Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, 12442-12458 [2014-04731]
Download as PDF
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12442
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS–
0037–P, P.O. Box 8013, Baltimore,
MD 21244–8013.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed
comments to be received before the
close of the comment period.
3. By express or overnight mail. You
may send written comments to the
following address ONLY:
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Attention: CMS–
0037–P, Mail Stop C4–26–05, 7500
Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD
21244–1850.
4. By hand or courier. If you prefer,
you may deliver (by hand or courier)
your written comments before the close
of the comment period to either of the
following addresses:
a. For delivery in Washington, DC—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, Room 445–G, Hubert
H. Humphrey Building, 200
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20201.
(Because access to the interior of the
Hubert H. Humphrey Building is not
readily available to persons without
Federal government identification,
commenters are encouraged to leave
their comments in the CMS drop slots
located in the main lobby of the
building. A stamp-in clock is available
for persons wishing to retain a proof of
filing by stamping in and retaining an
extra copy of the comments being filed.)
b. For delivery in Baltimore, MD—
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services, Department of Health and
Human Services, 7500 Security
Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–
1850.
If you intend to deliver your
comments to the Baltimore address,
please call telephone number (410) 786–
7195 in advance to schedule your
arrival with one of our staff members.
Comments mailed to the addresses
indicated as appropriate for hand or
courier delivery may be delayed and
received after the comment period.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Geanelle G. Herring, (410) 786–4466.
Matthew Albright, (410) 786–2546.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
January 2, 2014 Federal Register (79 FR
298), we published the Administrative
Simplification: Certification of
Compliance for Health Plans proposed
rule (hereafter, Compliance Certification
proposed rule), which proposes that
controlling health plans must submit
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
certain information and documentation
that demonstrates compliance with the
standards and operating rules adopted
under the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)
for three electronic transactions:
Eligibility for a health plan, health care
claim status, and health care electronic
funds transfers (EFT) and remittance
advice. This proposed rule would also
establish penalty fees for a CHP that
fails to comply with the certification of
compliance requirements.
The proposed rule is different from
previous HIPAA administrative
simplification regulations in that the
number and type of entities that would
be impacted by the requirements is
much greater. For example, many selffunded health plans that meet the
HIPAA definition of health plan would
be subject to the requirements in the
proposed rule; however, many selffunded health plans have not been
impacted by previous HIPAA
administrative simplification
requirements because many do not
directly conduct HIPAA covered
transactions.
Representatives of entities that are
new to HIPAA administrative
simplification requirements have
requested more time to analyze the
Compliance Certification proposed rule
and educate themselves and their peers,
as well as solicit feedback from their
membership on the business impact of
the propose rule, which they believe can
be better achieved with more time for
public comments. We concur.
Therefore, we are extending the
comment period until April 3, 2014.
Dated: February 27, 2014.
Oliver A. Potts,
Deputy Executive Secretary to the
Department, Department of Health and
Human Services.
[FR Doc. 2014–04828 Filed 2–28–14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4120–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[PS Docket No. 10–255 and PS Docket No.
11–153; FCC 14–6]
Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to911 and Other Next Generation 911
Applications; Framework for Next
Generation 911 Deployment
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
In this Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Further Notice) the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) seeks comment on a
proposed timeframe and several aspects
of implementation of text-to-911 service,
particularly relating to the technical
ability of interconnected text providers
to comply with a text-to-911 mandate.
Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on a proposal that text-to-911
capability should be made available by
all text providers no later than
December 31, 2014, and should be
provided within a reasonable time after
a PSAP has made a valid request for
service, not to exceed six months. The
Commission also seeks further comment
on several issues that we anticipate will
be part of the long-term evolution of
text-to-911, though it does not propose
to require their implementation by a
date certain. These include: Developing
the capability to provide Phase IIcomparable location information in
conjunction with emergency texts;
delivering text-to-911 over non-cellular
data channels; and supporting text-to911 for consumers while roaming on
Commercial Mobile Radio Service
(CMRS) networks. The Second Further
Notice is adopted with the goal of
obtaining information from the public
on proposed rules for the
implementation of text-to-911.
DATES: Submit comments on or before
April 4, 2014 and reply comments by
May 5, 2014. Written comments on the
Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements
must be submitted by the public, Office
of Management and Budget (OMB), and
other interested parties on or before May
5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by PS Docket No. 10–255 and
PS Docket No. 11–153, by any of the
following methods:
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: 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.
Parties wishing to file materials with
a claim of confidentiality should follow
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
the procedures set forth in § 0.459 of the
Commission’s rules. Confidential
submissions may not be filed via ECFS
but rather should be filed with the
Secretary’s Office following the
procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459.
Redacted versions of confidential
submissions may be filed via ECFS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy May, Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418–
1463 or timothy.may@fcc.gov. For
additional information concerning the
proposed Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements
contained in this document, contact
Benish Shah (202) 418–7866, or send an
email to PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
FCC 14–6; PS Docket Nos. 10–255 and
11–153; adopted on January 30, 2014
and released January 31, 2014. The full
text of this document is available for
public inspection during regular
business hours in the FCC Reference
Center, Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online
at https://www.fcc.gov/document/text911-policy-statement-and-secondfnprm.
This document will also be available
at ECFS at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Documents will be available
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word,
and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete
text may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. Alternative
formats are available for people with
disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format) by
sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
calling the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice) (202) 418–0432 (TTY).
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Summary of the Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. One of the core missions of the
Federal Communications Commission is
promoting the safety of life and property
of the American public through the use
of wire and radio communications.
Consistent with that overarching
obligation, the Commission has specific
statutory responsibilities with respect to
911 service. As mobile wireless
communications are becoming
increasingly central to the day-to-day
lives of Americans, a growing
percentage of 911 calls originate on
wireless networks (one study found that
75 percent of 911 calls in California
came from wireless phones). At the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
same time, current trends in mobile
wireless usage have shown continued
evolution from a predominantly voicedriven medium of communication to
one based more on data transmissions;
for example, from 2009 to 2011, average
minutes of use per subscriber per
month, a measure of voice usage,
continued to decline, while U.S. mobile
data traffic increased 270 percent from
2010 to 2011, having more than doubled
each year. In light of these trends and
the importance of ensuring effective 911
service—particularly for those who
cannot access 911 call centers with a
voice call—and as articulated in the
Commission’s Report to Congress and
Recommendations on a Legal
Framework for Next Generation 911
Services (NG911 Report), we believe
that text-to-911 capability is a necessary
first step in the development of Next
Generation (NG) 911 capabilities.
2. At the broadest level, access to 911
is a core value that translates across
communications platforms, including
text applications, and should not be lost
or devalued as technology changes. In
2011, the Commission adopted a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking to bridge the
gap between the habits and needs of the
texting public and the services
supported by wireless carriers and
interconnected text providers.1 In 2012,
the Commission adopted a Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
proposing a framework to ensure that all
consumers would be able to send
emergency texts to 911 regardless of the
texting service provider they use.2
3. This Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (Second Further
Notice) seeks further comment on the
proposed timeframe and several aspects
of implementation, particularly relating
to the technical ability of interconnected
text providers to comply with a text-to911 mandate. We also seek further
comment on several issues that we
anticipate will be part of the long-term
evolution of text-to-911, though we do
not propose to require their
implementation by a date certain. These
include: (1) Developing the capability to
provide Phase II-comparable location
information in conjunction with
emergency texts; (2) delivering text-to911 over non-cellular data channels;
1 In the Matter of Facilitating the Deployment of
Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911
Applications, Framework for Next Generation 911
Deployment, PS Docket No 11–153, PS Docket No.
10–255, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC
Rcd 13615 (2011) (2011 Notice).
2 In the Matter of Facilitating the Deployment of
Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911
Applications, Framework for Next Generation 911
Deployment, PS Docket No 11–153, PS Docket No.
10–255, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26
FCC Rcd 15659 (2012) (2012 Further Notice).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12443
and (3) supporting text-to-911 for
consumers while roaming on CMRS
networks.
4. In seeking additional information
in this Second Further Notice, we
recognize that there is already a robust
record on many of the issues and
proposals that were presented in both
the 2011 Notice and the 2012 Further
Notice. In posing these further
questions, we seek to supplement the
record as to the specific issues
identified herein.
II. Background
5. Americans are increasingly relying
on text as an alternative to voice for
everyday communications. In general,
‘‘text messaging’’ refers to any service
that allows a mobile device to send
information consisting of text to other
mobile devices by using domestic
telephone numbers. Examples of text
messaging include Short Message
Service (SMS), Multimedia Messaging
Service (MMS), and ‘‘interconnected
text’’ applications. SMS is a text
messaging service component of
communications systems that uses
standardized communications protocols
to enable wireless and fixed devices to
exchange messages no longer than 160
characters. MMS is a standard way to
exchange messages that include
multimedia, such as photos and videos
along with text, between wireless
devices. ‘‘Interconnected text’’
applications use IP-based protocols to
deliver text messages to a service
provider and the service provider then
delivers the text messages to
destinations identified by a telephone
number, using either IP-based or SMS
protocols.
6. Current reports indicate that 91
percent of American adults own a cell
phone, and that of those cell-phone
owning consumers, 81 percent use their
phones to send and receive text
messages. Texting ‘‘continues to be one
of the most prevalent cell phone
activities of all time’’ and is particularly
ubiquitous among younger cell phone
users. The median number of texts sent
by those 12–17 years of age in 2011 was
60 text messages per day, with 63
percent of teens indicating texting as a
daily activity.
7. Moreover, ‘‘over-the-top’’ (OTT)
texting applications are growing
increasingly popular and have already
eclipsed short messaging service (SMS)
text messages provided by wireless
carriers in terms of volume.3 ‘‘Over-the3 See Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911
and Other Next Generation 911 Applications, PS
Dockets No. 11–153, 10–255, Report and Order, 28
FCC Rcd 7556 (2013) (Bounce-Back Order).
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12444
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
top’’ generally refers to applications that
operate on Internet protocol (IP)-based
mobile data networks and that
consumers can typically install on datacapable mobile devices. In contrast,
SMS requires use of an underlying
carrier’s SMS Center (SMSC) to send
and receive messages from other users.
MMS-based messaging makes use of the
SMSC but also involves the use of
different functional elements to enable
transport of the message over IP
networks. Over-the-top text applications
enable consumers to send text messages
using SMS, MMS or directly via IP over
a data connection to dedicated
messaging servers and gateways. Overthe-top texting applications may be
provided by the underlying mobile
wireless provider or a non-affiliated
third-party, and may be
‘‘interconnected’’ or ‘‘noninterconnected.’’ In mid-2013, one
third-party text messaging application
reported more than 250 million active
users, transmitting more than 18 billion
messages per day. In mid-2013, the six
most popular mobile chat applications
averaged nearly 19 billion messages
each day, compared to 17.6 billion SMS
messages. In 2014, one report projected
that over the top text messaging will
outpace SMS text messaging by 50
billion to 21 billion.
8. In September 2011, the
Commission released the 2011 Notice,
which sought comment on a number of
issues related to the deployment of Next
Generation 911 (NG911), including how
to facilitate the deployment of text-to911. In the 2011 Notice, the Commission
observed that sending text messages,
photos, and video clips has become
commonplace for users of mobile
devices on 21st century broadband
networks, and that adding non-voice
capabilities to our 911 system will
significantly improve emergency
response, save lives, and reduce
property damage. Moreover, the
Commission stated that incorporating
text and other media into the 911
system will benefit: (1) The public in
terms of the ability to access emergency
help, both for people with disabilities
and for people in situations where
placing a voice call to 911 could be
difficult or dangerous; and (2) PSAPs by
providing them with better information
that can be synthesized with existing
databases to enable emergency
responders to assess and respond to
emergencies more quickly and
effectively.
9. In December 2012, AT&T, Sprint
Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon entered
into a voluntary agreement with the
National Emergency Number
Association (NENA) and APCO
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
International (APCO) in which each of
the four carriers agreed to provide textto-911 service by May 15, 2014, to
PSAPs that are capable of, and request
to receive, text-to-911 service (CarrierNENA–APCO Agreement). The signatory
carriers made certain commitments
related to their text messaging services,
including implementation of the service
to a PSAP ‘‘within a reasonable amount
of time’’ not to exceed six months after
such PSAP makes a ‘‘valid’’ request of
the carrier. The agreement also stated
that, ‘‘consistent with the draft ATIS
Standard for Interim Text-to-9–1–1, the
PSAPs will select the format for how
messages are to be delivered’’ with
incremental costs for delivery being the
responsibility of the PSAP. Under the
terms of the agreement, carriers were to
meet these commitments ‘‘independent
of their ability to recover these
associated costs from state or local
governments.’’ The carriers committed
to working with NENA, APCO, and the
Commission to develop outreach for
consumers and support efforts to
educate PSAPs. The carriers’
commitments also did not extend to
customers roaming on a network.
10. The Carrier-NENA–APCO
Agreement followed on a number of
successful trials of text-to-911, and
voluntary reports submitted to the
Commission since the agreement detail
the ongoing activities of the four carriersignatories in this regard. As of
December 31, 2013, Verizon Wireless
reports ‘‘some 46 different jurisdictions
are using one of the text-to-911 options
that Verizon currently supports (up
from 37 in October 2013), and several
additional deployments are currently
scheduled through 2014.’’ AT&T has
reported that it is in the process of
launching a standards-based trial
service for text-to-911 in the state of
Tennessee for the end of the first quarter
of 2014, and also reports a statewide sixmonth trial with the state of Vermont,
which launched on August 23, 2013.
11. Shortly after the signing of the
Carrier-NENA–APCO Agreement, the
Commission adopted the 2012 Further
Notice, which proposed, inter alia, to
require all CMRS providers, as well as
other providers of interconnected text
messaging services, to support the
ability of consumers to send text
messages to 911 in all areas throughout
the nation where PSAPs are also
prepared to receive the texts. The 2012
Further Notice’s baseline requirements
were modeled on the Carrier-NENA–
APCO Agreement, and the Commission
sought comment on whether all carriers,
including regional, small and rural
carriers, and all ‘‘interconnected text’’
providers can achieve these milestones
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the same or similar timeframes. In
this respect, the 2012 Further Notice
recognized prevalence of SMS-based
messaging, but also noted the trend
towards IP-based messaging platforms.
The 2012 Further Notice proposed that
the Commission apply any text-to-911
rules it may adopt to both SMS and IPbased text messaging services. The
Commission noted that, to the extent
that consumers are gravitating to such
IP-based applications as their primary
means of communicating by text, they
may reasonably come to expect that
these applications support text-to-911.
The Commission also recognized the
public interest benefits associated with
enabling IP-based messaging users to
send texts to 911 from those
applications—applications with which
the user is familiar—as consumer
familiarity is vital in emergency
situations where seconds matter. To that
end, the 2012 Further Notice sought to
ensure that consumers ultimately have
access to the same text-to-911
capabilities on the full array of texting
applications that they use for everyday
communication—regardless of provider
or platform.
12. In May 2013, the Commission
issued a Report and Order (Bounce-Back
Order) requiring CMRS providers and
interconnected text providers to supply
consumers attempting to send a text to
911 an automatic ‘‘bounce back’’
message when the service is
unavailable. In requiring this bounce
back messaging, the Commission found
a ‘‘clear benefit and present need’’ for
persons who attempt to send emergency
text messages to know immediately if
their text cannot be delivered to the
proper authorities, citing evidence that
many consumers already believe they
can send text messages to 911. The
Commission further determined that in
emergency situations, where call
volumes can spike and networks
become congested, consumers are often
unable to place voice calls, and that in
these instances it is particularly
important that consumers seeking
emergency assistance by text receive a
notification when text-to-911
functionality is not available. Evidence
in the record further compelled the
Commission to extend the bounce back
obligation to providers of
interconnected text messaging service,
citing the proliferation of smartphones
and significant volume of messages
using non-SMS or non-MMS
applications that ride on cellular data
networks. The Commission noted
specifically that, ‘‘[a]s these applications
proliferate, consumers are likely to
assume that they should be as capable
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
of reaching 911 as any other telephone
number.’’
III. Discussion
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Timeframe for Implementation of
Text-to-911 Capability
13. We seek comment on a proposal
that text-to-911 capability should be
made available by all text providers no
later than December 31, 2014, and
should be provided within a reasonable
time after a PSAP has made a valid
request for service, not to exceed six
months. We seek specific comments on
this tentative conclusion, particularly
with respect to small or rural CMRS
carriers and interconnected text
providers, none of whom are parties to
the Carrier-NENA–APCO Agreement.
Would PSAPs and consumers benefit
from our establishment of a uniform
deadline of December 31, 2014, for both
CMRS and interconnected text
providers?
14. With respect to CMRS providers
other than the four signatories to the
Carrier-NENA–APCO Agreement, we
believe that implementation by
December 31, 2014, is achievable. First,
the progress made by the four major
providers illustrates the technical
feasibility of text-to-911 implementation
for other CMRS providers, including
small and rural providers. The adoption
of the ATIS standard for text-to-911 over
the SMS platform also satisfies a
condition that some small carriers cited
as a pre-condition to their ability to
implement text-to-911. Indeed, small
and rural providers may be able to
achieve cost savings in their
implementation by leveraging some of
the text-to-911 databases and other
infrastructure that text-to-911 vendors
will have in place by May 15, 2014 to
support provision of text-to-911 by the
four major providers. Thus, providing
small and rural providers with a small
amount of additional time beyond the
May 2014 timeframe should provide an
opportunity for them to undertake the
necessary preparatory action and spread
their costs over a longer period, while
still providing timely and tangible
consumer benefits. The Competitive
Carriers Association (CCA) also suggests
that smaller carriers can meet a
December 31, 2014 deadline for
responding to a valid PSAP request for
text-to-911 service. We seek comment
on these views.
B. Timeframe for Interconnected OTT
Text Providers
15. With respect to interconnected
text providers, however, we also must
take into account the unique technical
complexities they may face in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
implementing text-to-911. We therefore
seek comment on whether such factors
weigh in favor of interconnected text
providers being subject to an alternative
timeframe. In general, interconnected
over-the-top text providers can function
both when a connection to an
underlying CMRS network is present
and when it is not. However, those
technical issues that arise from the
routing of texts from Wi-Fi locations
need not be resolved at this time
because we do not propose that they be
implemented as part of this initial phase
of text-to-911 implementation.
Commenters indicate that
interconnected text providers will likely
have to resolve other issues, such as
OTT client identifiers that would enable
‘‘callback’’ from PSAPs, IP addressing,
security challenges, and operating
system (OS) service layer access to
enable routing 911 texts through
different functional components in the
existing SMS architecture.
16. Comments to date from public
safety entities argue that, even
considering the technical challenges,
‘‘interconnected text providers should
be capable of meeting newly-imposed
text-to-9–1–1 obligations on relatively
short timeframes.’’ Nevertheless, NENA
recommends a two-tiered approach to
compliance deadlines for ‘‘two classes
of [originating service providers (OSPs)],
interconnected and integrated text
providers, aimed at accommodating
differences in interconnected text OSPs’
platforms.’’ NENA further recommends
that the Commission ‘‘strictly limit the
additional time granted to
interconnected text OSPs to emphasize
the public interest and necessity
embodied by these new obligations, and
to minimize the extent of consumer
confusion that could arise during the
period between the two deadlines.’’
Also, APCO encourages the Commission
to establish firm dates ‘‘to ensure
meaningful progress and ultimate
compliance’’ for these entities.
17. Other commenters take a contrary
view and assert that too many technical
considerations remain to be resolved
before the consideration of any
deadline. Comcast contends that it is
‘‘premature for the Commission to
establish a deadline for interconnected
text message providers to equip their
services with a text-to-911 mechanism.’’
