Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next Generation 911 Applications, 64404-64407 [2013-25274]
Download as PDF
64404
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
1476; email address: lentz.rachel@
epa.gov.
Because
EPA received adverse comment, we are
withdrawing the direct final rule for the
Amendment to Standards and Practices
for All Appropriate Inquiries published
on August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49690). We
stated in that direct final rule that if we
received adverse comment by
September 16, 2013, the direct final rule
would not take effect and we would
publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register. We subsequently
received adverse comment on that direct
final rule. We will address the
comments received in any subsequent
final action. As stated in the direct final
rule and the parallel proposed rule, we
will not institute a second comment
period on the parallel proposed rule
published on August 15, 2013 (78 FR
49714).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 312
Administrative practice and
procedure, Hazardous substances.
Dated: October 22, 2013.
Mathy Stanislaus,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
Accordingly, EPA withdraws the
amendments to 40 CFR 312.11(c),
published in the Federal Register on
August 15, 2013 (78 FR 49690), as of
October 29, 2013.
[FR Doc. 2013–25592 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[PS Docket Nos. 11–153 and 10–255; FCC
13–127]
Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next
Generation 911 Applications
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) amends the text-to-911
‘‘bounce-back’’ requirement as it applies
to Commercial Mobile Radio Service
(CMRS) providers when consumers are
roaming. In the May 2013 Bounce-Back
Order, FCC 13–64, the Commission
required all CMRS providers and
providers of interconnected text
messaging services to provide an
automatic ‘‘bounce-back’’ text message
in situations where a consumer attempts
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
to send a text message to 911 in a
location where text-to-911 is not
available. This document amends the
rule to specify that when a consumer
attempts to send a text to 911 while
roaming on a CMRS network, the CMRS
provider offering roaming service (host
provider) satisfies its bounce-back
obligation provided that it does not
impede the consumer’s text to the
consumer’s home network provider
(home provider) or impede any bounceback message generated by the home
provider back to the consumer.
DATES: Effective October 29, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nicole McGinnis, Federal
Communications Commission, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 7–A814,
Washington, DC 20554. Telephone:
(202) 418–2877, email:
nicole.mcginnis@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Order on
Reconsideration, PS Docket Nos. 11–
153, 10–255; FCC 13–127, adopted
September 27, 2013 and released
September 30, 2013. The full text of this
document is available for public
inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC’s Reference
Information Center at Portals II, CY–
A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington,
DC 20554. This document will also be
available via ECFS (https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/) or on the
Commission’s Web site at https://
www.fcc.gov/document/text-911bounce-back-message-order. This
document may be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1–
800–478–3160 or via the company’s
Web site, https://www.bcpiweb.com.
I. Background
1. Bounce-Back Order. In the BounceBack Order, the Commission required
‘‘all CMRS providers to provide an
automatic bounce-back message when a
consumer roaming on a network
initiates a text-to-911 in an area where
text-to-911 service is not available.’’
Given the important public safety
implications of the bounce-back
requirement, the Commission stated that
‘‘carriers should make automatic
bounce-back messages available to
consumers roaming on their network to
the same extent they provide such
messages to their own subscribers.’’
Accordingly, the bounce-back rule in
§ 20.18(n) of the Commission’s rules
contains a specific subsection relating to
roaming. Section 20.18(n)(7) currently
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
provides that: ‘‘A CMRS provider
subject to § 20.12 shall provide an
automatic bounce-back message to any
consumer roaming on its network who
sends a text message to 911 when (i) the
consumer is located in an area where
text-to-911 service is unavailable, or (ii)
the CMRS provider does not support
text-to-911 service at the time.’’
2. CTIA Petition. On June 28, 2013,
CTIA filed a petition for
reconsideration, or in the alternative, for
clarification, of the roaming provision of
the Bounce-Back Order. CTIA’s core
concern is that in a situation where a
wireless consumer attempts to send a
text to 911 while roaming on a CMRS
provider’s network, § 20.18(n)(7) could
be read to impose an obligation on the
host provider to originate a bounce-back
message, which CTIA contends is
technically infeasible for the host
provider. CTIA claims that in current
network architecture for Short Message
Service (SMS) texting, only the
consumer’s home provider has the
technical ability to initiate a bounceback message when the consumer is
roaming on another network. CTIA also
contends that § 20.18(n)(7) was adopted
‘‘with minimal discussion of the rule’s
practicality or technical feasibility.’’
