70604 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 45.173 Eligible barges. 

* * * * * 

(c) Barges with a length-to-depth ratio 

less than 22; 

(d) Barges on the Milwaukee route 

must not be more than 10 years old; and 

(e) All weathertight and watertight 

closures (dogs, gaskets, covers, etc.) 

must be in proper working condition. 

■ 4. Revise § 45.175 to read as follows: 

§ 45.175 Applicable routes. 

This subpart applies to the following 

routes, including intermediate ports, on 

Lake Michigan, between Calumet 

Harbor, IL, and— 

(a) Milwaukee, WI (the ‘‘Milwaukee 

route’’); 

(b) Burns Harbor, IN (the ‘‘Burns 

Harbor route’’); 

(c) St. Joseph, MI (the ‘‘St. Joseph 

route’’); and 

(d) Muskegon, MI (the ‘‘Muskegon 

route’’). 

■ 5. Amend § 45.181 to revise 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 45.181 Load line exemption 

requirements for the Burns Harbor and 

Milwaukee routes. 

* * * * * 

(a) Registration. Before the barge’s 

first voyage onto Lake Michigan, the 

owner or operator must register the 

barge in writing with the Commanding 

Officer, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, 

555A Plainfield Road, Willowbrook, IL, 

60527. The registration may be faxed to 

MSU Chicago in advance at (630) 986– 

2120, with the original following by 

mail. The registration may be in any 

form, but must be signed by the owner 

or operator. No load line exemption 

certificate will be returned. However, 

the registration will be kept on file. 

(b) * * * 

(1) Barge name and official 

documentation number; 

* * * * * 

§ 45.183 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 45.183 to read as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the 

word ‘‘five’’ and add, in its place, the 

numeral ‘‘5’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(vi), remove the 

words ‘‘and be fully’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘and fully’’. 

■ 7. Amend § 45.185 to revise 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 45.185 Tow limitations. 

* * * * * 

(b) No more than a total of three 

barges per tow may operate on the 

Milwaukee, St. Joseph, and Muskegon 

routes. A mixed tow of load-lined and 

exempted barges is still limited to three 

barges on those routes. 

(c) Tows must not be more than 5 

nautical miles from shore. 

■ 8. Revise § 45.187 to read as follows: 

§ 45.187 Weather limitations. 

(a) Tows may not operate under Small 

Craft Advisory (SCA) conditions or 

worse, as issued by the National 

Weather Service in Lake Michigan 

Nearshore Marine Forecasts. 

(b) Tows may not operate when 

adverse ice conditions may imperil the 

tow or impede its access to shelter. 

(c) If SCA conditions are forecasted to 

develop at any time during the voyage, 

the tow must not leave harbor or, if 

already underway, must proceed to the 

nearest appropriate harbor of safe 

refuge. 

■ 9. Amend § 45.191 to revise 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 45.191 Pre-departure requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) Weather forecast. Determine the 

Lake Michigan Nearshore Marine 

Forecast along the planned route, and 

confirm that adverse weather conditions 

(Small Craft Advisory or worse, or ice 

conditions) are not forecasted to 

develop. 

(b) * * * 

(5) All hatch and manhole dogs are in 

working condition, and all covers are 

closed and secured watertight; 

* * * * * 

§ 45.193 [Amended] 

■ 10. In § 45.193(a), add the text ‘‘(HP)’’ 

after the word ‘‘horsepower’’. 

§ 45.197 [Amended] 

■ 11. In § 45.197, in the introductory 

text, remove the word ‘‘aboard’’ and add, 

in its place, the words ‘‘on board’’. 

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28993 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[PS Docket No. 07–114; FCC 10–176] 

Wireless E911 Location Accuracy 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) amends its rules to 

require wireless licensees subject to 

standards for wireless Enhanced 911 

(E911) Phase II location accuracy and 

reliability to satisfy these standards at 

either a county-based or Public Safety 

Answering Point (PSAP)-based 

geographic level. The Commission takes 

this step in order to ensure an 

appropriate and consistent compliance 

methodology with respect to location 

accuracy standards. 

DATES: The rule is effective January 18, 

2011, except for §§ 20.18(h)(1)(vi), 

20.18(h)(2)(iii), and 20.18(h)(3), which 

contains information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by OMB. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Donovan, Policy Division, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, (202) 418–2413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order (Order) in PS Docket 

No. 07–114, FCC 10–176, adopted 

September 23, 2010, and released 

September 23, 2010. The complete text 

of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Room CY–A257, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. This document may also be 

obtained from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., in person at 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at 

(202) 488–5300, via facsimile at (202) 

488–5563, or via e-mail at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. Alternative 

formats (computer diskette, large print, 

audio cassette, and Braille) are available 

to persons with disabilities by sending 

an e-mail to FCC504@fcc.gov or calling 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530, TTY (202) 

418–0432. This document is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

I. Introduction 

1. One of the most important 

opportunities afforded by mobile 

telephony is the potential for the 

American public to have access to 

emergency services personnel during 

times of crisis, wherever they may be. 

To ensure this benefit is realized, 

however, public safety personnel must 

have accurate information regarding the 

location of the caller. Without precise 

location information, public safety’s 

ability to provide critical services in a 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70605 

timely fashion becomes far more 

difficult, if not impossible. Accordingly, 

this order requires wireless carriers to 

take steps to provide more specific 

automatic location information in 

connection with 911 emergency calls to 

Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) 

in areas where they have not done so in 

the past. As a result of this order, 

emergency responders will be able to 

reach the site of an emergency more 

quickly and efficiently. In addition, in a 

companion Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry that 

we adopt today, we build on the order 

and explore how to further enhance 

location accuracy for existing and new 

wireless voice communications 

technologies, including new broadband 

technologies associated with 

deployment of Next Generation 911 

(NG911) networks. 

2. To accomplish these goals, in this 

Second Report and Order, we revise 

section 20.18(h) of the Commission’s 

rules, which specifies standards for 

wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) Phase II 

location accuracy and reliability. 

Specifically, we now require wireless 

licensees subject to section 20.18(h) to 

satisfy these standards at either a 

county-based or PSAP-based geographic 

level. We also revise the requirements of 

section 20.18(h) for handset-based and 

network-based location technologies. 

II. Background 

3. On June 1, 2007, the Commission 

released a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking comment 

on the appropriate geographic area over 

which to measure compliance with 

section 20.18(h), as well as a variety of 

additional questions about how to 

improve 911 location accuracy and 

reliability. In the NPRM, the 

Commission indicated that carriers 

should not be permitted to average their 

accuracy results over vast service areas, 

because carriers thereby could assert 

that they satisfy the requirements of 

section 20.18(h) without meeting the 

accuracy requirements in substantial 

segments of their service areas. The 

Commission stated that although 

measuring location accuracy at the 

PSAP level may present challenges, the 

public interest demands that carriers 

and technology providers strive to 

ensure that when wireless callers dial 

911, emergency responders are provided 

location information that enables them 

to reach the site of the emergency as 

quickly as possible. Because many 

carriers were not measuring and testing 

location accuracy at the PSAP service 

area level, the Commission sought 

comment on whether to defer 

enforcement of section 20.18(h) if the 

Commission adopted its tentative 

conclusion to require compliance at the 

PSAP level. 

4. On November 20, 2007, the 

Commission released a Report and 

Order (First Report and Order) requiring 

wireless licensees to satisfy the E911 

accuracy and reliability standards at a 

geographic level defined by the service 

area of a PSAP. The decision to adopt 

a PSAP-level compliance requirement 

was responsive to a request for 

declaratory ruling filed by the 

Association of Public-Safety 

Communications Officials-International, 

Inc. (APCO) asking that the Commission 

require carriers to meet the 

Commission’s location accuracy 

requirements at the PSAP service area 

level. Specifically, the First Report and 

Order established interim annual 

requirements leading to an ultimate 

deadline of September 11, 2012 for 

achieving compliance with section 

20.18(h) at the PSAP level, for both 

handset-based and network-based 

technologies. Several carriers filed with 

the Commission Motions for Stay of the 

First Report and Order, seeking a stay of 

the effectiveness of the rules adopted in 

the First Report and Order pending 

judicial review. Following petitions for 

review filed with respect to the First 

Report and Order, on March 25, 2008, 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (Court) 

stayed the First Report and Order. 

5. On July 14, 2008, APCO and the 

National Emergency Number 

Association (NENA) filed an ex parte 

letter stating that they ‘‘are now willing 

to accept compliance measurements at 

the county level’’ rather than at the 

PSAP level. APCO and NENA added 

that ‘‘[p]ublic safety and wireless 

carriers are in current discussions on a 

number of other issues associated with 

E9–1–1, with the goal of improving 

information available to PSAPs. There 

are areas of agreement in concept; 

however, the details are still being 

developed.’’ 

