[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 65 (Thursday, April 4, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13211-13222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06012]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 19-20]
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) proposes to revise its rules to require Commercial Mobile
Radio Service providers to deliver accurate vertical location
information to Public Safety Answering points consistent with a metric
of plus or minus three meters for wireless 911 calls placed from
indoors. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal as well as on
alternatives to improve vertical location accuracy for
[[Page 13212]]
wireless 911 calls made from multi-story buildings.
DATES: Comments are due on or before May 20, 2019 and reply comments
are due on or before June 18, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's website: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
People with Disabilities: Contact the Commission to
request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign
language interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone:
202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Boykin, Policy and Licensing
Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2062 or
via email at [email protected]; Nellie Foosaner, Policy and
Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202)
418-2925 or via email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commissions Fourth
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket No. 07-114, released
on March 18, 2019. The full text of this document is available for
public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or
online at www.fcc.gov.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document does not contain proposed information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law
104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a
``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
I. Introduction
1. Since the Commission first adopted its wireless Enhanced 911
(E911) location accuracy rules in 1996, the wireless landscape has
undergone major changes. In 2018 the number of Americans with
smartphones rose to 77%, up from just 35% in Pew Research Center's
first survey of smartphone ownership conducted in 2011. As the adoption
of cellphones and smartphones has skyrocketed, they have become an
indispensable tool to protect consumers' health, property, and
wellbeing, and many Americans are now relying on mobile phones as their
only phones. Consumers make 240 million calls to 911 each year, and in
many areas 80% or more of these calls are from wireless phones. For
both first responders and consumers, the capability to locate wireless
911 callers quickly and accurately is of critical importance regardless
of where the call originates.
[[Page 13213]]
2. To ensure that first responders and Public Safety Answering
Points (PSAPs) can find 911 callers quickly and accurately when a
consumer calls from a multi-story building, we propose a vertical, or
z-axis, location accuracy metric of plus or minus 3 meters relative to
the handset for each of the benchmarks and geographic requirements
previously established in the Commission's E911 wireless location
accuracy rules. This proposed metric will more accurately identify the
floor level for most 911 calls, reduce emergency response times, and
save lives.
II. Background
3. In the 2014 Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this
proceeding, the Commission proposed measures and timeframes to improve
location accuracy for wireless E911 calls originating indoors,
including, among others, a 3-meter z-axis metric for 80% of such calls.
In the 2015 Fourth Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission
established benchmarks and timetables for the deployment of z-axis
technology or dispatchable location (which includes a vertical location
component) in the top 50 Cellular Market Areas, but deferred a decision
on a specific z-axis metric until it received additional testing data.
Specifically, the Commission required the four nationwide Commercial
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers to establish a test bed to
develop a proposed z-axis accuracy metric and to submit the proposed
metric to the Commission for approval within 3 years (i.e., by August
3, 2018). The Commission stated that the proposal would be placed out
for public comment.
4. On August 3, 2018, CTIA submitted the ``Stage Z Test Report''
(Report or Stage Z Test Report) on behalf of the four nationwide CMRS
providers. According to the Report, Stage Z testing sought to assess
the accuracy of solutions that use barometric pressure sensors in the
handset for determining altitude in support of E911. Two vendors,
NextNav LLC (NextNav) and Polaris Wireless, Inc. (Polaris),
participated in Stage Z. The test results showed that in 80% of NextNav
test calls, vertical location was identified to a range of 1.8 meters
or less, while 80% of Polaris test calls yielded a vertical accuracy
range of 4.8 meters or less. The Report noted that Polaris' performance
``could likely be significantly improved should a more robust handset
barometric sensor calibration approach [than that used in the test bed]
be applied.''
5. In its August 3, 2018, cover letter submitting the Report, CTIA
stated that the test results provided ``helpful insight'' into the
state of z-axis technologies, but that ``significant questions remain
about performance and scalability in live wireless 9-1-1 calling
environments.'' On behalf of the four nationwide wireless providers,
CTIA therefore proposed a z-axis metric of ``+/- 5 meters for 80% of
fixes from mobile devices capable of delivering barometric pressure
sensor-based altitude estimates.'' CTIA also stated that further
testing of vertical location technologies could yield results to
validate adoption of a more accurate z-axis metric.
6. On September 10, 2018, the Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau (Bureau) released a Public Notice seeking comment on the Report
and the carriers' proposed z-axis metric. The Public Notice sought to
gather information that would inform the Bureau's recommendations to
the Commission concerning next steps in the development of the z-axis
accuracy metric contemplated by the Fourth Report & Order. Fourteen
entities filed comments and reply comments.
7. Public safety organizations unanimously opposed CTIA's proposed
5-meter metric as too imprecise to identify a caller's floor level.
Some public safety organizations expressed support for a 3-meter
metric, while others encouraged the Commission to adopt a 2-meter
metric. NextNav and Polaris asserted that they could meet a 3-meter
metric for 80% of wireless indoor calls within the prescribed
timeframes.
8. In their initial comments, CTIA and some nationwide CMRS
providers argued that the Commission should defer setting a more
aggressive z-axis metric than 5 meters pending further testing. In a
December 2018 ex parte filing, however, CTIA and all four nationwide
CMRS providers revised their recommendation. These parties recognized
``that public safety representatives have encouraged the Commission to
adopt a more aggressive Z-Axis metric of 3 meters in the
near term.'' While continuing to stress the importance of further
testing, CTIA and the four providers stated that ``certainty as to the
Z-Axis metric in the near term, whether via an Order or expeditiously
seeking public comment, may help advance the development process
necessary to meet the 2021 and 2023 vertical location accuracy
benchmarks in the Fourth Report & Order.''
9. Herein, we take steps to build on the Commission's adoption of
the Fourth Report and Order by proposing a metric for the z-axis
compliance standard for wireless 911 calls that is available to those
providers that do not choose the dispatchable location compliance
standard for vertical location accuracy.
III. Discussion
10. Given the current state of the record, we believe it is
appropriate to propose a z-axis metric based on a 3-meter standard.
This will provide the final element of the Commission's existing indoor
location accuracy regime, which already includes a timetable for CMRS
providers to deliver vertical location information by deploying either
dispatchable location or z-axis technology in specific geographic
areas. Our proposed z-axis metric will provide certainty to all parties
and establish a focal point for further testing, development, and
implementation of evolving z-axis location technologies. To ensure a
complete and comprehensive record on this issue, we seek comment on our
proposal as discussed below.
A. Floor Level Accuracy
11. We propose a z-axis metric of 3 meters relative to the handset
for 80% of wireless E911 calls for each of the benchmarks and
geographic requirements previously established in the Commission's E911
wireless location accuracy rules. To certify compliance with this
proposed requirement, the caller's handset should be located within 3
meters above or below the vertical location provided by the phone for
80% of indoor wireless calls to 911, as demonstrated in the test bed.
Under our proposal, we would amend Section 20.18 of the Commission's
rules to require that by April 3, 2021, nationwide CMRS providers must
deploy in each of the top 25 Cellular Market Areas either dispatchable
location or z-axis technology in compliance with the 3-meter metric. In
Cellular Market Areas where z-axis technology is used, nationwide CMRS
providers must deploy z-axis technology to cover 80% of the Cellular
Market Area population. By April 3, 2023, these requirements would be
expanded to cover each of the top 50 Cellular Market Areas. Non-
nationwide CMRS providers that serve any of the top 25 or 50 Cellular
Market Areas would continue to have an additional year to meet each of
these benchmarks in the relevant Cellular Market Area.
12. We seek comment on our proposed 3-meter metric. We tentatively
agree with commenters responding to the Stage Z Test Report who assert
that
[[Page 13214]]
3 meters will provide sufficient accuracy to identify the caller's
floor level in most cases. For example, IAFF comments that the
Commission should require vertical location information that provides
true floor level accuracy, ``i.e., no more than 3 meters.'' NENA states
that ``[c]itizens and public safety require, in the absence of a
dispatchable location solution, a z-axis accuracy benchmark of +/-3
meters.'' The Texas 911 Entities assert that a metric greater than 3
meters for 80% of calls ``would not satisfy the critical requirements
of public safety.'' We acknowledge that a 3-meter metric is not always
certain to yield floor level accuracy. If the indoor wireless caller's
handset is located at the vertical center of a floor with an average
height of 3.1 to 3.9 meters, the margins of a 3-meter metric allow for
a variance of up to six meters, which would extend the search range to
one floor above and one floor below the location of the handset.
Nevertheless, we believe this search range will significantly narrow
the scope of the search and can provide a reasonable basis for
identifying the correct floor in most cases. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. Do commenters agree that the metric should be set
at 3 meters? If not, what vertical location metric should the
Commission adopt, and why?
13. We also tentatively conclude that a 5-meter metric should not
be adopted because the record indicates it would not yield the floor
level accuracy that first responder commenters consider necessary. APCO
states that a 5-meter metric ``translates to a range of up to two
floors below, or up to two floors above, the actual floor where a 911
caller may be located, and some lesser degree of accuracy for one in
five calls to 911.'' APCO and NENA also assert that adopting a metric
of 5 meters would undermine incentives for CMRS providers to invest in
the development of more accurate z-axis solutions. We seek comment on
our tentative conclusion.
14. We also seek comment on other elements of the proposed metric.
Should the metric apply to 80% of wireless calls? If not, what
percentage of calls is appropriate? CTIA's proposed metric would apply
only to ``mobile devices capable of delivering barometric pressure
sensor-based altitude estimates.'' Should the z-axis metric apply only
to calls from such devices, only devices manufactured after a date
certain, or should it apply to wireless calls from all mobile devices,
as we propose? Additionally, NPSTC asserts that reporting vertical
location information as height above ground level (AGL) would be
preferable to height above mean sea level (MSL) which is how carriers'
data would otherwise be provided by default. Should the Commission
specify that CMRS providers must report z-axis information as AGL, as
NPSTC suggests, or are there advantages to keying height estimates to
MSL? Should the Commission require CMRS providers to identify the floor
level when reporting z-axis information, as suggested by APCO? What
would be the technical and/or operational issues in requiring CMRS
providers to provide either AGL height or floor level information?
Should the Commission require all CMRS providers to provide the same
type of z-axis information (e.g., MSL, AGL, or floor level) to avoid
potential confusion at the PSAP? Alternatively, should we decline to
specify this level of detail so that entities developing z-axis
solutions have more flexibility?
B. Technical Feasibility
15. We tentatively conclude that our proposed 3-meter z-axis metric
is technically feasible under the timeframes established in the Fourth
Report and Order.
16. The test bed results show that in 80% of NextNav test calls,
vertical location was identified to a range of 1.8 meters or less.
NextNav achieved a vertical accuracy within 2 meters for 67% of test
calls and within 3 meters for 90% of test calls in the dense urban,
urban, and suburban morphologies. NextNav also achieved a vertical
accuracy within 2 meters for 80% of test calls for every handset
tested. According to NextNav, these results ``were consistent across
age of handsets, with the oldest devices (2016 models) performing
identically to the newest (2018).'' NextNav asserts that the results
demonstrate reasonable consistency between handsets, weather, building
types, environments, and time of day and that they demonstrate ``the
efficacy of the overall altitude determination system (<1m @ 80%).''
17. In addition, Polaris states that it was able to achieve
aggregate accuracy performance of 2.8 meters for 80% of test calls by
using additional available location data to recalibrate and refine its
Stage Z data. This also supports our tentative conclusion in favor of a
3-meter metric. Polaris also indicates that in a real-world deployment
its solution would use an active compensation correction model that
operates in an application running continuously in the background of
the device. As stated by Dr. R. Michael Buehrer of Virginia Tech, we
also expect that this calibration process would be at least as accurate
as the limited (once per month) calibration process Polaris used in
reprocessing its Stage Z data. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude
that Polaris' reprocessing of the data presents a reasonably accurate
picture of the capabilities of its solution. We seek comment on this
view.
18. Additionally, we are encouraged that entities outside the test
bed have reported on technologies that may be able to achieve an
equivalent degree of vertical location accuracy, and in this respect,
we note that our rules do not require the use of a particular
technology to achieve the necessary metric. For instance, on September
18, 2018, Google announced the launch of its Emergency Location Service
in the United States. According to Google, Emergency Location Service
is ``a supplemental service that sends enhanced location directly from
Android handsets to emergency services when an emergency call is
placed.'' Emergency Location Service works on ``99 percent of Android
devices (version 4.0 and above).'' Emergency Location Service is part
of the Android operating system and does not require any special
hardware or updates. Regarding vertical location accuracy, Google
states that it is working to provide accurate altitude and floor
location and ``improve [Emergency Location Service] location quality,
especially for challenging locations, such as urban canyons and
indoors.''
19. We recognize that some public safety commenters urge us to
adopt a 2-meter metric, which would increase the likelihood of
providing floor-level accuracy. However, we believe it is not yet
established that such a metric is technically achievable on a
consistent basis, although it may become achievable in the long term as
technology continues to evolve. While NextNav's test bed results
demonstrate that its solution can achieve an accuracy of 1.8 meters or
less for 80% of test calls overall, it could only achieve an accuracy
of 2.5 meters or less for 80% of test calls in the dense urban
morphology, where calls from multi-story buildings are most likely to
occur. Similarly, even after reprocessing its data, Polaris' solution
yielded only 2.8 meters or less for 80% of test calls. Because the
existing record does not indicate that 2-meter accuracy is currently
achievable by either vendor in the dense urban morphology, we
tentatively conclude that it would be premature to adopt a 2-meter
metric. We believe, however, that our proposed 3-meter metric will
encourage CMRS providers to work with NextNav, Polaris, and emerging
location and
[[Page 13215]]
device vendors to achieve more precise vertical location accuracy
solutions. We seek comment on this view.
C. Testing
20. We propose to adopt a 3-meter z-axis metric instead of
deferring the matter for further testing. Although CTIA initially
maintained that additional testing was needed before a metric could be
adopted, it has since taken the opposite view. Additionally, vendors'
comments suggest that the 3-meter metric is technically feasible, and
public safety commenters acknowledge that such a metric, while not as
precise as they might like, would nevertheless be a worthwhile step to
take. Although we tentatively conclude that the benefits of further
testing are insufficient to warrant any more delay in the progress of
this proceeding, to the extent that the proponents of additional
testing conduct tests or studies that yield more accurate and efficient
vertical location solutions, we encourage these stakeholders to file
them in this docket. We observe that CTIA recently announced that in
July 2019, the test bed will begin the next round of z-axis testing,
which CTIA has designated as ``Stage Za.'' We encourage all technology
vendors that are developing potential z-axis solutions to participate
in Stage Za. We note, however, that in the interest of providing
certainty in the near term to all parties, the Commission envisions
proceeding on this rulemaking while additional testing occurs.
21. We also tentatively conclude based on our own assessment of the
Report that the limitations on testing described therein do not
preclude us from adopting a 3-meter metric without requiring additional
testing. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
22. For example, in Stage Z, Chicago was added as a test region to
provide a more extreme cold-weather environment for evaluating z-axis
technologies, but NextNav was unable to test there. NextNav also did
not test its solution in rural morphologies. We do not believe that the
lack of NextNav test data in either environment is a sufficient reason
to delay consideration of a z-axis metric.
23. In particular, with respect to extreme cold-weather testing,
the Report states that very cold weather was not available during
testing and that this is likely because the test campaign started in
late February. Accordingly, the test results would not have been
conclusive even if NextNav had participated. In addition, if we were to
require additional cold-weather testing, it could not be scheduled
before next winter, which would entail at least a year's delay in
adopting a metric.
24. Similarly, we do not believe that the absence of NextNav test
data in rural morphologies warrants a delay in our consideration of a
z-axis metric. The Report notes that the rural morphology is ``the
sparsest environment overall'' and is mostly residential, with most
structures between 1 and 2 stories high. Moreover, the Commission's
vertical location accuracy requirements apply only to the top 50
Cellular Market Areas, which are most likely to feature the urban and
dense urban morphologies. In these morphologies, the test bed shows
that NextNav's solution would meet a 3-meter metric. Additionally,
NextNav's technology was tested for vertical accuracy in rural areas
during the original CSRIC Test Bed conducted in 2012, and NextNav's
results from that testing fell within 3 meters for 80% of all calls.
25. We also do not believe that testing of additional devices, such
as older and lower-end devices, is needed prior to adoption of a z-axis
metric. NextNav and Polaris each tested six handsets, for a total of
twelve handsets, in Stage Z. The Report states that handsets were
selected ``to ensure variety between sensor manufacturers, the age of
handsets (within limits) and their overall use characteristics,'' and
that the handsets used in testing were ``the same production-ready
handsets sold by wireless carriers and available to the general
public'' and did not contain any hardware modification that would favor
these handsets over any commercially available handsets. NextNav points
out that the Stage Z results showed a high level of consistency between
different models of handsets and that these results were consistent
with the results of prior independent tests conducted on its
technology. Although we encourage additional testing on a greater
variety of devices, we believe that a sufficient variety of devices
have been tested to support moving forward with our proposed 3-meter
metric at this time. We seek comment on this assessment. We seek
comment on whether the proposed 3-meter z-axis metric will provide
adequate vertical location accuracy protection for consumers who
participate in the Commission's Lifeline program. We seek comment on
the extent to which mobile phones provided to consumers as part of the
Lifeline program have the capability, through barometric pressure
sensors or other means, to be located within a 3-meter z-axis metric.
We also seek comment on how to ensure that vertical location
protections extend to and include users of the Lifeline program. We
also seek comment on the potential turnover rates for wireless handsets
and the features of devices likely to be available and in use by the
compliance dates established in our rules. Those data points would
influence the extent to which difficulties in achieving the metric over
older and lower-end devices may pose an impediment to meeting the
proposed requirements.
D. Deployment
26. We believe our proposed 3-meter z-axis metric will support the
development of scalable vertical location solutions that can be
deployed in time to meet the carriers' 2021 and 2023 deadlines. To the
extent that CMRS providers elect to use solutions that rely on
barometric pressure readings, nearly all smartphones on the market
appear to be equipped with barometric pressure sensors. In addition,
both NextNav and Polaris state that calibration of the barometric
sensors in their z-axis solutions would be software-based and thus
would scale readily for widespread use. Polaris and NextNav also state
that industry standards necessary to implement the barometric sensor-
based solutions tested in Stage Z are already adopted and that
implementation of these standards is in the hands of carriers and
device manufacturers. Based on these comments, we believe barometric
sensor-based solutions are likely to be scalable and can be made
readily available to wireless consumers within the timeframes required
by the rules. We seek comment on this assessment and its underlying
factual assumptions.
27. We also seek comment on the potential for development and
deployment of other new or emerging vertical location solutions that
could be used to meet the proposed z-axis metric. The Commission has
previously recognized that no single technological approach will solve
the challenge of indoor location, and it adopted requirements
applicable to CMRS providers that are technically feasible and
technologically neutral ``so that providers can choose the most
effective solutions from a range of options.'' We continue to believe
that this approach should guide the adoption of any metric in this
proceeding. CTIA states that other vertical location technologies and
vendors will likely be ready for testing in 2019. We seek comment on
the potential for widespread deployment and adoption of these or other
alternatives within the timeframes required by the rules, as well as
their likely performance in real-world conditions. Are there issues
associated with implementing these solutions into
[[Page 13216]]
wireless network systems and production mobile devices, or scaling them
for widespread use?
28. We also seek comment on whether we should consider accelerating
or otherwise altering the deployment timelines within the rules. Is a
3-meter metric achievable more quickly than the current 2021 and 2023
deadlines? If so, when should these deadlines be set? These deadlines
also pertain to the carriers' option of using dispatchable location for
vertical location accuracy. Must the timetables be adjusted for both
options? Can CMRS providers achieve dispatchable location and complete
work on the NEAD on an accelerated timeframe? If not, should the
Commission decouple the choice of deploying z-axis technology from
dispatchable location, and how would bifurcating CMRS providers'
technology choice impact CMRS providers' incentives to deploy
dispatchable location and complete work on the NEAD? If the Commission
adopts a more stringent metric such as floor level or a +/- 2-meter
vertical location standard, is it achievable within the current
timeframes or would it take longer than the current timetable in the
rules? Is it feasible to adopt both a more precise metric and to
shorten compliance timetables? How should the Commission address the
timeframes applicable to non-nationwide CMRS providers? How would
changing the existing timeframes impact the compliance regime for
vertical location accuracy?
E. Z-Axis Data Privacy and Security
29. We seek comment on the appropriate data privacy and security
framework for z-axis data. In 2015 the Commission established rules
governing CMRS provider usage of the National Emergency Address
Database (NEAD). In doing so, the Commission stated that ``certain
explicit requirements on individual CMRS providers are necessary to
ensure the privacy and security of NEAD data and any other information
involved in the determination and delivery of dispatchable location.''
In the same Order the Commission required that, ``as a condition of
using the NEAD or any information contained therein to meet our 911
location requirements, and prior to use of the NEAD, CMRS providers
must certify that they will not use the NEAD or associated data for any
purpose other than for the purpose of responding to 911 calls, except
as required by law.'' We seek comment on whether use of z-axis data
should be limited to 911 calls except as otherwise required by law and
if such a limitation should be implemented and codified in a manner
similar to the limitations applicable to the NEAD described above.
F. Comparison of Benefits and Costs
30. We now seek comment on which z-axis metric would allow us to
achieve the anticipated level of benefits in the most cost-effective
manner. Specifically, because the alternative metrics have an effect on
both costs and benefits, we seek comment on how the benefits and costs
of the proposed z-axis metric of 3 meters for 80% of calls compares to
the benefits and costs of alternative metrics. We seek comment on the
expected number of lives saved by adopting a 3-meter metric, versus a
2-meter or 5-meter metric. We also seek comment on the expected number
of lives that would be saved if we required CMRS providers to identify
floor level when reporting z-axis information. In the Fourth Report and
Order, the Commission concluded that the location accuracy rules,
including the z-axis accuracy metric, would improve emergency response
times, which, in turn, would improve patient outcomes and save lives.
The Commission found that the location accuracy improvements that it
adopted had the potential to save approximately 10,120 lives annually
at a value of $9.1 million per statistical life, for an annual benefit
of approximately $92 billion or $291 per wireless subscriber. The
Commission characterized this $92 billion as an annual benefit floor
value because it also expected substantial, unquantifiable benefits
from the reduction of human suffering and loss of property. The
Commission further found that the costs of implementing the available
solutions to achieve the indoor wireless location accuracy standards
were far less than the $92 billion benefit floor, with the costs
further declining as demand grew.
31. We now seek comment on how the benefits and costs of the
proposed z-axis metric of 3 meters for 80% of calls compares to the
benefits and costs of alternative metrics. We tentatively conclude that
a z-axis metric of 3 meters for 80% of calls strikes the best balance
between benefits and costs. As noted above, some public safety
commenters identify a 3-meter metric as providing sufficient accuracy
to identify the caller's floor level in most cases. Accordingly, a 3-
meter metric would manifest the benefits of location accuracy described
in the Fourth Report and Order. The record contains evidence that
supports a finding that the costs of implementing a 3-meter metric are
themselves low, at least on a per-handset basis. NextNav asserts that
its z-axis solution, which requires only software changes to be made to
each handset, could be made available for a nominal cost that amounts
to significantly less than a penny per month per handset and would
impose no incremental cost burdens on new handsets. Polaris states that
its z-axis solution is ``objectively affordable'' because it is
software-based, does not require hardware in networks or markets, and
``does not require anything special in devices beyond implementation of
adopted 3GPP and OMA standards.'' Polaris' solution also is ``instantly
available and deployable throughout a carrier's nationwide network.''
As the Commission noted in the Fourth Report and Order, we continue to
expect that these costs will decline as demand grows.
32. We tentatively conclude that the value of a 3-meter metric
exceeds that of a 5-meter standard because a 5-meter metric would
result in a significant reduction in the benefits described above. As
commenters have indicated, a 5-meter metric could indicate a location
up to 2 floors below, or up to 2 floors above, the actual floor where a
911 caller may be located. This large search range would make it far
more likely that first responders would need to search 2 or more
additional floors, significantly increasing average emergency response
times and consequently degrading patient outcomes. Due to the likely
degradation of patient outcomes with a 5-meter metric, we tentatively
conclude that a 3-meter metric provides greater value. We seek comment
on this tentative conclusion, including on the marginal benefits and
costs of a 3-meter metric versus a 5-meter metric.
33. We also tentatively conclude that, at this time, the value of a
3-meter metric exceeds that of a 2-meter metric. We acknowledge that a
2-meter metric would further improve the accuracy of 911 calls by
increasing the likelihood that the caller's floor level could be
identified with certainty, which would further improve emergency
response times and patient outcomes. In other words, while the margins
of both the 2-meter and 3-meter search ranges could extend one level
above and below a caller's floor level, a greater portion of the 2-
meter search range is likely to be concentrated at the correct floor
level. However, because we tentatively conclude that existing solutions
are unlikely to achieve 2-meter accuracy for 80% of E911 calls prior to
the deadlines established by our rules, we expect that adopting a 2-
meter metric would likely cause developers of z-axis solutions to incur
substantial development, testing,
[[Page 13217]]
and implementation costs, without any guarantee of achieving the 2-
meter metric before the deadline. Rather than force these expenditures
in pursuit of additional benefits that may not materialize on-schedule,
we tentatively conclude that there is greater value in adopting the
certain benefits of the achievable 3-meter metric. In addition, we
observe that any delay in deployment of z-axis solutions necessitated
by a 2-meter metric would also delay realization of the benefits of
improved location accuracy--i.e., improved emergency response times,
better patient outcomes, and lives saved. We seek comment on this
tentative conclusion, including on the marginal benefits and costs of a
2-meter metric versus a 3-meter or 5-meter metric. We also seek comment
on how the benefits and costs of requiring CMRS providers to identify
floor level when reporting z-axis information would compare to the
benefits and costs of providing z-axis information as AGL or MSL
height. Are these costs and benefits any different for non-nationwide
providers as opposed to nationwide providers?
34. We seek comment on our analysis and tentative conclusions as to
the comparative value of these z-axis metrics. Are there ways to more
precisely quantify the differences in patient outcomes that would arise
from the adoption of 2-, 3-, and 5-meter metrics? For example, under
each of these metrics, in what percentage of calls would the floor
reported to first responders be the correct one? How much additional
time is necessary for first responders to search additional floors of a
building if the 911 caller is not on the first floor that they search?
How much more time would be required for a first responder to find a
911 caller if a 5-meter metric were adopted, as compared to adoption of
a 3-meter metric? How much less time would be required for a first
responder to find a 911 caller if a 2-meter metric were adopted? What
costs would arise from implementing z-axis solutions to meet a 3-meter
metric that would not exist when implementing a 5-meter metric? What is
the projected amount of those costs? Are there z-axis solutions for
which the cost of satisfying a 3-meter metric is the same or negligible
when compared to the costs of implementing a 5-meter metric? Are there
any alternative z-axis metrics that have not been addressed that we
should consider?
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
35. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice).
Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
in this Notice. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Notice and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
36. The Notice advances the Commission's goal of ensuring ``that
all Americans using mobile phones--whether they are calling from urban
or rural areas, from indoors or outdoors--have technology that is
functionally capable of providing accurate location information so that
they receive the support they need in times of an emergency.'' In the
Notice, the Commission proposes to adopt a metric to more precisely
identify the location of a 911 wireless caller located in a multi-story
building. More specifically, we propose to require the provisioning of
vertical location (z-axis) information that would enable first
responders to identify the caller's floor level for most wireless calls
to 911 from multi-story buildings, which represents a critical element
to achieving the Commission's indoor location accuracy objectives.
Consistent with the regulatory framework established in the last major
revision of the Commission's wireless location accuracy rules in 2015
and the information developed in the associated docket, this Notice
proposes a z-axis location accuracy metric of 3 meters above or below a
handset for 80 percent of wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) indoor calls. As
alternatives, we seek comment on different metrics of two or five
meters, as well as potentially revised time frames depending on the
precision of the metric adopted. Our proposed metric, if adopted, could
augment the ability of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and first
responders to more accurately identify the floor level for most 911
calls made from multi-story buildings, reduce emergency response times,
and, ultimately, save lives. It also implements the final element of
the Commission's existing indoor location accuracy regime, which
already includes a timetable for Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
providers to deliver vertical location information by deploying either
dispatchable location or z-axis technology in specific geographic
areas. Our proposed z-axis metric will provide certainty to all parties
and establish a focal point for further testing, development, and
implementation of evolving z-axis location technologies.
B. Legal Basis
37. The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7,
10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157,
160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, 332; the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-
81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and Section 106 of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010,
Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
38. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
39. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8
million businesses.
40. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is
[[Page 13218]]
generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of
August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based
on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits with the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS).
41. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000.
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the
local government category show that the majority of these governments
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate
that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
1. Telecommunications Service Providers
a. Wireless Telecommunications Providers
42. Pursuant to 47 CFR Sec. 20.18(a), the Commission's 911 service
requirements are only applicable to Commercial Mobile Radio Service
(CMRS) ``[providers], excluding mobile satellite service operators, to
the extent that they: (1) Offer real-time, two way switched voice
service that is interconnected with the public switched network; and
(2) Utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider
to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber
calls. These requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice
service to consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale
rates from CMRS licensees.''
43. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.
44. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The
SBA has developed a small business size standard for All Other
Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with annual
receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated
for the entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual
receipts less than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25
million to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected
by our action can be considered small.
45. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1);
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands
(AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the
Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity with average
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40
million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average annual
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million.
For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for certain which entities
are likely to apply for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands
are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal
communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size
standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2
and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to
the comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues
involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies,
and services.
46. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs).
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.
Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of
Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other
Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision
of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access
provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have
1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that
they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that
they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data,
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
47. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest
applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate
that 3,117 firms operated the entire year. Of this total, 3,083
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are
small businesses that may be affected by our actions. According to
Commission data, one thousand three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent
Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees. Thus, using the SBA's size
[[Page 13219]]
standard, the majority of incumbent LECs can be considered small
entities.
48. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Two auctions of
narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been
conducted. To ensure meaningful participation of small business
entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered
small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and
Order. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. A ``small
business'' is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling
interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of
not more than $40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that,
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross
revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million.
The SBA has approved these small business size standards.
49. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on
several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for
television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the
Gulf of Mexico. The closest applicable SBA size standard is for
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. U.S. Census Bureau data in
this industry for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus,
under this SBA category and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of Offshore Radiotelephone Service firms can be
considered small. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in
this service. However, the Commission is unable to estimate at this
time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the
SBA's small business size standard for the category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
50. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of
manufacturers in this industry are small.
51. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The closest
applicable SBA size standard is for Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite), which is an entity employing no more than
1,500 persons. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had
employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this category and the
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of
Rural Radiotelephone Services firm are small entities. There are
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and
the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity
licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by
the rules and policies proposed herein.
52. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved
these small business size standards. In the Commission's auction for
geographic area licenses in the WCS there were seven winning bidders
that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one that
qualified as a ``small business'' entity.
53. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this category and the associated size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
54. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
telephony carriers. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size
standard for this category under the SBA rules is that such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than
1,000 employees and 12 firms had 1000 employees or more. Thus, under
this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that a majority of these entities can be considered small.
According to Commission data, 413 carriers reported that they were
engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, more
than half of these entities can be considered small.
55. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard
Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and
installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not
[[Page 13220]]
required. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on
September 6, 2000 and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses
auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders
were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction
of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and
closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were
sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that
won a total of two licenses.
56. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August
27, 2002 and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders.
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small
business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band
(Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses.
All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
57. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz
licenses commenced January 24, 2008, and closed on March 18, 2008,
which included: 176 Economic Area licenses in the A-Block, 734 Cellular
Market Area licenses in the B-Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E-
Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those
with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million
and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49
licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
58. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block,
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five
licenses.
59. Wireless Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business
size standard specifically for Wireless Resellers. The SBA category of
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICS code category for
wireless resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services for the entire
year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.
Thus, under this category and the associated small business size
standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small
entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that
they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these,
an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Resellers are small
entities.
b. Equipment Manufacturers
60. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a size standard for
this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census data for 2012
shows that 841 establishments operated in this industry in that year.
Of that number, 828 establishments operated with fewer than 1,000
employees, 7 establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499
employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or more employees.
Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in
this industry can be considered small.
61. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products
made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips,
microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other
optoelectronic devices. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing, which
consists of all such companies having 1,250 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 862 establishments
that operated that year. Of this total, 843 operated with fewer than
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms
in this industry can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
62. The Notice proposes and seeks comment on a z-axis (vertical)
location accuracy metric that will, if adopted, affect the reporting,
recordkeeping and/
[[Page 13221]]
or other compliance requirements of nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS
providers, including small businesses. Under the current rules, by
2021, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy either (1) dispatchable
location, or (2) z-axis technology that achieves the Commission-
approved z-axis metric, which metric is yet to be adopted, in each of
the top 25 Cellular Market Areas. CMRS providers must deploy z-axis
technology to cover 80 percent of the Cellular Market Areas population
if z-axis technology is used. By 2021, nationwide CMRS providers must
deploy dispatchable location or z-axis technology pursuant to the
metric that will be adopted by the Commission in each of the top 50
Cellular Market Areas. Non-nationwide carriers, including resellers,
that serve any of the top 25 or 50 CMAs will have an additional year to
meet the two benchmarks (i.e., until 2022 for the top 25 Cellular
Market Areas and 2024 for the top 50 Cellular Market Areas). Thus,
under the Commission's proposal, CMRS nationwide and non-nationwide
CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology will be required to
provide vertical location information within 3 meters under the
Commission's existing timelines. As alternatives, we seek comment on
different metrics of two or five meters, as well as potentially revised
time frames depending on the precision of the metric adopted.