CTIA therefore requests that the
Commission either eliminate
§ 20.18(n)(7) or, in the alternative,
clarify that § 20.18(n)(7) ‘‘applies only to
home network operators.’’ CTIA further
suggests that the clarification could be
accomplished by deleting § 20.18(n)(7)
and adding language to § 20.18(n)(3),
which specifies the circumstances
under which a covered text provider
must provide an automatic bounce-back
message, to state that the bounce-back
requirement applies where the
consumer is roaming on the network of
another CMRS provider. CTIA states
that ‘‘the relief it requests will not
prevent wireless subscribers who are
roaming from receiving a bounce-back
message’’ but merely seeks to ‘‘allocate
carrier responsibilities in a way that
aligns with technical realities.’’
3. Responsive Pleadings. On July 11,
2013, the Commission released a Public
Notice seeking comment on the Petition.
Several parties filed in support of the
CTIA petition. AT&T supports the
Commission ‘‘clarifying that, while
covered text providers must send a
bounce-back message alerting end users
that text-to-911 is unavailable, it is the
Home Carrier (and not the Host Carrier)
that is responsible for sending that
bounce-back message when the end user
is texting while roaming on another
carrier’s network.’’ T-Mobile similarly
contends that, in a roaming scenario, the
host provider will automatically pass an
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
attempted text to 911 to the consumer’s
home provider, which will then
generate a bounce-back message that
will be delivered, via the roaming
network, to the consumer. Changes to
this architecture, T-Mobile argues, are
‘‘simply not feasible.’’ T-Mobile opines
that ‘‘the Commission did not intend to
create a mandate for serving carriers in
§ 20.18(n)(7) but rather intended to
ensure that serving carriers do not
prevent home carriers from generating
bounce-back messages for their roaming
subscribers.’’ Therefore, T-Mobile urges
the Commission to ‘‘either issue an
erratum correcting the rule or clarify
that § 20.18(n)(7) does not apply to
serving [i.e., roaming] carriers.’’
4. Two other commenting parties,
Blooston Rural Carriers (Blooston) and
NCTA, support not requiring host
providers to provide a bounce-back
message to a roaming consumer at this
time, based on current technical
considerations. Blooston agrees with
CTIA that origination of a bounce-back
message by a roaming provider is
technically infeasible. Blooston further
argues that the Commission should not
require home providers to originate a
bounce-back message in this scenario
because the home provider cannot
determine the location of the consumer
on the host provider’s network, and
therefore cannot determine whether the
PSAP serving the consumer’s location
supports text-to-911. Thus, Blooston
argues that the bounce-back rule should
not apply to consumers while roaming
until a technological solution can be
worked out by industry standard-setting
bodies that would enable the home
provider to determine the consumer’s
location on the host provider’s network.
NCTA similarly argues that
implementation of the roaming portion
of the bounce-back rule should be
delayed until a technical solution is
developed by standards-setting bodies
and implemented.
5. APCO filed an opposition to the
Petition, arguing that CTIA has failed to
demonstrate that complying with the
Commission’s rule is not technically
feasible. APCO objects that CTIA’s
proposal would result in all roaming
customers receiving a bounce-back
message even in situations where the
roaming consumer is located in an area
where the local PSAP accepts text-to911. APCO contends that if a roaming
consumer is in an area where the PSAP
supports text-to-911, the home and host
providers should be required to deliver
the consumer’s text to the PSAP rather
than sending a bounce-back message.
APCO argues that delivery of a text-to911 from a roaming customer to the
PSAP serving the customer’s area is
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
technically feasible under existing
standards. In reply, CTIA disputes
APCO’s contention that a technical
solution exists to support routing of 911
texts from roaming customers to PSAPs.
CTIA also argues that the issues APCO
raises regarding the feasibility of text-to9-1-1 while roaming ‘‘are directed at the
second part of the NPRM, which is still
pending before the Commission.’’
6. In an ex parte filing, NENA states
that it does not oppose CTIA’s petition.
