Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, 2660-2675 [2019-28483]
Download as PDF
2660
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Commission’s website at https://
www.fcc.gov.
47 CFR Part 9
Synopsis
[PS Docket No. 07–114; FCC 19–124; FRS
16358]
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy
Requirements
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission (the FCC
or Commission) adopts a z-axis
(vertical) location accuracy metric of
plus or minus 3 meters for 80 percent
of indoor wireless E911 calls for z-axis
capable handsets. The Commission also
requires nationwide commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) providers to
deploy dispatchable location or z-axis
technology that meets this metric in the
top 25 markets by April 3, 2021 and in
the top 50 markets by April 3, 2023. The
Commission also extends privacy
protections to z-axis data conveyed with
911 calls.
DATES:
Effective date: March 16, 2020.
Compliance date: Compliance will
not be required for § 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and
(D), (i)(4)(v), and (j)(4) until the
Commission publishes a document in
the Federal Register announcing the
compliance date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nellie Foosaner, Attorney-Advisor,
Policy and Licensing Division, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
(202) 418–2925 or via email at
Nellie.Foosaner@fcc.gov; Alex Espinoza,
Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing
Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, (202) 418–0849 or via
email at Alex.Espinoza@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Fifth
Report and Order, FCC 19–124, adopted
on November 22, 2019 and released on
November 25, 2019. The complete text
of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street SW, Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (TTY). The complete text of
the order also is available on the
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
I. Introduction
1. All Americans using mobile
phones—whether they are calling from
urban or rural areas, buildings or
outdoor venues—should have the
capability to dial 911 and receive the
support they need in times of an
emergency. Consumers make 240
million calls to 911 each year, and in
many areas 80% or more of these calls
are from wireless phones. While
advances in technology have improved
the overall ability of first responders to
locate 911 callers, challenges remain
particularly for locating 911 callers in
multi-story buildings.
2. To ensure that first responders and
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs)
can find 911 callers quickly and
accurately when a consumer calls from
a multi-story building, we adopt a
vertical, or z-axis, location accuracy
metric of plus or minus 3 meters relative
to the handset for each of the
benchmarks and geographic
requirements previously established in
the Commission’s E911 wireless
location accuracy rules. This action will
more accurately identify the floor level
for most 911 calls, reduce emergency
response times, and save lives.
II. Background
3. The Commission has been working
with the public safety community and
industry partners to ensure the accurate
delivery of 911 vertical location
information for the better part of a
decade. In 2011, the Commission tasked
the Communications Security,
Reliability, and Interoperability Council
(CSRIC) with testing indoor location
accuracy technologies, including
barometric pressure sensors, in a test
bed. CSRIC conducted tests on a variety
of technologies in 2012, and the results
showed that at least one vendor—
NextNav LLC (NextNav)—could locate a
caller’s vertical location within 3 meters
more than 67% of the time in dense
urban, urban, and rural morphologies.
In 2013, NextNav conducted additional
testing on the second generation of its
location technology and reported that it
provided callers’ vertical location
within 3.2 meters 80% of the time,
across all morphologies. Accordingly, in
2014, the Commission proposed
measures and timeframes to improve
location accuracy for wireless E911 calls
originating indoors, including, among
others, a 3-meter z-axis metric for 80%
of such calls.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
4. In 2015, the Commission adopted
rules for improving E911 wireless
location accuracy. Under these rules,
CMRS providers must meet a series of
accuracy benchmarks by either
conveying dispatchable location (e.g.,
street address, floor level, and office or
apartment number) or coordinate-based
location information to the appropriate
PSAP. For vertical location, the
Commission required wireless providers
to provide either dispatchable location
using the National Emergency Address
Database (NEAD) or vertical (z-axis)
location information in compliance with
the FCC-approved metric. If
dispatchable location is used, there
must be a density of NEAD reference
points distributed throughout the
cellular market area (CMA) equivalent
to 25% of the population in that CMA.
If z-axis location technology is used, it
must be deployed to cover 80% of the
CMA population. Nationwide CMRS
providers must meet these benchmarks
in each of the top 25 CMAs by April 3,
2021 and in each of the top 50 CMAs
by April 3, 2023. Non-nationwide CMRS
providers that serve any of the top 25 or
50 Cellular Market Areas have an
additional year to meet these
benchmarks. In addition, the
Commission required the nationwide
CMRS providers to test and develop a
proposed z-axis accuracy metric and
submit the proposed metric to the
Commission for approval by August 3,
2018.
5. On August 3, 2018, CTIA submitted
the ‘‘Stage Z Test Report’’ (Report or
Stage Z Test Report) on behalf of the
four nationwide CMRS providers.
According to the Report, Stage Z testing
sought to assess the accuracy of
solutions that use barometric pressure
sensors in the handset for determining
altitude in support of E911. Two
vendors, NextNav and Polaris Wireless,
Inc. (Polaris), participated in Stage Z.
The test results showed that in 80% of
NextNav test calls, vertical location was
identified to a range of 1.8 meters or
less, while 80% of Polaris test calls
yielded a vertical accuracy range of 4.8
meters or less. The Report noted that
Polaris’ performance ‘‘could likely be
significantly improved should a more
robust handset barometric sensor
calibration approach [than that used in
the test bed] be applied.’’
6. In its August 3, 2018, cover letter
submitting the Report, CTIA stated that
the test results provided ‘‘helpful
insight’’ into the state of z-axis
technologies, but that ‘‘significant
questions remain about performance
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
and scalability in live wireless 9–1–1
calling environments.’’ On behalf of the
four nationwide wireless providers,
CTIA therefore proposed a z-axis metric
of ‘‘5 meters for 80% of fixes from
mobile devices capable of delivering
barometric pressure sensor-based
altitude estimates.’’ CTIA also stated
that further testing of vertical location
technologies could yield results to
validate adoption of a more accurate zaxis metric. On September 10, 2018, the
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau (Bureau) released a Public
Notice seeking comment on the Report
and the carriers’ proposed z-axis metric.
7. In March 2019, the Commission
released the Fourth Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth Further
NPRM) in this proceeding (84 FR 13211
(April 4, 2019)). There, we proposed a
z-axis metric of 3 meters relative to the
handset for 80% of indoor wireless E911
calls for each of the benchmarks and
geographic requirements previously
established in the Commission’s E911
wireless location accuracy rules. Based
on existing test data from the two
vendors that participated in the industry
test bed, we tentatively concluded that
achieving this standard was technically
feasible. We also tentatively concluded
that unlike the 5-meter standard
originally proposed by the wireless
carriers, a 3-meter standard would
provide sufficient accuracy to identify
the caller’s floor level in most cases. We
sought comment on adopting a stricter
2-meter metric but tentatively
concluded that it was not yet
technically achievable on a consistent
basis, although it could become
achievable in the longer term as
technology continues to evolve.
8. In response to the Fourth Further
NPRM, the Commission received 20
comments and 11 reply comments, filed
by public safety entities, vendors,
wireless carriers, technology companies,
and industry associations.
III. Fifth Report and Order
9. We adopt a 3-meter z-axis 911
location accuracy metric to be
implemented by the April 2021 and
2023 vertical accuracy deadlines as
proposed in the Fourth Further NPRM.
Numerous commenters, including
public safety entities, vendors, and
carriers, agree that implementing the
proposed 3-meter metric within existing
timelines will benefit public safety and
is technically feasible. Although some
industry commenters contend that we
should take a phased approach or delay
adopting a metric pending further
testing, and some public safety
commenters advocate adopting stricter
accuracy standards for the 2021 and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
2023 deadlines, we find these
arguments unpersuasive.
A. The 3-Meter Metric
10. We agree with commenters who
conclude that a 3-meter metric will
bring real public safety benefits to the
American public and is technically
feasible in the near term. A broad crosssection of public safety commenters
agree that, in the near term, a 3-meter
metric will meet public safety needs and
will provide actionable information to
first responders. Public safety
organizations in support of the 3-meter
metric include the International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the
International Association of Chiefs of
Police (IACP), the National Association
of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO), the
National Sheriffs’ Association (IAFC et
al.); International Association of Fire
Fighters (IAFF); NENA: The 9–1–1
Association (NENA); State of Florida
Department of Management Services,
Division of Telecommunications,
Bureau of Public Safety (Florida); and
Texas 9–1–1 Alliance, the Texas
Commission on State Emergency
Communications (CSEC), and the
Municipal Emergency Communication
Districts Association (Texas 911
Entities). The Boulder Emergency
Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA)
notes that ‘‘floor-level accuracy is a
critical objective, and 3-meter accuracy
is floor level accuracy.’’ The
International Association of Fire
Fighters states that the Commission was
‘‘correct in concluding that a 3 meters
vertical accuracy requirement ‘will
significantly narrow the scope of the
search and can provide a reasonable
basis for identifying the correct floor in
most cases.’ ’’ For example, in-building
tests that International Association of
Fire Fighters conducted in July 2014
using NextNav technology showed
significant improvement in search time
compared to searching without any
vertical location information
component. The International
Association of Fire Fighters asserts that
‘‘vertical altitude information can
provide a substantial improvement in
search effectiveness in multistory
structures, even without a precise floor
number or a dispatchable address.’’
Texas 911 Entities supports immediate
adoption of a 3-meter metric on the
grounds that ‘‘the ‘perfect’ should not be
the enemy of the ‘good.’ ’’ The
International Association of Fire Chiefs
similarly supports adopting a 3 meter
metric and then narrowing the metric
‘‘over a timeframe as technology
develops.’’
11. What is more, we find that
implementing the 3-meter metric on
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2661
schedule is technically feasible. Two
vendors have consistently shown in
testing that they can meet or surpass
this standard. Since 2012, NextNav has
repeatedly achieved 3-meter accuracy in
multiple independently-conducted
tests. In the Stage Z test bed, NextNav’s
technology was accurate within 1.8
meters or better for 80% of indoor fixes
and 3 meters or better for 94% of indoor
fixes. In other words, NextNav’s
technology is capable of ‘‘consistent
performance within an accuracy metric
of 3 meters or less.’’
12. Polaris too can achieve accuracy
within 2.8 meters for 80% of test calls
by using additional available location
data to recalibrate and refine its Stage Z
data. Although Polaris did not employ
active calibration of the barometric
sensors during Stage Z testing, the Stage
Z Report acknowledges that the test
results for Polaris ‘‘may underestimate
the performance results that might be
achieved’’ if a calibration approach had
been employed. We agree with Polaris
that its technology can deliver 3-meter
accuracy, and with NextNav that ‘‘the
Stage Z test process confirmed, once
again, that existing location
technologies available from multiple
vendors can reliably achieve floor level
vertical accuracy within +/¥3 meters
for at least 80 percent of indoor wireless
calls to E911 emergency services.’’
13. The record suggests that other
technological options for vertical
location accuracy are emerging, and
that, as T-Mobile describes, the market
is driving innovation in location
accuracy technology for E911. Airwave
Developers LLC (AWD) submits that
Citizens Broadband Radio Service
(CBRS) technology low cost antennas
installed on each floor of a building will
generate data allowing for the PSAP to
pinpoint the floor from which the
wireless call was made. In 2018, CTIA
announced nationwide wireless
providers AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and
Verizon were adding new locationbased tools with existing wireless 9–1–
1 location technologies by the end of
that year. Two device based approaches
are Apple’s delivery of Hybridized
Emergency Location (HELO) data and
Google’s Android Emergency Location
Service (ELS). Apple has announced
that it will use new technology to
quickly and securely share Hybridized
Emergency Location information with
911 call centers. The HELO ‘‘solution
has offered z- axis estimates and
uncertainties beginning in 2013, and
those estimates have been consumed by
carriers since its first adoption in 2015.’’
Apple has committed to improving its
vertical, as well as horizontal, location
accuracy and will participate in CTIA’s
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
2662
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
z-axis testing by the end of 2020. Google
in turn has described its Emergency
Location Service solution, which can
record and report z-axis information, as
a feature fully integrated in the
operating system on 99% of Android
handsets that makes handset location
known when the user initiates an
emergency call or text. Google plans to
test the vertical accuracy capabilities of
its Emergency Location Service solution
in Stage Za. In short, companies are
actively exploring new types of cellular
air interfaces for location accuracy
‘‘including 5G interfaces, additional
satellite constellations, and other
wireless infrastructure, such as Wi-Fi
access points, Bluetooth beacons and
small cells, as well as information
provided by sensors within today’s
smartphones.’’
14. We further conclude that adopting
the 3-meter metric will keep
deployment of z-axis information to
public safety officials on schedule.
Public safety commenters support the
current 2021 and 2023 deadlines for
applying the z-axis metric and oppose
delay for further testing. The
International Association of Fire
Fighters finds it ‘‘inconceivable . . .
that either the Commission or the public
safety community would allow
themselves to get this close to achieving
a historic benefit in the capabilities of
emergency services and so much as
hesitate in taking the next step.’’
BRETSA maintains that ‘‘[a]doption of a
vertical location standard will benefit
the public’’ and ‘‘additional testing
should not delay provision of the public
benefit.’’ Vendors also support adoption
of a z-axis metric without further delay.
NextNav states ‘‘[n]ot only would
further delay pose a continued risk to
public safety, but it is also unclear
whether it would appreciably improve
the information that is currently
available to the Commission.’’ AWD
notes that current technology is able to
meet the 3-meter metric.
15. We disagree with commenters that
raise a number of objections. To start,
we disagree with commenters like
Google, who argue for a ‘‘phased’’
approach that would involve setting a 4meter metric initially and tightening the
metric to 3 meters by 2023. Google
argues that ‘‘[w]hile major progress has
been made, consensus has not been
reached on the appropriate z-axis
metric, and the full capabilities of
alternative technologies cannot yet be
determined,’’ so that a phased approach
would ‘‘better reflect[ ] the current
abilities and future promise of vertical
location technologies.’’ We believe
sufficient testing that has already
occurred and that the technology trends
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
that Google itself cites validate our
conclusion that 3 meters is already
technically feasible and provides the
appropriate metric for the development
of alternative new technologies.
16. Similarly, we disagree with
commenters who ask us to delay action
for further testing. To start, we note that
these arguments ring hollow when
several CMRS providers—those who
bear direct responsibility for complying
with the 3-meter metric on schedule—
are on record as supporting adoption of
the 3-meter metric without further
testing. For example, AT&T favors the
Commission’s proposal because ‘‘it will
give the industry certainty and advance
the development process necessary to
meet the 2021 and 2023 vertical location
accuracy benchmarks in the Fourth
Report & Order [80 FR 11806 (March 4,
2015)].’’ CTIA reiterates that it supports
the proposed z-axis metric without
changes, having previously stated that
‘‘[t]he Fourth Further [NPRM] offers a
reasoned approach to the definition of
floor level accuracy as part of the
proposed z-axis metric: within 3 meters
above or below the vertical location
provided by the phone.’’ And Verizon
supports the Commission’s proposed
metric, stating that it is ‘‘a good target
for 9–1–1 calls from devices with the
necessary capability.’’ Google also
supports a 3 meter metric and asks that
our approach remain technology neutral
so that CMRS providers may select the
technology to meet their location
accuracy obligations.
17. More specifically, we disagree
with Google and Qualcomm that there
has been insufficient testing of
barometric sensor-based technologies in
extreme cold-weather conditions.
Although CTIA and Qualcomm note
that NextNav was unable to participate
in Stage Z winter testing in Chicago, we
do not consider this to be sufficient
reason to delay our decision. Polaris did
participate in Stage Z winter testing in
Chicago and achieved results that were
comparable to the results it achieved in
the other test bed locations in more
moderate weather conditions. Moreover,
as BRETSA states, ‘‘[e]ven if vertical
location results would be less accurate
during episodes of climactic extremes;
that cannot justify delaying adoption of
a standard and deployment of vertical
location technologies which have been
proven in common weather conditions.’’
Finally, despite its own complaints
about a lack of cold weather data, CTIA
waited to conduct Stage Za testing to
conclude in late 2019, so it will be
unable to provide winter test data for at
least another year. We cannot accept
such a long delay in adopting a metric,
given that two vendors can meet the
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
metric and there are emerging devicebased solutions.
18. We disagree with Google that
additional testing is needed in rural
morphologies. The rural morphology is
‘‘the sparsest environment overall’’ and
is mostly residential, with most
structures between 1 and 2 stories high.
As Verizon notes, urban areas are
important for vertical location accuracy
because ‘‘[i]t is in these areas where
multi-story buildings are concentrated,
so service providers should focus their
deployments on urban and dense urban
areas within the covered CMAs.’’ In
these morphologies, the test bed shows
that NextNav’s solution would meet a 3meter metric. Additionally, NextNav’s
technology was tested for vertical
accuracy in rural areas during the
original CSRIC Test Bed conducted in
2012, and NextNav’s results from that
testing fell within 3 meters for 80% of
all calls. In the Addendum to the Stage
Z Report, Polaris explains that its results
in all morphologies would fall below 3
meters had it used limited active
calibration during the Stage Z test. The
Stage Z Test Report acknowledges that
Polaris did not employ continuous
calibration during the test and that
Polaris’ results ‘‘may underestimate the
performance results that might be
achieved using an effective continuous
(background) calibration algorithm for
each individual mobile device.’’
19. We also disagree with Apple’s
suggestion that we should delay action
based on concerns that the test bed did
not adequately test z-axis solutions
under real-world conditions. Apple
states that results were obtained in the
test bed ‘‘only under conditions that
deviate significantly from realistic user
patterns and constraints’’ and ‘‘do not
necessarily mean that a ±3 meter
accuracy metric is achievable by April
2021 in real-world circumstances.’’ In
fact, the testing was conducted in
multiple regions, morphologies, and
building configurations in order to
assess how z-axis technology would
perform in a variety of real-world
environments. Test bed procedures were
based on the recommendations of the
Commission’s fourth Communications,
Security, Reliability & Interoperability
Council (CSRIC IV), and testing
followed guidelines developed by the
Alliance for Telecommunications
Industry Solutions’ (ATIS) Emergency
Services Interconnection Forum (ESIF),
including ESIF’s Emergency Services
and Methodologies (ESM)
subcommittee. As the Stage Z Test
Report states, ‘‘ATIS provided
guidelines on test building and test
point selection and oversaw
implementation of the Test Bed by the
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Administrator-Executor. In addition,
Test Bed, LLC receives guidance from
the TAC, which includes
representatives of the nationwide
wireless service providers, as well as the
Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials International
(APCO) and the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA).’’
