Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, 2683-2692 [2019-28482]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
use of the PMN substance in a manner
that results in inhalation exposure.
(ii) Release to water. Requirements as
specified in § 721.90(a)(4), (b)(4), and
(c)(4), where N=50.
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph (b).
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in
§ 721.125(a) through (c), (i), and (k) are
applicable to manufacturers, importers,
and processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
(3) Determining whether a specific use
is subject to this section. The provisions
of § 721.1725(b)(1) apply to paragraph
(a)(2)(i) of this section.
§ 721.11452 Phosphonomethylated ether
diamine (generic).
(a) Chemical substance and
significant new uses subject to reporting.
(1) The chemical substance identified
generically as phosphonomethylated
ether diamine (PMN P–18–264) is
subject to reporting under this section
for the significant new uses described in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(2) The significant new uses are:
(i) Industrial, commercial, and
consumer activities. It is a significant
new use to manufacture, processing or
use of the PMN substance in a manner
that results in inhalation exposure.
(ii) [Reserved]
(b) Specific requirements. The
provisions of subpart A of this part
apply to this section except as modified
by this paragraph (b).
(1) Recordkeeping. Recordkeeping
requirements as specified in
§ 721.125(a) through (c) and (i) are
applicable to manufacturers, importers,
and processors of this substance.
(2) Limitations or revocation of
certain notification requirements. The
provisions of § 721.185 apply to this
section.
[FR Doc. 2019–26292 Filed 1–15–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 9
[PS Docket No. 07–114; FCC 19–124; FRS
16359]
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy
Requirements
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
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 zaxis 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: https://
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.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2683
• People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 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, Nellie.Foosaner@
fcc.gov; or Alex Espinoza, AttorneyAdvisor, Policy and Licensing Division,
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, (202) 418–0849,
Alex.Espinoza@fcc.gov.
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 §§ 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), https://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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2684
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 2meter metric? As part of that phased-in
approach should we require nationwide
CMRS providers to meet a 2-meter
metric within four years and nonnationwide 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 realworld 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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 privatelymaintained 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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 zaxis solutions that have already been
tested in the test bed (NextNav and
Polaris) are handset-based, i.e., the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2685
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 zaxis 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 handsetbased 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 zaxis capability? What steps could we
take to increase the number of older
devices and lifeline phones that are zaxis capable? Alternatively, should we
require CMRS providers to demonstrate
actual market penetration of z-axis
capable handsets, and if so, what
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2686
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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 nonnationwide 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 nonnationwide 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 nonnationwide CMRS providers. Nonnationwide 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 nonnationwide 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 costeffective. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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-
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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?
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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 zaxis 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
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2687
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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2688
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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 clientsupplied 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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, SharedTenant 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2689
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.
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2690
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 floorlevel 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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2691
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
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.
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:
■
§ 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) * * *
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
2692
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
(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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:59 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
(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
E:\FR\FM\16JAP1.SGM
16JAP1
Agencies
[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: https://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), https://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