While NENA supports implementation
of a ‘‘ubiquitous’’ text-to-911 solution
that works ‘‘regardless of whether the
subscriber is attached to a home or a
roaming network,’’ it agrees that CTIA’s
position with respect to the ‘‘limited
question of which party should be
responsible for delivering a bounce-back
message’’ in a roaming scenario is
consistent with current technology and
the understanding reached by NENA,
APCO, and the four major wireless
carriers in their December 2012
voluntary text-to-911 agreement. CTIA
also provides further clarification in an
ex parte filing, noting the technical
infeasibility of a host network provider
to ‘‘ ‘transmit’ the text-to-911 of a
consumer roaming on the host network
to the covered text provider home
network and the home network’s
responding ‘bounce[-]back’ message due
to the store-and-forward nature of CMRS
provided SMS services.’’ CTIA also
notes that ‘‘a covered home network text
provider’s obligation to provide any
bounce back message should account for
whether the home network operates ‘in
the area’ that a consumer initiates the
text-to-911, and not only whether the
covered home network text provider
supports text-to-911 services at that
time.’’
II. Discussion
7. In the Bounce-Back Order, the
Commission sought to ensure that the
carrier with direct control of a
consumer’s attempted text message to
911 would be responsible for delivering
the bounce-back message in
circumstances where text-to-911 is
unavailable. The Commission is
persuaded by the technical
representations made in the record that
under the current technical standard
developed for SMS-based texting to 911,
the home provider alone has control
over sending a consumer a required
bounce-back message. Current network
architecture is such that, when a
roaming consumer sends an SMS
message, that message is routed first to
the home provider, which has control
over the further routing of that SMS
message to its intended recipient. It is
therefore the home provider that has
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
64405
direct control over the delivery of the
SMS message to its intended recipient.
Thus, the Commission agrees with CTIA
that based on current network
architecture, it would be technically
challenging for a host provider to
originate a bounce-back message to a
roaming consumer.
8. Accordingly, the Commission
amends § 20.18(n)(7) to reflect that the
host provider must not impede the
consumer’s text message to 911 to the
consumer’s home provider and/or any
bounce-back message generated by the
home provider back to the consumer.
The host provider is not under any
obligation to originate a bounce-back
message to the consumer or otherwise
ensure that the home provider generates
a bounce-back message in response to
the consumer’s text to 911.
9. As revised, § 20.18(n)(7) specifies
that a host provider shall not impede
the text message to 911 of a consumer
roaming on its network and/or impede
any bounce-back message originated by
the home provider to that roaming
consumer. It is the home provider’s
responsibility to generate the bounceback message. This apportionment of
responsibility between the roaming and
home providers assures that consumers
receive potentially lifesaving bounceback messages, while taking into
account the technical realities of current
network architecture. The revised
language also accounts for whether the
home provider is supporting text-to-911
in the area where the consumer initiates
a text message to 911.
10. The Commission denies CTIA’s
petition to the extent it seeks
elimination of § 20.18(n)(7) of the
bounce-back rule. In light of its
amendment of the rule, the Commission
finds that compliance with the rule is
technically feasible and does not raise
the concerns referenced in CTIA’s
petition. The Commission finds that
there was adequate notice to adopt the
rule and that, as amended, the rule is
consistent with the record in the
underlying proceeding. The
Commission does not agree with
Blooston that it should eliminate the
roaming portion of the bounce-back rule
in its entirety or otherwise defer
implementation of the rule. The bounceback requirement addresses an
important public safety interest in
providing consumers immediate
notification of non-delivery of their text
to the PSAP. To eliminate bounce-back
messaging in roaming situations would
risk leaving roaming consumers without
information as to whether their text
reached the appropriate PSAP,
potentially endangering them by
preventing or delaying their attempt to
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
64406
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
reach 911 through another means. The
Commission’s amendment of the rule
provides for a technically and
economically feasible apportionment of
responsibilities for roaming and home
providers, while preserving the
important public safety interests of the
original rule.
11. With respect to APCO’s argument
that host providers should be able to
route consumer texts to 911 to the
appropriate PSAP, the Commission
notes that the questions APCO raises
about the technical feasibility of
requiring host providers to route texts to
911 are part of the broader and stillpending portion of the Commission’s
rulemaking proceeding. Therefore, the
Commission does not address these
issues in this order, but reserves them
for consideration in the next phase of
the proceeding. Today’s order is limited
in scope to the limited issue of how
responsibility is apportioned for
delivering bounce-back messages to
consumers when those consumers are
roaming.