6. On July 31, 2008, the Commission 

filed with the Court a Motion for 

Voluntary Remand and Vacatur, which 

requested remand based on the 

proposals contained in the July 14 ex 

parte letter and ‘‘[i]n light of the public 

safety community’s support for revised 

rules.’’ Following this filing with the 

Court, NENA, APCO, Verizon Wireless, 

Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint 

Nextel), and AT&T Inc. (AT&T) 

submitted written ex parte letters with 

the Commission with proposed new 

wireless E911 rules. On September 17, 

2008, the Court granted the 

Commission’s Motion for Voluntary 

Remand. 

7. On September 22, 2008, the Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 

(Bureau) released a public notice 

seeking comment on the proposals 

submitted in the ex parte letters. The 

Bureau sought comment on the 

proposed changed accuracy 

requirements, including the 

benchmarks, limitations, and 

exclusions, for handset-based and 

network-based location technologies. 

The Bureau also sought comment on 

pledges to convene industry groups to 

explore related issues, and whether the 

Commission should require the 

provision of confidence and uncertainty 

data, as well as any alternative 

modifications to location accuracy 

requirements. The Bureau urged all 

interested parties to review the entirety 

of the ex parte letters. 

8. On November 4, 2008, the 

Commission adopted two Orders 

approving applications for transfers of 

control, involving Verizon Wireless and 

ALLTEL Corporation, and Sprint Nextel 

and Clearwire Corporation, conditioned 

upon their voluntary agreements to 

abide by the conditions set forth in their 

respective ex parte letters, which are 

identical to the wireless E911 proposals 

they submitted in this proceeding. In 

each case, the Commission found that 

these conditions would ‘‘further ensure 

that consummation of the proposed 

merger serves the public interest, 

convenience and necessity.’’ 

9. On November 20, 2009, in light of 

the passage of time, the Bureau released 

a public notice seeking to refresh the 

record. Specifically, the Bureau sought 

comment on whether subsequent 

developments in the industry and 

technology may have affected parties’ 

positions on the issues raised. A list of 

parties submitting comments in 

response to the Second Bureau Public 

Notice is attached as Appendix A. 

10. On June 16, 2010, T-Mobile USA, 

Inc. (T-Mobile) filed an ex parte letter 

stating that it would agree to comply 

with the benchmarks for network-based 

location technologies that were 

proposed in the APCO/NENA/AT&T 

Aug. 25 Ex Parte, with several 

modifications. On June 30, 2010, the 

Rural Cellular Association (RCA) filed 

an ex parte letter stating that it supports 

the proposed modifications in the TMobile Ex Parte. On July 7, 2010, APCO 

and NENA filed an ex parte letter stating 

that they do not object to the proposed 

modifications in the T-Mobile Ex Parte 

and urged the Commission to proceed 

expeditiously to implement the 

modified proposals. On July 29, 2010, 

General Communication, Inc. (GCI) filed 

an ex parte letter including proposals 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
70606 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

with specific application to rural and 

regional providers. 

11. This Second Report and Order 

represents our next step in a 

comprehensive examination of E911 

location accuracy and reliability. Taken 

together, the APCO, NENA, AT&T, 

Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless 

proposals reflect agreement among 

leading 911 stakeholders for new E911 

accuracy requirements for both handsetbased and network-based location 

technologies. In the context of our 

review of the entire record in this 

proceeding, we find that these 

consensus proposals from national 

public safety organizations and major 

industry representatives will provide 

public safety agencies with necessary 

information during emergencies, and 

benefit consumers, in a manner that is 

technologically achievable. Moreover, 

the timeframe for compliance and 

permitted exclusions will serve to 

minimize the economic impact on small 

carriers while retaining significant 

benefits for public safety. 

III. Discussion 

A. Compliance With Section 20.18(h) at 

the County Level or PSAP Level 

12. The rule changes we are adopting 

today further our long-standing public 

safety and homeland security goals in 

this proceeding. First, they ensure that 

all stakeholders—including public 

safety entities, wireless carriers, 

technology providers, and the public— 

will benefit from an appropriate and 

consistent compliance methodology. 

Second, by making clear that location 

accuracy compliance may not be 

achieved on an averaged basis over large 

geographical areas, the revised rules 

ensure that PSAPs receive meaningful, 

accurate location information from 

wireless 911 callers in order to dispatch 

local emergency responders to the 

correct location. As a direct result, the 

new rules will minimize potentially lifethreatening delays that may ensue when 

first responders cannot be confident that 

they are receiving accurate location 

information. As discussed below, major 

wireless carriers either already are 

subject to most elements of the ex parte 

proposals as a result of merger 

conditions, or indicate they can comply 

with the changed location accuracy 

requirements based on existing location 

technologies. These carriers also 

indicate that it is feasible for them to 

comply with our new requirement that 

they provide confidence and 

uncertainty data to PSAPs, which is 

widely supported by the public safety 

community. Also, as explained below, 

we provide for certain exclusions 

reflective of the technical limitations of 

existing location technologies. 

Furthermore, carriers facing unique 

circumstances may seek waiver relief 

based on certain factors. 

13. As an initial matter, some 

commenters have urged the Commission 

to forego any rulemaking, advocating 

instead that the Commission establish 

an industry advisory group to draft new 

rules relating to location accuracy. 

Further, some technology companies 

presented alternate views. For example, 

Polaris Wireless, Inc. (Polaris) states that 

the ex parte proposals maintain the 

status quo for handset-based carriers 

and ‘‘spark a migration to predominately 

handset-based technologies even for 

network-based carriers.’’ Therefore, 

Polaris argues that ‘‘this proposed 

framework will not drive the adoption 

of the best E911 Phase II technologies 

available today, such as hybrid systems, 

nor will it achieve the greatest or fastest 

possible outcome for the American 

public.’’ S5 Wireless, Inc. (S5) ‘‘believes 

it is currently possible to implement 

newer technologies, such as that which 

S5 offers, and easily achieve the 

Commission’s accuracy standards.’’ 

14. We decline to delay taking 

Commission action, because of the 

importance to public safety of 

minimizing the potentially lifethreatening delays that may ensue when 

first responders cannot be confident that 

they are receiving accurate location 

information. Further, while other 

technologies may hold promise for 

enhanced location accuracy, we find 

that acting now to adopt clear new 

geographic requirements based on the 

existing location accuracy calculations 

is the best course for the near-term. In 

our companion proceeding adopted 

today, we explore how differing 

technology approaches may improve 

wireless location accuracy going 

forward. 

15. Comments. A number of 

commenters generally support requiring 

compliance with section 20.18(h) at the 

county or PSAP-level. However, a few 

commenters held opposing views. Corr 

Wireless Communications, LLC (Corr) 

advocates using the Metropolitan 

Statistical Area as a ‘‘more useful 

measuring stick for this kind of service.’’ 

Corr, however, indicates that it would 

support a county-based metric provided 

that the Commission ‘‘make an 

exception in its accuracy requirement to 

account for the impossibility or extreme 

difficulty in meeting that standard in 

rural areas.’’ Furthermore, a number of 

commenters argue that complying with 

the county-level standard would be 

prohibitively expensive. For example, 

the National Telecommunications 

Cooperative Association (NTCA) argues 

that ‘‘it is expected that the new 

standards will impose prohibitive costs 

on many rural wireless carriers, if 

compliance is even possible.’’ The Rural 

Telecommunications Group (RTG), 

citing to its August 20, 2007 comments, 

notes that rural carriers ‘‘may need to 

construct an extraordinary number of 

additional antenna sites,’’ and that, 

‘‘[w]ith fewer customers than large 

carriers serving urban areas, RTG 

members and other rural wireless 

carriers are unable to recover the 

substantial cost of constructing a large 

number of additional cell sites solely to 

triangulate location data.’’ GCI argues 

that the county-based metric does ‘‘not 

take into account the technological and 

economic realities of providing service 

to low-density, topographically 

challenged service areas, like Alaska,’’ 

adding that ‘‘strict adherence to th[e] 

proposed metrics [w]ould have the 

perverse result of stifling deployments 

to areas most in need of wireless 

infrastructure investment.’’ NENA and 

APCO favor ‘‘a waiver process to the 

wholesale ‘exceptions’ for rural carriers 

proposed by Corr Wireless which would 

essentially only require Phase I in many 

parts of the country.’’ 

16. Discussion. Based on the complete 

record in this proceeding, we revise the 

wireless location accuracy rules to 

require county-level or PSAP-level 

compliance. We agree with APCO and 

NENA and find that requiring 

compliance at the county level reflects 

recent consolidation efforts by PSAPs to 

mirror county boundaries. In addition, 

we agree that counties ‘‘are more easily 

defined than PSAPs and are not prone 

to administrative boundary changes.’’ 