63. We have tentatively concluded, based on the z-axis solution
test results and other comments, that a metric of 3 meters for 80% of
indoor calls is technically achievable and that z-axis solutions
capable of meeting this metric can be deployed within the timeframes
established in the rules. As described further below, we also have
tentatively concluded that the cost of compliance with the 3-meter
metric is relatively low. Small entities may incur costs associated
with software and/or hardware changes and may need to employ engineers
or other experts in order to comply with the proposal in the Notice.
However, the technology solution a small entity chooses to implement
the requirement will determine the nature of the costs it incurs.
64. We anticipate that small entities would have a choice of
vendors with z-axis technology solutions, which will lessen their costs
to comply with the proposed rule, if adopted. One of the vendors that
participated in Stage Z testing, NextNav, asserts that its z-axis
solution requires only software changes to be made to each handset
could be made available for a nominal cost that amounts to
significantly less than a penny per month per handset. Another test
vendor, Polaris, asserts that its solution is instantly available and
deployable throughout a carrier's nationwide network. Polaris also
asserts that its solution is ``objectively affordable'' because it is
software-based, does not require hardware in networks or markets, and
``does not require anything special in devices beyond implementation of
adopted 3GPP and OMA standards.'' Further, with the addition of
vertical location technologies and vendors into the market, small
entities will have more implementation options, which could further
reduce their cost of compliance. As noted above, Google has announced
that it has developed and is deploying its Emergency Location System
(ELS) in the U.S. for Android devices. Google states that ELS is ``a
supplemental service that sends enhanced location directly from Android
handsets to emergency services when an emergency call is placed.''
Google also states that ELS is part of the Android operating system and
does not require any special hardware or updates. Moreover, as the
Commission noted in the Fourth Report and Order, we continue to expect
that these technology costs will decline as demand grows.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
65. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
66. Based on a comparison of the benefits and costs to alternatives
metrics, the Commission believes that the 3-meter metric that it
proposes to adopt is the most cost-effective option for achieving the
Commission's objectives in this proceeding while avoiding undue burdens
on all entities. The metric should benefit all entities by giving
certainty in selecting an option for complying with the Commission's
rules. While the rule proposed in the Notice would apply to all
nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS in the same manner, the Commission
has already taken steps to accommodate smaller non-nationwide CMRS
providers by supplying additional time to comply with any vertical
location accuracy benchmarks ultimately adopted by the Commission. The
rules also already establish that nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS
providers may choose to provide dispatchable location or deploy z-axis
technology; and they give non-nationwide CMRS providers an additional
year to comply with the Commission's z-axis benchmarks. In addition,
the proposed rule gives small entities the freedom to choose a solution
that best fits their financial situation, rather than imposing a
specific z-axis technology solution, which should minimize the economic
impact on these entities. The Commission does not believe that the
costs and/or administrative burdens associated with the proposed rule
would unduly burden small entities and expects to more fully consider
the economic impact and alternatives for small entities following the
review of comments filed in response to the Notice. The metric the
Commission proposes to adopt should benefit all entities by giving
certainty in selecting an option for complying with the Commission's
rules. Many CMRS providers likely would be able to avoid unnecessary
costs by knowing that the Commission has chosen an accuracy metric of 3
meters, which means they don't have to make an expensive attempt to
satisfy a 2-meter metric by the implementation date specified in the
rules. All CMRS providers, including small entities, should benefit
from the scale economies provided to phone manufacturers who would be
able to provision all phones to the same 3-meter standard adopted by
the Commission. As alternatives, we seek comment on different metrics
of two or five meters, as well as potentially revised time frames
depending on the precision of the metric adopted.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
67. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
68. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7,
10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157,
160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, 332; the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-
81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and Section 106 of the Twenty-
[[Page 13222]]
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010,
Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that this Fourth Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, is hereby adopted.
69. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Katura Jackon,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a) 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214,
222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309,
309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 610, 615, 615a, 615b, 615c, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 20.18 is amended by revising paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(C)
introductory text and paragraph (i)(2)(ii)(D) to read as follows:
Sec. 20.18 911 Service.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) By April 3, 2021: In each of the top 25 CMAs, nationwide CMRS
providers shall deploy either dispatchable location, or z-axis
technology in compliance with the following z-axis accuracy metric:
Within 3 meters above or below (plus or minus 3 meters) the handset for
80% of wireless E911 calls.
* * * * *
(D) By April 3, 2023: In each of the top 50 CMAs, nationwide CMRS
providers shall deploy either dispatchable location, or z-axis
technology in compliance with the following z-axis accuracy metric:
Within 3 meters above or below (plus or minus 3 meters) the handset for
80% of wireless E911 calls.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-06012 Filed 4-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P