Although it is not possible for any test
bed to replicate every conceivable real
world scenario, we find the test bed
results to be sufficiently representative
and robust to support our establishment
of the 3-meter metric. We also agree
with NextNav that ‘‘not only would
further delay pose a continued risk to
public safety, but it is also unclear
whether it would appreciably improve
information that is currently available to
the Commission.’’
20. We also disagree with T-Mobile
that further testing is first needed with
a wider variety of handsets, including
older handsets. NextNav and Polaris
each tested six handsets, for a total of
twelve handsets, in Stage Z. These
handsets were selected by the test bed
administrator, not the vendors, and the
Report states that they were selected ‘‘to
ensure variety between sensor
manufacturers, the age of handsets
(within limits) and their overall use
characteristics.’’ The handsets used in
testing were ‘‘the same productionready handsets sold by wireless carriers
and available to the general public’’ and
did not contain any hardware
modification that would favor these
handsets over any commercially
available handsets. Thus, we adopt our
tentative conclusion from the Fourth
Further NPRM that a sufficient variety
of devices have been tested to support
moving forward with our proposed
3-meter metric at this time.
21. We also decline to adopt a 2-meter
metric, as suggested by BRETSA, at this
time. The record confirms that a 2-meter
metric is not technically feasible under
the existing timelines, although it may
become achievable in the long term as
technology continues to evolve.
22. Finally, we need not address
APCO’s suggestion in its comments that
the Commission proceed without
adopting a metric. In a recent ex parte
filing, APCO stated that based on the
record and its discussions with
stakeholders, it ‘‘does not recommend
that the Commission decline to adopt a
z-axis metric altogether.’’ APCO’s
revised position aligns with the views of
all other public safety commenters that
adopting a z-axis metric remains an
essential measure to ensure that first
responders receive important location
information when providing
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
dispatchable location is not feasible. We
agree.
B. Deployment
23. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we
proposed that the 3-meter z-axis metric
apply to 80% of calls from all handsets,
i.e., that to comply with the metric, zaxis technologies would have to be
demonstrated in the test bed to provide
3-meter accuracy for 80% of wireless
calls. We asked whether applying the
metric to 80% of wireless calls was
appropriate, and if not, what percentage
of calls would be appropriate. We also
noted that CTIA had proposed that its
5-meter metric apply only to ‘‘mobile
devices capable of delivering barometric
pressure sensor-based altitude
estimates.’’ We asked whether the z-axis
metric should only be applied to
devices with barometric pressure
sensors, or to devices manufactured
after a date certain, or whether it should
apply to all handsets, as we proposed.
We observed that to the extent that
CMRS providers elect to use solutions
that rely on barometric pressure
readings, nearly all smartphones on the
market appear to be equipped with
barometric pressure sensors. We
observed that barometric sensor-based
solutions are likely to be scalable and
can be made readily available to
wireless consumers within the
timeframes required by the rules. We
sought comment on this assessment and
its underlying factual assumptions. We
also sought comment on the potential
for development and deployment of
other new or emerging vertical location
solutions that could be used to meet the
proposed z-axis metric.
24. As proposed, we apply the 3meter accuracy metric to 80% of
wireless E911 calls. This is consistent
with our approach to E911 horizontal
accuracy, which requires wireless
carriers to meet horizontal accuracy
requirements for 80% of calls by April
2021. Thus, as the basis for validation
of any z-axis technology, we require
wireless carriers to demonstrate in the
test bed that the technology achieves
3-meter accuracy for 80% of wireless
E911 calls.
25. We also conclude that application
of the 3-meter metric should apply to all
handsets that have the capability to
support vertical location, regardless of
technology, not just new handsets or
barometric pressure sensor capable
handsets. We thus clarify that a device
will be considered ‘‘z-axis capable’’ so
long as it can measure and report
vertical location without a hardware
upgrade. Thus, devices that can be
modified to support vertical location by
means of a firmware or software
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2663
upgrade will be considered z-axis
capable. This definition makes clear that
any device technically capable of
measuring and reporting vertical
location information without a change
in hardware must be enabled to do so—
and actions by carriers, device
manufacturers, operating system
providers, chipmakers, or z-axis vendors
that would prohibit technically capable
devices from actually and effectively
measuring and reporting z-axis
information put the public and
emergency personnel at unacceptable
risk. We expect to closely monitor the
roll-out of z-axis capable devices to the
American public over the next two years
and take all appropriate action against
any company that obstructs the effective
deployment of such technologies in a
timely manner.
26. The record reflects that z-axis
capable devices are widely available.
NENA concludes that ‘‘it is safe to
assume that a comparatively small
portion of modern phones lack
[barometric pressure] sensors.’’ NENA
also states that market trends suggest an
increase in barometric pressure sensor
prevalence ‘‘as applications such as
fitness apps and small electronic
devices like standalone GPS and fitness
trackers increasingly incorporate
altitude measurements, driving
incentives to include [barometric
pressure] sensor hardware.’’ As Google
points out, the Fourth Report & Order
‘‘established benchmarks and timetables
clear enough to signal that development
of z-axis capability should be a top
priority.’’ Google states that ‘‘industry
has risen to the challenge with manifold
options to enable z-axis capability,’’
including the barometric pressure
sensor-based solutions developed by
NextNav and Polaris and ‘‘handsetbased solutions like ELS [that] have
been widely deployed around the
world.’’ Google credits this rapid and
widespread availability of z-axis capable
devices to the Commission’s flexible
and evolutionary approach to location
accuracy.
27. What is more, both NextNav and
Polaris have software-based solutions.
Thus, if carriers choose either of these
solutions, hardware upgrades to
handsets are not required and solutions
can be implemented by means of
software modifications that are readily
achievable ahead of the 2021 deadline.
The record describes scalable methods
of implementation for barometric-based
solutions that do not require hardware
changes.’’ As Polaris states, ‘‘[o]ne
method is to implement adopted 3GPP
[3rd Generation Partnership Project] and
OMA [Open Mobile Alliance] standards
for barometric compensation’’ which is
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
2664
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
a ‘‘firmware-based approach [that] is
achievable through cooperation among
carriers, device manufacturers, and
chipmakers.’’ Another method Polaris
describes is to ‘‘place necessary
functionality on devices,’’ which is a
‘‘software-based approach [that] is
achievable through cooperation among
carriers, location vendors, and device
Operating System providers.’’ Polaris
maintains that it ‘‘can support a variety
of implementation methodologies and
remains committed to work with
carriers and other involved parties to
implement any agreed upon
methodology.’’ NextNav also states
handsets can be made z-axis compliant
with over-the-air updates.
28. We disagree with some
commenters that suggest that old
handsets should be categorically
excluded from the rules; they do not
propose or provide a clear rationale for
a specific cutoff. Instead, we apply the
metric to all z-axis capable devices, as
supported by commenters like AT&T.
29. We also disagree with CTIA who
suggests we apply the metric only to
devices ‘‘equipped with barometers and
any other functionality necessary to
support barometric pressure-based
altitude estimation solutions.’’ As APCO
argues, this approach would violate the
principle of technological neutrality. We
have previously recognized that no
single technological approach will solve
the challenge of indoor location, and we
have consistently favored
technologically neutral rules ‘‘so that
providers can choose the most effective
solutions from a range of options.’’
Although both technologies tested in
Stage Z relied on barometric pressure
sensor capable handsets, and it is
possible that the carriers could adopt
barometric-based solutions exclusively,
other vertical location technologies may
develop that do not require a barometric
sensor in the handset. In fact, Google
has stated that its Stage Z testing will
include solutions that do not use
barometric pressure sensors. Therefore,
in order to preserve the technological
neutrality of the rules and encourage
development of the broadest possible
array of vertical location technologies,
the metric will not be limited to
barometric pressure sensor capable
handsets.
30. Qualcomm and Google raise a
concern that vertical location
technology needs to be standardized so
it can be ‘‘economically implemented.’’
However, Verizon states that ‘‘extensive
standardization work on vertical
location solutions has already been
completed,’’ and further work is under
way. Apple states that ‘‘vertical location
accuracy performance requirements
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
should be evaluated in the context of
solutions that must be implemented at
large scale, subject to real world
operational considerations,’’ and
‘‘[t]echnologies that depend on the
deployment of new infrastructure in
every major city to achieve even lessstringent performance metrics also raise
significant questions about the viability
of the tested approaches.’’ BRETSA also
comments that ‘‘one would expect the
accuracy of vertical location systems to
improve as they are deployed ‘‘at scale’’
and additional experience with them is
gained.’’ We also recognize that if
carriers use barometric sensor based
solutions, they will depend to some
extent on third parties to support proper
installation and calibration of
barometric sensors in user devices, and
that solutions will only work if the
systems are compatible and information
is correctly relayed between providers,
the handset and operating system
providers, and the PSAPs. However,
while we acknowledge CMRS providers’
concerns about their ability to compel
handset manufacturers and operating
system providers to cooperate, we
believe CMRS providers are capable of
negotiating requirements with such
third parties and establishing
contractual timelines that will enable
timely deployment of z-axis solutions in
time to meet the deadlines in the rules.
Moreover, the flexible, technologyneutral approach to location
requirements adopted in this order
removes uncertainty and will give
carriers greater leeway to negotiate with
competing vendors and to leverage
location solutions already being
developed by handset manufacturers
and operating system providers.
C. Reporting Z-Axis Location
Information
31. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we
sought comment on how CMRS
providers should report vertical location
information, noting that several
measurement methods exist.
Specifically, we sought comment on
whether reporting vertical location
information as height above ground
level (AGL) would be preferable to
reporting height above mean sea level
(MSL), and whether to require CMRS
providers to use one measurement
standard exclusively. We asked
commenters to address whether CMRS
providers should be required to identify
the floor level when reporting z-axis
information. Alternatively, we asked
whether we should decline to specify
this level of detail so that entities
developing z-axis solutions have more
flexibility.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32. We require CMRS providers to
report z-axis information as Height
Above Ellipsoid (HAE). In this regard,
NENA and several other commenters
point out that while vertical location
information can be reported in multiple
ways, e.g., HAE, MSL, or AGL, global
standards are being developed around
the measurement of such information as
a value in HAE in meters, as defined in
the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS–
84). NENA notes that 3GPP is
developing standards relating to
representation of vertical location
information that are based on HAE, and
industry commenters generally agree
with NENA that HAE has emerged as
the globally recognized standard for
generating z-axis measurements.
33. There is a general consensus
around using HAE as the baseline for
measuring vertical location, but we
recognize that the issue of how vertical
location information should be reported
to PSAPs is complex. ATIS ESIF argues
that individual PSAPs may have
different requirements for the
processing and formatting of vertical
location information, and that CMRS
providers should not be required to
convert location data into multiple
formats. ATIS, AT&T, and T-Mobile
suggest that CMRS providers should be
responsible only for providing raw
location data that meets the z-axis
metric, and that PSAPs should be
responsible for translating that data into
a floor number or other actionable
information. APCO counters that PSAPs
do not have the resources to convert raw
z-axis data to a floor number, ‘‘nor do
they have three-dimensional maps to
visualize raw z-axis information.’’
APCO argues that PSAPs ‘‘will be left
without actionable vertical location
information’’ unless CMRS providers
are required to convert z-axis data to a
floor level that is reported to the PSAP.
34. In arguing for floor level, APCO
says that the Commission should also
require carriers to provide floor level
identification. Given the need for timely
deployment on our existing timeline, we
disagree. While public safety
commenters broadly support the
delivery of floor level information, the
record is clear that it is not now
technically feasible to reliably convert zaxis information to an identified floor
level. ATIS states that ‘‘there currently
exists no data source that correlates any
form of z-axis data to a floor index or
floor label.’’ CTIA recognizes public
safety’s desire for the most actionable
information, but states that it ‘‘is not
aware of any z-axis technology solutions
that can produce specific floor level
information.’’ Apple observes ‘‘that
providing the ‘‘floor level’’ information
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
alongside a z-axis estimate would
necessarily require information on the
geodetic position of floors and
knowledge of the labels applied to
individual floors (e.g., ‘‘mezzanine’’,
‘‘courtyard’’),’’ and Apple is ‘‘not aware
of any sources for this information.’’
Apple also states that it is ‘‘unclear how
uncertainty information could be
effectively conveyed under such a
regime,’’ and that ‘‘both horizontal and
vertical uncertainty would be relevant
to floor level information, as buildings
implement floor levels in different
ways.’’ In support of its argument,
APCO cites an academic paper and
trade press reports on emerging floor
level reporting technologies, stating that
they prove providing floor level is
already technically feasible. Other
commenters take issue with APCO
sources, and CTIA points out that APCO
claims are not supported by testing.
While the sources cited by APCO
suggest potential floor level location
solutions may be on the horizon, the
record here reflects that such solutions
are untested and not yet sufficiently
mature to support a comprehensive
floor level requirement. Further, as
NENA and BRETSA recognize, floor
heights are not standard and an
authoritative database for the mapping
of floors in a given building does not yet
exist, while building characteristics
themselves vary greatly and floor
numbering is not always consistent.
Verizon notes that ‘‘floor level accuracy
may depend at least in part on
participation by not only service
providers and vendors but third party
building owners and tenants—which
would have technical feasibility and
jurisdictional implications beyond the
scope of the rules contemplated in this
proceeding based on test bed
performance to date.’’
35. Current vertical location
technology does not support floor level
identification, and some public safety
commenters, including the International
Association of Fire Fighters and the
International Association of Fire Chiefs,
state that, contrary to APCO’s view, zaxis data can provide actionable
information to first responders. As they
put it: ‘‘Unlike x/y data, which must be
translated from lengthy coordinates to
an approximate street address, Height
Above Ellipsoid (HAE) altitude data is
transmitted in digestible numbers,
extending no more than two decimal
points. While technologies exist that
allow an Emergency Communications
Center to translate vertical data from
HAE to Height Above Ground Level,
emergency responders can act upon the
data when it is delivered in either
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
format by simply matching altitude
information on their own equipment
using an HAE-capable application,
device or dedicated wearable display.’’
And other public safety organizations
like NENA agree.
36. We agree and reject the notion that
the only ‘‘actionable’’ data we can
mandate today is a floor estimate. Many
buildings, including the Commission’s
headquarters, have non-standard floor
numbering schemes, which may not
begin on Floor 1 but, instead, ‘‘Lobby,’’
‘‘Main,’’ or ‘‘Ground.’’ Some buildings
skip Floor 13. There is significant risk
of error to solutions that assume groundlevel floor numbers or standard floor
numbering patterns. The record does
not show that this risk can be mitigated
sufficiently in the near-term such that
we could proceed immediately with a
decision that requires a floor-level
solution. Besides, to first responders, a
true height measurement may be more
valuable than floor level information.
Floors can collapse, rendering a floor
estimate less useful. Floor numbering
can be difficult to track in an
emergency. First responders may not
know on what floor they are entering a
building, or they may become
disoriented during a lengthy search.
They may not know whether ‘‘Floor X’’
is above or below them, but by attaching
a true height device to their gear, they
may be able to learn how close they are
to a victim as they approach the origin
of a 911 call. This functionality may
prove very useful to first responders
who try to locate downed or disoriented
teammates in an emergency. And a true
height measurement is useful (unlike a
floor estimate) to a first responder
searching outside for a person in need
of help.
37. For all these reasons, we decline
to require CMRS providers to report
floor level where it is not technically
feasible to do so and instead require that
they deliver z-axis information in HAE.
However, we agree with Texas 911
Entities that in cases where the carrier
has reliable information about the
caller’s floor level, they should provide
it.
38. We require CMRS providers to
deliver z-axis information in HAE, and
we do not require CMRS providers to
translate from HAE to other formats.
The record suggests that translation
mechanisms can be developed using
HAE as a baseline reference, and that for
the time being we should afford
industry and public safety flexibility to
develop solutions that are cost-effective
for both sides. Finally, we agree with
public safety commenters that providing
a floor level is a priority and therefore
seek comment below on the feasibility
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2665
of ensuring emergency personnel have
access to floor level information in the
longer term.
D. Confidence and Uncertainty Data
39. In the Third Further NPRM in this
proceeding (79 FR 17820 (March 28,
2014)), the Commission proposed to
require provision of confidence and
uncertainty data for the location
information provided with all wireless
911 calls, whether outdoor or indoor, on
a per-call basis at the request of a PSAP,
with a uniform confidence level of 90%.
The Commission anticipated that any
requirements adopted regarding
standardization of the delivery and
format of confidence and uncertainty
data would apply in conjunction with
the delivery of both indoor and outdoor
location information. In the Fourth
Report and Order, the Commission
adopted specific confidence and
uncertainty requirements for horizontal
(x- and y-axis) data for all wireless 911
calls. The rules require that the data
specify ‘‘[t]he caller’s location with a
uniform confidence level of 90 percent’’
and ‘‘[t]he radius in meters from the
reported position at that same
confidence level.’’ Because the Fourth
Report and Order deferred the adoption
of a z-axis metric, it also deferred action
on extending confidence and
uncertainty requirements to z-axis data.
40. We amend our rules to extend the
equivalent confidence and uncertainty
requirements to z-axis data. As
commenters point out, it is just as
important for PSAPs to be able to assess
the reliability of vertical location
information as it is to assess the
reliability of horizontal location
information. APCO states that without
uncertainty data ‘‘public safety
professionals would lack information
that is essential when deciding whether
to break down a door or how to develop
a search strategy.’’ NENA asserts that it
is critical that all location information,
including z-axis, include detailed
uncertainty information. BRETSA
supports the provision of confidence
and uncertainty data along with z-axis
information to help public safety assess
data that may include sources of error.
NextNav and Polaris support extending
confidence and uncertainty
requirements to z-axis data and indicate
that their technologies can generate
vertical confidence and uncertainty data
for each call that can be provided to the
PSAP.
41. In light of the public safety
benefits of confidence and uncertainty
data, we require CMRS providers to
provide vertical confidence and
uncertainty data on a per call basis to
requesting PSAPs. As with horizontal
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
2666
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
confidence and uncertainty data,
providers must report vertical
confidence and uncertainty data using a
confidence level of 90%, i.e., they must
identify the range above and below the
estimated z-axis position within which
there is a 90% probability of finding the
caller’s true vertical location. For the
same reasons, where available to the
CMRS provider, floor level information
must be provided with associated C/U
data in addition to z-axis location
information.
