Facilitating Implementation of Next Generation 911 Services (NG911), 43514-43543 [2023-14402]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43514-43543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14402]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 9

[PS Docket No. 21-479; FCC 23-47; FR ID 151653]


Facilitating Implementation of Next Generation 911 Services 
(NG911)

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the 
FCC or Commission) proposes rules that will advance the nationwide 
transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911). Some states report that they 
are experiencing delays in providers connecting to NG911 networks. As a 
result of these delays, state and local 911 authorities incur prolonged 
costs because of the need to maintain both legacy and NG911 networks 
during the transition. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
proposes requiring wireline, interconnected Voice over Internet 
Protocol (VoIP), and internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service 
(TRS) providers to complete all translation and routing to deliver 911 
calls in the requested Internet Protocol (IP)-based format to an 
Emergency Services IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s) 
that allow emergency calls to be answered upon request of 911 
authorities who have certified the capability to accept IP-based 911 
communications. In addition, the NPRM proposes to require wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), and 
internet-based TRS providers to transmit all 911 calls to destination 
point(s) in those networks designated by a 911 authority upon request 
of 911 authorities who have certified the capability to accept IP-based 
911 communications. Finally, the NPRM proposes that in the absence of 
agreements by states or localities on alternative cost recovery 
mechanisms, wireline, interconnected VoIP, CMRS, and internet-based TRS 
providers must cover the costs of transmitting 911 calls to the 
point(s) designated by a 911 authority.

DATES: Comments are due on or before August 9, 2023, and reply comments 
are due on or before September 8, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and 
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of 
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic 
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in 
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). You may submit comments, 
identified by PS Docket No. 21-479, by any of the following methods:
     Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
     Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must 
file an original and one copy of each filing.
    Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be 
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission.
     Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, 
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
     U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority 
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
     Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the 
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. 
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety 
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC 
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, public notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
    People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible 
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic 
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the 
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Wehr, Attorney Advisor, Policy 
and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 
(202) 418-1138, [email protected], or Brenda Boykin, Deputy Division 
Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland 
Security Bureau, (202) 418-2062, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 23-47, in PS Docket No. 21-479, 
adopted on June 8, 2023, and released on June 9, 2023. The full text of 
this document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-action-expedite-transition-next-generation-911-0.

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

    This NPRM may contain proposed new or modified information 
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on any information collection requirements 
contained in this

[[Page 43515]]

document, as required by the PRA. If the Commission adopts any new or 
modified information collection requirements, they will be submitted to 
OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general 
public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the 
new or modified information collection requirements contained in this 
proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork 
Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how we might further 
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns 
with fewer than 25 employees.
    The Commission will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding 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.

Synopsis

Background

    In this NPRM, we propose to take steps that will advance the 
nationwide transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911).\1\ Like 
communications networks generally, dedicated 911 networks are evolving 
from Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)-based architectures to Internet 
Protocol (IP)-based architectures. With the transition to NG911, 911 
authorities will replace the circuit-switched architecture of legacy 
911 networks with IP-based technologies and applications, which provide 
new capabilities and improved interoperability and system resilience. 
Most states have invested significantly in NG911, but some report that 
they are experiencing delays in providers connecting to these IP-based 
networks. As a result of these delays, state and local 911 authorities 
incur prolonged costs because of the need to maintain both legacy and 
IP networks during the transition. Managing 911 traffic on both legacy 
and IP networks may also result in increased vulnerability and risk of 
911 outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For purposes of this NPRM, we use the term Next Generation 
911 (NG911) to refer generally to the digital Internet Protocol 
(IP)-based 911 systems that are replacing analog time division 
multiplexing (TDM) 911 infrastructure. We also seek comment on 
defining NG911 for purposes of our proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this proceeding, we propose to expedite the NG911 transition by 
adopting certain requirements that would apply to wireline, Commercial 
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), interconnected Voice over Internet 
Protocol (VoIP), and internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service 
(TRS) providers as state and local 911 authorities transition to IP-
based networks and develop the capability to support NG911 elements and 
functions.
     First, we propose to require wireline, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to complete all translation and 
routing to deliver 911 calls, including associated location 
information, in the requested IP-based format to an Emergency Services 
IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s) that allow emergency 
calls to be answered upon request of 911 authorities who have certified 
the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. Wireline and 
interconnected VoIP providers would be subject to this requirement six 
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement, 
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or 
local 911 authority, whichever is later. Internet-based TRS providers 
would be subject to this requirement twelve months from the effective 
date of the IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a 
valid request for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority, 
whichever is later. This proposal is similar to that proposed for CMRS 
and covered text providers in our recent proceeding on wireless 
location-based routing.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, PS Docket No. 18-64, FCC 22-96, 2022 WL 
17958801, at *2, para. 4 (Dec. 22, 2022) (Location-Based Routing 
NPRM). The Commission defines the term ``covered text provider'' as 
including ``all CMRS providers as well as all providers of 
interconnected text messaging services that enable consumers to send 
text messages to and receive text messages from all or substantially 
all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers, including through the use 
of applications downloaded or otherwise installed on mobile 
phones.'' 47 CFR 9.10(q)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Second, as state and local 911 authorities transition to 
IP-based networks, we propose to require wireline, interconnected VoIP, 
CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers to transmit all 911 calls to 
destination point(s) in those networks designated by a 911 authority, 
including to a public safety answering point (PSAP), designated 
statewide default answering point, local emergency authority, ESInet, 
or other point(s) designated by 911 authorities that allow emergency 
calls to be answered, upon request of 911 authorities who have 
certified the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications.
     Third, we propose that in the absence of agreements by 
states or localities on alternative cost recovery mechanisms, wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers must cover 
the costs of transmitting 911 calls to the point(s) designated by a 911 
authority, including any costs associated with completing the 
translation and routing necessary to deliver such calls and associated 
location information to the designated destination point(s) in the 
requested IP-based format. Under this proposal, states and localities 
would remain free to establish alternative cost allocation arrangements 
with providers. However, in the absence of such arrangements, providers 
would be presumptively responsible for the costs associated with 
delivering traffic to the destination point(s) identified by the 
appropriate 911 authority.
    Together, these proposals are intended to expedite the NG911 
transition and help ensure that the nation's 911 system functions 
effectively and with the most advanced capabilities available. In 
addition, they respond to the petition filed in 2021 by the National 
Association of State 911

[[Page 43516]]

Administrators (NASNA) \3\ urging the Commission to take actions to 
resolve uncertainty and disputes between originating service providers 
(OSPs) \4\ and state 911 authorities regarding the NG911 transition. We 
seek to create a consistent framework for ensuring that providers 
(including wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS 
providers) take the necessary steps to implement the transition to 
NG911 capability in coordination with state and local 911 authorities. 
We also seek to align the NG911 transition rules for wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers with similar 
requirements we have proposed for CMRS and covered text providers in 
the Location-Based Routing NPRM, thereby promoting consistency across 
service platforms. Finally, our demarcation point and cost allocation 
proposals seek to address what NASNA described in its Petition as ``the 
critical component, and biggest regulatory roadblock, to transitioning 
to NG911 services.'' We seek comment on the tentative conclusions, 
proposals, and analyses set forth in this NPRM, as well as on any 
alternative approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Petition for Rulemaking; Alternatively, Petition for Notice 
of Inquiry, CC Docket No. 94-102, PS Docket Nos. 18-64, 18-261, 11-
153, and 10-255 (filed Oct. 19, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1019188969473/1 (NASNA Petition).
    \4\ NASNA and other commenters on NASNA's Petition use the term 
``originating service providers'' to refer to all service providers 
that originate 911 calls and are subject to part 9 of our rules, 
including wireline, wireless, and interconnected Voice over Internet 
Protocol (VoIP) providers. See, e.g., NASNA Petition at 2. For 
purposes of this NPRM, we use the term ``originating service 
providers'' (OSPs) to refer collectively to wireline, wireless, and 
interconnected VoIP providers, but not to other service providers 
covered by part 9 (e.g., telecommunications relay and mobile 
satellite services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    911 service is a vital part of our nation's emergency response and 
disaster preparedness system. Since the first 911 call was placed in 
1968, the American public increasingly has come to depend on 911 
service. The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) estimates 
that some form of 911 service is available to over 98 percent of the 
population and to over 97 percent of the counties in the United States, 
and data collected in our annual 911 fee report indicate that over 220 
million calls are made to 911 in the United States each year.\5\ The 
availability of this critical service is due largely to the dedicated 
efforts of state, local, and Tribal authorities and providers, who have 
used the 911 abbreviated dialing code to provide access to increasingly 
advanced and effective emergency service capabilities.\6\ Indeed, 
absent funding for and appropriate action by states, Tribes, and local 
jurisdictions, there can be no effective 911 service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ FCC, Fourteenth Annual Report to Congress on State 
Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges 
at 15, tbl. 3 (2022), https://www.fcc.gov/file/24628/download 
(Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee Report).
    \6\ See Implementation of 911 Act; The Use of N11 Codes and 
Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, WT Docket No. 00-110, CC 
Docket No. 92-105, Fourth Report and Order and Third Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 
17079, 17084, para. 9 (2000) (911 Implementation Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

911 Implementation

    The Universal Emergency Number. In 1999, Congress amended section 
251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and 
directed the Commission to designate ``911'' as the nationwide 
abbreviated dialing code for contacting wireline and wireless voice 
services for public safety and emergency services.\7\ In 2000, the 
Commission designated 911 as the national emergency telephone number to 
be used for reporting emergencies and requesting emergency assistance. 
In 2001, the Commission established a period for wireline and wireless 
carriers to transition to routing 911 calls to a PSAP in areas where 
one had been designated or, in areas where a PSAP had not yet been 
designated, either to an existing statewide default point or to an 
appropriate local emergency authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, 
Public Law 106-81, 3(a), 113 Stat. 1286, 1287 (911 Act) (codified at 
47 U.S.C. 251(e)(3)). The purpose of the 911 Act is to enhance 
public safety by encouraging and facilitating the prompt deployment 
of a nationwide, seamless communications infrastructure for 
emergency services that includes wireless communications. 911 
Implementation Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17081, para. 1 (citing 911 Act 
Sec.  2(b)). The 911 Act further directs the Commission to encourage 
and support the states in developing comprehensive emergency 
communications throughout the United States so that all 
jurisdictions offer seamless networks for prompt emergency service. 
Id.
    \8\ See Implementation of 911 Act; The Use of N11 Codes and 
Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, WT Docket No. 00-110, CC 
Docket No. 92-105, Fifth Report and Order, First Report and Order, 
and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd 
22264, 22293-95, App. B (2001). The Commission codified in former 
section 64.3001 the obligation of telecommunications carriers to 
transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, to a designated statewide default 
answering point, or to an appropriate local emergency authority. Id. 
In addition, the Commission codified in former section 64.3002 the 
periods for transition to 911 as the universal emergency telephone 
number. Id. The Commission subsequently renumbered sections 64.3001 
and 64.3002 as current sections 9.4 and 9.5, respectively. 
Implementing Kari's Law and Section 506 of RAY BAUM'S Act; Inquiry 
Concerning 911 Access, Routing, and Location in Enterprise 
Communications Systems; Amending the Definition of Interconnected 
VoIP Service in Section 9.3 of the Commission's Rules, PS Docket 
Nos. 18-261 and 17-239, GN Docket No. 11-117, Report and Order, 34 
FCC Rcd 6607, 6742, App. B (2019) (Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Order), 
corrected by Erratum, DA 19-1217 (PSHSB Dec. 2, 2019), also 
corrected by Second Erratum, 87 FR 60104 (Oct. 4, 2022); see 47 CFR 
9.4 and 9.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legacy 911 Call Routing. For legacy E911 systems, 911 calls are 
routed through the use of a wireline network element--called a 
selective router--to a geographically appropriate PSAP based on the 
caller's location.\9\ The selective router serves as the entry point 
for 911 calls from competitive and incumbent LEC central offices over 
dedicated trunks, as well as 911 calls from wireless and interconnected 
VoIP providers. In legacy architecture, PSAPs are connected to 
telephone switches in the selective router by dedicated trunk lines. 
Historically, the selective router and connecting trunk lines have been 
implemented, operated, and maintained by a subset of incumbent Local 
Exchange Carriers (LECs) and largely paid for by state or local 911 
authorities through state tariffs or contracts. Network implementation 
has varied from carrier to carrier and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, 
but legacy E911 has typically been based on traditional circuit-
switched architecture and implemented with legacy components that place 
significant limitations on the functions that can be performed over the 
network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled 
Service Providers, WC Docket Nos. 04-36 and 05-196, First Report and 
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, 10251, 
10252, paras. 13, 15 (2005) (VoIP 911 Order), aff'd sub nom. Nuvio 
Corp. v. FCC, 473 F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Legacy Demarcation Point. Although the Commission has not 
previously set a cost demarcation point for wireline, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers in the E911 environment, the 
Commission has set a demarcation point for purposes of the wireless 
transition to E911. Early in the implementation of E911 Phase I by 
wireless carriers, King County, Washington sought clarification of the 
demarcation point for costs in Phase I implementation. In 2001, the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) issued a decision (King County 
Letter) identifying the input to the 911 selective router maintained by 
the incumbent LEC as the ``proper demarcation point'' for allocating 
wireless E911 Phase I information delivery responsibilities and costs 
in instances when CMRS providers and 911 authorities could not agree on 
an appropriate demarcation point.\10\ In 2002, the Commission issued

[[Page 43517]]

an Order on Reconsideration (King County Order on Reconsideration) 
affirming WTB's decision and extending the demarcation point to include 
the delivery of wireless E911 Phase II information.\11\ The Commission 
affirmed that for a wireless carrier to satisfy its obligation to 
provide Phase I information to the PSAP under Sec.  20.18(d) (now Sec.  
9.10(d)), the wireless carrier must deliver and bear the costs to 
deliver E911 Phase I information to the equipment in the existing 911 
system that ``analyzes and distributes it,'' i.e., the 911 selective 
router. The Commission also affirmed that PSAPs were required to bear 
Phase I costs for delivery beyond the 911 selective router. Together, 
these decisions provided guidance to facilitate implementation of E911 
in TDM networks. However, the Commission has not previously sought to 
address demarcation in the NG911 environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Letter from Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, to Marlys R. Davis, E911 Program 
Manager, King County E-911 Program Office, Department of Information 
and Administrative Services, King County, Washington, 2001 WL 
491934, at *1 (WTB May 7, 2001) (King County Letter) (clarifying 
that ``wireless carriers are responsible for the costs of all 
hardware and software components and functionalities that precede 
the 911 Selective Router'' and that ``PSAPs . . . must bear the 
costs of maintaining and/or upgrading the E911 components and 
functionalities beyond the input to the 911 Selective Router'').
    \11\ Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility 
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Request of King County, 
Washington, CC Docket No. 94-102, Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC 
Rcd 14789, 14789, 14793, paras. 1, 9-10 (2002) (King County Order on 
Reconsideration) (affirming the King County Letter on 
reconsideration and extending WTB's analysis to Phase II service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Voice Over Internet Protocol. With regard to interconnected VoIP, 
the Commission has recognized that consumers expected certain types of 
emerging voice technology to have the same ability to reach emergency 
services when dialing 911 as their traditional wireline and wireless 
services. This recognition resulted in the 2005 VoIP 911 Order, in 
which the Commission imposed 911 service obligations on providers of 
interconnected VoIP.\12\ The Commission declined to establish an E911 
demarcation point for interconnected VoIP service, but it stated that 
``[t]o the extent that it becomes a concern, we believe that the 
demarcation point that the Commission established for wireless E911 
cost allocation would be equally appropriate for VoIP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10246, 10256, paras. 1, 22; 
see also 47 CFR 9.3 (defining interconnected VoIP service), 9.11-.12 
(giving interconnected VoIP providers duties and rights with respect 
to provision of 911 service). The Commission later clarified that 
the 911 VoIP requirements extended to ``outbound only'' 
interconnected VoIP providers, that is, VoIP providers that permit 
users to initiate calls that terminate to the PSTN even if they do 
not also allow users to receive calls from the PSTN. Kari's Law/RAY 
BAUM'S Act Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 6670-71, 6675, paras. 174, 183. 
While section 615b uses the term ``IP-enabled voice service,'' it 
defines this term as having the same meaning as ``interconnected 
VoIP'' in section 9.3 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 615b(8). 
We refer to both of these terms in this NPRM as ``interconnected 
VoIP service'' (and to providers of such a service as 
``interconnected VoIP providers'') and in doing so intend to 
encompass all VoIP services subject to 911 obligations under part 9 
of our rules, including providers of Internet Protocol Captioned 
Telephone Service (IP CTS), who are also the providers of the 
associated interconnected VoIP service. IP CTS is a form of 
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) ``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 text telephone (TTY) and the public switched telephone 
network.'' 47 CFR 64.601(a)(24). We also include other providers of 
internet-based TRS, video relay service (VRS), and Internet Protocol 
Relay Service (IP Relay).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    911 Parity. By 2008, Congress recognized that the nation's 911 
system was ``evolving from its origins in a circuit-switched world to 
an IP-based network'' \13\ and that for VoIP providers to fulfill their 
911 service obligations to subscribers, they must have access to the 
same emergency services capabilities and infrastructure as other voice 
providers.\14\ Congress passed the New and Emerging Technologies 
Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act) to facilitate the rapid 
deployment of VoIP 911 services and to, among other things, encourage 
the transition to a national IP-enabled emergency network. The NET 911 
Act extended critical 911 service-related rights, protections, and 
obligations to VoIP service providers, and mandated parity for VoIP 
providers vis-[agrave]-vis other voice providers subject to 911 
obligations with respect to the rates, terms, and conditions applicable 
to exercising their rights and obligations to provision VoIP 911 
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008, 
Report and Order, WC Docket No. 08-171, 23 FCC Rcd 15884, 15893, 
para. 22 (citing New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act 
of 2008, Pub. L. 110-283, Preamble, Sec.  102, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008) 
(NET 911 Act).
    \14\ See H.R. Rep. No. 110-442, at 6-7 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transition to Next Generation 911

