[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2660-2675]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28483]



[[Page 2660]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 9

[PS Docket No. 07-114; FCC 19-124; FRS 16358]


Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the 
FCC or Commission) adopts a z-axis (vertical) location accuracy metric 
of plus or minus 3 meters for 80 percent of indoor wireless E911 calls 
for z-axis capable handsets. The Commission also requires nationwide 
commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to deploy dispatchable 
location or z-axis technology that meets this metric in the top 25 
markets by April 3, 2021 and in the top 50 markets by April 3, 2023. 
The Commission also extends privacy protections to z-axis data conveyed 
with 911 calls.

DATES: 
    Effective date: March 16, 2020.
    Compliance date: Compliance will not be required for Sec.  
9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and (j)(4) until the Commission 
publishes a document in the Federal Register announcing the compliance 
date.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Fifth 
Report and Order, FCC 19-124, adopted on November 22, 2019 and released 
on November 25, 2019. The complete text of this document is available 
for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY). The complete text of the order also is available on the 
Commission's website at http://www.fcc.gov.

Synopsis

I. Introduction

    1. All Americans using mobile phones--whether they are calling from 
urban or rural areas, buildings or outdoor venues--should have the 
capability to dial 911 and receive the support they need in times of an 
emergency. Consumers make 240 million calls to 911 each year, and in 
many areas 80% or more of these calls are from wireless phones. While 
advances in technology have improved the overall ability of first 
responders to locate 911 callers, challenges remain particularly for 
locating 911 callers in multi-story buildings.
    2. To ensure that first responders and Public Safety Answering 
Points (PSAPs) can find 911 callers quickly and accurately when a 
consumer calls from a multi-story building, we adopt a vertical, or z-
axis, location accuracy metric of plus or minus 3 meters relative to 
the handset for each of the benchmarks and geographic requirements 
previously established in the Commission's E911 wireless location 
accuracy rules. This action will more accurately identify the floor 
level for most 911 calls, reduce emergency response times, and save 
lives.

II. Background

    3. The Commission has been working with the public safety community 
and industry partners to ensure the accurate delivery of 911 vertical 
location information for the better part of a decade. In 2011, the 
Commission tasked the Communications Security, Reliability, and 
Interoperability Council (CSRIC) with testing indoor location accuracy 
technologies, including barometric pressure sensors, in a test bed. 
CSRIC conducted tests on a variety of technologies in 2012, and the 
results showed that at least one vendor--NextNav LLC (NextNav)--could 
locate a caller's vertical location within 3 meters more than 67% of 
the time in dense urban, urban, and rural morphologies. In 2013, 
NextNav conducted additional testing on the second generation of its 
location technology and reported that it provided callers' vertical 
location within 3.2 meters 80% of the time, across all morphologies. 
Accordingly, in 2014, the Commission proposed measures and timeframes 
to improve location accuracy for wireless E911 calls originating 
indoors, including, among others, a 3-meter z-axis metric for 80% of 
such calls.
    4. In 2015, the Commission adopted rules for improving E911 
wireless location accuracy. Under these rules, CMRS providers must meet 
a series of accuracy benchmarks by either conveying dispatchable 
location (e.g., street address, floor level, and office or apartment 
number) or coordinate-based location information to the appropriate 
PSAP. For vertical location, the Commission required wireless providers 
to provide either dispatchable location using the National Emergency 
Address Database (NEAD) or vertical (z-axis) location information in 
compliance with the FCC-approved metric. If dispatchable location is 
used, there must be a density of NEAD reference points distributed 
throughout the cellular market area (CMA) equivalent to 25% of the 
population in that CMA. If z-axis location technology is used, it must 
be deployed to cover 80% of the CMA population. Nationwide CMRS 
providers must meet these benchmarks in each of the top 25 CMAs by 
April 3, 2021 and in each of the top 50 CMAs by April 3, 2023. Non-
nationwide CMRS providers that serve any of the top 25 or 50 Cellular 
Market Areas have an additional year to meet these benchmarks. In 
addition, the Commission required the nationwide CMRS providers to test 
and develop a proposed z-axis accuracy metric and submit the proposed 
metric to the Commission for approval by August 3, 2018.
    5. On August 3, 2018, CTIA submitted the ``Stage Z Test Report'' 
(Report or Stage Z Test Report) on behalf of the four nationwide CMRS 
providers. According to the Report, Stage Z testing sought to assess 
the accuracy of solutions that use barometric pressure sensors in the 
handset for determining altitude in support of E911. Two vendors, 
NextNav and Polaris Wireless, Inc. (Polaris), participated in Stage Z. 
The test results showed that in 80% of NextNav test calls, vertical 
location was identified to a range of 1.8 meters or less, while 80% of 
Polaris test calls yielded a vertical accuracy range of 4.8 meters or 
less. The Report noted that Polaris' performance ``could likely be 
significantly improved should a more robust handset barometric sensor 
calibration approach [than that used in the test bed] be applied.''
    6. In its August 3, 2018, cover letter submitting the Report, CTIA 
stated that the test results provided ``helpful insight'' into the 
state of z-axis technologies, but that ``significant questions remain 
about performance

[[Page 2661]]

and scalability in live wireless 9-1-1 calling environments.'' On 
behalf of the four nationwide wireless providers, CTIA therefore 
proposed a z-axis metric of ``5 meters for 80% of fixes from mobile 
devices capable of delivering barometric pressure sensor-based altitude 
estimates.'' CTIA also stated that further testing of vertical location 
technologies could yield results to validate adoption of a more 
accurate z-axis metric. On September 10, 2018, the Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) released a Public Notice seeking 
comment on the Report and the carriers' proposed z-axis metric.
    7. In March 2019, the Commission released the Fourth Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (Fourth Further NPRM) in this proceeding (84 FR 
13211 (April 4, 2019)). There, we proposed a z-axis metric of 3 meters 
relative to the handset for 80% of indoor wireless E911 calls for each 
of the benchmarks and geographic requirements previously established in 
the Commission's E911 wireless location accuracy rules. Based on 
existing test data from the two vendors that participated in the 
industry test bed, we tentatively concluded that achieving this 
standard was technically feasible. We also tentatively concluded that 
unlike the 5-meter standard originally proposed by the wireless 
carriers, a 3-meter standard would provide sufficient accuracy to 
identify the caller's floor level in most cases. We sought comment on 
adopting a stricter 2-meter metric but tentatively concluded that it 
was not yet technically achievable on a consistent basis, although it 
could become achievable in the longer term as technology continues to 
evolve.
    8. In response to the Fourth Further NPRM, the Commission received 
20 comments and 11 reply comments, filed by public safety entities, 
vendors, wireless carriers, technology companies, and industry 
associations.

III. Fifth Report and Order

    9. We adopt a 3-meter z-axis 911 location accuracy metric to be 
implemented by the April 2021 and 2023 vertical accuracy deadlines as 
proposed in the Fourth Further NPRM. Numerous commenters, including 
public safety entities, vendors, and carriers, agree that implementing 
the proposed 3-meter metric within existing timelines will benefit 
public safety and is technically feasible. Although some industry 
commenters contend that we should take a phased approach or delay 
adopting a metric pending further testing, and some public safety 
commenters advocate adopting stricter accuracy standards for the 2021 
and 2023 deadlines, we find these arguments unpersuasive.

A. The 3-Meter Metric

    10. We agree with commenters who conclude that a 3-meter metric 
will bring real public safety benefits to the American public and is 
technically feasible in the near term. A broad cross-section of public 
safety commenters agree that, in the near term, a 3-meter metric will 
meet public safety needs and will provide actionable information to 
first responders. Public safety organizations in support of the 3-meter 
metric include the International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the National 
Association of State EMS Officials (NASEMSO), the National Sheriffs' 
Association (IAFC et al.); International Association of Fire Fighters 
(IAFF); NENA: The 9-1-1 Association (NENA); State of Florida Department 
of Management Services, Division of Telecommunications, Bureau of 
Public Safety (Florida); and Texas 9-1-1 Alliance, the Texas Commission 
on State Emergency Communications (CSEC), and the Municipal Emergency 
Communication Districts Association (Texas 911 Entities). The Boulder 
Emergency Telephone Service Authority (BRETSA) notes that ``floor-level 
accuracy is a critical objective, and 3-meter accuracy is floor level 
accuracy.'' The International Association of Fire Fighters states that 
the Commission was ``correct in concluding that a 3 meters vertical 
accuracy requirement `will significantly narrow the scope of the search 
and can provide a reasonable basis for identifying the correct floor in 
most cases.' '' For example, in-building tests that International 
Association of Fire Fighters conducted in July 2014 using NextNav 
technology showed significant improvement in search time compared to 
searching without any vertical location information component. The 
International Association of Fire Fighters asserts that ``vertical 
altitude information can provide a substantial improvement in search 
effectiveness in multistory structures, even without a precise floor 
number or a dispatchable address.'' Texas 911 Entities supports 
immediate adoption of a 3-meter metric on the grounds that ``the 
`perfect' should not be the enemy of the `good.' '' The International 
Association of Fire Chiefs similarly supports adopting a 3 meter metric 
and then narrowing the metric ``over a timeframe as technology 
develops.''
    11. What is more, we find that implementing the 3-meter metric on 
schedule is technically feasible. Two vendors have consistently shown 
in testing that they can meet or surpass this standard. Since 2012, 
NextNav has repeatedly achieved 3-meter accuracy in multiple 
independently-conducted tests. In the Stage Z test bed, NextNav's 
technology was accurate within 1.8 meters or better for 80% of indoor 
fixes and 3 meters or better for 94% of indoor fixes. In other words, 
NextNav's technology is capable of ``consistent performance within an 
accuracy metric of 3 meters or less.''
    12. Polaris too can achieve accuracy within 2.8 meters for 80% of 
test calls by using additional available location data to recalibrate 
and refine its Stage Z data. Although Polaris did not employ active 
calibration of the barometric sensors during Stage Z testing, the Stage 
Z Report acknowledges that the test results for Polaris ``may 
underestimate the performance results that might be achieved'' if a 
calibration approach had been employed. We agree with Polaris that its 
technology can deliver 3-meter accuracy, and with NextNav that ``the 
Stage Z test process confirmed, once again, that existing location 
technologies available from multiple vendors can reliably achieve floor 
level vertical accuracy within +/-3 meters for at least 80 percent of 
indoor wireless calls to E911 emergency services.''
    13. The record suggests that other technological options for 
vertical location accuracy are emerging, and that, as T-Mobile 
describes, the market is driving innovation in location accuracy 
technology for E911. Airwave Developers LLC (AWD) submits that Citizens 
Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) technology low cost antennas installed 
on each floor of a building will generate data allowing for the PSAP to 
pinpoint the floor from which the wireless call was made. In 2018, CTIA 
announced nationwide wireless providers AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and 
Verizon were adding new location-based tools with existing wireless 9-
1-1 location technologies by the end of that year. Two device based 
approaches are Apple's delivery of Hybridized Emergency Location (HELO) 
data and Google's Android Emergency Location Service (ELS). Apple has 
announced that it will use new technology to quickly and securely share 
Hybridized Emergency Location information with 911 call centers. The 
HELO ``solution has offered z- axis estimates and uncertainties 
beginning in 2013, and those estimates have been consumed by carriers 
since its first adoption in 2015.'' Apple has committed to improving 
its vertical, as well as horizontal, location accuracy and will 
participate in CTIA's

[[Page 2662]]

z-axis testing by the end of 2020. Google in turn has described its 
Emergency Location Service solution, which can record and report z-axis 
information, as a feature fully integrated in the operating system on 
99% of Android handsets that makes handset location known when the user 
initiates an emergency call or text. Google plans to test the vertical 
accuracy capabilities of its Emergency Location Service solution in 
Stage Za. In short, companies are actively exploring new types of 
cellular air interfaces for location accuracy ``including 5G 
interfaces, additional satellite constellations, and other wireless 
infrastructure, such as Wi-Fi access points, Bluetooth beacons and 
small cells, as well as information provided by sensors within today's 
smartphones.''
    14. We further conclude that adopting the 3-meter metric will keep 
deployment of z-axis information to public safety officials on 
schedule. Public safety commenters support the current 2021 and 2023 
deadlines for applying the z-axis metric and oppose delay for further 
testing. The International Association of Fire Fighters finds it 
``inconceivable . . . that either the Commission or the public safety 
community would allow themselves to get this close to achieving a 
historic benefit in the capabilities of emergency services and so much 
as hesitate in taking the next step.'' BRETSA maintains that 
``[a]doption of a vertical location standard will benefit the public'' 
and ``additional testing should not delay provision of the public 
benefit.'' Vendors also support adoption of a z-axis metric without 
further delay. NextNav states ``[n]ot only would further delay pose a 
continued risk to public safety, but it is also unclear whether it 
would appreciably improve the information that is currently available 
to the Commission.'' AWD notes that current technology is able to meet 
the 3-meter metric.
    15. We disagree with commenters that raise a number of objections. 
To start, we disagree with commenters like Google, who argue for a 
``phased'' approach that would involve setting a 4-meter metric 
initially and tightening the metric to 3 meters by 2023. Google argues 
that ``[w]hile major progress has been made, consensus has not been 
reached on the appropriate z-axis metric, and the full capabilities of 
alternative technologies cannot yet be determined,'' so that a phased 
approach would ``better reflect[ ] the current abilities and future 
promise of vertical location technologies.'' We believe sufficient 
testing that has already occurred and that the technology trends that 
Google itself cites validate our conclusion that 3 meters is already 
technically feasible and provides the appropriate metric for the 
development of alternative new technologies.
    16. Similarly, we disagree with commenters who ask us to delay 
action for further testing. To start, we note that these arguments ring 
hollow when several CMRS providers--those who bear direct 
responsibility for complying with the 3-meter metric on schedule--are 
on record as supporting adoption of the 3-meter metric without further 
testing. For example, AT&T favors the Commission's proposal because 
``it will give the industry certainty and advance the development 
process necessary to meet the 2021 and 2023 vertical location accuracy 
benchmarks in the Fourth Report & Order [80 FR 11806 (March 4, 
2015)].'' CTIA reiterates that it supports the proposed z-axis metric 
without changes, having previously stated that ``[t]he Fourth Further 
[NPRM] offers a reasoned approach to the definition of floor level 
accuracy as part of the proposed z-axis metric: within 3 meters above 
or below the vertical location provided by the phone.'' And Verizon 
supports the Commission's proposed metric, stating that it is ``a good 
target for 9-1-1 calls from devices with the necessary capability.'' 
Google also supports a 3 meter metric and asks that our approach remain 
technology neutral so that CMRS providers may select the technology to 
meet their location accuracy obligations.
    17. More specifically, we disagree with Google and Qualcomm that 
there has been insufficient testing of barometric sensor-based 
technologies in extreme cold-weather conditions. Although CTIA and 
Qualcomm note that NextNav was unable to participate in Stage Z winter 
testing in Chicago, we do not consider this to be sufficient reason to 
delay our decision. Polaris did participate in Stage Z winter testing 
in Chicago and achieved results that were comparable to the results it 
achieved in the other test bed locations in more moderate weather 
conditions. Moreover, as BRETSA states, ``[e]ven if vertical location 
results would be less accurate during episodes of climactic extremes; 
that cannot justify delaying adoption of a standard and deployment of 
vertical location technologies which have been proven in common weather 
conditions.'' Finally, despite its own complaints about a lack of cold 
weather data, CTIA waited to conduct Stage Za testing to conclude in 
late 2019, so it will be unable to provide winter test data for at 
least another year. We cannot accept such a long delay in adopting a 
metric, given that two vendors can meet the metric and there are 
emerging device-based solutions.
    18. We disagree with Google that additional testing is needed in 
rural morphologies. The rural morphology is ``the sparsest environment 
overall'' and is mostly residential, with most structures between 1 and 
2 stories high. As Verizon notes, urban areas are important for 
vertical location accuracy because ``[i]t is in these areas where 
multi-story buildings are concentrated, so service providers should 
focus their deployments on urban and dense urban areas within the 
covered CMAs.'' In these morphologies, the test bed shows that 
NextNav's solution would meet a 3-meter metric. Additionally, NextNav's 
technology was tested for vertical accuracy in rural areas during the 
original CSRIC Test Bed conducted in 2012, and NextNav's results from 
that testing fell within 3 meters for 80% of all calls. In the Addendum 
to the Stage Z Report, Polaris explains that its results in all 
morphologies would fall below 3 meters had it used limited active 
calibration during the Stage Z test. The Stage Z Test Report 
acknowledges that Polaris did not employ continuous calibration during 
the test and that Polaris' results ``may underestimate the performance 
results that might be achieved using an effective continuous 
(background) calibration algorithm for each individual mobile device.''
    19. We also disagree with Apple's suggestion that we should delay 
action based on concerns that the test bed did not adequately test z-
axis solutions under real-world conditions. Apple states that results 
were obtained in the test bed ``only under conditions that deviate 
significantly from realistic user patterns and constraints'' and ``do 
not necessarily mean that a 3 meter accuracy metric is 
achievable by April 2021 in real-world circumstances.'' In fact, the 
testing was conducted in multiple regions, morphologies, and building 
configurations in order to assess how z-axis technology would perform 
in a variety of real-world environments. Test bed procedures were based 
on the recommendations of the Commission's fourth Communications, 
Security, Reliability & Interoperability Council (CSRIC IV), and 
testing followed guidelines developed by the Alliance for 
Telecommunications Industry Solutions' (ATIS) Emergency Services 
Interconnection Forum (ESIF), including ESIF's Emergency Services and 
Methodologies (ESM) subcommittee. As the Stage Z Test Report states, 
``ATIS provided guidelines on test building and test point selection 
and oversaw implementation of the Test Bed by the

[[Page 2663]]

Administrator-Executor. In addition, Test Bed, LLC receives guidance 
from the TAC, which includes representatives of the nationwide wireless 
service providers, as well as the Association of Public-Safety 
Communications Officials International (APCO) and the National 
Emergency Number Association (NENA).'' Although it is not possible for 
any test bed to replicate every conceivable real world scenario, we 
find the test bed results to be sufficiently representative and robust 
to support our establishment of the 3-meter metric. We also agree with 
NextNav that ``not only would further delay pose a continued risk to 
public safety, but it is also unclear whether it would appreciably 
improve information that is currently available to the Commission.''
    20. We also disagree with T-Mobile that further testing is first 
needed with a wider variety of handsets, including older handsets. 
NextNav and Polaris each tested six handsets, for a total of twelve 
handsets, in Stage Z. These handsets were selected by the test bed 
administrator, not the vendors, and the Report states that they were 
selected ``to ensure variety between sensor manufacturers, the age of 
handsets (within limits) and their overall use characteristics.'' The 
handsets used in testing were ``the same production-ready handsets sold 
by wireless carriers and available to the general public'' and did not 
contain any hardware modification that would favor these handsets over 
any commercially available handsets. Thus, we adopt our tentative 
conclusion from the Fourth Further NPRM that a sufficient variety of 
devices have been tested to support moving forward with our proposed 3-
meter metric at this time.
    21. We also decline to adopt a 2-meter metric, as suggested by 
BRETSA, at this time. The record confirms that a 2-meter metric is not 
technically feasible under the existing timelines, although it may 
become achievable in the long term as technology continues to evolve.
    22. Finally, we need not address APCO's suggestion in its comments 
that the Commission proceed without adopting a metric. In a recent ex 
parte filing, APCO stated that based on the record and its discussions 
with stakeholders, it ``does not recommend that the Commission decline 
to adopt a z-axis metric altogether.'' APCO's revised position aligns 
with the views of all other public safety commenters that adopting a z-
axis metric remains an essential measure to ensure that first 
responders receive important location information when providing 
dispatchable location is not feasible. We agree.

B. Deployment

    23. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we proposed that the 3-meter z-axis 
metric apply to 80% of calls from all handsets, i.e., that to comply 
with the metric, z-axis technologies would have to be demonstrated in 
the test bed to provide 3-meter accuracy for 80% of wireless calls. We 
asked whether applying the metric to 80% of wireless calls was 
appropriate, and if not, what percentage of calls would be appropriate. 
We also noted that CTIA had proposed that its 5-meter metric apply only 
to ``mobile devices capable of delivering barometric pressure sensor-
based altitude estimates.'' We asked whether the z-axis metric should 
only be applied to devices with barometric pressure sensors, or to 
devices manufactured after a date certain, or whether it should apply 
to all handsets, as we proposed. We observed that to the extent that 
CMRS providers elect to use solutions that rely on barometric pressure 
readings, nearly all smartphones on the market appear to be equipped 
with barometric pressure sensors. We observed that barometric sensor-
based solutions are likely to be scalable and can be made readily 
available to wireless consumers within the timeframes required by the 
rules. We sought comment on this assessment and its underlying factual 
assumptions. We also sought comment on the potential for development 
and deployment of other new or emerging vertical location solutions 
that could be used to meet the proposed z-axis metric.
    24. As proposed, we apply the 3-meter accuracy metric to 80% of 
wireless E911 calls. This is consistent with our approach to E911 
horizontal accuracy, which requires wireless carriers to meet 
horizontal accuracy requirements for 80% of calls by April 2021. Thus, 
as the basis for validation of any z-axis technology, we require 
wireless carriers to demonstrate in the test bed that the technology 
achieves 3-meter accuracy for 80% of wireless E911 calls.
    25. We also conclude that application of the 3-meter metric should 
apply to all handsets that have the capability to support vertical 
location, regardless of technology, not just new handsets or barometric 
pressure sensor capable handsets. We thus clarify that a device will be 
considered ``z-axis capable'' so long as it can measure and report 
vertical location without a hardware upgrade. Thus, devices that can be 
modified to support vertical location by means of a firmware or 
software upgrade will be considered z-axis capable. This definition 
makes clear that any device technically capable of measuring and 
reporting vertical location information without a change in hardware 
must be enabled to do so--and actions by carriers, device 
manufacturers, operating system providers, chipmakers, or z-axis 
vendors that would prohibit technically capable devices from actually 
and effectively measuring and reporting z-axis information put the 
public and emergency personnel at unacceptable risk. We expect to 
closely monitor the roll-out of z-axis capable devices to the American 
public over the next two years and take all appropriate action against 
any company that obstructs the effective deployment of such 
technologies in a timely manner.
    26. The record reflects that z-axis capable devices are widely 
available. NENA concludes that ``it is safe to assume that a 
comparatively small portion of modern phones lack [barometric pressure] 
sensors.'' NENA also states that market trends suggest an increase in 
barometric pressure sensor prevalence ``as applications such as fitness 
apps and small electronic devices like standalone GPS and fitness 
trackers increasingly incorporate altitude measurements, driving 
incentives to include [barometric pressure] sensor hardware.'' As 
Google points out, the Fourth Report & Order ``established benchmarks 
and timetables clear enough to signal that development of z-axis 
capability should be a top priority.'' Google states that ``industry 
has risen to the challenge with manifold options to enable z-axis 
capability,'' including the barometric pressure sensor-based solutions 
developed by NextNav and Polaris and ``handset-based solutions like ELS 
[that] have been widely deployed around the world.'' Google credits 
this rapid and widespread availability of z-axis capable devices to the 
Commission's flexible and evolutionary approach to location accuracy.
    27. What is more, both NextNav and Polaris have software-based 
solutions. Thus, if carriers choose either of these solutions, hardware 
upgrades to handsets are not required and solutions can be implemented 
by means of software modifications that are readily achievable ahead of 
the 2021 deadline. The record describes scalable methods of 
implementation for barometric-based solutions that do not require 
hardware changes.'' As Polaris states, ``[o]ne method is to implement 
adopted 3GPP [3rd Generation Partnership Project] and OMA [Open Mobile 
Alliance] standards for barometric compensation'' which is

[[Page 2664]]

a ``firmware-based approach [that] is achievable through cooperation 
among carriers, device manufacturers, and chipmakers.'' Another method 
Polaris describes is to ``place necessary functionality on devices,'' 
which is a ``software-based approach [that] is achievable through 
cooperation among carriers, location vendors, and device Operating 
System providers.'' Polaris maintains that it ``can support a variety 
of implementation methodologies and remains committed to work with 
carriers and other involved parties to implement any agreed upon 
methodology.'' NextNav also states handsets can be made z-axis 
compliant with over-the-air updates.
    28. We disagree with some commenters that suggest that old handsets 
should be categorically excluded from the rules; they do not propose or 
provide a clear rationale for a specific cutoff. Instead, we apply the 
metric to all z-axis capable devices, as supported by commenters like 
AT&T.
    29. We also disagree with CTIA who suggests we apply the metric 
only to devices ``equipped with barometers and any other functionality 
necessary to support barometric pressure-based altitude estimation 
solutions.'' As APCO argues, this approach would violate the principle 
of technological neutrality. We have previously recognized that no 
single technological approach will solve the challenge of indoor 
location, and we have consistently favored technologically neutral 
rules ``so that providers can choose the most effective solutions from 
a range of options.'' Although both technologies tested in Stage Z 
relied on barometric pressure sensor capable handsets, and it is 
possible that the carriers could adopt barometric-based solutions 
exclusively, other vertical location technologies may develop that do 
not require a barometric sensor in the handset. In fact, Google has 
stated that its Stage Z testing will include solutions that do not use 
barometric pressure sensors. Therefore, in order to preserve the 
technological neutrality of the rules and encourage development of the 
broadest possible array of vertical location technologies, the metric 
will not be limited to barometric pressure sensor capable handsets.
    30. Qualcomm and Google raise a concern that vertical location 
technology needs to be standardized so it can be ``economically 
implemented.'' However, Verizon states that ``extensive standardization 
work on vertical location solutions has already been completed,'' and 
further work is under way. Apple states that ``vertical location 
accuracy performance requirements should be evaluated in the context of 
solutions that must be implemented at large scale, subject to real 
world operational considerations,'' and ``[t]echnologies that depend on 
the deployment of new infrastructure in every major city to achieve 
even less-stringent performance metrics also raise significant 
questions about the viability of the tested approaches.'' BRETSA also 
comments that ``one would expect the accuracy of vertical location 
systems to improve as they are deployed ``at scale'' and additional 
experience with them is gained.'' We also recognize that if carriers 
use barometric sensor based solutions, they will depend to some extent 
on third parties to support proper installation and calibration of 
barometric sensors in user devices, and that solutions will only work 
if the systems are compatible and information is correctly relayed 
between providers, the handset and operating system providers, and the 
PSAPs. However, while we acknowledge CMRS providers' concerns about 
their ability to compel handset manufacturers and operating system 
providers to cooperate, we believe CMRS providers are capable of 
negotiating requirements with such third parties and establishing 
contractual timelines that will enable timely deployment of z-axis 
solutions in time to meet the deadlines in the rules. Moreover, the 
flexible, technology-neutral approach to location requirements adopted 
in this order removes uncertainty and will give carriers greater leeway 
to negotiate with competing vendors and to leverage location solutions 
already being developed by handset manufacturers and operating system 
providers.

C. Reporting Z-Axis Location Information

    31. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we sought comment on how CMRS 
providers should report vertical location information, noting that 
several measurement methods exist. Specifically, we sought comment on 
whether reporting vertical location information as height above ground 
level (AGL) would be preferable to reporting height above mean sea 
level (MSL), and whether to require CMRS providers to use one 
measurement standard exclusively. We asked commenters to address 
whether CMRS providers should be required to identify the floor level 
when reporting z-axis information. Alternatively, we asked whether we 
should decline to specify this level of detail so that entities 
developing z-axis solutions have more flexibility.
    32. We require CMRS providers to report z-axis information as 
Height Above Ellipsoid (HAE). In this regard, NENA and several other 
commenters point out that while vertical location information can be 
reported in multiple ways, e.g., HAE, MSL, or AGL, global standards are 
being developed around the measurement of such information as a value 
in HAE in meters, as defined in the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS-
84). NENA notes that 3GPP is developing standards relating to 
representation of vertical location information that are based on HAE, 
and industry commenters generally agree with NENA that HAE has emerged 
as the globally recognized standard for generating z-axis measurements.
    33. There is a general consensus around using HAE as the baseline 
for measuring vertical location, but we recognize that the issue of how 
vertical location information should be reported to PSAPs is complex. 
ATIS ESIF argues that individual PSAPs may have different requirements 
for the processing and formatting of vertical location information, and 
that CMRS providers should not be required to convert location data 
into multiple formats. ATIS, AT&T, and T-Mobile suggest that CMRS 
providers should be responsible only for providing raw location data 
that meets the z-axis metric, and that PSAPs should be responsible for 
translating that data into a floor number or other actionable 
information. APCO counters that PSAPs do not have the resources to 
convert raw z-axis data to a floor number, ``nor do they have three-
dimensional maps to visualize raw z-axis information.'' APCO argues 
that PSAPs ``will be left without actionable vertical location 
information'' unless CMRS providers are required to convert z-axis data 
to a floor level that is reported to the PSAP.
    34. In arguing for floor level, APCO says that the Commission 
should also require carriers to provide floor level identification. 
Given the need for timely deployment on our existing timeline, we 
disagree. While public safety commenters broadly support the delivery 
of floor level information, the record is clear that it is not now 
technically feasible to reliably convert z-axis information to an 
identified floor level. ATIS states that ``there currently exists no 
data source that correlates any form of z-axis data to a floor index or 
floor label.'' CTIA recognizes public safety's desire for the most 
actionable information, but states that it ``is not aware of any z-axis 
technology solutions that can produce specific floor level 
information.'' Apple observes ``that providing the ``floor level'' 
information

[[Page 2665]]

alongside a z-axis estimate would necessarily require information on 
the geodetic position of floors and knowledge of the labels applied to 
individual floors (e.g., ``mezzanine'', ``courtyard''),'' and Apple is 
``not aware of any sources for this information.'' Apple also states 
that it is ``unclear how uncertainty information could be effectively 
conveyed under such a regime,'' and that ``both horizontal and vertical 
uncertainty would be relevant to floor level information, as buildings 
implement floor levels in different ways.'' In support of its argument, 
APCO cites an academic paper and trade press reports on emerging floor 
level reporting technologies, stating that they prove providing floor 
level is already technically feasible. Other commenters take issue with 
APCO sources, and CTIA points out that APCO claims are not supported by 
testing. While the sources cited by APCO suggest potential floor level 
location solutions may be on the horizon, the record here reflects that 
such solutions are untested and not yet sufficiently mature to support 
a comprehensive floor level requirement. Further, as NENA and BRETSA 
recognize, floor heights are not standard and an authoritative database 
for the mapping of floors in a given building does not yet exist, while 
building characteristics themselves vary greatly and floor numbering is 
not always consistent. Verizon notes that ``floor level accuracy may 
depend at least in part on participation by not only service providers 
and vendors but third party building owners and tenants--which would 
have technical feasibility and jurisdictional implications beyond the 
scope of the rules contemplated in this proceeding based on test bed 
performance to date.''
    35. Current vertical location technology does not support floor 
level identification, and some public safety commenters, including the 
International Association of Fire Fighters and the International 
Association of Fire Chiefs, state that, contrary to APCO's view, z-axis 
data can provide actionable information to first responders. As they 
put it: ``Unlike x/y data, which must be translated from lengthy 
coordinates to an approximate street address, Height Above Ellipsoid 
(HAE) altitude data is transmitted in digestible numbers, extending no 
more than two decimal points. While technologies exist that allow an 
Emergency Communications Center to translate vertical data from HAE to 
Height Above Ground Level, emergency responders can act upon the data 
when it is delivered in either format by simply matching altitude 
information on their own equipment using an HAE-capable application, 
device or dedicated wearable display.'' And other public safety 
organizations like NENA agree.
    36. We agree and reject the notion that the only ``actionable'' 
data we can mandate today is a floor estimate. Many buildings, 
including the Commission's headquarters, have non-standard floor 
numbering schemes, which may not begin on Floor 1 but, instead, 
``Lobby,'' ``Main,'' or ``Ground.'' Some buildings skip Floor 13. There 
is significant risk of error to solutions that assume ground-level 
floor numbers or standard floor numbering patterns. The record does not 
show that this risk can be mitigated sufficiently in the near-term such 
that we could proceed immediately with a decision that requires a 
floor-level solution. Besides, to first responders, a true height 
measurement may be more valuable than floor level information. Floors 
can collapse, rendering a floor estimate less useful. Floor numbering 
can be difficult to track in an emergency. First responders may not 
know on what floor they are entering a building, or they may become 
disoriented during a lengthy search. They may not know whether ``Floor 
X'' is above or below them, but by attaching a true height device to 
their gear, they may be able to learn how close they are to a victim as 
they approach the origin of a 911 call. This functionality may prove 
very useful to first responders who try to locate downed or disoriented 
teammates in an emergency. And a true height measurement is useful 
(unlike a floor estimate) to a first responder searching outside for a 
person in need of help.
    37. For all these reasons, we decline to require CMRS providers to 
report floor level where it is not technically feasible to do so and 
instead require that they deliver z-axis information in HAE. However, 
we agree with Texas 911 Entities that in cases where the carrier has 
reliable information about the caller's floor level, they should 
provide it.
    38. We require CMRS providers to deliver z-axis information in HAE, 
and we do not require CMRS providers to translate from HAE to other 
formats. The record suggests that translation mechanisms can be 
developed using HAE as a baseline reference, and that for the time 
being we should afford industry and public safety flexibility to 
develop solutions that are cost-effective for both sides. Finally, we 
agree with public safety commenters that providing a floor level is a 
priority and therefore seek comment below on the feasibility of 
ensuring emergency personnel have access to floor level information in 
the longer term.

D. Confidence and Uncertainty Data

    39. In the Third Further NPRM in this proceeding (79 FR 17820 
(March 28, 2014)), the Commission proposed to require provision of 
confidence and uncertainty data for the location information provided 
with all wireless 911 calls, whether outdoor or indoor, on a per-call 
basis at the request of a PSAP, with a uniform confidence level of 90%. 
The Commission anticipated that any requirements adopted regarding 
standardization of the delivery and format of confidence and 
uncertainty data would apply in conjunction with the delivery of both 
indoor and outdoor location information. In the Fourth Report and 
Order, the Commission adopted specific confidence and uncertainty 
requirements for horizontal (x- and y-axis) data for all wireless 911 
calls. The rules require that the data specify ``[t]he caller's 
location with a uniform confidence level of 90 percent'' and ``[t]he 
radius in meters from the reported position at that same confidence 
level.'' Because the Fourth Report and Order deferred the adoption of a 
z-axis metric, it also deferred action on extending confidence and 
uncertainty requirements to z-axis data.
    40. We amend our rules to extend the equivalent confidence and 
uncertainty requirements to z-axis data. As commenters point out, it is 
just as important for PSAPs to be able to assess the reliability of 
vertical location information as it is to assess the reliability of 
horizontal location information. APCO states that without uncertainty 
data ``public safety professionals would lack information that is 
essential when deciding whether to break down a door or how to develop 
a search strategy.'' NENA asserts that it is critical that all location 
information, including z-axis, include detailed uncertainty 
information. BRETSA supports the provision of confidence and 
uncertainty data along with z-axis information to help public safety 
assess data that may include sources of error. NextNav and Polaris 
support extending confidence and uncertainty requirements to z-axis 
data and indicate that their technologies can generate vertical 
confidence and uncertainty data for each call that can be provided to 
the PSAP.
    41. In light of the public safety benefits of confidence and 
uncertainty data, we require CMRS providers to provide vertical 
confidence and uncertainty data on a per call basis to requesting 
PSAPs. As with horizontal

[[Page 2666]]

confidence and uncertainty data, providers must report vertical 
confidence and uncertainty data using a confidence level of 90%, i.e., 
they must identify the range above and below the estimated z-axis 
position within which there is a 90% probability of finding the 
caller's true vertical location. For the same reasons, where available 
to the CMRS provider, floor level information must be provided with 
associated C/U data in addition to z-axis location information.

E. Compliance Certification and Call Data Reporting

    42. Under our existing rules, CMRS providers, within 60 days after 
each horizontal and vertical location benchmark, ``must certify that 
they are in compliance with the location accuracy requirements 
applicable to them as of that date.'' The rules require CMRS providers 
to ``certify that the indoor location technology (or technologies) used 
in their networks are deployed consistently with the manner in which 
they have been tested in the test bed.'' In the Fourth Further NPRM, we 
proposed to use this same certification mechanism to validate provider 
compliance with the 3-meter metric.
    43. We adopt our proposal. In order to be deemed in compliance 
under our existing rules, nationwide CMRS providers electing to use z-
axis technology for vertical location shall certify for purposes of the 
April 2021 and April 2023 compliance deadlines that z-axis technology 
is deployed consistent with the manner in which it was tested in the 
test bed. Commenters generally support this proposed compliance 
mechanism. As CTIA outlines, ``the Test Bed would validate that a given 
technology solution can meet the proposed z-axis metric of  
3 meters for 80 percent of indoor wireless calls in the Test Bed, and a 
wireless provider would then certify that the z-axis technology in its 
network is deployed consistently with how it was tested in the Test 
Bed.'' Verizon states that requiring compliance through the test bed 
process ensures ``that solutions perform as vendors contend, and that 
they are technically feasible,'' and it is also consistent with the 
Commission's approach to horizontal accuracy.
    44. APCO notes that in Stage Z, only barometric sensor-based 
technologies were tested in the test bed, and questions whether the 
test bed is configured to test all vertical location technologies on a 
technology-neutral basis. We believe the test bed is configured to 
support technology neutral testing. The Commission has previously 
stated that the core purpose of the test bed is to provide a means to 
evaluate ``the accuracy of different indoor location technologies 
across various indoor environments.'' Thus, the test bed is not limited 
to testing barometric sensor solutions, but is designed to test all 
vertical location solutions in a uniform set of indoor test 
environments. We also note that Google's testing in Stage Za includes 
testing of technologies that are not barometric sensor-based.
    45. BRETSA recommends that instead of using the test bed, the 
Commission should establish a ``proof-of-performance'' method of 
compliance with live call testing in each market. CTIA urges the 
Commission to reject this approach. We decline to require live call 
proof-of-performance testing. In establishing the test bed approach, 
the Commission found it to be ``the most practical and cost-effective 
method for testing compliance with indoor location accuracy 
requirements.'' Indeed, the purpose of the test bed program is to 
provide a reliable mechanism for validating the performance of indoor 
location technologies without the need for the provider to conduct 
indoor testing in all locations where the technology is actually 
deployed, which would be impractical and highly burdensome. 
Accordingly, we decline to adopt or require proof of performance 
testing.
    46. CTIA recommends that we add the language ``as measured in the 
test bed'' at the end of proposed Sec.  9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C)&(D), ``thus 
making explicit in the rules what is in the Fourth Further [NPRM].'' We 
find that the existing rules already clearly identify the test bed as 
the basis for certifying compliance of all indoor location 
technologies, horizontal and vertical, making CTIA's proposed amendment 
unnecessary.
    47. In addition, to more fully inform the Commission's 
understanding of location accuracy progress, we expand the live call 
data reporting obligations in our existing rules to include z-axis data 
and, where available, floor level information. The Commission's live 
call data reporting rules require nationwide CMRS providers to file 
quarterly reports of their aggregate live 911 call use of each location 
technology in four geographic morphologies within six representative 
cities (Test Cities). Non-nationwide CMRS providers must report 
aggregate live 911 call data collected in one or more of the Test 
Cities or the largest county in their footprint, depending on the area 
served by the provider.
    48. To date, CMRS providers have only reported on horizontal 
location technologies used for live 911 calls. However, we conclude 
that it is equally appropriate to require CMRS providers to report on 
live call use of vertical location technologies. The Commission's live 
call data reporting requirements established in the Fourth Report and 
Order require CMRS providers to ``identify and collect information 
regarding the location technology or technologies used for each 911 
call in the reporting area during the calling period,'' without 
distinguishing between reporting of horizontal and vertical location 
information. Moreover, in the indoor location technologies context, a 
key purpose of the reporting requirement is to ``augment our 
understanding of the progress of such technologies.'' Although our 
vertical location requirements do not include live call compliance 
metrics, reporting on the use of z-axis and floor level technologies in 
live calls will provide important real-world data on how frequently z-
axis and floor level location is provided, the types of technologies 
being used, and trends in such usage over time. We emphasize, however, 
that live call data reported by CMRS providers relating to the use of 
live call and floor level technologies will be used solely for 
informational purposes, not compliance purposes.

F. Z-Axis Privacy and Security

    49. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we sought comment on the 
appropriate data privacy and security framework for z-axis data. We 
noted that in establishing rules in 2015 governing CMRS provider usage 
of the NEAD, the Commission had stated that ```certain explicit 
requirements on individual CMRS providers are necessary to ensure the 
privacy and security of NEAD data and any other information involved in 
the determination and delivery of dispatchable location.' '' We asked 
whether use of z-axis data should be limited to 911 calls except as 
otherwise required by law, and if such a limitation should be 
implemented and codified in a manner similar to the explicit 
limitations applicable to the NEAD.
    50. We amend our rules to make explicit that CMRS providers and the 
vendors upon which they rely for z-axis information may only use 911 
call z-axis information for 911 purposes, except with prior express 
consent or as required by law. This approach is consistent with our 
long-standing approach to protection of 911 location data. Section 222 
of the Communications Act requires CMRS

[[Page 2667]]

providers, among others, to protect the confidentiality of Customer 
Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) without the customer's express 
prior authorization, but provides an exception for the provision of a 
customer's call location information to a PSAP or other emergency 
response authority in connection with a 911 call. CTIA also states that 
it ``shares the Commission's view that location information derived 
from wireless 9-1-1 calls, including Z axis location data, should only 
be used for 9-1-1 purposes, except as otherwise provided by law.'' And 
we agree with Apple that other parties--such as device manufacturers 
and third-party location technology vendors--on whom carriers rely for 
z-axis information should be similarly subject to the same privacy 
protections and restrictions on non-911 use as data stored or used by 
CMRS providers. For the same reasons as we relied on in the 
dispatchable location context, we believe that CMRS providers are 
already responsible for third-party use of personal location 
information in support of the carrier's delivery of E911 location data 
to the PSAP. To ensure compliance, we agree that a certification 
requirement is appropriate. CMRS providers must therefore certify that 
neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain z-axis 
information for 911 purposes will use such information for any non-911 
purpose, except with prior express consent or as required by law. We 
also make clear that such a certification should not be construed to 
``significantly impede location technology vendors by preventing them 
from having access to z-axis information for such valid purposes as 
system calibration and accuracy verification.'' Such a reading of these 
requirements that would impede the swift development and widespread 
deployment of z-axis technologies for use in emergency calls would be 
contrary to the very purpose of this proceeding.
    51. We also conclude that any 911-related z-axis or floor level 
information that is stored before or after the 911 call should be 
subject to the same privacy and security protections that apply to NEAD 
data. We agree with Public Knowledge that all 911 location data should 
be treated consistently from a privacy and security perspective, and 
that stored coordinate-based data, including z-axis data, should not be 
subject to lesser consumer privacy and data protection than NEAD data. 
As Precision Broadband puts it, we should ``not decouple the choice of 
deploying z-axis technology from dispatchable location,'' as z-axis 
data is part of a holistic, multifaceted approach ``to solving the 
vertical location problem.'' Consistent with the 2015 Fourth Report and 
Order, however, the practical application of this principle in the 
geolocation context may be dissimilar is some ways from its application 
in the dispatchable location context. For example, coordinate-based 
geolocation does not necessarily rely on previously stored customer 
location information in a database, and geolocation information 
generated at the time of a 911 call may be discarded rather than stored 
for later use. Therefore, we conclude that any 911 geolocation data 
that is stored by a CMRS provider should be subject to the same level 
of privacy and security protection as NEAD data. Thus, if a CMRS 
provider intends to store such data for 911 location purposes (like any 
other stored data not covered by a NEAD privacy and security plan), it 
``should file an addendum to ensure that the protections outlined in 
the NEAD plan will cover the provider's [coordinate-based] location 
transactions end-to-end.'' For 911 geolocation data that is not stored, 
our CPNI requirements continue to apply and prohibit unauthorized use 
of such data for any purpose other than emergency location.
    52. We also clarify that we are in no way altering or addressing 
existing privacy or security rules or policies that apply to location 
data outside the 911 context. We agree with CTIA that such issues are 
outside the scope of this proceeding.

G. Comparison of Benefits and Costs

    53. In the Fourth Further NPRM, we sought comment on ``which z-axis 
metric would allow [the Commission] to achieve the anticipated level of 
benefits in the most cost-effective manner.'' We tentatively concluded 
that ``a z-axis metric of 3 meters for 80% of calls strikes the best 
balance between benefits and costs'' because ``some public safety 
commenters identify a 3-meter metric as providing sufficient accuracy 
to identify the caller's floor level in most cases.'' We also 
tentatively concluded that ``the value of a 3-meter metric exceeds that 
of a 5-meter metric because the latter would result in a significant 
reduction'' in benefits. A 5-meter metric could indicate a location up 
to 2 floors below, or up to 2 floors above, the actual floor where a 
911 caller may be located. This large search range would make it far 
more likely that first responders would need to search 2 or more 
additional floors, significantly increasing average emergency response 
times and consequently degrading patient outcomes. ``Due to the likely 
degradation of patient outcomes with a 5-meter metric,'' we tentatively 
concluded that a 3-meter metric provided greater value and sought 
comment on the conclusion. We also tentatively concluded that the 
``value of a 3-meter metric exceeded that of a 2-meter metric.'' We 
also sought comment on how the benefits and costs of ``requiring CMRS 
providers to identify floor level when reporting z-axis information 
would compare to the benefits and costs of providing z-axis information 
as AGL or MSL height.'' We sought ``comment on this analysis and 
tentative conclusions as to the comparative value of the z-axis 
metrics.''
    54. We conclude that a 3-meter z-axis metric is technically 
achievable and can be implemented successfully by CMRS providers by the 
April 2021 and 2023 deadlines in the top 25 and 50 CMAs, respectively. 
As the record reflects, a 3-meter metric will provide a substantial 
benefit to public safety because it will ``identify the correct floor 
of wireless callers to E911 in most instances.'' Additionally 
establishing a 3-meter metric will afford certainty that will drive 
innovation to create more z-axis location technological options for 
CMRS providers and lower technology costs. We now address the benefits 
and costs of the 3-meter metric.
    55. Implementation benefits. In assessing the benefits of adopting 
a 3-meter metric, our analysis begins with the analysis presented in 
the Fourth Report and Order in this proceeding. There, the Commission 
sought to reduce emergency response time to improve patient outcomes 
and, ultimately save lives. In the Salt Lake City analysis referenced 
in the Third Further NPRM, the Commission found that a one minute 
increase in response times increases mortality, and that a one minute 
decrease in response times decreases mortality. The Commission further 
found that reducing response times would result in an annual saving of 
746 lives as reflected in the Salt Lake City analysis, which could 
amount to 10,120 lives annually when extrapolated across the United 
States.
    56. No commenter disputes the benefits of reduced emergency 
response times on patient outcomes, but NextNav suggests that the 
``Commission's analysis made very conservative assumptions and still 
arrived at an overwhelming economic benefit to the nation.'' 
Additionally, the International Association of Fire Fighters and 
NextNav emphasize that compelling evidence exists in the record in this 
proceeding that the provision of vertical

[[Page 2668]]

location information to first responders with an accuracy of 3 meters 
would reduce response times as compared to not specifying a vertical 
metric or a less granular metric. NextNav observes that San Francisco 
emergency first responder field tests in 2014 ``revealed dramatic 
reductions of between 4 and 17 minutes in search times with the 
addition of vertical information with an accuracy of +/-3 meters.'' We 
agree with NextNav's assertion that due to these ``substantial'' 
emergency response time improvements, the Commission's factoring of a 
one minute response time in its benefits analysis underestimates ``by a 
substantial amount the quantifiable benefits of providing emergency 
first responders with z-axis information with an accuracy of 3 
meters.''
    57. The record reflects ``increasing use of wireless phones by the 
public, thus further increasing the benefits that can be expected from 
the adoption of a 3 meter vertical metric.'' As we stated in the Third 
Further NPRM, the addition of vertical location information--like the 
further refinement of horizontal location information--plays a major 
role in achieving the $92 billion benefit floor for improving wireless 
location accuracy. As we affirmed in the Fourth Further NPRM, this 
addition of new vertical information--together with the refinement of 
existing horizontal information--has the potential of saving 
``approximately 10,120 lives annually at a value of $9.1 million per 
statistical life, for an annual benefit of approximately $92 billion or 
$291 per wireless subscriber.'' Due to U.S. Department of 
Transportation updates for value of a statistical life, we presently 
estimate this annual benefit floor at $97 billion.
    58. Implementation costs. The record indicates that software and 
hardware implementation costs are low, if not negligible. NextNav 
asserts that its z-axis solution, which requires only software changes 
to be made to each handset, could be made available for a nominal cost 
that amounts to significantly less than a penny per month per handset 
and would impose no incremental cost burdens on new handsets. Polaris 
states that its z-axis solution is ``objectively affordable'' because 
it is software-based, does not require hardware in networks or markets, 
and ``does not require anything special in devices beyond 
implementation of adopted 3GPP and OMA standards.'' Polaris' solution 
also is ``instantly available and deployable throughout a carrier's 
nationwide network.'' As the Commission noted in the Fourth Report and 
Order, we continue to expect that these costs ``will decline as demand 
grows.'' Existing smartphone devices with installed barometric pressure 
sensors, can be further calibrated over-the-air with calibration 
signals from weather stations. Such calibration software is available 
``with no additional premium costs.'' NextNav estimates that given 
these factors, 3-meter compliant z-axis services can be provided ``at a 
nominal cost (in aggregate, less than a penny per month per handset).'' 
Moreover, with the emergence of handset-based solutions we expect costs 
to provide vertical location to further decrease. In addition to the 
barometric pressure sensor-based solutions developed by NextNav and 
Polaris, ``handset-based solutions like ELS have been widely deployed 
around the world.''
    59. Beyond software solutions, hardware solutions are additionally 
nominal, as ``nearly all smartphones on the market appear to be 
equipped with barometric pressure sensors.'' One commenter notes that 
adding barometric sensors to phones does and will entail additional 
costs, but the cost of those sensors continues to drop. We clarify that 
we amend our rules today to apply our 3 meter metric to z-axis capable 
devices--in other words, we are not mandating retrofitting of older 
devices with barometric sensors, thus obviating such costs or, as 
technological developments unfold, retrofitting older devices in any 
manner to make such devices z-axis capable.
    60. Cost/benefit comparison. We reaffirm our earlier decision that 
implementation of a 3-meter metric for vertical location accuracy will 
account for a large share of the total annual benefit floor, which we 
presently estimate to be a total of $97 billion. Because that estimate 
includes only the value of statistical lives saved, we expect that 
there will be many additional benefits--which we are unable to 
quantify--from the reductions in human suffering and the reduced 
property losses due to crime and uncontrolled fires. We derive our cost 
from an estimated annual handset cost of ``a penny per month per 
handset'' or $0.12 per year. Assuming there are some 300 million 
handsets presently in use, we apply the per-year handset cost to 
estimate a cost ceiling of approximately $36 million per year. 
Accordingly, we find that the estimated benefits of this instant rules 
far outweigh the estimated costs.