E. Compliance Certification and Call
Data Reporting
42. Under our existing rules, CMRS
providers, within 60 days after each
horizontal and vertical location
benchmark, ‘‘must certify that they are
in compliance with the location
accuracy requirements applicable to
them as of that date.’’ The rules require
CMRS providers to ‘‘certify that the
indoor location technology (or
technologies) used in their networks are
deployed consistently with the manner
in which they have been tested in the
test bed.’’ In the Fourth Further NPRM,
we proposed to use this same
certification mechanism to validate
provider compliance with the 3-meter
metric.
43. We adopt our proposal. In order
to be deemed in compliance under our
existing rules, nationwide CMRS
providers electing to use z-axis
technology for vertical location shall
certify for purposes of the April 2021
and April 2023 compliance deadlines
that z-axis technology is deployed
consistent with the manner in which it
was tested in the test bed. Commenters
generally support this proposed
compliance mechanism. As CTIA
outlines, ‘‘the Test Bed would validate
that a given technology solution can
meet the proposed z-axis metric of ± 3
meters for 80 percent of indoor wireless
calls in the Test Bed, and a wireless
provider would then certify that the zaxis technology in its network is
deployed consistently with how it was
tested in the Test Bed.’’ Verizon states
that requiring compliance through the
test bed process ensures ‘‘that solutions
perform as vendors contend, and that
they are technically feasible,’’ and it is
also consistent with the Commission’s
approach to horizontal accuracy.
44. APCO notes that in Stage Z, only
barometric sensor-based technologies
were tested in the test bed, and
questions whether the test bed is
configured to test all vertical location
technologies on a technology-neutral
basis. We believe the test bed is
configured to support technology
neutral testing. The Commission has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
previously stated that the core purpose
of the test bed is to provide a means to
evaluate ‘‘the accuracy of different
indoor location technologies across
various indoor environments.’’ Thus,
the test bed is not limited to testing
barometric sensor solutions, but is
designed to test all vertical location
solutions in a uniform set of indoor test
environments. We also note that
Google’s testing in Stage Za includes
testing of technologies that are not
barometric sensor-based.
45. BRETSA recommends that instead
of using the test bed, the Commission
should establish a ‘‘proof-ofperformance’’ method of compliance
with live call testing in each market.
CTIA urges the Commission to reject
this approach. We decline to require
live call proof-of-performance testing. In
establishing the test bed approach, the
Commission found it to be ‘‘the most
practical and cost-effective method for
testing compliance with indoor location
accuracy requirements.’’ Indeed, the
purpose of the test bed program is to
provide a reliable mechanism for
validating the performance of indoor
location technologies without the need
for the provider to conduct indoor
testing in all locations where the
technology is actually deployed, which
would be impractical and highly
burdensome. Accordingly, we decline to
adopt or require proof of performance
testing.
46. CTIA recommends that we add the
language ‘‘as measured in the test bed’’
at the end of proposed
§ 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C)&(D), ‘‘thus making
explicit in the rules what is in the
Fourth Further [NPRM].’’ We find that
the existing rules already clearly
identify the test bed as the basis for
certifying compliance of all indoor
location technologies, horizontal and
vertical, making CTIA’s proposed
amendment unnecessary.
47. In addition, to more fully inform
the Commission’s understanding of
location accuracy progress, we expand
the live call data reporting obligations in
our existing rules to include z-axis data
and, where available, floor level
information. The Commission’s live call
data reporting rules require nationwide
CMRS providers to file quarterly reports
of their aggregate live 911 call use of
each location technology in four
geographic morphologies within six
representative cities (Test Cities). Nonnationwide CMRS providers must report
aggregate live 911 call data collected in
one or more of the Test Cities or the
largest county in their footprint,
depending on the area served by the
provider.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48. To date, CMRS providers have
only reported on horizontal location
technologies used for live 911 calls.
However, we conclude that it is equally
appropriate to require CMRS providers
to report on live call use of vertical
location technologies. The
Commission’s live call data reporting
requirements established in the Fourth
Report and Order require CMRS
providers to ‘‘identify and collect
information regarding the location
technology or technologies used for
each 911 call in the reporting area
during the calling period,’’ without
distinguishing between reporting of
horizontal and vertical location
information. Moreover, in the indoor
location technologies context, a key
purpose of the reporting requirement is
to ‘‘augment our understanding of the
progress of such technologies.’’
Although our vertical location
requirements do not include live call
compliance metrics, reporting on the
use of z-axis and floor level technologies
in live calls will provide important realworld data on how frequently z-axis and
floor level location is provided, the
types of technologies being used, and
trends in such usage over time. We
emphasize, however, that live call data
reported by CMRS providers relating to
the use of live call and floor level
technologies will be used solely for
informational purposes, not compliance
purposes.
F. Z-Axis Privacy and Security
49. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we
sought comment on the appropriate data
privacy and security framework for zaxis data. We noted that in establishing
rules in 2015 governing CMRS provider
usage of the NEAD, the Commission had
stated that ‘‘‘certain explicit
requirements on individual CMRS
providers are necessary to ensure the
privacy and security of NEAD data and
any other information involved in the
determination and delivery of
dispatchable location.’ ’’ We asked
whether use of z-axis data should be
limited to 911 calls except as otherwise
required by law, and if such a limitation
should be implemented and codified in
a manner similar to the explicit
limitations applicable to the NEAD.
50. We amend our rules to make
explicit that CMRS providers and the
vendors upon which they rely for z-axis
information may only use 911 call z-axis
information for 911 purposes, except
with prior express consent or as
required by law. This approach is
consistent with our long-standing
approach to protection of 911 location
data. Section 222 of the
Communications Act requires CMRS
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
providers, among others, to protect the
confidentiality of Customer Proprietary
Network Information (CPNI) without the
customer’s express prior authorization,
but provides an exception for the
provision of a customer’s call location
information to a PSAP or other
emergency response authority in
connection with a 911 call. CTIA also
states that it ‘‘shares the Commission’s
view that location information derived
from wireless 9–1–1 calls, including Z
axis location data, should only be used
for 9–1–1 purposes, except as otherwise
provided by law.’’ And we agree with
Apple that other parties—such as device
manufacturers and third-party location
technology vendors—on whom carriers
rely for z-axis information should be
similarly subject to the same privacy
protections and restrictions on non-911
use as data stored or used by CMRS
providers. For the same reasons as we
relied on in the dispatchable location
context, we believe that CMRS
providers are already responsible for
third-party use of personal location
information in support of the carrier’s
delivery of E911 location data to the
PSAP. To ensure compliance, we agree
that a certification requirement is
appropriate. CMRS providers must
therefore certify that neither they nor
any third party they rely on to obtain zaxis information for 911 purposes will
use such information for any non-911
purpose, except with prior express
consent or as required by law. We also
make clear that such a certification
should not be construed to
‘‘significantly impede location
technology vendors by preventing them
from having access to z-axis information
for such valid purposes as system
calibration and accuracy verification.’’
Such a reading of these requirements
that would impede the swift
development and widespread
deployment of z-axis technologies for
use in emergency calls would be
contrary to the very purpose of this
proceeding.
51. We also conclude that any 911related z-axis or floor level information
that is stored before or after the 911 call
should be subject to the same privacy
and security protections that apply to
NEAD data. We agree with Public
Knowledge that all 911 location data
should be treated consistently from a
privacy and security perspective, and
that stored coordinate-based data,
including z-axis data, should not be
subject to lesser consumer privacy and
data protection than NEAD data. As
Precision Broadband puts it, we should
‘‘not decouple the choice of deploying
z-axis technology from dispatchable
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
location,’’ as z-axis data is part of a
holistic, multifaceted approach ‘‘to
solving the vertical location problem.’’
Consistent with the 2015 Fourth Report
and Order, however, the practical
application of this principle in the
geolocation context may be dissimilar is
some ways from its application in the
dispatchable location context. For
example, coordinate-based geolocation
does not necessarily rely on previously
stored customer location information in
a database, and geolocation information
generated at the time of a 911 call may
be discarded rather than stored for later
use. Therefore, we conclude that any
911 geolocation data that is stored by a
CMRS provider should be subject to the
same level of privacy and security
protection as NEAD data. Thus, if a
CMRS provider intends to store such
data for 911 location purposes (like any
other stored data not covered by a
NEAD privacy and security plan), it
‘‘should file an addendum to ensure that
the protections outlined in the NEAD
plan will cover the provider’s
[coordinate-based] location transactions
end-to-end.’’ For 911 geolocation data
that is not stored, our CPNI
requirements continue to apply and
prohibit unauthorized use of such data
for any purpose other than emergency
location.
52. We also clarify that we are in no
way altering or addressing existing
privacy or security rules or policies that
apply to location data outside the 911
context. We agree with CTIA that such
issues are outside the scope of this
proceeding.
G. Comparison of Benefits and Costs
53. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we
sought comment on ‘‘which z-axis
metric would allow [the Commission] to
achieve the anticipated level of benefits
in the most cost-effective manner.’’ We
tentatively concluded that ‘‘a z-axis
metric of 3 meters for 80% of calls
strikes the best balance between benefits
and costs’’ because ‘‘some public safety
commenters identify a 3-meter metric as
providing sufficient accuracy to identify
the caller’s floor level in most cases.’’
We also tentatively concluded that ‘‘the
value of a 3-meter metric exceeds that
of a 5-meter metric because the latter
would result in a significant reduction’’
in benefits. A 5-meter metric could
indicate a location up to 2 floors below,
or up to 2 floors above, the actual floor
where a 911 caller may be located. This
large search range would make it far
more likely that first responders would
need to search 2 or more additional
floors, significantly increasing average
emergency response times and
consequently degrading patient
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2667
outcomes. ‘‘Due to the likely
degradation of patient outcomes with a
5-meter metric,’’ we tentatively
concluded that a 3-meter metric
provided greater value and sought
comment on the conclusion. We also
tentatively concluded that the ‘‘value of
a 3-meter metric exceeded that of a 2meter metric.’’ We also sought comment
on how the benefits and costs of
‘‘requiring CMRS providers to identify
floor level when reporting z-axis
information would compare to the
benefits and costs of providing z-axis
information as AGL or MSL height.’’ We
sought ‘‘comment on this analysis and
tentative conclusions as to the
comparative value of the z-axis
metrics.’’
54. We conclude that a 3-meter z-axis
metric is technically achievable and can
be implemented successfully by CMRS
providers by the April 2021 and 2023
deadlines in the top 25 and 50 CMAs,
respectively. As the record reflects, a 3meter metric will provide a substantial
benefit to public safety because it will
‘‘identify the correct floor of wireless
callers to E911 in most instances.’’
Additionally establishing a 3-meter
metric will afford certainty that will
drive innovation to create more z-axis
location technological options for CMRS
providers and lower technology costs.
We now address the benefits and costs
of the 3-meter metric.
55. Implementation benefits. In
assessing the benefits of adopting a 3meter metric, our analysis begins with
the analysis presented in the Fourth
Report and Order in this proceeding.
There, the Commission sought to reduce
emergency response time to improve
patient outcomes and, ultimately save
lives. In the Salt Lake City analysis
referenced in the Third Further NPRM,
the Commission found that a one
minute increase in response times
increases mortality, and that a one
minute decrease in response times
decreases mortality. The Commission
further found that reducing response
times would result in an annual saving
of 746 lives as reflected in the Salt Lake
City analysis, which could amount to
10,120 lives annually when extrapolated
across the United States.
56. No commenter disputes the
benefits of reduced emergency response
times on patient outcomes, but NextNav
suggests that the ‘‘Commission’s
analysis made very conservative
assumptions and still arrived at an
overwhelming economic benefit to the
nation.’’ Additionally, the International
Association of Fire Fighters and
NextNav emphasize that compelling
evidence exists in the record in this
proceeding that the provision of vertical
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
2668
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
location information to first responders
with an accuracy of 3 meters would
reduce response times as compared to
not specifying a vertical metric or a less
granular metric. NextNav observes that
San Francisco emergency first responder
field tests in 2014 ‘‘revealed dramatic
reductions of between 4 and 17 minutes
in search times with the addition of
vertical information with an accuracy of
+/¥3 meters.’’ We agree with NextNav’s
assertion that due to these ‘‘substantial’’
emergency response time
improvements, the Commission’s
factoring of a one minute response time
in its benefits analysis underestimates
‘‘by a substantial amount the
quantifiable benefits of providing
emergency first responders with z-axis
information with an accuracy of 3
meters.’’
57. The record reflects ‘‘increasing use
of wireless phones by the public, thus
further increasing the benefits that can
be expected from the adoption of a 3
meter vertical metric.’’ As we stated in
the Third Further NPRM, the addition of
vertical location information—like the
further refinement of horizontal location
information—plays a major role in
achieving the $92 billion benefit floor
for improving wireless location
accuracy. As we affirmed in the Fourth
Further NPRM, this addition of new
vertical information—together with the
refinement of existing horizontal
information—has the potential of saving
‘‘approximately 10,120 lives annually at
a value of $9.1 million per statistical
life, for an annual benefit of
approximately $92 billion or $291 per
wireless subscriber.’’ Due to U.S.
Department of Transportation updates
for value of a statistical life, we
presently estimate this annual benefit
floor at $97 billion.
58. Implementation costs. The record
indicates that software and hardware
implementation costs are low, if not
negligible. NextNav asserts that its zaxis solution, which requires only
software changes to be made to each
handset, could be made available for a
nominal cost that amounts to
significantly less than a penny per
month per handset and would impose
no incremental cost burdens on new
handsets. Polaris states that its
z-axis solution is ‘‘objectively
affordable’’ because it is software-based,
does not require hardware in networks
or markets, and ‘‘does not require
anything special in devices beyond
implementation of adopted 3GPP and
OMA standards.’’ Polaris’ solution also
is ‘‘instantly available and deployable
throughout a carrier’s nationwide
network.’’ As the Commission noted in
the Fourth Report and Order, we
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
continue to expect that these costs ‘‘will
decline as demand grows.’’ Existing
smartphone devices with installed
barometric pressure sensors, can be
further calibrated over-the-air with
calibration signals from weather
stations. Such calibration software is
available ‘‘with no additional premium
costs.’’ NextNav estimates that given
these factors, 3-meter compliant z-axis
services can be provided ‘‘at a nominal
cost (in aggregate, less than a penny per
month per handset).’’ Moreover, with
the emergence of handset-based
solutions we expect costs to provide
vertical location to further decrease. In
addition to the barometric pressure
sensor-based solutions developed by
NextNav and Polaris, ‘‘handset-based
solutions like ELS have been widely
deployed around the world.’’
59. Beyond software solutions,
hardware solutions are additionally
nominal, as ‘‘nearly all smartphones on
the market appear to be equipped with
barometric pressure sensors.’’ One
commenter notes that adding barometric
sensors to phones does and will entail
additional costs, but the cost of those
sensors continues to drop. We clarify
that we amend our rules today to apply
our 3 meter metric to z-axis capable
devices—in other words, we are not
mandating retrofitting of older devices
with barometric sensors, thus obviating
such costs or, as technological
developments unfold, retrofitting older
devices in any manner to make such
devices z-axis capable.
60. Cost/benefit comparison. We
reaffirm our earlier decision that
implementation of a 3-meter metric for
vertical location accuracy will account
for a large share of the total annual
benefit floor, which we presently
estimate to be a total of $97 billion.
Because that estimate includes only the
value of statistical lives saved, we
expect that there will be many
additional benefits—which we are
unable to quantify—from the reductions
in human suffering and the reduced
property losses due to crime and
uncontrolled fires. We derive our cost
from an estimated annual handset cost
of ‘‘a penny per month per handset’’ or
$0.12 per year. Assuming there are some
300 million handsets presently in use,
we apply the per-year handset cost to
estimate a cost ceiling of approximately
$36 million per year. Accordingly, we
find that the estimated benefits of this
instant rules far outweigh the estimated
costs.
IV. Procedural Matters
61. Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(RFA), the Commission has prepared a
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities of the
policies and rules adopted in the Fifth
Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth
in Appendix C of the Fifth Report and
Order.
62. Paperwork Reduction Act
Analysis. The requirements in
§ 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and
(j)(4), constitute modified information
collections. These requirements solicit
information for a certification of z-axis
information use, and confidence and
confidence and uncertainty data,
respectfully. They will be submitted to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new
information collection requirements
contained in this proceeding. In
addition, we note that, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, we previously sought, but did not
receive, specific comment on how the
Commission might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees. The Commission does not
believe that the new or modified
information collection requirements in
§ 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and
(j)(4), will be unduly burdensome on
small businesses. Applying these new or
modified information collections will
promote 911 service and emergency
response, to the benefit of all size
governmental jurisdictions, businesses,
equipment manufacturers, and business
associations by providing greater
confidence in 911 location accuracy and
greater consistency between the
Commission’s horizontal and vertical
location rules. We describe impacts that
might affect small businesses, which
includes most businesses with fewer
than 25 employees, in the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
63. Congressional Review Act. The
Commission has determined, and the
Administrator of the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
concurs that this rule is ‘‘major’’ under
the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
804(2). The Commission will send a
copy of this Fifth Report and Order to
Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
64. Further Information. For further
information, contact Nellie Foosaner,
Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing
Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, (202) 418–2925 or via
email at Nellie.Foosaner@fcc.gov; or
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Alex Espinoza, Attorney-Advisor, Policy
and Licensing Division, Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau, (202)
418–0849 or via email at
Alex.Espinoza@fcc.gov.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
65. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFAs) was incorporated in
the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Fourth Further NPRM)
adopted in March 2019. The
Commission sought written public
comment on the proposals in the Notice
including comment on the IRFA. No
comments were filed addressing the
IRFA. This present Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to
the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Report and Order
66. The Fifth Report and Order
advances the Commission’s goal of
ensuring ‘‘that all Americans using
mobile phones—whether they are
calling from urban or rural areas, from
indoors or outdoors—have technology
that is functionally capable of providing
accurate location information so that
they receive the support they need in
times of an emergency.’’ In the Fifth
Report and Order, the Commission
adopts a metric to more precisely
identify the location of a 911 wireless
caller located in a multi-story building.