We find that compliance at the county 

level can be achieved with currently 

available technology, particularly in 

conjunction with the revisions we make 

to section 20.18(h) discussed below, 

including the permitted exclusions. 

Accordingly, we find that a county-level 

compliance standard provides an 

appropriate, consistent, and achievable 

compliance methodology with respect 

to wireless location accuracy standards. 

We conclude that a county-level 

compliance standard will ensure that 

PSAPs receive accurate and meaningful 

location information in most cases. 

Moreover, nothing in the record 

persuades us that such costs will be 

prohibitive for participating wireless 

carriers, including smaller carriers. The 

commenters expressing these concerns 

provide no quantification of the cost of 

meeting these requirements. As 

discussed below, however, we afford 

certain exclusions and note that 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70607 

financial considerations, among others, 

will be taken into account should a 

service provider request waiver relief. 

17. We also find that there continues 

to be merit in a PSAP service area-based 

compliance standard. As APCO and 

NENA indicate, ‘‘county-level accuracy 

would in many cases be identical to 

PSAP-level accuracy.’’ In many areas, 

PSAP service areas are coterminous 

with county boundaries. Where PSAP 

service areas are larger than counties, 

however, providing location accuracy at 

the PSAP level would be beneficial to 

the public safety community since the 

reported accuracy would match the 

exact boundary of the PSAP’s service 

area. Conversely, where PSAPs are 

smaller than counties, providing 

location accuracy information at the 

PSAP level could be of even more value 

to the PSAP and the public safety 

community since the information would 

be provided on a more granular basis 

than that achieved at the larger county 

level. Various public safety 

organizations continue to express 

support for PSAP-level compliance in 

comments filed with the Commission. 

18. We therefore find that both PSAPlevel compliance and county-level 

compliance are beneficial towards 

meeting the needs of PSAPs and public 

safety first responders, and we will 

allow carriers to choose which standard 

better meets their needs. Such an 

approach will permit carriers to analyze 

carrier-specific factors like natural and 

network topographies (for example, 

foliage levels, terrain characteristics, 

cell site density, overall system 

technology requirements, etc.) while, in 

either case, ensuring that public safety 

responders receive timely and accurate 

location information. 

B. Handset-Based Location 

Technologies 

19. On August 20, 2008, NENA, 

APCO, and Verizon Wireless filed a 

joint proposal for ‘‘compliance 

measurements for handset-based 

technologies.’’ Specifically, they 

propose the following new rules: 

Two years after the Commission 

adopts new rules, on a county-bycounty basis, 67% of Phase II calls must 

be accurate to within 50 meters in all 

counties; 80% of Phase II calls must be 

accurate to within 150 meters in all 

counties, provided, however, that a 

carrier may exclude up to 15% of 

counties from the 150 meter 

requirement based upon heavy 

forestation that limits handset-based 

technology accuracy in those counties. 

Eight years after the Commission 

adopts new rules, on a county-bycounty basis, 67% of Phase II calls must 

be accurate to within 50 meters in all 

counties; 90% of Phase II calls must be 

accurate to within 150 meters in all 

counties, provided, however, that a 

carrier may exclude up to 15% of 

counties from the 150 meter 

requirement based upon heavy 

forestation that limits handset-based 

technology accuracy in those counties. 

20. Verizon Wireless explains that, 

‘‘the greatest technical barrier to the 

accuracy of handset-based E911 

technologies is the presence of terrain 

obstructions, whether natural or 

manmade * * * Where, for example, an 

area’s topology is characterized by 

forest, the likelihood of a good location 

fix is reduced because the tree cover 

obstructs the transmission path between 

the satellites and the handset. The more 

extensive the tree cover, the greater the 

difficulty the system has in generating a 

GPS-based fix.’’ To that end, Verizon 

Wireless states that its joint proposal 

with NENA and APCO compensates for 

these ‘‘technical realities.’’ 

21. The parties also pledged ‘‘to 

convene, within 180 days of the 

Commission’s order, an industry group 

to evaluate methodologies for assessing 

wireless 9–1–1 location accuracy for 

calls originating indoors and report back 

to the Commission within one year.’’ On 

August 21, 2008, Sprint submitted a 

letter in support of the NENA, APCO, 

and Verizon Wireless proposal, stating: 

The proposed accuracy standard meets 

the concerns of public safety while 

acknowledging the limitations of 

current technology. Although setting the 

accuracy standard at the county level 

will impose significant testing costs and 

require substantial time to complete, the 

accuracy standards articulated should 

be achievable. Sprint commends all 

those involved in the work required to 

produce this proposal and urges the 

Commission to adopt this compromise. 

22. As mentioned above, the 

Commission previously adopted two 

Orders approving applications for 

transfers of control, involving Verizon 

and ALLTEL Corporation and Sprint 

Nextel and Clearwire Corporation, 

conditioned upon their voluntary 

agreements to abide by the conditions 

set forth in their respective ex parte 

letters, which are identical to the 

wireless E911 proposals they submitted 

in this proceeding. 

23. Comments. Sprint Nextel, a 

handset-based carrier, continues to 

support the NENA, APCO, and Verizon 

Wireless proposal. Sprint Nextel views 

these benchmarks as ‘‘furthering the 

goals of public safety; both by holding 

carriers to a higher standard and by 

ensuring that carriers are optimizing 

their networks at the local level.’’ Sprint 

Nextel adds that, ‘‘one of the significant 

benefits of the compromise will be the 

extensive testing required at the local 

level.’’ Sprint Nextel notes that ‘‘[t]o date 

the Commission has adopted new 

accuracy requirements for two wireless 

carriers, Sprint and Verizon Wireless’’ 

and the Commission should therefore 

‘‘work toward developing regulations to 

apply to the industry as a whole.’’ 

NTELOS, however, expresses ‘‘concerns 

that any new testing and reporting 

requirements would be burdensome 

since we are a small, regional carrier 

and do not have the expertise within the 

company to accomplish this task.’’ 

NTELOS notes that it ‘‘depends heavily 

on outside vendors for support in our 

accuracy testing,’’ and ‘‘the unknown 

cost of reporting requirements that 

would accompany any rule change 

could have significant repercussions for 

smaller carriers.’’ RCA states that ‘‘as 

currently proposed, the [handset based] 

location accuracy standards provided by 

Verizon Wireless and public safety 

groups are not technically and 

economically feasible for the Tier II and 

Tier III carriers that RCA represents. 

Tier II carriers will need at least an 

additional six months after the effective 

date of any new rules to meet the 67%/ 

80% requirement proposed by Verizon 

Wireless. Tier III carriers will need at 

least an additional 12 months.’’ 

SouthernLINC Wireless (SouthernLINC) 

maintains that the proposals ‘‘fail to give 

any consideration to the circumstances 

and operational realities faced by the 

nation’s smaller regional and rural 

wireless carriers.’’ SouthernLINC 

therefore argues for the ‘‘adoption of 

alternative benchmarks for small and 

mid-size Tier II and Tier III carriers,’’ 

and proposes its own benchmarks in 

order to ‘‘provide Tier II and Tier III 

carriers sufficient time to implement the 

measures necessary to conduct countylevel testing.’’ Finally, SouthernLINC 

notes that ‘‘for regional and rural 

carriers, the impact of any new location 

accuracy requirements is an issue of 

both the cost of acquiring and deploying 

additional technology * * * and the 

cost of conducting statistically valid 

testing on a county-by-county basis to 

determine accuracy at the county level.’’ 

24. Specifically with respect to the 

parties’ proposal to exclude fifteen 

percent of counties based upon heavy 

forestation, Sprint Nextel argues that the 

exclusion ‘‘acknowledges the technical 

limitations of current technology and 

does not penalize carriers for those 

exceptionally challenging cases.’’ 

However, Motorola suggests rather than 

excluding 15 percent of counties based 

on forestation, the Commission should 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
70608 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

adopt AT&T’s requirement for networkbased location technologies and allow 

85 percent compliance at the final 

benchmark. Motorola argues that ‘‘doing 

so would provide carriers the flexibility 

for exclusions based not only on 

forestation, but also other situations 

such as urban canyons and urban/rural 

buildouts that limit handset-based 

technology accuracy.’’ RCA argues that 

‘‘the percentage of counties that can be 

excluded from the 150 meter 

requirement based upon ‘heavy 

forestation’ should be raised to twentyfive percent for purposes of meeting the 

67%/80% requirement and twenty 

percent for the proposed 67%/90% 

requirement,’’ and the Commission 

‘‘should...make clear that the [‘heavy 

forestation’] exception includes all 

terrain obstructions.’’ United States 

Cellular Corp. (USCC) states that, ‘‘[t]o 

date, neither APCO, NENA nor Verizon 

Wireless have explained the rationale 

for setting the exclusion limit at 15 

percent nor have they explained why 

this exclusion only applies in counties 

with heavy forestation.’’ SouthernLINC 

recommends that the term ‘‘heavy 

forestation’’ be ‘‘changed to ‘challenging 

environment’ in order to clarify the 

nature of the of the 15-percent exclusion 

and avoid any confusion as to the 

exclusion’s applicability.’’ Verizon 

Wireless ‘‘supports an industry-wide 

rule that permits any carrier employing 

a handset-based solution (including 

Verizon Wireless) to exclude up to 15 

percent of counties for any reason, not 

solely because of ‘‘heavy forestation.’’ 

