Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Service Providers, 67321-67333 [2010-27579]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67321-67333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27579]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 9 and 20

[Docket No. 07-114; WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 10-177]


Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; E911 Requirements 
for IP-Enabled Service Providers

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to seek comment on improving 
the Commission's existing Enhanced 911 (E911) rules to further improve 
the location capability of 911 and E911 services for existing and new 
voice communications technologies, including new broadband technologies 
associated with deployment of Next Generation 911 (NG911) networks.

DATES: Submit comments on or before January 3, 2011. Submit reply 
comments on or before January 31, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114 
and WC Docket No. 05-196, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments 
on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
     People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request 
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: (202) 
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
    For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Donovan, Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-2413, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; or via the 
Internet to Patrick.Donovan@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    1. As mobile communications technology evolves, one of the great 
potential benefits it provides is to enhance the public's ability to 
contact emergency services personnel during times of crisis. To ensure 
this benefit is realized, such technology must enable public safety 
personnel to obtain accurate information regarding the location of the 
caller. The Commission's existing Enhanced 911 (E911) rules require 
wireless carriers to meet standards for provision of location 
information when emergency calls are made via mobile telephone 
networks. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) and 
Notice of Inquiry (NOI), as recommended in the National Broadband Plan, 
we explore how to further improve the location capability of 911 and 
E911 services for existing and new voice communications technologies, 
including new broadband technologies associated with deployment of Next 
Generation 911 (NG911) networks. Our aim is to ensure that the 
Commission is doing everything within its power, in conjunction with 
the public safety community and service providers, to ensure that 
Americans have access to the most forward-thinking technologically 
advanced emergency response systems in the world.
    2. Today we take additional steps to improve wireless E911 location 
accuracy and reliability by examining

[[Page 67322]]

the next stage of potential regulations that would be commensurate with 
the surge in wireless usage, encompassing additional voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) and wireless services, devices, and 
applications. In this FNPRM and NOI, we seek comment on several issues 
with regard to amending the Commission's wireless 911 and E911 
requirements and extending 911 and E911 requirements to additional VoIP 
and wireless services. In our continuing endeavor to ensure that 
wireless E911 service meets the needs of the American people and public 
safety, we request comment on the ongoing evolution in the use of 
wireless devices and the development of location technologies. As 
recommended in the National Broadband Plan, the issues we examine also 
address the impact of NG911 deployment on 911 and E911 location 
accuracy requirements. NG911 will integrate the core functions and 
capabilities of E911 while adding new 911 capabilities in multiple 
formats, such as texting, photos, video and e-mail. This will vastly 
improve the quality and speed of response, and provide a more 
interoperable and integrated emergency response capability for PSAPs, 
first responders, hospitals and other emergency response professionals.
    3. First, in the FNPRM, we seek comment on proposals to improve 
wireless location accuracy. In this regard, the FNPRM builds upon the 
second part of the preceding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the 
Commission released on June 1, 2007 and published in the Federal 
Register at 72 FR 33948, Jun. 20, 2007. We seek comment on a number of 
issues initially raised in the Location Accuracy NPRM, including: 
Whether we should consider more stringent location parameters in 
Section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules, which specifies the 
standards for wireless E911 Phase II location accuracy and reliability; 
what methodology carriers should employ to verify compliance, both 
initially and during ongoing testing; the format in which accuracy data 
should be automatically provided to PSAPs; how to address location 
accuracy while roaming; how location information and accuracy can be 
improved in more challenging environments; and whether location 
accuracy standards should include an elevation (Z-axis) component.
    4. In the NOI, we request comment on whether we should require 
interconnected VoIP service providers to automatically identify the 
geographic location of a customer without the customer's active 
cooperation. We also seek comment on what E911 obligations, if any, 
should apply to VoIP services that are not fully interconnected to the 
public switched telephone network (PSTN). Additionally, we seek comment 
on the impact of NG911 developments on location accuracy and automatic 
location identification (ALI). Finally, we request comment on the 
applicability of 911 and E911 requirements to additional wireless 
communications services, devices and applications.

II. Background

    5. In this section, we review the prior Commission actions leading 
up to the present rules and proposals concerning 911 and E911 
requirements for wireless and VoIP services. The Commission has adopted 
rules requiring commercial wireless carriers to provide both basic 911 
service, which connects the caller to a PSAP, and E911 service, which 
provides call-back and location information. The E911 information 
requirements consist of two parts: Phase I--which requires wireless 
carriers to deliver to a PSAP the telephone number of the wireless 911 
caller and the location of the cell site or base station that received 
the call, and Phase II--which requires wireless carriers to provide the 
location (latitude and longitude) of the caller within particular 
accuracy parameters, depending on the location technology that the 
carriers have chosen. In its initial E911 Report and Order, released on 
July 26, 1996 and published in the Federal Register at 61 FR 40374, 
Aug. 2, 1996, the Commission adopted Section 20.18(h), which specifies 
the accuracy requirements for the provision of E911 by wireless 
carriers. As amended by today's Second Report and Order, Section 
20.18(h) requires licensees subject to the wireless E911 requirements, 
to ultimately comply with the following Phase II location accuracy and 
reliability standards at the county or PSAP service area level, based 
on certain benchmarks, limitations, and exclusions: For network-based 
technologies: 100 Meters for 67 percent of calls, 300 meters for 90 
percent of calls; for handset-based technologies: 50 Meters for 67 
percent of calls, 150 meters for 90 percent of calls.
    6. In April 2000, the Commission's Office of Engineering and 
Technology (OET) issued Bulletin No. 71 to provide assistance in 
determining whether wireless licensees comply with the accuracy 
standards set by the Commission. The OET Bulletin did not establish 
mandatory procedures; rather, it stated that compliance with the OET 
guidelines would establish ``a strong presumption that appropriate 
means have been applied to ensure that an ALI system complies with the 
Commission's rules.'' The OET Bulletin sets forth the Commission's 
expectations regarding location accuracy measurement and testing.
    7. In June 2005, the Commission released a First Report and Order 
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (VoIP 911 Order and VoIP 911 NPRM), 
published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 37273, Jun. 29, 2005, and 
adopting rules requiring providers of interconnected VoIP service to 
supply E911 capabilities to their customers as a standard feature from 
wherever the customer is using the service. The rules adopted by the 
VoIP 911 Order apply only to providers of interconnected VoIP services, 
which are services that (1) enable real-time, two-way voice 
communications; (2) require a broadband connection from the user's 
location; (3) require Internet protocol-compatible customer premises 
equipment (CPE); and (4) permit users generally to receive calls that 
originate on the PSTN and to terminate calls to the PSTN. 
Interconnected VoIP service providers generally must provide consumers 
with E911 service and transmit all 911 calls, including Automatic 
Number Identification (ANI) and the caller's Registered Location for 
each call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, 
or appropriate local emergency authority.
    8. In the VoIP 911 Order, the Commission stated its intent to adopt 
a future order containing an advanced E911 solution for portable 
interconnected VoIP service, which would include a method for 
determining a user's location without assistance from the user as well 
as a firm implementation deadline. To that end, the VoIP 911 NPRM 
sought comment on what additional steps should be taken to determine 
whether there may be ways to automatically identify the location of a 
user of a portable interconnected VoIP service, whether to extend the 
requirements to other VoIP services, such as services that are not 
fully interconnected to the PSTN but may permit users to make calls to 
or receive calls from landline and mobile phones, whether providers of 
wireless interconnected VoIP service would be more appropriately 
subject to the existing commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) 911/E911 
rules (contained in Part 20), and whether there are any steps the 
Commission should take to ensure that people with disabilities who 
desire to use interconnected VoIP service can obtain access to E911 
services.