The VON Coalition contends that
generating accurate location information
requires the input of multiple
participants in the network ecosystem,
particularly for third-party texting
applications that do not have access or
control of the underlying network. The
VON Coalition also contends that GPS
alone and commercial location based
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12445
services are not sufficient in the 911
context, noting that manual mapping of
Wi-Fi routers, for example, may not be
routinely updated or audited. VON does
not view these challenges as
‘‘necessarily insurmountable’’ and notes
that its ‘‘members already are
participating in industry working
groups . . . to find avenues to attempt
to overcome them.’’ VON submits that
such approaches ‘‘will require
significant cooperation across a broad
set of entities (e.g., providers of Wi-Fi
access, wireless services, OTT
application developers, emergency
services vendors and providers) and
standardized global approaches.’’ ITI
asserts that ‘‘[m]andating any
technology requirements in application
design would be difficult and costly for
companies that design one application
to run across multiple devices and
platforms.’’
18. A critical factor affecting the
feasibility of the timeframe for
interconnected text providers to
implement text-to-911 at the same level
of functionality as CMRS providers is
how quickly interconnected text
providers can implement a technical
solution that will support ‘‘coarse’’
location of application users so that
their texts can be routed to the correct
PSAP. As discussed below, there are
several technical models exist that
could support providing coarse location
of interconnected text users in the nearterm when an underlying connection to
a CMRS network is present.
C. OTT Text-to-911 Message Delivery
Models
19. While these models are not the
only architectural approaches that
interconnected text providers might
take, we describe the key aspects of
three approaches to solicit comment on
them and other potential technological
solutions that support imposing a nearterm time frame for interconnected text
providers. We seek comment on the
technical feasibility for interconnected
text providers to implement these
models by the proposed deadline and
request comment on how other factors,
such as necessary software changes,
handset development cycles, and
security issues may affect the
timeframes that we would adopt.
1. Access CMRS Messaging Platform via
API
20. We recognize that interconnected
text providers face an array of choices
in considering methods to relay a text to
a PSAP. As an initial matter, although
OTT providers’ applications are
primarily designed to use IP-based
protocols to deliver text messages to
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12446
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
destinations identified by a telephone
number, they can, however, utilize
SMS-based protocols and route the text
over the underlying carrier’s SMS
network. (While we use the term ‘‘OTT’’
in discussing the technical protocols
that an application may use to route a
text message to a PSAP, in terms of
feasibility for implementation by
December 31, 2014, our proposal
remains focused on the subset of OTT
providers that meet the definition of
interconnected text providers.) An OTT
texting application can be programmed
to recognize that the user is sending a
text message to the text short code
‘‘911’’ and automatically invoke the
wireless device’s native SMS
application programming interface (API)
for sending SMS messages. This
functionality is distinct from the
application’s normal operating mode
which is generally designed to route a
text via a means other than the native
SMS capability of the device. Upon
invoking the native SMS texting
application, the text-to-911 message will
be handled by the underlying wireless
carrier, i.e., the text will be routed
through the carrier’s (or its agent’s) Text
Control Center (TCC), which is the
functional element of the Short Message
Service Center (SMSC) dedicated to
routing texts to the appropriate Public
Safety Answering Point (PSAP).
21. In this model an SMSC cannot
distinguish generally between a SMS
message generated by an OTT
application and the native SMS API.
Consistent with the SMS-to-911
standard, the carrier’s TCC would then
forward the text along with coarse
location information to the PSAP.
Because of this, we consider it unlikely
that consumers in the near term will
expect text-to-911 to work in those
circumstances where cellular network
connectivity is not available. We believe
this method is available to OTT
providers today and that it can be
implemented by December 31, 2014,
through relatively minor enhancements
to their APIs. We seek comment on this
view.
22. We note that our view on the
feasibility of interconnected text
providers using this method to support
text-to-911 is premised on the continued
availability of CMRS providers’ SMS
networks to handle texts from OTT
providers. We note that the model
described here assumes that CMRS
providers would provide access to their
SMS networks for texts to 911 generated
on OTT applications. Some CMRS
providers already afford this access to
some OTT applications, and the model
posits that CMRS providers could
receive requests from other OTT
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
providers for similar access to the CMRS
provider’s native texting application
APIs. CMRS providers would need to
devote technical and product
management resources to meeting such
requests and to ongoing maintenance
and performance issues. We also note
that the average CMRS provider offers a
wide range of wireless devices to
consumers, each having somewhat
distinct technical parameters and
programming to support third party
applications. Thus, a CMRS provider
would have to coordinate with each
handset manufacturer and associated
operating system provider to ensure that
each device model that is capable of
supporting an interconnected text
messaging application would also be
capable of interfacing with the CMRS
provider’s underlying native texting
application and SMS or messaging
platform. We seek comment on these
observations. What specific
considerations should we take into
account regarding how CMRS providers
would implement a requirement to
support OTT provider’s use of their
native messaging application? Beyond
what we have described herein, what
specific actions must a CMRS provider
take to afford access to its underlying
SMS or messaging platform? Are there
any specific industry best practices or
guidelines presently in place that may
serve to provide a framework for the
coordination between CRMS providers
and OTT providers?
23. In suggesting that a SMS default
for interconnected text providers can
provide a viable near term solution for
text-to-911, we emphasize that we are
not proposing that such a relationship
would occur absent reasonable
compensation to the underlying
network provider or similar
arrangements. Nor do we propose to
constrain CMRS providers from
transitioning their SMS platforms to
new technologies if they choose to do so
at some point in the future. Rather than
requiring CMRS providers to maintain
their SMS platforms in perpetuity for
the sole purpose of supporting text-to911 for third-party interconnected text
providers, we expect that
interconnected text providers will need
to develop alternative text-to-911
delivery methods as technology evolves.
We seek comment on these views. We
believe that, if interconnected text
providers have access to the API on
CMRS carrier devices, those issues may
be resolvable for interconnected text
applications riding over the SMS
platform. We finally note that resolving
such issues may be dependent on CMRS
carriers not impeding interconnected
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
text providers’ capability to deliver textto-911 messages. We therefore propose
adopting a requirement that CMRS
carriers not block the access to
capabilities that would enable
interconnected text providers to provide
consumers using their OTT applications
to send texts to 911. We seek comment
on these views. We also invite comment
on whether this proposal and the
measures necessary for interconnected
text providers to take would require
timeframes other than the uniform one
that we propose. If so, what would
alternative timeframes would be
reasonable?
2. Network and Server Based Models
24. We also present three additional
models by which an OTT provider
could deliver a text message using APIs
that route the text via an Internet
connection, either over a wireless
carrier’s data network or a non-CMRS
Wi-Fi network, to the interconnected
text provider’s server.4 In these
scenarios, the OTT provider’s text
handling server recognizes that the text
message is addressed to 911 and then
interacts with a third-party TCC to route
the text to a PSAP. In each model, it is
assumed that the user has a phone
number assigned to the user by the
wireless carrier. Generally, and
consistent with our definition of a
covered text provider, when a user
subscribes to an interconnected text
messaging service, the OTT provider
will provision the user with a ten digit
phone number to enable the user to
send and receive texts from other
texting application users. In doing so,
the OTT provider enables the user to
avoid relying on the wireless carrier’s
SMS network to route text messages.
25. In our basic server-based model
for routing a text message to 911, we
assume that the OTT application uses
the same phone number as the device
itself. In this case, the OTT service
provider receives the text at its server
and passes the originating phone
number and message to a third-party
TCC. It could use a number of
messaging protocols to effectuate the
delivery to the TCC, such as Short
Message Peer-to-Peer (SMPP), Session
Initiation Protocol (SIP) MESSAGE, or
Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP).
The TCC draws location from a
commercial location service, just as for
the CMRS SMS service, to acquire the
location of the mobile device.
4 For a graphical representation of the models
discussed, see Second Further Notice at paragraphs
24 through 33, available at https://www.fcc.gov/
document/text-911-policy-statement-and-secondfnprm.
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
26. A second model relies on using
the number assigned by the OTT
provider to route the text to 911. In this
model, the texting application invokes a
system call on the API, such as on
wireless devices using the Android
Operating System, the system call
would be the line of code
‘‘getLine1Number()’’, which would
retrieve the phone number string, for
example, the MSISDN for a GSM phone,
and obtains the phone number of the
mobile device and conveys it via the
protocol message sent to the OTT
provider’s server. The provider, as
before, then sends the message through
a third party TCC, which in turn
invokes the commercial location service
and routes the text to the appropriate
PSAP.
27. The third server-based solution
relies on the location API in the mobile
device, rather than a commercial
location service, to obtain the user’s
location. Many OTT text applications
already obtain the user’s location for
non-emergency purposes. The OTT text
application includes GPS-based location
information with the text content and
routes the text through its server to the
TCC. The use of device location would
likely offer higher accuracy in many
cases and may meet the Commission’s
location accuracy requirements for
handset-based location delivery. In
addition, this solution does not rely on
cellular data connectivity and continues
to work as long as the OTT text
application can connect to the Internet.
These models are not exhaustive of
those available to OTT providers to
route texts to PSAPs; in fact, an
application could implement both a
mobile-based solution and a serverbased solutions. This would ensure that
text messages to 911 can reach the TCC
whether SMS or Internet data service is
available. We seek comment on whether
the models described above are
consistent with a commercial
implementation to support text-to-911.
What other models might an OTT
provider consider using to route a text
to 911? Which functions are OTT
providers capable of handling within
their servers and which functions are
they most likely going to have to secure
access to third party providers to
support routing a text to a PSAP?
D. Costs
28. As discussed above,
interconnected text providers face a
number of technical issues in being able
to send text messages from its users to
PSAPs. Specifically, the VON Coalition
notes:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
Resolving these third-party gateway
technical challenges would not only take
time, but once resolved, would impose
significant costs on providers of software
applications—many of which are small
businesses offering innovative IP-based
capabilities at little or no cost to consumers.
The introduction of third-party gateways and
vendors (and, thus ongoing payments to and
coordination with those vendors) into the
application provider’s service—something
that would be necessary only if providers
were required to try to bootstrap the legacy
TDM 911 system onto Next Generation IP
services—introduces complexities and points
of possible failure, as well as costs the
developer did not anticipate. VON
understands that many third-party vendors
typically charge monthly per-subscriber fees
(regardless of whether or how many
subscribers ever use the application to try to
reach 911), in addition to upfront set-up
costs. Such per-subscriber costs, or even pertransaction costs, could quickly tip an
otherwise successful business model on its
head as the costs approach the revenues (if
any) made by the application provider.’’
On a related note, Sprint notes that
‘‘[w]hile interconnected text providers
will incur costs associated with
compliance, CMRS carriers are also
likely to incur additional costs because
CMRS carriers will need to provide
network and device capabilities to
interconnected text providers.’’ Sprint
also argues that ‘‘CMRS carriers should
not be expected to incur such costs
without reimbursement from
interconnected text providers, since any
such costs will be undertaken to
facilitate compliance by a third-party.’’
29. We recognize that a requirement
on interconnected text providers would
impose additional costs. We seek
comment on the implementation costs
associated with the models discussed
above. For example, with respect to the
mobile-based model, we estimate that a
requirement would impose an
implementation cost of approximately
$4,500 per provider per platform, for an
industry-wide cost of approximately
$555,000. We came to this conclusion
using the Constructive Cost Model II
(COCOMO II), which can provide an
estimate of the cost, effort, and schedule
for planning new software development
activity.5 The model analyzes a number
of variables concerning software size,
specifically source lines of code,
whether new, reused, modified, or some
combination thereof; software scale
drivers; software cost drivers related to
product, personnel, operating system
platform specifics, and project specifics;
5 See University of Southern California, Center for
Systems and Software Engineering, COCOMO II,
available at https://csse.usc.edu/csse/research/
COCOMOII/cocomo_main.html (last viewed Jan. 8,
2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12447
and software labor rates.6 We seek
comment on this analysis, and we
encourage those who disagree with this
analysis to present their own
methodology, analysis, and conclusions.
Similarly, we seek comment on the
costs for CMRS providers to enable OTT
application interfacing with native text
messaging applications. What software
changes, if any, must a CMRS provider
make to its underlying text messaging
application to support the OTT
application? Finally, what reoccurring
expenses would there be that are not
accounted for by COCOMO II, such as
compliance and operating costs,
including payments to acquire network
and device capabilities from CMRS
providers or others, depending on
solution?
30. Beyond the estimated costs
identified herein related to the mobilebased model, are there other initial and
ongoing costs that interconnected text
providers would incur to support textto-911 service, particularly the serverbased models that we have identified?
For text routing purposes, would
6 The COCOMO II web-based tool requires one to
enter the total new source lines of code and the cost
per person-month in dollars and to set a number of
software scale and cost drivers at subjective levels
(e.g., very low, low, nominal, high, very high, extra
high). See COCOMO II, Constructive Cost Model,
available at https://csse.usc.edu/tools/
COCOMOII.php (last viewed Jan. 8, 2014). This
model estimates that a one-time cost of $4,541 will
be incurred, assuming that (a) 100 new source lines
of code must be added to an existing application in
order to meet the a text-to-911 mandate (which we
believe is a high estimate, based on our own
research), (b) the software labor rate is $19,435 per
person-month, and (c) all cost drivers in the model
are set to ‘‘nominal.’’ Cost per Person-Month is
estimated as follows: average software engineer/
developer/programmer total mean annual salary of
$93,280 (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), May
2012); a cost per person-month of approximately
173 hours; mean hourly rate of $44.85 (BLS, May
2012) plus an estimated overhead factor of 2.5, or
$112.13 per person hour. ($93,280 × 2.5)/12 =
$19,435 cost per person-month. For mean annual
wage of a software developer of applications, see
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational
Employment Statistics, Occupational Employment
and Wages, May 2012, available at https://bls.gov/
oes/current/oes151132.htm (last viewed Jan. 8,
2014). In general, overhead costs are between 150–
250 percent of the cost of a direct labor hour. See
Cynthia R. Cook, John C. Graser, RAND, Military
Airframe Acquisition Costs (2001) available at
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/
monograph_reports/MR1325/MR1325.ch9.pdf (last
viewed Jan. 8, 2014). Moreover, we estimate that at
present, there are approximately thirty
interconnected text messaging services, offering
their services on anywhere from one to five
different operating system platforms. To account for
future proliferation of platform offerings, we
estimate that all service providers would offer their
service across four main operating system platforms
and that each of them would incur a one-time cost
of $4,541 to add 100 new source lines of code to
an existing application, as discussed above. The
resulting nationwide implementation cost for these
affected applications would therefore be
approximately $544,920 (i.e., 30 × 4 × $4,541).
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
12448
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
interconnected text providers be able to
use the same vendors that CMRS
providers use? If so, would their routing
costs be similar to those involved for
CMRS providers? Would a per-incident
service model be feasible for smaller
interconnected text providers, and if so,
would it be preferable to other
alternatives? What costs would be
associated with a consumer outreach
effort from interconnected text
providers to educate consumers about
text-to-911? What other potential costs
to interconnected text providers should
the Commission consider, if any? Since
many interconnected text providers
offer their services at no charge and they
may incur significant costs to
implement text-to-911, will
interconnected text providers have to
start charging for these services or are
there other ways to obtain revenues to
cover these costs? What effect will this
have on future innovation and
competition?
E. Relay Services
31. Individuals who are deaf, hard of
hearing, or have speech disabilities may
elect to use existing text-to-voice relay
services (e.g., IP relay) to contact 911
when they need to communicate with
PSAPs. IP Relay is a form of
telecommunications relay service that
permits an individual with a hearing or
a speech disability to communicate in
text using an Internet Protocol-enabled
device via the Internet, rather than using
a TTY and the public switched
telephone network. These existing relay
services do not provide direct delivery
of text to PSAPs. Moreover, many
commenters have asserted, and we
agree, that relay services have distinct
limitations and are not an acceptable
substitute for direct text access once
text-to-911 capabilities become available
in a jurisdiction. Nevertheless, relay
providers are uniquely situated to
ensure that deaf, hard of hearing, or
speech-impaired individuals can reach
emergency personnel because only relay
providers have the capability to ensure
that if a consumer attempts to text a
PSAP that is not text-to-911 ready, the
message will still be delivered (as a
relay message). We seek comment on
whether relay service providers—to the
extent they offer applications that can
send text messages to North American
Numbering Plan numbers—should
develop direct text-to-text services to
support communication with PSAPs
that are text-capable, while expediting
text-to-voice relay calls where the PSAP
is not capable of receiving text messages
directly from a caller. Is it technically
possible for current relay technologies
to support pass-through of a text to a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
PSAP without relaying the call? Could
relay service providers re-use some or
all of text control center (TCC)
infrastructure being built for text-to-911
services? Are there other ways in which
relay providers could improve or
augment their services to support textto-911 and the broader transition to
NG911? What avenues might relay
providers use to recoup their costs for
providing this service?
F. PSAP Implementation
32. In the 2012 Further Notice, the
Commission acknowledged the
disparate capabilities of PSAPs in terms
of accepting and processing text
messages to 911, and the need for the
Commission to take these differing
capabilities into account. The
Commission also proposed a set of nearterm solutions that would allow non-NG
911 capable PSAPs to handle text
messages without requiring significant
up-front investments or upgrades,
including the use of web browsers,
gateway centers, conversion of text
messages to TTY calls, and state or
regional aggregation of text-to-911
processing.
33. Commenters confirmed that
significant differences persist in PSAP
readiness. Fairfax County, for example,
asserts that it ‘‘cannot currently accept
9–1–1 messages sent via text’’ and that
it ‘‘cannot predict when a transition
from current 9–1–1 to NG9–1–1 will
occur because the initial planning for a
transition to NG9–1–1 is just beginning
in Virginia.’’ Some commenters oppose
action by the Commission to compel
carriers to support text-to-911 absent a
parallel mandate for PSAPs, or
otherwise urge the Commission to
condition the timing of any mandate on
a PSAP’s ability to accept text messages.
34. We expect that broad support of
text-to-911 will aid PSAPs that are
beginning the NG911 transition or
considering implementation of text-to911, and that PSAPs may be more
willing to do so given the availability on
the provider side of this important
service, in that budgeting authorities for
states and localities will have more
certainty to help justify expenditure of
public funds. However, we recognize
that barriers to PSAP implementation of
these functionalities remain. We are
interested in learning more about what
those barriers are and what additional
measures we can take consistent with
our authority that may encourage more
rapid uptake by PSAPs or other
emergency response authorities to
ensure that the all participants in the
911 ecosystem are meeting consumer
expectations. How can the Commission
assist in promoting action by PSAPs and
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
others to overcome funding or other
implementation obstacles? Is there
outreach or other activities that the
Commission or other organizations can
undertake to facilitate this?
G. Phase II-Equivalent Location for
Covered Text Providers
35. CMRS Providers. We appreciate
the advocacy of public safety entities for
the delivery of Phase II level location
information and recognize that with
currently available technology CMRS
carriers face technical difficulties in
providing Phase II equivalency for textto-911 messages. The Carrier–NENA–
APCO Agreement, the ATIS standard J–
STD–110, and a large part of the record
suggest that only coarse (cell sector)
location should be used for current textto-911 purposes. However, in the long
term cell sector information alone
neither offers optimal public safety
benefits nor resolves the discrepancy in
the ability of first responders to locate
persons with hearing and speech
disabilities compared to the ability to
locate persons making voice 911 calls.
Recent submissions to the record and
the capability of smart phones to access
and transmit precise Phase II level
location information offer promise that
text-to-911 message can be sent with
more accurate location information to
PSAPs. For example, at least one CMRS
carrier offers subscribers ‘‘thin-client’’
applications that they can download on
their CMRS-capable devices.