More specifically, the Commission
amends its rules to require the
provisioning of vertical location (z-axis)
information that would help enable first
responders to identify the caller’s floor
level within 3 meters for most wireless
calls to 911 from multi-story buildings,
which represents a critical element to
achieving the Commission’s indoor
location accuracy objectives. Consistent
with the regulatory framework
established in the last major revision of
the Commission’s wireless location
accuracy rules in 2015 and the
information developed in the associated
docket, the Fifth Report and Order
adopts a z-axis location accuracy metric
of 3 meters above or below a handset for
80 percent of wireless Enhanced 911
(E911) indoor calls from z-axis capable
devices as demonstrated in the test bed
used to develop and test proposed z-axis
accuracy metrics. CMRS providers must
deliver z-axis information in Height
Above Ellipsoid (HAE). Where available
to the CMRS Provider, CMRS providers
must deliver floor level information
with z-axis location. The Commission
will also apply its current Confidence
and Uncertainty (C/U) data
requirements for x/y location
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
information to z-axis and, where
available, floor level information that
will be collected and provisioned by
CMRS providers. The Commission
extends to z-axis location and, where
available, floor level information
existing compliance certification and
live call data reporting requirements
applicable to CMRS providers.
Additionally, the Commission extends
consumer privacy and data security
protections to 911 calls that convey zaxis location and, where available, floor
level information in the Fifth Report
and Order.
67. For z-axis compliance, the Fifth
Report and Order requires CMRS
providers to use a technology proven to
meet the 3-meter metric in the test bed.
The adopted metric should augment the
ability of Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAPs) and first responders to
more accurately identify the floor level
for most 911 calls made from multistory buildings, reduce emergency
response times, and, ultimately, save
lives. It also implements the final
element of the Commission’s existing
indoor location accuracy regime, which
already includes a timetable for CMRS
providers to deliver vertical location
information by deploying either
dispatchable location or z-axis
technology in specific geographic areas.
The adopted z-axis metric provides
certainty to all parties and establishes a
focal point for further testing,
development, and implementation of
evolving z-axis location technologies.
The Fifth Report and Order also clarifies
that z-axis location and, where
available, floor level information may
only be used for 911 purposes except as
required by law. In addition, the Fifth
Report and Order amends the location
accuracy rules to require CMRS
providers to deliver confidence and
uncertainty data along with z-axis
information and, where available, floor
level information.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised
by Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA
68. There were no filed comments
that specifically addressed the proposed
rules and policies presented in the
IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
69. Pursuant to the Small Business
Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the
RFA, the Commission is required to
respond to any comments filed by the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA), and to
provide a detailed statement of any
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2669
change made to the proposed rules as a
result of those comments.
70. The Chief Counsel did not file any
comments in response to the proposed
rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Rules Will Apply
71. 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 rule changes. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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).
74. 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
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
2670
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
a. Wireless Telecommunications
Providers
75. Pursuant to 47 CFR 20.18(a), the
Commission’s 911 service requirements
are only applicable to CMRS providers,
excluding mobile satellite service
operators, to the extent that they: (1)
Offer real-time, two way switched voice
service that is interconnected with the
public switched network; and (2) Utilize
an in-network switching facility that
enables the provider to reuse
frequencies and accomplish seamless
hand-offs of subscriber calls. These
requirements are applicable to entities
that offer voice service to consumers by
purchasing airtime or capacity at
wholesale rates from CMRS licensees.
76. 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.
77. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
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.
78. 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
personal communications services (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.
79. 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,
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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.
80. 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.
81. Narrowband Personal
Communications Services. Two
auctions of narrowband 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 (65 FR 35843 (June 6, 2000)).
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
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
the three preceding years of not more
than $15 million. The SBA has
approved these small business size
standards.
82. Offshore Radiotelephone Service.
This service operates on several ultrahigh frequency (UHF) television
broadcast channels that are not used for
television broadcasting in the coastal
areas of states bordering the Gulf of
Mexico. The closest applicable SBA size
standard is for Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), which is an entity employing
no more than 1,500 persons. U.S.
Census Bureau data in this industry for
2012 show that there were 967 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees and 12 had
employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this SBA category
and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of Offshore
Radiotelephone Service firms can be
considered small. There are presently
approximately 55 licensees in this
service. However, the Commission is
unable to estimate at this time the
number of licensees that would qualify
as small under the SBA’s small business
size standard for the category of
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite).
83. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television
broadcast and wireless communications
equipment. Examples of products made
by these establishments are:
Transmitting and receiving antennas,
cable television equipment, GPS
equipment, pagers, cellular phones,
mobile communications equipment, and
radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has
established a small business size
standard for this industry of 1,250
employees or less. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 shows that 841
establishments operated in this industry
in that year. Of that number, 828
establishments operated with fewer than
1,000 employees, 7 establishments
operated with between 1,000 and 2,499
employees and 6 establishments
operated with 2,500 or more employees.
Based on this data, we conclude that a
majority of manufacturers in this
industry are small.
84. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
Exchange Telephone Radio System
(BETRS). The closest applicable SBA
size standard is for Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite), which is an entity employing
no more than 1,500 persons. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that there were 967 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees and 12 had
employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus under this category and the
associated size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of Rural Radiotelephone Services firm
are small entities. There are
approximately 1,000 licensees in the
Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the
Commission estimates that there are
1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in
the Rural Radiotelephone Service that
may be affected by the rules and
policies herein.
85. 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.
86. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
services, paging services, wireless
internet access, and wireless video
services. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is that such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms
had employment of 999 or fewer
employees and 12 had employment of
1000 employees or more. Thus under
this category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of wireless
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2671
telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities.
87. 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 1000
employees or more. Thus under this
category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that
a majority of these entities can be
considered small. According to
Commission data, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in wireless
telephony. Of these, an estimated 261
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152
have more than 1,500 employees.
Therefore, more than half of these
entities can be considered small.
88. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees.
In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard Band
Order (65 FR 17594 (April 4, 2000), 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.
89. 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
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
2672
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Commission defined a ‘‘small business’’
as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding
$40 million for the preceding three
years. A ‘‘very small business’’ is
defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, the lower 700
MHz Service had a third category of
small business status for Metropolitan/
Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
licenses—‘‘entrepreneur’’—which is
defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these
small size standards. An auction of 740
licenses (one license in each of the 734
MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of
the six Economic Area Groupings
(EAGs)) commenced on August 27,
2002, and closed on September 18,
2002. Of the 740 licenses available for
auction, 484 licenses were won by 102
winning bidders. Seventy-two of the
winning bidders claimed small
business, very small business or
entrepreneur status and won a total of
329 licenses. A second auction
commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on
June 13, 2003, and included 256
licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476
Cellular Market Area licenses.
Seventeen winning bidders claimed
small or very small business status and
won 60 licenses, and nine winning
bidders claimed entrepreneur status and
won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the
Commission completed an auction of 5
licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band
(Auction No. 60). There were three
winning bidders for five licenses. All
three winning bidders claimed small
business status.
90. In 2007, the Commission
reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second
Report and Order (72 FR 48814 (Aug.
24, 2007)). 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
not exceed $15 million for the preceding
three years) won 325 licenses.
91. 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.
92. 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
93. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 show 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.
94. 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.
E. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
95. The Fifth Report and Order enacts
a z-axis (vertical) location accuracy
metric that will affect the reporting,
recordkeeping and/or other compliance
requirements of small and other size
CMRS providers—both nationwide and
non-nationwide. Under the current E911
location accuracy rules, by 2021,
nationwide CMRS providers must
deploy either (1) dispatchable location,
or (2) z-axis technology that achieves
the Commission-adopted z-axis metric
in each of the top 25 Cellular Market
Areas. If z-axis technology is used,
CMRS providers must deploy z-axis
technology to cover 80 percent of the
Cellular Market Areas population. By
2021, nationwide CMRS providers must
deploy dispatchable location or z-axis
technology complying with the
Commission-adopted z-axis metric in
each of the top 50 Cellular Market
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Areas. Small entities that are nonnationwide carriers, including resellers,
that serve any of the top 25 or 50 CMAs
will have an additional year to meet the
two benchmarks (i.e., until 2022 for the
top 25 Cellular Market Areas and 2024
for the top 50 Cellular Market Areas).
CMRS providers must deliver z-axis
information in Height Above Ellipsoid.
Where available, CMRS providers must
deliver floor level information with zaxis location.
96. The Fifth Report and Order
requires nationwide and nonnationwide CMRS providers that deploy
z-axis technology to provide vertical
location information within a 3 meters
metric under the Commission’s existing
location accuracy requirements
timelines. While the Commission does
not mandate a specific technology for zaxis compliance, we require CMRS
providers to use a technology proven to
meet the 3-meters metric in the test bed.
In order to be deemed in compliance,
CMRS providers using z-axis technology
for vertical location must certify that the
z-axis technology is deployed
consistently with the manner in which
it was tested in the test bed. The Fifth
Report and Order also requires CMRS
providers to comply with the
Commission’s current confidence and
uncertainty (C/U) requirements for x/y
location information for z-axis location
information in addition to horizontal
location, for 911 calls in the top 50
CMAs. As we stated in the Fifth Report
and Order, we anticipate this data ‘‘can
be furnished to PSAPs at minimal cost
to CMRS providers given that they
already provide C/U data for x/y calls.’’
Where available, CMRS providers must
provide floor level information and
associated C/U data in addition to z-axis
location information.
97. In order to be deemed in
compliance under our existing rules, we
clarify that nationwide CMRS providers
electing to use z-axis technology for
vertical location shall certify for
purposes of the April 2021 and April
2023 compliance deadlines that z-axis
technology is deployed consistent with
the manner in which it was tested in the
test bed. Non-nationwide providers will
have an additional year to make each
certification. In addition, to more fully
inform the Commission’s understanding
of location accuracy progress, we extend
the live data calling reporting
obligations existing in the rules to zaxis. The Commission live call data
reporting rules require nationwide
CMRS providers to file quarterly reports
of their aggregate live 911 call location
data for each location technology used
within four geographic morphologies
within six representative cities (Test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
Cities). Non-nationwide CMRS
providers must report the aggregate live
911 call data collected in one or more
of the Test Cities or the largest county
in their footprint, depending on the area
served by the provider. We extend these
reporting requirements to include z-axis
information and, where available, floor
level information in the live call data
reporting already in the Commission’s
rules for our informational purposes.
98. The Commission clarifies in the
Fifth Report and Order that CMRS
providers may only use z-axis location
and floor level information for 911
purposes except with prior express
consent or as required by law. Prior to
use of z-axis information and floor level
information contained in the NEAD,
CMRS providers are required to certify
that they will not use z-axis, floor level,
or associated data for any non-911
purpose, except with prior express
consent or as otherwise required by law.
The certification must state that the
CMRS provider will provide z-axis
location and floor level information
privacy and security protection
equivalent to the NEAD. This
requirement is necessary to ensure the
privacy and security of any personally
identifiable information that may be
collected in generating z-axis and floor
level data. Additionally, we require
CMRS providers to certify that neither
they nor any third party they rely on to
obtain z-axis and floor level information
for 911 purposes will use such
information for any non-911 purpose,
except with prior express consent or as
required by law.
99. In the Fourth Further NPRM, the
Commission tentatively concluded
based on the z-axis solution test results
and other comments, that a metric of 3
meters for 80% of indoor calls is
technically achievable and that z-axis
solutions capable of meeting this metric
can be deployed within the timeframes
established in the E911 location
accuracy rules. We also tentatively
concluded that the cost of compliance
with the 3-meter metric is relatively
low. We affirm these conclusions with
our adoption of the 3-meters metric
requirement in the Fifth Report and
Order. In order to comply with the 3meters metric requirement, small
entities may incur costs associated with
software and/or hardware changes and
may need to employ engineers or other
experts. While the Commission cannot
quantify the cost of compliance with the
requirements, the technology solution a
small entity chooses to implement the
requirement will ultimately determine
the nature of the costs it incurs.
100. Evidence in the record indicates
that small entities have a choice of
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2673
vendors with z-axis technology
solutions, which will allow them to
manage their costs. Moreover, having a
competitive market for such solutions
should lessen the costs for small entities
to comply with the rules. In the
proceeding, parties provided examples
of various technology solutions that are
currently available to small entities and
other CMRS providers and general
information on the implementation
requirements. NextNav a vendor that
participated in Stage Z testing indicated
that its z-axis solution which only
requires software changes to be made to
each handset, could be made available
for a nominal cost that amounts to
significantly less than a penny per
month per handset. Another test vendor,
Polaris, indicated that its solution is
instantly available and deployable
throughout a carrier’s nationwide
network. Polaris also asserted that its
solution is ‘‘objectively affordable’’
because it is software-based, does not
require hardware in networks or
markets, and ‘‘does not require anything
special in devices beyond
implementation of adopted 3GPP and
OMA standards.’’ Google who
announced development and
deployment of its Emergency Location
System (ELS) in the U.S. for Android
devices and testing in Stage Za,
indicated that ELS is ‘‘a supplemental
service that sends enhanced location
directly from Android handsets to
emergency services when an emergency
call is placed.’’ Google also indicated
that ELS is part of the Android
operating system and does not require
any special hardware or updates. Apple
has announced that it will use new
technology to quickly and securely
share Hybridized Emergency Location
information with 911 call centers. The
HELO ‘‘solution has offered z-axis
estimates and uncertainties beginning in
2013, and those estimates have been
consumed by carriers since its first
adoption in 2015.’’ Apple has
committed to improving its vertical, as
well as horizontal, location accuracy
and will participate in CTIA’s z-axis
testing by the end of 2020. With the
addition of other vertical location
technologies and vendors into the
market, the Commission expects small
entities will have more implementation
options and that technology costs will
decline as demand grows, which could
further reduce their cost of compliance.
101. The Commission does not
believe that the new or modified
information collection requirements in
§ 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and
(j)(4), will be unduly burdensome on
small businesses. Applying these new or
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
2674
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
modified information collections will
promote 911 service and emergency
response, to the benefit of all size
governmental jurisdictions, businesses,
equipment manufacturers, and business
associations by providing greater
confidence in 911 location accuracy and
greater consistency between the
Commission’s horizontal and vertical
location rules. We provide the following
analysis:
102. The Commission amends
§ 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) to require the
provisioning of dispatchable location or
z-axis location information. As stated in
the Fifth Report and Order, where
available to CMRS Providers, floor level
information must be reported with zaxis location information. The
Commission adopts § 9.10(i)(4)(v) to
require all CMRS providers to certify
that they will not use z-axis information
or associated data for any non-911
purpose, except with prior express
consent or as otherwise required by law.
The certification must state that CMRS
providers will provide z-axis location
information privacy and security
protection equivalent to the NEAD.
Additionally, under § 9.10(i)(4)(v), we
require CMRS providers to certify that
neither they nor any third party they
rely on to obtain z-axis location
information for 911 purposes will use
such information for any non-911
purpose, except with prior express
consent or as required by law. This
requirement is necessary to ensure the
privacy and security of any personally
identifiable information that may be
collected in generating z-axis data. The
Commission adopts § 9.10(j)(4) to
extend confidence and uncertainty (C/
U) requirements to wireless E911 calls
that provide z-axis and floor level
information in the top 50 CMAs, for
CMRS providers, in addition to
horizontal location. As we stated in the
Fifth Report and Order, we also
anticipate this data ‘‘can be furnished to
PSAPs at minimal cost to CMRS
providers given that they already
provide C/U data for x/y calls.’’ The
Commission anticipates the burden and
cost levels of these requirements to be
similar to the existing collections which
OMB approved under OMB Control No.
3060–1210, ICR Reference No: 201801–
3060–010. Additionally, the
Commission anticipates extending the
burden and cost burdens associated
with extending the existing compliance
certification and live call data report
requirements to CMRS Providers that
deploy z-axis information to be similar
to the existing collections which OMB
approved under OMB Control No. 3060–
1210, ICR Reference No: 201801–3060–
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
010. The Commission seeks comment
on these costs in its upcoming
Paperwork Reduction Act comment
periods.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
103. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its 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 small entities.
104. Based on a comparison of the
benefits and costs to alternatives
metrics, the Commission believes that
the 3-meter metric adopted in the Fifth
Report and Order is the most costeffective option for achieving the
Commission’s location accuracy and
public safety objectives in this
proceeding while avoiding placing
undue burdens on small entities and
other CMRS providers. While the rules
adopted in the Fifth Report and Order
will apply to all nationwide and nonnationwide CMRS in the same manner,
the Commission has taken steps to
accommodate non-nationwide CMRS
providers by supplying additional time
to comply with the adopted vertical
location accuracy benchmarks. Nonnationwide CMRS providers which tend
to be small entities have an additional
year to comply with the Commission’s
z-axis benchmarks. The Commission
also declined to mandate a specific
technological solution but instead,
nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS
providers may choose to provide a
dispatchable location solution or deploy
z-axis technology. Thus, small entities
have the freedom to choose a solution
that best fits their financial situation
rather than being subjected to a specific
z-axis technology solution, which
should minimize the economic impact
on these entities.
105. In implementing the z-axis
metric, there were several alternatives
considered by the Commission but not
adopted that may have presented an
increased economic impact for small
entities. Specifically, the Commission
declined to adopt a more stringent z-
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
axis metric or a requirement to convey
‘‘floor level’’ information. Small entities
will benefit as a result of the certainty
provided by the Commission’s adoption
of 3 meters metric requirement. The
Commission also declined to mandate
the application of the 3-meters for
barometric pressure sensor capable
handsets but instead applied the
requirement only to z-axis capable
devices. This action by the Commission
will allow small entities and other
CMRS providers to avoid having to
retrofit older devices that may not have
barometric sensors and avoid incurring
the associated costs. Additionally, the
Commission declined to adopt a less
stringent 5 meter metric, which could
increase emergency response time.
Lastly, the Commission declined to
adopt a specific measurement standard
that must be used to report vertical
location information and declined to
adopt or require proof of performance
testing to measure compliance with the
z-axis metric.
106. The Commission believes the
adoption of the 3 meters metric and
allowing CMRS providers the flexibility
to choose a compliant technology
solution rather than mandating a one
size fits all solution is the best approach
to meet its public safety and location
accuracy objectives and should
minimize some economic impact for
small entities. The Commission’s action
also provides CMRS providers a level of
certainty which should benefit
providers in their selection of a
complaint technology solution. In
addition, by adopting a single metric,
small entities and other CMRS providers
should benefit from the economies of
scale equipment manufacturers will
incur from the ability to provision
devices uniformly using 3-meters
standard.
107. Report to Congress. The
Commission will send a copy of the
Fifth Report and Order, including this
FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant
to the Congressional Review Act. In
addition, the Commission will send a
copy of the Fifth Report and Order,
including this FRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A
copy of the Fifth Report and Order, and
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also
be published in the Federal Register.
VI. Ordering Clauses
108. 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
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 11 / Thursday, January 16, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. 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, Pub. L. 111–
260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that this Fifth
Report and Order, is hereby adopted.