    Like communications networks generally, 911 networks are evolving 
from TDM-based architectures to IP-based architectures. With the 
transition to NG911, the circuit-switched architecture of legacy 911 
will eventually be entirely replaced by IP-based technologies and 
applications that provide all of the same functions as the legacy 911 
system, as well as new capabilities. In its end state, NG911 will 
facilitate interoperability and system resilience, improve connections 
between 911 call centers, and support the transmission of text, photos, 
videos, and data.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See, e.g., City of New York Office of Technology & 
Innovation, 2022 Annual Report on Implementation of Next Generation 
9-1-1 in NYC at 4 (2022), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oti/downloads/pdf/reports/annual-report-next-generation-911-2022.pdf (listing the 
primary technical benefits of NG911); see also NENA, Why NG9-1-1 at 
1-2 (2009), https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/ng9-1-1_project/whyng911.pdf (identifying the purposes of NG911).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress has recognized the Commission's role in facilitating the 
transition to NG911. As part of the 2010 National Broadband Plan, the 
Commission recommended that Congress consider developing a new ``legal 
and regulatory framework for development of NG911 and the transition 
from legacy 911 to NG911 networks.'' \16\ Also in 2010, Congress 
enacted the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility 
Act (CVAA), which authorized the Commission to implement regulations 
necessary to achieve reliable and interoperable communication that 
ensures access to an internet Protocol-enabled emergency network by 
individuals with disabilities, where achievable and technically 
feasible.\17\ In 2012, Congress enacted the Next Generation 9-1-1 
Advancement Act of 2012 as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job 
Creation Act of 2012 (NG911 Act), asking the Commission to prepare and 
submit a report to Congress on recommendations for the legal and 
statutory framework for NG911 services.\18\ In 2013, the Commission 
submitted that report, recommending among other things that Congress 
(1) facilitate the exercise of existing authority over NG911 by certain 
federal agencies (including the Commission), and (2) consider enacting 
legislation that would ensure there is no gap between federal and state 
authority over NG911.\19\ The Commission stated that ``[t]he Commission 
already has sufficient authority to regulate the 911 and NG911 activity 
of, inter alia,

[[Page 43518]]

wireline and wireless carriers, interconnected VoIP providers, and 
other IP-based service providers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, 
Recommendation 16.14 at 326 (2010), https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296935A1.pdf (last visited May 16, 
2023) (National Broadband Plan).
    \17\ Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility 
Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat 2751 Sec.  106(g) (2010) 
(CVAA) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 615c(g)).
    \18\ Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 
Public Law 112-96 (2012), Title VI, Subtitle E, Next Generation 9-1-
1 Advancement Act (NG911 Act) Sec.  6509.
    \19\ FCC, Legal and Regulatory Framework for Next Generation 911 
Services, Section 4.1.2.2 at 28-29 (2013), https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0227/DOC-319165A1.pdf (last visited May 16, 2023) (2013 NG911 Framework 
Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The technological and regulatory landscape underlying 911 has 
evolved significantly since 2013. The Commission has adopted 
requirements for text-to-911, real-time text, wireless indoor location 
accuracy, and dispatchable location.\20\ In addition, the Commission 
has updated 911 outage and reliability rules, including recognizing the 
role of covered 911 entities.\21\ With respect to technology, E911 
Phase II is now widely implemented, and many state and local 
jurisdictions have deployed ESInets and taken other transitional steps 
towards NG911.\22\ Although the NG911 transition remains ongoing and 
there are no fully enabled NG911 systems yet operating,\23\ the 
technical architecture of NG911 systems has been developed in detail 
and is well-established.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ E.g., Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other 
Next Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911 
Deployment, PS Docket Nos. 11-153 and 10-255, Second Report and 
Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 
9846 (2014); Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology; 
Petition for Rulemaking to Update the Commission's Rules for Access 
to Support the Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, and 
Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, CG 
Docket No. 16-145, GN Docket No. 15-178, Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 13568 (2016); 
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No. 07-114, 
Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1259 (2015); Wireless E911 
Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No. 07-114, Fifth Report 
and Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC 
Rcd 11592 (2019); Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS 
Docket No. 07-114, Sixth Report and Order and Order on 
Reconsideration, 35 FCC Rcd 7752 (2020); Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act 
Order, 34 FCC Rcd 6607.
    \21\ E.g., Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules 
Concerning Disruptions to Communications; Improving 911 Reliability; 
New Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to 
Communications, PS Docket Nos. 15-80, 13-75 and 04-35, Second Report 
and Order, FCC 22-88, 2022 WL 17100963 (Nov. 18, 2022).
    \22\ According to the most recent National 911 Annual Report, 
2,287 PSAPs reported using an ESInet across 47 states in 2021, 
nearly a 5% increase from the 2020 data. National 911 Program, 
National 911 Annual Report, 2021 Data at 8, 60, 64 (2023), https://www.911.gov/assets/2021-911-Profile-Database-Report_FINAL.pdf 
(National 911 Annual Report).
    \23\ Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-
International, Inc. (APCO) Comments at 1-2 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) 
(APCO Comments) (``ECCs should be able to receive, process, and 
share appropriate information with responders in the field and with 
other ECCs in a secure and fully interoperable fashion [but] no part 
of the country can be described as having achieved this vision of 
NG9-1-1 with end-to-end broadband communications for ECCs.''); see 
also APCO, APCO International's Definitive Guide to Next Generation 
9-1-1 at 9 (2022), https://www.apcointl.org/ext/pages/APCOng911Guide/APCO_NG911_Report_Final.pdf (noting that 
comprehensive, end-to-end NG911 ``does not yet exist anywhere in the 
country'').
    \24\ See Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA), 
Adopted Final Report (2016), https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_FINALReport_012916.pdf (TFOPA Final Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASNA Petition. On October 19, 2021, NASNA filed a petition asking 
the Commission to initiate a rulemaking or notice of inquiry to 
facilitate the transition to NG911 (NASNA Petition). Specifically, 
NASNA asked the Commission to assert authority over the delivery of 911 
communications by OSPs to ESInets and to amend the rules as needed to 
advance the transition to NG911. As part of its petition, NASNA urged 
the Commission to set a default demarcation point in the NG911 
environment analogous to its King County ruling in the E911 
environment. NASNA also asked the Commission to set deadlines for OSPs 
to begin delivering 911 traffic in NG911 format when the relevant state 
or local 911 authority achieves NG911 readiness, and to establish a 
registry through which 911 authorities would notify OSPs of their NG911 
readiness status. The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB 
or Bureau) placed the Petition on public notice on December 17, 2021, 
and received twenty-two comments, eight replies, and seven ex 
partes.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on 
Petition for Rulemaking Filed by the National Association of State 
911 Administrators, CC Docket No. 94-102 and PS Docket Nos. 21-479, 
18-261, 18-64, 11-153, and 10-255, public notice, 36 FCC Rcd 17805 
(PSHSB 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/pshsb-seeks-comment-nasna-petition-rulemaking (public notice). Comments, replies, and ex 
partes in this proceeding may be viewed in the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/results?q=(proceedings.name:(%2221-479%22)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wireless Location-Based Routing. In December 2022, we issued the 
Location-Based Routing NPRM proposing to require CMRS and covered text 
providers to implement location-based routing for 911 calls and texts 
nationwide. As part of that proceeding, we proposed to require CMRS and 
covered text providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated 
routing information in IP format upon request of 911 authorities who 
have established the capability to accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911 
communications. In addition, we proposed rules to establish time frames 
for CMRS and covered text providers to deliver IP-based traffic. 
Further, we sought comment on whether to make available a registry or 
database that would allow state and local 911 authorities to notify 
CMRS and covered text providers of the 911 authorities' readiness to 
accept IP-based communications. These proposals, if adopted, would 
effectively implement a key element of NASNA's petition with respect to 
transition to NG911 for wireless 911 calls and texts, which represent 
an estimated 80 percent of 911 traffic in many areas.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The Location-Based Routing NPRM did not propose rules for 
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. In 
the instant NPRM, we reference some comments received in response to 
the Location-Based Routing NPRM with respect to CMRS providers that 
could be relevant to our proposals for wireline, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers here. However, we intend to 
address the specific proposals made in the Location-Based Routing 
NPRM, including IP delivery of 911 calls and texts for CMRS and 
covered text providers, as part of that proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To achieve the transition to NG911, state and local 911 authorities 
must implement IP-based technologies and applications that will provide 
all of the same functions as the legacy E911 system as well as new 
capabilities. NG911 relies on IP-based architecture to provide an 
expanded array of emergency communications services that encompass both 
the core functionalities of legacy E911 and additional functionalities 
that take advantage of the enhanced capabilities of IP-based devices 
and networks.\27\ In addition to handling 911 calls from wireline, 
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers, NG911 
networks can receive text, data, and video communications from any 
communications device via IP-based networks. They can also be 
configured to receive machine-generated data from telematics 
applications (e.g., automatic collision notification systems in 
vehicles), medical alert systems, and sensors and alarms of various 
types. NG911 architecture also supports enhanced flexibility and 
resiliency in network design, because it does not require system 
components to be in close geographic proximity to each PSAP and because 
it provides multiple alternatives for rerouting emergency 
communications to avoid congestion or outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No. 
10-255, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 17869, 17877, para. 18 (2010) 
(NG911 NOI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transition to NG911 involves fundamental changes in the 
technology that 911 authorities use to receive and process 911 calls, 
and calls for equally fundamental changes in the way that wireline, 
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers deliver 
such calls to PSAPs. First, in NG911 architecture, PSAPs receive 
incoming calls by means of ESInets, which are IP-based networks that 
replace the selective routers and

[[Page 43519]]

telephone trunk lines used in legacy 911.\28\ Second, NG911 is 
configured to receive and process 911 calls in a specific IP-based 
format, with all information needed to route the call and locate the 
caller embedded in IP data packets that control call initiation and 
set-up.\29\ This means that as part of the transition to NG911, 
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers 
will need to configure 911 calls in IP format that is compatible with 
NG911 call processing specifications and deliver the calls to new 
destination points in the IP-based networks established by 911 
authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ NG911 NOI, 25 FCC Rcd at 17878, para. 20. ESInets may be 
established at the statewide or regional level to serve multiple 
PSAPs. Id. at 17878, para. 20 n.52.
    \29\ Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA), Adopted 
Final Report at 38, fig. 4-1 (2016), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-tfopa-final-report (TFOPA Final Report); NENA, NENA i3 
Standard for Next Generation 9-1-1 at 37-41 (Oct. 7, 2021), https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/standards/nena-sta-010.3b-2021_i3_stan.pdf (NENA i3 Standard for NG911) (describing the 
SIP methods required for an NG911 call); Verizon Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because these changes to 911 call formatting and delivery will take 
time and may not be implemented uniformly by all service providers, 
NG911 architecture provides for transitional network components to 
enable delivery of legacy 911 calls to ESInets during the transition. 
These include legacy network gateways,\30\ which convert TDM 911 calls 
to IP, and ESInet entry points that accept IP-based 911 calls that do 
not include all of the call processing information required for end-
state NG911. These transitional components are important to ensuring 
continued delivery of legacy 911 calls until the NG911 transition is 
complete, at which point the transitional components can and will be 
decommissioned. However, maintaining legacy gateways and other 
transitional components adds to the cost of the NG911 transition, and 
these costs may be compounded significantly when the transition is 
impeded or delayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ TFOPA defines a ``legacy network gateway'' as ``[a]n NG9-1-
1 Functional Element that provides an interface between an un-
upgraded legacy origination network and the [Next Generation 9-1-1 
Core Services].'' TFOPA, Working Group 2 Phase II Supplemental 
Report: NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard at 100 (2016), https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_WG2_Supplemental_Report-120216.pdf (TFOPA NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most states have already made significant commitments to 
implementing NG911.\31\ Forty-one states and jurisdictions reported to 
the FCC in 2022 that they had ESInets operating in 2021.\32\ Despite 
investments in these new capabilities, commenters allege that some 
providers are delaying or refusing to connect to new NG911 
networks.\33\ Disputes with providers include issues of both cost 
allocation and the points to which carriers must deliver 911 
traffic.\34\ The general availability of state-level cost recovery for 
legacy wireline traffic appears to be an additional complicating 
factor.\35\ These disputes are widespread and impact 911 networks in 
several states across the nation.\36\ As a result, commenters allege 
that 911 authorities have incurred substantial costs to support legacy 
networks--including state-provided cost recovery for legacy 911 
services and the maintenance of legacy gateways and selective routers--
simultaneously with bearing the costs to deploy and support new NG911 
networks.\37\ These ongoing costs impact the ability of states and 
localities to implement the transition to NG911 in a timely and cost 
efficient manner.\38\ Commenters on the NASNA Petition indicate that, 
as part of the transition to NG911, it is important to decommission 
legacy routers and transition to IP-based infrastructure.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Forty-three states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and 
Puerto Rico reported expenditures on NG911 programs in calendar year 
2021. Fourteenth Annual Fee Report at 3. The total amount of 
reported NG911 expenditures in 2021 was $419,801,018.67. Id.
    \32\ Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee Report at 3. For calendar year 
2021, twenty-four states and jurisdictions reported having statewide 
ESInets; nineteen reported having regional ESInets within the state; 
and eleven reported local-level ESInets. Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee 
Report at 3. It is possible that these numbers increased since 
states and jurisdictions submitted information to the Bureau. See 
National 911 Annual Report at 8 (noting that in 2021, 47 states 
reported deployment of an ESInet).
    \33\ Minnesota Department of Public Safety Comments at 1 (rec. 
Jan. 19, 2022) (Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments); 
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Comments at 4-5 (rec. Jan. 
19, 2022) (Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments).
    \34\ See, e.g., Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 
4 (``One ILEC is requesting that Pennsylvania build the network all 
the way out to their switch(es) and that [Pennsylvania Emergency 
Mgmt. Agency], or Pennsylvania's NG911 system service provider 
assume all costs associated with this effort.'').
    \35\ See, e.g., Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments at 1 
(noting that OSPs who receive cost recovery have been unwilling to 
interconnect to the 911 ingress points identified by the state).
    \36\ Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (Comtech) Comments at 7 
(rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (Comtech Comments) (``Comtech has been pulled 
into nearly identical POI disputes with OSPs in every state and 
region in which it has participated in NG911 deployments, which 
consistently result in deployment delays and increased costs for 911 
Authorities to carry disputing OSPs' customers 911 traffic to the 
NG911 system.'').
    \37\ Travis Jensen Reply at 1 (rec. Jan. 21, 2022) (filed on 
behalf of Arizona Department of Administration 9-1-1 Program Office) 
(Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply) (The Arizona Dept. of 
Administration is ``currently facing challenges with the legacy 9-1-
1 services and originating service providers (OSPs) that will cause 
additional unforeseen costs.''); Letter from A. Keith Godwin, 9-1-1/
Communications Section Chief, Alachua County (FL) 911/Communications 
(Alachua County) to FCC, PS Docket No. 21-479, at 1 (filed Feb. 9, 
2022) (Alachua County Ex Parte) (``Florida has twenty-nine rural 
counties and some may never fully transition to NG-911 services if a 
county must continue to pay a LEC for legacy services while 
simultaneously paying for NG-911 services.''); Pennsylvania 
Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4 (``[Pennsylvania Emergency 
Mgmt. Agency] is currently experiencing difficulties in this process 
that may impact Pennsylvania's transition to NG911 service and 
extend the period of time 911 authorities are paying for both legacy 
and NG911 services at the same time.''); Comtech Reply at 5-6 (rec. 
Feb. 3, 2022) (Comtech Reply) (``PSAPs and 911 Authorities are 
forced to continue paying for existing Legacy 911 services . . . 
until all OSPs have migrated callers off the Legacy 911 Network.'').
    \38\ Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4; Arizona 
Dept. of Administration Reply at 1 (stating that migrating OSPs is 
``becoming a significant impediment to the NG911 transition in 
Arizona''); Alachua County Ex Parte at 1.
    \39\ Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency 
Management Comments at 2 (rec. Jan. 18, 2022) (Iowa Dept. of 
Homeland Security and Emergency Mgmt. Comments); Minnesota Dept. of 
Public Safety Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this NPRM, we propose to add a new subpart J to our part 9 rules 
that would define the requirements that apply to wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers as state and 
local 911 authorities transition to NG911. We discuss the specific 
elements of these proposals below.