Potentially, the application can acquire
the Phase II level information from the
smartphone’s user plane platform and
send the more precise location through
the text control center (TCC) to the
appropriate PSAP. However, the PSAP
may have to ‘‘re-bid’’ to obtain the Phase
II longitude- latitude information. We
seek comment on this and similar
capabilities to provide Phase II
equivalent location information.
36. Several commenters submit that
the Commission ‘‘should leave the
development of precise location
information capability for text-to-911 to
further product and application
development and related standards
work using LTE and NG911
technologies.’’ Nevertheless, we
continue to emphasize that the longterm objective is for text messaging
services, whether from CMRS carriers or
interconnected text providers, to
provide for Phase II equivalent location
information with text-to-911 calls. We
believe that a combination of
Commission initiatives and industry
efforts can achieve this goal. For
example, concerning the capabilities of
CMRS providers to deliver Phase II
quality location with text-to-911, the
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
current CSRIC IV Working Group 1—
NG–911 is studying and is due to report
in March 2014 on the technical
feasibility of including enhanced
location information in text messages
sent to PSAPs. In addition, as noted
below, the NENA i3Message Session
Relay Protocol (MSRP) could be re-used
to retrieve GPS-derived latitudelongitude information. We seek
comment on these and similar efforts of
standards-bodies pursuing such
solutions and look forward to further
input from public safety entities and
industry that will foster those efforts. At
the same time, we invite comment on
what might be reasonable timeframes to
achieve more precise location
capabilities in sending text messages to
911. We stress that one of the critical
long term goals to enable PSAPs to
dispatch first responders more directly
to a consumer texting 911 is for voice
and text service providers to meet the
same 911 location accuracy
requirements.
37. Interconnected Text Providers. In
seeking comment to establish such a
time frame for interconnected text
applications to provide coarse location
information, we also have a long-term
concern for the need to ensure that
interconnected text messages to 911
have more accurate location information
routed to PSAPs. One of the described
server-based solutions, using the
location application programming
interface (API) in the mobile device
rather than a commercial location
service, promises the capability to meet
the Commission’s Phase II location
accuracy requirements for handsetbased location delivery. While the
selection of anyone solution by
interconnected text providers should
remain technologically neutral, we seek
comment on what technological
developments need to occur for
interconnected text providers to
implement a solution that provides
Phase II equivalent location
information. Further, we find that the
record indicates other possible
interconnected text-to-911 models that
could deliver a more precise location.
We request comment on the timeframe
in which interconnected text providers
could reasonably adopt and implement
such approaches. What factors would
we need to consider in establishing this
timeframe? For example, should
different timeframes be established,
depending on whether the text provider
is an interconnected or an integrated
text provider?
38. Also, we seek comment on what
technological developments are
occurring that would allow
interconnected text providers to either
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
access a wireless carrier network for
cellular data connectivity or connect to
an IP-based network to provide Phase II
equivalent location information.
Although the CSRIC Working Group’s
focus is on the capability of using the
wireless carrier network, we find that to
address consumer concerns to have the
ability to seamlessly reach 911, that
there should be no distinction between
the capabilities of CMRS carriers and
interconnected service providers to
provide Phase II equivalent location
information. We seek comment on this
view. Specifically, we request comment
on whether there are any technical
issues that arise for CMRS carriers and
not for interconnected text providers or
vice versa.
H. Roaming
39. In the 2012 Further Notice, the
Commission suggested that it is critical
for consumers who are roaming to have
access to text-to-911 in an emergency.
However, the Commission
acknowledged that the Carrier–NENA–
APCO Agreement does not provide for
text-to-911 support for roaming
subscribers, and that because ‘‘sending
and receiving texts while roaming
involves two networks, the consumer’s
home network and the visited roaming
network, roaming may create issues for
text-to-911 because of the greater
technical complexity of routing the
message to the correct PSAP based on
the consumer’s location.’’ The
Commission sought specific comment
on the mechanics required for home and
roaming network operators to identify
and communicate the location of a
texting consumer to PSAPs, as well as
other asserted technical limitations.
40. Carriers including AT&T and
Verizon state that a roaming obligation
is not technically feasible, and
encourage the Commission to allow
industry stakeholders to address this
issue and defer consideration of any
rules at this time. CTIA similarly
characterizes the ability of roaming
subscribers to send a text to 911 as being
‘‘considerabl[y] uncertain’’ and
encourages more study of the issue.
CTIA also notes the views of the
Emergency Access Advisory Committee
(EAAC), which suggests that text-to-911
by a roaming subscriber would require
‘‘require significant modifications to the
wireless originator network and core
infrastructure that will ultimately delay
the deployment of SMS-to-9–1–1
services.’’ Sprint and T-Mobile inform
that their networks do not currently
have the technological capability to
support roaming subscriber because
‘‘while location information (in the form
of cell sector information) is available in
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12449
the visited network (onto which the
subscriber has roamed), it is not
normally available to the home CMRS
network.’’ Both Sprint and T-Mobile
encourage the Commission to ‘‘allow for
eventual adoption of standards that
would contemplate roaming in the
NG911 environment.’’ Also, carriers
urge the Commission to wait for
standards to be adopted to address
roaming in the NG–911 environment.
41. On the other hand, public safety
entities advocate pushing forward in the
face of the technical complexities.
BRETSA suggests that if transmitting
text messages from a roaming user to a
PSAP is not currently achievable, it is
better to implement text-to-9–1–1
without roaming capability than to
delay text-to-9–1–1 implementation
altogether. NENA concedes that the
complexity of transmission exists, and it
supports mirroring the roaming
exclusion contained in the Carrier–
NENA–APCO Agreement. However,
NENA supports the reevaluation of this
exclusion at regular intervals, beginning
no later than one year after the
Commission’s initial text-to-9–1–1 rules
come into force.
42. As a general policy matter, we
continue to believe that access to 911
via text is just as critical for roaming
consumers as it is for consumers
utilizing a home carrier’s network.
Indeed, consumers may not even be
aware when they are roaming, and
carrier coverage maps may reflect
coverage where they may only have
roaming agreements. In an emergency,
being able to distinguish which carrier
is providing a signal should not be the
responsibility of the consumer when
seconds may matter. Roaming is also
particularly critical for customers of
small or rural carriers, who rely on
roaming when traveling outside the
regional footprint of these carriers. We
seek comment on this view.
43. At the outset, however, we seek
comment on the volume of text-to-911
calls that can reasonably be anticipated
when roaming—and reflected in data
that carriers might be collecting or
consumer surveys by research or
industry groups. Telecom RERC asserts
that the record indicates a lack of
sufficient data on how serious the
problem might be. Telecom RERC
‘‘suggests that it is necessary for carriers
to submit statistics on the number of
times users attempted to text 9–1–1
during a roaming situation to the FCC.’’
We invite comment on approaches we
could adopt to collect such roaming
data.
44. We also seek comment on the
costs of requiring roaming text-to-911
calls to be routed to the correct, nearest
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12450
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
PSAPs on the roaming carrier’s network.
For example, Sprint asserts that there
would be a significant impact on mobile
devices were we to adopt a roaming
requirement. Sprint further submits that
‘‘for the visited network to support
roaming the visited network would need
to be capable of determining when a text
is attempting to reach a local emergency
service via 9–1–1, and then this system
would need to send the text message to
the local text-to-911 gateway, ignoring
all normal SMS routing rules. SMS
servers would need to be modified to
accomplish this. Any responses from
the PSAP would also need to somehow
be intercepted, so they are not sent back
to the home network’s Short Message
Service Center (‘SMSC’), which would
require further routing modifications.’’
45. We further recognize that
additional technical issues may require
resolution before we would set a date
certain for CMRS providers to meet this
proposed obligation. Some commenters
suggest that CMRS networks cannot
currently support roaming and the
delivery of location information because
while the cell sector information is
available in the visited network, it is not
available in the home network. For
instance, commenters note that the
current ATIS standard for text-to-911
over the SMS platform does not support
a roaming capability. Further, Sprint
adds that mobile ‘‘devices . . . would
need to be capable of interacting with
multiple SMSCs (both the home and
serving SMSCs)’’ and that ‘‘[s]torage and
delivery of undeliverable SMS messages
would also need to be addressed.’’
46. Given the technological
complexities for routing roaming text-to911 calls, we seek comment on what
measures we could take to either
facilitate or mandate within a
reasonable timeframe a roaming text-to911 requirement prior to wide-spread
implementation of NG911. For example,
what standards, if any, would need to be
adopted before a requirement would be
appropriate? We also seek specific
information on what the cost burden
would be for carriers to make the
necessary changes to their SMS
platforms. What timeframe would be
required for carriers to make such
changes? Would the costs to make
CMRS network modifications outweigh
the public safety benefit of text-to-911
roaming; and if so, what would the
magnitude of those costs be, e.g.,
compared to the potential call volume
for text-to-911? Further, do any of the
mobile-based, server-based solutions, or
other similar potential solutions
described above in this Second Further
Notice provide a technically feasible
pathway for implementing a roaming
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
text-to-911 requirement either over SMS
platforms or, alternatively, IP-based
platforms before implementation of
NG911 makes text-to-911 roaming more
feasible? If so, what standards, if any,
would have to be adopted to implement
those solutions? What would a
reasonable timeframe be to adopt those
standards and test such for
implementation? Additionally, what
further educational measures or
coordination can the Commission take
to make consumers aware of the
limitations in trying to send a text-to911 message while roaming?
I. Liability Protection
47. In the 2012 Further Notice, the
Commission recognized that adequate
liability protection is needed for PSAPs,
CMRS providers, interconnected service
providers, and vendors to proceed with
implementation of text-to-911. The
Commission noted that the 2008 New
and Emerging Technologies 911
Improvement Act (NET 911 Act)
expanded the scope of state liability
protection by requiring states to provide
parity in the degree of protection
provided to traditional and nontraditional 911 providers. In the Next
Generation 9–1–1 Advancement Act of
2012 (NG911 Advancement Act),
Congress further extended these parity
provisions to providers of NG911
service. The 2012 Further Notice sought
comment on whether providers of textto-911 service have sufficient liability
protection under current law to provide
text-to-911 services to their customers.
The Commission observed that under
the Carrier–NENA–APCO Agreement,
the four major wireless carriers have
committed to deploy text-to-911
capability without any precondition
requiring additional liability protection
other than the protection afforded by
current law. Nevertheless, the 2012
Further Notice sought comment on
whether the Commission could take
additional steps—consistent with our
regulatory authority—to provide
additional liability protection to text-to911 service providers.
48. In February 2013, pursuant to the
NG911 Advancement Act, Commission
staff submitted a report to Congress
addressing the legal and regulatory
framework for NG911 services. With
respect to liability, the NG911 Report
recognized that tort liability standards
are traditionally a matter of state law,
and recommended that Congress
consider incentives for states to revise
their liability regimes to provide
appropriate protections for entities
providing or supporting NG911 services.
The NG911 Report also suggested that
Congress include appropriate liability
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
protection as a part of any federal law
that imposes NG911 requirements or
solicits voluntary NG911 activity.
49. In response to the 2012 Further
Notice, numerous parties submitted
comments on liability issues. We do not
address these comments here, but
encourage parties to provide any
additional or updated information
relevant to our consideration of this
issue including the possible risks and
costs of implementing text-to-911
without liability protections in place. In
addition, we seek comment on whether
adopting text-to-911 requirements as
proposed in this proceeding would
assist in mitigating liability concerns by
establishing standards of conduct that
could be invoked by text-to-911
providers in defense against state tort
liability or similar claims.
J. Waivers
50. Should the Commission adopt
mandatory obligations to support textto-911, we seek comment on to what
extent, and under what circumstances,
the Commission should consider
waivers. The Commission has a
generally articulated waiver standard
under §§ 1.3 and 1.925 of our rules. The
Commission has also from time to time
provided guidance on how applicants
may demonstrate that the waiver
standard has been met in a particular
circumstance. Under certain statutes,
Congress has also directed the
Commission to consider waivers in
particular circumstances. For example,
section 716(h)(1) of the
Communications and Video
Accessibility Act (CVAA) allows the
Commission to grant waivers of the
CVAA’s accessibility requirements for
features or functions of devices capable
of accessing advanced communications
services but which are, in the judgment
of the Commission, designed primarily
for purposes other than accessing
advanced communications. The
Commission sought comment on how to
implement this provision, and
subsequently provided guidance on the
substantive factors impacting the
Commission’s waiver analysis.
51. Recognizing that to some extent it
may depend on the rule adopted, we
seek comment on what factors or other
considerations would be relevant to the
Commission in evaluating whether a
wavier would be appropriate. Given the
significance of the public benefits of
supporting text-to-911, is a showing of
financial difficulty or technical
infeasibility in complying sufficient on
its own? What amount of financial
challenge or information regarding
technical difficulties should be
demonstrated? If the waiver is related to
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
any mandatory timeframe, what
circumstances should be considered?
Should additional time be limited in
availability? What other factual
considerations should the Commission
take into account?
K. Treatment of Voluntary Agreements
52. In this rulemaking, we seek
comment on a framework for
encouraging voluntary industry
commitments that will benefit the
public interest. The voluntary
commitment that AT&T, Sprint, TMobile, and Verizon Wireless have
entered into with NENA and APCO
could serve as a model for further
industry action on such issues. We seek
comment on how any rules adopted in
this proceeding could provide a ‘‘safe
harbor’’ option for companies that have
entered into voluntary agreements with
public safety that the Commission has
determined serves the public interest.
Under a safe harbor approach, should
companies be given the option to either
be bound by their voluntary
commitments or to be subject to the
rules? If companies choosing to abide by
their voluntary commitments would be
afforded safe harbor treatment, then if
such a company was alleged to have
violated its voluntary commitment,
should it be afforded an opportunity to
correct its behavior without fear of
enforcement action? Conversely, for
companies that elect to be subject to the
rules, would they be subject to standard
enforcement mechanisms?
53. We also seek comment on what
should happen if a company violates its
voluntary commitment after being
afforded an opportunity to correct.
Should failure to abide by the voluntary
commitment after opportunity to correct
lead to termination of the safe harbor?
Should the company be required to
switch to the rules track or subject to
enforcement action for sustained
violations of its commitment? Should
certain violations, e.g., willful
misconduct, void the safe harbor
protections and deprive the company of
the opportunity to correct? We seek
comment how ensuring accountability
under and the enforceability of
voluntary commitments under any of
these frameworks would impact the
incentives for industry to enter into
voluntary commitments that are in the
public interest.
54. We seek comment on the potential
risks as well as benefits of this approach
to voluntary commitments. Are there
circumstances in which the safe harbor
option should not be made available?
What should the Commission do if such
voluntary agreements go beyond the
Commission’s rules in a particular area?
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
In this context, do the interests of
private parties negotiating voluntary
agreements align with the Commission’s
or the public’s interests? Should such an
approach be time-limited or subject to
re-evaluation based on changed
circumstances, e,g., where the
Commission determines that additional
regulatory action on a given issue may
be warranted? Should we solicit public
comment on such voluntary
commitments before granting signatories
a safe harbor?
55. We also seek comment on several
ancillary issues. We seek comment on
the nature of an ‘‘election,’’ and whether
parties must join a voluntary agreement
at its inception, or may join such an
agreement at a later time. Would such
a situation provide the opportunity for
regulatory arbitrage? Another important
aspect of voluntary commitments is the
ability to measure and monitor industry
compliance with such commitments.
The Carrier–NENA–APCO Agreement
included voluntary quarterly reporting,
whereby parties to the commitment
provide updated information to the
Commission regarding the extent of
their compliance with the commitment.
We seek comment on whether for future
voluntary commitments to qualify for
the treatment described above, they
must include a robust reporting
requirement that provides the
Commission with sufficient data to
make informed decisions about the
effectiveness of the voluntary
commitment and, additionally, what the
implications of such a voluntary
information collection might be for
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction
Act and any other relevant legal
requirements.
L. Future Evolution of Texting Services
56. In the 2012 Further Notice, the
Commission divided text applications
into two broad categories: (1)
interconnected text applications that
use IP-based protocols to deliver text
messages to a service provider, which
the service provider then delivers the
text messages to destinations identified
by a telephone number, and (2) noninterconnected applications that only
support communication with a defined
set of users of compatible applications
but do not support general
communication with text-capable
telephone numbers. We note that our
definition of interconnected text, as
codified in the Bounce-Back Order,
encompasses applications ‘‘that enable a
consumer to send text messages to all or
substantially all text-capable U.S.
telephone numbers and receive text
messages from the same.’’ We seek
comment whether the definition of
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12451
interconnected text should also be
interpreted to include a service that
utilizes IP-based protocols for outgoing
text and SMS-based protocols for the
return text and request that commenters
discuss any potential problems with
such an interpretation.
57. As discussed above, our initial
proposals remain focused on the subset
of ‘‘over-the-top’’ applications that
constitute interconnected text
applications. The division of text
applications into interconnected and
non-interconnected remains appropriate
given the record in this proceeding. We
recognize, however, there are many
varieties of text messaging applications,
and many more varieties are likely to
develop.
58. As these applications continue to
grow in popularity, however, we expect
that consumer habits will change, and
with them, their expectations as to the
functionality of these applications may
also change. We seek comment on the
varieties of messaging applications.
Under what conditions would
consumers expect that text messaging
via an application that is not connected
to the PSTN and does not allow direct
texting to a phone number would enable
a connection to 911? Do consumers
expect that text messaging services
generally have the ability to connect to
text-capable telephone numbers? Do
consumer expectations vary based on
the nature of a particular application?
Could such text messaging applications
also create consumer expectations that
they can reach emergency services? If
so, should we require them to do so?
What costs would be associated with
doing so? For instance, would imposing
text-to-911 requirements on noninterconnected text applications raise
the cost of such services that would
diminish innovation and investment?
Should we extend the bounce-back
requirement to such applications? Does
the Commission have adequate bases of
authority to impose such a mandate on
such text providers?
M. Legal Authority
59. The Commission’s 2012 Further
Notice sought comment on the FCC’s
authority to apply both a bounce-back
requirement and more comprehensive
text-to-911 rules to CMRS providers and
other entities that offer interconnected
text messaging services, including thirdparty providers of OTT text messaging
applications. The 2012 Further Notice
discussed the scope of the
Commission’s authority under Title III,
the CVAA, and the agency’s ancillary
authority.
60. Subsequently, in the 2013 BounceBack Order, the Commission
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
12452
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
determined that numerous provisions of
Title III provide the FCC with direct
authority to impose 911 bounce-back
requirements on CMRS providers, that
the CVAA vests the Commission with
direct authority to impose 911 bounceback requirements on both CMRS
providers and other providers of
interconnected text messaging
applications, including OTT providers,
and that the agency has ancillary
authority to apply 911 bounce-back
requirements to providers of
interconnected text messaging services,
including OTT providers. The
Commission explained, inter alia, that
imposing 911 bounce back rules on OTT
providers was reasonably ancillary to
the Commission’s Title III mandate
regarding the use of spectrum and the
Commission’s statutory authority to
adopt 911 regulations that ensure that
consumers can reach emergency
services. We invite parties to comment
on whether there are any reasons why
the Commission’s previous
determinations regarding the scope of
our authority do not apply in the
context of the foregoing proposals,
including whether the CVAA provides
authority to implement regulations
mandating text-to-911 on a
telecommunications network that is not
on an IP-enabled emergency network.