109. It is further ordered that the
amendments of the Commission’s rules
as set forth in Appendix A of the Fifth
Report and Order are adopted, effective
sixty days from the date of publication
in the Federal Register. Section
9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and
(j)(4) contain new or modified
information collection requirements that
require OMB review under the PRA.
The Commission directs the Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
(Bureau) to announce the effective date
of those information collections in a
document published in the Federal
Register after the Commission receives
OMB approval, and directs the Bureau
to cause § 9.10(s) to be revised
accordingly.
110. 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, including
the Initial and Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
111. 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, including
the Initial and Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
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.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 part 9 as
follows:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:46 Jan 15, 2020
Jkt 250001
PART 9—911 REQUIREMENTS
1. The authority citation for part 9
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 152(a),
155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 210, 214, 218,
219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303, 307,
308, 309, 3 10, 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) introductory text
and (i)(2)(ii)(D) introductory text,
adding paragraph (i)(4)(v), revising
paragraph (j)(1) introductory text,
adding paragraph (j)(4), and revising
paragraph (s) to read as follows:
■
§ 9.10
911 Service.
*
*
*
*
*
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) By April 3, 2021: In each of the
top 25 cellular market areas (CMAs),
nationwide CMRS providers shall
deploy either dispatchable location, or
z-axis technology in compliance with
the following z-axis accuracy metric:
Within 3 meters above or below (plus or
minus 3 meters) the handset for 80% of
wireless E911 calls made from the z-axis
capable device. CMRS providers must
deliver z-axis information in Height
Above Ellipsoid. Where available to the
CMRS provider, floor level information
must be provided in addition to z-axis
location information. CMRS providers
that deploy z-axis technology must also
comply with the compliance
certification and call data reporting
requirements of paragraphs (i)(2)(iii)
and (i)(3) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(D) By April 3, 2023: In each of the
top 50 CMAs, nationwide CMRS
providers shall deploy either
dispatchable location, or z-axis
technology in compliance with the
following z-axis accuracy metric: Within
3 meters above or below (plus or minus
3 meters) the handset for 80% of
wireless E911 calls made from the z-axis
capable device. CMRS providers must
deliver z-axis information in Height
Above Ellipsoid. Where available to the
CMRS provider, floor level information
must be provided in addition to z-axis
location information. CMRS providers
that deploy z-axis technology must also
comply with the compliance
certification and call data reporting
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
2675
requirements of paragraphs (i)(2)(iii)
and (i)(3) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(v) Z-axis use certification. Prior to
use of z-axis information to meet the
Commission’s 911 vertical location
accuracy requirements in paragraph
(i)(2)(ii) of this section, CMRS providers
must certify that neither they nor any
third party they rely on to obtain z-axis
information will use z-axis information
or associated data for any non-911
purpose, except with prior express
consent or as otherwise required by law.
The certification must state that CMRS
providers and any third party they rely
on to obtain z-axis information will
provide z-axis location information
privacy and security protection
equivalent to the NEAD.
(j) Confidence and uncertainty data.
(1) Except as provided in paragraphs
(j)(2) through (4) of this section, CMRS
providers subject to this section shall
provide for all wireless 911 calls,
whether from outdoor or indoor
locations, x- and y-axis (latitude,
longitude) and z-axis (vertical)
confidence and uncertainty information
(C/U data) on a per-call basis upon the
request of a PSAP. The data shall
specify:
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Upon meeting the timeframes
pursuant to paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) and
(D) of this section, CMRS providers
shall provide with wireless 911 calls
that have dispatchable location or z-axis
(vertical) information the C/U data
required under paragraph (j)(1) of this
section. Where available to the CMRS
provider, floor level information must
be provided with associated C/U data in
addition to z-axis location information.
*
*
*
*
*
(s) Compliance date(s). Paragraphs
(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), (j)(4), and
(q)(10)(v) of this section contain
information-collection and
recordkeeping requirements.
Compliance with paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C)
and (D), (i)(4)(v), (j)(4), and (q)(10)(v)
will not be required until after approval
by the Office of Management and
Budget. The Commission will publish a
document in the Federal Register
announcing compliance dates with
those paragraphs and revising this
paragraph(s) accordingly.
[FR Doc. 2019–28483 Filed 1–15–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\16JAR1.SGM
16JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2660-2675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28483]
[[Page 2660]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 9
[PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 19-124; FRS 16358]
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the
FCC or Commission) adopts a z-axis (vertical) location accuracy metric
of plus or minus 3 meters for 80 percent of indoor wireless E911 calls
for z-axis capable handsets. The Commission also requires nationwide
commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to deploy dispatchable
location or z-axis technology that meets this metric in the top 25
markets by April 3, 2021 and in the top 50 markets by April 3, 2023.
The Commission also extends privacy protections to z-axis data conveyed
with 911 calls.
DATES:
Effective date: March 16, 2020.
Compliance date: Compliance will not be required for Sec.
9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and (j)(4) until the Commission
publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing the compliance
date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nellie Foosaner, Attorney-Advisor,
Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau, (202) 418-2925 or via email at [email protected]; Alex
Espinoza, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0849 or via email at
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth
Report and Order, FCC 19-124, adopted on November 22, 2019 and released
on November 25, 2019. The complete text of this document is available
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432
(TTY). The complete text of the order also is available on the
Commission's website at https://www.fcc.gov.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. All Americans using mobile phones--whether they are calling from
urban or rural areas, buildings or outdoor venues--should have the
capability to dial 911 and receive the support they need in times of an
emergency. Consumers make 240 million calls to 911 each year, and in
many areas 80% or more of these calls are from wireless phones. While
advances in technology have improved the overall ability of first
responders to locate 911 callers, challenges remain particularly for
locating 911 callers in multi-story buildings.
2. To ensure that first responders and Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAPs) can find 911 callers quickly and accurately when a
consumer calls from a multi-story building, we adopt a vertical, or z-
axis, location accuracy metric of plus or minus 3 meters relative to
the handset for each of the benchmarks and geographic requirements
previously established in the Commission's E911 wireless location
accuracy rules. This action will more accurately identify the floor
level for most 911 calls, reduce emergency response times, and save
lives.
II. Background
3. The Commission has been working with the public safety community
and industry partners to ensure the accurate delivery of 911 vertical
location information for the better part of a decade. In 2011, the
Commission tasked the Communications Security, Reliability, and
Interoperability Council (CSRIC) with testing indoor location accuracy
technologies, including barometric pressure sensors, in a test bed.
CSRIC conducted tests on a variety of technologies in 2012, and the
results showed that at least one vendor--NextNav LLC (NextNav)--could
locate a caller's vertical location within 3 meters more than 67% of
the time in dense urban, urban, and rural morphologies. In 2013,
NextNav conducted additional testing on the second generation of its
location technology and reported that it provided callers' vertical
location within 3.2 meters 80% of the time, across all morphologies.
Accordingly, in 2014, the Commission proposed measures and timeframes
to improve location accuracy for wireless E911 calls originating
indoors, including, among others, a 3-meter z-axis metric for 80% of
such calls.
4. In 2015, the Commission adopted rules for improving E911
wireless location accuracy. Under these rules, CMRS providers must meet
a series of accuracy benchmarks by either conveying dispatchable
location (e.g., street address, floor level, and office or apartment
number) or coordinate-based location information to the appropriate
PSAP. For vertical location, the Commission required wireless providers
to provide either dispatchable location using the National Emergency
Address Database (NEAD) or vertical (z-axis) location information in
compliance with the FCC-approved metric. If dispatchable location is
used, there must be a density of NEAD reference points distributed
throughout the cellular market area (CMA) equivalent to 25% of the
population in that CMA. If z-axis location technology is used, it must
be deployed to cover 80% of the CMA population. Nationwide CMRS
providers must meet these benchmarks in each of the top 25 CMAs by
April 3, 2021 and in each of the top 50 CMAs by April 3, 2023. Non-
nationwide CMRS providers that serve any of the top 25 or 50 Cellular
Market Areas have an additional year to meet these benchmarks. In
addition, the Commission required the nationwide CMRS providers to test
and develop a proposed z-axis accuracy metric and submit the proposed
metric to the Commission for approval by August 3, 2018.
5. On August 3, 2018, CTIA submitted the ``Stage Z Test Report''
(Report or Stage Z Test Report) on behalf of the four nationwide CMRS
providers. According to the Report, Stage Z testing sought to assess
the accuracy of solutions that use barometric pressure sensors in the
handset for determining altitude in support of E911. Two vendors,
NextNav and Polaris Wireless, Inc. (Polaris), participated in Stage Z.
The test results showed that in 80% of NextNav test calls, vertical
location was identified to a range of 1.8 meters or less, while 80% of
Polaris test calls yielded a vertical accuracy range of 4.8 meters or
less. The Report noted that Polaris' performance ``could likely be
significantly improved should a more robust handset barometric sensor
calibration approach [than that used in the test bed] be applied.''
6. In its August 3, 2018, cover letter submitting the Report, CTIA
stated that the test results provided ``helpful insight'' into the
state of z-axis technologies, but that ``significant questions remain
about performance
[[Page 2661]]
and scalability in live wireless 9-1-1 calling environments.'' On
behalf of the four nationwide wireless providers, CTIA therefore
proposed a z-axis metric of ``5 meters for 80% of fixes from mobile
devices capable of delivering barometric pressure sensor-based altitude
estimates.'' CTIA also stated that further testing of vertical location
technologies could yield results to validate adoption of a more
accurate z-axis metric. On September 10, 2018, the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) released a Public Notice seeking
comment on the Report and the carriers' proposed z-axis metric.
7. In March 2019, the Commission released the Fourth Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth Further NPRM) in this proceeding (84 FR
13211 (April 4, 2019)). There, we proposed a z-axis metric of 3 meters
relative to the handset for 80% of indoor wireless E911 calls for each
of the benchmarks and geographic requirements previously established in
the Commission's E911 wireless location accuracy rules. Based on
existing test data from the two vendors that participated in the
industry test bed, we tentatively concluded that achieving this
standard was technically feasible. We also tentatively concluded that
unlike the 5-meter standard originally proposed by the wireless
carriers, a 3-meter standard would provide sufficient accuracy to
identify the caller's floor level in most cases. We sought comment on
adopting a stricter 2-meter metric but tentatively concluded that it
was not yet technically achievable on a consistent basis, although it
could become achievable in the longer term as technology continues to
evolve.
8. In response to the Fourth Further NPRM, the Commission received
20 comments and 11 reply comments, filed by public safety entities,
vendors, wireless carriers, technology companies, and industry
associations.
III. Fifth Report and Order
9. We adopt a 3-meter z-axis 911 location accuracy metric to be
implemented by the April 2021 and 2023 vertical accuracy deadlines as
proposed in the Fourth Further NPRM. Numerous commenters, including
public safety entities, vendors, and carriers, agree that implementing
the proposed 3-meter metric within existing timelines will benefit
public safety and is technically feasible. Although some industry
commenters contend that we should take a phased approach or delay
adopting a metric pending further testing, and some public safety
commenters advocate adopting stricter accuracy standards for the 2021
and 2023 deadlines, we find these arguments unpersuasive.
A. The 3-Meter Metric
10. We agree with commenters who conclude that a 3-meter metric
will bring real public safety benefits to the American public and is
technically feasible in the near term. A broad cross-section of public
safety commenters agree that, in the near term, a 3-meter metric will
meet public safety needs and will provide actionable information to
first responders. Public safety organizations in support of the 3-meter
metric include the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National
Association of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO), the National Sheriffs'
Association (IAFC et al.); International Association of Fire Fighters
(IAFF); NENA: The 9-1-1 Association (NENA); State of Florida Department
of Management Services, Division of Telecommunications, Bureau of
Public Safety (Florida); and Texas 9-1-1 Alliance, the Texas Commission
on State Emergency Communications (CSEC), and the Municipal Emergency
Communication Districts Association (Texas 911 Entities). The Boulder
Emergency Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA) notes that ``floor-level
accuracy is a critical objective, and 3-meter accuracy is floor level
accuracy.'' The International Association of Fire Fighters states that
the Commission was ``correct in concluding that a 3 meters vertical
accuracy requirement `will significantly narrow the scope of the search
and can provide a reasonable basis for identifying the correct floor in
most cases.' '' For example, in-building tests that International
Association of Fire Fighters conducted in July 2014 using NextNav
technology showed significant improvement in search time compared to
searching without any vertical location information component. The
International Association of Fire Fighters asserts that ``vertical
altitude information can provide a substantial improvement in search
effectiveness in multistory structures, even without a precise floor
number or a dispatchable address.'' Texas 911 Entities supports
immediate adoption of a 3-meter metric on the grounds that ``the
`perfect' should not be the enemy of the `good.' '' The International
Association of Fire Chiefs similarly supports adopting a 3 meter metric
and then narrowing the metric ``over a timeframe as technology
develops.''
11. What is more, we find that implementing the 3-meter metric on
schedule is technically feasible. Two vendors have consistently shown
in testing that they can meet or surpass this standard. Since 2012,
NextNav has repeatedly achieved 3-meter accuracy in multiple
independently-conducted tests. In the Stage Z test bed, NextNav's
technology was accurate within 1.8 meters or better for 80% of indoor
fixes and 3 meters or better for 94% of indoor fixes. In other words,
NextNav's technology is capable of ``consistent performance within an
accuracy metric of 3 meters or less.''
12. Polaris too can achieve accuracy within 2.8 meters for 80% of
test calls by using additional available location data to recalibrate
and refine its Stage Z data. Although Polaris did not employ active
calibration of the barometric sensors during Stage Z testing, the Stage
Z Report acknowledges that the test results for Polaris ``may
underestimate the performance results that might be achieved'' if a
calibration approach had been employed. We agree with Polaris that its
technology can deliver 3-meter accuracy, and with NextNav that ``the
Stage Z test process confirmed, once again, that existing location
technologies available from multiple vendors can reliably achieve floor
level vertical accuracy within +/-3 meters for at least 80 percent of
indoor wireless calls to E911 emergency services.''
13. The record suggests that other technological options for
vertical location accuracy are emerging, and that, as T-Mobile
describes, the market is driving innovation in location accuracy
technology for E911. Airwave Developers LLC (AWD) submits that Citizens
Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) technology low cost antennas installed
on each floor of a building will generate data allowing for the PSAP to
pinpoint the floor from which the wireless call was made. In 2018, CTIA
announced nationwide wireless providers AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and
Verizon were adding new location-based tools with existing wireless 9-
1-1 location technologies by the end of that year. Two device based
approaches are Apple's delivery of Hybridized Emergency Location (HELO)
data and Google's Android Emergency Location Service (ELS). Apple has
announced that it will use new technology to quickly and securely share
Hybridized Emergency Location information with 911 call centers. The
HELO ``solution has offered z- axis estimates and uncertainties
beginning in 2013, and those estimates have been consumed by carriers
since its first adoption in 2015.'' Apple has committed to improving
its vertical, as well as horizontal, location accuracy and will
participate in CTIA's
[[Page 2662]]
z-axis testing by the end of 2020. Google in turn has described its
Emergency Location Service solution, which can record and report z-axis
information, as a feature fully integrated in the operating system on
99% of Android handsets that makes handset location known when the user
initiates an emergency call or text. Google plans to test the vertical
accuracy capabilities of its Emergency Location Service solution in
Stage Za. In short, companies are actively exploring new types of
cellular air interfaces for location accuracy ``including 5G
interfaces, additional satellite constellations, and other wireless
infrastructure, such as Wi-Fi access points, Bluetooth beacons and
small cells, as well as information provided by sensors within today's
smartphones.''
14. We further conclude that adopting the 3-meter metric will keep
deployment of z-axis information to public safety officials on
schedule. Public safety commenters support the current 2021 and 2023
deadlines for applying the z-axis metric and oppose delay for further
testing. The International Association of Fire Fighters finds it
``inconceivable . . . that either the Commission or the public safety
community would allow themselves to get this close to achieving a
historic benefit in the capabilities of emergency services and so much
as hesitate in taking the next step.'' BRETSA maintains that
``[a]doption of a vertical location standard will benefit the public''
and ``additional testing should not delay provision of the public
benefit.'' Vendors also support adoption of a z-axis metric without
further delay. NextNav states ``[n]ot only would further delay pose a
continued risk to public safety, but it is also unclear whether it
would appreciably improve the information that is currently available
to the Commission.'' AWD notes that current technology is able to meet
the 3-meter metric.
15. We disagree with commenters that raise a number of objections.
To start, we disagree with commenters like Google, who argue for a
``phased'' approach that would involve setting a 4-meter metric
initially and tightening the metric to 3 meters by 2023. Google argues
that ``[w]hile major progress has been made, consensus has not been
reached on the appropriate z-axis metric, and the full capabilities of
alternative technologies cannot yet be determined,'' so that a phased
approach would ``better reflect[ ] the current abilities and future
promise of vertical location technologies.'' We believe sufficient
testing that has already occurred and that the technology trends that
Google itself cites validate our conclusion that 3 meters is already
technically feasible and provides the appropriate metric for the
development of alternative new technologies.
16. Similarly, we disagree with commenters who ask us to delay
action for further testing. To start, we note that these arguments ring
hollow when several CMRS providers--those who bear direct
responsibility for complying with the 3-meter metric on schedule--are
on record as supporting adoption of the 3-meter metric without further
testing. For example, AT&T favors the Commission's proposal because
``it will give the industry certainty and advance the development
process necessary to meet the 2021 and 2023 vertical location accuracy
benchmarks in the Fourth Report & Order [80 FR 11806 (March 4,
2015)].'' CTIA reiterates that it supports the proposed z-axis metric
without changes, having previously stated that ``[t]he Fourth Further
[NPRM] offers a reasoned approach to the definition of floor level
accuracy as part of the proposed z-axis metric: within 3 meters above
or below the vertical location provided by the phone.'' And Verizon
supports the Commission's proposed metric, stating that it is ``a good
target for 9-1-1 calls from devices with the necessary capability.''
Google also supports a 3 meter metric and asks that our approach remain
technology neutral so that CMRS providers may select the technology to
meet their location accuracy obligations.