12. Finally, in order to effectuate the
modifications described herein, the
Commission waives § 20.18(n)(7) on its
own motion, pending the effective date
of the amended rule. In light of the
potential technical difficulties
associated with complying with
§ 20.18(n)(7) as originally drafted, the
Commission concludes there is good
cause to waive application of this
portion of the bounce-back rule until the
effective date of the amendments
adopted in this order. The remainder of
§ 20.18(n), which was published in the
Federal Register and took effect on June
28, 2013, remains in full force and
effect. Accordingly, except as provided
in this order, covered text providers
must begin providing bounce-back
messages in accordance with the rule no
later than September 30, 2013. In
addition, as discussed below, the
Commission determines that amended
version of § 20.18(n)(7) will take effect
on publication in the Federal Register.
Therefore, covered text providers must
begin complying with § 20.18(n)(7) as of
that date.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. Procedural Matters
A. Effective Date
13. The Commission concludes that
good cause exists to make the effective
date of the modifications adopted in this
Order on Reconsideration effective
October 29, 2013, pursuant to section
553(d)(3) of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Agencies determining whether there is
good cause to make a rule revision take
effect less than 30 days after Federal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
Jkt 232001
Register publication must balance the
necessity for immediate implementation
against principles of fundamental
fairness that require that all affected
persons be afforded a reasonable time to
prepare for the effective date of a new
rule. Given the public safety need for
bounce-back messaging and the relative
lack of any additional burden imposed
by this Order on Reconsideration, there
is good cause to make these
amendments effective immediately
upon Federal Register publication.
Indeed, given that covered text
providers must begin generating
automatic bounce-back messages
outside of the roaming context
beginning no later than September 30,
2013, and given that no party has argued
that the modifications to the
§ 20.18(n)(7) requirement raised by the
CTIA Petition would require additional
time to comply with, the Commission
finds that good cause exists to make the
modifications to § 20.18(n)(7) effective
immediately upon their publication in
the Federal Register.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
14. This document does not contain
new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Therefore
the Order on Reconsideration does not
contain any new or modified
information collection burdens for small
businesses with fewer than 25
employees, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
15. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) requires that agencies prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for noticeand-comment rulemaking proceedings,
unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.’’ The RFA defines ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A small
business concern is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
16. The Commission hereby certifies
that this Order on Reconsideration will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The Commission will send a
copy of this Order on Reconsideration,
including this certification, to the Chief
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. In addition,
the Order on Reconsideration (or a
summary thereof) and certification will
be published in the Federal Register.
D. Congressional Review Act
17. The Commission will send a copy
of this Order on Reconsideration to
Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
E. Accessible Formats
18. Accessible formats of this Order
on Reconsideration (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format) are
available to persons with disabilities by
sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
by calling the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530 (voice) 202–418–0432 (TTY).
This Order on Reconsideration can also
be downloaded at https://www.fcc.gov.
IV. Ordering Clause
19. Accordingly, it is ordered
pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 301, 303(b),
303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 316, 319, 324,
332, 333, 405, 615a, 615a–1, and 615b
of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 301,
303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 316,
319, 324, 332, 333, 405(a), 615a, 615a–
1, and 615b, and §§ 1.2 and 1.429(a) of
the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.2,
1.429(a), that Petition for
Reconsideration, or in the Alternative,
for Clarification filed by CTIA—the
Wireless Association, PS Docket Nos.
11–153 and 10–255 on June 28, 2013 is
granted to the extent provided herein
and otherwise denied.
20. It is further ordered that the
modifications to 47 CFR 20.18(n)(7)
specified in this Order on
Reconsideration shall be effective
immediately upon publication in the
Federal Register.
21. It is further ordered that, pursuant
to §§ 1.3, 1.4, 1.103, and 1.427 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.4,
1.103, and 1.427, the requirements of 47
CFR 20.18(n)(7) are waived to the extent
and for the time period specified herein.
22. It is further ordered that, pursuant
to §§ 1.3, 1.4, 1.103, and 1.427 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.4,
1.103, and 1.427, the waiver of 47 CFR
20.18(n)(7) specified herein is effective
immediately upon release of this Order
on Reconsideration.
23. It is further ordered that the
Commission shall send a copy of the
Order on Reconsideration to Congress
and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act.