Further, we seek comment on whether
text-to-911 is ‘‘achievable and
technically feasible’’ for interconnected
text providers. To the extent the
Commission adopts rules that cover
relay providers or other recipients of
Interstate TRS funding, we believe we
have authority to adopt such rules
under sections 201(b) and 225 of the
Communications Act. We seek comment
on the extent of this authority.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
61. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact of
the proposal described in the attached
Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking on small entities. Written
public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments in the
Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. The Commission will send
a copy of the Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, including this
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration
(SBA). In addition, the Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
62. Wireless consumers are
increasingly using text messaging as a
means of everyday communication on a
variety of platforms. The legacy 911
system, however, does not support text
messaging as a means of reaching
emergency responders, leading to
potential consumer confusion and even
to possible danger. As consumer use of
carrier-based and third party-provided
texting applications expands and
evolves, the 911 system must also
evolve to enable wireless consumers to
reach 911 in those emergency situations
where a voice call is not feasible or
appropriate.
63. In this Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, we propose rules
that set timeframes that will enable
Americans to send text messages to 911
(text-to-911) across platforms, and seek
comment on consumers’ use of text-to911 while roaming. We also seek
comment on the transmission to a PSAP
of more specific information as to the
location of a texting party. Specifically,
we propose to require all wireless
carriers and providers of
‘‘interconnected’’ text messaging
applications to support the ability of
consumers to send text messages to 911
in all areas throughout the nation where
911 Public Safety Answering Points
(PSAPs) are also prepared to receive the
texts no later than December 31, 2014.
We also seek comment on requiring
carriers to support text-to-911 when
consumers are roaming on their
networks, and to provide ‘‘Phase II’’
equivalent location information
regarding the location from which a text
is sent to 911. We also seek comment on
enhancing liability protection for text
providers within the Next Generation
911 (NG911) ecosystem, how relay
services may support text-to-911, and
how we should consider any waiver
standards that may apply.
64. Our proposals build on the
voluntary commitment by the four
largest wireless carriers—in an
agreement with the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA), and the
Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials (APCO)
(Carrier-NENA–APCO Agreement)—to
make text-to-911 available to their
customers by May 15, 2014. The
baseline requirements we propose in
this Second Further Notice for
interconnected text providers are
modeled on the Carrier-NENA–APCO
Agreement, and we seek additional
comment how all ‘‘interconnected text’’
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
providers can achieve these milestones
in the same or similar timeframes.
65. Seeking comment on establishing
timeframes for the addition of text
capability to the 911 system for
interconnected text providers and for all
consumers when roaming on a CMRS
network will vastly enhance the
system’s accessibility for over 40
million Americans with hearing or
speech disabilities. It will also provide
a vital and lifesaving alternative to the
public in situations where 911 voice
service is unavailable or placing a voice
call could endanger the caller. Indeed,
as recent history has shown, text
messaging is often the most reliable
means of communications during
disasters where voice calls cannot be
completed due to capacity constraints.
Finally, implementing text-to-911
represents a crucial next step in the
ongoing transition of the legacy 911
system to a NG911 system that will
support not only text but will also
enable consumers to send photos,
videos, and data to PSAPs, enhancing
the information available to first
responders for assessing and responding
to emergencies.
66. Our proposed approach to text-to911 is also based on the presumption
that consumers in emergency situations
should be able to communicate using
the text applications they are most
familiar with from everyday use.
Currently, the most commonly used
texting technology is Short Message
Service (SMS), which is available,
familiar, and widely used by virtually
all wireless consumers. In the CarrierNENA–APCO Agreement, the four major
carriers have indicated that they intend
to use SMS-based text for their initial
text-to-911 deployments, and we expect
other initial deployments to be similarly
SMS-based.
67. At the same time, have not limited
our focus to SMS-based text. As a result
of the rapid proliferation of
smartphones and other advanced mobile
devices, some consumers are beginning
to move away from SMS to other IPbased text applications, including
downloadable software applications
provided by parties other than the
underlying carrier. To the extent that
consumers gravitate to such
applications as their primary means of
communicating by text, they may
reasonably come to expect these
applications to also support text-to-911,
as consumer familiarity is vital in
emergency situations where seconds
matter. Therefore, in this Second
Further Notice, we seek to ensure that
consumers have access to the same textto-911 capabilities on the full array of
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
texting applications that they use for
ubiquitous on a reasonable timeframe.
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Legal Basis
68. The legal basis for any action that
may be taken pursuant to this Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10,
201, 201(b), 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301,
302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a),
309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 615a,
615a-1, 615b, 615c(a), 615c(c), 615c(g),
and 615(c)(1) of the Communications
Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a),
154(i), 157, 160, 201, 201(b), 214, 222,
225, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b),
303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316,
316(a), 332, 615a, 615a–1, 615b, 615c,
615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1).
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Would Apply
69. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules. The RFA generally
defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as
having the same meaning as the terms
‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’
and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’
In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’
has the same meaning as the term
‘‘small business concern’’ under the
Small Business Act. A small business
concern is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
70. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time,
affect small entities that are not easily
categorized at present. We therefore
describe here, at the outset, three
comprehensive, statutory small entity
size standards. First, nationwide, there
are a total of approximately 27.9 million
small businesses, according to the SBA.
In addition, a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of 2007, there
were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than fifty thousand.’’
Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate
that there were 89,476 local
governmental jurisdictions in the
United States. We estimate that, of this
total, as many as 88,506 entities may
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
qualify as ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are
small.
1. Telecommunications Service Entities
(a) Wireless Telecommunications
Service Providers
71. Pursuant to 47 CFR 20.18(a), the
Commission’s 911 service requirements
are only applicable to Commercial
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS)
‘‘[providers], excluding mobile satellite
service operators, to the extent that they:
(1) Offer real-time, two way switched
voice service that is interconnected with
the public switched network; and (2)
Utilize an in-network switching facility
that enables the provider to reuse
frequencies and accomplish seamless
hand-offs of subscriber calls. These
requirements are applicable to entities
that offer voice service to consumers by
purchasing airtime or capacity at
wholesale rates from CMRS licensees.’’
72. Below, for those services subject
to auctions, we note that, as a general
matter, the number of winning bidders
that qualify as small businesses at the
close of an auction does not necessarily
represent the number of small
businesses currently in service. Also,
the Commission does not generally track
subsequent business size unless, in the
context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
73. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except satellite). This industry
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
phone services, paging services,
wireless Internet access, and wireless
video services. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers. The size standard for that
category is that a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
category, census data for 2007 show that
there were 11,163 establishments that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 10,791 establishments had
employment of 999 or fewer employees
and 372 had employment of 1000
employees or more. Thus under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities that may be
affected by rules proposed in the
Second Further Notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12453
74. Wireless Service Providers. The
SBA has developed a small business
size standard for wireless firms within
the two broad economic census
categories of ‘‘Paging’’ and ‘‘Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications.’’
Under both categories, the SBA deems
a wireless business to be small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. For the
census category of Paging, Census
Bureau data for 2002 show that there
were 807 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 804 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees, and three firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or
more. Thus, under this category and
associated small business size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered
small. For the census category of
Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications, Census Bureau
data for 2002 show that there were 1,397
firms in this category that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms
had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and 19 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or
more. Thus, under this second category
and size standard, the majority of firms
can, again, be considered small.
75. Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed
a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local
exchange services. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications
Carriers. Under that size standard, such
a business is small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. Census Bureau data
for 2007, which now supersede data
from the 2002 Census, show that there
were 3,188 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or
fewer, and 44 firms had had
employment of 1000 or more. According
to Commission data, 1,307 carriers
reported that they were incumbent local
exchange service providers. Of these
1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 301 have
more than 1,500 employees.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that most providers of local
exchange service are small entities that
may be affected by the rules and
policies proposed in the Second Further
Notice. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard,
the majority of these incumbent local
exchange service providers can be
considered small.
76. Competitive Local Exchange
Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs),
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12454
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Other Local Service Providers. Neither
the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard specifically for these service
providers. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is for the category
Wired Telecommunications Carriers.
Under that size standard, such a
business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. Census Bureau data for
2007, which now supersede data from
the 2002 Census, show that there were
3,188 firms in this category that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or
fewer, and 44 firms had had
employment of 1,000 employees or
more. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard,
the majority of these Competitive LECs,
CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and Other Local Service Providers can
be considered small entities. According
to Commission data, 1,442 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the
provision of either competitive local
exchange services or competitive access
provider services. Of these 1,442
carriers, an estimated 1,256 have 1,500
or fewer employees and 186 have more
than 1,500 employees. In addition, 17
carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or
fewer employees. In addition, 72
carriers have reported that they are
Other Local Service Providers. Of the
72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer
employees and two have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that most
providers of competitive local exchange
service, competitive access providers,
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers are small
entities that may be affected by rules
proposed in the Second Further Notice.
77. Broadband Personal
Communications Service. The
broadband personal communications
services (PCS) spectrum is divided into
six frequency blocks designated A
through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The
Commission initially defined a ‘‘small
business’’ for C- and F-Block licenses as
an entity that has average gross revenues
of $40 million or less in the three
previous calendar years. For F-Block
licenses, an additional small business
size standard for ‘‘very small business’’
was added and is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates, has
average gross revenues of not more than
$15 million for the preceding three
calendar years. These small business
size standards, in the context of
broadband PCS auctions, have been
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
approved by the SBA. No small
businesses within the SBA-approved
small business size standards bid
successfully for licenses in Blocks A
and B. There were 90 winning bidders
that claimed small business status in the
first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93
bidders that claimed small business
status won approximately 40 percent of
the 1,479 licenses in the first auction for
the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15,
1999, the Commission completed the
reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block
licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57
winning bidders in that auction, 48
claimed small business status and won
277 licenses.
78. On January 26, 2001, the
Commission completed the auction of
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35
winning bidders in that auction, 29
claimed small business status.
Subsequent events concerning Auction
35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163
C and F Block licenses being available
for grant. On February 15, 2005, the
Commission completed an auction of
242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in
Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning
bidders in that auction, 16 claimed
small business status and won 156
licenses. On May 21, 2007, the
Commission completed an auction of 33
licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in
Auction No. 71. Of the 12 winning
bidders in that auction, five claimed
small business status and won 18
licenses. On August 20, 2008, the
Commission completed the auction of
20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband
PCS licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the
eight winning bidders for Broadband
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed
small business status and won 14
licenses.
79. Narrowband Personal
Communications Services. To date, two
auctions of narrowband personal
communications services (PCS) licenses
have been conducted. For purposes of
the two auctions that have already been
held, ‘‘small businesses’’ were entities
with average gross revenues for the prior
three calendar years of $40 million or
less. Through these auctions, the
Commission has awarded a total of 41
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained
by small businesses. To ensure
meaningful participation of small
business entities in future auctions, the
Commission has adopted a two-tiered
small business size standard in the
Narrowband PCS Second Report and
Order. A ‘‘small business’’ is an entity
that, together with affiliates and
controlling interests, has average gross
revenues for the three preceding years of
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
not more than $40 million. A ‘‘very
small business’’ is an entity that,
together with affiliates and controlling
interests, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more
than $15 million. The SBA has
approved these small business size
standards.
80. Specialized Mobile Radio. The
Commission adopted small business
size standards for the purpose of
determining eligibility for bidding
credits in auctions of Specialized
Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area
licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
bands. The Commission defined a
‘‘small business’’ as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for
the preceding three years. The
Commission defined a ‘‘very small
business’’ as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues
not exceeding $3 million for the
preceding three years. The SBA has
approved these small business size
standards for both the 800 MHz and 900
MHz SMR Service. The first 900 MHz
SMR auction was completed in 1996.
Sixty bidders claiming that they
qualified as small businesses under the
$15 million size standard won 263
licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. In
2004, the Commission held a second
auction of 900 MHz SMR licenses and
three winning bidders identifying
themselves as very small businesses
won 7 licenses. The auction of 800 MHz
SMR licenses for the upper 200
channels was conducted in 1997. Ten
bidders claiming that they qualified as
small or very small businesses under the
$15 million size standard won 38
licenses for the upper 200 channels. A
second auction of 800 MHz SMR
licenses was conducted in 2002 and
included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder
claiming small business status won five
licenses.
81. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz
SMR licenses for the General Category
channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven
bidders who won 108 licenses for the
General Category channels in the 800
MHz SMR band qualified as small or
very small businesses. In an auction
completed in 2000, a total of 2,800
Economic Area licenses in the lower 80
channels of the 800 MHz SMR service
were awarded. Of the 22 winning
bidders, 19 claimed small or very small
business status and won 129 licenses.
Thus, combining all four auctions, 41
winning bidders for geographic licenses
in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed to
be small businesses.
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
82. In addition, there are numerous
incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees
and licensees with extended
implementation authorizations in the
800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not
know how many firms provide 800 MHz
or 900 MHz geographic area SMR
pursuant to extended implementation
authorizations, nor how many of these
providers have annual revenues not
exceeding $15 million. One firm has
over $15 million in revenues. In
addition, we do not know how many of
these firms have 1500 or fewer
employees. We assume, for purposes of
this analysis, that all of the remaining
existing extended implementation
authorizations are held by small
entities, as that small business size
standard is approved by the SBA.
83. AWS Services (1710–1755 MHz
and 2110–2155 MHz bands (AWS–1);
1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz, 2020–
2025 MHz and 2175–2180 MHz bands
(AWS–2); 2155–2175 MHz band (AWS–
3)). For the AWS–1 bands, the
Commission has defined a ‘‘small
business’’ as an entity with average
annual gross revenues for the preceding
three years not exceeding $40 million,
and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an entity
with average annual gross revenues for
the preceding three years not exceeding
$15 million. In 2006, the Commission
conducted its first auction of AWS–1
licenses. In that initial AWS–1 auction,
31 winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses.
Twenty-six of the winning bidders
identified themselves as small
businesses. In a subsequent 2008
auction, the Commission offered 35
AWS–1 licenses. Four winning bidders
identified themselves as very small
businesses, and three of the winning
bidders identified themselves as a small
business. For AWS–2 and AWS–3,
although we do not know for certain
which entities are likely to apply for
these frequencies, we note that the
AWS–1 bands are comparable to those
used for cellular service and personal
communications service. The
Commission has not yet adopted size
standards for the AWS–2 or AWS–3
bands but has proposed to treat both
AWS–2 and AWS–3 similarly to
broadband PCS service and AWS–1
service due to the comparable capital
requirements and other factors, such as
issues involved in relocating
incumbents and developing markets,
technologies, and services.
84. Wireless Communications
Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital
audio broadcasting satellite uses in the
2305–2320 MHz and 2345–2360 MHz
bands. The Commission defined ‘‘small
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
business’’ for the wireless
communications services (WCS) auction
as an entity with average gross revenues
of $40 million for each of the three
preceding years, and a ‘‘very small
business’’ as an entity with average
gross revenues of $15 million for each
of the three preceding years. The SBA
has approved these definitions. The
Commission auctioned geographic area
licenses in the WCS service. In the
auction, which commenced on April 15,
1997 and closed on April 25, 1997, there
were seven bidders that won 31 licenses
that qualified as very small business
entities, and one bidder that won one
license that qualified as a small business
entity.
85. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In
the 700 MHz Guard Band Order, the
Commission adopted size standards for
‘‘small businesses’’ and ‘‘very small
businesses’’ for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions
such as bidding credits and installment
payments. A small business in this
service is an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues not
exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a ‘‘very small
business’’ is an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. SBA approval of these
definitions is not required. In 2000, the
Commission conducted an auction of 52
Major Economic Area (‘‘MEA’’) licenses.
Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96
licenses were sold to nine bidders. Five
of these bidders were small businesses
that won a total of 26 licenses. A second
auction of 700 MHz Guard Band
licenses commenced and closed in
2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned
were sold to three bidders. One of these
bidders was a small business that won
a total of two licenses.
86. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In
the 700 MHz Second Report and Order,
the Commission revised its rules
regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses. On
January 24, 2008, the Commission
commenced Auction 73 in which
several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz
band were available for licensing: 12
Regional Economic Area Grouping
licenses in the C Block, and one
nationwide license in the D Block. The
auction concluded on March 18, 2008,
with 3 winning bidders claiming very
small business status (those with
attributable average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $15 million
for the preceding three years) and
winning five licenses.
87. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses.
The Commission previously adopted
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12455
criteria for defining three groups of
small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits. The
Commission defined a ‘‘small business’’
as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding
$40 million for the preceding three
years. A ‘‘very small business’’ is
defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, the lower 700
MHz Service had a third category of
small business status for Metropolitan/
Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
licenses—‘‘entrepreneur’’—which is
defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these
small size standards. An auction of 740
licenses (one license in each of the 734
MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of
the six Economic Area Groupings
(EAGs)) was conducted in 2002. Of the
740 licenses available for auction, 484
licenses were won by 102 winning
bidders. Seventy-two of the winning
bidders claimed small business, very
small business or entrepreneur status
and won licenses. A second auction
commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on
June 13, 2003, and included 256
licenses. Seventeen winning bidders
claimed small or very small business
status, and nine winning bidders
claimed entrepreneur status. In 2005,
the Commission completed an auction
of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz
band. All three winning bidders claimed
small business status.
88. In 2007, the Commission
reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second
Report and Order. An auction of A, B
and E block 700 MHz licenses was held
in 2008. Twenty winning bidders
claimed small business status (those
with attributable average annual gross
revenues that exceed $15 million and do
not exceed $40 million for the preceding
three years). Thirty three winning
bidders claimed very small business
status (those with attributable average
annual gross revenues that do not
exceed $15 million for the preceding
three years).
89. Wireless Telephony. Wireless
telephony includes cellular, personal
communications services, and
specialized mobile radio telephony
carriers. As noted, the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
12456
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Satellite). Under the SBA small business
size standard, a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees.
According to Trends in Telephone
Service data, 413 carriers reported that
they were engaged in wireless
telephony. Of these, an estimated 261
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152
have more than 1,500 employees.
Therefore, more than half of these
entities can be considered small.
90. Satellite Telecommunications
Providers. Two economic census
categories address the satellite industry.
The first category has a small business
size standard of $15 million or less in
average annual receipts, under SBA
rules. The second has a size standard of
$25 million or less in annual receipts.
91. The category of Satellite
Telecommunications ‘‘comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
providing telecommunications services
to other establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving
communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.’’ Census Bureau
data for 2007 show that 607 Satellite
Telecommunications firms that operated
for that entire year. Of this total, 533
firms had annual receipts of under $10
million, and 74 firms had receipts of
$10 million to $24,999,999.
Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of Satellite
Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by rules
proposed in the Second Further Notice.
92. The second category, i.e., ‘‘All
Other Telecommunications’’, comprises
‘‘establishments primarily engaged in
providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as
satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.
This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and
associated facilities connected with one
or more terrestrial systems and capable
of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments
providing Internet services or Voice
over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services
via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this
industry.’’ For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2007 show that there
were a total of 2,623 firms that operated
for the entire year. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of All Other Telecommunications firms
are small entities that might be affected
by rules proposed in the Second Further
Notice.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
(b) Equipment Manufacturers
93. Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing. The Census Bureau
defines this category as follows: ‘‘This
industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television
equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio
and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for Radio
and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing which is: all such firms
having 750 or fewer employees.
According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were a total of 939
establishments in this category that
operated for part or all of the entire year.
Of this total, 784 had less than 500
employees and 155 had more than 100
employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
94. Semiconductor and Related
Device Manufacturing. These
establishments manufacture ‘‘computer
storage devices that allow the storage
and retrieval of data from a phase
change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/
optical media. The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this
category of manufacturing; that size
standard is 500 or fewer employees
storage and retrieval of data from a
phase change, magnetic, optical, or
magnetic/optical media.’’ According to
data from the 2007 U.S. Census, in 2007,
there were 954 establishments engaged
in this business. Of these, 545 had from
1 to 19 employees; 219 had from 20 to
99 employees; and 190 had 100 or more
employees. Based on this data, the
Commission concludes that the majority
of the businesses engaged in this
industry are small.
