[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2683-2692]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28482]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 9

[PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 19-124; FRS 16359]


Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the 
FCC or Commission) proposes rules to improve E911 wireless location 
accuracy. The Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) seeks 
comment on adopting a timeline narrowing the z-axis (vertical) location 
accuracy metric, and requiring Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
Providers to deliver floor level information to Public Safety Answering 
Points (PSAPs) in conjunction with a wireless indoor 911 call. The 
FNPRM also seeks comment on alternative methods for carriers to 
demonstrate z-axis technology deployment, and comment on expanding 
dispatchable location solutions. The intended effect of this FNPRM is 
to address long term public safety requirements in the Commission's 
indoor location framework, while balancing technological neutrality and 
flexibility.

DATES: Comments are due on or before February 18, 2020, and reply 
comments are due on or before March 16, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114, 
by any of the following methods:
     Federal Communications Commission's website: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. 
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail (other than 
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 
9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service 
first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th 
Street SW, Washington DC 20554.
     People with Disabilities: To request materials in 
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, 
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or 
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nellie Foosaner, Attorney-Advisor, 
Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security 
Bureau, (202) 418-2925, [email protected]; or Alex Espinoza, 
Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0849, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) in PS Docket No. 07-114, 
adopted November 22, 2019, and released November 25, 2019. The full 
text of this document is available for public inspection during regular 
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 
12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This document does not contain proposed information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed 
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer 
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act 
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
    Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998), http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf.
    The proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' 
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons 
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written 
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 2 
business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline 
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex 
parte

[[Page 2684]]

presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation 
must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the 
meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize 
all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has 
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.

Synopsis

    1. Given the likelihood that vertical location technology will 
continue to improve, we seek comment on whether to establish a long-
term timeline for migrating to a more stringent z-axis metric than 3 
meters, and ultimately whether to require CMRS providers carriers to 
deliver floor level information in conjunction with wireless indoor 911 
calls. We also propose to amend the rules to expand on the current 
options for demonstrating deployment of z-axis or dispatchable location 
capability.