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 209 / Tuesday, October 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
24. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Order on Reconsideration 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.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Jkt 232001
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 160, 201,
251–254, 301, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 309,
316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 615a, 615a–1, 615b,
and 615c unless otherwise noted. Section
20.12 is also issued under 47 U.S.C. 1302.
2. Section 20.18 is amended by
revising paragraph (n)(7) to read as
follows:
§ 20.18
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as
follows:
15:29 Oct 28, 2013
1. The authority citation for part 20
continues to read as follows:
■
■
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl D Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE
SERVICES
911 Service.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) * * *
(7) Notwithstanding any other
provisions in this section, when a
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
64407
consumer is roaming on a covered text
provider’s host network pursuant to
§ 20.12, the covered text provider
operating the consumer’s home network
shall have the obligation to originate an
automatic bounce-back message to such
consumer when the consumer is located
in an area where text-to-911 service is
unavailable, or the home provider does
not support text-to-911 service in that
area at the time. The host provider shall
not impede the consumer’s 911 text
message to the home provider and/or
any automatic bounce-back message
originated by the home provider to the
consumer roaming on the host network.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2013–25274 Filed 10–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29OCR1.SGM
29OCR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64404-64407]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-25274]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[PS Docket Nos. 11-153 and 10-255; FCC 13-127]
Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next Generation 911
Applications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) amends the text-to-911 ``bounce-back'' requirement as it
applies to Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers when
consumers are roaming. In the May 2013 Bounce-Back Order, FCC 13-64,
the Commission required all CMRS providers and providers of
interconnected text messaging services to provide an automatic
``bounce-back'' text message in situations where a consumer attempts to
send a text message to 911 in a location where text-to-911 is not
available. This document amends the rule to specify that when a
consumer attempts to send a text to 911 while roaming on a CMRS
network, the CMRS provider offering roaming service (host provider)
satisfies its bounce-back obligation provided that it does not impede
the consumer's text to the consumer's home network provider (home
provider) or impede any bounce-back message generated by the home
provider back to the consumer.
DATES: Effective October 29, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole McGinnis, Federal
Communications Commission, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 7-A814, Washington, DC 20554. Telephone:
(202) 418-2877, email: nicole.mcginnis@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Order
on Reconsideration, PS Docket Nos. 11-153, 10-255; FCC 13-127, adopted
September 27, 2013 and released September 30, 2013. The full text of
this document is available for public inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at
Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. This
document will also be available via ECFS (https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/) or on the Commission's Web site at https://www.fcc.gov/document/text-911-bounce-back-message-order. This document may be purchased from
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-
800-478-3160 or via the company's Web site, https://www.bcpiweb.com.
I. Background
1. Bounce-Back Order. In the Bounce-Back Order, the Commission
required ``all CMRS providers to provide an automatic bounce-back
message when a consumer roaming on a network initiates a text-to-911 in
an area where text-to-911 service is not available.'' Given the
important public safety implications of the bounce-back requirement,
the Commission stated that ``carriers should make automatic bounce-back
messages available to consumers roaming on their network to the same
extent they provide such messages to their own subscribers.''
Accordingly, the bounce-back rule in Sec. 20.18(n) of the Commission's
rules contains a specific subsection relating to roaming. Section
20.18(n)(7) currently provides that: ``A CMRS provider subject to Sec.
20.12 shall provide an automatic bounce-back message to any consumer
roaming on its network who sends a text message to 911 when (i) the
consumer is located in an area where text-to-911 service is
unavailable, or (ii) the CMRS provider does not support text-to-911
service at the time.''
2. CTIA Petition. On June 28, 2013, CTIA filed a petition for
reconsideration, or in the alternative, for clarification, of the
roaming provision of the Bounce-Back Order. CTIA's core concern is that
in a situation where a wireless consumer attempts to send a text to 911
while roaming on a CMRS provider's network, Sec. 20.18(n)(7) could be
read to impose an obligation on the host provider to originate a
bounce-back message, which CTIA contends is technically infeasible for
the host provider. CTIA claims that in current network architecture for
Short Message Service (SMS) texting, only the consumer's home provider
has the technical ability to initiate a bounce-back message when the
consumer is roaming on another network. CTIA also contends that Sec.
20.18(n)(7) was adopted ``with minimal discussion of the rule's
practicality or technical feasibility.'' CTIA therefore requests that
the Commission either eliminate Sec. 20.18(n)(7) or, in the
alternative, clarify that Sec. 20.18(n)(7) ``applies only to home
network operators.'' CTIA further suggests that the clarification could
be accomplished by deleting Sec. 20.18(n)(7) and adding language to
Sec. 20.18(n)(3), which specifies the circumstances under which a
covered text provider must provide an automatic bounce-back message, to
state that the bounce-back requirement applies where the consumer is
roaming on the network of another CMRS provider. CTIA states that ``the
relief it requests will not prevent wireless subscribers who are
roaming from receiving a bounce-back message'' but merely seeks to
``allocate carrier responsibilities in a way that aligns with technical
realities.''
3. Responsive Pleadings. On July 11, 2013, the Commission released
a Public Notice seeking comment on the Petition. Several parties filed
in support of the CTIA petition. AT&T supports the Commission
``clarifying that, while covered text providers must send a bounce-back
message alerting end users that text-to-911 is unavailable, it is the
Home Carrier (and not the Host Carrier) that is responsible for sending
that bounce-back message when the end user is texting while roaming on
another carrier's network.'' T-Mobile similarly contends that, in a
roaming scenario, the host provider will automatically pass an
[[Page 64405]]
attempted text to 911 to the consumer's home provider, which will then
generate a bounce-back message that will be delivered, via the roaming
network, to the consumer. Changes to this architecture, T-Mobile
argues, are ``simply not feasible.'' T-Mobile opines that ``the
Commission did not intend to create a mandate for serving carriers in
Sec. 20.18(n)(7) but rather intended to ensure that serving carriers
do not prevent home carriers from generating bounce-back messages for
their roaming subscribers.'' Therefore, T-Mobile urges the Commission
to ``either issue an erratum correcting the rule or clarify that Sec.
20.18(n)(7) does not apply to serving [i.e., roaming] carriers.''
4. Two other commenting parties, Blooston Rural Carriers (Blooston)
and NCTA, support not requiring host providers to provide a bounce-back
message to a roaming consumer at this time, based on current technical
considerations. Blooston agrees with CTIA that origination of a bounce-
back message by a roaming provider is technically infeasible. Blooston
further argues that the Commission should not require home providers to
originate a bounce-back message in this scenario because the home
provider cannot determine the location of the consumer on the host
provider's network, and therefore cannot determine whether the PSAP
serving the consumer's location supports text-to-911. Thus, Blooston
argues that the bounce-back rule should not apply to consumers while
roaming until a technological solution can be worked out by industry
standard-setting bodies that would enable the home provider to
determine the consumer's location on the host provider's network. NCTA
similarly argues that implementation of the roaming portion of the
bounce-back rule should be delayed until a technical solution is
developed by standards-setting bodies and implemented.
5. APCO filed an opposition to the Petition, arguing that CTIA has
failed to demonstrate that complying with the Commission's rule is not
technically feasible. APCO objects that CTIA's proposal would result in
all roaming customers receiving a bounce-back message even in
situations where the roaming consumer is located in an area where the
local PSAP accepts text-to-911. APCO contends that if a roaming
consumer is in an area where the PSAP supports text-to-911, the home
and host providers should be required to deliver the consumer's text to
the PSAP rather than sending a bounce-back message. APCO argues that
delivery of a text-to-911 from a roaming customer to the PSAP serving
the customer's area is technically feasible under existing standards.
In reply, CTIA disputes APCO's contention that a technical solution
exists to support routing of 911 texts from roaming customers to PSAPs.
CTIA also argues that the issues APCO raises regarding the feasibility
of text-to-9-1-1 while roaming ``are directed at the second part of the
NPRM, which is still pending before the Commission.''
6. In an ex parte filing, NENA states that it does not oppose
CTIA's petition. While NENA supports implementation of a ``ubiquitous''
text-to-911 solution that works ``regardless of whether the subscriber
is attached to a home or a roaming network,'' it agrees that CTIA's
position with respect to the ``limited question of which party should
be responsible for delivering a bounce-back message'' in a roaming
scenario is consistent with current technology and the understanding
reached by NENA, APCO, and the four major wireless carriers in their
December 2012 voluntary text-to-911 agreement. CTIA also provides
further clarification in an ex parte filing, noting the technical
infeasibility of a host network provider to `` `transmit' the text-to-
911 of a consumer roaming on the host network to the covered text
provider home network and the home network's responding `bounce[-]back'
message due to the store-and-forward nature of CMRS provided SMS
services.'' CTIA also notes that ``a covered home network text
provider's obligation to provide any bounce back message should account
for whether the home network operates `in the area' that a consumer
initiates the text-to-911, and not only whether the covered home
network text provider supports text-to-911 services at that time.''