(c) Information Service and Software
Providers
95. Software Publishers. Since 2007
these services have been defined within
the broad economic census category of
Custom Computer Programming
Services; that category is defined as
establishments primarily engaged in
writing, modifying, testing, and
supporting software to meet the needs of
a particular customer. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for this category, which is
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
annual gross receipts of $25 million or
less. According to data from the 2007
U.S. Census, there were 41,571
establishments engaged in this business
in 2007. Of these, 40,149 had annual
gross receipts of less than $10,000,000.
Another 1,422 establishments had gross
receipts of $10,000,000 or more. Based
on this data, the Commission concludes
that the majority of the businesses
engaged in this industry are small.
96. Internet Service Providers. Since
2007, these services have been defined
within the broad economic census
category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers; that category is defined as
follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies.’’ The SBA has developed
a small business size standard for this
category, which is: all such firms having
1,500 or fewer employees. According to
Census Bureau data for 2007, there were
3,188 firms in this category, total, that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 3,144 firms had employment of
999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms
had employment of 1000 employees or
more. Thus, under this size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered
small. In addition, according to Census
Bureau data for 2007, there were a total
of 396 firms in the category Internet
Service Providers (broadband) that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 394 firms had employment of 999
or fewer employees, and two firms had
employment of 1000 employees or
more. Consequently, we estimate that
the majority of these firms are small
entities that may be affected by rules
proposed by the Second Further Notice.
97. Internet Publishing and
Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
The Commission’s action may pertain to
interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) services, which could be
provided by entities that provide other
services such as email, online gaming,
web browsing, video conferencing,
instant messaging, and other, similar IPenabled services. The Commission has
not adopted a size standard for entities
that create or provide these types of
services or applications. However, the
Census Bureau has identified firms that
‘‘primarily engaged in (1) publishing
and/or broadcasting content on the
Internet exclusively or (2) operating
Web sites that use a search engine to
generate and maintain extensive
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
databases of Internet addresses and
content in an easily searchable format
(and known as Web search).
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
98. The Second Further Notice
proposes that carriers and
interconnected text providers that enter
into voluntary agreements to provide
text-to-911 should be required to submit
reports to the Commission on their
adherence to their commitments in
order to qualify for a safe harbor with
respect to any adopted rules. The
Commission proposes that any reporting
should be robust enough to provide the
Commission with data sufficient for it to
make informed decisions about the
effectiveness of the voluntary
commitment. Small entities opting for
this path would do so voluntarily, and
assume any costs associated with such
option. Alternatively, they may opt to
comply with mandatory rules which
may be adopted, and which do not
include a proposal for reporting.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
99. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) and exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.’’
100. The Second Further Notice
analyzes a variety of possible means of
implementing text-to-911 for
interconnected text providers in a
timely fashion and costs thereof, and
seeks comment on these issues. We are
also seeking comment on what waiver
standards may apply and circumstances
that may warrant a waiver of any rules
we may adopt, including how financial
constraints should be considered. Our
proposals build on the recently filed
voluntary commitment by the four
largest wireless carriers—in an
agreement with the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA), and the
Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials (APCO)
(Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement) to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
make text-to-911 available to their
customers by May 15, 2014, and the
previously submitted record suggesting
that all CMRS providers can support
text-to-911 by December 31, 2014.
101. Additionally, the Second Further
Notice seeks comment implementing
text-to-911 for roaming consumers,
enhancing location accuracy for
consumers sending texts to 911, and the
evolution of texting applications and
how consumers use them.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
102. None.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This document contains no new or
modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13.
Ex Parte Presentations
The proceedings initiated by this
Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceedings in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must: (1) List all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made; and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule § 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12457
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers,
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
Part 20 as follows:
PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE
RADIO SERVICES
1. The authority for Part 20 is revised
to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157,
160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307,
308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 615(a),
615(a) through 1, and 615(b).
2. Section 20.18 paragraph (n) is
amended by adding paragraphs (9)
through (12) to read as follows
■
§ 20.18
911 Service.
*
*
*
*
*
(n) * * *
(9) 911 Text Message. A 911 text
message is a message, consisting
entirely of text characters, intended to
be delivered to a PSAP by a Covered
Text Provider.
(10) 911 Short Code. The 911 Short
Code is the designated short code to
identify a 911 Text Message to be sent
to a designated PSAP.
(11) No later than December 31, 2014,
all covered text providers must have the
capability to route a 911 text message to
a PSAP. In complying with this
requirement, covered text providers
must route text messages to the same
PSAP to which a 911 voice call would
be routed, unless the responsible local
or state entity designates a different
PSAP to receive 911 text messages and
informs the carrier of that change.
(i) Covered text providers must begin
routing all 911 texts messages to a PSAP
making a valid request of the carrier
within a reasonable amount of time, not
to exceed six months.
(ii) PSAPs may begin making valid
requests prior to the December 31, 2014,
deadline for the capability to route 911
texts to PSAPs but covered text
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
12458
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 2014 / Proposed Rules
providers are not obligated to begin
providing such service until December
31, 2014.
(iii) Valid Request means that:
(A) The requesting PSAP represents
that it is technically ready to receive 911
text messages in the format requested;
and
(B) The appropriate local or State 911
service governing authority has
specifically authorized the PSAP to
accept and, by extension, the signatory
service provider to provide, text-to-911
service (and such authorization is not
subject to dispute).
(12) Covered Devices and Network
Connection. Third party interconnected
text providers that meet the definition of
a ‘‘covered text provider’’ must offer the
capability described in paragraph
(n)(11) of this section during time
periods when the mobile device is
connected to a CMRS network.
[FR Doc. 2014–04731 Filed 3–4–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 21
[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2013–0135;
FF09M21200–145–FXMB1232099BPP0]
RIN 1018–BA26
Migratory Bird Permits; Extension of
Expiration Dates for Double-Crested
Cormorant Depredation Orders
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of
draft environmental assessment.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, propose revisions to
the two existing depredation orders for
double-crested cormorants
(Phalacrocorax auritus) at 50 CFR 21.47
and 21.48. We propose to extend the
expiration dates from these depredation
orders for 5 years. We do so to allow
State and tribal resource management
agencies to continue to manage doublecrested cormorant problems under the
terms and conditions of the depredation
orders and gather data on the effects of
double-crested cormorant control
actions. If we do not extend these
depredation orders, any action to
control depredating double-crested
cormorants after June 30, 2014, will
require a permit. We have prepared a
draft environmental assessment (DEA)
to analyze the environmental impacts
associated with this extension.
Additionally, we propose to change the
emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:16 Mar 04, 2014
Jkt 232001
annual reporting date for the
depredation order to protect public
resources (50 CFR 21.48), to remove
requirements for cormorant control
activities around bald eagles and bald
eagle nests for both depredation orders,
and to recommend use of the National
Bald Eagle Management Guidelines for
both depredation orders. We invite the
public to comment on the DEA and our
proposed revisions to the regulations.
DATES: Electronic comments on this
proposal via https://www.regulations.gov
must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. Eastern
time on April 4, 2014. Comments
submitted by mail must be postmarked
no later than April 4, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Document availability: The
DEA is available at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–HQ–MB–2013–0135, and on our
Service Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
migratorybirds/.
Written comments: You may submit
comments by either of the following two
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments
on Docket FWS–HQ–MB–2013–0135.
• U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attention: FWS–
HQ–MB–2013–0135; Division of Policy
and Directives Management; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service; 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042–PDM; Arlington, VA
22203–1610.
We will not accept email or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information that you provide. See the
Public Comments section below for
more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
George Allen at 703–358–1825.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
the Federal agency delegated the
primary responsibility for managing
migratory birds. This delegation is
authorized by the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.),
which implements conventions with
Great Britain (for Canada), Mexico,
Japan, and the Soviet Union (Russia).
Part 21 of title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) covers migratory bird
permits. Subpart D of 50 CFR part 21
deals specifically with the control of
depredating birds and currently
includes eight depredation orders. A
depredation order is a regulation that
allows the take of specific species of
migratory birds, at specific locations
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and for specific purposes, without a
depredation permit.
The depredation orders at 50 CFR
21.47 and 21.48 for double-crested
cormorants allow take of the species
under the provisions of our 2003
environmental impact statement (EIS;
68 FR 47603, August 11, 2003), in
which we assessed the impacts of the
depredation orders and determined that
they would not significantly affect the
status of the species. 50 CFR 21.47
concerns take of double-crested
cormorants at aquaculture facilities, and
50 CFR 21.48 concerns take of doublecrested cormorants to protect public
resources. The EIS is available at https://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/
CurrentBirdIssues/Management/
Cormorant/CormorantFEIS.pdf.
We extended the expiration dates of
these depredation orders to June 30,
2014, on April 6, 2009 (74 FR 15394).
We reported at that time that the data
we had gathered since the issuance of
the final rule in 2003 and data from the
2003 EIS suggest that the orders had not
had any significant negative effect on
double-crested cormorant populations;
data suggest that cormorant populations
were stable or increasing with the orders
in effect.
We have continued to comply with
our goals stated in the 2003 EIS by
making every effort to capture data from
improved double-crested cormorant
populations. We stated in 2009 that we
recognize that it probably will be
necessary to update the EIS at some
time in the future. On November 8,
2011, we requested public comments to
help guide the preparation of a
supplemental environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment
and to help us determine future national
policy for effective management of
double-crested cormorant populations
within the United States (76 FR 69225).
On January 27, 2012, we extended the
comment period on the November 8,
2011 (77 FR 4274). However, because of
constraints on our ability to conduct the
work necessary to complete a
supplemental environmental impact
statement, we are forced to defer that
effort. We base this proposed rule on
information in our DEA, which is
available from the sources listed in
ADDRESSES.
Expiration Dates
We propose to extend the expiration
dates for 5 years from the depredation
orders at 50 CFR 21.47 and 21.48. These
depredation orders are currently
scheduled to expire on June 30, 2014.
Extending the orders for 5 years would
not pose a significant, detrimental effect
on the long-term viability of double-
E:\FR\FM\05MRP1.SGM
05MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12442-12458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04731]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[PS Docket No. 10-255 and PS Docket No. 11-153; FCC 14-6]
Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next
Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911
Deployment
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
Further Notice) the Federal Communications Commission (Commission)
seeks comment on a proposed timeframe and several aspects of
implementation of text-to-911 service, particularly relating to the
technical ability of interconnected text providers to comply with a
text-to-911 mandate. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on a
proposal that text-to-911 capability should be made available by all
text providers no later than December 31, 2014, and should be provided
within a reasonable time after a PSAP has made a valid request for
service, not to exceed six months. The Commission also seeks further
comment on several issues that we anticipate will be part of the long-
term evolution of text-to-911, though it does not propose to require
their implementation by a date certain. These include: Developing the
capability to provide Phase II-comparable location information in
conjunction with emergency texts; delivering text-to-911 over non-
cellular data channels; and supporting text-to-911 for consumers while
roaming on Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) networks. The Second
Further Notice is adopted with the goal of obtaining information from
the public on proposed rules for the implementation of text-to-911.
DATES: Submit comments on or before April 4, 2014 and reply comments by
May 5, 2014. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed
information collection requirements must be submitted by the public,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on
or before May 5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 10-255
and PS Docket No. 11-153, by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street
SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: 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.
Parties wishing to file materials with a claim of confidentiality
should follow
[[Page 12443]]
the procedures set forth in Sec. 0.459 of the Commission's rules.
Confidential submissions may not be filed via ECFS but rather should be
filed with the Secretary's Office following the procedures set forth in
47 CFR 0.459. Redacted versions of confidential submissions may be
filed via ECFS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Timothy May, Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-1463 or timothy.may@fcc.gov. For
additional information concerning the proposed Paperwork Reduction Act
information collection requirements contained in this document, contact
Benish Shah (202) 418-7866, or send an email to PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 14-6; PS Docket Nos. 10-255
and 11-153; adopted on January 30, 2014 and released January 31, 2014.
The full text of this document is available for public inspection
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-
A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at https://www.fcc.gov/document/text-911-policy-statement-and-second-fnprm.
This document will also be available at ECFS at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs. Documents will be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. The complete text may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Alternative formats are available
for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the
Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice) (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Summary of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
I. Introduction
1. One of the core missions of the Federal Communications
Commission is promoting the safety of life and property of the American
public through the use of wire and radio communications. Consistent
with that overarching obligation, the Commission has specific statutory
responsibilities with respect to 911 service. As mobile wireless
communications are becoming increasingly central to the day-to-day
lives of Americans, a growing percentage of 911 calls originate on
wireless networks (one study found that 75 percent of 911 calls in
California came from wireless phones). At the same time, current trends
in mobile wireless usage have shown continued evolution from a
predominantly voice-driven medium of communication to one based more on
data transmissions; for example, from 2009 to 2011, average minutes of
use per subscriber per month, a measure of voice usage, continued to
decline, while U.S. mobile data traffic increased 270 percent from 2010
to 2011, having more than doubled each year. In light of these trends
and the importance of ensuring effective 911 service--particularly for
those who cannot access 911 call centers with a voice call--and as
articulated in the Commission's Report to Congress and Recommendations
on a Legal Framework for Next Generation 911 Services (NG911 Report),
we believe that text-to-911 capability is a necessary first step in the
development of Next Generation (NG) 911 capabilities.
2. At the broadest level, access to 911 is a core value that
translates across communications platforms, including text
applications, and should not be lost or devalued as technology changes.
In 2011, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
bridge the gap between the habits and needs of the texting public and
the services supported by wireless carriers and interconnected text
providers.\1\ In 2012, the Commission adopted a Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, proposing a framework to ensure that all consumers
would be able to send emergency texts to 911 regardless of the texting
service provider they use.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In the Matter of Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911
and Other Next Generation 911 Applications, Framework for Next
Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No 11-153, PS Docket No. 10-
255, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 13615 (2011) (2011
Notice).
\2\ In the Matter of Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911
and Other Next Generation 911 Applications, Framework for Next
Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No 11-153, PS Docket No. 10-
255, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 15659 (2012)
(2012 Further Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. This Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
Further Notice) seeks further comment on the proposed timeframe and
several aspects of implementation, particularly relating to the
technical ability of interconnected text providers to comply with a
text-to-911 mandate. We also seek further comment on several issues
that we anticipate will be part of the long-term evolution of text-to-
911, though we do not propose to require their implementation by a date
certain. These include: (1) Developing the capability to provide Phase
II-comparable location information in conjunction with emergency texts;
(2) delivering text-to-911 over non-cellular data channels; and (3)
supporting text-to-911 for consumers while roaming on CMRS networks.
4. In seeking additional information in this Second Further Notice,
we recognize that there is already a robust record on many of the
issues and proposals that were presented in both the 2011 Notice and
the 2012 Further Notice. In posing these further questions, we seek to
supplement the record as to the specific issues identified herein.
II. Background
5. Americans are increasingly relying on text as an alternative to
voice for everyday communications. In general, ``text messaging''
refers to any service that allows a mobile device to send information
consisting of text to other mobile devices by using domestic telephone
numbers. Examples of text messaging include Short Message Service
(SMS), Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS), and ``interconnected text''
applications. SMS is a text messaging service component of
communications systems that uses standardized communications protocols
to enable wireless and fixed devices to exchange messages no longer
than 160 characters. MMS is a standard way to exchange messages that
include multimedia, such as photos and videos along with text, between
wireless devices. ``Interconnected text'' applications use IP-based
protocols to deliver text messages to a service provider and the
service provider then delivers the text messages to destinations
identified by a telephone number, using either IP-based or SMS
protocols.
6. Current reports indicate that 91 percent of American adults own
a cell phone, and that of those cell-phone owning consumers, 81 percent
use their phones to send and receive text messages. Texting ``continues
to be one of the most prevalent cell phone activities of all time'' and
is particularly ubiquitous among younger cell phone users. The median
number of texts sent by those 12-17 years of age in 2011 was 60 text
messages per day, with 63 percent of teens indicating texting as a
daily activity.
7. Moreover, ``over-the-top'' (OTT) texting applications are
growing increasingly popular and have already eclipsed short messaging
service (SMS) text messages provided by wireless carriers in terms of
volume.\3\ ``Over-the-
[[Page 12444]]
top'' generally refers to applications that operate on Internet
protocol (IP)-based mobile data networks and that consumers can
typically install on data-capable mobile devices. In contrast, SMS
requires use of an underlying carrier's SMS Center (SMSC) to send and
receive messages from other users. MMS-based messaging makes use of the
SMSC but also involves the use of different functional elements to
enable transport of the message over IP networks. Over-the-top text
applications enable consumers to send text messages using SMS, MMS or
directly via IP over a data connection to dedicated messaging servers
and gateways. Over-the-top texting applications may be provided by the
underlying mobile wireless provider or a non-affiliated third-party,
and may be ``interconnected'' or ``non-interconnected.'' In mid-2013,
one third-party text messaging application reported more than 250
million active users, transmitting more than 18 billion messages per
day. In mid-2013, the six most popular mobile chat applications
averaged nearly 19 billion messages each day, compared to 17.6 billion
SMS messages. In 2014, one report projected that over the top text
messaging will outpace SMS text messaging by 50 billion to 21 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other
Next Generation 911 Applications, PS Dockets No. 11-153, 10-255,
Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7556 (2013) (Bounce-Back Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. In September 2011, the Commission released the 2011 Notice,
which sought comment on a number of issues related to the deployment of
Next Generation 911 (NG911), including how to facilitate the deployment
of text-to-911. In the 2011 Notice, the Commission observed that
sending text messages, photos, and video clips has become commonplace
for users of mobile devices on 21st century broadband networks, and
that adding non-voice capabilities to our 911 system will significantly
improve emergency response, save lives, and reduce property damage.
Moreover, the Commission stated that incorporating text and other media
into the 911 system will benefit: (1) The public in terms of the
ability to access emergency help, both for people with disabilities and
for people in situations where placing a voice call to 911 could be
difficult or dangerous; and (2) PSAPs by providing them with better
information that can be synthesized with existing databases to enable
emergency responders to assess and respond to emergencies more quickly
and effectively.
9. In December 2012, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon
entered into a voluntary agreement with the National Emergency Number
Association (NENA) and APCO International (APCO) in which each of the
four carriers agreed to provide text-to-911 service by May 15, 2014, to
PSAPs that are capable of, and request to receive, text-to-911 service
(Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement). The signatory carriers made certain
commitments related to their text messaging services, including
implementation of the service to a PSAP ``within a reasonable amount of
time'' not to exceed six months after such PSAP makes a ``valid''
request of the carrier. The agreement also stated that, ``consistent
with the draft ATIS Standard for Interim Text-to-9-1-1, the PSAPs will
select the format for how messages are to be delivered'' with
incremental costs for delivery being the responsibility of the PSAP.
Under the terms of the agreement, carriers were to meet these
commitments ``independent of their ability to recover these associated
costs from state or local governments.'' The carriers committed to
working with NENA, APCO, and the Commission to develop outreach for
consumers and support efforts to educate PSAPs. The carriers'
commitments also did not extend to customers roaming on a network.
10. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement followed on a number of
successful trials of text-to-911, and voluntary reports submitted to
the Commission since the agreement detail the ongoing activities of the
four carrier-signatories in this regard. As of December 31, 2013,
Verizon Wireless reports ``some 46 different jurisdictions are using
one of the text-to-911 options that Verizon currently supports (up from
37 in October 2013), and several additional deployments are currently
scheduled through 2014.'' AT&T has reported that it is in the process
of launching a standards-based trial service for text-to-911 in the
state of Tennessee for the end of the first quarter of 2014, and also
reports a statewide six-month trial with the state of Vermont, which
launched on August 23, 2013.