APCO and NENA disagree with 

including other terrain obstructions into 

the fifteen percent exception, arguing 

that this ‘‘would be unacceptable as it 

could lead to the exclusion of large 

metropolitan counties.’’ Rather, they 

state that they wish to restrict the 

exception only to forestation ‘‘on the 

expectation that it would apply in most 

cases to very sparsely populated 

counties.’’ APCO and NENA also noted 

that ‘‘a broader exclusion could lead to 

substantial areas receiving substandard 

location accuracy for E911 calls.’’ 

25. Discussion. We find that the 

consensus plan, based on the agreement 

of important E911 stakeholders, 

comprehensively addresses location 

accuracy criteria in connection with 

handset-based location technology. 

These proposals ensure that carriers 

using handset-based location 

technologies are subject to appropriate 

and consistent compliance methodology 

that may not be based on averaging over 

large geographical areas. Additionally, 

we believe that the important public 

safety issues at stake outweigh the 

potential cost impact of imposing these 

regulations. As we previously noted, 

SouthernLINC argues that the 

regulations would impose a significant 

strain on smaller carriers; however, 

SouthernLINC does not provide a 

quantification of the cost of meeting 

these requirements. Moreover, as 

discussed below, financial 

considerations, among others, will be 

taken into account should a service 

provider request waiver relief. Further, 

we conclude that the proposed 

compliance timeframes, limitations, and 

exemptions will provide carriers with a 

sufficient measure of flexibility to 

account for technical and cost-related 

concerns. Indeed, the approximately 

two year’s passage of time since carriers 

first had an opportunity to raise 

concerns about the timing of the 

benchmarks negates the request of some 

carriers to extend the benchmarks for up 

to an additional year. Further, the rule 

changes we adopt today effectively relax 

the existing handset-based requirements 

by immediately reducing, for two years 

after the effective date, the 150 meter 

requirement from 95 percent of all calls 

to 80 percent of all calls. Moreover, even 

after eight years, the 150 meter 

requirement rises only to 90 percent. 

26. The proposals also represent an 

acknowledgement by the public safety 

and commercial communities that they 

can address the critical need to provide 

public safety agencies with meaningful 

information in the event of an 

emergency in a technically achievable 

manner. The voluntary commitments to 

abide by the same proposals by Verizon, 

with respect to its transaction with 

ALLTEL (a Tier II wireless carrier), and 

Sprint, with respect to Clearwire, is 

further evidence of the flexibility and 

feasibility afforded by these criteria to 

enable carriers to meet these criteria 

even in the context of significant 

transactions. Thus, we require wireless 

licensees subject to section 20.18(h) of 

the Commission’s rules who use 

handset-based location technology to 

satisfy these standards either at a 

county-based geographic level or at the 

PSAP service area level. 

27. Because of the geographical and 

topographical differences that 

characterize different counties and 

PSAP service areas, we find that we 

should permit carriers using handsetbased location technology to exclude up 

to 15 percent of counties or PSAP 

service areas from the 150 meter 

requirement based upon heavy 

forestation, consistent with the ex parte 

proposals. In this regard, we agree with 

NENA and APCO that any expansion of 

this exclusion, whether to an increased 

percentage or based on factors in 

addition to forestation, would excuse 

compliance to an unacceptable level of 

risk to public safety. We find that among 

the challenges faced by handset-based 

technologies, forestation is a substantial 

contributor and that other terrain issues 

typically would overlap with forestation 

concerns. Therefore, we expect that 

many of these other terrain issues will 

be addressed through the forestation 

exclusion. The more open-ended 

approach advocated by commenters 

may lead to overuse or abuse of 

exceptions and potentially harm public 

safety. The waiver process is thus much 

more suitable to address individual or 

unique problems, where we can analyze 

the particular circumstances and the 

potential impact to public safety. Some 

commenters recommended specific 

criteria for Tier III carrier waivers. We 

address waiver requests in more detail 

below. 

28. In order to ensure that the public 

safety community and the general 

public are aware of these instances 

where carriers cannot meet the Phase II 

location accuracy requirements, and 

prevent overuse of this exclusion, we 

will require carriers to file a list of those 

specific counties or PSAP service areas 

where they are utilizing this exclusion, 

within ninety days following approval 

from the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) for the related 

information collection. This list must be 

submitted electronically into the docket 

of this proceeding, and copies sent to 

NENA, APCO, and the National 

Association of State 9–1–1 

Administrators (NASNA) in paper or 

electronic form. Further, carriers must 

submit in the same manner any changes 

to their exclusion lists within thirty 

days of discovering such changes. We 

find that permitting this exclusion, 

subject to these reporting requirements, 

properly but narrowly accounts for the 

known technical limitations of handsetbased location accuracy technologies, 

while ensuring that the public safety 

community and the public at large are 

sufficiently informed of these 

limitations. We expect that carriers 

failing to meet any particular 

benchmark will promptly inform the 

Commission and submit an 

appropriately supported waiver request. 

Further, we will monitor progress at 

each benchmark and may request status 

information if necessary. 

29. We also encourage the parties to 

meet as a group to evaluate 

methodologies for assessing wireless 

911 location accuracy for indoor calls. 

Because indoor use poses unique 

obstacles to handset-based location 

technologies, and in light of the 

expressed interest of both the public 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70609 

safety and commercial wireless 

communities to further explore this 

issue, we clarify that these standards 

apply to outdoor measurements only. 

Further, we are seeking comment in our 

companion FNPRM/NOI on how best to 

provide automatic location 

identification (ALI) in technically 

challenging environments, including 

indoors. 

C. Network-Based Location 

Technologies 

30. On August 25, 2008, NENA, 

APCO, and AT&T submitted an ex parte 

letter proposing new compliance 

measurements specifically addressing 

network-based technologies. NENA, 

APCO, and AT&T initially explain their 

proposal as follows: 

As network-based providers will be 

unable to meet the new proposed 

county-level accuracy standards in all 

areas relying solely upon current 

network-based technology solutions, 

carriers who employ network-based 

location solutions may be expected to 

deploy handset-based solutions as an 

overlay to existing network-based 

solutions in order to meet the more 

stringent county-level requirements set 

forth below. To encourage the 

improvements in location accuracy that 

may be achieved using both network 

and handset based solutions, this 

proposal provides that network-based 

carriers may elect to use a system of 

blended reporting for accuracy 

measurements, as defined below. 

Carriers also may elect to report 

accuracy in any county based solely on 

the handset-based accuracy standards. 

31. The parties next propose the 

following as the accuracy standards for 

network-based carriers: 

67%/100M: 67 percent of all calls, 

measured at the county level, shall be 

located within 100 meters in each 

county by the end of year 5, in 

accordance with the interim 

benchmarks below; and 

90%/300M: 90 percent of all calls, 

measured at the county level, shall be 

located within 300 meters in 85 percent 

of all counties by the end of year 8, in 

accordance with the interim 

benchmarks below. 

32. In complying with the above, the 

parties provide the following limitation: 

The county-level location accuracy 

standards will be applicable to those 

counties, on an individual basis, for 

which a network-based carrier has 

deployed Phase II in at least one cell site 

located within a county’s boundary. 

Compliance with the 67 percent 

standard and compliance with the 90 

percent standard in a given county shall 

be measured and reported 

independently (i.e. the list of compliant 

counties for the 67 percent standard 

may be different than for the 90 percent 

standard). 

33. Further, consistent with the 

opening explanation of their proposal, 

the parties propose employing a 

‘‘blended’’ approach for meeting the 

above accuracy standards. Under this 

approach, carriers may take into account 

the impact of introducing ‘‘aGPS’’ 

(assisted GPS) handsets into their 

customer bases. Specifically, the parties 

state: 

Accuracy data from both a networkbased solution and a handset-based 

solution may be blended to meet the 

network-based standard. Such blending 

shall be based on weighting accuracy 

data in the ratio of aGPS handsets to 

non-aGPS handsets in the carrier’s 

subscriber base. The weighting ratio 

shall be applied to the accuracy data 

from each solution and measured 

against the network-based standards. 