Continuing To Improve the Z-Axis Metric

    2. We seek comment on what additional steps we can take to 
facilitate our long-term location accuracy objectives. Public safety 
commenters that support the 3-meter standard in the short term also 
support taking additional steps to achieve floor level accuracy over 
the longer term. For example, the International Association of Fire 
Chiefs recommends narrowing the 3-meter metric over a five-year 
timeline. Commenters note that vertical location technology solutions 
will continue to improve, thus making application of a narrower metric 
more feasible over time.
    3. We seek comment on the feasibility of phasing in more granular 
z-axis requirements over time, consistent with the approach that has 
worked well to date for horizontal location accuracy and allowed 
valuable vertical location technologies to evolve. We seek comment on 
whether it would be technologically feasible to achieve a 2 meter 
metric and if so, over what time frame. For example, should we adopt a 
phased five-year timeline for migrating from the 3-meter metric towards 
a 2-meter metric? As part of that phased-in approach should we require 
nationwide CMRS providers to meet a 2-meter metric within four years 
and non-nationwide CMRS providers to comply in the fifth year? Is a 1-
meter metric feasible over the longer term?
    4. Are there other alternatives we should consider for a narrower 
vertical location accuracy metric? Should we maintain the same 
requirements as in the current rules for applying future metrics to 
handsets (80% of wireless E911 calls from z-axis capable handsets) and 
for providing C/U data (based on a 90% confidence threshold)? 
Commenters advocating other alternatives and/or a mix of the options 
described here should explain the technical feasibility, benefits, and 
costs of their preferred approach(es).
    5. To continue to improve the z-axis metric, we seek comment on 
whether enhancements are needed to the vertical location accuracy 
testing process. For example, APCO states that ``[t]he Commission 
should require carriers to take additional steps to verify that real-
world performance is consistent with test bed evaluation of z-axis 
technology,'' and asserts that the Commission should require more 
comprehensive testing of devices and testing unique public safety use 
cases. Should we require testing to include specific first responder 
scenarios? How does z-axis technology work during power outages? We 
also seek comment on the impact of power outages on horizontal location 
accuracy and address-based dispatchable location technologies, such as 
the NEAD. Should power outage scenarios be included in a z-axis 
technology test bed? APCO also raises concerns about first responders 
trying to ``match'' a 911 caller's altitude when the first responders 
are using one technology vendor and the caller's device uses another. 
Should we require testing protocols to ensure that the ``use of 
different solutions does not produce additional error that exceeds the 
+/- 3 accuracy baseline''? We seek comments on APCO's proposals and 
other improvements to vertical location accuracy testing.
    6. Some representatives of public safety officials argue that they 
would benefit from actual floor level information. Given the lack of 
current mechanisms that are consistently and reliably capable of 
converting z-axis information to a floor level, we seek additional 
information on efforts to convert z-axis data to precise floor level. 
What resources are available today for public safety entities and CMRS 
providers to convert z-axis information into floor-level information? 
Are there any local or regional tools currently available that could be 
scaled nationally? What tools and resources are being developed, and on 
what time horizon? Is there an appropriate timeline for converting z-
axis information (as required to be reported above) to floor level 
information, taking into account the time needed to achieve technical 
feasibility and the relative costs of doing so? What are some of the 
technological challenges to delivering floor level and how can we 
overcome these challenges? BRETSA states that floor heights are not 
standard and other commenters note that an authoritative database for 
the mapping of floors in multi-story buildings does not exist. Are 
there initiatives under way to develop resources for mapping building 
heights and floor numbers? What are the costs to carriers and public 
safety to develop database solutions that can be used to convert 
altitude measurements to an actual floor-level?
    7. One possible technological solution to providing floor or unit 
number data uses Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, and other wireless signals to query 
privately-maintained databases linking those signals to the location 
data. Our record indicates that significant technical and 
implementation challenges remain with this approach. For example, there 
may be lower densities of Wi-Fi and Bluetooth access points in lower-
income communities. Privately-maintained reference point databases also 
do not provide outdoor coverage (such as in national parks), may be 
moved or discarded, and may not work at all during power outages. We 
seek to maintain technological neutrality in our z-axis requirements, 
and we do not want to inhibit the development of technological 
solutions that will provide the most accurate location data and, 
ultimately, save lives. At the same time, we encourage commenters to 
assess the reliability of their proposed

[[Page 2685]]

technological solutions in foreseeable emergency circumstances and how 
that should affect any future changes to our location data 
requirements.
    8. Google proposes that the Commission include an option that 
allows carriers to provide floor level estimates instead of HAE-based 
3-meter z-axis measurements. We seek comment on Google's proposal to 
allow provision of floor level information without provision of HAE. 
What are the drawbacks of delivering vertical location information 
without HAE?
    9. Some public safety commenters encourage us to require CMRS 
providers to report floor-level, rather than simply z-axis information, 
or dispatchable location and z-axis information. If we were to do so, 
would a 5, 7, or 10-year timeline be sufficient to achieve floor level 
accuracy? What interim deadlines should the Commission impose and what 
other actions should the Commission take in order to ensure that CMRS 
providers can provide floor level information and/or multiple data 
points? If CMRS providers meet such a timeline, will PSAPs be ready 
within the same timeframe to accept floor level information? What 
should the testing and development process look like?
    10. We seek comment on whether to require provision of confidence 
and uncertainty data with floor level information. We also seek comment 
on the costs and benefits associated with a requirement to provide 
floor level in comparison to the costs and benefits of providing z-axis 
information. In the Fifth Report and Order we determine that our 
location accuracy rules, including the 3-meter z-axis metric, would 
improve emergency response times, which, in turn, would improve patient 
outcomes and save lives. Expected benefits far exceed that temporary 
cost amount which lasts only for a few years. The benefit floor from 
enhanced horizontal and vertical accuracy for wireless phones adopted 
in the Fifth Report and Order is expected to account for a large part 
of $97 billion. Are there alternatives beyond a five-year timeline that 
we should consider for implementing a floor-level accuracy metric? 
Commenters advocating a different approach should explain the technical 
feasibility, benefits, and costs of their preferred approach(es).

Alternative Options for Z-Axis Deployment

    11. In each CMA where CMRS providers use z-axis technology to 
comply with vertical location requirements, the current rules require 
that CMRS providers deploy z-axis technology to cover 80% of the CMA 
population. We seek comment on whether expanding options beyond the 
population-based CMA coverage requirement would serve the public 
interest.
    12. Urban and Dense Urban Morphologies. Verizon states that 
deploying the network-level components of z-axis solutions should focus 
on urban and dense urban areas where multi-story buildings are 
concentrated. Verizon reasons that ``[t]he Commission's public safety 
objectives would not be served if deployment of the capability in a 
suburban area helps achieve the 80 percent coverage benchmark, but the 
result is that Z-axis coverage is provided for single-story residential 
dwellings, rather than the multi-story buildings where those residents 
work (but do not live).'' NextNav argues that focusing deployment on 
buildings above three stories would reduce costs and increase benefits 
because such deployment rules ``would permit location service providers 
to focus deployment of their weather calibration reference points where 
they are most needed to achieve the mission (and correspondingly, to 
avoid deployment in areas where they do not add significant value).'' 
Precision Broadband proposes mandating the provision of both 
dispatchable location and a z-axis location metric for 911 calls 
originating from ``multi-story'' buildings.
    13. Some commenters recommend refining the per-CMA requirement in 
the rules to measure deployment based on coverage of 80% of the 
buildings that exceed three stories in each of the top 50 CMAs, rather 
than based on covering 80% of the population. If afforded the option to 
focus z-axis deployment in dense and dense urban morphologies and 
buildings above three stories, how would CMRS providers document their 
deployment? Should the information be provided to the PSAPs so they 
know which areas and buildings are covered? Should the same information 
be provided to the public? Would NextNav and Verizon's proposal reduce 
compliance costs while preserving or increasing the benefits of the z-
axis backstop? Would deployment criteria focused on urban and dense 
urban morphologies as opposed to population coverage promote deployment 
of handset-based solutions? Should the Commission mandate the provision 
of both dispatchable location and vertical location data for 911 calls 
originating from multi-story buildings?
    14. Handset Deployment. The two z-axis solutions that have already 
been tested in the test bed (NextNav and Polaris) are handset-based, 
i.e., the location determination is calculated in the handset, rather 
than at an external point within a network. Google also supports 
focusing on handset-based solutions because such solutions have the 
advantage that they can be deployed on a nationwide basis so that all 
wireless users have access to them. Accordingly, we seek comment on 
establishing an option for CMRS providers to deploy z-axis capable 
handsets nationwide as a means of complying with our z-axis deployment 
requirements. What are the benefits and costs associated with handset-
based z-axis deployment? Would a handset deployment option facilitate 
more rapid and widespread availability of nationwide z-axis solutions 
deployment than other options? Is a handset-based approach more-cost 
effective than a network-based approach? How do the costs change 
between deploying in the top 50 CMAs and nationwide? Can deployment 
nationwide be handled approaches that would require additions or 
modifications to network at the handset level rather than incurring 
infrastructure costs? We additionally seek comment on the costs and 
benefits of both deploying z-axis capable handsets in the top 50 CMAs 
and deploying them nationwide. We seek data on how likely consumers 
carrying z-axis capable handsets may travel in and out of one of the 
top 50 CMAs. What do carriers or other industry actors estimate the 
cost per handset is? Will a nationwide implementation of the instant 
rules reduce costs per handset? Can deployment nationwide be handled at 
the handset level rather than incurring infrastructure costs? We seek 
comment on how a nationwide deployment would impact compliance costs.
    15. We also recognize that ensuring meaningful deployment of 
handset-based solutions requires z-axis capable devices to be widely 
available to consumers. How should we measure such deployment? Would it 
be sufficient for CMRS providers to show that they have made a certain 
percentage of the handset models that they market to customers z-axis 
capable? If so, what should that percentage be, and should we specify 
additional criteria to ensure that providers offer a reasonable 
selection of low-end handset models as well as higher-end models that 
have z-axis capability? What steps could we take to increase the number 
of older devices and lifeline phones that are z-axis capable? 
Alternatively, should we require CMRS providers to demonstrate actual 
market penetration of z-axis capable handsets, and if so, what

[[Page 2686]]

penetration level would be sufficient? Should we take handset churn 
rates into account in setting penetration thresholds, or should we 
require providers to achieve specified penetration levels regardless of 
churn, as we did in implementing our Phase II rules?
    16. Google suggests adopting an approach analogous to that in the 
European Electronics Communication Code (EECC). Google states that 
``[b]y December 2020, all European Union member states will be required 
to use handset-derived location in addition to network-based 
information for response to emergency calls.'' By March 17, 2022, ``the 
EECC will require that all smartphones sold in the European Single 
Market be able to provide handset-based location data.'' We seek 
comment on Google's suggestion that we adopt an approach similar to the 
EECC. Should we consider this or other international initiatives as we 
seek to encourage the development and deployment of improved z-axis 
solutions in the U.S.? What are the costs and benefits of such an 
approach?
    17. Non-Nationwide CMRS Providers. As we consider future z-axis 
requirements for E911 location accuracy nationwide, CCA urges the 
Commission ``to implement a glide path for non-nationwide carriers to 
comply with any adopted timeframes, particularly if these carriers 
operate outside of the FNPRM's proposed benchmark of the top 50 
markets.'' APCO notes that ``existing benchmarks in 2022 and 2024 for 
non-nationwide carriers could be adjusted consistent with [its] 
suggested revisions for 2021 and 2023.'' We seek comment on an 
appropriate timeline for affording new z-axis deployment options to 
non-nationwide CMRS providers. Non-nationwide CMRS providers already 
have an additional year to comply with CMA-based deployment metrics 
under our current rules. If we adopt other deployment options based on 
building type or nationwide deployment of handset-based z-axis 
solutions, would the extra year already afforded to non-nationwide 
providers be sufficient to enable them to take advantage of these 
options?
    18. We also seek comment on costs and benefits associated with top 
50 CMA and a possible nationwide deployment of z-axis technology, which 
would effectively result in a nationwide x, y and z location accuracy 
standard. How do the costs or benefits change between deploying in the 
top 50 CMAs and nationwide? Does a phased implementation approach 
change these costs and benefits? In order to reduce the infrastructure 
costs associated with vertical location, NextNav suggests that the 
Commission ``consider revising its existing requirements regarding the 
geographic locations where z-axis services must be provided.'' NextNav 
argues that ``[i]t is unclear . . . whether accurate vertical location 
information is urgently needed in every portion of the top CMAs, 
particularly in suburban and rural areas with a large preponderance of 
one and two story residences,'' and as such, one way to reduce cost 
would be to require compliance based on ``coverage of 80 percent of the 
buildings that exceed three stories in each of the top 50 CMAs, rather 
than based on the residential locations of 80 percent of the 
population.'' Would such a proposal, for example, minimize carrier 
compliance costs while directing z-axis coverage to the areas that need 
it most? We seek comment on this proposal and solicit comments on any 
other methods to reduce costs while increasing benefits, especially if 
the Commission opts to implement these rules nationwide.

Dispatchable Location and Alternatives to the NEAD

    19. In each CMA where dispatchable location is used, our rules 
require nationwide CMRS providers to ``ensure that the NEAD is 
populated with a sufficient number of total dispatchable location 
reference points to equal 25 percent of the CMA population.'' This 
requirement precludes carriers from implementing dispatchable location 
solutions that rely on data sources other than the NEAD, even where 
such solutions might be more viable and cost-effective. Accordingly, we 
propose to allow CMRS providers to demonstrate dispatchable location 
deployment by means other than NEAD reference points. We seek comment 
on this proposal. As NextNav suggests, we also seek comment on ``any 
procedures that would quantify and verify these improvements, such as 
requiring the use of address-based (DL) accuracy testing and reporting 
requirements (including confidence and uncertainty reporting) to ensure 
that any changes to the NEAD or other address-based DL technologies 
actually succeed in improving wireless location accuracy to support 
public safety.'' How do we account for uncertainty in dispatchable 
location data? Should we extend C/U requirements to alternative methods 
of delivery dispatchable location? If, so what should be the required 
C/U percentage?
    20. We recognize the importance to public safety of obtaining 
dispatchable location information regarding which ``door to kick in.'' 
However, the record indicates that the NEAD faces challenges that could 
slow down implementation of dispatchable location. Meanwhile, 
alternatives to the NEAD are emerging that could support dispatchable 
location. As APCO puts it, ``dispatchable location can be provided 
without the NEAD'' and use of the NEAD to provide a caller's location 
does not necessarily mean a ``dispatchable location has been 
provided.'' The Texas 9-1-1 Entities point to location solutions such 
as Apple's HELO, Google's Android ELS, and West Public Safety's 
proximity check. Texas 9-1-1 Entities state that ``[t]o the extent 
additional issues regarding the NEAD or alternative dispatchable 
location solutions can be further clarified early in the development 
process, any such clarifications may enhance the development process.'' 
Precision Broadband explains that it will soon propose a fixed 
broadband alternative dispatchable location solution--independent of 
the NEAD--which relies on internet service provider interfaces to 
provide dispatchable location.
    21. Our proposal to expand the range of possible dispatchable 
location solutions for CMRS providers is also consistent with the 
approach to dispatchable location that we recently adopted for non-CMRS 
providers in the Kari's Law and RAY BAUM's Act proceeding. In that 
proceeding, we sought comment on whether database location solutions, 
including the NEAD, could potentially assist non-CMRS providers in 
determining the ``dispatchable location of MLTS end users.'' Commenters 
in that proceeding generally expressed skepticism that the NEAD has any 
near-term utility for MLTS location, but commenters suggested that 
dispatchable location may be achievable if carriers can leverage other 
data sources, such as third-party databases or crowd-sourced location 
data. To address concerns about relying on database location solutions, 
the Commission adopted a more flexible approach to providing 
dispatchable location for non-CMRS providers. In this proceeding, we 
expect CMRS providers to continue pursuing dispatchable location 
alternatives, even if they choose not to pursue the NEAD.
    22. Because the Commission has applied specific privacy and 
security safeguards to the NEAD, we propose that any dispatchable 
location alternative used by CMRS providers should include equivalent 
safeguards. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. What are the 
costs and benefits of employing alternative information sources, either 
to supplement or replace the NEAD? How reliable are third-party and 
crowd-

[[Page 2687]]

sourced location data alternatives? Are there other alternative 
information sources that we should consider? Should, for example, the 
Commission consider fixed broadband location data as a NEAD information 
source? What are the relative costs and benefits of applying NEAD-type 
security and privacy protections to alternative information sources? 
How would such sources meet the validation criteria in the definition 
of dispatchable location applicable to CMRS providers?
    23. We also seek comment on the possible costs and benefits 
associated with dispatchable location alternatives to the NEAD. For 
example, what are the costs and benefits associated with Precision 
Broadband's multi-faceted proposal to require the reporting of both (1) 
dispatchable location and (2) z-axis information in the top 50 Cellular 
Market Areas. What are the associated costs and benefits of relying on 
alternative data sources for dispatchable location. What are the costs 
and benefits of alternative methods for delivering dispatchable 
location?

I. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules 
proposed in the Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Fifth 
Further Notice). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines in this Fifth Further Notice. The Commission will send 
a copy of the Fifth Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In 
addition, the Fifth Further Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will 
be published in the Federal Register.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    2. In the Fifth Further Notice, we propose changes to, and seek 
comment on, our E911 location accuracy rules to expand options for z-
axis deployment and provisioning of dispatchable location, in order to 
address long term public safety requirements in the Commission's indoor 
location framework, while balancing technological neutrality and 
flexibility. More specifically, we seek comment on a timeline for 
narrowing the z-axis metric and requiring carriers to deliver floor 
level information to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) in 
conjunction with a wireless indoor 911 call. We inquire whether a five-
year timeline is sufficient to achieve floor level accuracy, and, if 
so, what actions should the Commission take in order to ensure that 
CMRS providers can provide floor level information. For z-axis 
deployment, we seek comment on providing alternative ways for carriers 
to demonstrate that they have deployed z-axis technology, such as 
deploying z-axis capable handsets nationwide. With respect to 
dispatchable location, the Commission seeks comment on expanding 
dispatchable location solutions, provided that any new sources of 
dispatchable locations would be subject to privacy and security 
protection equivalent to those in effect for the National Emergency 
Address Database (NEAD).

Legal Basis

    3. The proposed action is authorized under sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 
10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 
154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, 
332; the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public 
Law 106-81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and Section 106 of the 
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the 
Proposed Rules Will Apply

    4. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    5. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having 
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 
million businesses.
    6. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    7. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments 
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school 
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. 
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the 
local government category show that the majority of these governments 
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate 
that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the 
category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
1. Telecommunications Service Providers
a. Wireless Telecommunications Providers
    8. Pursuant to 47 CFR 9.10(a), the Commission's 911 service 
requirements are only applicable to Commercial Mobile Radio Service 
(CMRS) ``[providers], excluding mobile satellite service operators, to 
the extent that they: (1) Offer real-time, two way switched voice 
service that is interconnected with the public switched network; and 
(2) Utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider 
to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber 
calls. These

[[Page 2688]]

requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice service to 
consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale rates from 
CMRS licensees.''
    9. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small 
businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent 
the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in 
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 
implicated.
    10. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or 
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for All Other 
Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated 
for the entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 
receipts less than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25 
million to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected 
by our action can be considered small.
    11. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands 
(AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the 
Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity with average 
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 
million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average annual 
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. 
For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for certain which entities 
are likely to apply for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands 
are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal 
communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size 
standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 
and AWS-3 similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to 
the comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues 
involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies, 
and services.
    12. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs). 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that 
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of 
Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission 
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision 
of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access 
provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that 
they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that 
they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, 
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local 
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
    13. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest 
applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate 
that 3,117 firms operated the entire year. Of this total, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are 
small businesses that may be affected by our actions. According to 
Commission data, one thousand three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent 
Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local 
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Thus using the SBA's size standard the 
majority of incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
    14. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Two auctions of 
narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses have been 
conducted. To ensure meaningful participation of small business 
entities in future auctions, the Commission has adopted a two-tiered 
small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report and 
Order. Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. A ``small 
business'' is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling 
interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of 
not more than $40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that, 
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross 
revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. 
The SBA has approved these small business size standards.
    15. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on 
several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for 
television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the 
Gulf of Mexico. The closest applicable SBA size standard is for 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is an 
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. U.S. Census Bureau data in 
this industry for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for 
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, 
under this SBA category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of Offshore Radiotelephone Service firms can be 
considered small. There are presently approximately 55 licensees in 
this service. However, the Commission is unable to estimate at this 
time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the 
SBA's small business size standard for the category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
    16. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications

[[Page 2689]]

Equipment Manufacturing. This``'' industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or 
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry are small.
    17. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a 
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is 
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The closest 
applicable SBA size standard is for Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite), which is an entity employing no more than 
1,500 persons. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had 
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the 
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
Rural Radiotelephone Services firm are small entities. There are 
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and 
the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity 
licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by 
the rules and policies proposed herein.
    18. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless 
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a 
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved 
these small business size standards. In the Commission's auction for 
geographic area licenses in the WCS there were seven winning bidders 
that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one that 
qualified as a ``small business'' entity.
    19. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or 
more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
    20. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio 
telephony carriers. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small 
business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms had 1,000 
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of these entities 
can be considered small. According to Commission data, 413 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an 
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees. Therefore, more than half of these entities can be 
considered small.
    21. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard 
Band Order, the Commission adopted size standards for ``small 
businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining 
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits and 
installment payments. A small business in this service is an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has 
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding 
three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding 
three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An 
auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on September 6, 
2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 
96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of these bidders were small 
businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz 
Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 2001 and closed on 
February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to 
three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that won a 
total of two licenses.
    22. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. 
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with 
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues 
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area 
licenses.

[[Page 2690]]

Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small business status 
and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur 
status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the Commission completed 
an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band (Auction No. 60). 
There were three winning bidders for five licenses. All three winning 
bidders claimed small business status.
    23. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of 700 MHz 
licenses commenced January 24, 2008, and closed on March 18, 2008, 
which included: 176 Economic Area licenses in the A-Block, 734 Cellular 
Market Area licenses in the B-Block, and 176 EA licenses in the E-
Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small business status (those 
with attributable average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million 
and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years) won 49 
licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) won 325 licenses.
    24. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and 
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz 
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in 
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for 
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, 
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on 
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five 
licenses.
    25. Wireless Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically for Wireless Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICS code category for 
wireless resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises 
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from 
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired 
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to 
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Thus, under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small 
entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, 
an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Resellers are small 
entities.
b. Equipment Manufacturers
    26. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or 
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry can be considered small.
    27. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products 
made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips, 
microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other 
optoelectronic devices. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing, which 
consists of all such companies having 1,250 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 862 establishments 
that operated that year. Of this total, 843 operated with fewer than 
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms 
in this industry can be considered small.

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

    28. The Fifth Further Notice proposes and seeks comment on E911 
location accuracy rule changes that may affect reporting, 
recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements for small entities. In 
particular, the Fifth Further Notice seeks comment on: (1) Timelines 
for requiring carriers to provide floor-level emergency caller 
information (whether 5 years or an alternative number) to Public Safety 
Access Points (PSAP); (2) focusing z-axis technology deployment on 
building size vs. population coverage, and; (3) use of alternative 
information--third party and crowd sourced information--to provide 
dispatchable location.
    29. The proposed rules in the Fifth Further Notice if adopted may 
require small entities to hire engineers, consultants, or other 
professionals for compliance. The Commission cannot however, quantify 
the cost of compliance with the potential rule changes and obligations 
that may result in this proceeding. In our discussion of the proposals 
in the Fifth Further Notice we have sought comments from the parties in 
the proceeding, including cost and benefit analyses, and expect the 
information we received in the comments to help the Commission identify 
and evaluate relevant matters for small entities, including any 
compliance costs and burdens that may result from the matters raised in 
the Fifth Further Notice.

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

    30. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.
    31. The Commission determined in the Fifth Report and Order that 
benefit

[[Page 2691]]

floor from the enhanced horizontal and vertical location accuracy 
requirements adopted for wireless phones is expected to be $97 billion 
and far exceeds its costs. In the Fifth Further Notice the Commission 
continues to refine its indoor location accuracy framework to meet long 
term public safety objectives and seeks comment on a variety of 
proposals to best implement its objectives, while ensuring information 
privacy and security. While doing so, the Commission is mindful that 
small entities and other CMRS providers will incur costs should the 
proposals we make, and the alternatives upon which we seek comment in 
the Fifth Further Notice, be adopted. We believe however that the 
economic costs of compliance for small entities will be reduced by some 
of the steps we have taken in the Fifth Further Notice such as our 
proposals, (1) to expand options for the z-axis deployment, (2) to 
expand options for the dispatchable location portion of our rules, 
provided that any new sources of dispatchable locations would be 
subject to privacy and security protection equivalent to those in 
currently in effect.
    32. To assist in the Commission's evaluation of the economic impact 
on small entities and other CMRS providers, the Commission seeks 
comment on the costs and benefits of various proposals and alternatives 
in the Fifth Further Notice and specifically on how to reduce 
compliance costs and increase benefits.
    33. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the costs and 
benefits of narrowing the z-axis metric from 3 meters to 1 meter and 
information on the costs to carriers and public safety to develop 
database solutions that can be used to convert altitude measurements to 
an actual floor-level. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs 
and benefits as applied to a nationwide deployment of the z-axis 
metric, resulting in a nationwide x, y and z location accuracy standard 
and associated with a phased-in, nationwide deployment of the z-axis 
metric; and on how a nationwide deployment would impact compliance 
costs. Further, the Commission seeks comment on alternatives to the 
NEAD including the costs and benefits of requiring the reporting of 
both (1) dispatchable location and (2) z-axis information in the top 50 
Cellular Market Areas, and the associated costs and benefits of relying 
on alternative data sources for dispatchable location.
    34. Aside from the costs and benefits information in the Fifth 
Further Notice, the Commission seeks comment on the appropriate 
timeline for requiring carriers to provide floor level information--or 
more granular requirements--and considers a five-year timeline for 
doing so. In the alternative, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
other timelines would better account for the time needed to achieve 
technical feasibility and the associated costs for the provision of 
floor level information rather than meeting the 3-meter vertical 
location accuracy standard. To help secure E911 location information, 
the Fifth Further Notice also seeks comment on whether alternative 
sources of caller location information would best help provide timely 
and accurate dispatchable location information, and queries whether 
such information can be secured by applying security and privacy 
requirements similar to those of the NEAD.
    35. The Commission expects to consider more fully the economic 
impact on small entities following its review of comments filed in 
response to the Fifth Further Notice, including costs and benefits 
analyses. The Commission's evaluation of the comments filed in this 
proceeding will shape the final alternatives it considers, the final 
conclusions it reaches, and any final actions it ultimately takes in 
this proceeding to minimize any significant economic impact that may 
occur on small entities.

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

    36. None.

II. Ordering Clauses

    37. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 
10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of 
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 
160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, 332; the 
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-
81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-
First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 
Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that this Fifth Report and Order 
and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, is hereby adopted.
    38. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Fifth Report and Order and Fifth Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial and Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio, 
Federal Communications Commission.

Cecilia Sigmund,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 9 as follows:

PART 9--911 REQUIREMENTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151 through 154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 
201, 202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615 
note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721, 
and 1471, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Section 9.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C)(1) and 
(2) and (i)(2)(ii)(D)(1) and (2) to read as follows:


Sec.  9.10   911 Service Requirements.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (1) In each CMA where dispatchable location is used: Nationwide 
CMRS providers ensure that the NEAD is populated with a sufficient 
number of total dispatchable location reference points to equal 25 
percent of the CMA population. CMRS providers may demonstrate 
dispatchable location deployment by means other than the NEAD reference 
points, provided that any dispatchable location option that does not 
rely on the NEAD includes equivalent privacy and security safeguards; 
or
    (2) In each CMA where z-axis technology is used:
    (i) Nationwide CMRS providers must deploy z-axis technology to 
cover 80 percent of the CMA population; or
    (ii) CMRS providers may also demonstrate z-axis deployment to cover 
80 percent of the buildings that exceed three stories in the CMA; or
    (iii) CMRS providers may also demonstrate z-axis deployment by 
deploying z-axis capable handsets nationwide. By 2021, CMRS providers 
choosing nationwide deployment shall ensure that 80 percent of handsets 
on the network are z-axis capable.
    (D) * * *

[[Page 2692]]

    (1) In each CMA where dispatchable location is used: Nationwide 
CMRS providers ensure that the NEAD is populated with a sufficient 
number of total dispatchable location reference points to equal 25 
percent of the CMA population. CMRS providers may demonstrate 
dispatchable location deployment by means other than the NEAD reference 
points, provided that any dispatchable location option that does not 
rely on the NEAD includes equivalent privacy and security safeguards; 
or
    (2) In each CMA where z-axis technology is used:
    (i) Nationwide CMRS providers must deploy z-axis technology to 
cover 80 percent of the CMA population; or
    (ii) CMRS providers may also demonstrate z-axis deployment to cover 
80 percent of the buildings that exceed three stories in the CMA; or
    (iii) CMRS providers may also demonstrate z-axis deployment by 
deploying z-axis capable handsets nationwide. By 2023, CMRS providers 
choosing nationwide deployment shall ensure that 100 percent of 
handsets on the network are z-axis capable.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2019-28482 Filed 1-15-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P