11. Shortly after the signing of the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement,
the Commission adopted the 2012 Further Notice, which proposed, inter
alia, to require all CMRS providers, as well as other providers of
interconnected text messaging services, to support the ability of
consumers to send text messages to 911 in all areas throughout the
nation where PSAPs are also prepared to receive the texts. The 2012
Further Notice's baseline requirements were modeled on the Carrier-
NENA-APCO Agreement, and the Commission sought comment on whether all
carriers, including regional, small and rural carriers, and all
``interconnected text'' providers can achieve these milestones in the
same or similar timeframes. In this respect, the 2012 Further Notice
recognized prevalence of SMS-based messaging, but also noted the trend
towards IP-based messaging platforms. The 2012 Further Notice proposed
that the Commission apply any text-to-911 rules it may adopt to both
SMS and IP-based text messaging services. The Commission noted that, to
the extent that consumers are gravitating to such IP-based applications
as their primary means of communicating by text, they may reasonably
come to expect that these applications support text-to-911. The
Commission also recognized the public interest benefits associated with
enabling IP-based messaging users to send texts to 911 from those
applications--applications with which the user is familiar--as consumer
familiarity is vital in emergency situations where seconds matter. To
that end, the 2012 Further Notice sought to ensure that consumers
ultimately have access to the same text-to-911 capabilities on the full
array of texting applications that they use for everyday
communication--regardless of provider or platform.
12. In May 2013, the Commission issued a Report and Order (Bounce-
Back Order) requiring CMRS providers and interconnected text providers
to supply consumers attempting to send a text to 911 an automatic
``bounce back'' message when the service is unavailable. In requiring
this bounce back messaging, the Commission found a ``clear benefit and
present need'' for persons who attempt to send emergency text messages
to know immediately if their text cannot be delivered to the proper
authorities, citing evidence that many consumers already believe they
can send text messages to 911. The Commission further determined that
in emergency situations, where call volumes can spike and networks
become congested, consumers are often unable to place voice calls, and
that in these instances it is particularly important that consumers
seeking emergency assistance by text receive a notification when text-
to-911 functionality is not available. Evidence in the record further
compelled the Commission to extend the bounce back obligation to
providers of interconnected text messaging service, citing the
proliferation of smartphones and significant volume of messages using
non-SMS or non-MMS applications that ride on cellular data networks.
The Commission noted specifically that, ``[a]s these applications
proliferate, consumers are likely to assume that they should be as
capable
[[Page 12445]]
of reaching 911 as any other telephone number.''
III. Discussion
A. Timeframe for Implementation of Text-to-911 Capability
13. We seek comment on a proposal that text-to-911 capability
should be made available by all text providers no later than December
31, 2014, and should be provided within a reasonable time after a PSAP
has made a valid request for service, not to exceed six months. We seek
specific comments on this tentative conclusion, particularly with
respect to small or rural CMRS carriers and interconnected text
providers, none of whom are parties to the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement.
Would PSAPs and consumers benefit from our establishment of a uniform
deadline of December 31, 2014, for both CMRS and interconnected text
providers?
14. With respect to CMRS providers other than the four signatories
to the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, we believe that implementation by
December 31, 2014, is achievable. First, the progress made by the four
major providers illustrates the technical feasibility of text-to-911
implementation for other CMRS providers, including small and rural
providers. The adoption of the ATIS standard for text-to-911 over the
SMS platform also satisfies a condition that some small carriers cited
as a pre-condition to their ability to implement text-to-911. Indeed,
small and rural providers may be able to achieve cost savings in their
implementation by leveraging some of the text-to-911 databases and
other infrastructure that text-to-911 vendors will have in place by May
15, 2014 to support provision of text-to-911 by the four major
providers. Thus, providing small and rural providers with a small
amount of additional time beyond the May 2014 timeframe should provide
an opportunity for them to undertake the necessary preparatory action
and spread their costs over a longer period, while still providing
timely and tangible consumer benefits. The Competitive Carriers
Association (CCA) also suggests that smaller carriers can meet a
December 31, 2014 deadline for responding to a valid PSAP request for
text-to-911 service. We seek comment on these views.
B. Timeframe for Interconnected OTT Text Providers
15. With respect to interconnected text providers, however, we also
must take into account the unique technical complexities they may face
in implementing text-to-911. We therefore seek comment on whether such
factors weigh in favor of interconnected text providers being subject
to an alternative timeframe. In general, interconnected over-the-top
text providers can function both when a connection to an underlying
CMRS network is present and when it is not. However, those technical
issues that arise from the routing of texts from Wi-Fi locations need
not be resolved at this time because we do not propose that they be
implemented as part of this initial phase of text-to-911
implementation. Commenters indicate that interconnected text providers
will likely have to resolve other issues, such as OTT client
identifiers that would enable ``callback'' from PSAPs, IP addressing,
security challenges, and operating system (OS) service layer access to
enable routing 911 texts through different functional components in the
existing SMS architecture.
16. Comments to date from public safety entities argue that, even
considering the technical challenges, ``interconnected text providers
should be capable of meeting newly-imposed text-to-9-1-1 obligations on
relatively short timeframes.'' Nevertheless, NENA recommends a two-
tiered approach to compliance deadlines for ``two classes of
[originating service providers (OSPs)], interconnected and integrated
text providers, aimed at accommodating differences in interconnected
text OSPs' platforms.'' NENA further recommends that the Commission
``strictly limit the additional time granted to interconnected text
OSPs to emphasize the public interest and necessity embodied by these
new obligations, and to minimize the extent of consumer confusion that
could arise during the period between the two deadlines.'' Also, APCO
encourages the Commission to establish firm dates ``to ensure
meaningful progress and ultimate compliance'' for these entities.
17. Other commenters take a contrary view and assert that too many
technical considerations remain to be resolved before the consideration
of any deadline. Comcast contends that it is ``premature for the
Commission to establish a deadline for interconnected text message
providers to equip their services with a text-to-911 mechanism.'' The
VON Coalition contends that generating accurate location information
requires the input of multiple participants in the network ecosystem,
particularly for third-party texting applications that do not have
access or control of the underlying network. The VON Coalition also
contends that GPS alone and commercial location based services are not
sufficient in the 911 context, noting that manual mapping of Wi-Fi
routers, for example, may not be routinely updated or audited. VON does
not view these challenges as ``necessarily insurmountable'' and notes
that its ``members already are participating in industry working groups
. . . to find avenues to attempt to overcome them.'' VON submits that
such approaches ``will require significant cooperation across a broad
set of entities (e.g., providers of Wi-Fi access, wireless services,
OTT application developers, emergency services vendors and providers)
and standardized global approaches.'' ITI asserts that ``[m]andating
any technology requirements in application design would be difficult
and costly for companies that design one application to run across
multiple devices and platforms.''
18. A critical factor affecting the feasibility of the timeframe
for interconnected text providers to implement text-to-911 at the same
level of functionality as CMRS providers is how quickly interconnected
text providers can implement a technical solution that will support
``coarse'' location of application users so that their texts can be
routed to the correct PSAP. As discussed below, there are several
technical models exist that could support providing coarse location of
interconnected text users in the near-term when an underlying
connection to a CMRS network is present.
C. OTT Text-to-911 Message Delivery Models
19. While these models are not the only architectural approaches
that interconnected text providers might take, we describe the key
aspects of three approaches to solicit comment on them and other
potential technological solutions that support imposing a near-term
time frame for interconnected text providers. We seek comment on the
technical feasibility for interconnected text providers to implement
these models by the proposed deadline and request comment on how other
factors, such as necessary software changes, handset development
cycles, and security issues may affect the timeframes that we would
adopt.
1. Access CMRS Messaging Platform via API
20. We recognize that interconnected text providers face an array
of choices in considering methods to relay a text to a PSAP. As an
initial matter, although OTT providers' applications are primarily
designed to use IP-based protocols to deliver text messages to
[[Page 12446]]
destinations identified by a telephone number, they can, however,
utilize SMS-based protocols and route the text over the underlying
carrier's SMS network. (While we use the term ``OTT'' in discussing the
technical protocols that an application may use to route a text message
to a PSAP, in terms of feasibility for implementation by December 31,
2014, our proposal remains focused on the subset of OTT providers that
meet the definition of interconnected text providers.) An OTT texting
application can be programmed to recognize that the user is sending a
text message to the text short code ``911'' and automatically invoke
the wireless device's native SMS application programming interface
(API) for sending SMS messages. This functionality is distinct from the
application's normal operating mode which is generally designed to
route a text via a means other than the native SMS capability of the
device. Upon invoking the native SMS texting application, the text-to-
911 message will be handled by the underlying wireless carrier, i.e.,
the text will be routed through the carrier's (or its agent's) Text
Control Center (TCC), which is the functional element of the Short
Message Service Center (SMSC) dedicated to routing texts to the
appropriate Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).
21. In this model an SMSC cannot distinguish generally between a
SMS message generated by an OTT application and the native SMS API.
Consistent with the SMS-to-911 standard, the carrier's TCC would then
forward the text along with coarse location information to the PSAP.
Because of this, we consider it unlikely that consumers in the near
term will expect text-to-911 to work in those circumstances where
cellular network connectivity is not available. We believe this method
is available to OTT providers today and that it can be implemented by
December 31, 2014, through relatively minor enhancements to their APIs.
We seek comment on this view.
22. We note that our view on the feasibility of interconnected text
providers using this method to support text-to-911 is premised on the
continued availability of CMRS providers' SMS networks to handle texts
from OTT providers. We note that the model described here assumes that
CMRS providers would provide access to their SMS networks for texts to
911 generated on OTT applications. Some CMRS providers already afford
this access to some OTT applications, and the model posits that CMRS
providers could receive requests from other OTT providers for similar
access to the CMRS provider's native texting application APIs. CMRS
providers would need to devote technical and product management
resources to meeting such requests and to ongoing maintenance and
performance issues. We also note that the average CMRS provider offers
a wide range of wireless devices to consumers, each having somewhat
distinct technical parameters and programming to support third party
applications. Thus, a CMRS provider would have to coordinate with each
handset manufacturer and associated operating system provider to ensure
that each device model that is capable of supporting an interconnected
text messaging application would also be capable of interfacing with
the CMRS provider's underlying native texting application and SMS or
messaging platform. We seek comment on these observations. What
specific considerations should we take into account regarding how CMRS
providers would implement a requirement to support OTT provider's use
of their native messaging application? Beyond what we have described
herein, what specific actions must a CMRS provider take to afford
access to its underlying SMS or messaging platform? Are there any
specific industry best practices or guidelines presently in place that
may serve to provide a framework for the coordination between CRMS
providers and OTT providers?
23. In suggesting that a SMS default for interconnected text
providers can provide a viable near term solution for text-to-911, we
emphasize that we are not proposing that such a relationship would
occur absent reasonable compensation to the underlying network provider
or similar arrangements. Nor do we propose to constrain CMRS providers
from transitioning their SMS platforms to new technologies if they
choose to do so at some point in the future. Rather than requiring CMRS
providers to maintain their SMS platforms in perpetuity for the sole
purpose of supporting text-to-911 for third-party interconnected text
providers, we expect that interconnected text providers will need to
develop alternative text-to-911 delivery methods as technology evolves.
We seek comment on these views. We believe that, if interconnected text
providers have access to the API on CMRS carrier devices, those issues
may be resolvable for interconnected text applications riding over the
SMS platform. We finally note that resolving such issues may be
dependent on CMRS carriers not impeding interconnected text providers'
capability to deliver text-to-911 messages. We therefore propose
adopting a requirement that CMRS carriers not block the access to
capabilities that would enable interconnected text providers to provide
consumers using their OTT applications to send texts to 911. We seek
comment on these views. We also invite comment on whether this proposal
and the measures necessary for interconnected text providers to take
would require timeframes other than the uniform one that we propose. If
so, what would alternative timeframes would be reasonable?
2. Network and Server Based Models
24. We also present three additional models by which an OTT
provider could deliver a text message using APIs that route the text
via an Internet connection, either over a wireless carrier's data
network or a non-CMRS Wi-Fi network, to the interconnected text
provider's server.\4\ In these scenarios, the OTT provider's text
handling server recognizes that the text message is addressed to 911
and then interacts with a third-party TCC to route the text to a PSAP.
In each model, it is assumed that the user has a phone number assigned
to the user by the wireless carrier. Generally, and consistent with our
definition of a covered text provider, when a user subscribes to an
interconnected text messaging service, the OTT provider will provision
the user with a ten digit phone number to enable the user to send and
receive texts from other texting application users. In doing so, the
OTT provider enables the user to avoid relying on the wireless
carrier's SMS network to route text messages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ For a graphical representation of the models discussed, see
Second Further Notice at paragraphs 24 through 33, available at
https://www.fcc.gov/document/text-911-policy-statement-and-second-fnprm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. In our basic server-based model for routing a text message to
911, we assume that the OTT application uses the same phone number as
the device itself. In this case, the OTT service provider receives the
text at its server and passes the originating phone number and message
to a third-party TCC. It could use a number of messaging protocols to
effectuate the delivery to the TCC, such as Short Message Peer-to-Peer
(SMPP), Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) MESSAGE, or Message Session
Relay Protocol (MSRP). The TCC draws location from a commercial
location service, just as for the CMRS SMS service, to acquire the
location of the mobile device.
[[Page 12447]]
26. A second model relies on using the number assigned by the OTT
provider to route the text to 911. In this model, the texting
application invokes a system call on the API, such as on wireless
devices using the Android Operating System, the system call would be
the line of code ``getLine1Number()'', which would retrieve the phone
number string, for example, the MSISDN for a GSM phone, and obtains the
phone number of the mobile device and conveys it via the protocol
message sent to the OTT provider's server. The provider, as before,
then sends the message through a third party TCC, which in turn invokes
the commercial location service and routes the text to the appropriate
PSAP.
27. The third server-based solution relies on the location API in
the mobile device, rather than a commercial location service, to obtain
the user's location. Many OTT text applications already obtain the
user's location for non-emergency purposes. The OTT text application
includes GPS-based location information with the text content and
routes the text through its server to the TCC. The use of device
location would likely offer higher accuracy in many cases and may meet
the Commission's location accuracy requirements for handset-based
location delivery. In addition, this solution does not rely on cellular
data connectivity and continues to work as long as the OTT text
application can connect to the Internet. These models are not
exhaustive of those available to OTT providers to route texts to PSAPs;
in fact, an application could implement both a mobile-based solution
and a server-based solutions. This would ensure that text messages to
911 can reach the TCC whether SMS or Internet data service is
available. We seek comment on whether the models described above are
consistent with a commercial implementation to support text-to-911.
What other models might an OTT provider consider using to route a text
to 911? Which functions are OTT providers capable of handling within
their servers and which functions are they most likely going to have to
secure access to third party providers to support routing a text to a
PSAP?
D. Costs
28. As discussed above, interconnected text providers face a number
of technical issues in being able to send text messages from its users
to PSAPs. Specifically, the VON Coalition notes:
Resolving these third-party gateway technical challenges would
not only take time, but once resolved, would impose significant
costs on providers of software applications--many of which are small
businesses offering innovative IP-based capabilities at little or no
cost to consumers. The introduction of third-party gateways and
vendors (and, thus ongoing payments to and coordination with those
vendors) into the application provider's service--something that
would be necessary only if providers were required to try to
bootstrap the legacy TDM 911 system onto Next Generation IP
services--introduces complexities and points of possible failure, as
well as costs the developer did not anticipate. VON understands that
many third-party vendors typically charge monthly per-subscriber
fees (regardless of whether or how many subscribers ever use the
application to try to reach 911), in addition to upfront set-up
costs. Such per-subscriber costs, or even per-transaction costs,
could quickly tip an otherwise successful business model on its head
as the costs approach the revenues (if any) made by the application
provider.''
On a related note, Sprint notes that ``[w]hile interconnected text
providers will incur costs associated with compliance, CMRS carriers
are also likely to incur additional costs because CMRS carriers will
need to provide network and device capabilities to interconnected text
providers.'' Sprint also argues that ``CMRS carriers should not be
expected to incur such costs without reimbursement from interconnected
text providers, since any such costs will be undertaken to facilitate
compliance by a third-party.''
29. We recognize that a requirement on interconnected text
providers would impose additional costs. We seek comment on the
implementation costs associated with the models discussed above. For
example, with respect to the mobile-based model, we estimate that a
requirement would impose an implementation cost of approximately $4,500
per provider per platform, for an industry-wide cost of approximately
$555,000. We came to this conclusion using the Constructive Cost Model
II (COCOMO II), which can provide an estimate of the cost, effort, and
schedule for planning new software development activity.\5\ The model
analyzes a number of variables concerning software size, specifically
source lines of code, whether new, reused, modified, or some
combination thereof; software scale drivers; software cost drivers
related to product, personnel, operating system platform specifics, and
project specifics; and software labor rates.\6\ We seek comment on this
analysis, and we encourage those who disagree with this analysis to
present their own methodology, analysis, and conclusions. Similarly, we
seek comment on the costs for CMRS providers to enable OTT application
interfacing with native text messaging applications. What software
changes, if any, must a CMRS provider make to its underlying text
messaging application to support the OTT application? Finally, what
reoccurring expenses would there be that are not accounted for by
COCOMO II, such as compliance and operating costs, including payments
to acquire network and device capabilities from CMRS providers or
others, depending on solution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See University of Southern California, Center for Systems
and Software Engineering, COCOMO II, available at https://csse.usc.edu/csse/research/COCOMOII/cocomo_main.html (last viewed
Jan. 8, 2014).
\6\ The COCOMO II web-based tool requires one to enter the total
new source lines of code and the cost per person-month in dollars
and to set a number of software scale and cost drivers at subjective
levels (e.g., very low, low, nominal, high, very high, extra high).
See COCOMO II, Constructive Cost Model, available at https://csse.usc.edu/tools/COCOMOII.php (last viewed Jan. 8, 2014). This
model estimates that a one-time cost of $4,541 will be incurred,
assuming that (a) 100 new source lines of code must be added to an
existing application in order to meet the a text-to-911 mandate
(which we believe is a high estimate, based on our own research),
(b) the software labor rate is $19,435 per person-month, and (c) all
cost drivers in the model are set to ``nominal.'' Cost per Person-
Month is estimated as follows: average software engineer/developer/
programmer total mean annual salary of $93,280 (Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS), May 2012); a cost per person-month of
approximately 173 hours; mean hourly rate of $44.85 (BLS, May 2012)
plus an estimated overhead factor of 2.5, or $112.13 per person
hour. ($93,280 x 2.5)/12 = $19,435 cost per person-month. For mean
annual wage of a software developer of applications, see Bureau of
Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, Occupational
Employment and Wages, May 2012, available at https://bls.gov/oes/current/oes151132.htm (last viewed Jan. 8, 2014). In general,
overhead costs are between 150-250 percent of the cost of a direct
labor hour. See Cynthia R. Cook, John C. Graser, RAND, Military
Airframe Acquisition Costs (2001) available at https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1325/MR1325.ch9.pdf (last
viewed Jan. 8, 2014). Moreover, we estimate that at present, there
are approximately thirty interconnected text messaging services,
offering their services on anywhere from one to five different
operating system platforms. To account for future proliferation of
platform offerings, we estimate that all service providers would
offer their service across four main operating system platforms and
that each of them would incur a one-time cost of $4,541 to add 100
new source lines of code to an existing application, as discussed
above. The resulting nationwide implementation cost for these
affected applications would therefore be approximately $544,920
(i.e., 30 x 4 x $4,541).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Beyond the estimated costs identified herein related to the
mobile-based model, are there other initial and ongoing costs that
interconnected text providers would incur to support text-to-911
service, particularly the server-based models that we have identified?