34. In their filing, the parties offer an 

example of blended reporting assuming 

60% penetration of aGPS devices in the 

network. In effect, the result of this 

example is a ‘‘blended average’’ for each 

county that achieves better accuracy 

than a network-based approach alone 

would achieve. AT&T states that 

environmental factors can ‘‘render the 

achievement of the current networkbased location standards infeasible at 

the county level.’’ However, AT&T 

suggests that ‘‘these challenges can be 

mitigated or overcome through the 

deployment of aGPS technology.’’ AT&T 

concludes, ‘‘[a]ccordingly, using both 

network-based and handset-based E911 

technologies in concert will allow all 

carriers over time to significantly 

improve E911 accuracy performance 

across the majority of service areas.’’ 

35. The NENA, APCO, and AT&T 

proposal also sets the following 

network-based solution compliance 

benchmarks: 

36. First, for the 67%/100 meter 

standard: 

End of Year 1: Carriers shall comply 

in 60% of counties, which counties 

shall cover at least 70% of the POPs 

covered by the carrier, network-wide. 

Compliance will be measured on a per 

county basis using existing networkbased accuracy data. 

End of Year 3: Carriers shall comply 

in 70% of counties, which counties 

shall cover at least 80% of the POPs 

covered by the carrier, network-wide. 

Compliance will be measured on a per 

county basis, using, at the carrier’s 

election, either (i) network-based 

accuracy data; or (ii) blended reporting. 

End of Year 5: Carriers shall comply 

in 100% of counties. Compliance will 

be measured on a per county basis, 

using, at the carrier’s election, either: 

(i) network-based accuracy data; (ii) 

blended reporting; or (iii) subject to the 

following caveat, solely handset-based 

accuracy data (at handset-based 

accuracy standards). 

A carrier may rely solely on handsetbased accuracy data in any county if at 

least 95% of its subscribers, networkwide, use an aGPS handset, or if it offers 

subscribers in that county who do not 

have an aGPS device an aGPS handset 

at no cost to the subscriber. 

37. Second, for the 90%/300 meter 

standard: 

End of Year 3: Carriers shall comply 

in 60% of counties, which counties 

shall cover at least 70% of the POPs 

covered by the carrier, network-wide. 

Compliance will be measured on a per 

county basis using, at the carrier’s 

election, either: (i) Network-based 

accuracy data; or (ii) blended reporting. 

End of Year 5: Carriers shall comply 

in 70% of counties, which counties 

shall cover at least 80% of the POPs 

covered by the carrier, network-wide. 

Compliance will be measured on a per 

county basis using, at the carrier’s 

election, either (i) Network-based 

accuracy data; or (ii) blended reporting. 

End of Year 8: Carriers shall comply 

in 85% of counties. Compliance will be 

measured on a per county basis using, 

at the carrier’s election, either: (i) 

Network-based accuracy data; (ii) 

blended reporting; or (iii) subject to the 

caveat above, solely handset-based 

accuracy data (at handset-based 

accuracy standards). 

38. Further, similar to the NENA, 

APCO, and Verizon Wireless proposal 

regarding stakeholder efforts to address 

location accuracy for wireless calls 

originating indoors, APCO, NENA, and 

AT&T propose the establishment of an 

E911 Technical Advisory Group (ETAG) 

that would ‘‘work with the E911 

community to address open issues 

within this framework (e.g., updated 

outdoor and indoor accuracy 

measurement methodologies, tactics for 

improving accuracy performance in 

challenged areas, testing of emerging 

technology claims, E911 responsibilities 

in an open-access environment, the 

development of hybrid network—A– 

GPS technologies, etc.).’’ AT&T 

continues to support the creation of an 

ETAG and notes that ‘‘[t]he Commission 

has successfully leveraged such working 

groups in the past to drive policy 

forward, particularly in the public safety 

area, where the Commission’s objectives 

are clear but the technical path forward 

requires further research and 

development before implementation is 

possible.’’ 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
70610 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

39. Comments. In response to the 

Bureau Public Notice, T-Mobile and 

RCA argued that ‘‘[b]ecause as a 

practical matter a carrier must 

implement A–GPS and reach certain 

handset penetration levels in order to 

meet some of the proposed benchmarks, 

and because implementation of A–GPS 

for GSM carriers is directly tied to 

implementation of 3G service, several of 

the proposed benchmarks will not be 

technically and economically feasible 

for carriers other than AT&T unless 

these other carriers have a more nearly 

comparable period from the 

introduction of their own 3G services to 

meet the benchmarks.’’ Specifically, 

T-Mobile and RCA advocated deferring 

the first benchmark by six months for 

Tier I and Tier II carriers and deferring 

the first benchmark by one year for Tier 

III carriers. In addition, they argued that 

‘‘[f]or T-Mobile, * * * the second, third 

and fourth benchmarks need to be 

delayed by at least two years in order for 

T-Mobile to have a timeline from 3G 

deployment similar [to] AT&Ts. For 

RCA members, the second, third, and 

fourth benchmarks need to be delayed 

further as their deployment of 3G 

services and A–GPS handsets has not 

yet begun.’’ Nokia agreed with this 

approach, arguing that it would ‘‘allow 

for a more technically and commercially 

feasible approach for all affected 

carriers, including carriers who are in 

initial stages of deploying 3G across 

their networks.’’ RCA also noted that 

‘‘Tier II and Tier III carriers do not 

necessarily have access to the same 

array or types of handsets * * * as Tier 

I carriers * * * due, in large part, to the 

growing use of exclusivity arrangements 

between the Nation’s largest wireless 

carriers and handset manufacturers.’’ 

NENA and APCO, however, noted that 

T-Mobile’s plan would ‘‘probably 

require more than seven years [to reach 

the third benchmark] as they would link 

the start-date to the deployment of A– 

GPS handsets.’’ Moreover, NENA and 

APCO noted that variations among 

carriers in their deployment of next 

generation technologies ‘‘might be 

among the factors that could be 

considered in a waiver process.’’ 

Further, AT&T argued that ‘‘[t]he 

flexibility built into the joint proposal 

* * * will enable carriers to meet the 

joint proposal’s ultimate requirements 

and interim benchmarks through a 

variety of means and incorporating the 

technologies that are best suited to their 

network and their particular 

deployment strategy * * * Particularly 

in light of that flexibility, AT&T is 

confident that the APCO/NENA/AT&T 

joint proposal is technically feasible for 

carriers that currently rely on networkbased solutions.’’ 

40. In response to the Second Bureau 

Public Notice, T-Mobile, RCA, and RTG 

maintained that upon revisiting their 

previously submitted proposal, ‘‘with 

the benefit of additional experience 

* * * it still may not be flexible enough 

to recognize reality.’’ As such, T-Mobile, 

RCA, and RTG requested the 

Commission ‘‘simply to require that all 

3G handsets manufactured in or 

imported into the United States be A– 

GPS-capable after a date certain.’’ 

T-Mobile, RCA, and RTG also requested 

the Commission to require ‘‘after an 

appropriate transition period, carriers 

[to] enable their entire network to be 

able to handle and to provide to PSAPs 

GPS-based location data from an A– 

GPS-capable handset, rather than 

locating these handsets using networkbased technology.’’ According to 

T-Mobile, RCA, and RTG, ‘‘[t]his 

handset requirement approach is 

simpler than the complex combinations 

of benchmarks and exclusions in 

virtually all of last year’s proposals, can 

be easily monitored and enforced, and 

would ultimately produce the best 

technically feasible results for these 

‘‘hard-to-estimate’’ areas.’’ The Blooston 

Rural Carriers supported the T-Mobile/ 

RCA/RTG proposal and noted that ‘‘it 

would help move network-based 

carriers toward development of handsetbased technology in a rapid but realistic 

timeframe.’’ NTCA believes that the 

T-Mobile/RCA/RTG proposal 

‘‘accomplishes the Commission’s 

objectives and makes sense for small 

carriers.’’ NENA and APCO opposed the 

T-Mobile/RCA/RTG proposal, however, 

and ‘‘think the better answer is to 

establish a timeframe for compliance, 

reporting on efforts to meet elements of 

the timeframe and, where necessary, 

seek waivers based [on] current 

information and facts.’’ 

41. Corr Wireless proposes that the 

Commission ‘‘adopt the county-based 

metric but make an exception in its 

accuracy requirement to account for the 

impossibility or extreme difficulty of 

meeting that standard in a rural area.’’ 

Specifically, Corr advocates that ‘‘in 

areas or counties where a networksolution carrier has fewer than four 

overlapping cell contours * * * only 

Phase I accuracy would be required.’’ 