[[Page 67323]]

    9. In June 2007, the Commission released the Location Accuracy NPRM 
seeking comment on several issues relating to wireless E911 location 
accuracy and reliability requirements, in addition to the issue that we 
address in the companion Second Report and Order, i.e. the geographic 
level at which wireless licensees have to meet the location accuracy 
requirements under Section 20.18(h). The Commission requested comment 
on these additional issues to ensure that wireless E911 service meets 
the needs of public safety and the American people, while taking into 
account the evolution in the use of wireless devices and the further 
development of location technologies. Specifically, the Commission 
sought comment on the capabilities and limitations of existing and new 
location technologies, the advantages of combining handset-based and 
network-based location technologies (a hybrid solution), the prospect 
of adopting more stringent location accuracy requirements, and 
compliance testing methodologies in regard to different environments, 
such as indoor versus outdoor use and rural areas. Also, the Commission 
invited comment on how to address location accuracy issues for 911 
calls placed when roaming, particularly between carriers employing 
different location technologies. Further, the Commission requested 
comment on a number of tentative conclusions and proposals, including 
establishing a single location accuracy standard rather than the 
separate accuracy requirements for network and handset-based 
technologies, adopting a mandatory schedule for accuracy testing, and 
applying the same location accuracy standards that apply to circuit-
switched CMRS services to interconnected VoIP services used in more 
than one location.
    10. In response to the Location Accuracy NPRM, a number of parties 
filed comments, including public safety organizations, commercial 
carriers, and location technology vendors. Comments regarding the 
prospect of adopting of a single location accuracy requirement varied, 
with some supporting an open forum to gather more information. In 
regard to the impact of advances in location technologies and the use 
of hybrid technologies on location accuracy, commenters noted the 
benefits and drawbacks of the underlying technologies for handset-based 
and network-based solutions. Commenters provided a variety of specific 
suggestions regarding whether more stringent accuracy requirements 
should be adopted. Also, commenters addressed whether the Commission 
should adopt different standards based on topographical environments. 
Some commenters supported the inclusion of elevation standards and 
others believed that there must be more research and development 
conducted before the Commission adopts standards for indoor settings, 
particularly in regard to high-rise buildings.
    11. In October 2008, the Commission released a Report and Order 
(NET 911 Improvement Act Report and Order) adopting rules providing 
``interconnected VoIP providers rights of access to any and all 
capabilities necessary to provide 911 and E911 service from entities 
that own or control those capabilities.'' In the NET 911 Improvement 
Act Report and Order, the Commission declined to ``issue highly 
detailed rules listing capabilities or entities with ownership or 
control of these capabilities'' because the nation's 911 system varies 
depending on the locality and ``overly specific rules would fail to 
reflect these local variations.'' The Commission also declined ``to 
expand the applicability of the rights granted in the NET 911 Act to 
entities beyond those encompassed within that statute.''
    12. In April 2009, we released a public notice seeking nominations 
for membership on the Communications Security, Reliability, and 
Interoperability Council (CSRIC). CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee 
that provides guidance and expertise on the nation's communications 
infrastructure and public safety communications. The committee's duties 
include recommending best practices and actions the Commission can take 
to ensure the security, reliability, operability and interoperability 
of public safety communications systems, and improve reliability and 
resiliency of communications infrastructure. One of the Working Groups 
within CSRIC, Group 4C--Technical Options for E911 Location Accuracy, 
is responsible for examining E911 and public safety location 
technologies in use today, identifying current performance and 
limitations for use in next generation public safety applications, 
examining emerging E911 public safety location technologies, and 
recommending options to CSRIC for the improvement of E911 location 
accuracy timelines.
    13. On March 16, 2010, the Commission delivered to Congress the 
National Broadband Plan in which it stated that the Commission should 
examine approaches for leveraging broadband technologies to enhance 
emergency communications with the public by moving towards NG911, 
because NG911 will provide a ``more interoperable and integrated 
emergency response capability for PSAPs, first responders, hospitals 
and other emergency response professionals.'' Further, the National 
Broadband Plan notes that the Commission is ``considering changes to 
its location accuracy requirements and the possible extension of * * * 
ALI * * * requirements to interconnected VoIP services,'' and 
recommends that the Commission ``expand [the Location Accuracy NPRM] 
proceeding to explore how NG911 may affect location accuracy and ALI.''