17. More specifically, we disagree with Google and Qualcomm that
there has been insufficient testing of barometric sensor-based
technologies in extreme cold-weather conditions. Although CTIA and
Qualcomm note that NextNav was unable to participate in Stage Z winter
testing in Chicago, we do not consider this to be sufficient reason to
delay our decision. Polaris did participate in Stage Z winter testing
in Chicago and achieved results that were comparable to the results it
achieved in the other test bed locations in more moderate weather
conditions. Moreover, as BRETSA states, ``[e]ven if vertical location
results would be less accurate during episodes of climactic extremes;
that cannot justify delaying adoption of a standard and deployment of
vertical location technologies which have been proven in common weather
conditions.'' Finally, despite its own complaints about a lack of cold
weather data, CTIA waited to conduct Stage Za testing to conclude in
late 2019, so it will be unable to provide winter test data for at
least another year. We cannot accept such a long delay in adopting a
metric, given that two vendors can meet the metric and there are
emerging device-based solutions.
18. We disagree with Google that additional testing is needed in
rural morphologies. The rural morphology is ``the sparsest environment
overall'' and is mostly residential, with most structures between 1 and
2 stories high. As Verizon notes, urban areas are important for
vertical location accuracy because ``[i]t is in these areas where
multi-story buildings are concentrated, so service providers should
focus their deployments on urban and dense urban areas within the
covered CMAs.'' In these morphologies, the test bed shows that
NextNav's solution would meet a 3-meter metric. Additionally, NextNav's
technology was tested for vertical accuracy in rural areas during the
original CSRIC Test Bed conducted in 2012, and NextNav's results from
that testing fell within 3 meters for 80% of all calls. In the Addendum
to the Stage Z Report, Polaris explains that its results in all
morphologies would fall below 3 meters had it used limited active
calibration during the Stage Z test. The Stage Z Test Report
acknowledges that Polaris did not employ continuous calibration during
the test and that Polaris' results ``may underestimate the performance
results that might be achieved using an effective continuous
(background) calibration algorithm for each individual mobile device.''
19. We also disagree with Apple's suggestion that we should delay
action based on concerns that the test bed did not adequately test z-
axis solutions under real-world conditions. Apple states that results
were obtained in the test bed ``only under conditions that deviate
significantly from realistic user patterns and constraints'' and ``do
not necessarily mean that a 3 meter accuracy metric is
achievable by April 2021 in real-world circumstances.'' In fact, the
testing was conducted in multiple regions, morphologies, and building
configurations in order to assess how z-axis technology would perform
in a variety of real-world environments. Test bed procedures were based
on the recommendations of the Commission's fourth Communications,
Security, Reliability & Interoperability Council (CSRIC IV), and
testing followed guidelines developed by the Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions' (ATIS) Emergency Services
Interconnection Forum (ESIF), including ESIF's Emergency Services and
Methodologies (ESM) subcommittee. As the Stage Z Test Report states,
``ATIS provided guidelines on test building and test point selection
and oversaw implementation of the Test Bed by the
[[Page 2663]]
Administrator-Executor. In addition, Test Bed, LLC receives guidance
from the TAC, which includes representatives of the nationwide wireless
service providers, as well as the Association of Public-Safety
Communications Officials International (APCO) and the National
Emergency Number Association (NENA).'' Although it is not possible for
any test bed to replicate every conceivable real world scenario, we
find the test bed results to be sufficiently representative and robust
to support our establishment of the 3-meter metric. We also agree with
NextNav that ``not only would further delay pose a continued risk to
public safety, but it is also unclear whether it would appreciably
improve information that is currently available to the Commission.''
20. We also disagree with T-Mobile that further testing is first
needed with a wider variety of handsets, including older handsets.
NextNav and Polaris each tested six handsets, for a total of twelve
handsets, in Stage Z. These handsets were selected by the test bed
administrator, not the vendors, and the Report states that they were
selected ``to ensure variety between sensor manufacturers, the age of
handsets (within limits) and their overall use characteristics.'' The
handsets used in testing were ``the same production-ready handsets sold
by wireless carriers and available to the general public'' and did not
contain any hardware modification that would favor these handsets over
any commercially available handsets. Thus, we adopt our tentative
conclusion from the Fourth Further NPRM that a sufficient variety of
devices have been tested to support moving forward with our proposed 3-
meter metric at this time.
21. We also decline to adopt a 2-meter metric, as suggested by
BRETSA, at this time. The record confirms that a 2-meter metric is not
technically feasible under the existing timelines, although it may
become achievable in the long term as technology continues to evolve.
22. Finally, we need not address APCO's suggestion in its comments
that the Commission proceed without adopting a metric. In a recent ex
parte filing, APCO stated that based on the record and its discussions
with stakeholders, it ``does not recommend that the Commission decline
to adopt a z-axis metric altogether.'' APCO's revised position aligns
with the views of all other public safety commenters that adopting a z-
axis metric remains an essential measure to ensure that first
responders receive important location information when providing
dispatchable location is not feasible. We agree.
B. Deployment
23. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we proposed that the 3-meter z-axis
metric apply to 80% of calls from all handsets, i.e., that to comply
with the metric, z-axis technologies would have to be demonstrated in
the test bed to provide 3-meter accuracy for 80% of wireless calls. We
asked whether applying the metric to 80% of wireless calls was
appropriate, and if not, what percentage of calls would be appropriate.
We also noted that CTIA had proposed that its 5-meter metric apply only
to ``mobile devices capable of delivering barometric pressure sensor-
based altitude estimates.'' We asked whether the z-axis metric should
only be applied to devices with barometric pressure sensors, or to
devices manufactured after a date certain, or whether it should apply
to all handsets, as we proposed. We observed that to the extent that
CMRS providers elect to use solutions that rely on barometric pressure
readings, nearly all smartphones on the market appear to be equipped
with barometric pressure sensors. We observed that barometric sensor-
based solutions are likely to be scalable and can be made readily
available to wireless consumers within the timeframes required by the
rules. We sought comment on this assessment and its underlying factual
assumptions. We also sought comment on the potential for development
and deployment of other new or emerging vertical location solutions
that could be used to meet the proposed z-axis metric.
24. As proposed, we apply the 3-meter accuracy metric to 80% of
wireless E911 calls. This is consistent with our approach to E911
horizontal accuracy, which requires wireless carriers to meet
horizontal accuracy requirements for 80% of calls by April 2021. Thus,
as the basis for validation of any z-axis technology, we require
wireless carriers to demonstrate in the test bed that the technology
achieves 3-meter accuracy for 80% of wireless E911 calls.
25. We also conclude that application of the 3-meter metric should
apply to all handsets that have the capability to support vertical
location, regardless of technology, not just new handsets or barometric
pressure sensor capable handsets. We thus clarify that a device will be
considered ``z-axis capable'' so long as it can measure and report
vertical location without a hardware upgrade. Thus, devices that can be
modified to support vertical location by means of a firmware or
software upgrade will be considered z-axis capable. This definition
makes clear that any device technically capable of measuring and
reporting vertical location information without a change in hardware
must be enabled to do so--and actions by carriers, device
manufacturers, operating system providers, chipmakers, or z-axis
vendors that would prohibit technically capable devices from actually
and effectively measuring and reporting z-axis information put the
public and emergency personnel at unacceptable risk. We expect to
closely monitor the roll-out of z-axis capable devices to the American
public over the next two years and take all appropriate action against
any company that obstructs the effective deployment of such
technologies in a timely manner.
26. The record reflects that z-axis capable devices are widely
available. NENA concludes that ``it is safe to assume that a
comparatively small portion of modern phones lack [barometric pressure]
sensors.'' NENA also states that market trends suggest an increase in
barometric pressure sensor prevalence ``as applications such as fitness
apps and small electronic devices like standalone GPS and fitness
trackers increasingly incorporate altitude measurements, driving
incentives to include [barometric pressure] sensor hardware.'' As
Google points out, the Fourth Report & Order ``established benchmarks
and timetables clear enough to signal that development of z-axis
capability should be a top priority.'' Google states that ``industry
has risen to the challenge with manifold options to enable z-axis
capability,'' including the barometric pressure sensor-based solutions
developed by NextNav and Polaris and ``handset-based solutions like ELS
[that] have been widely deployed around the world.'' Google credits
this rapid and widespread availability of z-axis capable devices to the
Commission's flexible and evolutionary approach to location accuracy.
27. What is more, both NextNav and Polaris have software-based
solutions. Thus, if carriers choose either of these solutions, hardware
upgrades to handsets are not required and solutions can be implemented
by means of software modifications that are readily achievable ahead of
the 2021 deadline. The record describes scalable methods of
implementation for barometric-based solutions that do not require
hardware changes.'' As Polaris states, ``[o]ne method is to implement
adopted 3GPP [3rd Generation Partnership Project] and OMA [Open Mobile
Alliance] standards for barometric compensation'' which is
[[Page 2664]]
a ``firmware-based approach [that] is achievable through cooperation
among carriers, device manufacturers, and chipmakers.'' Another method
Polaris describes is to ``place necessary functionality on devices,''
which is a ``software-based approach [that] is achievable through
cooperation among carriers, location vendors, and device Operating
System providers.'' Polaris maintains that it ``can support a variety
of implementation methodologies and remains committed to work with
carriers and other involved parties to implement any agreed upon
methodology.'' NextNav also states handsets can be made z-axis
compliant with over-the-air updates.
28. We disagree with some commenters that suggest that old handsets
should be categorically excluded from the rules; they do not propose or
provide a clear rationale for a specific cutoff. Instead, we apply the
metric to all z-axis capable devices, as supported by commenters like
AT&T.
29. We also disagree with CTIA who suggests we apply the metric
only to devices ``equipped with barometers and any other functionality
necessary to support barometric pressure-based altitude estimation
solutions.'' As APCO argues, this approach would violate the principle
of technological neutrality. We have previously recognized that no
single technological approach will solve the challenge of indoor
location, and we have consistently favored technologically neutral
rules ``so that providers can choose the most effective solutions from
a range of options.'' Although both technologies tested in Stage Z
relied on barometric pressure sensor capable handsets, and it is
possible that the carriers could adopt barometric-based solutions
exclusively, other vertical location technologies may develop that do
not require a barometric sensor in the handset. In fact, Google has
stated that its Stage Z testing will include solutions that do not use
barometric pressure sensors. Therefore, in order to preserve the
technological neutrality of the rules and encourage development of the
broadest possible array of vertical location technologies, the metric
will not be limited to barometric pressure sensor capable handsets.
30. Qualcomm and Google raise a concern that vertical location
technology needs to be standardized so it can be ``economically
implemented.'' However, Verizon states that ``extensive standardization
work on vertical location solutions has already been completed,'' and
further work is under way. Apple states that ``vertical location
accuracy performance requirements should be evaluated in the context of
solutions that must be implemented at large scale, subject to real
world operational considerations,'' and ``[t]echnologies that depend on
the deployment of new infrastructure in every major city to achieve
even less-stringent performance metrics also raise significant
questions about the viability of the tested approaches.'' BRETSA also
comments that ``one would expect the accuracy of vertical location
systems to improve as they are deployed ``at scale'' and additional
experience with them is gained.'' We also recognize that if carriers
use barometric sensor based solutions, they will depend to some extent
on third parties to support proper installation and calibration of
barometric sensors in user devices, and that solutions will only work
if the systems are compatible and information is correctly relayed
between providers, the handset and operating system providers, and the
PSAPs. However, while we acknowledge CMRS providers' concerns about
their ability to compel handset manufacturers and operating system
providers to cooperate, we believe CMRS providers are capable of
negotiating requirements with such third parties and establishing
contractual timelines that will enable timely deployment of z-axis
solutions in time to meet the deadlines in the rules. Moreover, the
flexible, technology-neutral approach to location requirements adopted
in this order removes uncertainty and will give carriers greater leeway
to negotiate with competing vendors and to leverage location solutions
already being developed by handset manufacturers and operating system
providers.
C. Reporting Z-Axis Location Information
31. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we sought comment on how CMRS
providers should report vertical location information, noting that
several measurement methods exist. Specifically, we sought comment on
whether reporting vertical location information as height above ground
level (AGL) would be preferable to reporting height above mean sea
level (MSL), and whether to require CMRS providers to use one
measurement standard exclusively. We asked commenters to address
whether CMRS providers should be required to identify the floor level
when reporting z-axis information. Alternatively, we asked whether we
should decline to specify this level of detail so that entities
developing z-axis solutions have more flexibility.
32. We require CMRS providers to report z-axis information as
Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE). In this regard, NENA and several other
commenters point out that while vertical location information can be
reported in multiple ways, e.g., HAE, MSL, or AGL, global standards are
being developed around the measurement of such information as a value
in HAE in meters, as defined in the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-
84). NENA notes that 3GPP is developing standards relating to
representation of vertical location information that are based on HAE,
and industry commenters generally agree with NENA that HAE has emerged
as the globally recognized standard for generating z-axis measurements.
33. There is a general consensus around using HAE as the baseline
for measuring vertical location, but we recognize that the issue of how
vertical location information should be reported to PSAPs is complex.
ATIS ESIF argues that individual PSAPs may have different requirements
for the processing and formatting of vertical location information, and
that CMRS providers should not be required to convert location data
into multiple formats. ATIS, AT&T, and T-Mobile suggest that CMRS
providers should be responsible only for providing raw location data
that meets the z-axis metric, and that PSAPs should be responsible for
translating that data into a floor number or other actionable
information. APCO counters that PSAPs do not have the resources to
convert raw z-axis data to a floor number, ``nor do they have three-
dimensional maps to visualize raw z-axis information.'' APCO argues
that PSAPs ``will be left without actionable vertical location
information'' unless CMRS providers are required to convert z-axis data
to a floor level that is reported to the PSAP.
34. In arguing for floor level, APCO says that the Commission
should also require carriers to provide floor level identification.
Given the need for timely deployment on our existing timeline, we
disagree. While public safety commenters broadly support the delivery
of floor level information, the record is clear that it is not now
technically feasible to reliably convert z-axis information to an
identified floor level. ATIS states that ``there currently exists no
data source that correlates any form of z-axis data to a floor index or
floor label.'' CTIA recognizes public safety's desire for the most
actionable information, but states that it ``is not aware of any z-axis
technology solutions that can produce specific floor level
information.'' Apple observes ``that providing the ``floor level''
information
[[Page 2665]]
alongside a z-axis estimate would necessarily require information on
the geodetic position of floors and knowledge of the labels applied to
individual floors (e.g., ``mezzanine'', ``courtyard''),'' and Apple is
``not aware of any sources for this information.'' Apple also states
that it is ``unclear how uncertainty information could be effectively
conveyed under such a regime,'' and that ``both horizontal and vertical
uncertainty would be relevant to floor level information, as buildings
implement floor levels in different ways.'' In support of its argument,
APCO cites an academic paper and trade press reports on emerging floor
level reporting technologies, stating that they prove providing floor
level is already technically feasible. Other commenters take issue with
APCO sources, and CTIA points out that APCO claims are not supported by
testing. While the sources cited by APCO suggest potential floor level
location solutions may be on the horizon, the record here reflects that
such solutions are untested and not yet sufficiently mature to support
a comprehensive floor level requirement. Further, as NENA and BRETSA
recognize, floor heights are not standard and an authoritative database
for the mapping of floors in a given building does not yet exist, while
building characteristics themselves vary greatly and floor numbering is
not always consistent. Verizon notes that ``floor level accuracy may
depend at least in part on participation by not only service providers
and vendors but third party building owners and tenants--which would
have technical feasibility and jurisdictional implications beyond the
scope of the rules contemplated in this proceeding based on test bed
performance to date.''
35. Current vertical location technology does not support floor
level identification, and some public safety commenters, including the
International Association of Fire Fighters and the International
Association of Fire Chiefs, state that, contrary to APCO's view, z-axis
data can provide actionable information to first responders. As they
put it: ``Unlike x/y data, which must be translated from lengthy
coordinates to an approximate street address, Height Above Ellipsoid
(HAE) altitude data is transmitted in digestible numbers, extending no
more than two decimal points. While technologies exist that allow an
Emergency Communications Center to translate vertical data from HAE to
Height Above Ground Level, emergency responders can act upon the data
when it is delivered in either format by simply matching altitude
information on their own equipment using an HAE-capable application,
device or dedicated wearable display.'' And other public safety
organizations like NENA agree.
36. We agree and reject the notion that the only ``actionable''
data we can mandate today is a floor estimate. Many buildings,
including the Commission's headquarters, have non-standard floor
numbering schemes, which may not begin on Floor 1 but, instead,
``Lobby,'' ``Main,'' or ``Ground.'' Some buildings skip Floor 13. There
is significant risk of error to solutions that assume ground-level
floor numbers or standard floor numbering patterns. The record does not
show that this risk can be mitigated sufficiently in the near-term such
that we could proceed immediately with a decision that requires a
floor-level solution. Besides, to first responders, a true height
measurement may be more valuable than floor level information. Floors
can collapse, rendering a floor estimate less useful. Floor numbering
can be difficult to track in an emergency. First responders may not
know on what floor they are entering a building, or they may become
disoriented during a lengthy search. They may not know whether ``Floor
X'' is above or below them, but by attaching a true height device to
their gear, they may be able to learn how close they are to a victim as
they approach the origin of a 911 call. This functionality may prove
very useful to first responders who try to locate downed or disoriented
teammates in an emergency. And a true height measurement is useful
(unlike a floor estimate) to a first responder searching outside for a
person in need of help.
37. For all these reasons, we decline to require CMRS providers to
report floor level where it is not technically feasible to do so and
instead require that they deliver z-axis information in HAE. However,
we agree with Texas 911 Entities that in cases where the carrier has
reliable information about the caller's floor level, they should
provide it.
38. We require CMRS providers to deliver z-axis information in HAE,
and we do not require CMRS providers to translate from HAE to other
formats. The record suggests that translation mechanisms can be
developed using HAE as a baseline reference, and that for the time
being we should afford industry and public safety flexibility to
develop solutions that are cost-effective for both sides. Finally, we
agree with public safety commenters that providing a floor level is a
priority and therefore seek comment below on the feasibility of
ensuring emergency personnel have access to floor level information in
the longer term.
D. Confidence and Uncertainty Data
39. In the Third Further NPRM in this proceeding (79 FR 17820
(March 28, 2014)), the Commission proposed to require provision of
confidence and uncertainty data for the location information provided
with all wireless 911 calls, whether outdoor or indoor, on a per-call
basis at the request of a PSAP, with a uniform confidence level of 90%.
The Commission anticipated that any requirements adopted regarding
standardization of the delivery and format of confidence and
uncertainty data would apply in conjunction with the delivery of both
indoor and outdoor location information. In the Fourth Report and
Order, the Commission adopted specific confidence and uncertainty
requirements for horizontal (x- and y-axis) data for all wireless 911
calls. The rules require that the data specify ``[t]he caller's
location with a uniform confidence level of 90 percent'' and ``[t]he
radius in meters from the reported position at that same confidence
level.'' Because the Fourth Report and Order deferred the adoption of a
z-axis metric, it also deferred action on extending confidence and
uncertainty requirements to z-axis data.