Corr argues that ‘‘this exception is likely 

to be temporary in nature since Corr 

agrees with AT&T that the deployment 

in the near future of ‘A–GPS’ technology 

will enable even network-solution 

carriers to achieve high levels of 

location accuracy.’’ However, Corr also 

states that, ‘‘in order for small carriers 

like Corr to improve E911 accuracy 

through the deployment of advanced A– 

GPS handsets, they must have access to 

those handsets.’’ Therefore, Corr argues 

that ‘‘the Commission should require 

handset manufacturers to make all 

handsets available on a nondiscriminatory basis.’’ T-Mobile 

disagrees, arguing that ‘‘this will not 

meaningfully accelerate deployment of 

A–GPS handsets. Carriers will already 

be driven by the benchmarks to 

incorporate A–GPS into their handsets 

* * * Thus Corr’s proposed mandate is 

duplicative and unnecessary.’’ GCI 

Communications, in a later ex parte, 

proposes that ‘‘Tier III carriers in Alaska 

be required to measure compliance with 

the interim and final benchmarks only 

for those areas within a four-mile radius 

circle that includes at least five cell 

sites, where the test location within 

such circle has a usable signal level 

greater than ¥104 dBm to all cell sites 

within the circle.’’ GCI Communications 

also notes that any new benchmarks 

applicable to network-based carriers 

should ‘‘at the very least exclude any 

geographic area designated for 

measurement (like county or borough) 

where fewer than three cell sites are 

deployed and any community, or part of 

a community, where at least three cell 

sites are not viewable to a handset.’’ 

Finally, a number of commenters 

support the creation of an industry 

advisory group to further study and 

provide recommendations related to 

location accuracy. 

42. In a later filed ex parte, T-Mobile 

stated that it would agree to comply 

with the NENA/APCO/AT&T Aug. 25 

Ex Parte for network-based carriers, 

with the following modifications. 

First, ‘‘[w]hen using network-based 

measurements as a component of the 

county-level compliance calculation 

(i.e., if the carrier is using network-only 

measurements or blending network and 

A–GPS measurements),’’ the 

Commission should permit the carrier to 

‘‘exclude that county if it has fewer than 

3 cell sites.’’ 

Second, the Commission should 

‘‘[p]ermit a carrier to use ‘‘blending’’ as 

well as ‘‘network-only’’ measurements at 

the first benchmark.’’ 

Third, the Commission should 

‘‘[a]llow a carrier to comply with the 

Year-5 (third) benchmark using only 

handset-based measurements so long as 

it has achieved at least 85% (rather than 

95%) AGPS handset penetration among 

its subscribers.’’ 

In response, RCA ‘‘expressed its 

support’’ for the exclusion of counties 

with less than three cell sites, and 

APCO and NENA submitted a joint 

letter supporting T-Mobile’s 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70611 

modifications, and urging prompt 

resolution of this proceeding. 

43. Discussion. As with the county 

level location accuracy proposal 

received from handset-based carriers, 

we find that the NENA, APCO, and 

AT&T proposals, as modified by the 

T-Mobile Ex Parte, represent a 

consensus from important E911 

stakeholders, which comprehensively 

addresses location accuracy criteria in 

connection with network-based 

technologies. We find that these 

proposals ensure that carriers using 

network-based location technologies are 

subject to appropriate and consistent 

compliance methodology that no longer 

may be based on nationwide averaging. 

Also like the handset-based consensus, 

the proposals represent an 

acknowledgment by members of both 

the public safety and commercial 

communities that they can address the 

critical need to provide public safety 

agencies with meaningful information 

in the event of an emergency in a 

technically achievable manner. We 

reject earlier proposals by T-Mobile and 

RCA that would extend the compliance 

benchmarks. We agree with NENA and 

APCO, and find that extending the 

compliance benchmarks would disserve 

the important public safety goals of this 

proceeding. Consistent with the views 

of AT&T, we find that the proposed 

compliance timeframes, limitations, and 

exemptions will allow carriers a 

sufficient measure of flexibility to 

account for technical and cost-related 

concerns. 

44. We also find that the T-Mobile Ex 

Parte includes modifications that are 

reasonable under the circumstances. 

First, in regard to T-Mobile’s request to 

exclude counties with fewer than three 

cell sites, we note that it is not 

technically possible for a carrier to 

triangulate a caller’s location with only 

one or two cell sites. Moreover, we are 

concerned that the absence of an 

appropriate exception may have the 

unintended consequence of carriers 

choosing to eliminate service where 

they are unable to triangulate position. 

In such circumstances, clearly the 

availability of wireless service to enable 

a caller to reach 911 in the first instance 

outweighs the potential lack of ALI 

capability, at least until blending of 

A–GPS-enabled handsets permits ALI. 

At the same time, we want to make sure 

that any exclusion we adopt is (1) not 

overly or unnecessarily employed, (2) 

specifically targeted to the inability, as 

a technical matter, to determine position 

through triangulation, and (3) timelimited, transparent, and regularly 

revisited. Simply focusing on a countybased exclusion may fail to account for 

all situations. A county-based exclusion 

may be over-inclusive by failing to 

account for cell sites outside a county 

that can be used to triangulate. Some 

counties, boroughs, parishes, etc. may 

be so large that, even though containing 

three or more cell sites, may still present 

technical challenges in achieving ALI. 

This can occur when cell sites are 

configured to provide coverage to 

specific communities that are at great 

distances from each other, or where 

mountainous or other terrain features 

prohibit triangulation of cell sites that 

absent such features could permit 

triangulation. On the other hand, 

triangulation may be possible in only 

certain portions of a county, or due to 

the proximity of towers available in an 

adjacent county. All the while, the need 

for this exclusion specific to networkbased location technologies should 

diminish over time as carriers blend 

A–GPS handsets into their customer 

base. 

45. Accordingly, we will permit 

network-based carriers to exclude from 

compliance particular counties, or 

portions of counties, where 

triangulation is not technically possible, 

such as locations where at least three 

cell sites are not sufficiently visible to 

a handset. Similar to the 15 percent 

county exclusion we permit for handsetbased carriers above, in order to ensure 

that the public safety community and 

the general public are aware of these 

instances where carriers cannot meet 

the Phase II location accuracy 

requirements, and prevent overuse of 

this exclusion, we will require carriers 

to file a list of those specific counties, 

or portions thereof, where they are 

utilizing this exclusion, within ninety 

days following approval from OMB for 

the related information collection. This 

list must be submitted electronically 

into the docket of this proceeding, and 

copies sent to NENA, APCO, and 

NASNA in paper or electronic form. 

Further, carriers must submit in the 

same manner any changes to their 

exclusion lists within thirty days of 

discovering such changes. 

46. At the same time, we find it 

appropriate to place a time limit on this 

exclusion, because the need for this 

exclusion will diminish over time as 

network-based carriers incorporate 

A–GPS handsets into their subscriber 

bases. Accordingly, we will sunset this 

exclusion eight years after the effective 

date of this Order. Eight years following 

the effective date is the period of time 

by which the revised network-based 

requirements become fully effective. 

Network-based carriers that continue to 

lack the technical ability to triangulate 

position in certain areas upon the sunset 

date may seek extended relief from the 

Commission at that time. We find that 

permitting this exclusion, subject to the 

initial reporting requirement, the 

obligation to update the list of excluded 

areas, and the sunset period, properly 

but narrowly accounts for the known 

technical limitations of network-based 

location accuracy technologies, while 

ensuring that the public safety 

community and the public at large are 

sufficiently informed of these 

limitations. 

47. T-Mobile also requests that the 

Commission ‘‘[p]ermit a carrier to use 

‘blending’ as well as ‘network-only’ 

measurements at the first benchmark.’’ 

We find that in terms of the blending 

element, there is no reason to 

differentiate among the compliance 

mechanisms for the three benchmarks. 

Thus, we will permit a carrier to blend 

accuracy data from both a networkbased solution and a handset-based 

solution to meet the network-based 

standard at the first benchmark. Lastly, 

T-Mobile requests that the Commission 

‘‘[a]llow a carrier the option to comply 

with the Year 5 (third) benchmark using 

only handset-based measurements so 

long as it has achieved at least 85% 

(rather than 95%) A–GPS handset 

penetration among its subscribers.’’ We 

agree with T-Mobile that this approach 

‘‘is more consistent with a phased 

transition to 95% A–GPS handset 

penetration over the entire 8-year 

period.’’ We also note that without this 

modification, a carrier’s percentage of 

low-end customers could significantly 

affect its ability to meet the benchmarks. 

As T-Mobile and RCA point out, ‘‘[l]owend customers are less likely to move 

rapidly to the new 3G services and 

A–GPS handsets.’’ Accordingly, we will 

permit a network-based carrier to 

comply with the third benchmark using 

only handset-based measurements, as 

long as it has achieved at least 85% 

A–GPS handset penetration among its 

subscribers. 