III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    14. As noted at the outset, today we adopted the Location Accuracy 
Second Report and Order that established an eight-year timeframe, 
consisting of interim benchmarks, requiring handset-based and network-
based carriers to meet amended wireless location accuracy requirements 
at the county or PSAP-based level. The rule changes we adopted in this 
companion order complete one of our proceedings and will lead to 
significant improvements in wireless location accuracy, thereby saving 
lives and property and improving emergency response. At the same time, 
we have more work to do to update and complete the remaining inquiries 
initiated by the Commission in 2007 to improve wireless E911 service, 
particularly as wireless communications continue to proliferate as the 
primary or sole means for many Americans to reach 911. Accordingly, 
consistent with our devotion to continually improving public safety and 
homeland security, this FNPRM expands upon the Location Accuracy NPRM, 
in order to ensure that wireless E911 service meets the needs of public 
safety and the American people, while taking into account the evolution 
in the use of wireless devices and the further development of location 
technologies. The following discussion includes proposals for improving 
wireless 911 location accuracy requirements.
    15. Existing and Prospective Location Technologies. We begin by 
seeking current information on the state of wireless location 
technologies, particularly since the Commission explored these issues 
in 2007, as well as in light of market trends resulting in increasing 
consumer adoption of location-based services. We seek to develop a full 
understanding of the capabilities and limitations of existing location 
technologies, as well as any new technologies that may provide 
improvements in location accuracy. In response to the Location Accuracy 
NPRM, a few location technology

[[Page 67324]]

vendors noted that improvements in location accuracy were possible with 
some modifications or additional investment. While the existing 
location accuracy requirements, particularly when complied with at the 
county or PSAP service area level, often provide PSAPs with good 
indications of the location of a 911 caller, the limitations of 
existing location determining technologies in use by carriers can lead 
to variations of up to 300 meters, or more. How can location 
determination be improved upon? Are there existing location 
technologies available today that carriers can immediately adopt? If 
so, what are the relative quantitative advantages versus costs of 
deployment? What new or prospective location technologies might be 
utilized to improve accuracy? What would be the feasibility of 
incorporating newer technologies into wireless networks? What market 
incentives, such as for location-based services, might drive the need 
for improved accuracy technologies, and thus for application to 911? 
Commenters, particularly location technology vendors, should provide 
quantitative data that provides a basis for understanding the relative 
performance capabilities and commercial feasibility of the available 
and prospective location technologies. We also seek information 
concerning whether certain technologies are better suited or targeted 
to perform best in certain environments. As noted above, the CSRIC is 
exploring issues related to wireless location technologies. In this 
regard, we look forward to receiving the recommendations of this 
committee. We also want to ensure that our E911 policies properly 
consider the interests of people living with disabilities. Should we 
make any changes to our rules to better accommodate persons with 
disabilities who use E911 wireless services? Are there technologies 
that can help ensure that E911 services address the interests of those 
living with disabilities?
    16. In today's Location Accuracy Second Report and Order, we also 
adopted confidence and uncertainty requirements sought by the PSAP 
community, which should permit improved expectations concerning the 
location information delivered with wireless 911 calls. How does the 
availability of this information impact the need for changes or 
improvements to location accuracy information?
    17. Potential Modifications to Accuracy Standard. We seek comment 
on whether we should consider changing the current location accuracy 
requirements of Section 20.18(h). Should we modify the current location 
accuracy standard for network-based and handset-based providers? Should 
we adopt a single location accuracy standard, rather than maintaining 
the network/handset distinction? Would a single standard provide more 
consistency for PSAPs? The Commission previously sought comment on 
these issues in the Location Accuracy NPRM. In response, APCO noted 
that it ``agrees with the Commission's inclination to require a 
`uniform accuracy standard at least as stringent as that currently in 
place for handset-based technologies''' and supported ``the 
Commission's desire for even greater accuracy.'' Sprint Nextel argued 
that, ``while a single standard is an admirable goal, the reality is 
that wireless voice service is provided over numerous, ever-increasing 
varieties of networks and technologies.'' T-Mobile stated that, 
``[u]nifying the CMRS accuracy requirements by requiring the network-
based providers to meet handset-based standards would be grossly 
inequitable, ignoring the substantial benefits of network-based 
technologies.'' We now seek to expand and update the record, 
particularly as the CMRS marketplace has evolved over the past few 
years with the deployment of advanced networks and devices.
    18. We also seek comment on whether carriers can employ a 
combination of handset-based and network-based location technologies (a 
hybrid solution), rather than employing one or the other, to achieve 
improved location accuracies. As the Texas 9-1-1 Agencies noted, 
``handset solutions generally work better outdoors and in rural areas, 
while network solutions generally work better indoors and may have 
issues in rural areas.'' TruePosition commented that ``a hybrid 
network-GPS technology consisting of U-TDOA and A-GPS is well within 
the realm of technical feasibility and it would produce enhanced 
location accuracy.'' Another technology vendor, Polaris, argued that 
``a hybrid system is the best long-term approach to improve location 
accuracy and consistency.'' Polaris considers the ideal hybrid solution 
to be ``the pairing of a network-based and a handset-based 
technology,'' which ``leverages the strengths of two highly 
complementary technologies.'' In addition to the use of both handset-
based and network-based technologies in a single solution, what other 
technical features provide an appropriate basis for a definition of 
hybrid solutions? Are hybrid solutions better defined as location 
determination systems that can use multiple position location 
technologies either individually, or in combination, to achieve better 
performance, accuracy, or reliability? Would hybrid technologies 
provide greater location accuracy than either network-based or handset-
based solutions alone? How can hybrid solutions improve location 
performance aspects other than accuracy, such as increased percentage 
yield of success of location determinations? Has the existence of 
different accuracy requirements for handset-based and network-based 
systems influenced the focus and direction of research and development 
in location based services and 911 technology solutions? How does the 
implementation of 3G and 4G networks, services, and devices impact 
wireless E911 requirements? For example, as indicated in today's 
Location Accuracy Second Report and Order, the roll-out of 3G networks 
incorporates A-GPS handsets, which will improve accuracy over time as 
they are blended into each carrier's subscriber base. How else might 
3G, and 4G, technologies lead to improved means or methods of location 
accuracy? Are there any specific ways that burgeoning 4G networks, or 
subsequent technology releases, can be implemented that would achieve 
location benefits? What are 4G industry standards setting bodies 
considering for location identification, and how might such activities 
impact the Commission's flexibility in determining the best solution or 
solutions? Are there ways to provide incentives for wireless carriers 
to exceed the Commission's baseline location accuracy requirements? How 
should the Commission implement a changed location accuracy 
requirement? Should the Commission continue to define a particular 
minimum accuracy requirement, rather than specifying a particular 
solution?
    19. Compliance Testing. We seek to refresh the record on what 
methodology carriers should employ to verify compliance, both initially 
and during ongoing testing. In response to the Location Accuracy NPRM, 
APCO and the Texas 9-1-1 Agencies argued that OET Bulletin No. 71 
should be revised to increase the number of indoor test calls to at 
least 30 percent. According to TruePosition, ``[w]ith consumers 
increasingly substituting wireless devices for wireline service, 
approximately 40%-60% of E911 calls are now made indoors.'' As a 
result, TruePosition argues that ``the Commission's rules should 
require carrier E911 compliance testing to include measurements in 
indoor environments; a carrier's indoor test results for E911 location 
accuracy

[[Page 67325]]

should be weighted in accordance with its estimated percentage of 
indoor E911 calls.'' Qualcomm, however, argued that the Commission 
should neither convert OET Bulletin No. 71 guidelines into 
requirements, nor impose a specified level of indoor testing. According 
to Qualcomm, ``the mandate has always covered 67% and 95% of the calls 
to 911, period. The proportion of mobile phone calls to 911 placed from 
indoors varies from PSAP to PSAP, from town to town, from county to 
county, and from state to state. Accordingly, it would be the height of 
arbitrary decision making for the Commission to pick a particular level 
of indoor testing and to simply impose it, now, over a decade after it 
adopted the original mandate.'' We seek comment on these views.
    20. If we were to require compliance testing, should we use OET 
Bulletin No. 71 as the basis, which provides guidelines for testing and 
verifying the accuracy of wireless E911 location systems to verify 
compliance? Should we make OET Bulletin No. 71 mandatory? Should we 
establish a measurement procedure in our rules for testing and 
verifying the accuracy of wireless E911 location systems? If so, what 
measurement procedure would be appropriate? For example, should our 
rules specify a certain level of indoor versus outdoor testing in order 
to reflect the proportion of indoor versus outdoor use? Should the 
Commission update OET Bulletin No. 71 to include measurements in indoor 
environments? What percentage of wireless 911 calls is made indoors? 
What trends reflect the growing number of indoor 911 calls? How about 
testing in other challenging environments, such as dense urban 
settings, or heavily forested or mountainous terrain? Further, what mix 
of equipment (i.e., carrier-provided handsets, base stations, or other 
facilities) should be employed for accuracy testing? How many test 
points should we require within a PSAP service area and how should the 
test points be distributed? What special considerations, if any, should 
we establish for tests in rural areas? Should we impose other testing 
parameters to accurately assess a consumer's experience when using a 
carrier's E911 service? As an alternative, would it beneficial to 
enable consumers to test wireless 911 and E911 capabilities, such as by 
making test calls and seeing the identified location data, as well as 
the PSAP that would receive the call?
    21. Schedule for Testing. In the Location Accuracy NPRM, the 
Commission tentatively concluded that it would establish a mandatory 
schedule for accuracy testing, and sought comment on the appropriate 
schedule for such testing. Corr Wireless disagreed with the tentative 
conclusion and argued that, ``[t]here is no need for periodic testing 
of E-911 compliance. Once accuracy levels are attained, the level of 
accuracy typically only gets better, not worse.'' Is there any data to 
support this conclusion? We seek to refresh the record on the 
appropriate schedule for accuracy testing and the appropriate 
statistical methodology for determining compliance. Should we require 
testing every two years, as APCO suggested, or should we adopt a 
different schedule? As Phase II service is extended into new areas, at 
what point should carriers be required to conduct compliance testing? 
Should carriers be required to file compliance and maintenance testing 
data with the Commission, one or more national public safety 
organizations (such as NENA, APCO, and NASNA), local PSAPs, or some 
combination of these entities? Should test results be made available to 
the public? Should we treat this information in a confidential manner? 
Should carriers be required to provide consolidated performance 
statistics to illustrate accuracy levels for various topologies or for 
other reasons? Consistent with the Location Accuracy NPRM, we 
tentatively conclude that we should establish a mandatory schedule for 
accuracy testing.
    22. Challenging Environments. We also seek to refresh the record on 
how location information and accuracy can be improved in more 
challenging environments, including indoor settings, urban canyons, 
buildings including high-rises, rural environments characteristic of 
heavy forestation, mountainous terrain, or sparsely located wireless 
towers. Do accuracy needs differ for indoor, outdoor, rural, and urban 
location determinations? Would it be appropriate to establish different 
threshold criteria depending on the environment? For example, whether a 
caller is located deep within a large building, or near a window, might 
have a significant impact on whether it is possible to achieve a 
location fix. How should trends in usage (such as increasing use of 
wireless inside buildings) impact accuracy requirements? What 
expectations do consumers hold in terms of the ability for PSAPs to 
locate them in various environments? Do some technologies perform 
better under certain challenging circumstances? What factors influence 
how well a particular accuracy solution performs? How best can the 
Commission spur innovation in location accuracy in both the short term 
and the future in challenging environments? What is a reasonable 
timeframe for carriers to significantly improve location accuracy in 
challenging environments? Would service providers be sufficiently 
motivated to achieve such improvements absent a regulatory deadline? 
How can technologies combine information from diverse sources, such as 
Wi-Fi access points or other ubiquitous sources, to improve location 
accuracy or other performance characteristics? If a service provider 
provisions Wi-Fi access points for which it knows the address, should 
it use this information in lieu of end user-supplied location 
information? We ask parties to comment on any other potential revisions 
to our current location accuracy requirements that could help carriers 
improve location accuracy in challenging environments.
    23. Vertical Location Information. There has never been a 
requirement for service providers subject to the CMRS 911 rules to 
include vertical or Z-axis information with location data. Of course, a 
third dimension of location information could greatly enhance accuracy, 
and have particular benefit in buildings in terms of identifying the 
floor where the 911 caller is located. We seek comment on how location 
information can include an accurate Z-axis component. In response to 
the Location Accuracy NPRM, APCO argued that, ``the increased use of 
wireless phones in multiple-story buildings also requires potential 
inclusion of elevation information if technologically feasible.'' ATIS 
stated that, ``[c]urrently no industry criterion exists for elevation 
and * * * before such information could be included in the location 
standard, greater research and development must occur.'' The Texas 9-1-
1 Agencies noted that, ``realizing the conceptual potential value of 
elevation, we would like to see more information on how `elevation' 
would specifically be proposed for use in practice at the PSAP before 
it would be considered further to become a requirement.'' What 
technologies incorporate the use of Z-axis components for location 
awareness? What levels of accuracy do these technologies support? Would 
an accuracy requirement for a vertical component need to be stringent 
enough to distinguish building floors? What is the state of industry 
standardization of Z-axis components in geolocation? How should 
evolving standards and consumer expectations guide future rules? If 
handsets employ a vertical sensor, such as an altimeter, how could

[[Page 67326]]

such information be incorporated into location data sent to a PSAP? If 
delivering vertical information were possible, are PSAPs capable of 
using such information and, if not, what would be necessary to enable 
receipt of vertical information? What is a reasonable timeframe for 
carriers to include an accurate Z-axis component with location data? 
Would service providers be sufficiently motivated to implement a 
vertical location component absent a regulatory deadline?
    24. Location Accuracy While Roaming. We next seek to refresh the 
record with regard to location accuracy while roaming. As the 
Commission noted in the Location Accuracy NPRM, we are concerned that a 
wireless caller whose carrier employs one type of location technology 
may not be provided Phase II service at all when roaming on the network 
of another carrier that relies on a different technology, or when there 
is no roaming agreement between carriers using compatible technologies. 
In response to the Location Accuracy NPRM, APCO stated that the 
Commission ``should require that wireless carriers develop a viable 
technical solution to this [roaming] problem by a specific deadline.'' 
NENA stated that, ``[a]s a general matter, NENA believes the obligation 
to deliver 9-1-1 calls should be met for roamers as well as native 
subscribers, no matter what the differences in technologies.'' 
Motorola, however, argued that full, seamless E911 roaming is not 
achievable in near term for carriers deploying disparate technologies. 
Corr Wireless meanwhile argued that while different location 
technologies might not serve the needs of roamers, ``adoption of a 
proposal to mandate AGPS technology * * * would effectively eliminate 
this issue;'' however, it also noted that, ``so long as there are 
incompatible technologies, it would plainly be irrational to expect or 
require carriers to provide a solution to roamers that their network is 
incapable of providing to their own customers.'' How can these issues 
be addressed? Should we require carriers to ensure delivery of location 
information to PSAPs for every call handled on their networks, 
including calls made by customers of another carrier (``roaming 
calls'') that has deployed a different technology in its own network or 
with whom the carrier handling the call has no automatic roaming 
relationship?

IV. Notice of Inquiry

    25. In this NOI, we launch a broader inquiry into how we can ensure 
that providers of VoIP services can offer improved or expanded 911 
service. We begin by focusing on whether we should require providers of 
interconnected VoIP services to provide location information to PSAPs 
without the customer's active cooperation. We also explore whether the 
Commission's 911 and E911 rules should apply to non-interconnected VoIP 
service providers. We next explore how location accuracy and ALI 
requirements will be impacted by the deployment of NG911 systems. 
Finally, we will seek comment on the applicability of 911 and E911 
requirements to additional wireless communications services, devices, 
and applications.

A. 911 and E911 Requirements for VoIP Services

    26. The Commission's E911 rules presently apply to interconnected 
VoIP services, specifically services that (1) enable real-time, two-way 
voice communications; (2) require a broadband connection from the 
user's location; (3) require Internet protocol-compatible customer 
premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permit users generally to receive 
calls that originate on the PSTN and to terminate calls to the PSTN. In 
this section, we explore whether to impose additional requirements upon 
one subset of interconnected VoIP services--those that are portable, or 
``nomadic,'' meaning they can be used from any available broadband 
Internet access service connection.
    27. Automatic Location Identification. The Commission's rules 
currently do not require providers of portable interconnected VoIP 
service to automatically provide location information to PSAPs without 
the customer's active cooperation. In the VoIP 911 NPRM, the Commission 
requested comment on whether there may be ways for portable 
interconnected VoIP service providers to automatically identify the 
geographic location of a customer without the customer's active 
cooperation. In the Location Accuracy NPRM, the Commission tentatively 
concluded that ``to the extent that an interconnected VoIP service may 
be used in more than one location, providers must employ an automatic 
location technology that meets the same accuracy standards that apply 
to those CMRS services.''
    28. Several commenters generally concurred with the Commission's 
tentative conclusion. For example, APCO stated that ``where [an] 
interconnected VoIP service connects to a PSAP through a wireless 
network, then the location information should be delivered in the same 
form as required of other wireless service providers.'' RCA noted that 
it ``supports the position that standards for [VoIP] service should 
remain equivalent to those for CMRS [and it] is both reasonable and 
appropriate that these interconnected services be treated in the same 
manner as competing services.'' However, a number of commenters opposed 
the tentative conclusion. For example, TIA argued that ``if the FCC 
decides to impose similar location accuracy standards on interconnected 
VoIP providers that are applicable to CMRS services, the Commission 
would be forced to regulate the entity providing the broadband Internet 
connection (i.e. restaurants, coffee shops, hotels, municipalities, 
etc.).'' Nokia stated that interconnected VoIP services ``should not be 
subject to the Commission's CMRS E911 location requirements without 
ensuring that time is taken to study location technologies that can be 
used when a wireless 911 call is made using VoIP, standards are 
developed for delivering location technology over the Internet when a 
wireless VoIP 911 call is made, and technologies to be utilized for 
location are tested and finally deployed.'' WCA argued that the 
Commission ``fails to appreciate the enormous technical, operational 
and economic challenges wireless broadband network operators and their 
equipment suppliers will face if [the Commission] prematurely imposes 
ALI and location accuracy requirements on interconnected VoIP service 
without further study.'' A number of commenters recommended that the 
Commission form an advisory committee comprised of Commission staff, 
representatives of the VoIP industry, equipment vendors, state and 
local public safety officials, and consumer groups to study the 
technical, operational and economic issues related to the provision of 
ALI for interconnected VoIP services.
    29. In light of the passage of time, we seek to refresh the record 
and revisit the tentative conclusion from the Location Accuracy NPRM. 
Specifically, what advanced technologies, if any, permit portable 
interconnected VoIP service providers to provide ALI? Have portable 
interconnected VoIP service providers implemented any practices or 
methods to provide ALI? If not, what can the Commission do to 
facilitate the development of techniques for automatically identifying 
the geographic location of users of this service? Should interconnected 
VoIP service providers incorporate an ability to automatically detect a 
user's Internet connectivity, identify a user's location, and prompt a 
user to confirm his/her location, prior to

[[Page 67327]]

enabling calling features? What technologies exist that could locate a 
VoIP user using a standard broadband Internet connection? Should we 
require the automatic detection of a subscriber's location prior to 
enabling calling features for a VoIP service, application, or device? 
Should the Commission clarify that CMRS operators providing 
interconnected VoIP services may deliver location information to a PSAP 
in the same manner as for CMRS, specifically, delivering longitude and 
latitude coordinates to the PSAP in lieu of a street address?
    30. What have PSAPs experienced when VoIP users move to a different 
location and do not update their address? Is this scenario common? When 
it does occur, does the PSAP receive incorrect location information? 
Would requiring interconnected VoIP service providers to provide ALI 
minimize the reporting of erroneous location information, whether 
mistakenly or intentionally? What is the experience of PSAPs in 
receiving incorrect registered location information? How frequently do 
PSAPs receive fraudulent or malicious calls from users of 
interconnected VoIP services that appear to intentionally report false 
registered location information? Do industry standards and commercial 
trends indicate that ALI technologies exist for interconnected VoIP 
services that would be technically feasible and commercially viable? 
What privacy concerns are posed by requiring the automatic detection of 
VoIP users' movement on Internet networks? Should we require that all 
terminal adapters or other equipment used in the provision of portable 
interconnected VoIP service sold as of a certain date be capable of 
providing location information automatically, whether embedded in other 
equipment or sold to customers at a separate price? Under what 
authority could the Commission take such actions? If the Commission 
were to develop an automatic location identification requirement for 
portable interconnected VoIP service providers, should it also 
establish a deadline for compliance and, if so, what should that 
deadline be?
    31. Additional VoIP Services. Thus far, the Commission's VoIP 911 
rules have been limited to providers of interconnected VoIP services. 
Since these rules were adopted, however, there has been a significant 
increase in the availability and use of portable VoIP services and 
applications that do not meet one or more prongs of the interconnected 
VoIP definition. In light of the increase in use of these services, we 
seek comment on whether we should extend 911 and E911 obligations to 
providers of VoIP services that are not currently covered by the rules. 
For instance, what 911/E911 obligations, if any, should apply to VoIP 
services that are not fully interconnected to the PSTN? Specifically, 
should 911/E911 obligations apply to VoIP services that enable users to 
terminate calls to the PSTN, but do not permit users to receive calls 
that originate on the PSTN? Should 911/E911 obligations apply to VoIP 
services that enable users to receive calls from the PSTN, but do not 
permit the user to make calls terminating to the PSTN? Should 911/E911 
obligations apply to VoIP services that enable users to receive calls 
from the PSTN and terminate calls to the PSTN but as separately 
elective services? Even though such VoIP services do not fully meet the 
definition of ``interconnected VoIP,'' should such service providers 
assume the same public safety responsibilities? Does it continue to 
make sense that because a VoIP service permits, for example, only out-
bound calls to the PSTN, that there should be no 911 obligations? Is 
there a need to modify the definition of ``interconnected VoIP'' or 
create a new definition to cover the range of VoIP services that should 
be subject to 911/E911 requirements? How do consumer expectations, and 
the needs of PSAPs and emergency responders, factor into whether we 
should extend 911 and E911 obligations to additional VoIP services not 
meeting the interconnected definition? Would adopting additional 911 
and E911 requirements for VoIP services help to further ensure that 
people with disabilities who desire to use interconnected VoIP service 
can obtain access to 911/E911 services? Would it be necessary to extend 
to non-interconnected VoIP providers rights of access to any and all 
capabilities necessary to provide 911 and E911 service from entities 
that own or control those capabilities? Would such extension of 
capabilities impact requirements for mobile handsets, terminal adapters 
or other equipment that may be outside the control of the non-
interconnected VoIP service provider? What is a reasonable timeframe 
for providers of VoIP services and applications that do not meet the 
interconnected VoIP definition to comply with the Commission's 911 
rules?
    32. Authority. The VoIP 911 Order rested on ancillary jurisdiction 
principles in adopting 911 requirements for interconnected VoIP 
services. Subsequently, the NET 911 Act required interconnected VoIP 
providers to comply with the rules the Commission adopted in 2005 ``as 
such requirements may be modified by the Commission from time to 
time.'' Accordingly, we seek comment on the FCC's jurisdiction to 
extend 911 requirements to VoIP services that would not meet the 
``interconnected VoIP'' definition. Under what authority should the 
Commission adopt any such rules?

B. Impact of NG911 Deployments on Location Accuracy and ALI

    33. The National Broadband Plan recommends that the Commission 
consider how NG911 deployments may affect location accuracy and ALI 
requirements. We seek to examine how we may need to revise our location 
accuracy and ALI requirements to account for the deployment of NG911 
systems. Although deployments of NG911 systems have been limited to 
date, we seek to build a record on the expected impact of NG911 
deployments on the existing wireless location accuracy and ALI 
requirements. What has been the nature to date of NG911 deployments, 
and what currently might be in the planning or deployment stages? How 
will the identification and delivery of location information be 
incorporated by NG911 PSAPs? What technological or operational changes 
might service providers, applications developers, and device 
manufacturers implement that would complement NG911 capabilities? As 
the regulatory framework for wireless and VoIP E911 evolves, what 
specific considerations should the Commission heed as NG911 systems are 
deployed throughout the nation? Are there a minimum set of network, 
software and/or device criteria that would afford flexibility in 
providing location accuracy, but also meet consumers' expectations and 
facilitate the deployment of NG911?

C. Applicability of 911 and E911 Requirements to Additional Wireless 
Communications Services, Devices and Applications

    34. IP-Based Voice Communications Services, Devices, and 
Applications. The wireless 911 and E911 requirements currently apply 
only to CMRS carriers meeting the criteria of Section 20.18(a). 
However, many new forms of IP-based voice communications are being 
offered to consumers via a variety of wireless services, devices and 
applications for use on a wide range of new devices. These IP-based 
communications are being carried over CMRS circuit-switched and data 
networks, unlicensed Wi-Fi networks, or some combination of both.

[[Page 67328]]

    35. In its recent survey of ``the current state of the [broadband] 
ecosystem,'' the National Broadband Plan found that ``[d]evices 
continue to grow in number and variety as more computers, phones and 
other machines connect to the Internet. New devices have repeatedly 
revolutionized the personal computer (PC) market in the past three 
decades [and] about 80% of U.S. households have some sort of personal 
computer [and] although desktops initially dominated the market, 74% of 
all new personal computers sold today are laptops [and] over the next 5 
years, growth in the netbook and tablet markets will far outpace growth 
in the traditional PC market.'' Similarly, the National Broadband Plan 
reported that the ``mobile phone market has also seen robust 
innovation. There were more than 850 different certified mobile 
products in the United States in 2009. In that same year, approximately 
172 million mobile phones were sold in the United States. Of these, 27% 
were Internet-capable smartphones manufactured by a wide variety of 
firms, including Apple, HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, RIM, Samsung 
and Sony-Ericsson.'' The distinguishing features of a smartphone are 
``an HTML browser that allows easy access to the full, open Internet; 
an operating system that provides a standardized interface and platform 
for application developers; and a larger screen size than a traditional 
handset.'' Many smartphones also have touch screens and/or a QWERTY 
keypad, and ``run an operating system that offers a standard platform 
for application developers to create and sell device software through 
an application store.'' In contrast to traditional handsets with 
applications that include voice and messaging, smartphones have more 
user-friendly interfaces that facilitate access to the Internet and 
software applications.
    36. The widespread and increasing availability and use of 
smartphones, mobile computing devices (e.g., laptops, netbooks), and 
applications are leading to many new voice calling capabilities. We 
seek comment on what wireless devices, services and applications 
provide the equivalent of mobile telephony or interconnected VoIP, 
whether using CMRS, Wi-Fi or other combination of wireless 
connectivity, yet are not subject to the interconnected VoIP or CMRS 
911 and E911 rules. For such voice-based services and applications, 
what are the expectations of consumers using such technologies in terms 
of being able to dial 911, and having the PSAP know where they are 
located? Would adopting 911 and E911 requirements for additional IP-
based devices, services and applications help to further ensure that 
people with disabilities who desire to use such technologies can obtain 
access to E911 services? Which if any such devices, services and 
applications should be made subject to 911 and E911 requirements? What 
is a reasonable timeframe for providers of these services, devices, and 
applications to comply with the Commission's 911 rules? What would be 
the source of the Commission's jurisdiction to impose any such 
requirements?
    37. If we were to apply 911 and E911 requirements to these 
additional broadband-enabled voice technologies, or to amend the rules 
that currently apply to interconnected VoIP services, what approach 
should we take? What technical and economic factors should we consider? 
For any new devices, services, and applications that would become 
subject to 911 and E911 requirements, would we need to extend rights of 
access to any and all capabilities necessary to provide 911 and E911 
service from entities that own or control those capabilities? Should we 
distinguish the applicability of 911 and E911 requirements based on the 
device used, and if so, should any distinction be drawn between devices 
authorized for use under parts 22, 24, 27 or 90 of the Commission's 
rules, which generally place the responsibility for compliance on the 
licensee, from devices authorized under part 15, which places 
responsibility for compliance on manufacturers? Since a number of VoIP 
services and applications are offered by third party software 
developers, should we extend 911 and E911 requirements to such 
entities? We seek comment on whether the Commission has the 
jurisdiction to impose 911 and E911 requirements particularly upon 
software application developers. If we adopt new rules for these 
services, devices, and applications, should we impose these 
requirements after a date certain? How do consumer usage patterns, 
marketing practices, consumer expectations, and the needs of the public 
safety community, including PSAPs and first responders, impact whether 
these additional communication services should be required to provide 
access to emergency services? As an alternative to adopting regulatory 
requirements, should the Commission encourage industry solutions? Would 
an industry-developed ``model 911 voice app'' be helpful? Could mobile 
voice applications be programmed to recognize a 911 attempt, and 
automatically engage the CMRS component of the device (if available)?
    38. What particular capabilities or limitations might be presented 
by extending the wireless 911 and E911 requirements to additional voice 
communications methods? Would there always be a call-back number? Would 
it be necessary or helpful to distinguish those services, devices, and 
applications that utilize the macro CMRS network, as opposed to a Wi-Fi 
connection? If a Wi-Fi connection is utilized, does it further make a 
difference if the Wi-Fi connection is in-home, as opposed to a public 
hotspot, such as at a coffee shop, airport, bookstore, municipal park, 
etc.? Should devices supporting voice-based applications, including 
those that access the macro cellular network, Wi-Fi, or both, 
incorporate the capability to become location aware or require 
subscriber self-reporting of location? Should the Commission clarify 
that CMRS operators providing interconnected VoIP services may deliver 
location information to a PSAP in the same manner as for CMRS, 
specifically, delivering longitude and latitude coordinates to the PSAP 
in lieu of a street address. Would incorporating A-GPS chips or passive 
CMRS wireless receivers be effective in triangulating position? What 
would be the costs of doing so?
    39. Consumer Disclosures. Some IP-based voice services offered via 
an Internet connection, and/or as a smartphone application, contain 
various forms of disclosures indicating that such services do not 
provide access to emergency services. For those voice-based 
communications services, devices, and applications that do not support 
911, what disclosures are currently being provided to the public and 
PSAPs about the lack of 911 capability? What do consumers expect 
concerning 911 and E911 for voice-calling services and applications? 
Are such voice-based services and applications the sole means for 
certain consumers to place voice calls, and thus to access 911? Should 
we adopt disclosure requirements for certain types of communications 
services, devices, and applications if they do not support 911 access? 
If so, what type of disclosure requirements should we adopt? Is there a 
basis for distinguishing certain VoIP services, such as those offered 
over a standard broadband Internet connection, or those that are used 
with mobile smartphones, or other devices such as netbooks, etc.? What 
would be the Commission's best source of authority for adopting such 
consumer disclosure requirements?