For text routing purposes, would
[[Page 12448]]
interconnected text providers be able to use the same vendors that CMRS
providers use? If so, would their routing costs be similar to those
involved for CMRS providers? Would a per-incident service model be
feasible for smaller interconnected text providers, and if so, would it
be preferable to other alternatives? What costs would be associated
with a consumer outreach effort from interconnected text providers to
educate consumers about text-to-911? What other potential costs to
interconnected text providers should the Commission consider, if any?
Since many interconnected text providers offer their services at no
charge and they may incur significant costs to implement text-to-911,
will interconnected text providers have to start charging for these
services or are there other ways to obtain revenues to cover these
costs? What effect will this have on future innovation and competition?
E. Relay Services
31. Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech
disabilities may elect to use existing text-to-voice relay services
(e.g., IP relay) to contact 911 when they need to communicate with
PSAPs. IP Relay is a form of telecommunications relay service that
permits an individual with a hearing or a speech disability to
communicate in text using an Internet Protocol-enabled device via the
Internet, rather than using a TTY and the public switched telephone
network. These existing relay services do not provide direct delivery
of text to PSAPs. Moreover, many commenters have asserted, and we
agree, that relay services have distinct limitations and are not an
acceptable substitute for direct text access once text-to-911
capabilities become available in a jurisdiction. Nevertheless, relay
providers are uniquely situated to ensure that deaf, hard of hearing,
or speech-impaired individuals can reach emergency personnel because
only relay providers have the capability to ensure that if a consumer
attempts to text a PSAP that is not text-to-911 ready, the message will
still be delivered (as a relay message). We seek comment on whether
relay service providers--to the extent they offer applications that can
send text messages to North American Numbering Plan numbers--should
develop direct text-to-text services to support communication with
PSAPs that are text-capable, while expediting text-to-voice relay calls
where the PSAP is not capable of receiving text messages directly from
a caller. Is it technically possible for current relay technologies to
support pass-through of a text to a PSAP without relaying the call?
Could relay service providers re-use some or all of text control center
(TCC) infrastructure being built for text-to-911 services? Are there
other ways in which relay providers could improve or augment their
services to support text-to-911 and the broader transition to NG911?
What avenues might relay providers use to recoup their costs for
providing this service?
F. PSAP Implementation
32. In the 2012 Further Notice, the Commission acknowledged the
disparate capabilities of PSAPs in terms of accepting and processing
text messages to 911, and the need for the Commission to take these
differing capabilities into account. The Commission also proposed a set
of near-term solutions that would allow non-NG 911 capable PSAPs to
handle text messages without requiring significant up-front investments
or upgrades, including the use of web browsers, gateway centers,
conversion of text messages to TTY calls, and state or regional
aggregation of text-to-911 processing.
33. Commenters confirmed that significant differences persist in
PSAP readiness. Fairfax County, for example, asserts that it ``cannot
currently accept 9-1-1 messages sent via text'' and that it ``cannot
predict when a transition from current 9-1-1 to NG9-1-1 will occur
because the initial planning for a transition to NG9-1-1 is just
beginning in Virginia.'' Some commenters oppose action by the
Commission to compel carriers to support text-to-911 absent a parallel
mandate for PSAPs, or otherwise urge the Commission to condition the
timing of any mandate on a PSAP's ability to accept text messages.
34. We expect that broad support of text-to-911 will aid PSAPs that
are beginning the NG911 transition or considering implementation of
text-to-911, and that PSAPs may be more willing to do so given the
availability on the provider side of this important service, in that
budgeting authorities for states and localities will have more
certainty to help justify expenditure of public funds. However, we
recognize that barriers to PSAP implementation of these functionalities
remain. We are interested in learning more about what those barriers
are and what additional measures we can take consistent with our
authority that may encourage more rapid uptake by PSAPs or other
emergency response authorities to ensure that the all participants in
the 911 ecosystem are meeting consumer expectations. How can the
Commission assist in promoting action by PSAPs and others to overcome
funding or other implementation obstacles? Is there outreach or other
activities that the Commission or other organizations can undertake to
facilitate this?
G. Phase II-Equivalent Location for Covered Text Providers
35. CMRS Providers. We appreciate the advocacy of public safety
entities for the delivery of Phase II level location information and
recognize that with currently available technology CMRS carriers face
technical difficulties in providing Phase II equivalency for text-to-
911 messages. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the ATIS standard J-STD-
110, and a large part of the record suggest that only coarse (cell
sector) location should be used for current text-to-911 purposes.
However, in the long term cell sector information alone neither offers
optimal public safety benefits nor resolves the discrepancy in the
ability of first responders to locate persons with hearing and speech
disabilities compared to the ability to locate persons making voice 911
calls. Recent submissions to the record and the capability of smart
phones to access and transmit precise Phase II level location
information offer promise that text-to-911 message can be sent with
more accurate location information to PSAPs. For example, at least one
CMRS carrier offers subscribers ``thin-client'' applications that they
can download on their CMRS-capable devices. Potentially, the
application can acquire the Phase II level information from the
smartphone's user plane platform and send the more precise location
through the text control center (TCC) to the appropriate PSAP. However,
the PSAP may have to ``re-bid'' to obtain the Phase II longitude-
latitude information. We seek comment on this and similar capabilities
to provide Phase II equivalent location information.
36. Several commenters submit that the Commission ``should leave
the development of precise location information capability for text-to-
911 to further product and application development and related
standards work using LTE and NG911 technologies.'' Nevertheless, we
continue to emphasize that the long-term objective is for text
messaging services, whether from CMRS carriers or interconnected text
providers, to provide for Phase II equivalent location information with
text-to-911 calls. We believe that a combination of Commission
initiatives and industry efforts can achieve this goal. For example,
concerning the capabilities of CMRS providers to deliver Phase II
quality location with text-to-911, the
[[Page 12449]]
current CSRIC IV Working Group 1--NG-911 is studying and is due to
report in March 2014 on the technical feasibility of including enhanced
location information in text messages sent to PSAPs. In addition, as
noted below, the NENA i3Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP) could be
re-used to retrieve GPS-derived latitude-longitude information. We seek
comment on these and similar efforts of standards-bodies pursuing such
solutions and look forward to further input from public safety entities
and industry that will foster those efforts. At the same time, we
invite comment on what might be reasonable timeframes to achieve more
precise location capabilities in sending text messages to 911. We
stress that one of the critical long term goals to enable PSAPs to
dispatch first responders more directly to a consumer texting 911 is
for voice and text service providers to meet the same 911 location
accuracy requirements.
37. Interconnected Text Providers. In seeking comment to establish
such a time frame for interconnected text applications to provide
coarse location information, we also have a long-term concern for the
need to ensure that interconnected text messages to 911 have more
accurate location information routed to PSAPs. One of the described
server-based solutions, using the location application programming
interface (API) in the mobile device rather than a commercial location
service, promises the capability to meet the Commission's Phase II
location accuracy requirements for handset-based location delivery.
While the selection of anyone solution by interconnected text providers
should remain technologically neutral, we seek comment on what
technological developments need to occur for interconnected text
providers to implement a solution that provides Phase II equivalent
location information. Further, we find that the record indicates other
possible interconnected text-to-911 models that could deliver a more
precise location. We request comment on the timeframe in which
interconnected text providers could reasonably adopt and implement such
approaches. What factors would we need to consider in establishing this
timeframe? For example, should different timeframes be established,
depending on whether the text provider is an interconnected or an
integrated text provider?
38. Also, we seek comment on what technological developments are
occurring that would allow interconnected text providers to either
access a wireless carrier network for cellular data connectivity or
connect to an IP-based network to provide Phase II equivalent location
information. Although the CSRIC Working Group's focus is on the
capability of using the wireless carrier network, we find that to
address consumer concerns to have the ability to seamlessly reach 911,
that there should be no distinction between the capabilities of CMRS
carriers and interconnected service providers to provide Phase II
equivalent location information. We seek comment on this view.
Specifically, we request comment on whether there are any technical
issues that arise for CMRS carriers and not for interconnected text
providers or vice versa.
H. Roaming
39. In the 2012 Further Notice, the Commission suggested that it is
critical for consumers who are roaming to have access to text-to-911 in
an emergency. However, the Commission acknowledged that the Carrier-
NENA-APCO Agreement does not provide for text-to-911 support for
roaming subscribers, and that because ``sending and receiving texts
while roaming involves two networks, the consumer's home network and
the visited roaming network, roaming may create issues for text-to-911
because of the greater technical complexity of routing the message to
the correct PSAP based on the consumer's location.'' The Commission
sought specific comment on the mechanics required for home and roaming
network operators to identify and communicate the location of a texting
consumer to PSAPs, as well as other asserted technical limitations.
40. Carriers including AT&T and Verizon state that a roaming
obligation is not technically feasible, and encourage the Commission to
allow industry stakeholders to address this issue and defer
consideration of any rules at this time. CTIA similarly characterizes
the ability of roaming subscribers to send a text to 911 as being
``considerabl[y] uncertain'' and encourages more study of the issue.
CTIA also notes the views of the Emergency Access Advisory Committee
(EAAC), which suggests that text-to-911 by a roaming subscriber would
require ``require significant modifications to the wireless originator
network and core infrastructure that will ultimately delay the
deployment of SMS-to-9-1-1 services.'' Sprint and T-Mobile inform that
their networks do not currently have the technological capability to
support roaming subscriber because ``while location information (in the
form of cell sector information) is available in the visited network
(onto which the subscriber has roamed), it is not normally available to
the home CMRS network.'' Both Sprint and T-Mobile encourage the
Commission to ``allow for eventual adoption of standards that would
contemplate roaming in the NG911 environment.'' Also, carriers urge the
Commission to wait for standards to be adopted to address roaming in
the NG-911 environment.
41. On the other hand, public safety entities advocate pushing
forward in the face of the technical complexities. BRETSA suggests that
if transmitting text messages from a roaming user to a PSAP is not
currently achievable, it is better to implement text-to-9-1-1 without
roaming capability than to delay text-to-9-1-1 implementation
altogether. NENA concedes that the complexity of transmission exists,
and it supports mirroring the roaming exclusion contained in the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement. However, NENA supports the reevaluation of
this exclusion at regular intervals, beginning no later than one year
after the Commission's initial text-to-9-1-1 rules come into force.
42. As a general policy matter, we continue to believe that access
to 911 via text is just as critical for roaming consumers as it is for
consumers utilizing a home carrier's network. Indeed, consumers may not
even be aware when they are roaming, and carrier coverage maps may
reflect coverage where they may only have roaming agreements. In an
emergency, being able to distinguish which carrier is providing a
signal should not be the responsibility of the consumer when seconds
may matter. Roaming is also particularly critical for customers of
small or rural carriers, who rely on roaming when traveling outside the
regional footprint of these carriers. We seek comment on this view.
43. At the outset, however, we seek comment on the volume of text-
to-911 calls that can reasonably be anticipated when roaming--and
reflected in data that carriers might be collecting or consumer surveys
by research or industry groups. Telecom RERC asserts that the record
indicates a lack of sufficient data on how serious the problem might
be. Telecom RERC ``suggests that it is necessary for carriers to submit
statistics on the number of times users attempted to text 9-1-1 during
a roaming situation to the FCC.'' We invite comment on approaches we
could adopt to collect such roaming data.
44. We also seek comment on the costs of requiring roaming text-to-
911 calls to be routed to the correct, nearest
[[Page 12450]]
PSAPs on the roaming carrier's network. For example, Sprint asserts
that there would be a significant impact on mobile devices were we to
adopt a roaming requirement. Sprint further submits that ``for the
visited network to support roaming the visited network would need to be
capable of determining when a text is attempting to reach a local
emergency service via 9-1-1, and then this system would need to send
the text message to the local text-to-911 gateway, ignoring all normal
SMS routing rules. SMS servers would need to be modified to accomplish
this. Any responses from the PSAP would also need to somehow be
intercepted, so they are not sent back to the home network's Short
Message Service Center (`SMSC'), which would require further routing
modifications.''
45. We further recognize that additional technical issues may
require resolution before we would set a date certain for CMRS
providers to meet this proposed obligation. Some commenters suggest
that CMRS networks cannot currently support roaming and the delivery of
location information because while the cell sector information is
available in the visited network, it is not available in the home
network. For instance, commenters note that the current ATIS standard
for text-to-911 over the SMS platform does not support a roaming
capability. Further, Sprint adds that mobile ``devices . . . would need
to be capable of interacting with multiple SMSCs (both the home and
serving SMSCs)'' and that ``[s]torage and delivery of undeliverable SMS
messages would also need to be addressed.''
46. Given the technological complexities for routing roaming text-
to-911 calls, we seek comment on what measures we could take to either
facilitate or mandate within a reasonable timeframe a roaming text-to-
911 requirement prior to wide-spread implementation of NG911. For
example, what standards, if any, would need to be adopted before a
requirement would be appropriate? We also seek specific information on
what the cost burden would be for carriers to make the necessary
changes to their SMS platforms. What timeframe would be required for
carriers to make such changes? Would the costs to make CMRS network
modifications outweigh the public safety benefit of text-to-911
roaming; and if so, what would the magnitude of those costs be, e.g.,
compared to the potential call volume for text-to-911? Further, do any
of the mobile-based, server-based solutions, or other similar potential
solutions described above in this Second Further Notice provide a
technically feasible pathway for implementing a roaming text-to-911
requirement either over SMS platforms or, alternatively, IP-based
platforms before implementation of NG911 makes text-to-911 roaming more
feasible? If so, what standards, if any, would have to be adopted to
implement those solutions? What would a reasonable timeframe be to
adopt those standards and test such for implementation? Additionally,
what further educational measures or coordination can the Commission
take to make consumers aware of the limitations in trying to send a
text-to-911 message while roaming?
I. Liability Protection
47. In the 2012 Further Notice, the Commission recognized that
adequate liability protection is needed for PSAPs, CMRS providers,
interconnected service providers, and vendors to proceed with
implementation of text-to-911. The Commission noted that the 2008 New
and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act (NET 911 Act) expanded
the scope of state liability protection by requiring states to provide
parity in the degree of protection provided to traditional and non-
traditional 911 providers. In the Next Generation 9-1-1 Advancement Act
of 2012 (NG911 Advancement Act), Congress further extended these parity
provisions to providers of NG911 service. The 2012 Further Notice
sought comment on whether providers of text-to-911 service have
sufficient liability protection under current law to provide text-to-
911 services to their customers. The Commission observed that under the
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the four major wireless carriers have
committed to deploy text-to-911 capability without any precondition
requiring additional liability protection other than the protection
afforded by current law. Nevertheless, the 2012 Further Notice sought
comment on whether the Commission could take additional steps--
consistent with our regulatory authority--to provide additional
liability protection to text-to-911 service providers.
48. In February 2013, pursuant to the NG911 Advancement Act,
Commission staff submitted a report to Congress addressing the legal
and regulatory framework for NG911 services. With respect to liability,
the NG911 Report recognized that tort liability standards are
traditionally a matter of state law, and recommended that Congress
consider incentives for states to revise their liability regimes to
provide appropriate protections for entities providing or supporting
NG911 services. The NG911 Report also suggested that Congress include
appropriate liability protection as a part of any federal law that
imposes NG911 requirements or solicits voluntary NG911 activity.
49. In response to the 2012 Further Notice, numerous parties
submitted comments on liability issues. We do not address these
comments here, but encourage parties to provide any additional or
updated information relevant to our consideration of this issue
including the possible risks and costs of implementing text-to-911
without liability protections in place. In addition, we seek comment on
whether adopting text-to-911 requirements as proposed in this
proceeding would assist in mitigating liability concerns by
establishing standards of conduct that could be invoked by text-to-911
providers in defense against state tort liability or similar claims.
J. Waivers
50. Should the Commission adopt mandatory obligations to support
text-to-911, we seek comment on to what extent, and under what
circumstances, the Commission should consider waivers. The Commission
has a generally articulated waiver standard under Sec. Sec. 1.3 and
1.925 of our rules. The Commission has also from time to time provided
guidance on how applicants may demonstrate that the waiver standard has
been met in a particular circumstance. Under certain statutes, Congress
has also directed the Commission to consider waivers in particular
circumstances. For example, section 716(h)(1) of the Communications and
Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) allows the Commission to grant waivers
of the CVAA's accessibility requirements for features or functions of
devices capable of accessing advanced communications services but which
are, in the judgment of the Commission, designed primarily for purposes
other than accessing advanced communications. The Commission sought
comment on how to implement this provision, and subsequently provided
guidance on the substantive factors impacting the Commission's waiver
analysis.
51. Recognizing that to some extent it may depend on the rule
adopted, we seek comment on what factors or other considerations would
be relevant to the Commission in evaluating whether a wavier would be
appropriate. Given the significance of the public benefits of
supporting text-to-911, is a showing of financial difficulty or
technical infeasibility in complying sufficient on its own? What amount
of financial challenge or information regarding technical difficulties
should be demonstrated? If the waiver is related to
[[Page 12451]]
any mandatory timeframe, what circumstances should be considered?
Should additional time be limited in availability? What other factual
considerations should the Commission take into account?
K. Treatment of Voluntary Agreements
52. In this rulemaking, we seek comment on a framework for
encouraging voluntary industry commitments that will benefit the public
interest. The voluntary commitment that AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and
Verizon Wireless have entered into with NENA and APCO could serve as a
model for further industry action on such issues. We seek comment on
how any rules adopted in this proceeding could provide a ``safe
harbor'' option for companies that have entered into voluntary
agreements with public safety that the Commission has determined serves
the public interest. Under a safe harbor approach, should companies be
given the option to either be bound by their voluntary commitments or
to be subject to the rules? If companies choosing to abide by their
voluntary commitments would be afforded safe harbor treatment, then if
such a company was alleged to have violated its voluntary commitment,
should it be afforded an opportunity to correct its behavior without
fear of enforcement action? Conversely, for companies that elect to be
subject to the rules, would they be subject to standard enforcement
mechanisms?
53. We also seek comment on what should happen if a company
violates its voluntary commitment after being afforded an opportunity
to correct. Should failure to abide by the voluntary commitment after
opportunity to correct lead to termination of the safe harbor? Should
the company be required to switch to the rules track or subject to
enforcement action for sustained violations of its commitment? Should
certain violations, e.g., willful misconduct, void the safe harbor
protections and deprive the company of the opportunity to correct? We
seek comment how ensuring accountability under and the enforceability
of voluntary commitments under any of these frameworks would impact the
incentives for industry to enter into voluntary commitments that are in
the public interest.
54. We seek comment on the potential risks as well as benefits of
this approach to voluntary commitments. Are there circumstances in
which the safe harbor option should not be made available? What should
the Commission do if such voluntary agreements go beyond the
Commission's rules in a particular area? In this context, do the
interests of private parties negotiating voluntary agreements align
with the Commission's or the public's interests? Should such an
approach be time-limited or subject to re-evaluation based on changed
circumstances, e,g., where the Commission determines that additional
regulatory action on a given issue may be warranted? Should we solicit
public comment on such voluntary commitments before granting
signatories a safe harbor?
55. We also seek comment on several ancillary issues. We seek
comment on the nature of an ``election,'' and whether parties must join
a voluntary agreement at its inception, or may join such an agreement
at a later time. Would such a situation provide the opportunity for
regulatory arbitrage? Another important aspect of voluntary commitments
is the ability to measure and monitor industry compliance with such
commitments. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement included voluntary
quarterly reporting, whereby parties to the commitment provide updated
information to the Commission regarding the extent of their compliance
with the commitment. We seek comment on whether for future voluntary
commitments to qualify for the treatment described above, they must
include a robust reporting requirement that provides the Commission
with sufficient data to make informed decisions about the effectiveness
of the voluntary commitment and, additionally, what the implications of
such a voluntary information collection might be for purposes of the
Paperwork Reduction Act and any other relevant legal requirements.
L. Future Evolution of Texting Services
56. In the 2012 Further Notice, the Commission divided text
applications into two broad categories: (1) interconnected text
applications that use IP-based protocols to deliver text messages to a
service provider, which the service provider then delivers the text
messages to destinations identified by a telephone number, and (2) non-
interconnected applications that only support communication with a
defined set of users of compatible applications but do not support
general communication with text-capable telephone numbers. We note that
our definition of interconnected text, as codified in the Bounce-Back
Order, encompasses applications ``that enable a consumer to send text
messages to all or substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone
numbers and receive text messages from the same.'' We seek comment
whether the definition of interconnected text should also be
interpreted to include a service that utilizes IP-based protocols for
outgoing text and SMS-based protocols for the return text and request
that commenters discuss any potential problems with such an
interpretation.
57. As discussed above, our initial proposals remain focused on the
subset of ``over-the-top'' applications that constitute interconnected
text applications. The division of text applications into
interconnected and non-interconnected remains appropriate given the
record in this proceeding. We recognize, however, there are many
varieties of text messaging applications, and many more varieties are
likely to develop.
58. As these applications continue to grow in popularity, however,
we expect that consumer habits will change, and with them, their
expectations as to the functionality of these applications may also
change. We seek comment on the varieties of messaging applications.
Under what conditions would consumers expect that text messaging via an
application that is not connected to the PSTN and does not allow direct
texting to a phone number would enable a connection to 911? Do
consumers expect that text messaging services generally have the
ability to connect to text-capable telephone numbers? Do consumer
expectations vary based on the nature of a particular application?
Could such text messaging applications also create consumer
expectations that they can reach emergency services? If so, should we
require them to do so? What costs would be associated with doing so?
For instance, would imposing text-to-911 requirements on non-
interconnected text applications raise the cost of such services that
would diminish innovation and investment? Should we extend the bounce-
back requirement to such applications? Does the Commission have
adequate bases of authority to impose such a mandate on such text
providers?
M. Legal Authority
59. The Commission's 2012 Further Notice sought comment on the
FCC's authority to apply both a bounce-back requirement and more
comprehensive text-to-911 rules to CMRS providers and other entities
that offer interconnected text messaging services, including third-
party providers of OTT text messaging applications. The 2012 Further
Notice discussed the scope of the Commission's authority under Title
III, the CVAA, and the agency's ancillary authority.
60. Subsequently, in the 2013 Bounce-Back Order, the Commission
[[Page 12452]]
determined that numerous provisions of Title III provide the FCC with
direct authority to impose 911 bounce-back requirements on CMRS
providers, that the CVAA vests the Commission with direct authority to
impose 911 bounce-back requirements on both CMRS providers and other
providers of interconnected text messaging applications, including OTT
providers, and that the agency has ancillary authority to apply 911
bounce-back requirements to providers of interconnected text messaging
services, including OTT providers. The Commission explained, inter
alia, that imposing 911 bounce back rules on OTT providers was
reasonably ancillary to the Commission's Title III mandate regarding
the use of spectrum and the Commission's statutory authority to adopt
911 regulations that ensure that consumers can reach emergency
services. We invite parties to comment on whether there are any reasons
why the Commission's previous determinations regarding the scope of our
authority do not apply in the context of the foregoing proposals,
including whether the CVAA provides authority to implement regulations
mandating text-to-911 on a telecommunications network that is not on an
IP-enabled emergency network. Further, we seek comment on whether text-
to-911 is ``achievable and technically feasible'' for interconnected
text providers. To the extent the Commission adopts rules that cover
relay providers or other recipients of Interstate TRS funding, we
believe we have authority to adopt such rules under sections 201(b) and
225 of the Communications Act. We seek comment on the extent of this
authority.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
61. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact of the proposal described in the attached Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on small entities. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
in the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission
will send a copy of the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
62. Wireless consumers are increasingly using text messaging as a
means of everyday communication on a variety of platforms. The legacy
911 system, however, does not support text messaging as a means of
reaching emergency responders, leading to potential consumer confusion
and even to possible danger. As consumer use of carrier-based and third
party-provided texting applications expands and evolves, the 911 system
must also evolve to enable wireless consumers to reach 911 in those
emergency situations where a voice call is not feasible or appropriate.
63. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we
propose rules that set timeframes that will enable Americans to send
text messages to 911 (text-to-911) across platforms, and seek comment
on consumers' use of text-to-911 while roaming. We also seek comment on
the transmission to a PSAP of more specific information as to the
location of a texting party. Specifically, we propose to require all
wireless carriers and providers of ``interconnected'' text messaging
applications to support the ability of consumers to send text messages
to 911 in all areas throughout the nation where 911 Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAPs) are also prepared to receive the texts no
later than December 31, 2014. We also seek comment on requiring
carriers to support text-to-911 when consumers are roaming on their
networks, and to provide ``Phase II'' equivalent location information
regarding the location from which a text is sent to 911. We also seek
comment on enhancing liability protection for text providers within the
Next Generation 911 (NG911) ecosystem, how relay services may support
text-to-911, and how we should consider any waiver standards that may
apply.
64. Our proposals build on the voluntary commitment by the four
largest wireless carriers--in an agreement with the National Emergency
Number Association (NENA), and the Association of Public Safety
Communications Officials (APCO) (Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement)--to make
text-to-911 available to their customers by May 15, 2014. The baseline
requirements we propose in this Second Further Notice for
interconnected text providers are modeled on the Carrier-NENA-APCO
Agreement, and we seek additional comment how all ``interconnected
text'' providers can achieve these milestones in the same or similar
timeframes.
65. Seeking comment on establishing timeframes for the addition of
text capability to the 911 system for interconnected text providers and
for all consumers when roaming on a CMRS network will vastly enhance
the system's accessibility for over 40 million Americans with hearing
or speech disabilities. It will also provide a vital and lifesaving
alternative to the public in situations where 911 voice service is
unavailable or placing a voice call could endanger the caller. Indeed,
as recent history has shown, text messaging is often the most reliable
means of communications during disasters where voice calls cannot be
completed due to capacity constraints. Finally, implementing text-to-
911 represents a crucial next step in the ongoing transition of the
legacy 911 system to a NG911 system that will support not only text but
will also enable consumers to send photos, videos, and data to PSAPs,
enhancing the information available to first responders for assessing
and responding to emergencies.
66. Our proposed approach to text-to-911 is also based on the
presumption that consumers in emergency situations should be able to
communicate using the text applications they are most familiar with
from everyday use. Currently, the most commonly used texting technology
is Short Message Service (SMS), which is available, familiar, and
widely used by virtually all wireless consumers. In the Carrier-NENA-
APCO Agreement, the four major carriers have indicated that they intend
to use SMS-based text for their initial text-to-911 deployments, and we
expect other initial deployments to be similarly SMS-based.
67. At the same time, have not limited our focus to SMS-based text.
As a result of the rapid proliferation of smartphones and other
advanced mobile devices, some consumers are beginning to move away from
SMS to other IP-based text applications, including downloadable
software applications provided by parties other than the underlying
carrier. To the extent that consumers gravitate to such applications as
their primary means of communicating by text, they may reasonably come
to expect these applications to also support text-to-911, as consumer
familiarity is vital in emergency situations where seconds matter.
Therefore, in this Second Further Notice, we seek to ensure that
consumers have access to the same text-to-911 capabilities on the full
array of
[[Page 12453]]
texting applications that they use for ubiquitous on a reasonable
timeframe.
B. Legal Basis
68. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is contained in
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 201(b), 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301,
302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a),
332, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c(a), 615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1) of
the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157,
160, 201, 201(b), 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r),
307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 332, 615a, 615a-1, 615b,
615c, 615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
69. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
70. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.
First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.9 million
small businesses, according to the SBA. In addition, a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is
defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that
there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the United
States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,506 entities may
qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that
most governmental jurisdictions are small.
1. Telecommunications Service Entities
(a) Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers
71. Pursuant to 47 CFR 20.18(a), the Commission's 911 service
requirements are only applicable to Commercial Mobile Radio Service
(CMRS) ``[providers], excluding mobile satellite service operators, to
the extent that they: (1) Offer real-time, two way switched voice
service that is interconnected with the public switched network; and
(2) Utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider
to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber
calls. These requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice
service to consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale
rates from CMRS licensees.''
72. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as
a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.
73. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services,
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that
category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were
11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
10,791 establishments had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372
had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities that may be affected by rules proposed in
the Second Further Notice.
74. Wireless Service Providers. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic
census categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.'' Under both categories, the SBA deems a wireless
business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For the census
category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that there were
807 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and three
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus, under this
category and associated small business size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small. For the census category of Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census Bureau data for 2002 show
that there were 1,397 firms in this category that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
Thus, under this second category and size standard, the majority of
firms can, again, be considered small.
75. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange services. The appropriate
size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for
2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that there
were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had had
employment of 1000 or more. According to Commission data, 1,307
carriers reported that they were incumbent local exchange service
providers. Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 301 have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most providers of local exchange service
are small entities that may be affected by the rules and policies
proposed in the Second Further Notice. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of these
incumbent local exchange service providers can be considered small.
76. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs),
Competitive Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers,
and
[[Page 12454]]
Other Local Service Providers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA has
developed a small business size standard specifically for these service
providers. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard,
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census
Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census,
show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and
44 firms had had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of these Competitive LECs, CAPs, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and
Other Local Service Providers can be considered small entities.
According to Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were
engaged in the provision of either competitive local exchange services
or competitive access provider services. Of these 1,442 carriers, an
estimated 1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than
1,500 employees. In addition, 17 carriers have reported that they are
Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500
or fewer employees. In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they
are Other Local Service Providers. Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or
fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local
exchange service, competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service
Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are small entities that
may be affected by rules proposed in the Second Further Notice.
77. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission initially defined a ``small
business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average
gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar
years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard
for ``very small business'' was added and is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more
than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years. These small
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have
been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within the SBA-approved
small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status
in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed
small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 1,479
licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks. On April 15,
1999, the Commission completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-
Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning bidders in that
auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.
78. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status.
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.
Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won
14 licenses.
79. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. To date, two
auctions of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses
have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already
been held, ``small businesses'' were entities with average gross
revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less.
Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure
meaningful participation of small business entities in future auctions,
the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in
the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A ``small business'' is an
entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than
$40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that, together with
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has
approved these small business size standards.
80. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission adopted small business
size standards for the purpose of determining eligibility for bidding
credits in auctions of Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic area
licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The Commission defined a
``small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15
million for the preceding three years. The Commission defined a ``very
small business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3
million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small
business size standards for both the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Service.
The first 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in 1996. Sixty bidders
claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million
size standard won 263 licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. In 2004, the
Commission held a second auction of 900 MHz SMR licenses and three
winning bidders identifying themselves as very small businesses won 7
licenses. The auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses for the upper 200
channels was conducted in 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they
qualified as small or very small businesses under the $15 million size
standard won 38 licenses for the upper 200 channels. A second auction
of 800 MHz SMR licenses was conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA
licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.
81. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR licenses for the General
Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders who won 108
licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band
qualified as small or very small businesses. In an auction completed in
2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels
of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19
claimed small or very small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus,
combining all four auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses
in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed to be small businesses.
[[Page 12455]]
82. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation
authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues
not exceeding $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues.
In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1500 or fewer
employees. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the
remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by
small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the
SBA.
83. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1);
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands
(AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the
Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity with average
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40
million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average annual
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million.
In 2006, the Commission conducted its first auction of AWS-1 licenses.
In that initial AWS-1 auction, 31 winning bidders identified themselves
as very small businesses. Twenty-six of the winning bidders identified
themselves as small businesses. In a subsequent 2008 auction, the
Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses. Four winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses, and three of the winning bidders
identified themselves as a small business. For AWS-2 and AWS-3,
although we do not know for certain which entities are likely to apply
for these frequencies, we note that the AWS-1 bands are comparable to
those used for cellular service and personal communications service.
The Commission has not yet adopted size standards for the AWS-2 or AWS-
3 bands but has proposed to treat both AWS-2 and AWS-3 similarly to
broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the comparable capital
requirements and other factors, such as issues involved in relocating
incumbents and developing markets, technologies, and services.
84. Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for
fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite
uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. The Commission
defined ``small business'' for the wireless communications services
(WCS) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million
for each of the three preceding years, and a ``very small business'' as
an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the
three preceding years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The
Commission auctioned geographic area licenses in the WCS service. In
the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on April 25,
1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as
very small business entities, and one bidder that won one license that
qualified as a small business entity.
85. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Guard Band Order,
the Commission adopted size standards for ``small businesses'' and
``very small businesses'' for purposes of determining their eligibility
for special provisions such as bidding credits and installment
payments. A small business in this service is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, a ``very small business'' is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three
years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. In 2000, the
Commission conducted an auction of 52 Major Economic Area (``MEA'')
licenses. Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were sold to nine
bidders. Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total
of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses
commenced and closed in 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were
sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was a small business that
won a total of two licenses.
86. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in
which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block,
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five
licenses.
87. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of
740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one license
in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) was conducted in
2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were won
by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed
small business, very small business or entrepreneur status and won
licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June
13, 2003, and included 256 licenses. Seventeen winning bidders claimed
small or very small business status, and nine winning bidders claimed
entrepreneur status. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5
licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band. All three winning bidders claimed
small business status.
88. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of A, B and
E block 700 MHz licenses was held in 2008. Twenty winning bidders
claimed small business status (those with attributable average annual
gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million
for the preceding three years). Thirty three winning bidders claimed
very small business status (those with attributable average annual
gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three
years).
89. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
[[Page 12456]]
Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Trends in
Telephone Service data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in
wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees. Therefore, more than
half of these entities can be considered small.
90. Satellite Telecommunications Providers. Two economic census
categories address the satellite industry. The first category has a
small business size standard of $15 million or less in average annual
receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a size standard of $25
million or less in annual receipts.
91. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.'' Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 607
Satellite Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire year.
Of this total, 533 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and
74 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications
firms are small entities that might be affected by rules proposed in
the Second Further Notice.
92. The second category, i.e., ``All Other Telecommunications'',
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,623 firms
that operated for the entire year. Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are
small entities that might be affected by rules proposed in the Second
Further Notice.
(b) Equipment Manufacturers
93. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing which is: all such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there
were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for
part or all of the entire year. Of this total, 784 had less than 500
employees and 155 had more than 100 employees. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
94. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. These
establishments manufacture ``computer storage devices that allow the
storage and retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical,
or magnetic/optical media. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 500
or fewer employees storage and retrieval of data from a phase change,
magnetic, optical, or magnetic/optical media.'' According to data from
the 2007 U.S. Census, in 2007, there were 954 establishments engaged in
this business. Of these, 545 had from 1 to 19 employees; 219 had from
20 to 99 employees; and 190 had 100 or more employees. Based on this
data, the Commission concludes that the majority of the businesses
engaged in this industry are small.
(c) Information Service and Software Providers
95. Software Publishers. Since 2007 these services have been
defined within the broad economic census category of Custom Computer
Programming Services; that category is defined as establishments
primarily engaged in writing, modifying, testing, and supporting
software to meet the needs of a particular customer. The SBA has
developed a small business size standard for this category, which is
annual gross receipts of $25 million or less. According to data from
the 2007 U.S. Census, there were 41,571 establishments engaged in this
business in 2007. Of these, 40,149 had annual gross receipts of less
than $10,000,000. Another 1,422 establishments had gross receipts of
$10,000,000 or more. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that
the majority of the businesses engaged in this industry are small.
96. Internet Service Providers. Since 2007, these services have
been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired
Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as follows:
``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text,
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of
technologies.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188
firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 3,144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and
44 firms had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. In
addition, according to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total
of 396 firms in the category Internet Service Providers (broadband)
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 394 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and two firms had employment of
1000 employees or more. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
these firms are small entities that may be affected by rules proposed
by the Second Further Notice.
97. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.
The Commission's action may pertain to interconnected Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, which could be provided by entities
that provide other services such as email, online gaming, web browsing,
video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled
services. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for entities
that create or provide these types of services or applications.
However, the Census Bureau has identified firms that ``primarily
engaged in (1) publishing and/or broadcasting content on the Internet
exclusively or (2) operating Web sites that use a search engine to
generate and maintain extensive
[[Page 12457]]
databases of Internet addresses and content in an easily searchable
format (and known as Web search).
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
98. The Second Further Notice proposes that carriers and
interconnected text providers that enter into voluntary agreements to
provide text-to-911 should be required to submit reports to the
Commission on their adherence to their commitments in order to qualify
for a safe harbor with respect to any adopted rules. The Commission
proposes that any reporting should be robust enough to provide the
Commission with data sufficient for it to make informed decisions about
the effectiveness of the voluntary commitment. Small entities opting
for this path would do so voluntarily, and assume any costs associated
with such option. Alternatively, they may opt to comply with mandatory
rules which may be adopted, and which do not include a proposal for
reporting.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
99. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) the establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
100. The Second Further Notice analyzes a variety of possible means
of implementing text-to-911 for interconnected text providers in a
timely fashion and costs thereof, and seeks comment on these issues. We
are also seeking comment on what waiver standards may apply and
circumstances that may warrant a waiver of any rules we may adopt,
including how financial constraints should be considered. Our proposals
build on the recently filed voluntary commitment by the four largest
wireless carriers--in an agreement with the National Emergency Number
Association (NENA), and the Association of Public Safety Communications
Officials (APCO) (Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement) to make text-to-911
available to their customers by May 15, 2014, and the previously
submitted record suggesting that all CMRS providers can support text-
to-911 by December 31, 2014.
101. Additionally, the Second Further Notice seeks comment
implementing text-to-911 for roaming consumers, enhancing location
accuracy for consumers sending texts to 911, and the evolution of
texting applications and how consumers use them.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
102. None.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This document contains no new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13.
Ex Parte Presentations
The proceedings initiated by this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule Sec.
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
0
1. The authority for Part 20 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 222,
251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333,
615(a), 615(a) through 1, and 615(b).
0
2. Section 20.18 paragraph (n) is amended by adding paragraphs (9)
through (12) to read as follows
Sec. 20.18 911 Service.
* * * * *
(n) * * *
(9) 911 Text Message. A 911 text message is a message, consisting
entirely of text characters, intended to be delivered to a PSAP by a
Covered Text Provider.
(10) 911 Short Code. The 911 Short Code is the designated short
code to identify a 911 Text Message to be sent to a designated PSAP.
(11) No later than December 31, 2014, all covered text providers
must have the capability to route a 911 text message to a PSAP. In
complying with this requirement, covered text providers must route text
messages to the same PSAP to which a 911 voice call would be routed,
unless the responsible local or state entity designates a different
PSAP to receive 911 text messages and informs the carrier of that
change.
(i) Covered text providers must begin routing all 911 texts
messages to a PSAP making a valid request of the carrier within a
reasonable amount of time, not to exceed six months.
(ii) PSAPs may begin making valid requests prior to the December
31, 2014, deadline for the capability to route 911 texts to PSAPs but
covered text
[[Page 12458]]
providers are not obligated to begin providing such service until
December 31, 2014.
(iii) Valid Request means that:
(A) The requesting PSAP represents that it is technically ready to
receive 911 text messages in the format requested; and
(B) The appropriate local or State 911 service governing authority
has specifically authorized the PSAP to accept and, by extension, the
signatory service provider to provide, text-to-911 service (and such
authorization is not subject to dispute).
(12) Covered Devices and Network Connection. Third party
interconnected text providers that meet the definition of a ``covered
text provider'' must offer the capability described in paragraph
(n)(11) of this section during time periods when the mobile device is
connected to a CMRS network.
[FR Doc. 2014-04731 Filed 3-4-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P