48. Taking into consideration our 

goals for this proceeding and the entire 

record, we amend the network-based 

location accuracy rules consistent with 

the NENA, APCO and AT&T proposals, 

as modified by the T-Mobile Ex Parte, 

and as modified as discussed above 

with respect to the permitted exclusions 

where triangulation is not technically 

achievable. Accordingly, we require 

wireless licensees subject to section 

20.18(h) of the Commission’s rules 

using network-based location 

technology to satisfy these standards 

either at a county-based or PSAP-based 

geographic level. We clarify that these 

standards apply to outdoor 

measurements only. As described above, 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
70612 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

and modified by the T-Mobile Ex Parte, 

we will also allow accuracy data from 

both a network-based solution and a 

handset-based solution to be blended to 

meet the network-based standard. We 

agree with AT&T that allowing this type 

of blending can mitigate perceived 

challenges associated with providing 

accurate location identification in 

certain areas. As before concerning the 

handset-based requirements, we expect 

that carriers failing to meet any 

particular benchmark will promptly 

inform the Commission and submit an 

appropriately supported waiver request. 

Further, we will monitor progress at 

each benchmark and may request status 

information if necessary. 

49. Finally, as we previously noted, 

AT&T commits to creating an ETAG that 

would further examine related E911 

issues. We encourage this effort, as well 

as Verizon’s offer to convene an 

industry group to explore location 

accuracy for indoor calls as discussed 

above. Our companion FNPRM/NOI 

also seeks comment on these issues. 

D. Confidence and Uncertainty Data 

50. In the NPRM, we tentatively 

concluded that carriers should 

automatically provide accuracy data to 

PSAPs. We asked how and in what 

format that data should be transferred to 

each applicable PSAP. We also asked 

how often it should be reported or 

provided and whether it should be 

provided as part of the call information/ 

ALI. Finally, we asked what the 

appropriate level of granularity for such 

accuracy data should be. 

51. NENA, APCO, and AT&T include 

in their ex parte submission a proposal 

with respect to the provision of 

confidence and uncertainty data to 

PSAPs. Specifically: 

Confidence and uncertainty data shall 

be provided on a per call basis upon 

PSAP request. This requirement shall 

begin at the end of Year 2, to allow 

testing to establish baseline confidence 

and uncertainty levels at the county 

level. Once a carrier has established 

baseline confidence and uncertainty 

levels in a county, ongoing accuracy 

shall be monitored based on the 

trending of uncertainty data and 

additional testing shall not be required. 

52. This proposal is widely welcomed 

by the public safety community, as well 

as by representatives of industry. In its 

original request for declaratory ruling, 

APCO stated, ‘‘[r]egardless of the 

geographic area over which accuracy is 

measured, it is critical for PSAPs to 

know just how accurate the information 

is that they do receive.’’ APCO later 

explained: 

PSAPs need to know the level of E9– 

1–1 accuracy to facilitate appropriate 

dispatching of emergency responders. 

For example, responders need to know 

what to do if they arrive at the ‘‘wrong 

address’’ or are unable to see the 

emergency upon arrival. If the call was 

delivered with a high degree of 

accuracy, the search for the actual 

emergency can be narrowed without 

requiring additional personnel. 

However, if the accuracy levels are 

actually low, then responders need to be 

prepared for a wider area search, and 

additional scarce resources may need to 

be dispatched. APCO and NENA also 

stress that providing confidence and 

uncertainty data on a per call basis ‘‘will 

greatly improve the ability of PSAPs to 

utilize accuracy data and manage their 

9–1–1 calls.’’ Industry representatives 

have similarly expressed the importance 

of confidence and uncertainty data. In 

this respect, we agree with AT&T that 

‘‘the delivery of confidence and 

uncertainty data on a per-call basis will 

markedly improve 911 call takers’ 

ability to assess the validity of each 

call’s location information and deploy 

public safety resources accordingly.’’ 

Sprint Nextel notes that ‘‘the uncertainty 

factor provides PSAPs with real time 

information about the quality of location 

calculation and removes the need to 

make their own assessment regarding 

the relative reliability of any particular 

fix.’’ 

53. Comments. AT&T argues that 

‘‘wireless carriers are well positioned to 

develop and transmit C/U data, and our 

discussions with public safety 

organizations have made clear that, by 

enabling first responders to more 

accurately identify the relevant search 

data, the data can be very useful for 

PSAPs that are equipped to receive and 

utilize it.’’ AT&T adds that ‘‘it is 

important that the C/U data delivered by 

carriers adhere to a single, common 

standard * * * AT&T and other carriers 

have reached consensus that uncertainty 

estimates will be provided by carriers at 

a confidence level corresponding to one 

standard deviation (‘one sigma’) from 

the mean’’ (or a confidence level of 

approximately 68 percent). Sprint 

Nextel supports the proposal to transmit 

confidence and uncertainty data upon 

PSAP request, but states that this is 

dependent on LECs forwarding this data 

to PSAPs and that ‘‘the Commission 

must require owners of E911 networks 

to take the steps necessary to 

accommodate such data.’’ AT&T 

likewise notes that, ‘‘for the data to 

provide value * * * the local exchange 

carrier must deliver that [confidence 

and uncertainty] data to the PSAP, and 

the PSAP must be equipped to receive 

and use it.’’ Verizon states that ‘‘in some 

cases, the emergency services provider 

does not have the capability to transmit 

confidence and uncertainty 

information’’ and that the Commission 

should ‘‘require wireless carriers to 

include confidence and uncertainty 

information in the call location 

information they provide to the 

emergency services providers.’’ NENA 

and APCO state that ‘‘[f]or those [System 

Service Providers] who do not pass 

uncertainty data to PSAPs, the burden 

should be on the SSP to demonstrate 

that they do not pass uncertainty data at 

the request of the PSAP or because of 

technical infeasibility, in which case a 

waiver may be warranted.’’ However, 

Telecommunications Systems, Inc. 

states that the Commission should 

‘‘reject the unspoken mandate to require 

extensive initial baseline ground truth 

testing and examine the benefits of 

using horizontal uncertainty as the 

initial and primary criteria for meeting 

location accuracy standards and the 

location information provided to 

PSAPs.’’ 

54. Discussion. Regardless of whether 

a carrier employs handset-based or 

network-based location technology, we 

require wireless carriers to provide 

confidence and uncertainty data on a 

per call basis upon PSAP request 

beginning at the end of year two. 

Although the NENA, APCO and AT&T 

proposal specifically applies to 

network-based location technologies, 

the record supports a finding that 

confidence and uncertainty data is 

useful for PSAPs in all cases, and that 

it is both technologically feasible and in 

the public interest to require both 

handset-based and network-based 

carriers to provide confidence and 

uncertainty data in the manner 

proposed. Further, as 

Telecommunications Systems, Inc. 

notes in its comments, implementation 

of its proposed alternative process 

would require ‘‘further cooperative 

study.’’ We thus decline to adopt its 

proposal, but do not preclude future 

consideration. 

55. In addition, in light of the 

importance and usefulness of 

confidence and uncertainty data to 

public safety as demonstrated in the 

record, we take additional steps to 

ensure that the requirements we impose 

on wireless carriers are meaningful. 

Thus, to ensure that confidence and 

uncertainty data is made available to 

requesting PSAPs, we also require 

entities responsible for transporting this 

data between the wireless carriers and 

PSAPs, including LECs, CLECs, owners 

of E911 networks, and emergency 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70613 

service providers (collectively, System 

Service Providers (SSPs)), to implement 

any modifications to enable the 

transmission of confidence and 

uncertainty data provided by wireless 

carriers to the requesting PSAPs. 

Additionally, we agree with APCO and 

NENA that an SSP that does not pass 

confidence and uncertainty data to 

PSAPs must demonstrate in a request 

for waiver relief that it cannot pass this 

data to the PSAPs due to technical 

infeasibility. 

E. Waiver Requests 

56. Some commenters recommended 

specific criteria for Tier III carrier 

waivers. We decline at this time to 

adopt any changes to the Commission’s 

existing waiver criteria, which have 

been sufficient to date in addressing 

particular circumstances on a case-bycase basis and remain available to all 

carriers. Further, we expect that the rule 

changes we adopt today should 

minimize the need for waiver relief. For 

handset-based carriers, we are 

permitting an exclusion of fifteen 

percent of counties due to heavy 

forestation and similar terrain features 

that impede the ability to obtain 

accurate location information. For 

network-based carriers, we are 

permitting exclusion of counties or 

portions of counties where cell site 

triangulation is not technically possible. 