II. Discussion
7. In the Bounce-Back Order, the Commission sought to ensure that
the carrier with direct control of a consumer's attempted text message
to 911 would be responsible for delivering the bounce-back message in
circumstances where text-to-911 is unavailable. The Commission is
persuaded by the technical representations made in the record that
under the current technical standard developed for SMS-based texting to
911, the home provider alone has control over sending a consumer a
required bounce-back message. Current network architecture is such
that, when a roaming consumer sends an SMS message, that message is
routed first to the home provider, which has control over the further
routing of that SMS message to its intended recipient. It is therefore
the home provider that has direct control over the delivery of the SMS
message to its intended recipient. Thus, the Commission agrees with
CTIA that based on current network architecture, it would be
technically challenging for a host provider to originate a bounce-back
message to a roaming consumer.
8. Accordingly, the Commission amends Sec. 20.18(n)(7) to reflect
that the host provider must not impede the consumer's text message to
911 to the consumer's home provider and/or any bounce-back message
generated by the home provider back to the consumer. The host provider
is not under any obligation to originate a bounce-back message to the
consumer or otherwise ensure that the home provider generates a bounce-
back message in response to the consumer's text to 911.
9. As revised, Sec. 20.18(n)(7) specifies that a host provider
shall not impede the text message to 911 of a consumer roaming on its
network and/or impede any bounce-back message originated by the home
provider to that roaming consumer. It is the home provider's
responsibility to generate the bounce-back message. This apportionment
of responsibility between the roaming and home providers assures that
consumers receive potentially lifesaving bounce-back messages, while
taking into account the technical realities of current network
architecture. The revised language also accounts for whether the home
provider is supporting text-to-911 in the area where the consumer
initiates a text message to 911.
10. The Commission denies CTIA's petition to the extent it seeks
elimination of Sec. 20.18(n)(7) of the bounce-back rule. In light of
its amendment of the rule, the Commission finds that compliance with
the rule is technically feasible and does not raise the concerns
referenced in CTIA's petition. The Commission finds that there was
adequate notice to adopt the rule and that, as amended, the rule is
consistent with the record in the underlying proceeding. The Commission
does not agree with Blooston that it should eliminate the roaming
portion of the bounce-back rule in its entirety or otherwise defer
implementation of the rule. The bounce-back requirement addresses an
important public safety interest in providing consumers immediate
notification of non-delivery of their text to the PSAP. To eliminate
bounce-back messaging in roaming situations would risk leaving roaming
consumers without information as to whether their text reached the
appropriate PSAP, potentially endangering them by preventing or
delaying their attempt to
[[Page 64406]]
reach 911 through another means. The Commission's amendment of the rule
provides for a technically and economically feasible apportionment of
responsibilities for roaming and home providers, while preserving the
important public safety interests of the original rule.
11. With respect to APCO's argument that host providers should be
able to route consumer texts to 911 to the appropriate PSAP, the
Commission notes that the questions APCO raises about the technical
feasibility of requiring host providers to route texts to 911 are part
of the broader and still-pending portion of the Commission's rulemaking
proceeding. Therefore, the Commission does not address these issues in
this order, but reserves them for consideration in the next phase of
the proceeding. Today's order is limited in scope to the limited issue
of how responsibility is apportioned for delivering bounce-back
messages to consumers when those consumers are roaming.
12. Finally, in order to effectuate the modifications described
herein, the Commission waives Sec. 20.18(n)(7) on its own motion,
pending the effective date of the amended rule. In light of the
potential technical difficulties associated with complying with Sec.
20.18(n)(7) as originally drafted, the Commission concludes there is
good cause to waive application of this portion of the bounce-back rule
until the effective date of the amendments adopted in this order. The
remainder of Sec. 20.18(n), which was published in the Federal
Register and took effect on June 28, 2013, remains in full force and
effect. Accordingly, except as provided in this order, covered text
providers must begin providing bounce-back messages in accordance with
the rule no later than September 30, 2013. In addition, as discussed
below, the Commission determines that amended version of Sec.
20.18(n)(7) will take effect on publication in the Federal Register.
Therefore, covered text providers must begin complying with Sec.
20.18(n)(7) as of that date.
III. Procedural Matters
A. Effective Date
13. The Commission concludes that good cause exists to make the
effective date of the modifications adopted in this Order on
Reconsideration effective October 29, 2013, pursuant to section
553(d)(3) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Agencies determining whether there is good cause to make a rule
revision take effect less than 30 days after Federal Register
publication must balance the necessity for immediate implementation
against principles of fundamental fairness that require that all
affected persons be afforded a reasonable time to prepare for the
effective date of a new rule. Given the public safety need for bounce-
back messaging and the relative lack of any additional burden imposed
by this Order on Reconsideration, there is good cause to make these
amendments effective immediately upon Federal Register publication.
Indeed, given that covered text providers must begin generating
automatic bounce-back messages outside of the roaming context beginning
no later than September 30, 2013, and given that no party has argued
that the modifications to the Sec. 20.18(n)(7) requirement raised by
the CTIA Petition would require additional time to comply with, the
Commission finds that good cause exists to make the modifications to
Sec. 20.18(n)(7) effective immediately upon their publication in the
Federal Register.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
14. This document does not contain new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA). Therefore the Order on Reconsideration does not contain any new
or modified information collection burdens for small businesses with
fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002.
C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
15. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' The RFA defines ``small entity'' as having the same
meaning as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and
``small governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which:
(1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its
field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
16. The Commission hereby certifies that this Order on
Reconsideration will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy
of this Order on Reconsideration, including this certification, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In
addition, the Order on Reconsideration (or a summary thereof) and
certification will be published in the Federal Register.
D. Congressional Review Act
17. The Commission will send a copy of this Order on
Reconsideration to Congress and the Government Accountability Office
pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
E. Accessible Formats
18. Accessible formats of this Order on Reconsideration (Braille,
large print, electronic files, audio format) are available to persons
with disabilities by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice) 202-
418-0432 (TTY). This Order on Reconsideration can also be downloaded at
https://www.fcc.gov.
IV. Ordering Clause
19. Accordingly, it is ordered pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 301,
303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 405,
615a, 615a-1, and 615b of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 301, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 316,
319, 324, 332, 333, 405(a), 615a, 615a-1, and 615b, and Sec. Sec. 1.2
and 1.429(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.2, 1.429(a), that
Petition for Reconsideration, or in the Alternative, for Clarification
filed by CTIA--the Wireless Association, PS Docket Nos. 11-153 and 10-
255 on June 28, 2013 is granted to the extent provided herein and
otherwise denied.
20. It is further ordered that the modifications to 47 CFR
20.18(n)(7) specified in this Order on Reconsideration shall be
effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.
21. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.3, 1.4,
1.103, and 1.427 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.4, 1.103, and
1.427, the requirements of 47 CFR 20.18(n)(7) are waived to the extent
and for the time period specified herein.
22. It is further ordered that, pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.3, 1.4,
1.103, and 1.427 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.3, 1.4, 1.103, and
1.427, the waiver of 47 CFR 20.18(n)(7) specified herein is effective
immediately upon release of this Order on Reconsideration.
23. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
the Order on Reconsideration to Congress and the Government
Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.
[[Page 64407]]
24. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Order on Reconsideration 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.
Sheryl D Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 301, 303,
303(b), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 615a, 615a-1,
615b, and 615c unless otherwise noted. Section 20.12 is also issued
under 47 U.S.C. 1302.
0
2. Section 20.18 is amended by revising paragraph (n)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 20.18 911 Service.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(7) Notwithstanding any other provisions in this section, when a
consumer is roaming on a covered text provider's host network pursuant
to Sec. 20.12, the covered text provider operating the consumer's home
network shall have the obligation to originate an automatic bounce-back
message to such consumer when the consumer is located in an area where
text-to-911 service is unavailable, or the home provider does not
support text-to-911 service in that area at the time. The host provider
shall not impede the consumer's 911 text message to the home provider
and/or any automatic bounce-back message originated by the home
provider to the consumer roaming on the host network.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-25274 Filed 10-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P