IV. Procedural Matters

    61. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission 
has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the 
possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies 
and rules adopted in the Fifth Report and Order. The FRFA is set forth 
in Appendix C of the Fifth Report and Order.
    62. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis. The requirements in Sec.  
9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and (j)(4), constitute modified 
information collections. These requirements solicit information for a 
certification of z-axis information use, and confidence and confidence 
and uncertainty data, respectfully. They will be submitted to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be 
invited to comment on the new information collection requirements 
contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that, pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we previously sought, 
but did not receive, specific comment on how the Commission might 
further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The Commission does not believe 
that the new or modified information collection requirements in Sec.  
9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and (j)(4), will be unduly 
burdensome on small businesses. Applying these new or modified 
information collections will promote 911 service and emergency 
response, to the benefit of all size governmental jurisdictions, 
businesses, equipment manufacturers, and business associations by 
providing greater confidence in 911 location accuracy and greater 
consistency between the Commission's horizontal and vertical location 
rules. We describe impacts that might affect small businesses, which 
includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
    63. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and 
the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this rule is ``major'' 
under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission 
will send a copy of this Fifth Report and Order to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
    64. Further Information. For further information, contact Nellie 
Foosaner, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-2925 or via email at 
[email protected]; or

[[Page 2669]]

Alex Espinoza, Attorney-Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-0849 or via email at 
[email protected].

V. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    65. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFAs) was 
incorporated in the Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Fourth Further NPRM) adopted in March 2019. The Commission sought 
written public comment on the proposals in the Notice including comment 
on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    66. The Fifth Report and Order advances the Commission's goal of 
ensuring ``that all Americans using mobile phones--whether they are 
calling from urban or rural areas, from indoors or outdoors--have 
technology that is functionally capable of providing accurate location 
information so that they receive the support they need in times of an 
emergency.'' In the Fifth Report and Order, the Commission adopts a 
metric to more precisely identify the location of a 911 wireless caller 
located in a multi-story building. More specifically, the Commission 
amends its rules to require the provisioning of vertical location (z-
axis) information that would help enable first responders to identify 
the caller's floor level within 3 meters for most wireless calls to 911 
from multi-story buildings, which represents a critical element to 
achieving the Commission's indoor location accuracy objectives. 
Consistent with the regulatory framework established in the last major 
revision of the Commission's wireless location accuracy rules in 2015 
and the information developed in the associated docket, the Fifth 
Report and Order adopts a z-axis location accuracy metric of 3 meters 
above or below a handset for 80 percent of wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) 
indoor calls from z-axis capable devices as demonstrated in the test 
bed used to develop and test proposed z-axis accuracy metrics. CMRS 
providers must deliver z-axis information in Height Above Ellipsoid 
(HAE). Where available to the CMRS Provider, CMRS providers must 
deliver floor level information with z-axis location. The Commission 
will also apply its current Confidence and Uncertainty (C/U) data 
requirements for x/y location information to z-axis and, where 
available, floor level information that will be collected and 
provisioned by CMRS providers. The Commission extends to z-axis 
location and, where available, floor level information existing 
compliance certification and live call data reporting requirements 
applicable to CMRS providers. Additionally, the Commission extends 
consumer privacy and data security protections to 911 calls that convey 
z-axis location and, where available, floor level information in the 
Fifth Report and Order.
    67. For z-axis compliance, the Fifth Report and Order requires CMRS 
providers to use a technology proven to meet the 3-meter metric in the 
test bed. The adopted metric should augment the ability of Public 
Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) and first responders to more accurately 
identify the floor level for most 911 calls made from multi-story 
buildings, reduce emergency response times, and, ultimately, save 
lives. It also implements the final element of the Commission's 
existing indoor location accuracy regime, which already includes a 
timetable for CMRS providers to deliver vertical location information 
by deploying either dispatchable location or z-axis technology in 
specific geographic areas. The adopted z-axis metric provides certainty 
to all parties and establishes a focal point for further testing, 
development, and implementation of evolving z-axis location 
technologies. The Fifth Report and Order also clarifies that z-axis 
location and, where available, floor level information may only be used 
for 911 purposes except as required by law. In addition, the Fifth 
Report and Order amends the location accuracy rules to require CMRS 
providers to deliver confidence and uncertainty data along with z-axis 
information and, where available, floor level information.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the IRFA

    68. There were no filed comments that specifically addressed the 
proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.

C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration

    69. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended 
the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
    70. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

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

    71. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rule changes. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    72. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of 
Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having 
fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 
99.9% of all businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 
million businesses.
    73. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small 
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits 
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
    74. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there 
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United 
States. Of

[[Page 2670]]

this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments (county, 
municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school districts 
and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000. The 2012 
U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the local 
government category show that the majority of these governments have 
populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate that at 
least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the category of 
``small governmental jurisdictions.''
1. Telecommunications Service Providers
a. Wireless Telecommunications Providers
    75. Pursuant to 47 CFR 20.18(a), the Commission's 911 service 
requirements are only applicable to CMRS providers, excluding mobile 
satellite service operators, to the extent that they: (1) Offer real-
time, two way switched voice service that is interconnected with the 
public switched network; and (2) Utilize an in-network switching 
facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish 
seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. These requirements are 
applicable to entities that offer voice service to consumers by 
purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale rates from CMRS licensees.
    76. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as 
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small 
businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent 
the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the 
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in 
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are 
implicated.
    77. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or 
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for All Other 
Telecommunications, which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $32.5 million or less. For this category, U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 1,442 firms that operated 
for the entire year. Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 
receipts less than $25 million and 42 firms had annual receipts of $25 
million to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of ``All Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected 
by our action can be considered small.
    78. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands 
(AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the 
Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity with average 
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 
million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average annual 
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. 
For AWS-2 and AWS-3, although we do not know for certain which entities 
are likely to apply for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands 
are comparable to those used for cellular service and personal 
communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted size 
standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-3 bands but proposes to treat both AWS-2 
and AWS-3 similarly to broadband personal communications services (PCS) 
service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital requirements 
and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating incumbents and 
developing markets, technologies, and services.
    79. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs). 
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, 
and Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a small business size standard specifically for these 
service providers. The appropriate NAICS Code category is Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers and under that size standard, such a 
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 3,117 firms operated during that 
year. Of that number, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Based on these data, the Commission concludes that the majority of 
Competitive LECS, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers, are small entities. According to Commission 
data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision 
of either competitive local exchange services or competitive access 
provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that 
they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to 
have 1,500 or fewer employees. Also, 72 carriers have reported that 
they are Other Local Service Providers. Of this total, 70 have 1,500 or 
fewer employees. Consequently, based on internally researched FCC data, 
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local 
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service 
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities.
    80. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The closest 
applicable NAICS Code category is Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 
Under the applicable SBA size standard, such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate 
that 3,117 firms operated the entire year. Of this total, 3,083 
operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that most providers of incumbent local exchange service are 
small businesses that may be affected by our actions. According to 
Commission data, one thousand three hundred and seven (1,307) Incumbent 
Local Exchange Carriers reported that they were incumbent local 
exchange service providers. Of this total, an estimated 1,006 have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Thus using the SBA's size standard the 
majority of incumbent LECs can be considered small entities.
    81. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Two auctions of 
narrowband PCS licenses have been conducted. To ensure meaningful 
participation of small business entities in future auctions, the 
Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the 
Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order (65 FR 35843 (June 6, 2000)). 
Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41 
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. A ``small 
business'' is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling 
interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of 
not more than $40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that, 
together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross 
revenues for