In addition, the revised benchmarks are 

based on an eight-year compliance 

period, with the earliest benchmark not 

taking effect until one year following the 

effective date of this Order. Finally, we 

make clear that the revised location 

accuracy requirements do not apply to 

indoor use cases. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

57. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

was incorporated into the Notice. The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the possible significant 

economic impact on small entities 

regarding the proposals addressed in the 

Notice, including comments on the 

IFRA. Pursuant to the RFA, a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is set 

forth in Appendix B of the Second 

Report and Order. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis 

58. This document contains proposed 

new information collection 

requirements. The Commission, as part 

of its continuing effort to reduce 

paperwork burdens, invites the general 

public and the OMB to comment on the 

information collection requirements 

contained in this document, as required 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

C. Congressional Review Act 

59. The Commission will send a copy 

of this Second Report and Order in a 

report to be sent to Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

pursuant to the Congressional Review 

Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

D. Accessible Formats 

60. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

Contact the FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations for filing comments 

(accessible format documents, sign 

language interpreters, CARTS, etc.) by 

e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov; phone: (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

V. Ordering Clauses 

61. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 332 of 

the Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 332, 

that the Second Report and Order in PS 

Docket No. 07 114 IS ADOPTED, and 

that part 20 of the Commission’s rules, 

47 CFR Part 20, is amended as set forth 

in Appendix C. The Second Report and 

Order shall become effective 60 days 

after publication in the Federal 

Register, subject to OMB approval for 

new information collection 

requirements. 

62. It is further ordered that the 

Request for Declaratory Ruling filed by 

APCO is granted in part and denied in 

part to the extent indicated herein. 

63. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Second Report and Order, including 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20 

Communications common carriers, 

Communications equipment, Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as 

follows: 

PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE 

RADIO SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 20 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251– 

254, 303, and 332 unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Section 20.18(h) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 20.18 911 Service. 

* * * * * 

(h) Phase II accuracy. Licensees 

subject to this section shall comply with 

the following standards for Phase II 

location accuracy and reliability, to be 

tested and measured either at the county 

or at the PSAP service area geographic 

level, based on outdoor measurements 

only: 

(1) Network-based technologies: 

(i) 100 meters for 67 percent of calls, 

consistent with the following 

benchmarks: 

(A) One year from January 18, 2011, 

carriers shall comply with this standard 

in 60 percent of counties or PSAP 

service areas. These counties or PSAP 

service areas must cover at least 70 

percent of the population covered by the 

carrier across its entire network. 

Compliance will be measured on a percounty or per-PSAP basis using, at the 

carrier’s election, either 

(1) Network-based accuracy data, or 

(2) Blended reporting as provided in 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(B) Three years from January 18, 2011, 

carriers shall comply with this standard 

in 70 percent of counties or PSAP 

service areas. These counties or PSAP 

service areas must cover at least 80 

percent of the population covered by the 

carrier across its entire network. 

Compliance will be measured on a percounty or per-PSAP basis using, at the 

carrier’s election, either 

(1) Network-based accuracy data, or 

(2) Blended reporting as provided in 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(C) Five years from January 18, 2011, 

carriers shall comply with this standard 

in 100% of counties or PSAP service 

areas covered by the carrier. Compliance 

will be measured on a per-county or 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
70614 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

per-PSAP basis, using, at the carrier’s 

election, either 

(1) Network-based accuracy data, 

(2) Blended reporting as provided in 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section, or 

(3) Handset-based accuracy data as 

provided in paragraph (h)(1)(v) of this 

section. 

(ii) 300 meters for 90 percent of calls, 

consistent with the following 

benchmarks: 

(A) Three years from January 18, 

2011, carriers shall comply with this 

standard in 60 percent of counties or 

PSAP service areas. These counties or 

PSAP service areas must cover at least 

70 percent of the population covered by 

the carrier across its entire network. 

Compliance will be measured on a percounty or per-PSAP basis using, at the 

carrier’s election, either 

(1) Network-based accuracy data, or 

(2) Blended reporting as provided in 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(B) Five years from January 18, 2011, 

carriers shall comply in 70 percent of 

counties or PSAP service areas. These 

counties or PSAP service areas must 

cover at least 80 percent of the 

population covered by the carrier across 

its entire network. Compliance will be 

measured on a per-county or per-PSAP 

basis using, at the carrier’s election, 

either 

(1) Network-based accuracy data, or 

(2) Blended reporting as provided in 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section. 

(C) Eight years from January 18, 2011, 

carriers shall comply in 85 percent of 

counties or PSAP service areas. 

Compliance will be measured on a percounty or per-PSAP basis using, at the 

carrier’s election, either 

(1) Network-based accuracy data, 

(2) Blended reporting as provided in 

paragraph (h)(1)(iv) of this section, or 

(3) Handset-based accuracy data as 

provided in paragraph (h)(1)(v) of this 

section. 

(iii) County-level or PSAP-level 

location accuracy standards for 

network-based technologies will be 

applicable to those counties or PSAP 

service areas, on an individual basis, in 

which a network-based carrier has 

deployed Phase II in at least one cell site 

located within a county’s or PSAP 

service area’s boundary. Compliance 

with the requirements of paragraph 

(h)(1)(i) and paragraph (h)(1)(ii) of this 

section shall be measured and reported 

independently. 

(iv) Accuracy data from both networkbased solutions and handset-based 

solutions may be blended to measure 

compliance with the accuracy 

requirements of paragraph (h)(1)(i)(A) 

through (C) and paragraph (h)(1)(ii)(A) 

through (C) of this section. Such 

blending shall be based on weighting 

accuracy data in the ratio of assisted 

GPS (‘‘A–GPS’’) handsets to non-A–GPS 

handsets in the carrier’s subscriber base. 

The weighting ratio shall be applied to 

the accuracy data from each solution 

and measured against the network-based 

accuracy requirements of paragraph 

(h)(1) of this section. 

(v) A carrier may rely solely on 

handset-based accuracy data in any 

county or PSAP service area if at least 

85 percent of its subscribers, networkwide, use A–GPS handsets, or if it offers 

A–GPS handsets to subscribers in that 

county or PSAP service area at no cost 

to the subscriber. 

(vi) A carrier may exclude from 

compliance particular counties, or 

portions of counties, where 

triangulation is not technically possible, 

such as locations where at least three 

cell sites are not sufficiently visible to 

a handset. Carriers must file a list of the 

specific counties or portions of counties 

where they are utilizing this exclusion 

within 90 days following approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

for the related information collection. 

This list must be submitted 

electronically into PS Docket No. 07– 

114, and copies must be sent to the 

National Emergency Number 

Association, the Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, and the National 

Association of State 9–1–1 

Administrators. Further, carriers must 

submit in the same manner any changes 

to their exclusion lists within thirty 

days of discovering such changes. This 

exclusion will sunset on [8 years after 

effective date]. 

(2) Handset-based technologies: 

(i) Two years from January 18, 2011, 

50 meters for 67 percent of calls, and 

150 meters for 80 percent of calls, on a 

per-county or per-PSAP basis. However, 

a carrier may exclude up to 15 percent 

of counties or PSAP service areas from 

the 150 meter requirement based upon 

heavy forestation that limits handsetbased technology accuracy in those 

counties or PSAP service areas. 

(ii) Eight years from January 18, 2011, 

50 meters for 67 percent of calls, and 

150 meters for 90 percent of calls, on a 

per-county or per-PSAP basis. However, 

a carrier may exclude up to 15 percent 

of counties or PSAP service areas from 

the 150 meter requirement based upon 

heavy forestation that limits handsetbased technology accuracy in those 

counties or PSAP service areas. 

(iii) Carriers must file a list of the 

specific counties or PSAP service areas 

where they are utilizing the exclusion 

for heavy forestation within 90 days 

following approval from the Office of 

Management and Budget for the related 

information collection. This list must be 

submitted electronically into PS Docket 

No. 07–114, and copies must be sent to 

the National Emergency Number 

Association, the Association of PublicSafety Communications OfficialsInternational, and the National 

Association of State 9–1–1 

Administrators. Further, carriers must 

submit in the same manner any changes 

to their exclusion lists within thirty 

days of discovering such changes. 

(3) Confidence and uncertainty data: 

Two years after January 18, 2011, all 

carriers subject to this section shall be 

required to provide confidence and 

uncertainty data on a per-call basis 

upon the request of a PSAP. Once a 

carrier has established baseline 

confidence and uncertainty levels in a 

county or PSAP service area, ongoing 

accuracy shall be monitored based on 

the trending of uncertainty data and 

additional testing shall not be required. 

All entities responsible for transporting 

confidence and uncertainty between 

wireless carriers and PSAPs, including 

LECs, CLECs, owners of E911 networks, 

and emergency service providers 

(collectively, System Service Providers 

(SSPs)) must implement any 

modifications that will enable the 

transmission of confidence and 

uncertainty data provided by wireless 

carriers to the requesting PSAP. If an 

SSP does not pass confidence and 

uncertainty data to PSAPs, the SSP has 

the burden of proving that it is 

technically infeasible for it to provide 

such data. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–29007 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 0910131363–0087–02] 

RIN 0648–XA048 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pacific Cod by 

Catcher Vessels Greater Than or Equal 

to 60 Feet (18.3 Meters) Length Overall 

Using Pot Gear in the Bering Sea and 

Aleutian Islands Management Area 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES