The Report states that handsets were 
selected ``to ensure variety between sensor manufacturers, the age of 
handsets (within limits) and their overall use characteristics,'' and 
that the handsets used in testing were ``the same production-ready 
handsets sold by wireless carriers and available to the general 
public'' and did not contain any hardware modification that would favor 
these handsets over any commercially available handsets. NextNav points 
out that the Stage Z results showed a high level of consistency between 
different models of handsets and that these results were consistent 
with the results of prior independent tests conducted on its 
technology. Although we encourage additional testing on a greater 
variety of devices, we believe that a sufficient variety of devices 
have been tested to support moving forward with our proposed 3-meter 
metric at this time. We seek comment on this assessment. We seek 
comment on whether the proposed 3-meter z-axis metric will provide 
adequate vertical location accuracy protection for consumers who 
participate in the Commission's Lifeline program. We seek comment on 
the extent to which mobile phones provided to consumers as part of the 
Lifeline program have the capability, through barometric pressure 
sensors or other means, to be located within a 3-meter z-axis metric. 
We also seek comment on how to ensure that vertical location 
protections extend to and include users of the Lifeline program. We 
also seek comment on the potential turnover rates for wireless handsets 
and the features of devices likely to be available and in use by the 
compliance dates established in our rules. Those data points would 
influence the extent to which difficulties in achieving the metric over 
older and lower-end devices may pose an impediment to meeting the 
proposed requirements.

D. Deployment

    26. We believe our proposed 3-meter z-axis metric will support the 
development of scalable vertical location solutions that can be 
deployed in time to meet the carriers' 2021 and 2023 deadlines. To the 
extent that CMRS providers elect to use solutions that rely on 
barometric pressure readings, nearly all smartphones on the market 
appear to be equipped with barometric pressure sensors. In addition, 
both NextNav and Polaris state that calibration of the barometric 
sensors in their z-axis solutions would be software-based and thus 
would scale readily for widespread use. Polaris and NextNav also state 
that industry standards necessary to implement the barometric sensor-
based solutions tested in Stage Z are already adopted and that 
implementation of these standards is in the hands of carriers and 
device manufacturers. Based on these comments, we believe barometric 
sensor-based solutions are likely to be scalable and can be made 
readily available to wireless consumers within the timeframes required 
by the rules. We seek comment on this assessment and its underlying 
factual assumptions.
    27. We also seek comment on the potential for development and 
deployment of other new or emerging vertical location solutions that 
could be used to meet the proposed z-axis metric. The Commission has 
previously recognized that no single technological approach will solve 
the challenge of indoor location, and it adopted requirements 
applicable to CMRS providers that are technically feasible and 
technologically neutral ``so that providers can choose the most 
effective solutions from a range of options.'' We continue to believe 
that this approach should guide the adoption of any metric in this 
proceeding. CTIA states that other vertical location technologies and 
vendors will likely be ready for testing in 2019. We seek comment on 
the potential for widespread deployment and adoption of these or other 
alternatives within the timeframes required by the rules, as well as 
their likely performance in real-world conditions. Are there issues 
associated with implementing these solutions into

[[Page 13216]]

wireless network systems and production mobile devices, or scaling them 
for widespread use?
    28. We also seek comment on whether we should consider accelerating 
or otherwise altering the deployment timelines within the rules. Is a 
3-meter metric achievable more quickly than the current 2021 and 2023 
deadlines? If so, when should these deadlines be set? These deadlines 
also pertain to the carriers' option of using dispatchable location for 
vertical location accuracy. Must the timetables be adjusted for both 
options? Can CMRS providers achieve dispatchable location and complete 
work on the NEAD on an accelerated timeframe? If not, should the 
Commission decouple the choice of deploying z-axis technology from 
dispatchable location, and how would bifurcating CMRS providers' 
technology choice impact CMRS providers' incentives to deploy 
dispatchable location and complete work on the NEAD? If the Commission 
adopts a more stringent metric such as floor level or a +/- 2-meter 
vertical location standard, is it achievable within the current 
timeframes or would it take longer than the current timetable in the 
rules? Is it feasible to adopt both a more precise metric and to 
shorten compliance timetables? How should the Commission address the 
timeframes applicable to non-nationwide CMRS providers? How would 
changing the existing timeframes impact the compliance regime for 
vertical location accuracy?

E. Z-Axis Data Privacy and Security

    29. We seek comment on the appropriate data privacy and security 
framework for z-axis data. In 2015 the Commission established rules 
governing CMRS provider usage of the National Emergency Address 
Database (NEAD). In doing so, the Commission stated that ``certain 
explicit requirements on individual CMRS providers are necessary to 
ensure the privacy and security of NEAD data and any other information 
involved in the determination and delivery of dispatchable location.'' 
In the same Order the Commission required that, ``as a condition of 
using the NEAD or any information contained therein to meet our 911 
location requirements, and prior to use of the NEAD, CMRS providers 
must certify that they will not use the NEAD or associated data for any 
purpose other than for the purpose of responding to 911 calls, except 
as required by law.'' We seek comment on whether use of z-axis data 
should be limited to 911 calls except as otherwise required by law and 
if such a limitation should be implemented and codified in a manner 
similar to the limitations applicable to the NEAD described above.

F. Comparison of Benefits and Costs

    30. We now seek comment on which z-axis metric would allow us to 
achieve the anticipated level of benefits in the most cost-effective 
manner. Specifically, because the alternative metrics have an effect on 
both costs and benefits, we seek comment on how the benefits and costs 
of the proposed z-axis metric of 3 meters for 80% of calls compares to 
the benefits and costs of alternative metrics. We seek comment on the 
expected number of lives saved by adopting a 3-meter metric, versus a 
2-meter or 5-meter metric. We also seek comment on the expected number 
of lives that would be saved if we required CMRS providers to identify 
floor level when reporting z-axis information. In the Fourth Report and 
Order, the Commission concluded that the location accuracy rules, 
including the z-axis accuracy metric, would improve emergency response 
times, which, in turn, would improve patient outcomes and save lives. 
The Commission found that the location accuracy improvements that it 
adopted had the potential to save 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. The 
Commission characterized this $92 billion as an annual benefit floor 
value because it also expected substantial, unquantifiable benefits 
from the reduction of human suffering and loss of property. The 
Commission further found that the costs of implementing the available 
solutions to achieve the indoor wireless location accuracy standards 
were far less than the $92 billion benefit floor, with the costs 
further declining as demand grew.
    31. We now seek comment on how the benefits and costs of the 
proposed z-axis metric of 3 meters for 80% of calls compares to the 
benefits and costs of alternative metrics. We tentatively conclude that 
a z-axis metric of 3 meters for 80% of calls strikes the best balance 
between benefits and costs. As noted above, some public safety 
commenters identify a 3-meter metric as providing sufficient accuracy 
to identify the caller's floor level in most cases. Accordingly, a 3-
meter metric would manifest the benefits of location accuracy described 
in the Fourth Report and Order. The record contains evidence that 
supports a finding that the costs of implementing a 3-meter metric are 
themselves low, at least on a per-handset basis. NextNav asserts that 
its z-axis solution, which requires only software changes to be made to 
each handset, could be made available for a nominal cost that amounts 
to significantly less than a penny per month per handset and would 
impose no incremental cost burdens on new handsets. Polaris states that 
its z-axis solution is ``objectively affordable'' because it is 
software-based, does not require hardware in networks or markets, and 
``does not require anything special in devices beyond implementation of 
adopted 3GPP and OMA standards.'' Polaris' solution also is ``instantly 
available and deployable throughout a carrier's nationwide network.'' 
As the Commission noted in the Fourth Report and Order, we continue to 
expect that these costs will decline as demand grows.
    32. We tentatively conclude that the value of a 3-meter metric 
exceeds that of a 5-meter standard because a 5-meter metric would 
result in a significant reduction in the benefits described above. As 
commenters have indicated, a 5-meter metric could indicate a location 
up to 2 floors below, or up to 2 floors above, the actual floor where a 
911 caller may be located. This large search range would make it far 
more likely that first responders would need to search 2 or more 
additional floors, significantly increasing average emergency response 
times and consequently degrading patient outcomes. Due to the likely 
degradation of patient outcomes with a 5-meter metric, we tentatively 
conclude that a 3-meter metric provides greater value. We seek comment 
on this tentative conclusion, including on the marginal benefits and 
costs of a 3-meter metric versus a 5-meter metric.
    33. We also tentatively conclude that, at this time, the value of a 
3-meter metric exceeds that of a 2-meter metric. We acknowledge that a 
2-meter metric would further improve the accuracy of 911 calls by 
increasing the likelihood that the caller's floor level could be 
identified with certainty, which would further improve emergency 
response times and patient outcomes. In other words, while the margins 
of both the 2-meter and 3-meter search ranges could extend one level 
above and below a caller's floor level, a greater portion of the 2-
meter search range is likely to be concentrated at the correct floor 
level. However, because we tentatively conclude that existing solutions 
are unlikely to achieve 2-meter accuracy for 80% of E911 calls prior to 
the deadlines established by our rules, we expect that adopting a 2-
meter metric would likely cause developers of z-axis solutions to incur 
substantial development, testing,

[[Page 13217]]

and implementation costs, without any guarantee of achieving the 2-
meter metric before the deadline. Rather than force these expenditures 
in pursuit of additional benefits that may not materialize on-schedule, 
we tentatively conclude that there is greater value in adopting the 
certain benefits of the achievable 3-meter metric. In addition, we 
observe that any delay in deployment of z-axis solutions necessitated 
by a 2-meter metric would also delay realization of the benefits of 
improved location accuracy--i.e., improved emergency response times, 
better patient outcomes, and lives saved. We seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion, including on the marginal benefits and costs of a 
2-meter metric versus a 3-meter or 5-meter metric. We also seek comment 
on how the benefits and costs of requiring CMRS providers to identify 
floor level when reporting z-axis information would compare to the 
benefits and costs of providing z-axis information as AGL or MSL 
height. Are these costs and benefits any different for non-nationwide 
providers as opposed to nationwide providers?
    34. We seek comment on our analysis and tentative conclusions as to 
the comparative value of these z-axis metrics. Are there ways to more 
precisely quantify the differences in patient outcomes that would arise 
from the adoption of 2-, 3-, and 5-meter metrics? For example, under 
each of these metrics, in what percentage of calls would the floor 
reported to first responders be the correct one? How much additional 
time is necessary for first responders to search additional floors of a 
building if the 911 caller is not on the first floor that they search? 
How much more time would be required for a first responder to find a 
911 caller if a 5-meter metric were adopted, as compared to adoption of 
a 3-meter metric? How much less time would be required for a first 
responder to find a 911 caller if a 2-meter metric were adopted? What 
costs would arise from implementing z-axis solutions to meet a 3-meter 
metric that would not exist when implementing a 5-meter metric? What is 
the projected amount of those costs? Are there z-axis solutions for 
which the cost of satisfying a 3-meter metric is the same or negligible 
when compared to the costs of implementing a 5-meter metric? Are there 
any alternative z-axis metrics that have not been addressed that we 
should consider?

IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    35. 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 Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (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 Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    36. The Notice advances the Commission's goal of ensuring ``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 an emergency.'' In the 
Notice, the Commission proposes to adopt a metric to more precisely 
identify the location of a 911 wireless caller located in a multi-story 
building. More specifically, we propose to require the provisioning of 
vertical location (z-axis) information that would enable first 
responders to identify the caller's floor level for most wireless calls 
to 911 from multi-story buildings, which represents a critical element 
to achieving the Commission's indoor location accuracy objectives. 
Consistent with the regulatory framework established in the last major 
revision of the Commission's wireless location accuracy rules in 2015 
and the information developed in the associated docket, this Notice 
proposes a z-axis location accuracy metric of 3 meters above or below a 
handset for 80 percent of wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) indoor calls. As 
alternatives, we seek comment on different metrics of two or five 
meters, as well as potentially revised time frames depending on the 
precision of the metric adopted. Our proposed metric, if adopted, could 
augment the ability of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and first 
responders to more accurately identify the floor level for most 911 
calls made from multi-story buildings, reduce emergency response times, 
and, ultimately, save lives. It also implements the final element of 
the Commission's existing indoor location accuracy regime, which 
already includes a timetable for Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
providers to deliver vertical location information by deploying either 
dispatchable location or z-axis technology in specific geographic 
areas. Our proposed z-axis metric will provide certainty to all parties 
and establish a focal point for further testing, development, and 
implementation of evolving z-axis location technologies.

B. Legal Basis

    37. 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, 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.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Will Apply

    38. 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.
    39. 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.
    40. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is

[[Page 13218]]

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).
    41. 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
    42. Pursuant to 47 CFR Sec.  20.18(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 requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice 
service to consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale 
rates from CMRS licensees.''
    43. 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.
    44. 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.
    45. 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.
    46. 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.
    47. 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

[[Page 13219]]

standard, the majority of incumbent LECs can be considered small 
entities.
    48. 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.
    49. 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 1000 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).
    50. 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 are small.
    51. 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 1000 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.
    52. 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.
    53. 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 1000 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.
    54. 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) and the appropriate size 
standard for this category under the 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 fewer than 
1,000 employees and 12 firms had 1000 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.
    55. 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

[[Page 13220]]

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.
    56. 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. 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.
    57. 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.
    58. 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.
    59. 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
    60. 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 size standard for 
this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 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.
    61. 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.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    62. The Notice proposes and seeks comment on a z-axis (vertical) 
location accuracy metric that will, if adopted, affect the reporting, 
recordkeeping and/

[[Page 13221]]

or other compliance requirements of nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS 
providers, including small businesses. Under the current rules, by 
2021, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy either (1) dispatchable 
location, or (2) z-axis technology that achieves the Commission-
approved z-axis metric, which metric is yet to be adopted, in each of 
the top 25 Cellular Market Areas. CMRS providers must deploy z-axis 
technology to cover 80 percent of the Cellular Market Areas population 
if z-axis technology is used. By 2021, nationwide CMRS providers must 
deploy dispatchable location or z-axis technology pursuant to the 
metric that will be adopted by the Commission in each of the top 50 
Cellular Market Areas. Non-nationwide carriers, including resellers, 
that serve any of the top 25 or 50 CMAs will have an additional year to 
meet the two benchmarks (i.e., until 2022 for the top 25 Cellular 
Market Areas and 2024 for the top 50 Cellular Market Areas). Thus, 
under the Commission's proposal, CMRS nationwide and non-nationwide 
CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology will be required to 
provide vertical location information within 3 meters under the 
Commission's existing timelines. As alternatives, we seek comment on 
different metrics of two or five meters, as well as potentially revised 
time frames depending on the precision of the metric adopted.
    63. We have tentatively concluded, based on the z-axis solution 
test results and other comments, that a metric of 3 meters for 80% of 
indoor calls is technically achievable and that z-axis solutions 
capable of meeting this metric can be deployed within the timeframes 
established in the rules. As described further below, we also have 
tentatively concluded that the cost of compliance with the 3-meter 
metric is relatively low. Small entities may incur costs associated 
with software and/or hardware changes and may need to employ engineers 
or other experts in order to comply with the proposal in the Notice. 
However, the technology solution a small entity chooses to implement 
the requirement will determine the nature of the costs it incurs.
    64. We anticipate that small entities would have a choice of 
vendors with z-axis technology solutions, which will lessen their costs 
to comply with the proposed rule, if adopted. One of the vendors that 
participated in Stage Z testing, NextNav, asserts that its z-axis 
solution requires only software changes to be made to each handset 
could be made available for a nominal cost that amounts to 
significantly less than a penny per month per handset. Another test 
vendor, Polaris, asserts that its solution is instantly available and 
deployable throughout a carrier's nationwide network. Polaris also 
asserts that its solution is ``objectively affordable'' because it is 
software-based, does not require hardware in networks or markets, and 
``does not require anything special in devices beyond implementation of 
adopted 3GPP and OMA standards.'' Further, with the addition of 
vertical location technologies and vendors into the market, small 
entities will have more implementation options, which could further 
reduce their cost of compliance. As noted above, Google has announced 
that it has developed and is deploying its Emergency Location System 
(ELS) in the U.S. for Android devices. Google states that ELS is ``a 
supplemental service that sends enhanced location directly from Android 
handsets to emergency services when an emergency call is placed.'' 
Google also states that ELS is part of the Android operating system and 
does not require any special hardware or updates. Moreover, as the 
Commission noted in the Fourth Report and Order, we continue to expect 
that these technology costs will decline as demand grows.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    65. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
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 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 small 
entities.
    66. Based on a comparison of the benefits and costs to alternatives 
metrics, the Commission believes that the 3-meter metric that it 
proposes to adopt is the most cost-effective option for achieving the 
Commission's objectives in this proceeding while avoiding undue burdens 
on all entities. The metric should benefit all entities by giving 
certainty in selecting an option for complying with the Commission's 
rules. While the rule proposed in the Notice would apply to all 
nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS in the same manner, the Commission 
has already taken steps to accommodate smaller non-nationwide CMRS 
providers by supplying additional time to comply with any vertical 
location accuracy benchmarks ultimately adopted by the Commission. The 
rules also already establish that nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS 
providers may choose to provide dispatchable location or deploy z-axis 
technology; and they give non-nationwide CMRS providers an additional 
year to comply with the Commission's z-axis benchmarks. In addition, 
the proposed rule gives small entities the freedom to choose a solution 
that best fits their financial situation, rather than imposing a 
specific z-axis technology solution, which should minimize the economic 
impact on these entities. The Commission does not believe that the 
costs and/or administrative burdens associated with the proposed rule 
would unduly burden small entities and expects to more fully consider 
the economic impact and alternatives for small entities following the 
review of comments filed in response to the Notice. The metric the 
Commission proposes to adopt should benefit all entities by giving 
certainty in selecting an option for complying with the Commission's 
rules. Many CMRS providers likely would be able to avoid unnecessary 
costs by knowing that the Commission has chosen an accuracy metric of 3 
meters, which means they don't have to make an expensive attempt to 
satisfy a 2-meter metric by the implementation date specified in the 
rules. All CMRS providers, including small entities, should benefit 
from the scale economies provided to phone manufacturers who would be 
able to provision all phones to the same 3-meter standard adopted by 
the Commission. As alternatives, we seek comment on different metrics 
of two or five meters, as well as potentially revised time frames 
depending on the precision of the metric adopted.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    67. None.

V. Ordering Clauses

    68. 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-

[[Page 13222]]

First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 
Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that this Fourth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, is hereby adopted.
    69. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including 
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackon,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES

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

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a) 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c, unless 
otherwise noted.

0
2. Section 20.18 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(C) 
introductory text and paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(D) to read as follows:


Sec.  20.18   911 Service.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) By April 3, 2021: In each of the top 25 CMAs, nationwide CMRS 
providers shall deploy either dispatchable location, or z-axis 
technology in compliance 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.
* * * * *
    (D) By April 3, 2023: In each of the top 50 CMAs, nationwide CMRS 
providers shall deploy either dispatchable location, or z-axis 
technology in compliance 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.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-06012 Filed 4-3-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P