40. We amend our rules to extend the equivalent confidence and
uncertainty requirements to z-axis data. As commenters point out, it is
just as important for PSAPs to be able to assess the reliability of
vertical location information as it is to assess the reliability of
horizontal location information. APCO states that without uncertainty
data ``public safety professionals would lack information that is
essential when deciding whether to break down a door or how to develop
a search strategy.'' NENA asserts that it is critical that all location
information, including z-axis, include detailed uncertainty
information. BRETSA supports the provision of confidence and
uncertainty data along with z-axis information to help public safety
assess data that may include sources of error. NextNav and Polaris
support extending confidence and uncertainty requirements to z-axis
data and indicate that their technologies can generate vertical
confidence and uncertainty data for each call that can be provided to
the PSAP.
41. In light of the public safety benefits of confidence and
uncertainty data, we require CMRS providers to provide vertical
confidence and uncertainty data on a per call basis to requesting
PSAPs. As with horizontal
[[Page 2666]]
confidence and uncertainty data, providers must report vertical
confidence and uncertainty data using a confidence level of 90%, i.e.,
they must identify the range above and below the estimated z-axis
position within which there is a 90% probability of finding the
caller's true vertical location. For the same reasons, where available
to the CMRS provider, floor level information must be provided with
associated C/U data in addition to z-axis location information.
E. Compliance Certification and Call Data Reporting
42. Under our existing rules, CMRS providers, within 60 days after
each horizontal and vertical location benchmark, ``must certify that
they are in compliance with the location accuracy requirements
applicable to them as of that date.'' The rules require CMRS providers
to ``certify that the indoor location technology (or technologies) used
in their networks are deployed consistently with the manner in which
they have been tested in the test bed.'' In the Fourth Further NPRM, we
proposed to use this same certification mechanism to validate provider
compliance with the 3-meter metric.
43. We adopt our proposal. In order to be deemed in compliance
under our existing rules, nationwide CMRS providers electing to use z-
axis technology for vertical location shall certify for purposes of the
April 2021 and April 2023 compliance deadlines that z-axis technology
is deployed consistent with the manner in which it was tested in the
test bed. Commenters generally support this proposed compliance
mechanism. As CTIA outlines, ``the Test Bed would validate that a given
technology solution can meet the proposed z-axis metric of
3 meters for 80 percent of indoor wireless calls in the Test Bed, and a
wireless provider would then certify that the z-axis technology in its
network is deployed consistently with how it was tested in the Test
Bed.'' Verizon states that requiring compliance through the test bed
process ensures ``that solutions perform as vendors contend, and that
they are technically feasible,'' and it is also consistent with the
Commission's approach to horizontal accuracy.
44. APCO notes that in Stage Z, only barometric sensor-based
technologies were tested in the test bed, and questions whether the
test bed is configured to test all vertical location technologies on a
technology-neutral basis. We believe the test bed is configured to
support technology neutral testing. The Commission has previously
stated that the core purpose of the test bed is to provide a means to
evaluate ``the accuracy of different indoor location technologies
across various indoor environments.'' Thus, the test bed is not limited
to testing barometric sensor solutions, but is designed to test all
vertical location solutions in a uniform set of indoor test
environments. We also note that Google's testing in Stage Za includes
testing of technologies that are not barometric sensor-based.
45. BRETSA recommends that instead of using the test bed, the
Commission should establish a ``proof-of-performance'' method of
compliance with live call testing in each market. CTIA urges the
Commission to reject this approach. We decline to require live call
proof-of-performance testing. In establishing the test bed approach,
the Commission found it to be ``the most practical and cost-effective
method for testing compliance with indoor location accuracy
requirements.'' Indeed, the purpose of the test bed program is to
provide a reliable mechanism for validating the performance of indoor
location technologies without the need for the provider to conduct
indoor testing in all locations where the technology is actually
deployed, which would be impractical and highly burdensome.
Accordingly, we decline to adopt or require proof of performance
testing.
46. CTIA recommends that we add the language ``as measured in the
test bed'' at the end of proposed Sec. 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C)&(D), ``thus
making explicit in the rules what is in the Fourth Further [NPRM].'' We
find that the existing rules already clearly identify the test bed as
the basis for certifying compliance of all indoor location
technologies, horizontal and vertical, making CTIA's proposed amendment
unnecessary.
47. In addition, to more fully inform the Commission's
understanding of location accuracy progress, we expand the live call
data reporting obligations in our existing rules to include z-axis data
and, where available, floor level information. The Commission's live
call data reporting rules require nationwide CMRS providers to file
quarterly reports of their aggregate live 911 call use of each location
technology in four geographic morphologies within six representative
cities (Test Cities). Non-nationwide CMRS providers must report
aggregate live 911 call data collected in one or more of the Test
Cities or the largest county in their footprint, depending on the area
served by the provider.
48. To date, CMRS providers have only reported on horizontal
location technologies used for live 911 calls. However, we conclude
that it is equally appropriate to require CMRS providers to report on
live call use of vertical location technologies. The Commission's live
call data reporting requirements established in the Fourth Report and
Order require CMRS providers to ``identify and collect information
regarding the location technology or technologies used for each 911
call in the reporting area during the calling period,'' without
distinguishing between reporting of horizontal and vertical location
information. Moreover, in the indoor location technologies context, a
key purpose of the reporting requirement is to ``augment our
understanding of the progress of such technologies.'' Although our
vertical location requirements do not include live call compliance
metrics, reporting on the use of z-axis and floor level technologies in
live calls will provide important real-world data on how frequently z-
axis and floor level location is provided, the types of technologies
being used, and trends in such usage over time. We emphasize, however,
that live call data reported by CMRS providers relating to the use of
live call and floor level technologies will be used solely for
informational purposes, not compliance purposes.
F. Z-Axis Privacy and Security
49. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we sought comment on the
appropriate data privacy and security framework for z-axis data. We
noted that in establishing rules in 2015 governing CMRS provider usage
of the NEAD, the Commission had stated that ```certain explicit
requirements on individual CMRS providers are necessary to ensure the
privacy and security of NEAD data and any other information involved in
the determination and delivery of dispatchable location.' '' We asked
whether use of z-axis data should be limited to 911 calls except as
otherwise required by law, and if such a limitation should be
implemented and codified in a manner similar to the explicit
limitations applicable to the NEAD.
50. We amend our rules to make explicit that CMRS providers and the
vendors upon which they rely for z-axis information may only use 911
call z-axis information for 911 purposes, except with prior express
consent or as required by law. This approach is consistent with our
long-standing approach to protection of 911 location data. Section 222
of the Communications Act requires CMRS
[[Page 2667]]
providers, among others, to protect the confidentiality of Customer
Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) without the customer's express
prior authorization, but provides an exception for the provision of a
customer's call location information to a PSAP or other emergency
response authority in connection with a 911 call. CTIA also states that
it ``shares the Commission's view that location information derived
from wireless 9-1-1 calls, including Z axis location data, should only
be used for 9-1-1 purposes, except as otherwise provided by law.'' And
we agree with Apple that other parties--such as device manufacturers
and third-party location technology vendors--on whom carriers rely for
z-axis information should be similarly subject to the same privacy
protections and restrictions on non-911 use as data stored or used by
CMRS providers. For the same reasons as we relied on in the
dispatchable location context, we believe that CMRS providers are
already responsible for third-party use of personal location
information in support of the carrier's delivery of E911 location data
to the PSAP. To ensure compliance, we agree that a certification
requirement is appropriate. CMRS providers must therefore certify that
neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain z-axis
information for 911 purposes will use such information for any non-911
purpose, except with prior express consent or as required by law. We
also make clear that such a certification should not be construed to
``significantly impede location technology vendors by preventing them
from having access to z-axis information for such valid purposes as
system calibration and accuracy verification.'' Such a reading of these
requirements that would impede the swift development and widespread
deployment of z-axis technologies for use in emergency calls would be
contrary to the very purpose of this proceeding.
51. We also conclude that any 911-related z-axis or floor level
information that is stored before or after the 911 call should be
subject to the same privacy and security protections that apply to NEAD
data. We agree with Public Knowledge that all 911 location data should
be treated consistently from a privacy and security perspective, and
that stored coordinate-based data, including z-axis data, should not be
subject to lesser consumer privacy and data protection than NEAD data.
As Precision Broadband puts it, we should ``not decouple the choice of
deploying z-axis technology from dispatchable location,'' as z-axis
data is part of a holistic, multifaceted approach ``to solving the
vertical location problem.'' Consistent with the 2015 Fourth Report and
Order, however, the practical application of this principle in the
geolocation context may be dissimilar is some ways from its application
in the dispatchable location context. For example, coordinate-based
geolocation does not necessarily rely on previously stored customer
location information in a database, and geolocation information
generated at the time of a 911 call may be discarded rather than stored
for later use. Therefore, we conclude that any 911 geolocation data
that is stored by a CMRS provider should be subject to the same level
of privacy and security protection as NEAD data. Thus, if a CMRS
provider intends to store such data for 911 location purposes (like any
other stored data not covered by a NEAD privacy and security plan), it
``should file an addendum to ensure that the protections outlined in
the NEAD plan will cover the provider's [coordinate-based] location
transactions end-to-end.'' For 911 geolocation data that is not stored,
our CPNI requirements continue to apply and prohibit unauthorized use
of such data for any purpose other than emergency location.
52. We also clarify that we are in no way altering or addressing
existing privacy or security rules or policies that apply to location
data outside the 911 context. We agree with CTIA that such issues are
outside the scope of this proceeding.
G. Comparison of Benefits and Costs
53. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we sought comment on ``which z-axis
metric would allow [the Commission] to achieve the anticipated level of
benefits in the most cost-effective manner.'' We tentatively concluded
that ``a z-axis metric of 3 meters for 80% of calls strikes the best
balance between benefits and costs'' because ``some public safety
commenters identify a 3-meter metric as providing sufficient accuracy
to identify the caller's floor level in most cases.'' We also
tentatively concluded that ``the value of a 3-meter metric exceeds that
of a 5-meter metric because the latter would result in a significant
reduction'' in benefits. A 5-meter metric could indicate a location up
to 2 floors below, or up to 2 floors above, the actual floor where a
911 caller may be located. This large search range would make it far
more likely that first responders would need to search 2 or more
additional floors, significantly increasing average emergency response
times and consequently degrading patient outcomes. ``Due to the likely
degradation of patient outcomes with a 5-meter metric,'' we tentatively
concluded that a 3-meter metric provided greater value and sought
comment on the conclusion. We also tentatively concluded that the
``value of a 3-meter metric exceeded that of a 2-meter metric.'' We
also sought comment on how the benefits and costs of ``requiring CMRS
providers to identify floor level when reporting z-axis information
would compare to the benefits and costs of providing z-axis information
as AGL or MSL height.'' We sought ``comment on this analysis and
tentative conclusions as to the comparative value of the z-axis
metrics.''
54. We conclude that a 3-meter z-axis metric is technically
achievable and can be implemented successfully by CMRS providers by the
April 2021 and 2023 deadlines in the top 25 and 50 CMAs, respectively.
As the record reflects, a 3-meter metric will provide a substantial
benefit to public safety because it will ``identify the correct floor
of wireless callers to E911 in most instances.'' Additionally
establishing a 3-meter metric will afford certainty that will drive
innovation to create more z-axis location technological options for
CMRS providers and lower technology costs. We now address the benefits
and costs of the 3-meter metric.
55. Implementation benefits. In assessing the benefits of adopting
a 3-meter metric, our analysis begins with the analysis presented in
the Fourth Report and Order in this proceeding. There, the Commission
sought to reduce emergency response time to improve patient outcomes
and, ultimately save lives. In the Salt Lake City analysis referenced
in the Third Further NPRM, the Commission found that a one minute
increase in response times increases mortality, and that a one minute
decrease in response times decreases mortality. The Commission further
found that reducing response times would result in an annual saving of
746 lives as reflected in the Salt Lake City analysis, which could
amount to 10,120 lives annually when extrapolated across the United
States.
56. No commenter disputes the benefits of reduced emergency
response times on patient outcomes, but NextNav suggests that the
``Commission's analysis made very conservative assumptions and still
arrived at an overwhelming economic benefit to the nation.''
Additionally, the International Association of Fire Fighters and
NextNav emphasize that compelling evidence exists in the record in this
proceeding that the provision of vertical
[[Page 2668]]
location information to first responders with an accuracy of 3 meters
would reduce response times as compared to not specifying a vertical
metric or a less granular metric. NextNav observes that San Francisco
emergency first responder field tests in 2014 ``revealed dramatic
reductions of between 4 and 17 minutes in search times with the
addition of vertical information with an accuracy of +/-3 meters.'' We
agree with NextNav's assertion that due to these ``substantial''
emergency response time improvements, the Commission's factoring of a
one minute response time in its benefits analysis underestimates ``by a
substantial amount the quantifiable benefits of providing emergency
first responders with z-axis information with an accuracy of 3
meters.''
57. The record reflects ``increasing use of wireless phones by the
public, thus further increasing the benefits that can be expected from
the adoption of a 3 meter vertical metric.'' As we stated in the Third
Further NPRM, the addition of vertical location information--like the
further refinement of horizontal location information--plays a major
role in achieving the $92 billion benefit floor for improving wireless
location accuracy. As we affirmed in the Fourth Further NPRM, this
addition of new vertical information--together with the refinement of
existing horizontal information--has the potential of saving
``approximately 10,120 lives annually at a value of $9.1 million per
statistical life, for an annual benefit of approximately $92 billion or
$291 per wireless subscriber.'' Due to U.S. Department of
Transportation updates for value of a statistical life, we presently
estimate this annual benefit floor at $97 billion.
58. Implementation costs. The record indicates that software and
hardware implementation costs are low, if not negligible. NextNav
asserts that its z-axis solution, which requires only software changes
to be made to each handset, could be made available for a nominal cost
that amounts to significantly less than a penny per month per handset
and would impose no incremental cost burdens on new handsets. Polaris
states that its z-axis solution is ``objectively affordable'' because
it is software-based, does not require hardware in networks or markets,
and ``does not require anything special in devices beyond
implementation of adopted 3GPP and OMA standards.'' Polaris' solution
also is ``instantly available and deployable throughout a carrier's
nationwide network.'' As the Commission noted in the Fourth Report and
Order, we continue to expect that these costs ``will decline as demand
grows.'' Existing smartphone devices with installed barometric pressure
sensors, can be further calibrated over-the-air with calibration
signals from weather stations. Such calibration software is available
``with no additional premium costs.'' NextNav estimates that given
these factors, 3-meter compliant z-axis services can be provided ``at a
nominal cost (in aggregate, less than a penny per month per handset).''
Moreover, with the emergence of handset-based solutions we expect costs
to provide vertical location to further decrease. In addition to the
barometric pressure sensor-based solutions developed by NextNav and
Polaris, ``handset-based solutions like ELS have been widely deployed
around the world.''
59. Beyond software solutions, hardware solutions are additionally
nominal, as ``nearly all smartphones on the market appear to be
equipped with barometric pressure sensors.'' One commenter notes that
adding barometric sensors to phones does and will entail additional
costs, but the cost of those sensors continues to drop. We clarify that
we amend our rules today to apply our 3 meter metric to z-axis capable
devices--in other words, we are not mandating retrofitting of older
devices with barometric sensors, thus obviating such costs or, as
technological developments unfold, retrofitting older devices in any
manner to make such devices z-axis capable.
60. Cost/benefit comparison. We reaffirm our earlier decision that
implementation of a 3-meter metric for vertical location accuracy will
account for a large share of the total annual benefit floor, which we
presently estimate to be a total of $97 billion. Because that estimate
includes only the value of statistical lives saved, we expect that
there will be many additional benefits--which we are unable to
quantify--from the reductions in human suffering and the reduced
property losses due to crime and uncontrolled fires. We derive our cost
from an estimated annual handset cost of ``a penny per month per
handset'' or $0.12 per year. Assuming there are some 300 million
handsets presently in use, we apply the per-year handset cost to
estimate a cost ceiling of approximately $36 million per year.
Accordingly, we find that the estimated benefits of this instant rules
far outweigh the estimated costs.
IV. Procedural Matters
61. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission
has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies
and rules adopted in the Fifth Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth
in Appendix C of the Fifth Report and Order.
62. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The requirements in Sec.
9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and (j)(4), constitute modified
information collections. These requirements solicit information for a
certification of z-axis information use, and confidence and confidence
and uncertainty data, respectfully. They will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new information collection requirements
contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that, pursuant to
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we previously sought,
but did not receive, specific comment on how the Commission might
further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission does not believe
that the new or modified information collection requirements in Sec.
9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and (j)(4), will be unduly
burdensome on small businesses. Applying these new or modified
information collections will promote 911 service and emergency
response, to the benefit of all size governmental jurisdictions,
businesses, equipment manufacturers, and business associations by
providing greater confidence in 911 location accuracy and greater
consistency between the Commission's horizontal and vertical location
rules. We describe impacts that might affect small businesses, which
includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
63. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is ``major''
under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission
will send a copy of this Fifth Report and Order to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
64. Further Information. For further information, contact Nellie
Foosaner, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2925 or via email at
[email protected]; or
[[Page 2669]]
Alex Espinoza, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0849 or via email at
[email protected].
V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
65. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFAs) was
incorporated in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Fourth Further NPRM) adopted in March 2019. The Commission sought
written public comment on the proposals in the Notice including comment
on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
66. The Fifth Report and Order advances the Commission's goal of
ensuring ``that all Americans using mobile phones--whether they are
calling from urban or rural areas, from indoors or outdoors--have
technology that is functionally capable of providing accurate location
information so that they receive the support they need in times of an
emergency.'' In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission adopts a
metric to more precisely identify the location of a 911 wireless caller
located in a multi-story building. More specifically, the Commission
amends its rules to require the provisioning of vertical location (z-
axis) information that would help enable first responders to identify
the caller's floor level within 3 meters for most wireless calls to 911
from multi-story buildings, which represents a critical element to
achieving the Commission's indoor location accuracy objectives.