[[Page 67329]]

    40. Emerging Network Devices. In connection with the provision of 
existing CMRS offerings, wireless carriers are incorporating a variety 
of network components that enhance coverage, capacity, and spectrum 
efficiency. Examples include femtocells, picocells, microcells, and 
distributed antenna systems. A femtocell is a miniature base station 
that transmits in a wireless carrier's licensed spectrum and provides 
improved coverage within a subscriber's home. Femtocells typically use 
a subscriber's home broadband connection for backhaul. A picocell 
offers a wider range of connectivity than a femtocell, but still has a 
limited range of connectivity and is often employed to provide coverage 
over an area such as a single floor of a building, a train station 
platform, or an airport terminal. A microcell offers a larger 
deployment footprint than a picocell, such as a residential 
neighborhood, an office complex, or an entire airport. A distributed 
antenna system is a network of spatially separated antenna sites called 
``nodes'' connected to a common source that provides wireless service 
within a geographic area or structures.
    41. Since carriers are deploying these network components, it may 
be very helpful to consider the prospect of leveraging these devices to 
enhance location accuracy. Therefore, we seek to understand the 
capabilities and limitations of imposing location accuracy requirements 
that utilize these types of network components. In what ways can these 
devices and technologies be used to improve location accuracy? For 
example, a femtocell could be viewed as typically installed in a semi-
permanent manner at a particular home or office, that could thus be 
programmed with an exact address, or even have an embedded A-GPS chip. 
If that address could be transported with a 911 call, that would lead 
to significant improvement in location accuracy, akin to the location 
quality of wireline networks. Similarly, the location of a picocell 
alone could provide greater location accuracy for 911 calls handled by 
a picocell. Are there opportunities for these network elements to 
provide a means to transmit more accurate location information? If so, 
how can we best incorporate these capabilities into the location 
information transmitted with a wireless 911 call?

V. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose

    42. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking 
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the 
Commission's rules.

B. Comment Period and Procedures

    43. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply 
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this 
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking 
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
    44. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using 
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers should 
follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting 
comments. All comments shall be filed in PS Docket No. 07-114 and WC 
Docket No. 05-196. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should 
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the 
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an 
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, 
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following 
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and 
directions will be sent in response.
    45. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an 
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or 
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, 
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in 
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to 
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor will receive 
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the 
Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or 
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the 
building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 
Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20554.
    46. People with Disabilities: 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).
    47. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding 
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page: 
https://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments and reply comments are also 
available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy 
and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 
20554, 1-800-378-3160.

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    48. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of 
the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM portion of this document. 
We request written public comment on the IRFA analysis. Comments must 
be filed by the same dates as listed in the first page of this 
document, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating 
them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a 
copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
    49. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry 
seek comments on how to ensure that wireless E911 service meets the 
needs of public safety and the American people, while taking into 
account the evolution in the use of wireless devices and the further 
development of location technologies. The Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking part of this item seeks comment on the impact of 
technological changes in the use of wireless devices and the further

[[Page 67330]]

development in the capabilities of location technologies on the 
standards for E911 Phase II location accuracy and reliability under 
Section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules. As amended by the companion 
Second Report and Order, Section 20.18(h) requires licensees subject to 
the Commission's E911 requirements to meet those standards at the 
county or PSAP-based level.
    50. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking expands upon the 
second part of the preceding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the 
Commission released on June 1, 2007 (Location Accuracy NPRM) and seeks 
to update the other inquiries and tentative conclusions that the 
Commission initiated and reached, respectively. Specifically, the 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on a number of 
issues raised in the Location Accuracy NPRM, including the following 
tentative conclusions by the Commission.
    51. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking tentatively concludes 
that the Commission should establish a mandatory testing and compliance 
regime and invites comment on the format in which accuracy data should 
be automatically provided to PSAPs.
    52. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also tentatively 
concludes that ``to the extent that an interco