[[Page 2671]]

the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards.
    82. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on 
several ultra-high frequency (UHF) television broadcast channels that 
are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states 
bordering the Gulf of Mexico. The closest applicable SBA size standard 
is for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which 
is an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. U.S. Census Bureau 
data in this industry for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or 
more. Thus, under this SBA category and the associated small business 
size standard, the majority of Offshore Radiotelephone Service firms 
can be considered small. There are presently approximately 55 licensees 
in this service. However, the Commission is unable to estimate at this 
time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the 
SBA's small business size standard for the category of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
    83. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or 
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry are small.
    84. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a 
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is 
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). The closest 
applicable SBA size standard is for Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite), which is an entity employing no more than 
1,500 persons. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had 
employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the 
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
Rural Radiotelephone Services firm are small entities. There are 
approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and 
the Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity 
licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by 
the rules and policies herein.
    85. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for 
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite 
uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the wireless 
communications services (WCS) auction as an entity with average gross 
revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and a 
``very small business'' as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 
million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA has approved 
these small business size standards. In the Commission's auction for 
geographic area licenses in the WCS there were seven winning bidders 
that qualified as ``very small business'' entities, and one that 
qualified as a ``small business'' entity.
    86. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or 
more. Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
    87. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, 
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio 
telephony carriers. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under the SBA small 
business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees and 12 firms had 1000 
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of these entities 
can be considered small. According to Commission data, 413 carriers 
reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an 
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 
1,500 employees. Therefore, more than half of these entities can be 
considered small.
    88. 700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. In 2000, in the 700 MHz Guard 
Band Order (65 FR 17594 (April 4, 2000), the Commission adopted size 
standards for ``small businesses'' and ``very small businesses'' for 
purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such 
as bidding credits and installment payments. A small business in this 
service is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling 
principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for 
the preceding three years. Additionally, a very small business is an 
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, 
has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the 
preceding three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not 
required. An auction of 52 Major Economic Area licenses commenced on 
September 6, 2000, and closed on September 21, 2000. Of the 104 
licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five of 
these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A 
second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses commenced on February 13, 
2001 and closed on February 21, 2001. All eight of the licenses 
auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small 
business that won a total of two licenses.
    89. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted 
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of 
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding 
credits. The

[[Page 2672]]

Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years. A 
``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that 
are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small 
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA) 
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average 
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding 
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of 
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license 
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) commenced on August 
27, 2002, and closed on September 18, 2002. Of the 740 licenses 
available for auction, 484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. 
Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small business, very small 
business or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. A 
second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and 
included 256 licenses: 5 EAG licenses and 476 Cellular Market Area 
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed small or very small 
business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed 
entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses. On July 26, 2005, the 
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band 
(Auction No. 60). There were three winning bidders for five licenses. 
All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
    90. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order (72 FR 48814 (Aug. 24, 
2007)). An auction of 700 MHz licenses commenced January 24, 2008, and 
closed on March 18, 2008, which included: 176 Economic Area licenses in 
the A-Block, 734 Cellular Market Area licenses in the B-Block, and 176 
EA licenses in the E-Block. Twenty winning bidders, claiming small 
business status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues 
that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding 
three years) won 49 licenses. Thirty-three winning bidders claiming 
very small business status (those with attributable average annual 
gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three 
years) won 325 licenses.
    91. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and 
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz 
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in 
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for 
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, 
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on 
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business 
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do 
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five 
licenses.
    92. Wireless Resellers. The SBA has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically for Wireless Resellers. The SBA category of 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest NAICS code category for 
wireless resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises 
establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from 
owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired 
and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to 
businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell 
telecommunications; they do not operate transmission facilities and 
infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included 
in this industry. Under the SBA's size standard, such a business is 
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 
2012 show that 1,341 firms provided resale services for the entire 
year. Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1,000 employees. 
Thus, under this category and the associated small business size 
standard, the majority of these resellers can be considered small 
entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have reported that 
they are engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these, 
an estimated 211 have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Resellers are small 
entities.
b. Equipment Manufacturers
    93. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile 
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment. The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this industry of 1,250 employees or less. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 show that 841 establishments operated in this 
industry in that year. Of that number, 828 establishments operated with 
fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 establishments operated with between 
1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 2,500 or 
more employees. Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of 
manufacturers in this industry can be considered small.
    94. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products 
made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips, 
microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other 
optoelectronic devices. The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing, which 
consists of all such companies having 1,250 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 862 establishments 
that operated that year. Of this total, 843 operated with fewer than 
1,000 employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms 
in this industry can be considered small.

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

    95. The Fifth Report and Order enacts a z-axis (vertical) location 
accuracy metric that will affect the reporting, recordkeeping and/or 
other compliance requirements of small and other size CMRS providers--
both nationwide and non-nationwide. Under the current E911 location 
accuracy rules, by 2021, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy either 
(1) dispatchable location, or (2) z-axis technology that achieves the 
Commission-adopted z-axis metric in each of the top 25 Cellular Market 
Areas. If z-axis technology is used, CMRS providers must deploy z-axis 
technology to cover 80 percent of the Cellular Market Areas population. 
By 2021, nationwide CMRS providers must deploy dispatchable location or 
z-axis technology complying with the Commission-adopted z-axis metric 
in each of the top 50 Cellular Market

[[Page 2673]]

Areas. Small entities that are non-nationwide carriers, including 
resellers, that serve any of the top 25 or 50 CMAs will have an 
additional year to meet the two benchmarks (i.e., until 2022 for the 
top 25 Cellular Market Areas and 2024 for the top 50 Cellular Market 
Areas). CMRS providers must deliver z-axis information in Height Above 
Ellipsoid. Where available, CMRS providers must deliver floor level 
information with z-axis location.
    96. The Fifth Report and Order requires nationwide and non-
nationwide CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology to provide 
vertical location information within a 3 meters metric under the 
Commission's existing location accuracy requirements timelines. While 
the Commission does not mandate a specific technology for z-axis 
compliance, we require CMRS providers to use a technology proven to 
meet the 3-meters metric in the test bed. In order to be deemed in 
compliance, CMRS providers using z-axis technology for vertical 
location must certify that the z-axis technology is deployed 
consistently with the manner in which it was tested in the test bed. 
The Fifth Report and Order also requires CMRS providers to comply with 
the Commission's current confidence and uncertainty (C/U) requirements 
for x/y location information for z-axis location information in 
addition to horizontal location, for 911 calls in the top 50 CMAs. As 
we stated in the Fifth Report and Order, we anticipate this data ``can 
be furnished to PSAPs at minimal cost to CMRS providers given that they 
already provide C/U data for x/y calls.'' Where available, CMRS 
providers must provide floor level information and associated C/U data 
in addition to z-axis location information.
    97. In order to be deemed in compliance under our existing rules, 
we clarify that nationwide CMRS providers electing to use z-axis 
technology for vertical location shall certify for purposes of the 
April 2021 and April 2023 compliance deadlines that z-axis technology 
is deployed consistent with the manner in which it was tested in the 
test bed. Non-nationwide providers will have an additional year to make 
each certification. In addition, to more fully inform the Commission's 
understanding of location accuracy progress, we extend the live data 
calling reporting obligations existing in the rules to z-axis. The 
Commission live call data reporting rules require nationwide CMRS 
providers to file quarterly reports of their aggregate live 911 call 
location data for each location technology used within four geographic 
morphologies within six representative cities (Test Cities). Non-
nationwide CMRS providers must report the aggregate live 911 call data 
collected in one or more of the Test Cities or the largest county in 
their footprint, depending on the area served by the provider. We 
extend these reporting requirements to include z-axis information and, 
where available, floor level information in the live call data 
reporting already in the Commission's rules for our informational 
purposes.
    98. The Commission clarifies in the Fifth Report and Order that 
CMRS providers may only use z-axis location and floor level information 
for 911 purposes except with prior express consent or as required by 
law. Prior to use of z-axis information and floor level information 
contained in the NEAD, CMRS providers are required to certify that they 
will not use z-axis, floor level, or associated data for any non-911 
purpose, except with prior express consent or as otherwise required by 
law. The certification must state that the CMRS provider will provide 
z-axis location and floor level information privacy and security 
protection equivalent to the NEAD. This requirement is necessary to 
ensure the privacy and security of any personally identifiable 
information that may be collected in generating z-axis and floor level 
data. Additionally, we require CMRS providers to certify that neither 
they nor any third party they rely on to obtain z-axis and floor level 
information for 911 purposes will use such information for any non-911 
purpose, except with prior express consent or as required by law.
    99. In the Fourth Further NPRM, the Commission tentatively 
concluded based on the z-axis solution test results and other comments, 
that a metric of 3 meters for 80% of indoor calls is technically 
achievable and that z-axis solutions capable of meeting this metric can 
be deployed within the timeframes established in the E911 location 
accuracy rules. We also tentatively concluded that the cost of 
compliance with the 3-meter metric is relatively low. We affirm these 
conclusions with our adoption of the 3-meters metric requirement in the 
Fifth Report and Order. In order to comply with the 3-meters metric 
requirement, small entities may incur costs associated with software 
and/or hardware changes and may need to employ engineers or other 
experts. While the Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance 
with the requirements, the technology solution a small entity chooses 
to implement the requirement will ultimately determine the nature of 
the costs it incurs.
    100. Evidence in the record indicates that small entities have a 
choice of vendors with z-axis technology solutions, which will allow 
them to manage their costs. Moreover, having a competitive market for 
such solutions should lessen the costs for small entities to comply 
with the rules. In the proceeding, parties provided examples of various 
technology solutions that are currently available to small entities and 
other CMRS providers and general information on the implementation 
requirements. NextNav a vendor that participated in Stage Z testing 
indicated that its z-axis solution which only requires software changes 
to be made to each handset, could be made available for a nominal cost 
that amounts to significantly less than a penny per month per handset. 
Another test vendor, Polaris, indicated that its solution is instantly 
available and deployable throughout a carrier's nationwide network. 
Polaris also asserted that its solution is ``objectively affordable'' 
because it is software-based, does not require hardware in networks or 
markets, and ``does not require anything special in devices beyond 
implementation of adopted 3GPP and OMA standards.'' Google who 
announced development and deployment of its Emergency Location System 
(ELS) in the U.S. for Android devices and testing in Stage Za, 
indicated that ELS is ``a supplemental service that sends enhanced 
location directly from Android handsets to emergency services when an 
emergency call is placed.'' Google also indicated that ELS is part of 
the Android operating system and does not require any special hardware 
or updates. Apple has announced that it will use new technology to 
quickly and securely share Hybridized Emergency Location information 
with 911 call centers. The HELO ``solution has offered z-axis estimates 
and uncertainties beginning in 2013, and those estimates have been 
consumed by carriers since its first adoption in 2015.'' Apple has 
committed to improving its vertical, as well as horizontal, location 
accuracy and will participate in CTIA's z-axis testing by the end of 
2020. With the addition of other vertical location technologies and 
vendors into the market, the Commission expects small entities will 
have more implementation options and that technology costs will decline 
as demand grows, which could further reduce their cost of compliance.
    101. The Commission does not believe that the new or modified 
information collection requirements in Sec.  9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), 
(i)(4)(v), and (j)(4), will be unduly burdensome on small businesses. 
Applying these new or

[[Page 2674]]

modified information collections will promote 911 service and emergency 
response, to the benefit of all size governmental jurisdictions, 
businesses, equipment manufacturers, and business associations by 
providing greater confidence in 911 location accuracy and greater 
consistency between the Commission's horizontal and vertical location 
rules. We provide the following analysis:
    102. The Commission amends Sec.  9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) to 
require the provisioning of dispatchable location or z-axis location 
information. As stated in the Fifth Report and Order, where available 
to CMRS Providers, floor level information must be reported with z-axis 
location information. The Commission adopts Sec.  9.10(i)(4)(v) to 
require all CMRS providers to certify that they will not use z-axis 
information or associated data for any non-911 purpose, except with 
prior express consent or as otherwise required by law. The 
certification must state that CMRS providers will provide z-axis 
location information privacy and security protection equivalent to the 
NEAD. Additionally, under Sec.  9.10(i)(4)(v), we require CMRS 
providers to certify that neither they nor any third party they rely on 
to obtain z-axis location information for 911 purposes will use such 
information for any non-911 purpose, except with prior express consent 
or as required by law. This requirement is necessary to ensure the 
privacy and security of any personally identifiable information that 
may be collected in generating z-axis data. The Commission adopts Sec.  
9.10(j)(4) to extend confidence and uncertainty (C/U) requirements to 
wireless E911 calls that provide z-axis and floor level information in 
the top 50 CMAs, for CMRS providers, in addition to horizontal 
location. As we stated in the Fifth Report and Order, we also 
anticipate this data ``can be furnished to PSAPs at minimal cost to 
CMRS providers given that they already provide C/U data for x/y 
calls.'' The Commission anticipates the burden and cost levels of these 
requirements to be similar to the existing collections which OMB 
approved under OMB Control No. 3060-1210, ICR Reference No: 201801-
3060-010. Additionally, the Commission anticipates extending the burden 
and cost burdens associated with extending the existing compliance 
certification and live call data report requirements to CMRS Providers 
that deploy z-axis information to be similar to the existing 
collections which OMB approved under OMB Control No. 3060-1210, ICR 
Reference No: 201801-3060-010. The Commission seeks comment on these 
costs in its upcoming Paperwork Reduction Act comment periods.

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

    103. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): (1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
    104. Based on a comparison of the benefits and costs to 
alternatives metrics, the Commission believes that the 3-meter metric 
adopted in the Fifth Report and Order is the most cost-effective option 
for achieving the Commission's location accuracy and public safety 
objectives in this proceeding while avoiding placing undue burdens on 
small entities and other CMRS providers. While the rules adopted in the 
Fifth Report and Order will apply to all nationwide and non-nationwide 
CMRS in the same manner, the Commission has taken steps to accommodate 
non-nationwide CMRS providers by supplying additional time to comply 
with the adopted vertical location accuracy benchmarks. Non-nationwide 
CMRS providers which tend to be small entities have an additional year 
to comply with the Commission's z-axis benchmarks. The Commission also 
declined to mandate a specific technological solution but instead, 
nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers may choose to provide a 
dispatchable location solution or deploy z-axis technology. Thus, small 
entities have the freedom to choose a solution that best fits their 
financial situation rather than being subjected to a specific z-axis 
technology solution, which should minimize the economic impact on these 
entities.
    105. In implementing the z-axis metric, there were several 
alternatives considered by the Commission but not adopted that may have 
presented an increased economic impact for small entities. 
Specifically, the Commission declined to adopt a more stringent z-axis 
metric or a requirement to convey ``floor level'' information. Small 
entities will benefit as a result of the certainty provided by the 
Commission's adoption of 3 meters metric requirement. The Commission 
also declined to mandate the application of the 3-meters for barometric 
pressure sensor capable handsets but instead applied the requirement 
only to z-axis capable devices. This action by the Commission will 
allow small entities and other CMRS providers to avoid having to 
retrofit older devices that may not have barometric sensors and avoid 
incurring the associated costs. Additionally, the Commission declined 
to adopt a less stringent 5 meter metric, which could increase 
emergency response time. Lastly, the Commission declined to adopt a 
specific measurement standard that must be used to report vertical 
location information and declined to adopt or require proof of 
performance testing to measure compliance with the z-axis metric.
    106. The Commission believes the adoption of the 3 meters metric 
and allowing CMRS providers the flexibility to choose a compliant 
technology solution rather than mandating a one size fits all solution 
is the best approach to meet its public safety and location accuracy 
objectives and should minimize some economic impact for small entities. 
The Commission's action also provides CMRS providers a level of 
certainty which should benefit providers in their selection of a 
complaint technology solution. In addition, by adopting a single 
metric, small entities and other CMRS providers should benefit from the 
economies of scale equipment manufacturers will incur from the ability 
to provision devices uniformly using 3-meters standard.
    107. Report to Congress. The Commission will send a copy of the 
Fifth Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress 
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission 
will send a copy of the Fifth Report and Order, including this FRFA, to 
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Fifth Report 
and Order, and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in 
the Federal Register.

VI. Ordering Clauses

    108. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
7, 10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of 
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 
160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, 332; the 
Wireless Communications and Public

[[Page 2675]]

Safety Act of 1999, Pub. L. 106-81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 
615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and 
Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that 
this Fifth Report and Order, is hereby adopted.
    109. It is further ordered that the amendments of the Commission's 
rules as set forth in Appendix A of the Fifth Report and Order are 
adopted, effective sixty days from the date of publication in the 
Federal Register. Section 9.10(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), and 
(j)(4) contain new or modified information collection requirements that 
require OMB review under the PRA. The Commission directs the Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) to announce the effective 
date of those information collections in a document published in the 
Federal Register after the Commission receives OMB approval, and 
directs the Bureau to cause Sec.  9.10(s) to be revised accordingly.
    110. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Fifth Report and Order, including the Initial and Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.
    111. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Fifth Report and Order, including the Initial and Final 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to Congress and the Government 
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9

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

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

Final Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 part 9 as follows:

PART 9--911 REQUIREMENTS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201, 
202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303, 
307, 308, 309, 3 10, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615 
note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721, 
and 1471, unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Section 9.10 is amended by revising paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) 
introductory text and (i)(2)(ii)(D) introductory text, adding paragraph 
(i)(4)(v), revising paragraph (j)(1) introductory text, adding 
paragraph (j)(4), and revising paragraph (s) to read as follows:


Sec.  9.10   911 Service.

* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (C) By April 3, 2021: In each of the top 25 cellular market areas 
(CMAs), nationwide CMRS providers shall deploy either dispatchable 
location, or z-axis technology in compliance with the following z-axis 
accuracy metric: Within 3 meters above or below (plus or minus 3 
meters) the handset for 80% of wireless E911 calls made from the z-axis 
capable device. CMRS providers must deliver z-axis information in 
Height Above Ellipsoid. Where available to the CMRS provider, floor 
level information must be provided in addition to z-axis location 
information. CMRS providers that deploy z-axis technology must also 
comply with the compliance certification and call data reporting 
requirements of paragraphs (i)(2)(iii) and (i)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (D) By April 3, 2023: In each of the top 50 CMAs, nationwide CMRS 
providers shall deploy either dispatchable location, or z-axis 
technology in compliance with the following z-axis accuracy metric: 
Within 3 meters above or below (plus or minus 3 meters) the handset for 
80% of wireless E911 calls made from the z-axis capable device. CMRS 
providers must deliver z-axis information in Height Above Ellipsoid. 
Where available to the CMRS provider, floor level information must be 
provided in addition to z-axis location information. CMRS providers 
that deploy z-axis technology must also comply with the compliance 
certification and call data reporting requirements of paragraphs 
(i)(2)(iii) and (i)(3) of this section.
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (v) Z-axis use certification. Prior to use of z-axis information to 
meet the Commission's 911 vertical location accuracy requirements in 
paragraph (i)(2)(ii) of this section, CMRS providers must certify that 
neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain z-axis 
information will use z-axis information or associated data for any non-
911 purpose, except with prior express consent or as otherwise required 
by law. The certification must state that CMRS providers and any third 
party they rely on to obtain z-axis information will provide z-axis 
location information privacy and security protection equivalent to the 
NEAD.
    (j) Confidence and uncertainty data. (1) Except as provided in 
paragraphs (j)(2) through (4) of this section, CMRS providers subject 
to this section shall provide for all wireless 911 calls, whether from 
outdoor or indoor locations, x- and y-axis (latitude, longitude) and z-
axis (vertical) confidence and uncertainty information (C/U data) on a 
per-call basis upon the request of a PSAP. The data shall specify:
* * * * *
    (4) Upon meeting the timeframes pursuant to paragraphs 
(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D) of this section, CMRS providers shall provide 
with wireless 911 calls that have dispatchable location or z-axis 
(vertical) information the C/U data required under paragraph (j)(1) of 
this section. Where available to the CMRS provider, floor level 
information must be provided with associated C/U data in addition to z-
axis location information.
* * * * *
    (s) Compliance date(s). Paragraphs (i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), 
(i)(4)(v), (j)(4), and (q)(10)(v) of this section contain information-
collection and recordkeeping requirements. Compliance with paragraphs 
(i)(2)(ii)(C) and (D), (i)(4)(v), (j)(4), and (q)(10)(v) will not be 
required until after approval by the Office of Management and Budget. 
The Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register 
announcing compliance dates with those paragraphs and revising this 
paragraph(s) accordingly.
[FR Doc. 2019-28483 Filed 1-15-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P