Consistent with the regulatory framework established in the last major
revision of the Commission's wireless location accuracy rules in 2015
and the information developed in the associated docket, the Fifth
Report and Order adopts a z-axis location accuracy metric of 3 meters
above or below a handset for 80 percent of wireless Enhanced 911 (E911)
indoor calls from z-axis capable devices as demonstrated in the test
bed used to develop and test proposed z-axis accuracy metrics. CMRS
providers must deliver z-axis information in Height Above Ellipsoid
(HAE). Where available to the CMRS Provider, CMRS providers must
deliver floor level information with z-axis location. The Commission
will also apply its current Confidence and Uncertainty (C/U) data
requirements for x/y location information to z-axis and, where
available, floor level information that will be collected and
provisioned by CMRS providers. The Commission extends to z-axis
location and, where available, floor level information existing
compliance certification and live call data reporting requirements
applicable to CMRS providers. Additionally, the Commission extends
consumer privacy and data security protections to 911 calls that convey
z-axis location and, where available, floor level information in the
Fifth Report and Order.
67. For z-axis compliance, the Fifth Report and Order requires CMRS
providers to use a technology proven to meet the 3-meter metric in the
test bed. The adopted metric should augment the ability of Public
Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and first responders to more accurately
identify the floor level for most 911 calls made from multi-story
buildings, reduce emergency response times, and, ultimately, save
lives. It also implements the final element of the Commission's
existing indoor location accuracy regime, which already includes a
timetable for CMRS providers to deliver vertical location information
by deploying either dispatchable location or z-axis technology in
specific geographic areas. The adopted z-axis metric provides certainty
to all parties and establishes a focal point for further testing,
development, and implementation of evolving z-axis location
technologies. The Fifth Report and Order also clarifies that z-axis
location and, where available, floor level information may only be used
for 911 purposes except as required by law. In addition, the Fifth
Report and Order amends the location accuracy rules to require CMRS
providers to deliver confidence and uncertainty data along with z-axis
information and, where available, floor level information.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
68. There were no filed comments that specifically addressed the
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration
69. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
70. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the
proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply
71. 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 rule changes. 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.
72. 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.
73. 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).
74. 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
[[Page 2670]]
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
75. Pursuant to 47 CFR 20.18(a), the Commission's 911 service
requirements are only applicable to CMRS providers, excluding mobile
satellite service operators, to the extent that they: (1) Offer real-
time, two way switched voice service that is interconnected with the
public switched network; and (2) Utilize an in-network switching
facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish
seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. These requirements are
applicable to entities that offer voice service to consumers by
purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale rates from CMRS licensees.
76. 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.
77. 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.
78. 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 personal communications services (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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Two auctions of
narrowband 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 (65 FR 35843 (June 6, 2000)).
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
[[Page 2671]]
the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has
approved these small business size standards.
82. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on
several ultra-high frequency (UHF) television broadcast channels that
are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states
bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The closest applicable SBA size standard
is for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which
is an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. U.S. Census Bureau
data in this industry for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this SBA category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of Offshore Radiotelephone Service firms
can be considered small. There are presently approximately 55 licensees
in this service. However, the Commission is unable to estimate at this
time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the
SBA's small business size standard for the category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
83. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of
manufacturers in this industry are small.
84. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The closest
applicable SBA size standard is for Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite), which is an entity employing no more than
1,500 persons. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had
employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of
Rural Radiotelephone Services firm are small entities. There are
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and
the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity
licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by
the rules and policies herein.
85. 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.
86. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
87. 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 1000
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of these entities
can be considered small. According to Commission data, 413 carriers
reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Therefore, more than half of these entities can be
considered small.
88. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard
Band Order (65 FR 17594 (April 4, 2000), 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.
89. 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
[[Page 2672]]
Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. A
``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that
are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders.
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small
business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band
(Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses.
All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
90. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order (72 FR 48814 (Aug. 24,
2007)). 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.
91. 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.
92. 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
93. 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 show 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.
94. 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.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
95. The Fifth Report and Order enacts a z-axis (vertical) location
accuracy metric that will affect the reporting, recordkeeping and/or
other compliance requirements of small and other size CMRS providers--
both nationwide and non-nationwide. Under the current E911 location
accuracy rules, by 2021, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy either
(1) dispatchable location, or (2) z-axis technology that achieves the
Commission-adopted z-axis metric in each of the top 25 Cellular Market
Areas. If z-axis technology is used, CMRS providers must deploy z-axis
technology to cover 80 percent of the Cellular Market Areas population.
By 2021, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy dispatchable location or
z-axis technology complying with the Commission-adopted z-axis metric
in each of the top 50 Cellular Market
[[Page 2673]]
Areas. Small entities that are non-nationwide carriers, including
resellers, that serve any of the top 25 or 50 CMAs will have an
additional year to meet the two benchmarks (i.e., until 2022 for the
top 25 Cellular Market Areas and 2024 for the top 50 Cellular Market
Areas). CMRS providers must deliver z-axis information in Height Above
Ellipsoid. Where available, CMRS providers must deliver floor level
information with z-axis location.
96. The Fifth Report and Order requires nationwide and non-
nationwide CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology to provide
vertical location information within a 3 meters metric under the
Commission's existing location accuracy requirements timelines. While
the Commission does not mandate a specific technology for z-axis
compliance, we require CMRS providers to use a technology proven to
meet the 3-meters metric in the test bed. In order to be deemed in
compliance, CMRS providers using z-axis technology for vertical
location must certify that the z-axis technology is deployed
consistently with the manner in which it was tested in the test bed.
The Fifth Report and Order also requires CMRS providers to comply with
the Commission's current confidence and uncertainty (C/U) requirements
for x/y location information for z-axis location information in
addition to horizontal location, for 911 calls in the top 50 CMAs. As
we stated in the Fifth Report and Order, we anticipate this data ``can
be furnished to PSAPs at minimal cost to CMRS providers given that they
already provide C/U data for x/y calls.'' Where available, CMRS
providers must provide floor level information and associated C/U data
in addition to z-axis location information.
97. In order to be deemed in compliance under our existing rules,
we clarify that nationwide CMRS providers electing to use z-axis
technology for vertical location shall certify for purposes of the
April 2021 and April 2023 compliance deadlines that z-axis technology
is deployed consistent with the manner in which it was tested in the
test bed. Non-nationwide providers will have an additional year to make
each certification. In addition, to more fully inform the Commission's
understanding of location accuracy progress, we extend the live data
calling reporting obligations existing in the rules to z-axis. The
Commission live call data reporting rules require nationwide CMRS
providers to file quarterly reports of their aggregate live 911 call
location data for each location technology used within four geographic
morphologies within six representative cities (Test Cities). Non-
nationwide CMRS providers must report the aggregate live 911 call data
collected in one or more of the Test Cities or the largest county in
their footprint, depending on the area served by the provider. We
extend these reporting requirements to include z-axis information and,
where available, floor level information in the live call data
reporting already in the Commission's rules for our informational
purposes.
98. The Commission clarifies in the Fifth Report and Order that
CMRS providers may only use z-axis location and floor level information
for 911 purposes except with prior express consent or as required by
law. Prior to use of z-axis information and floor level information
contained in the NEAD, CMRS providers are required to certify that they
will not use z-axis, floor level, or associated data for any non-911
purpose, except with prior express consent or as otherwise required by
law. The certification must state that the CMRS provider will provide
z-axis location and floor level information privacy and security
protection equivalent to the NEAD. This requirement is necessary to
ensure the privacy and security of any personally identifiable
information that may be collected in generating z-axis and floor level
data. Additionally, we require CMRS providers to certify that neither
they nor any third party they rely on to obtain z-axis and floor level
information for 911 purposes will use such information for any non-911
purpose, except with prior express consent or as required by law.
99. In the Fourth Further NPRM, the Commission tentatively
concluded based on the z-axis solution test results and other comments,
that a metric of 3 meters for 80% of indoor calls is technically
achievable and that z-axis solutions capable of meeting this metric can
be deployed within the timeframes established in the E911 location
accuracy rules. We also tentatively concluded that the cost of
compliance with the 3-meter metric is relatively low. We affirm these
conclusions with our adoption of the 3-meters metric requirement in the
Fifth Report and Order. In order to comply with the 3-meters metric
requirement, small entities may incur costs associated with software
and/or hardware changes and may need to employ engineers or other
experts. While the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance
with the requirements, the technology solution a small entity chooses
to implement the requirement will ultimately determine the nature of
the costs it incurs.
100. Evidence in the record indicates that small entities have a
choice of vendors with z-axis technology solutions, which will allow
them to manage their costs. Moreover, having a competitive market for
such solutions should lessen the costs for small entities to comply
with the rules. In the proceeding, parties provided examples of various
technology solutions that are currently available to small entities and
other CMRS providers and general information on the implementation
requirements. NextNav a vendor that participated in Stage Z testing
indicated that its z-axis solution which only requires software changes
to be made to each handset, could be made available for a nominal cost
that amounts to significantly less than a penny per month per handset.
Another test vendor, Polaris, indicated that its solution is instantly
available and deployable throughout a carrier's nationwide network.
Polaris also asserted that its solution is ``objectively affordable''
because it is software-based, does not require hardware in networks or
markets, and ``does not require anything special in devices beyond
implementation of adopted 3GPP and OMA standards.'' Google who
announced development and deployment of its Emergency Location System
(ELS) in the U.S. for Android devices and testing in Stage Za,
indicated that ELS is ``a supplemental service that sends enhanced
location directly from Android handsets to emergency services when an
emergency call is placed.'' Google also indicated that ELS is part of
the Android operating system and does not require any special hardware
or updates. Apple has announced that it will use new technology to
quickly and securely share Hybridized Emergency Location information
with 911 call centers. The HELO ``solution has offered z-axis estimates
and uncertainties beginning in 2013, and those estimates have been
consumed by carriers since its first adoption in 2015.'' Apple has
committed to improving its vertical, as well as horizontal, location
accuracy and will participate in CTIA's z-axis testing by the end of
2020. With the addition of other vertical location technologies and
vendors into the market, the Commission expects small entities will
have more implementation options and that technology costs will decline
as demand grows, which could further reduce their cost of compliance.
101. The Commission does not believe that the new or modified
information collection requirements in Sec. 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D),
(i)(4)(v), and (j)(4), will be unduly burdensome on small businesses.
Applying these new or
[[Page 2674]]
modified information collections will promote 911 service and emergency
response, to the benefit of all size governmental jurisdictions,
businesses, equipment manufacturers, and business associations by
providing greater confidence in 911 location accuracy and greater
consistency between the Commission's horizontal and vertical location
rules. We provide the following analysis:
102. The Commission amends Sec. 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) to
require the provisioning of dispatchable location or z-axis location
information. As stated in the Fifth Report and Order, where available
to CMRS Providers, floor level information must be reported with z-axis
location information. The Commission adopts Sec. 9.10(i)(4)(v) to
require all CMRS providers to certify that they will not use z-axis
information or associated data for any non-911 purpose, except with
prior express consent or as otherwise required by law. The
certification must state that CMRS providers will provide z-axis
location information privacy and security protection equivalent to the
NEAD. Additionally, under Sec. 9.10(i)(4)(v), we require CMRS
providers to certify that neither they nor any third party they rely on
to obtain z-axis location information for 911 purposes will use such
information for any non-911 purpose, except with prior express consent
or as required by law. This requirement is necessary to ensure the
privacy and security of any personally identifiable information that
may be collected in generating z-axis data. The Commission adopts Sec.
9.10(j)(4) to extend confidence and uncertainty (C/U) requirements to
wireless E911 calls that provide z-axis and floor level information in
the top 50 CMAs, for CMRS providers, in addition to horizontal
location. As we stated in the Fifth Report and Order, we also
anticipate this data ``can be furnished to PSAPs at minimal cost to
CMRS providers given that they already provide C/U data for x/y
calls.'' The Commission anticipates the burden and cost levels of these
requirements to be similar to the existing collections which OMB
approved under OMB Control No. 3060-1210, ICR Reference No: 201801-
3060-010. Additionally, the Commission anticipates extending the burden
and cost burdens associated with extending the existing compliance
certification and live call data report requirements to CMRS Providers
that deploy z-axis information to be similar to the existing
collections which OMB approved under OMB Control No. 3060-1210, ICR
Reference No: 201801-3060-010. The Commission seeks comment on these
costs in its upcoming Paperwork Reduction Act comment periods.
F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
103. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its 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 small entities.
104. Based on a comparison of the benefits and costs to
alternatives metrics, the Commission believes that the 3-meter metric
adopted in the Fifth Report and Order is the most cost-effective option
for achieving the Commission's location accuracy and public safety
objectives in this proceeding while avoiding placing undue burdens on
small entities and other CMRS providers. While the rules adopted in the
Fifth Report and Order will apply to all nationwide and non-nationwide
CMRS in the same manner, the Commission has taken steps to accommodate
non-nationwide CMRS providers by supplying additional time to comply
with the adopted vertical location accuracy benchmarks. Non-nationwide
CMRS providers which tend to be small entities have an additional year
to comply with the Commission's z-axis benchmarks. The Commission also
declined to mandate a specific technological solution but instead,
nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers may choose to provide a
dispatchable location solution or deploy z-axis technology. Thus, small
entities have the freedom to choose a solution that best fits their
financial situation rather than being subjected to a specific z-axis
technology solution, which should minimize the economic impact on these
entities.
105. In implementing the z-axis metric, there were several
alternatives considered by the Commission but not adopted that may have
presented an increased economic impact for small entities.
Specifically, the Commission declined to adopt a more stringent z-axis
metric or a requirement to convey ``floor level'' information. Small
entities will benefit as a result of the certainty provided by the
Commission's adoption of 3 meters metric requirement. The Commission
also declined to mandate the application of the 3-meters for barometric
pressure sensor capable handsets but instead applied the requirement
only to z-axis capable devices. This action by the Commission will
allow small entities and other CMRS providers to avoid having to
retrofit older devices that may not have barometric sensors and avoid
incurring the associated costs. Additionally, the Commission declined
to adopt a less stringent 5 meter metric, which could increase
emergency response time. Lastly, the Commission declined to adopt a
specific measurement standard that must be used to report vertical
location information and declined to adopt or require proof of
performance testing to measure compliance with the z-axis metric.
106. The Commission believes the adoption of the 3 meters metric
and allowing CMRS providers the flexibility to choose a compliant
technology solution rather than mandating a one size fits all solution
is the best approach to meet its public safety and location accuracy
objectives and should minimize some economic impact for small entities.
The Commission's action also provides CMRS providers a level of
certainty which should benefit providers in their selection of a
complaint technology solution. In addition, by adopting a single
metric, small entities and other CMRS providers should benefit from the
economies of scale equipment manufacturers will incur from the ability
to provision devices uniformly using 3-meters standard.
107. Report to Congress. The Commission will send a copy of the
Fifth Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission
will send a copy of the Fifth Report and Order, including this FRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Fifth Report
and Order, and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in
the Federal Register.
VI. Ordering Clauses
108. 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
[[Page 2675]]
Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. 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, Pub. L. 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that
this Fifth Report and Order, is hereby adopted.
109. It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's
rules as set forth in Appendix A of the Fifth Report and Order are
adopted, effective sixty days from the date of publication in the
Federal Register. Section 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and
(j)(4) contain new or modified information collection requirements that
require OMB review under the PRA. The Commission directs the Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) to announce the effective
date of those information collections in a document published in the
Federal Register after the Commission receives OMB approval, and
directs the Bureau to cause Sec. 9.10(s) to be revised accordingly.
110. 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, including the Initial and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
111. 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, including the Initial and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
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.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 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. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201,
202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303,
307, 308, 309, 3 10, 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)
introductory text and (i)(2)(ii)(D) introductory text, adding paragraph
(i)(4)(v), revising paragraph (j)(1) introductory text, adding
paragraph (j)(4), and revising paragraph (s) to read as follows:
Sec. 9.10 911 Service.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) By April 3, 2021: In each of the top 25 cellular market areas
(CMAs), nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy either dispatchable
location, or z-axis technology in compliance with the following z-axis
accuracy metric: Within 3 meters above or below (plus or minus 3
meters) the handset for 80% of wireless E911 calls made from the z-axis
capable device. CMRS providers must deliver z-axis information in
Height Above Ellipsoid. Where available to the CMRS provider, floor
level information must be provided in addition to z-axis location
information. CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must also
comply with the compliance certification and call data reporting
requirements of paragraphs (i)(2)(iii) and (i)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(D) By April 3, 2023: In each of the top 50 CMAs, nationwide CMRS
providers shall deploy either dispatchable location, or z-axis
technology in compliance with the following z-axis accuracy metric:
Within 3 meters above or below (plus or minus 3 meters) the handset for
80% of wireless E911 calls made from the z-axis capable device. CMRS
providers must deliver z-axis information in Height Above Ellipsoid.
Where available to the CMRS provider, floor level information must be
provided in addition to z-axis location information. CMRS providers
that deploy z-axis technology must also comply with the compliance
certification and call data reporting requirements of paragraphs
(i)(2)(iii) and (i)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(v) Z-axis use certification. Prior to use of z-axis information to
meet the Commission's 911 vertical location accuracy requirements in
paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section, CMRS providers must certify that
neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain z-axis
information will use z-axis information or associated data for any non-
911 purpose, except with prior express consent or as otherwise required
by law. The certification must state that CMRS providers and any third
party they rely on to obtain z-axis information will provide z-axis
location information privacy and security protection equivalent to the
NEAD.
(j) Confidence and uncertainty data. (1) Except as provided in
paragraphs (j)(2) through (4) of this section, CMRS providers subject
to this section shall provide for all wireless 911 calls, whether from
outdoor or indoor locations, x- and y-axis (latitude, longitude) and z-
axis (vertical) confidence and uncertainty information (C/U data) on a
per-call basis upon the request of a PSAP. The data shall specify:
* * * * *
(4) Upon meeting the timeframes pursuant to paragraphs
(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) of this section, CMRS providers shall provide
with wireless 911 calls that have dispatchable location or z-axis
(vertical) information the C/U data required under paragraph (j)(1) of
this section. Where available to the CMRS provider, floor level
information must be provided with associated C/U data in addition to z-
axis location information.
* * * * *
(s) Compliance date(s). Paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D),
(i)(4)(v), (j)(4), and (q)(10)(v) of this section contain information-
collection and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with paragraphs
(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), (j)(4), and (q)(10)(v) will not be
required until after approval by the Office of Management and Budget.
The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register
announcing compliance dates with those paragraphs and revising this
paragraph(s) accordingly.
[FR Doc. 2019-28483 Filed 1-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P