1. Delivery in IP-Based Format

    IP Service Delivery. In its Petition, NASNA urges us to assist with 
the transition to NG911 by, among other things, amending the 
Commission's rules to ``specifically address NG911, including the 
standardized requirements associated with NG911 (e.g., Session 
Initiation Protocol [SIP] format and provide location information 
attached to the SIP header of the call using Presence Information Data 
Format Location Object [PIDF-LO]).'' Comments in response to the NASNA 
Petition show broad support for the Commission to take action to assist 
with the transition to NG911.\40\ Some

[[Page 43520]]

commenters contend that without a clear regulatory framework, 911 
authorities in various stages of NG911 deployment will incur increased 
costs related to legacy cost recovery and the maintenance of legacy 
gateways and selective routers. Commenters also note that continued 
delay in transitioning to NG911 means that public safety entities may 
not fully realize the benefit of their investments in NG911 and that 
consumers may be unable to access the improved capabilities of NG911 
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ NENA: The 9-1-1 Association Comments at 1 (rec. Jan. 19, 
2022) (NENA Comments); NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association 
Comments at 2 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (NTCA Comments); South Carolina 
Telephone Coalition Comments at 5 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (South 
Carolina Telephone Coalition Comments); Boulder Regional Emergency 
Telephone Service Authority Comments at 1 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) 
(BRETSA Comments); Nebraska Public Service Commission Comments at 2 
(rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (Nebraska Public Service Comm. Comments); APCO 
Comments at 1; Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1-2; 
Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 2; Colorado Public 
Utilities Commission Comments at 3 (rec. Jan. 14, 2022) (Colorado 
Public Utilities Comm. Comments); Comtech Comments at 2, 4, 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, we propose to require wireline, interconnected VoIP, and 
internet-based TRS providers to deliver IP-based 911 traffic under a 
similar framework to that proposed for CMRS and covered text providers 
in the Location-Based Routing NPRM. Specifically, we propose to require 
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to 
complete all translation necessary to deliver 911 calls, including 
associated location information, in the requested IP-based format to an 
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be 
answered upon request of 911 authorities who have established the 
capability to accept NG911-compatible, IP-based 911 communications. We 
seek comment on this proposal.
    We believe that this proposal would help jurisdictions that are 
seeking to implement NG911 because requiring wireline, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver IP-formatted calls 
and accompanying call set-up and location information would alleviate 
the burden on state and local 911 authorities of maintaining 
transitional gateways and other network elements to process and convert 
legacy calls.\41\ The Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA), 
a federal advisory committee, concluded in 2016 that a significant 
impediment to NG911 service was that originating service providers were 
not prepared to deliver 911 calls via IP technology with location 
information to NG911 service providers. Some 911 authorities contend 
that the use of legacy technology by carriers continues to impede state 
and local jurisdictions as they attempt to transition to NG911.\42\ 
Although some carriers are already delivering IP-based traffic 
voluntarily to NG911-capable PSAPs, so long as any providers continue 
to deliver 911 calls and routing information in legacy format, 911 
authorities must fund and operate transitional technology to receive, 
translate, and process such calls within the NG911 system. We seek 
comment on the degree to which funding and operating transitional 
facilities extend the timeline and add to the cost incurred by state 
and local 911 authorities to transition to NG911. In addition, we seek 
comment and specific data on the benefits that the public would derive 
from our proposal, as well as on the costs to wireline, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver calls in IP-based 
format when a state or local 911 authority has requested it. In 
particular, with respect to these costs to wireline, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers, we seek comment on the kinds of 
costs that would be associated with transport and transit of these 
calls in IP format from originating providers to an ESInet or other 
designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered upon 
request of 911 authorities.\43\ We also seek comment on whether and to 
what degree these costs differ depending on where and how the call is 
routed and delivered. To the extent that commenters identify cost 
differences, we invite commenters to discuss options to mitigate such 
cost variations and to identify steps the Commission should take to 
optimize the delivery and processing of 911 calls via IP upon request 
of 911 authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4-5 
(``[Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency] is currently experiencing 
difficulties in this process that may impact Pennsylvania's 
transition to NG911 service and extend the period of time 911 
authorities are paying for both legacy and NG911 services at the 
same time.'').
    \42\ E.g., Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1 
(``[Arizona Dept. of Administration] is currently facing challenges 
with the legacy 9-1-1 services and originating service providers 
(OSPs) that will cause additional unforeseen costs, becoming a 
significant impediment to the migration of NG9-1-1 for the 9-1-1 
callers in Arizona.''); Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments 
at 4-5.
    \43\ See Letter from Michael R. Romano, Executive Vice 
President, NTCA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No 
21-479, at 3 (filed May 30, 2023) (NTCA Ex Parte) (requesting that 
the Commission seek comment on the types of costs that providers 
could incur). For further discussion of estimated costs under the 
proposed rules, see below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also believe this proposal would complement our pending proposal 
in the Location-Based Routing NPRM to require CMRS and covered text 
providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated routing 
information in IP-based format upon request of 911 authorities who have 
established the capability to accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911 
communications. Although CMRS providers originate 75 to 80 percent of 
911 calls in the U.S., successful implementation of NG911 for all 911 
calls cannot occur without similar steps being taken by wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. Therefore, we 
propose that wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS 
providers should be subject to similar requirements to deliver 911 
communications in IP-based format to those we have proposed for CMRS 
and covered text providers. We seek comment on this approach. Should we 
seek to achieve regulatory parity in our requirements for delivery of 
IP-based 911 calls by CMRS, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and 
internet-based TRS providers, or are there reasons to apply different 
requirements to calls from different platforms?
    We seek comment on how to ensure that our proposal to require 
delivery of 911 calls in IP-based format would support interoperability 
in the NG911 environment, i.e., the ability to transfer 911 calls and 
related data from one PSAP to another or from one ESInet to another. 
Are there other elements of interoperability we should consider in the 
NG911 environment? \44\ What are the current roles of originating 
service providers and PSAPs in ensuring interoperability? What 
interoperability issues occur at the demarcation point and how would 
commenters define the roles and responsibilities of originating service 
providers, PSAPs and 911 authorities, and NG911 service providers with 
respect to interoperability? Are there potential interoperability risks 
for PSAPs or 911 authorities associated with a requirement to deliver 
information in an IP-based format? \45\ If so, what are those risks and 
what steps should we take to address them? Should we specify that the 
IP-based format requested by 911 authorities and delivered by 
originating providers must meet specified criteria to support 
interoperability, e.g., by including a requirement that the format 
conform to commonly accepted standards? We seek comment on the various 
costs for testing connections and resolving compatibility issues with 
IP-based interfaces and the parties

[[Page 43521]]

currently responsible for those costs.\46\ Are there standards for 
testing equipment and system functions and interactions to ensure 
compatibility and interoperability? Are there other requirements or 
conditions we should apply to eliminate impediments to interoperability 
and support seamless transfer of 911 calls and data? Should we specify 
that originating service providers' obligations to deliver calls in an 
IP-based format extend to the new communication formats expected for 
NG911, such as photos and video? \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ See Letter from Jeffery S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, APCO, Mark 
S. Reddish, Senior Counsel, APCO, and Alison P. Venable, Government 
Relations Counsel, APCO, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS 
Docket No. 21-479, at 1 (filed June 1, 2023) (APCO Ex Parte) 
(requesting that the Commission seek comment on how interoperability 
should be defined and relative responsibilities for ensuring 
interoperability).
    \45\ See APCO Comments at 7 (``The Commission must fully 
consider whether requiring originating service providers to deliver 
in an IP-based format will be helpful for solving interoperability 
problems among ECCs or whether, given the current environment of 
proprietary solutions and substantial interoperability challenges, 
this risks making the situation worse by further entrenching the 
problems.'').
    \46\ See APCO Ex Parte at 1 (requesting that the Commission seek 
comment on responsibilities for ensuring interoperability).
    \47\ See APCO Ex Parte at 2 (requesting that the Commission seek 
comment on whether the proposed NG911 obligations extend to requests 
for emergency assistance that are not voice calls, e.g., photos and 
video, and responsibilities for ensuring interoperability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also seek comment on how our proposal should extend to 911 calls 
that originate on non-IP wireline networks. While the Commission has, 
for the last decade, encouraged providers to transition to all-IP 
networks,\48\ some wireline carriers continue to use TDM switching 
facilities for voice traffic within portions of their networks. We note 
that our proposed rule would not require TDM-based carriers to 
originate 911 calls in IP-based format on their own networks. However, 
it would require such calls to be converted to IP-based format for 
delivery to the ESInet or other designated point(s) once a 911 
authority has made a valid request to receive IP-formatted calls. We 
seek comment on this proposal. Should we instead take steps to require 
that wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers 
originate all 911 traffic in IP format? What would be the costs and 
benefits associated with this proposal? Alternatively, should we limit 
our requirement for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based 
TRS providers to deliver 911 traffic in IP format to providers that 
originate 911 calls in IP? How would such a limitation impact the costs 
and benefits of our proposal? If providers fail to include 
appropriately formatted routing information, should those providers be 
responsible for additional costs beyond the points discussed below? We 
also seek comment on the costs specifically associated with originating 
providers' conversion of 911 voice traffic from TDM to IP.\49\ In that 
connection, we invite commenters to recommend approaches for addressing 
cost issues associated with conversion of 911 voice traffic from TDM to 
IP as those costs are more precisely identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Call Authentication Trust Anchor, Notice of Inquiry, WC 
Docket No. 17-97, FCC 22-81, 2022 WL 16634852, at *15 (citing 
Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements in an Era of Next-
Generation Networks and Services, WC Docket No. 19-308, Report and 
Order, 35 FCC Rcd 12425 (2020) (relieving incumbent local exchange 
carriers of various unbundled network and avoided-cost resale 
requirements); Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by 
Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, 
Second Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 5660 (2018) (streamlining the 
discontinuance process for technology transitions); Accelerating 
Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure 
Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Report and Order, Declaratory 
Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 11128, 
11142, para. 33 (2017) (streamlining the copper retirement process); 
Technology Transitions et al., GN Docket No. 13-5, WC Docket No. 13-
3, Declaratory Ruling, Second Report and Order, and Order on 
Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 8283, 8304-8305, paras. 64-65 (2016) 
(adopting the adequate replacement test); Technology Transitions et 
al., GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., Order, Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Report and Order, Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Proposal for Ongoing Data Initiative, 
29 FCC Rcd 1433, 1435, para. 1 (2014) (seeking proposals for 
service-based experiments in connection with technology 
transitions)).
    \49\ See NTCA Ex Parte at 4 (requesting that the Commission seek 
comment on the types of costs that providers could incur). For 
further discussion of estimated costs under the proposed rules, see 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also seek comment on how we should extend our proposed 
requirement to internet-based TRS, which includes IP CTS, VRS, and IP 
Relay.\50\ How would internet-based TRS services implement our proposal 
if adopted? We note that we do not propose similar requirements for 
TTY-based TRS providers. Should we exclude from the proposed 
requirements internet-based TRS providers who rely completely on their 
customers' underlying voice service providers to handle emergency call 
set-up and routing? \51\ In such cases, it may not be necessary to 
impose requirements on the internet-based TRS provider if the 
underlying service provider is subject to the relevant NG911 
requirements. Should covered IP CTS be subject to separate rules, as 
under the current part 9 rules? Does extending our proposed requirement 
to internet-based TRS raise any issues not considered above? What are 
the benefits and costs associated with the application of our proposal 
to internet-based TRS? Are there any other providers that we should 
require to deliver IP-based 911 services?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ IP CTS is a form of Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) 
``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 text telephone (TTY) and the 
public switched telephone network.'' 47 CFR 64.601(a)(24). VRS 
allows people who use sign language to communicate with voice 
telephone users with video equipment. A VRS user signs to a 
communications assistant (CA) who voices the information to the 
hearing party. See 47 CFR 64.601(a)((51) (definition of VRS). IP 
Relay allows people with hearing and speech disabilities to 
communicate with text using an IP-enabled device over the internet 
rather than a TTY and the PSTN. See 47 CFR 64.601(a)(24) (definition 
of IP Relay). Current E911 requirements for VRS and IP Relay are set 
forth in section 9.14(d) and for covered IP CTS in section 9.14(e). 
47 CFR 9.14(d), (e).
    \51\ See Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 6688-89, 
para. 213 (clarifying that ``these requirements do not apply to TTY-
based TRS providers, or to internet-based TRS providers who 
completely rely on their customers' underlying voice service 
providers to handle emergency call set-up, routing, and provision of 
location information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Delivery Points and Cost Allocation for IP-Based 911 Calls
    Next, we turn to the location(s) to which wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers should deliver 
911 traffic in an NG911 environment, as well as whether to establish a 
default mechanism for allocating the costs associated with delivering 
NG911 traffic to such delivery points. Comments received in response to 
the public notice indicate significant disputes have arisen regarding 
the obligations for delivery of 911 calls in some states and localities 
that have implemented components of NG911.\52\ These disputes concern 
the points to which providers should deliver 911 calls,\53\ as well as 
which parties should bear the responsibility for the cost to deliver 
911 traffic to those points.\54\ Public safety commenters

[[Page 43522]]

assert that these disputes have resulted in delays and costs to public 
safety that impact the transition to NG911 in states across the 
country.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ E.g., NENA Comments at 2 (``The record already reflects the 
widespread occurrence and substantial impact from demarcation-caused 
delays in deployment and provision of NG9-1-1.''); Comtech Comments 
at 7 (discussing ``nearly identical POI disputes with OSPs in every 
state and region in which it has participated in NG911 deployments, 
which consistently result in deployment delays and increased costs 
for 911 Authorities to carry disputing OSPs' customers 911 traffic 
to the NG911 system''); Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1 
(``[Arizona Dept. of Administration] is currently facing challenges 
with the legacy 9-1-1 services and originating service providers 
(OSPs) that will cause additional unforeseen costs, becoming a 
significant impediment to the migration of NG9-1-1 for the 9-1-1 
callers in Arizona.''); Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments 
at 4-5 (``Based on Pennsylvania's experiences to date, the lack of a 
defined cost demarcation point and regulatory framework will delay 
or even threaten the full end state implementation of NG911.'').
    \53\ E.g., Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1 (``Several 
Independent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) have indicated that they 
do not have an obligation to terminate their 9-1-1 traffic to the 
points of interconnection (POIs) as designated by [Arizona Dept. of 
Administration].''); South Carolina Telephone Coalition Comments at 
2 (stating that NG911 service providers should be responsible for 
providing points of interconnection within the ILEC service areas).
    \54\ E.g., Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4 
(``One ILEC is requesting that Pennsylvania build the network all 
the way out to their switch(es) and that [Pennsylvania Emergency 
Mgmt. Agency], or Pennsylvania's NG911 system service provider 
assume all costs associated with this effort.''); South Carolina 
Telephone Coalition Comments at 2.
    \55\ Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1; Pennsylvania 
Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4-5; Alachua County Ex Parte at 1 
(``Florida has twenty-nine rural counties and some may never fully 
transition to NG-911 services if a county must continue to pay a LEC 
for legacy services while simultaneously paying for NG-911 
services.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Delivery Points for IP-Based 911 Traffic. To address concerns about 
the points to which 911 traffic should be delivered as 911 authorities 
transition to NG911, we propose to require wireline, CMRS, and 
interconnected VoIP providers to transmit all 911 calls to the point(s) 
designated by the 911 authority that allow emergency calls to be 
answered six months from the effective date of the IP service delivery 
requirement, or six months after a valid request for IP-based service 
by a state or local 911 authority,\56\ whichever is later. We also 
propose to require internet-based TRS providers to transmit all 911 
calls to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority that allow 
emergency calls to be answered twelve months from the effective date of 
the IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a valid 
request for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority, 
whichever is later. Under this proposal, the delivery point(s) that 
could be designated by the 911 authority would include a PSAP, 
designated statewide default answering point, appropriate local 
emergency authority, ESInet, or other designated point(s) that allow 
emergency calls to be answered. This would make clear that the 911 
authority may select an ESInet or other designated points on its IP-
based network as the point(s) to which wireline, CMRS, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers must deliver 911 traffic. It 
would also clarify that 911 authorities determine and designate the 
point(s) to which 911 calls should be transmitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ For discussion of what constitutes a valid request, see 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We believe our proposal would help to resolve disputes regarding 
the point(s) to which wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and 
internet-based TRS providers must deliver 911 traffic in order to meet 
their obligations in an NG911 environment. Despite the progress many 
states have achieved towards implementing NG911,\57\ public safety 
commenters indicate that it can be difficult to reach agreement with 
providers on connections to new NG911 networks.\58\ Public safety 
commenters report lengthy negotiations for providers to connect to 
ESInets and contend that issues related to delivery of 911 calls have 
been a significant contributing factor.\59\ Comtech asserts that 
delivery of 911 traffic to NG911 networks has been an issue ``in every 
state and region in which it has participated in NG911 deployments.'' 
Some small and rural wireline carriers argue that 911 delivery points 
should be within service providers' local service areas, and oppose 
rules that would require them to deliver 911 calls outside their 
service areas. On the other hand, 911 authorities and Comtech argue 
that that providers should deliver 911 traffic to NG911 ESInet ingress 
points, either to legacy network gateways for TDM traffic or designated 
points of interconnection for IP traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ Forty-three states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and 
Puerto Rico reported expenditures on NG911 programs in calendar year 
2021. Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee Report at 3. The total amount of 
reported NG911 expenditures in 2021 was $419,801,018.67. Id.
    \58\ Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4 (``In 
some cases, the current environment promotes a contentious, 
uncoordinated transition to NG911 service rather than the 
cooperative, coordinated transition desired by [Pennsylvania 
Emergency Mgmt. Agency.''); Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety 
Comments at 1 (``To date, not a single OSP who receives cost 
recovery today has submitted an interconnect plan to our ingress 
vendor identifying their intent to rehome their 9-1-1 ingress 
network. They have indicated that until they understand how the 
rehoming will affect their cost recovery, they are unwilling to do 
so.''); Comtech Comments at 7.
    \59\ Comtech Comments at 4 (describing such disputes as 
``protracted''); Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4 
(``Some ILECs are embracing the transition to NG911 while others are 
looking to negotiate their role and cost responsibilities for NG911 
service.''); Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed rule would confirm 911 authorities' role in 
designating points for delivery of 911 calls in the NG911 environment, 
whether such delivery points are at the ESInet boundary, at individual 
PSAPs, or at other points in the network that allow emergency calls to 
be answered.\60\ We believe this approach would provide states with a 
uniform framework to manage NG911 transition costs and minimize time-
consuming negotiations with providers. We seek comment on this 
proposal. Would it help to resolve state-level controversies regarding 
the delivery of 911 traffic in an NG911 environment? Should we take 
into consideration the number, location, or type of points of 
interconnection provided by the state? For example, should we require 
delivery of 911 traffic to point(s) designated by the 911 authority 
only if the points of interconnection meet certain criteria, e.g., the 
points of interconnection are located within the state to which 911 
service is being provided, there are a specific number of points of 
interconnection per LATA, or the points of interconnection are able to 
receive traffic in specific formats (such as TDM or IP)? What would the 
benefits and costs be to wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and 
internet-based TRS providers and 911 authorities of setting the 
demarcation point as proposed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Most public safety commenters support setting a point for 
delivery of NG911 traffic at the ESInet. See, e.g., BRETSA Comments 
at 7-8; Texas 9-1-1 Alliance, the Texas Commission on State 
Emergency Communications, and the Municipal Emergency Communication 
Districts Association Comments at 8 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (Texas 9-1-
1 Entities Comments). We note that the rules we propose in this NPRM 
would not affect the 911 resiliency, redundancy, and reliability 
rules at part 9, subpart H of the Commission's rules. We also note 
that the proposed rules would not affect the extent of the 
Commission's jurisdiction over providers that supply services before 
and after the point(s) designated by 911 authorities, e.g., covered 
911 service providers. See, e.g., 47 CFR 9.19(a)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 9.4 of the Commission's rules currently requires all 
telecommunications carriers to ``transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, to a 
designated statewide default answering point, or to an appropriate 
local emergency authority as set forth in Sec.  9.5.'' Section 9.10(b) 
of the Commission's rules refers to this provision to set the point to 
which CMRS providers must transmit all wireless calls.\61\ Similarly, 
section 9.11(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules refers to Sec.  9.4 to 
set the point to which fixed and non-fixed interconnected VoIP service 
providers must deliver all 911 calls, ANI, and location 
information.\62\ For VRS and IP Relay providers, Sec.  9.14(d)(2)(iii) 
also refers to Sec.  9.4 to set the point for delivery of any 
communication initiated by an VRS or IP Relay user dialing 911.\63\ For 
IP CTS providers, Sec.  9.14(e)(2)(ii) refers to Sec.  9.4 to set the 
point for delivery of any communication initiated by an IP CTS user 
dialing 911.\64\ Other internet-based

[[Page 43523]]

TRS providers, per Sec.  9.14(b)(2)(i), must determine an appropriate 
point for call delivery that corresponds to the caller's location and 
relay the call to that entity.\65\ The subpart J we propose in this 
NPRM would implement a uniform framework for 911 call-routing in the 
NG911 environment by requiring wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and 
internet-based TRS providers (including VRS, IP Relay, and IP CTS) to 
transmit all 911 calls to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority 
within specific timeframes from the effective date of the IP service 
delivery requirement or after a valid request for IP-based service by a 
state or local 911 authority, whichever is later. The effect of these 
proposed rules would be that upon a valid request for IP-based service, 
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers 
would be required to deliver 911 traffic to the point(s) that allow 
emergency calls to be answered that are designated by the local or 
state entity that has the authority and responsibility to designate the 
point(s) to receive 911 calls. In the absence of a valid request for 
IP-based service by the relevant 911 authority, the existing provisions 
of Sec.  9.4 and by reference 9.10(b), 9.11(b)(2)(ii), 9.14(d)(2)(iii), 
9.14(e)(2)(ii), and 9.14(b)(2)(i) would continue to apply for providers 
covered by those provisions. We seek comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ 47 CFR 9.10(b) (requiring CMRS providers to ``transmit all 
wireless 911 calls . . . to a designated statewide default answering 
point or appropriate local emergency authority pursuant to Sec.  
9.4'').
    \62\ 47 CFR 9.11(b)(2)(ii) (requiring interconnected VoIP 
service providers to transmit 911 calls, ANI, and certain location 
information to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering 
point, or appropriate local emergency authority that serves the 
caller's dispatchable location and that has been designated for 
telecommunications carriers pursuant to Sec.  9.4).
    \63\ 47 CFR 9.14(d)(2)(iii) (requiring VRS and IP Relay 
providers to transmit all 911 calls (provided that ``all 911 calls'' 
is defined as ``any communication initiated by an VRS or IP Relay 
user dialing 911''), ANI, the name of the VRS or IP Relay provider, 
and the communications assistant's (CA's) identification number, and 
certain location information to the PSAP, designated statewide 
default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority 
that serves the caller's dispatchable location and that has been 
designated for telecommunications carriers pursuant to Sec.  9.4).
    \64\ 47 CFR 9.14(e)(2)(ii) (requiring IP CTS providers to 
transmit all 911 calls (provided that ``all 911 calls'' is defined 
as ``any communication initiated by an IP CTS user dialing 911''), 
the telephone number that is assigned to the caller and that enables 
direct callback with captions, and certain location information to 
the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or 
appropriate local emergency authority that serves the caller's 
dispatchable location and that has been designated for 
telecommunications carriers pursuant to Sec.  9.4).
    \65\ 47 CFR 9.14(b)(2)(i) (requiring certain internet-based TRS 
providers to determine the appropriate PSAP, designated statewide 
default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority 
that corresponds to the caller's location, and to relay the call to 
that entity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In their comments, the Texas 9-1-1 Entities suggest an approach 
that would distinguish between delivery of IP and legacy services. 
Under their proposal, within six months of a ``bona fide request'' by a 
911 authority or its designated NG911 service provider, non-IP 
providers (which the Texas 9-1-1 Entities define as a ``non-IP capable 
un-upgraded originating service provider'') would be required to 
``directly or indirectly connect, in accordance with industry 
standards,'' to the Legacy Network Gateway provided by the 911 
authority or its NG911 service provider, while IP-capable providers 
would be required to fully support delivery of 911 traffic in NG911 
format, i.e., ``(i) directly or indirectly connect, in accordance with 
industry standards, via Session Initiation Protocol; (ii) deliver 
[Presence Information Data Format--Location Object (PIDF-LO)]; and 
(iii) use a Location Validation Function provided by the 9-1-1 
authority (or its designated NG9-1-1 System Service Provider agent).'' 
We seek comment on this alternative approach. What are the benefits and 
costs associated with this proposal? Would it be beneficial to treat 
IP-based providers differently from providers that are not IP-based? 
What threshold legacy issues would we need to determine before adopting 
this proposal either in full or in part? Should we establish a minimum 
number of legacy network gateway points of interconnection within each 
state? Or should there be a minimum number of legacy network gateway 
points of interconnection per LATA? It appears that several states 
provide two legacy network gateway points of interconnection per 
LATA.\66\ Would this be a reasonable approach? Alternatively, would it 
be preferable to require no minimum number of legacy network gateway 
points of interconnection before a ``bona fide request'' is made? Are 
there any other factors we should consider in connection with this 
proposal?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply at 6 & n.20 (rec. Feb. 3, 
2022) (Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cost Allocation. In addition to issues regarding the designation of 
911 delivery points in the NG911 environment, disagreements over cost 
allocation appear to have contributed to delays in transitioning to 
NG911.\67\ To address this concern, we propose to establish a default 
demarcation point for purposes of cost allocation in the NG911 
environment. Under this proposed approach, states and localities would 
remain free to establish cost recovery mechanisms as they deem 
necessary for the costs of delivering 911 traffic to required 
destination point(s), but, in the absence of such mechanisms, the cost 
of compliance from call origination to the demarcation point would 
presumptively be the responsibility of the wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, or internet-based TRS provider. As a default 
mechanism, this proposal would allocate costs only when the parties are 
unable to agree on cost recovery measures. It thus would not preempt 
state or local authority over 911, including existing 911 cost recovery 
mechanisms. There is strong support for this default approach among 
public safety commenters, and it is consistent with the request in 
NASNA's Petition.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ The Minnesota Department of Public Safety notes that it has 
contracted with a vendor to ``rehome'' the statewide ingress points 
for 911 traffic in Minnesota but that, to date, the providers that 
receive cost recovery have not submitted interconnection plans to 
the vendor and will not do so until they understand how rehoming 
will affect their cost recovery. Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety 
Comments at 1. Comtech also cites examples of legacy 911 providers 
that it contends have refused to interconnect to designated NG911 
points of interconnection to preserve the payments they receive for 
legacy 911 services. Comtech Comments at 4-5, 7. Comtech asserts 
that these delays can result in ongoing costs for 911 authorities 
because they must continue to maintain legacy 911 networks until all 
providers have migrated to the NG911 network. Comtech Reply at 5-6.
    \68\ NASNA Petition at 2-3 (urging the Commission to ``establish 
a NG911 cost demarcation point or points, for allocating costs when 
the parties cannot agree on the appropriate demarcation point(s)''). 
E.g., Colorado Public Utilities Comm. Comments at 4; BRETSA Reply at 
1-2; Letter from George Kelemen, Executive Director, iCERT, to 
Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 21-479, at 3 (filed by 
Oct. 16, 2022) (iCERT Ex Parte) (``iCERT agrees with NASNA that any 
FCC review of OSP responsibilities should focus on the applicability 
of 47 CFR 9.4 and 9.5, as well as the allocation of costs and the 
appropriate demarcation points between OSPs and 911 Authorities.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our cost allocation proposal is also consistent with the 
Commission's approach to similar cost allocation issues in the King 
County proceeding two decades ago. In King County, the Commission 
responded to complaints from state and local 911 authorities that 
wireless service providers were delaying implementation of wireless 
E911 due to disagreements regarding the appropriate demarcation point 
for responsibility and cost. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 
found, and the Commission later affirmed, that for a wireless carrier 
to satisfy its obligation to provide Phase I information to the PSAP, 
the carrier must bear the costs to deliver the information to the 911 
selective router.\69\ The Bureau found that it was reasonable ``to make 
the carriers responsible for those expenditures necessary to deliver 
location information in a usable form to the E911 Network so as to 
ensure that their customers have access to enhanced 911 services.'' 
However, the King County decisions also affirmed that 911 authorities 
and wireless providers could agree on a different point for cost 
allocation and call delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \69\ King County Letter at *3. On reconsideration, the 
Commission affirmed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's 
interpretation of the Commission's rules and extended that 
interpretation to require wireless carriers to bring Phase II data 
to ``that point at which the system identifies the appropriate PSAP 
and distributes the voice call and location data to that PSAP,'' 
i.e., the selective router in legacy E911 environments. King County 
Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd at 14789, para. 1; see id. at 
14793, paras. 9-10.

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

[[Page 43524]]

    Today, as 911 authorities seek to retire legacy selective routers 
\70\ and migrate to NG911 networks, legacy selective routers will no 
longer be the network element that ``analyzes and distributes'' 
information to the NG911 network, and therefore will not be relevant 
points for determining appropriate cost allocation where state or local 
911 authorities have implemented ESInets and other IP-based network 
elements. These IP-based network elements perform similar functional 
roles to legacy selective routers, while also providing new 
capabilities that can support flexible re-routing of 911 calls in 
response to on-the-ground conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments at 1 (``[T]he 
[legacy selective routers] are end-of-service, end-of-life and 
starting to fail[.]''); Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply at 4 (rec. Feb. 
3, 2022) (Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply) (``[T]ransitioning may involve 
removing the single point of failure for a legacy selective router 
by [ ] having legacy OSPs connect to two Legacy Network Gateways 
(`LNGs') within the LATA.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As with the King County decisions, we note that the costs of 
installing, maintaining, and upgrading components necessary to continue 
to deliver 911 traffic to 911 networks are required costs for wireline, 
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to continue 
to provide 911 service, a significant reason why consumers subscribe to 
telecommunications services. Several public safety entities 
specifically argue that the Commission should either extend the 
precedent set for wireless E911 service in the King County decisions to 
NG911 or apply a similar regulatory approach. We tentatively agree that 
a regulatory approach similar to King County is appropriate here, with 
appropriate modification as needed to reflect the differences between 
legacy and NG911 networks. We seek comment on this analysis.
    Our proposed approach would clarify that cost obligations for 
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers 
in the NG911 environment presumptively extend to the demarcation 
point(s) designated by state or local 911 authorities in the NG911 
environment. We believe that by clarifying responsibility for costs to 
connect to NG911 networks, the proposed rules would resolve uncertainty 
regarding cost allocation between 911 authorities and wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers and thus would 
accelerate the transition to NG911. We also believe that establishing a 
common cost allocation framework for wireline, CMRS, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers would promote regulatory parity 
across service platforms. We seek comment on this approach. NASNA and 
public safety commenters contend that the cost of compliance with the 
requirement to deliver 911 traffic to the point of delivery should be 
the responsibility of the provider.\71\ However, rural LECs and 
Minnesota entities argue that costs for delivery of 911 traffic should 
not extend outside of the provider's service area.\72\ Pennsylvania and 
Arizona incumbent LECs argue that the state must cover the costs to 
deliver traffic from the edge of the incumbent LECs' networks to the 
ESInet, if the state does not build out connections to the provider's 
switches. We also seek comment on these alternatives proposed by 
commenters to the public notice. Should we provide additional limits on 
these costs, such as only requiring wireline, CMRS, and interconnected 
VoIP providers to bear the cost of delivering traffic when 
interconnection points are available within the telecommunication 
carrier's LATA or service area? Are there other considerations for 
extending this approach to internet-based TRS (IP CTS, VRS, and IP 
Relay)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ NASNA Petition at 2-3; Colorado Public Utilities Comm. 
Comments at 4 (``While the Commission's current regulation already 
implies this relationship through extrapolation, it would be better 
for the statute to declare explicitly that OSPs are responsible for 
the cost of 911 call delivery to the point of demarcation with the 
911 system service provider.''); BRETSA Reply at 2 (``As with any 
other call, originating service providers should be responsible for 
delivery of the call, and the cost of call delivery, to the called 
party (i.e., the PSAP).''); iCERT Ex Parte at 3 (``As was the case 
with E911, OSPs should not charge the NG911 service provider for 
delivering NG911 calls to the appropriate point of demarcation.'').
    \72\ South Carolina Telephone Coalition Comments at 2 (stating 
that NG911 service providers should be responsible for ``covering 
the costs of transport of traffic from the edge of the ILEC service 
area to the NG911 interconnection point''); Minnesota Telecom 
Alliance Comments at 3 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (stating that because 
NG911 routing changes are beyond existing meet points, they are 
``wholly within the financial responsibility and operational control 
of the state and local agencies''); Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety 
at 1 (``For the default, it seems most appropriate the edge of the 
OSP's network be defined as the cost demarcation point.''); see also 
NTCA Ex Parte at 4 (requesting that the Commission seek comment on 
setting an originating provider's network edge as the default cost 
demarcation point).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We seek estimates from rural providers and 911 authorities on 
specific costs for rural providers to comply with our proposed rules. 
What minimum costs would be required, from an implementation 
standpoint, for a given wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, or 
internet-based TRS provider to connect from current service areas to 
(1) legacy network gateways in the same LATA, or (2) an IP point of 
interconnection? How would this affect monthly or annual charges to 
subscribers, i.e., is there a range or specific dollar amount that 
would be newly reflected on customers' monthly bills?
    We emphasize that under our proposed cost allocation approach, 
states and localities would retain the flexibility to develop 
alternative cost allocation mechanisms, including providing cost 
recovery for wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based 
TRS providers to delivering 911 traffic to designated connection 
points. This approach conforms with the requests of NASNA commenters to 
preserve state and local authority over 911, especially with regard to 
911 cost recovery mechanisms.\73\ In the King County Order on 
Reconsideration, the Commission affirmed that 911 authorities and 
wireless providers could agree on a different point for cost allocation 
and call delivery. Under our proposed rules, states would similarly be 
able to implement alternative points to which wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers should bear the 
cost to deliver 911 traffic in the NG911 environment. We seek comment 
on this aspect of our proposal. Specifically, we seek comment on 
whether and how the proposed cost allocation approach would impact 
negotiations between providers and 911 authorities on potential cost 
allocation mechanisms.\74\ We invite commenters to identify steps that 
the Commission should take to promote cooperative efforts by 911 
authorities and originating service providers that will lead to 
creative technological solutions for accelerating NG911 deployment, and 
ultimately improved 911 service for the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ NASNA Petition at 6; BRETSA Comments at 8 (stating that 
Commission oversight is helpful, but that it ``must be subject to 
state determination of call-routing, allocation of responsibility 
for costs of service, and similar matters'').
    \74\ See NTCA Ex Parte at 4 (requesting that the Commission seek 
comment on whether and how the proposed rules would impact 
negotiations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Valid Request for IP-Based Service, Timing, and Registry
    Valid Request for IP-based Service. Consistent with our existing 
rules for text-to-911 \75\ and our proposal in the Location-Based 
Routing NPRM, we propose to define a valid request as one made by a 
local or state entity that certifies that it (1) is technically ready 
to receive 911 calls in the IP-based

[[Page 43525]]

format requested, (2) is specifically authorized to accept calls in the 
IP-based format requested, and (3) has provided notification to the 
provider via either a registry made available by the Commission or by 
written notification reasonably acceptable to the provider. We believe 
that this approach would minimize miscommunication between providers 
and 911 authorities and facilitate the timely delivery of 911 calls 
once state and local 911 authorities indicate their readiness to 
receive calls in IP format at the destination point(s) they designate. 
We additionally agree with commenters who indicate that this approach 
would provide predictability and clarity to the 911 community. We seek 
comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ 47 CFR 9.10(q)(10)(iii) (defining a valid request for text-
to-911 service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also seek comment on what level of NG911 readiness PSAPs should 
achieve to trigger the requirements for (1) wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to transmit 911 
calls to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority, and (2) 
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to 
begin delivering calls, including routing and location information, in 
IP-based format. Our proposed approach would establish one level of 
readiness to trigger these obligations. We seek comment on whether 
specific NG911-related network components or capabilities would need to 
be in place to establish readiness. Another approach, as suggested by 
NASNA, would be to define three readiness phases based on the TFOPA 
``NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard.'' \76\ What are the costs and benefits 
associated with NASNA's suggestion? If we were to adopt NASNA's 
suggestion, what level of readiness would trigger the requirement for 
service from wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based 
TRS providers? Are there generally accepted standards for PSAP 
readiness to accept IP traffic? How have 911 authorities that accept 
some IP traffic navigated readiness with providers? Should we consider 
different or additional phases? Should individual PSAPs be able to 
trigger the requirement or should readiness be established at a more 
aggregated level, e.g., on an ESInet-by-ESInet or state-by-state basis? 
As part of a valid request, should a 911 authority be required to 
certify or demonstrate the capability of its IP-based network to 
support 911 interoperability? Have there been additional lessons 
learned from NG911 implementations since the release of the 2016 TFOPA 
Final Report? \77\ Regarding NG911 implementation, we ask commenters to 
identify best practices that have been developed based on lessons 
learned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ NASNA Petition at 7-8. NASNA suggests that in Phase I, the 
ESInet would be ready to receive 911 calls from OSPs via a Legacy 
Network Gateway. Id. at 7. In Phase II, the ESInet would be ready to 
receive 911 calls in SIP format. Id. at 8. In Phase III, the ESInet 
would be ready to receive 911 calls in NG911 format. Id. at 8. ``The 
911 authority/ESInet administrator may request all three phases 
simultaneously if the implementation of the ESInet allows for 
this.'' Id. at 8.
    \77\ See APCO Ex Parte at 2 (indicating that the TFOPA Final 
Report makes ``assumptions about the implementation of NG911 that 
are no longer valid'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of determining whether a state or local 911 authority 
could be technically ready to receive calls in IP-based format, we seek 
comment on the elements that a state or local 911 authority would need 
to have in place before making a valid request.\78\ In the Location-
Based Routing NPRM proceeding, Verizon argues for a ``robust PSAP 
readiness standard, that reflects the substantial completion of a 
PSAP's NG911 provider's i3 based solution'' as the basis for 
considering a request ``valid'' and triggering an implementation 
period. Verizon asserts that relevant factors for PSAP readiness to 
accept IP interconnection would be, at a minimum: (1) ``PSAP 
connectivity with a NG911 provider who has fully deployed a standards-
based i3 IP infrastructure''; (2) ``completion of SIP connectivity 
onboarding and testing with Wireless Originating Service Providers''; 
(3) ``completion of HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD) 
certification''; and (4) ``PSAP i3-ready call handling equipment.'' We 
seek comment on whether some or all of these factors should be 
considered in determining readiness before a valid request may be made. 
What are the benefits and costs associated with such a proposal? Would 
adopting a specific set of factors to establish readiness limit the 
flexibility of state and local 911 authorities as they continue their 
NG911 deployments? What efficiencies would be gained from adopting a 
specific set of factors? Should we consider additional factors to 
determine the level of readiness needed before a valid request may be 
made? \79\ For example, T-Mobile, in its comments on the Location-Based 
Routing NPRM, indicates that comprehensive testing would be required to 
determine PSAP readiness. Should we require testing as a precondition 
to a valid request? Should we have a separate request process for 
triggering IP-based service from internet-based TRS providers from the 
valid request process for wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP 
providers? If so, are there additional or different readiness criteria 
that should be included for IP-based service from internet-based TRS 
providers? Are there lessons learned from implementation of real-time 
text (RTT) as direct IP traffic from service providers that could be 
applied here? \80\ Were there implementation issues that could have 
been prevented?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ As an example of possible readiness elements, we note that 
TFOPA created a ``NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard'' that categorizes 
components of NG911 implementation. TFOPA NG9-1-1 Readiness 
Scorecard at 17-21.
    \79\ Other commenters in the Location-Based Routing NPRM 
proceeding provided additional examples of factors we could consider 
to determine readiness. E.g., CTIA Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 
9 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) (CTIA LBR NPRM Comments) (noting that the 
TFOPA Readiness Scorecard identifies hardware, software, data, 
operational policies and procedures, security, and governance 
elements that are necessary for a PSAP to make the full-scale 
transition to NG911); Alliance for Telecommunications Industry 
Solutions Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 5 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) 
(ATIS LBR NPRM Comments) (The Commission ``should not employ a 
`registry' approach to trigger implementation deadlines; it is 
necessary for state and local governments to engage directly with 
individual wireless providers in order to become technically ready 
and capable to receive and process 911 calls in IP format in the 
first instance.''); Intrado LBR NPRM Comments at 6 (noting that 
completion of IP-based delivery requires several steps and time, 
such as establishing new connectivity into the ESInet, cutting 
traffic over from the old TDM path to IP, nationwide scaling, and 
significant testing/validation, and recommending ``further 
discussion with the CMRS providers and PSAPs regarding a 
standardized definition of PSAP readiness and a flexible 
implementation timeframe to account for CMRS/PSAP discussions and 
varying implementation steps/timelines'').
    \80\ See APCO Ex Parte at 3 (requesting that the Commission seek 
comment on whether there are any lessons learned from the 
implementation of Real-Time Text as direct IP traffic).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we seek comment as to whether we should define ``IP-
capable'' as part of the readiness determination. Would such a 
definition be useful to wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers and state and local 911 authorities? If so, what 
level of specificity should be required in the definition? For example, 
in the Location-Based Routing NPRM proceeding, T-Mobile indicates that 
the Commission should delineate between SIP and NG911 connectivity. 
What are the benefits associated with making this distinction in a 
potential definition of ``IP-capable'' ? Should IP-capable mean SIP? 
Should IP-capable mean one or more specific implementations of SIP? 
What are the impacts if the Commission does not specify a particular 
implementation of SIP in a definition of IP-capable? We also seek 
comment on any existing technological solutions to address challenges 
with different SIP implementations. What are the costs of those 
solutions to facilitate

[[Page 43526]]

interoperability? NENA argues for using a more specific term in the 
rules ``such as `i3 compatible' or some other mutually-agreed 
terminology to describe standards-based'' NG911.\81\ Would it be 
preferable to tie readiness to i3 compatibility? Are there other 
specific terms we should consider instead of or in addition to ``IP-
capable,'' such as ``NG911-capable'' ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ NENA Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 11 (rec. Feb. 15, 
2023) (NENA LBR NPRM Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We also seek comment on whether 911 authorities should be required 
to submit requests to all wireline, interconnected VoIP and internet-
based TRS providers in the serving area as a precondition to 
considering the request ``valid'' ? In its comments to the Location-
Based Routing NPRM proceeding, Verizon argues that unless a request is 
submitted to all wireless providers in the serving area, the rules 
would impose disparate burdens on competing service providers. We seek 
comment as to whether that concern would also apply to wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. What are the 
benefits and disadvantages of such an approach? Are there any technical 
barriers associated with this approach? Would delaying a valid request 
to one provider in a service area until it can be sent to all providers 
in the service area slow the NG911 transition?
    Timing of IP-based Delivery and Delivery to Point(s) Designated by 
911 Authorities. For wireline and interconnected VoIP providers to 
deliver 911 calls in IP format, we propose an implementation timeline 
of six months from the effective date of the IP service delivery 
requirement, or six months after a valid request for IP-based service 
by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later. For internet-
based TRS providers to deliver calls in IP format, we propose an 
implementation timeline of twelve months from the effective date of the 
IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a valid request 
for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is 
later. Our proposals also would allow 911 authorities and wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, or internet-based TRS providers to enter into 
agreements setting an alternate time frame. In the event of 911 
authorities and providers agreeing to an alternate time frame, we 
propose that the provider notify the Commission within 30 days of the 
parties' agreement. For wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP 
providers to deliver 911 traffic to point(s) designated by 911 
authorities, we similarly propose an implementation timeline of six 
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement, 
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or 
local 911 authority, whichever is later. For internet-based TRS, we 
propose a twelve-month implementation timeline to deliver 911 traffic 
to point(s) designated by 911 authorities from the effective date of 
the IP service delivery, or twelve months after a valid request for IP-
based service from a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later.
    We seek comment on the proposed six-month time frame for delivery 
of IP-based services for wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP 
providers. Would six months be an adequate amount of time for wireline 
and interconnected VoIP providers to deliver 911 calls in IP-based 
format, and for wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP providers to 
deliver 911 traffic to point(s) designated by 911 authorities? The 
record indicates support for a mandatory time frame by which providers 
would be required to deliver NG911 services once the PSAP is NG911-
capable, and that six months would be a reasonable time period.\82\ 
NASNA notes that while it did not propose a specific time in its 
Petition, ``six months is an ample time frame for OSPs to make 
necessary preparations for transition.'' However, in response to our 
proposed six-month time frame for CMRS providers in the Location-Based 
Routing NPRM, some industry commenters contend that six months is not 
uniformly feasible, and propose time frames longer than six months or 
flexible time frames.\83\ Would the same concerns apply to wireline and 
interconnected VoIP providers? Is a longer time frame, e.g., 18-24 
months, needed to provide sufficient time for most wireline and 
interconnected VoIP providers to deliver traffic via IP to most NG911 
networks? Should we adopt a tolling mechanism for wireline and 
interconnected VoIP providers similar to that proposed by T-Mobile in 
response to the Location-Based Routing NPRM? \84\ We also seek comment 
on the proposed twelve-month time frame for delivery of IP-based 
services for internet-based TRS providers. We propose a longer 
timeframe for internet-based TRS consistent with previous Commission 
action regarding these services.\85\ Because of operational differences 
between internet-based TRS and other providers, we believe that an 
additional six months is an appropriate amount of time for internet-
based TRS providers to make necessary network changes once other 
providers have come into compliance with the proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ NASNA Reply at 3 (rec. Feb. 3, 2022) (NASNA Reply); see 
also Comtech Comments at 5; Texas 9-1-1 Entities Comments at 9 
(supporting a six-month time period for compliance with a valid 
request).
    \83\ Verizon Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 6 (rec. Feb 16, 
2023) (Verizon LBR NPRM Comments) (stating that six months for CMRS 
providers may be feasible in some circumstances, ``but only if the 
PSAP has fully implemented i3 in its network through a NG911 
provider that has deployed its service in coordination with 
Verizon''); AT&T Services Inc. (AT&T) Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, 
at 7 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) (AT&T LBR NPRM Comments) (proposing 18-24 
months for CMRS providers to deliver IP-based traffic to NG911 
networks); see also The Industry Council for Emergency Response 
Technologies (iCERT) Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 4 (rec. Feb. 
14, 2023) (iCERT LBR NPRM Comments) (noting that the adequacy of six 
months for CMRS providers is dependent on how NG911 capability is 
determined and the process used by the Commission for facilitating 
PSAP requests); Intrado Life & Safety, Inc. (Intrado) Comments, PS 
Docket No. 18-64, at 6 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) (Intrado LBR NPRM 
Comments) (recommending further discussion on PSAP readiness and 
flexible implementation time frames).
    \84\ T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) Comments, PS Docket No. 18-
64, at 13 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) (T-Mobile LBR NPRM Comments) 
(``Tolling mechanisms will be critical to allow carriers and PSAPs 
to collaboratively guarantee PSAP readiness, and timeframes must 
acknowledge the varying burdens on PSAPs and their vendors at each 
step of readiness.'').
    \85\ See Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 6688, 
para. 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under our proposal, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers would be able to enter into agreements with local 
and state entities to establish an alternate time frame (other than six 
months for wireline and interconnected VoIP providers or other than 
twelve months for internet-based TRS providers) for delivery of IP-
based traffic. NASNA recommends that ``as with E911 Phase I and II and 
text-to-911, mutually agreed upon extensions can be granted by the 911 
authority to the OSPs when warranted by circumstances.'' Would this 
approach be sufficient to address circumstances where more time is 
needed? Should we similarly enable local and state entities to enter 
into agreements with wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers to establish an alternate time frame for delivering 
911 calls to the point(s) in the IP-based network designated by the 911 
authority? We seek comment on the length of time required by wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to complete IP 
connectivity onboarding and testing with 911 authorities that have 
requested IP-based service.
    NG911 Readiness Registry. To facilitate notification, we seek 
comment on whether the Commission should require or make available a 
registry or database that would allow state and

[[Page 43527]]

local 911 authorities to notify wireline, interconnected VoIP, or 
internet-based TRS providers of readiness to receive calls in IP-based 
format, including associated location information. In the Location-
Based Routing NPRM, we proposed making available a registry or database 
for CMRS providers and covered text providers. If this proposal were 
adopted, we believe that establishing a common registry to notify all 
providers (wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS) 
would be beneficial to public safety entities and providers alike. It 
would provide state and local 911 authorities with one notification 
platform rather than requiring 911 authorities to use multiple to 
determine which providers would receive notice via multiple registries. 
We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on the 
granularity of such a registry, including whether to organize it by 
PSAP, state, ESInet, or other level of specificity. Should it be 
combined with our existing Master PSAP Registry and Text-to-911 
Registry? If so, what features would be required in such a combined 
registry?
    We note that in the Location-Based Routing NPRM proceeding, 
commenters expressed differing views on whether a PSAP registry would 
be useful for triggering delivery of IP-based service.\86\ We believe 
that the need for providers to communicate with state and local 911 
authorities does not necessarily obviate the need for a registry. 
Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether a registry might hamper NG911 
transition efforts. Are there any ways in which a registry might 
prevent providers and state and local 911 authorities from coordinating 
requests for IP-delivery service?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ For example, ATIS argues that the we should not employ a 
registry approach, as state and local governments need to engage 
directly with wireless providers to become technically ready and 
capable to receive IP format calls in the first instance. ATIS LBR 
NPRM Comments at 5. Verizon asserts that for wireless providers and 
PSAPs, the delivery of 911 calls in IP format will be less like the 
implementation of text-to-911 and ``more analogous to--and in most 
respects more complex than--the early years of wireless E911 
implementation.'' Verizon LBR NPRM Comments at 7-8. Accordingly, 
Verizon states, the registry mechanism is ``inappropriate'' in this 
context and will create confusion among PSAPs. Id. at 7. On the 
other hand, NENA proposes establishment of an ``authoritative 
database'' where a jurisdiction could certify that it is ready to 
receive IP calls and provide ESInet boundary information. NENA LBR 
NPRM Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appropriate Requesting Entities. Under our proposed rule, the local 
or state entity with authority and responsibility to designate the 
point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered would be the 
appropriate authority to request IP-based service from wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. However, 
statewide, regional, or county governmental entities transitioning to 
NG911 may deploy shared resources such as a common ESInet or other 
network elements, which may provide services for multiple PSAPs or 
public safety entities. There are also still many PSAPs serving a 
single jurisdiction managed by a city, county, or police or fire 
department. We seek comment on the appropriate requesting entity or 
entities we should include in our rule given the varied governance of 
NG911 deployments. Should the proposed rule include PSAPs, appropriate 
local emergency authorities, state or local 911 authorities, and/or 
other specified authorities as entities that may initiate a valid 
request for IP-based service?
4. Definitions
    Next Generation 911 (NG911). We seek comment on defining the term 
``Next Generation 911.'' There are multiple definitions of ``NG911'' in 
both pending federal legislation and federal law. Most recently, the 
Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act of 2023 (H.R. 3565) introduced in 
May 2023 includes a definition of ``Next Generation 9-1-1'':

    [A]n internet Protocol-based system that--(A) ensures 
interoperability; (B) is secure; (C) employs commonly accepted 
standards; (D) enables emergency communications centers to receive, 
process, and analyze all types of 9-1-1 requests for emergency 
assistance; (E) acquires and integrates additional information 
useful to handling 9-1-1 requests for emergency assistance; and (F) 
supports sharing information related to 9-1-1 requests for emergency 
assistance among emergency communications centers and emergency 
response providers.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act of 2023, H.R. 3565, 
118th Cong. Sec.  159 (2023); Press Release, U.S. House of 
Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, Chair Rodgers 
Announces Full Committee Markup of 19 Bills (May 22, 2023), https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/chair-rodgers-announces-full-committee-markup-of-19-bills (linking to text of H.R. 3565).

    In the Next Generation 9-1-1 Advancement Act of 2012, Congress 
enacted a definition of ``Next Generation 9-1-1 services'' for purposes 
of administration of federal 911 implementation grants.\88\ We note 
that in response to the Location-Based Routing NPRM, commenters 
discussed whether the Commission should adopt a definition of NG911. 
For example, APCO urges the Commission to adopt the definition of NG911 
``as defined by the public safety community with support from a variety 
of stakeholders'' that appeared in legislation passed by the House of 
Representatives in 2022 but was not enacted into law.\89\ However, NENA 
urges the Commission to ``be cautious in adopting formal definitions 
[of terms such as NG911] . . . without full industry-wide support and 
without considering all potential consequences of such definitions.'' 
\90\ NENA also asks the Commission to consider using the term ``i3 
compatible'' or some other mutually-agreed upon terminology rather than 
``IP-enabled'' to describe standards-based NG911. We seek comment on 
whether we should adopt one of these definitions or incorporate 
elements of these or other definitions of NG911 into our rules. Is a 
definition of NG911 necessary for compliance with the Commission's 
proposed NG911 rules? If so, we seek input on crafting a definition 
that would be technologically neutral. We note that recent legislative 
definitions include qualitative descriptors of NG911 systems, such as 
security, interoperability, and use of commonly accepted standards, as 
well as specific technical capabilities. Should we include any or all 
of these elements in a definition of NG911 adopted by the Commission? 
Do the definitions discussed above encompass current NG911 networks and 
technologies, as

[[Page 43528]]

well as possible future NG911 technologies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ The statute provides that ``Next Generation 9-1-1 
services'' means ``an IP-based system comprised of hardware, 
software, data, and operational policies and procedures that--(A) 
provides standardized interfaces from emergency call and message 
services to support emergency communications; (B) processes all 
types of emergency calls, including voice, data, and multimedia 
information; (C) acquires and integrates additional emergency call 
data useful to call routing and handling; (D) delivers the emergency 
calls, messages, and data to the appropriate public safety answering 
point and other appropriate emergency entities; (E) supports data or 
video communications needs for coordinated incident response and 
management; and (F) provides broadband service to public safety 
answering points or other first responder entities.'' 47 U.S.C. 
942(e)(5).
    \89\ APCO Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 5 (rec. Feb. 16, 
2023). APCO urges the Commission to define NG911 as ``an IP-based 
system that: (A) ensures interoperability; (B) is secure; (C) 
employs commonly accepted standards; (D) enables emergency 
communications centers to receive, process, and analyze all types of 
9-1-1 requests for emergency assistance; (E) acquires and integrates 
additional information useful to handling 9-1-1 requests for 
emergency assistance; and (F) supports sharing information related 
to 9-1-1 requests for emergency assistance among emergency 
communications centers and emergency response providers.'' Id. 
(citing Spectrum Innovation Act of 2022, H.R. 7624, 117th Cong. 
Sec.  301 (2022)). The language proposed by APCO is identical to 
that included in the Next Generation 9-1-1 Act of 2023.
    \90\ NENA Reply at 7-8, PS Docket No. 18-64 (rec. Mar. 20, 2023) 
(NENA LBR NPRM Reply) (noting that such definitions may have 
``substantial impacts'' on state statutes, federal and state 
regulatory bodies, future grant programs, and future case law).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet). We propose 
to adopt a definition of ``Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network 
(ESInet)'' that defines the term in reference to the protocol used on 
the network, the entities that manage the network, and the use of the 
network for purposes of emergency services communications. We therefore 
propose to define ``Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network 
(ESInet)'' as ``[a]n Internet Protocol (IP)-based network used for 
emergency services communications, including Next Generation 911.'' We 
seek comment on this proposed definition.
    911 Authority. We propose to adopt a definition of ``911 
Authority'' that would define the term for purposes of our rules 
relating to the NG911 transition. We propose to define ``911 
Authority'' as ``[t]he state, territorial, regional, Tribal, or local 
agency or entity with the authority and responsibility under applicable 
law to designate the point(s) to receive emergency calls.'' Does this 
definition encompass the diverse set of authorities in the United 
States that have the authority and responsibility to designate the 
point(s) to receive emergency calls? We seek comment on this proposed 
definition.
    In addition to the proposed definitions of ``Next Generation 911 
(NG911),'' ``Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet),'' 
and ``911 Authority,'' are there any other terms that we should define 
for purposes of the cost allocation and IP-delivery rules that we 
propose for wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP providers? For 
example, should we include definitions of potential entry points for 
call delivery in an NG911 environment, such as Legacy Network Gateway 
or IP Point of Interconnection?
5. Applicability of Interconnection Statutes to 911
    Although the NASNA Petition did not explicitly raise this issue, 
the record indicates that disagreement over the applicability of 
interconnection requirements to 911 has contributed to disputes 
regarding NG911 deployments in several states. Some rural LECs argue 
that the interconnection provisions in sections 251 and 252 of the Act 
require 911 authorities and their contracted NG911 service providers to 
provide points of interconnection for receipt of 911 traffic within LEC 
local service areas. Some of these commenters also argue that requiring 
carriers to build out to distant points for purposes of 911 
interconnection could impose high costs on small rural customer bases 
that this would undermine the universal service mandates of section 254 
of the Act. NTCA also argues that requiring carriers to interconnect 
outside of their networks would be contrary to the Commission's 
historical approach to interconnection under the Act, under which rural 
telephone companies are not required to agree to interconnect outside 
of their network unless a state commission determines that doing so 
meets requirements in section 251(f)(1)(A) of the Act. Conversely, some 
public safety entities argue that sections 251 and 252 in fact require 
LECs to connect to a 911 authority's ESInet.
    We propose to clarify that the interconnection requirements of 
sections 251 and 252 do not require 911 authorities or their contracted 
NG911 service providers to provide points of interconnection for 911 
traffic within existing LEC service areas. Sections 251 and 252 were 
intended to impose interconnection and negotiation duties on commercial 
telecommunications carriers (including both incumbent and competitive 
LECs) to promote a competitive telecommunications marketplace.\91\ 
State and local 911 authorities are not commercial ``telecommunications 
carriers'' to which the interconnection requirements of sections 251 
and 252 would apply, because they do not offer telecommunications for a 
fee directly to the public.\92\ In the context of wireless cost 
allocation for E911 service, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia Circuit stated that PSAPs are not ``private businesses . . 
. providing for-profit services to the public . . . PSAPs are 
governmental entities playing a critical role in the provision of 
public safety services.'' \93\ Similarly, we propose to clarify that 
section 251(f)(1)(A) of the Act, which provides that a rural ILEC is 
not required to interconnect under section 251(c) until certain 
conditions are met, does not apply because 911 authorities are not 
telecommunications carriers requesting interconnection. We seek comment 
on this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was intended to 
``promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower 
prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications 
consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new 
telecommunications technologies.'' Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
Public Law 104-104, Preamble, 110 Stat 56, 56 (1996 Act). The Senate 
conference report on the 1996 Act stated that Section 251(a) 
``imposes a duty on local exchange carriers possessing market power 
in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access 
service in a particular local area to negotiate in good faith and to 
provide interconnection with other telecommunications carriers that 
have requested interconnection for the purpose of providing 
telephone exchange service or exchange access service.'' S. Rep. No. 
104-230, at 117 (1996) (Conf. Rep.) (1996 Act Conf. Rep.). The same 
report indicates that Section 252 imposes ``separate subsidiary and 
other safeguards on certain activities of the [Bell Operating 
Companies].'' 1996 Act Conf. Rep. at 150.
    \92\ A ``telecommunications carrier'' is a provider of a 
``telecommunications service,'' which is ``the offering of 
telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such 
classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the 
public, regardless of the facilities used.'' 47 U.S.C. 153(51), 
(53).
    \93\ U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 78, 84 (D.C. Cir. 
2001). The court held, in part, that the Commission's action to 
remove a rule that conditioned wireless carriers' obligation to 
deliver E911 services on guaranteed state or local government 
funding did not violate the cost causation principle, assuming that 
this principle applies outside of rate regulation. (Under the cost 
causation principle, when the Commission sets rates, it must 
specifically justify any rate differential that does not reflect 
cost.) In addition, the court held that governmental entities 
responsible for coordinating emergency response were not cost-
causers within this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Monitoring and Compliance

    We seek comment on whether the Commission should implement any new 
data collections to assist in monitoring compliance with our proposed 
rules for NG911. If reporting would be helpful, what specific 
information should providers include and how frequently should we 
require them to report? For example, should the Commission require 
originating service providers to submit implementation plans for 
delivering 911 voice traffic in IP format, including converting TDM to 
IP, and periodic progress reports for implementing such plans? We also 
seek comment on measures the Commission could take to limit the burden 
of reporting on the provision of IP-based service. To what extent could 
the Commission limit the burden of any reporting requirements by 
providing increased flexibility for providers or businesses identified 
as small by the Small Business Administration? \94\ As an alternative 
to reporting, should the Commission require wireline, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to certify that they are in 
compliance with requirements for delivery of calls in IP format? Should 
the proposed rules include requirements for disclosures to PSAPs or 
other state or local 911 authorities in connection with the proposed 
NG911 rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ For example, the Commission's requirements for live call 
data reporting provide a reduced reporting schedule for non-
nationwide CMRS providers. 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(ii)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public safety entities and members of the public seeking to report 
non-compliance with the proposed rules would be able to file complaints 
via the

[[Page 43529]]

Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's Public Safety Support 
Center or through the Commission's Consumer Complaint Center.\95\ We 
tentatively conclude that these existing mechanisms should be 
sufficient for addressing potential violations of the NG911 rules. We 
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ The Public Safety Support Center is a web-based portal that 
enables PSAPs and other public safety entities to request support or 
information from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and 
to notify it of problems or issues impacting the provision of 
emergency services. Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau 
Announces Opening of Public Safety Support Center, public notice, 30 
FCC Rcd 10639 (PSHSB 2015); FCC, Public Safety Support Center, 
https://www.fcc.gov/general/public-safety-support-center (last 
visited May 16, 2023). The Consumer Complaint Center handles 
consumer inquiries and complaints, including consumer complaints 
about access to 911 emergency services. See FCC, Consumer Complaint 
Center, https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us (last visited 
May 16, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Proposals

    Several commenters responding to the NASNA Petition urge us to 
expand the scope of the rulemaking beyond the specific issues raised in 
the petition. For example, BRETSA urges us to address how NG911 can 
assist non-English speakers and the deaf and hard of hearing, standards 
and cost allocation for transferring 911 calls between PSAPs in 
different states, and the delivery of text-to-911. NTCA and Nebraska 
RLECs advocate looking more broadly at IP interconnection and the 
proper allocation of transport costs. The Alarm Industry Communications 
Committee urges the Commission to restrict the use of ``device-
initiated emergency service calls to protect the integrity of the NG911 
network.'' We decline to address these additional issues in this NPRM.

Legal Authority

    The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) established 
the FCC, in part, ``for the purpose of promoting safety of life and 
property through the use of wire and radio communication.'' Beyond that 
general mandate, Congress has repeatedly and specifically endorsed a 
role for the Commission in the nationwide implementation of advanced 
911 capabilities. Section 251(e)(3) of the Act, which directs the FCC 
to ``designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone number,'' and 
other federal 911-related statutes demonstrate that the Commission's 
general jurisdictional grant includes the responsibility to set up and 
maintain a comprehensive and effective 911 system, encompassing a 
variety of communication services in addition to wireless and IP-
enabled voice services.\96\ The NET 911 Act indicated the congressional 
goal to ``promote and enhance public safety by facilitating the rapid 
deployment of IP-enabled 911 and E-911 services, encourage the Nation's 
transition to a national IP-enabled emergency network, and improve the 
911 and E-911 access to those with disabilities.'' The Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA) 
advanced the Commission's implementation of technologies such as text-
to-911 by granting authority to promulgate ``regulations, technical 
standards, protocols, and procedures . . . necessary to achieve 
reliable, interoperable communication that ensures access by 
individuals with disabilities to an internet protocol-enabled emergency 
network, where achievable and technically feasible.'' RAY BAUM'S Act 
directed the Commission to consider adopting rules to ensure that 
dispatchable location is conveyed with 911 calls ``regardless of the 
technological platform used'' and defined the term ``9-1-1 call'' to 
include a voice call ``or a message that is sent by other means of 
communication.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ 911 Fee Diversion; New and Emerging Technologies 911 
Improvement Act of 2008, PS Docket Nos. 20-291, 09-14, Report and 
Order, 36 FCC Rcd 10804, 10811-12, para. 16 (2021) (911 Fee 
Diversion R&O) (noting that, taken together, federal 911-related 
statutes and Communications Act provisions ``establish an 
overarching federal interest in ensuring the effectiveness of the 
911 system'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Together, these statutes indicate that Congress has given the 
Commission broad authority to ensure that the 911 system, including 
911, E911, and NG911 calls and texts from all providers, is available 
and functions effectively. The Commission has previously concluded that 
``[i]n light of these express statutory responsibilities, regulation of 
additional capabilities related to reliable 911 service, both today and 
in an NG911 environment, would be well within Commission's . . . 
statutory authority.'' \97\ The Commission also has stated that ``[t]he 
Commission already has sufficient authority to regulate the 911 and 
NG911 activity of, inter alia, wireline and wireless carriers, 
interconnected VoIP providers, and other IP-based service providers,'' 
and also that its jurisdiction to regulate 911 extends to the 
regulation of NG911 across different technologies.\98\ We seek comment 
on this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ Reliability and Continuity of Communications Networks, 
Including Broadband Technologies, PS Docket Nos. 13-75, 11-60, 
Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 17476, 17529-30, para. 150 (2013).
    \98\ 2013 NG911 Framework Report, Section 4.1.2.2 at 28 (noting 
that the Commission ``already has sufficient authority to regulate 
the 911 and NG911 activity of, inter alia, wireline and wireless 
carriers, interconnected VoIP providers, and other IP-based service 
providers''); 911 Governance and Accountability, Improving 911 
Reliability, PS Docket Nos. 14-193, 13-75, Policy Statement and 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 14208, 14209-10, 14223, 
paras. 3, 34 (2014) (NG911 Policy Statement) (stating that while the 
Commission had ``previously undertaken to monitor the transition to 
Next Generation 911 (NG911) technologies to determine whether our 
rules should be revised or expanded to cover new best practices or 
additional entities, recent events have demonstrated that the pace 
of change already requires prompt action to review these 
vulnerabilities'' (footnotes omitted) and that ``the Commission has 
the public safety imperative to oversee each of the increasingly 
complex component pieces of the nation's 911 infrastructure'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters responding to the public notice support the view that 
the Commission has authority over NG911 as an extension of its 
jurisdiction over 911 generally. No commenter argues that the 
Commission does not have authority to regulate NG911 as a general 
matter. We agree with commenters who indicate that power to regulate 
911 is shared between the Commission and the states, and our proposals 
in the NPRM are premised on that assumption. These proposals are not 
intended to alter state jurisdiction over 911 or to limit state and 
local authorities' ability to take action in their jurisdictions to 
advance NG911. The nationwide framework we propose expressly empowers 
state and local authorities and affords them flexibility to make 
decisions regarding the configuration, timing, and cost responsibility 
for NG911 implementation in their jurisdictions. Consistent with past 
practice, we intend to carry out our proposals in partnership with 
state and local authorities and in light of their unique interest in 
the delivery of 911 service to their communities. We seek comment on 
additional considerations for striking the most effective balance 
between state and federal authority to implement the transition to 
NG911.

Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion

    The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital 
equity for all,\99\ including people of color, persons with 
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who 
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any

[[Page 43530]]

equity-related considerations \100\ and benefits, if any, that may be 
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. 
Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or 
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended 
provides that the FCC ``regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce 
in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service] 
available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United 
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, 
religion, national origin, or sex.'' 47 U.S.C. 151.
    \100\ The term ``equity'' is used here consistent with Executive 
Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and 
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who 
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such 
treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American 
persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of 
color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, 
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; 
persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely 
affected by persistent poverty or inequality. See Exec. Order No. 
13985, 86 FR 7009, Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and 
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government 
(Jan. 20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Summary of Benefits and Costs

    Summary of Benefits of Proposed Actions. As discussed above, the 
actions we propose in the NPRM have several potential benefits. First, 
removing an impediment to the transition to NG911 will speed up the 
arrival of NG911's public safety benefits to those who have yet to 
receive them. Second, allowing 911 authorities to retire aging legacy 
911 systems will save 911 authority funds. Third, retiring legacy 911 
systems will improve public safety by moving 911 calls to the more 
reliable NG911 system. Fourth, the proposed actions will reduce the 
need for negotiations between providers and 911 authorities, resulting 
in savings to both parties. We seek detailed comment on the scope and 
size of all of these benefits, as well as any additional benefits that 
our proposed actions may convey.
    Speeding up the NG911 Transition. The proposed action will 
facilitate the rapid and effective transition to NG911 by requiring 
delivery of 911 calls from wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers in IP-based format and establishing a point for the 
delivery of NG911 traffic. We seek comment on whether and how our 
proposed rules would benefit state and local 911 authorities by 
reducing NG911 transition costs and improve public safety by increasing 
the availability of NG911 services. While difficult to quantify 
numerically, the benefits of NG911 to the public appear to be extensive 
and to affect multiple aspects of 911 systems and response. Commenters 
note that these benefits include real-time call routing flexibility, 
faster call delivery, additional data for improved situational 
awareness, improved service reliability, improved call transfer 
capabilities, and better service to disabled and non-English speaking 
communities.\101\ Including internet-based TRS providers in this 
transition will also benefit individuals with hearing and speech 
disabilities who rely on TRS. We seek comment on the magnitude of these 
and other benefits that would accrue as a result of our proposed 
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ Comtech Reply at 4 (indicating that benefits of NG911 
systems include ``real-time call routing flexibility, faster call 
delivery, additional data for improved situational awareness, 
capabilities such as integrated text messages (and other multi-media 
messages soon), and significantly improved service reliability''); 
BRETSA Reply at 4-7 (detailing benefits including ``[c]onferencing 
in telephone or video relay and language interpretation services 
during 9-1-1 call setup,'' ``interstate 9-1-1 call transfer and CAD 
incident data transfer,'' ``geospatial routing,'' and ``transfer of 
CAD data with call transfer''); NTCA Comments at 2 (indicating that 
NG911 will provide increased situational awareness to first 
responders, which will benefit rural consumers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Saving 911 Authority Funds. The proposed action will end the need 
to maintain legacy 911 systems by requiring wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to connect to the 
point(s) designated by the 911 authority, requiring those providers to 
cover the costs of transmitting 911 calls to those points and requiring 
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to 
deliver 911 traffic in IP-based format. Although ESInets are available 
in a large majority of jurisdictions, some providers resist connecting 
to them at the requested delivery points or transitioning from 
providing 911 calls in legacy format to providing 911 calls in IP-based 
format compatible with NG911. Our proposed action will allow 911 
authorities to discontinue support of legacy networks--including the 
maintenance of legacy network gateways and selective routers. Legacy 
911 systems include Centralized Automated Message Accounting (CAMA) 
trunks, legacy selective routers, and Automatic Location Information 
(ALI) databases. We seek comment and specific information on the costs 
to 911 authorities to maintain legacy 911 networks while also operating 
an NG911 network. In addition, the requirement for wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver IP-
based 911 traffic would eliminate costs for 911 authorities to maintain 
transitional gateways to process and convert legacy calls. For states 
that deliver calls to PSAPs in IP-based format, our proposal would 
require any calls arriving in legacy TDM format to be converted into an 
IP-based protocol, such as SIP.\102\ Several states report maintaining 
several legacy network gateways to convert legacy-format 911 calls at 
the ratio of two legacy network gateways per LATA.\103\ This introduces 
an extra step that is inconsistent with the end-state NG911 system 
described in NENA's i3 standard. Under the proposed rules, states would 
no longer need to maintain these gateways once all providers begin 
delivering IP-based traffic to the ESInet. We seek comment on these and 
other 911 authority costs that would be avoided if we adopt our 
proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ Colorado Public Utilities Comm. Comments at 3 (discussing 
that because Colorado's ESInet must convert calls from TDM to SIP 
format, ``the state's ESInet is that much further from representing 
a true NG911 system as described in the NENA i3 standard.'').
    \103\ Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply at 4 (stating that 
transitioning to NG911 ``may involve removing the single point of 
failure for a legacy selective router by the having legacy OSPs 
connect to two Legacy Network Gateways (`LNGs') within the LATA.''); 
Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments at 1 (indicating that the 
state offers ``two diverse TDM [points of interconnection] within 
each of Minnesota's five LATA boundaries.''); Pennsylvania Emergency 
Mgmt. Agency Comments at 3 (detailing the state's NG911 efforts, 
which ``includes establishing two time-division multiplexing OSP 
points of interconnection (POI) in each local access and transport 
area, as well as two SIP POIs for the state, to ingress calls into 
the NG911 system.''); Comtech Comments at 7 (stating that South 
Carolina's network design includes two points of interconnection per 
LATA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Improving Reliability. The proposed actions will move 911 calls off 
of the aging legacy 911 system that commenters indicate is increasingly 
unreliable,\104\ thus improving public safety. This will also 
accelerate consumer access to NG911 services.\105\ NASNA argues that 
legacy 911 call routing and legacy network infrastructure is ``beyond 
end-of-life and has an increasing failure rate.'' For instance, in 
California, the 911 authority has been tracking the reliability and 
availability of the legacy 911 system for over 10 years and has seen an 
increase in outage minutes for the legacy 911 system. In 2017 the 
average number of minutes of outage was 17,000 minutes per month, but 
in 2022 the average increased to over 59,000 outage minutes per month. 
Moving from legacy systems to IP-based systems will reduce system 
outages and strengthen our 911 networks to improve public safety. We 
seek comment on the likely magnitude

[[Page 43531]]

of the public safety benefits resulting from improved reliability and 
resiliency of the networks transitioning from legacy systems to NG911 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments at 1 (stating 
that ``the LSRs [legacy selective routers] are end-of-service, end-
of-life and starting to fail''); Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply at 4; 
NASNA Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 7 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) 
(NASNA LBR NPRM Comments).
    \105\ Comtech Reply at 5 (``[D]elays due to unnecessary disputes 
with ILEC/RLEC OSPs and Legacy 911 Providers . . . inhibit 
consumers' access to NG911 services.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reducing the Need for Negotiations. Requirements for wireline, 
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver 
911 traffic to points designated by a 911 authority would minimize 
uncertainty, delays, and costs for 911 authorities to repeatedly 
negotiate for call delivery and cost responsibility with wireline, 
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. State and 
local 911 authorities and their contracted 911 service providers 
currently must work with each provider in their locality to negotiate 
costs and delivery to new designated delivery points.\106\ Public 
safety entities report that there is ambiguity about providers' 
obligations to deliver 911 traffic to new NG911 networks and that this 
can lengthen negotiation time.\107\ The proposed rules and database 
would permit states to notify wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and 
internet-based TRS providers via a centralized database of readiness to 
accept IP-based 911 traffic, eliminating the need for individualized 
and extensive negotiations with providers. This would eliminate 
transactional costs for both 911 authorities and wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers and minimize the 
uncertainty and attendant delays currently associated with allocating 
costs for connecting to NG911 networks. We seek comment on the length 
of time that 911 authorities currently spend to negotiate connections, 
as well as the costs associated with doing so. Reducing the need to 
negotiate may also accelerate the NG911 transition. Comtech states that 
delays resulting from disputes between 911 authorities and providers 
inhibit consumers' access to NG911 services. We seek comment on these 
and other benefits that would result from the proposed actions in this 
proceeding, and to the extent possible, the estimated monetary or other 
value of such benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ The Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency, for example, 
notes that it must work with each incumbent LEC operating in the 
state of Pennsylvania to determine costs and delivery to the NG911 
system. Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4. Comtech 
similarly notes that it must repeatedly negotiate ``the same points 
of contention with Legacy 911 Providers and OSPs for each and every 
NG911 deployment location.'' Comtech Comments at 2. Iowa notes that 
it would have to work with 150 carriers, with 150 different cost 
methods to transition to direct SIP. Iowa Dept. of Homeland Security 
and Emergency Mgmt. Comments at 2.
    \107\ For example, the Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency 
states that it is ``currently experiencing difficulties in this 
process that may impact Pennsylvania's transition to NG911 service 
and extend the period of time 911 authorities are paying for both 
legacy and NG911 services at the same time. Pennsylvania Emergency 
Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Feasibility and Costs of Implementation. To determine whether the 
proposed requirements are reasonable, we must determine whether they 
are technically feasible and do not impose costs that exceed their 
benefits. Because commenters note issues only with specific providers, 
we assume that some wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers have connected to states' NG911 networks. We also 
assume that some wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS 
providers have connected via IP to state's NG911 networks. We therefore 
tentatively conclude that the actions we propose are technically 
feasible and seek comment on this conclusion. The record does not 
currently contain detailed information on costs required for wireline, 
CMRS, and interconnected VoIP providers to connect to NG911 networks 
six months from the effective date of the IP service delivery 
requirement, or six months after a valid request for IP-based service 
by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later. The record also 
does not contain detailed information on costs required for wireline 
and interconnected VoIP providers to provide IP-based service six 
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement, 
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or 
local 911 authority, whichever is later. In addition, the record does 
not contain detailed information on the costs required for internet-
based TRS providers to connect to NG911 networks or provide IP-based 
service twelve months from the effective date of the IP service 
delivery requirement, or twelve months after a valid request for IP-
based service by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later. 
Accordingly, we seek comment on the level and types of costs that would 
be imposed by the implementation of our proposed rules, including costs 
for hardware, software, services, or transport, or other costs to 
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers 
or for state and local 911 authorities. We seek comment on the amount 
of those costs and ask commenters to provide sufficiently detailed 
information to allow accurate cost calculations.
    Cost Estimates. Although the proposed rulemaking may incur 
additional costs to wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers through (1) the requirement for wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver 911 
calls in IP-based format to 911 facilities and (2) the requirement for 
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers 
to deliver 911 traffic to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority, 
we believe these costs are relatively small. Our initial estimate of 
the upper bound of these costs is approximately $103,000 in one-time 
costs and $11.6 million in recurring annual costs. We outline those 
costs below and seek comment on our cost estimates.
    The cost of moving the point for delivery of 911 traffic for 
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers 
to a point designated by the 911 authority, such as an ESInet, occurs 
only once. The cost of changing connecting points should be 
insignificant for transporters. To estimate the maximum of this one-
time cost, we assume that all of the 2,327 wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers' 911 calls must 
be reconfigured to connect to ESInets.\108\ This is an overestimate 
because some providers already are connected to ESInets. We assume that 
each provider needs at most one hour of work by a technician to change 
connection points.\109\ We use $30 per hour as the wage for workers who 
move the connection points.\110\ Marking up this wage by 45% to account 
for benefits, we arrive at a total of $44 per hour.\111\ We therefore 
estimate that the

[[Page 43532]]

upper bound of one-time costs is $103,000.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ See FCC, Office of Economics and Analytics, Industry 
Analysis Division, Voice Telephone Services: Status as of June 30, 
2021 at 10, Table 2 (August 2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-385814A1.pdf%20 (OEA Voice Telephone Service Status) 
(finding that as of June 2021, there were 2,256 wireline end-user 
switched access lines and interconnected VoIP subscriptions 
providers and 61 mobile telephony providers). There are 10 certified 
internet-based TRS providers. FCC, Internet-Based TRS Providers, 
https://www.fcc.gov/general/internet-based-trs-providers (last 
visited May 16, 2023).
    \109\ Based on the FCC internal engineering staff's estimate, 
changing an IP-based demarcation point requires system 
reconfiguration that will take no more than 30 minutes to complete. 
We double the amount of time to allow for variation in the time it 
may require across service providers.
    \110\ We use the Bureau of Labor Statistics average wage for 
telecommunications equipment installers and repairers, except line 
installers for the telecommunications industry, which they estimate 
at $30.37, which we round to $30 to avoid false precision. See 
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes492022.htm (last visited May 16, 
2023).
    \111\ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of 
September, 2022, civilian wages and salaries averaged $28.88/hour 
and benefits averaged $12.98/hour. Total compensation therefore 
averaged $28.88 + $12.98 = $41.86. See Press Release, Bureaus of 
Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--
September 2022 (Dec. 15, 2022), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. Total compensation therefore averaged $28.88 + $12.98 
= $41.86. Id. Using these figures, benefits constitute a markup of 
$12.98/$28.88 = 45%. We therefore markup wages by 45% to account for 
benefits. $30 x 1.45 = $43.50, which we round to $44.
    \112\ One hour per provider x $44/hour x 2,327 providers = 
$102,388, which we round to $103,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ongoing costs will be incurred by the small percentage of providers 
that do not yet have IP switching facilities for voice traffic.\113\ 
According to NTCA, 91.5% of respondents to the NTCA Broadband/internet 
Availability Survey Report, which we assume are rural wireline 
providers, indicate that they already have IP switching facilities for 
voice traffic in their networks, and therefore 8.5% do not. As a 
result, the cost of converting 911 calls from TDM format to IP format 
would only be imposed on 8.5% of rural wireline providers. We assume 
the percentage of non-rural telecommunications wireline providers 
without IP-switching capability to be similar or smaller. Among the 947 
local exchange telephone service providers,\114\ we therefore estimate 
that at most 81 providers (8.5% of 947) may need to hire a third-party 
to transport their TDM calls in IP format to the ESInets.\115\ The cost 
of adding these 81 providers to existing available transport services 
would not be particularly burdensome. To estimate the cost of 
additional transport service, we make several assumptions. First, we 
assume that the 81 providers are evenly spread across 56 U.S. states, 
commonwealths, and territories.\116\ This would yield an additional 
1.45 providers (81/56) per state. That is, we assume it would require 
adding 1.45 providers and 28,281 calls per year into existing transport 
services available in each state or territory.\117\ Hiring an 
additional full-time telecommunications technician in one transport 
service provider per state should be more than sufficient to handle the 
increase in calls.\118\ The annual wage, including benefits of a 
telecommunication technician would be $44 per hour, as above, 
multiplied by 2080 hours, for a total of $91,520 for each state. Given 
an estimated average of 55.53% gross margin for the communications 
service industry,\119\ the annual cost to providers would be $205,802 
for each state.\120\ Multiplying the annual cost per state by 56 states 
and territories, we estimate a total annual recurring cost of 
$11,524,912, which we round to $11.6 million per year. We note that 
small providers could trim costs by leveraging transport procurement 
through small provider consortia or entering into interconnectivity 
agreements with larger providers. We also note that these annual costs 
will fall over time due to ongoing modernization of legacy 911 systems. 
We seek comment on all these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ Since VoIP and internet-based TRS providers are already 
transmitting calls via IP, we assume that they incur no additional 
cost to comply with the requirement of transmitting 911 calls in IP 
format.
    \114\ See OEA Voice Telephone Service Status, at 10, Table 2 (as 
of June 2021, there were 947 providers providing local exchange 
telephone service (Switched Access Lines)).
    \115\ We multiply 947 providers by 8.5% (the percent of 
providers that may not have IP switching facilities) to arrive at 81 
providers that may need to hire a third-party to transport their 911 
calls [947 x 8.5% = 80.495, rounded up to 81].
    \116\ This includes 50 states, Washington DC, American Samoa, 
Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin 
Islands.
    \117\ Per the Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee Report, forty-seven 
states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands reported a cumulative total of 
220,107,525 voice calls of all types during the 2021 annual period. 
Fourteenth Annual Fee Report at 12, para. 14. According to NENA, 
more than 80% of 911 calls in the U.S. each year are from wireless 
devices. Therefore 20% of 220,107,525 calls, or 44,034,105 calls are 
generated via wireline or interconnected VoIP [220,107,525 x 20% = 
44,034,105]. Divide 44,034,105 calls by a total of 2,256 wireline 
and interconnected VoIP providers, each provider passes an average 
of approximately 19,504 call per year [44,034,105/2256 = 19,503.6, 
rounded up to 19,504]. Multiply 19,504 by 1.45 providers, the 
transport service providers in each state or territory may see an 
increase of 28,281 calls [19,504 x 1.45 = 28,280.8, rounded up to 
28,281].
    \118\ Assuming that, on an annual basis, a full-time, full-year 
technician works 2,080 hours to handle the additional 28,281 calls, 
each technician would have to support only 14 calls per hour on 
average [28,281/2,080 = 13.6, rounded up to 14]. We believe that our 
assumption of hiring a technician per state to handle these 
additional 911 calls is an overestimate given that converting and 
transporting these calls are largely automated with little need of 
personnel involvement once the providers' calls are routed to the 
transport service providers' site.
    \119\ According to Dr. Aswath Damodarn at NYU Stern School of 
Business, the gross margin for the telecommunication services sector 
is 55.53%. See New York University, Margins by Sector (US), https://
pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html 
(last visited May 16, 2023).
    \120\ We assume that these wireline service providers need to 
hire a third-party to provide this transport service, and we further 
assume that these third-party transport service providers mark up 
their service, so the gross profit margin is 55.53% according to the 
estimated industry average. If the cost is $91,520, the after mark-
up price of transport service would be $205,802 [= $91,520/(1-
55.53%) = 205,802]. In other words, if a third-party transport 
provider charges $205,802 to provide the additional services, it 
retains $114,282 [= $205,802 * 55.53%] as its gross profit after 
paying $91,520 in wages and benefits to the additional technician it 
has to hire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Costs Imposed on Rural Local Exchange Carriers. Some rural LEC 
commenters oppose NASNA's proposal to define the ESInet gateway as the 
demarcation point for delivery of the NG911 services, arguing that this 
framework would impose substantial and unrecoverable costs on rural 
service providers. For example, the South Carolina Telephone Coalition 
notes that imposing additional costs for 911 transport would create an 
unfair burden on rural providers and their customers. In addition, the 
South Carolina Telephone Coalition notes that the costs to connect to 
IP points of interconnection would involve ``hiring third-party 
transport providers to deliver . . . traffic to two diverse points.'' 
NTCA calls these ``significant new transport costs.''
    We seek comment on specifics of these anticipated costs under our 
proposed rules. What are the estimated initial and ongoing costs for a 
wireline provider to connect to an NG911 network via IP? For wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers that have already 
transitioned to providing 911 traffic to the ESInet via IP or via 
legacy network gateway, what are the costs to provide such service? 
What variables impact the costs to different providers? Are costs to 
connect to NG911 significantly different for different providers? If 
so, how? We seek cost information associated with different use cases. 
In addition, we note that many rural incumbent LECs offer broadband in 
addition to telephony, and these providers likely have already 
established IP peering relationships with other providers.\121\ NASNA 
asserts that small providers' transition to IP ``diminishes the 
argument that the distance to ESInet point of interconnection [POI] is 
cost prohibitive.'' \122\ We seek comment on

[[Page 43533]]

this assertion. We tentatively conclude that the costs for rural LECs 
providing broadband to transmit 911 traffic via IP to a state's NG911 
point of interconnection would be small, and we seek comment on this 
tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on costs for IP transport to 
points of interconnection located in adjacent states.\123\ In addition, 
we seek comment and specific data on wireline, interconnected VoIP, and 
internet-based TRS provider costs to implement NG911 in rural areas, 
including any costs that could be avoided or reduced. Further, we seek 
comment on any additional costs to transition to NG911 for a rural LEC 
that already provides broadband service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ See, e.g., NTCA, Entry Into Telecommunications: Rural ILEC 
Perspective at slide 4 (June 25, 2015) https://www.justice.gov/atr/entry-telecommunications-rural-ilec-perspective (92% of Independent 
Rural Carriers offer internet); NTCA 2022 Broadband Survey Report at 
4 (The ``vast majority'' of respondents (91.5%) to the NTCA's annual 
survey ``indicate that they have IP switching facilities for voice 
traffic in their networks. Just over one-half of respondents (53.4%) 
still use TDM switching facilities for voice traffic within some 
portion of their ILEC networks.'' The response rate to this survey 
was 38.3%.); see Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and 
Certifications; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local 
Exchange Carriers; Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation 
Regime, Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and 
Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 11893, 11925-27, paras. 101-12 
(2018) (applying the requirement to provide broadband to those 
carriers that have not adopted one of the Alternative Connect 
America Cost Model support programs or the Alaska Plan).
    \122\ NASNA Reply at 3-4. But see NTCA Ex Parte at 4 
(questioning the relationship between a provider's ability to 
originate traffic in IP format or provide broadband services and the 
costs for that provider to transmit 911 traffic in IP format outside 
the boundaries of its network).
    \123\ South Carolina Telephone Coalition Reply at 5 (indicating 
that the two diverse points for Comtech's ESInet implementation in 
South Carolina are in adjacent states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Impact of Proposed Approach on Universal Service. Some commenters 
argue that requiring the delivery of IP 911 traffic to specific points 
would place universal service in jeopardy through increased costs. With 
respect to section 254 of the Act, we do not believe that our proposed 
rules would cause injury to the principles of universal service, given 
that states would remain free to implement cost recovery mechanisms as 
they deem necessary. As NASNA points out, costs to small providers may 
also be addressed by other means, including ``collaborative consortiums 
of smaller providers to leverage transport procurement, 
interconnectivity agreements with larger providers, and the providers' 
transition to IP.'' We seek comment on the feasibility of these 
measures and their capability to defray costs for small providers. In 
addition, we seek comment on the impacts of our proposed rules on the 
availability of universal service and universal service support under 
section 254 of the Act.
    Benefits Expected to Exceed Costs. The proposed actions would have 
important benefits outlined above, as well as impose some costs. We 
tentatively conclude that the Commission's proposals would produce 
benefits far exceeding the costs imposed on wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers, and we seek 
comment on this tentative conclusion.

Procedural Matters

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written public comments 
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to 
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines in the NPRM.

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    In the NPRM, we propose to take steps that will advance the 
nationwide transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911). Like 
communications networks generally, dedicated 911 networks are evolving 
from Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)-based architectures to internet 
Protocol (IP)-based architectures. With the transition to NG911, 911 
authorities will replace the circuit-switched architecture of legacy 
911 networks with IP-based technologies and applications, which provide 
new capabilities and improved interoperability and system resilience. 
Most states have invested significantly in NG911, but some report that 
they are experiencing delays in providers connecting to these IP-based 
networks. As a result of these delays, state and local 911 authorities 
incur prolonged costs because of the need to maintain both legacy and 
IP networks during the transition. Managing 911 traffic on both legacy 
and IP networks may also result in increased vulnerability and risk of 
911 outages.
    In the NPRM, we propose to expedite the NG911 transition by 
adopting certain requirements that would apply to wireline, Commercial 
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), interconnected Voice over internet 
Protocol (VoIP), and internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service 
(TRS) providers as state and local 911 authorities transition to IP-
based networks and develop the capability to support NG911 elements and 
functions.
     First, we propose to require wireline, interconnected 
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to complete all translation and 
routing to deliver 911 calls, including associated location 
information, in the requested IP-based format to an Emergency Services 
IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s) that allow emergency 
calls to be answered upon request of 911 authorities who have certified 
the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. Wireline and 
interconnected VoIP providers would be subject to this requirement six 
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement, 
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or 
local 911 authority, whichever is later. Internet-based TRS providers 
would be subject to this requirement twelve months from the effective 
date of the IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a 
valid request for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority, 
whichever is later. This proposal is similar to what was proposed for 
CMRS and covered text providers in our recent proceeding on wireless 
location-based routing.
     Second, as state and local 911 authorities transition to 
IP-based networks, we propose to require wireline, interconnected VoIP, 
CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers to transmit all 911 calls to 
destination point(s) in those networks designated by a 911 authority, 
including to a public safety answering point (PSAP), designated 
statewide default answering point, local emergency authority, ESInet, 
or other point(s) designated to receive 911 calls that allow emergency 
calls to be answered, upon request of 911 authorities who have 
certified the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications.
     Third, we propose that in the absence of agreements by 
states or localities on alternative cost recovery mechanisms, wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers must cover 
the costs of transmitting 911 calls to the point(s) designated by a 911 
authority, including any costs associated with completing the 
translation and routing necessary to deliver such calls and associated 
location information to the designated destination point(s) in the 
requested IP-based format. Under this proposal, states and localities 
would remain free to establish alternative cost allocation arrangements 
with providers. However, in the absence of such arrangements, providers 
would be presumptively responsible for the costs associated with 
delivering traffic to the destination point(s) identified by the 
appropriate 911 authority.
    Together, these proposals are intended to expedite the NG911 
transition and help ensure that the nation's 911 system functions 
effectively and with the most advanced capabilities available. In 
addition, they respond to the petition filed in 2021 by the National 
Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA) urging the Commission 
to take actions to resolve uncertainty and disputes between originating 
service providers (OSPs) and state 911 authorities regarding the NG911 
transition. We seek to create a consistent framework for ensuring that 
providers (including wireline, CMRS,

[[Page 43534]]

interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers) take the 
necessary steps to implement the transition to NG911 capability in 
coordination with state and local 911 authorities. We also seek to 
align the NG911 transition rules for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and 
internet-based TRS providers with similar requirements we have proposed 
for CMRS and covered text providers in the Location-Based Routing NPRM, 
thereby promoting consistency across service platforms. Finally, our 
demarcation point and cost allocation proposals seek to address what 
NASNA described in its Petition as ``the critical component, and 
biggest regulatory roadblock, to transitioning to NG911 services.''

B. Legal Basis

    The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332; the Wireless 
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, 47 
U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-First 
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 
111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.

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

    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, if adopted. The RFA generally defines 
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms 
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned 
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) 
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
    Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the 
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly 
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size 
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business 
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types 
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United 
States, which translates to 32.5 million businesses.
    Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for 
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were 
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting 
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data 
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
    Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census 
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose 
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of 
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, 
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts 
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on 
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 
48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    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.
    All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of 
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of 
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol 
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are 
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million 
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this 
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
    Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)--(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); 2000-2020 MHz and 
2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4)). Spectrum is made available and licensed in 
these bands for the provision of various wireless communications 
services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is 
the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable 
to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    According to Commission data as December 2021, there were 
approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small 
business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for 
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for 
these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission 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. Pursuant to these 
definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small 
businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS 
licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small 
businesses won licenses.

[[Page 43535]]

    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes 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. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines 
this industry as 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 communications networks. Transmission facilities 
may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies. 
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications 
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, 
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired 
(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband 
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite 
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure 
that they operate are included in this industry. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers 
or fixed local service providers.
    The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that 
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, 
the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, 
most of these providers can be considered small entities.
    Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically 
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services 
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local 
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers 
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business 
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small 
entities.
    Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission 
nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses 
specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these 
services include several types of competitive local exchange service 
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size 
standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 
1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 
show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the 
entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 3,378 
providers that reported they were competitive local exchange service 
providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,230 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the 
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard 
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small 
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer 
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there 
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of 
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service 
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers 
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of 
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500 
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local 
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
    Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
have developed a small business size standard specifically for 
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small 
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies 
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data 
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this 
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with 
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, 
there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the 
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry 
can be considered small entities.
    Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed 
a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers. 
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a SBA small 
business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers industry 
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network 
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and 
reselling wired and wireless

[[Page 43536]]

telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and 
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications; 
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile 
virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The 
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry 
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375 
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on 
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of 
December 31, 2020, there were 293 providers that reported they were 
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these providers, 
the Commission estimates that 289 providers have 1,500 or fewer 
employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, 
most of these providers can be considered small entities.
    Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal 
communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in the 
1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with a SBA 
small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business 
size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the 
entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates 
that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were 
approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The 
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband 
PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in 
the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these 
licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross 
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. 
Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS 
licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes 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. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the 
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small 
under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Narrowband Personal 
Communications Services (Narrowband PCS) are PCS services operating in 
the 901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 MHz bands. PCS services are 
radio communications that encompass mobile and ancillary fixed 
communication that provide services to individuals and businesses and 
can be integrated with a variety of competing networks. Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. 
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
    According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 4,211 active Narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission's 
small business size standards with respect to Narrowband PCS involve 
eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction 
of licenses for these services. For the auction of these licenses, the 
Commission defined a ``small business'' as 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 defined as an entity that, together with affiliates 
and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three 
preceding years of not more than $15 million. Pursuant to these 
definitions, 7 winning bidders claiming small and very small bidding 
credits won approximately 359 licenses. One of the winning bidders 
claiming a small business status classification in these Narrowband PCS 
license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.
    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes 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. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several 
UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television 
broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of 
Mexico. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to 
this service. The SBA small business size standard for this industry 
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that 
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 
firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size 
standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this 
industry can be considered small. Additionally, based on Commission 
data, as of December 2021, there was one licensee with an active 
license in this service. However, since the Commission does not collect 
data on the number of employees for this service, at this time we are 
not able to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as 
small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications 
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments 
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and 
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable 
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,

[[Page 43537]]

cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and 
television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business 
size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,250 
employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire 
year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, 
under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can 
be considered small.
    Rural Radiotelephone Service. Neither the Commission nor the SBA 
have developed a small business size standard specifically for small 
businesses providing Rural Radiotelephone Service. Rural Radiotelephone 
Service is radio service in which licensees are authorized to offer and 
provide radio telecommunication services for hire to subscribers in 
areas where it is not feasible to provide communication services by 
wire or other means. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), is the closest 
applicable industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA 
small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite) classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as 
small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this 
total, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Rural 
Radiotelephone Services firm are small entities. Based on Commission 
data as of December 27, 2021, there were approximately 119 active 
licenses in the Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission does not 
collect employment data from these entities holding these licenses and 
therefore we cannot estimate how many of these entities meet the SBA 
small business size standard.
    Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services 
(WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and 
digital audio broadcasting satellite services. Wireless spectrum is 
made available and licensed for the provision of wireless 
communications services in several frequency bands subject to Part 27 
of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size 
standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire 
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 
Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS 
involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the 
auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS. 
When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS 
frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of 
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and 
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in 
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified 
in the designated entities section in Part 27 of the Commission's rules 
for the specific WCS frequency bands.
    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes 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. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This 
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining 
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the 
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and 
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging 
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The 
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show 
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the 
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal 
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless 
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's 
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered 
small entities.
    Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal 
communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony 
carriers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small business 
size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite). The size standard for this industry under SBA rules is that 
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms 
employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission 
data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 
31, 2021, there were 331 providers that reported they were engaged in 
the provision of cellular, personal communications services, and 
specialized mobile radio services. Of these providers, the Commission 
estimates that 255 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of 
these providers can be considered small entities.
    700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band encompasses 
spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz frequency 
bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the 
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to 
licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size 
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire 
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 
Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's 
small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band 
licensees involve eligibility for bidding

[[Page 43538]]

credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the 
auction of these licenses, 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, and a ``very small business'' 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. Pursuant to these definitions, five winning 
bidders claiming one of the small business status classifications won 
26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming small business won two 
licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a small business status 
classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band license auctions had an 
active license as of December 2021.
    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes 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. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band encompasses 
spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible operations in 
these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, 
including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and 
mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based 
services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, 
internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile 
television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business 
size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. 
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a 
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in 
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed 
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can 
be considered small.
    According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The 
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700 
MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and 
installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower 
700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups 
of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity 
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has 
average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the 
preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that, 
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, 
and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its 
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for 
Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a 
small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning 
bidders claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and 
three winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all 
five auctioned licenses.
    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes 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. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band encompasses 
spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are 
nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz 
bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, 
mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new 
broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services 
(including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile 
wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, 
cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry 
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses 
providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard 
for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or 
fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 
2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that 
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the 
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of 
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
    According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were 
approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's 
small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band 
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment 
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, 
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, and a 
``very small business'' 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. Pursuant to these 
definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status 
won five of the twelve available licenses.
    In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the 
Commission notes 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. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent 
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, 
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the 
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for 
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to 
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would 
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
    Wireless Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have

[[Page 43539]]

developed a small business size standard specifically for Wireless 
Resellers. The closest industry with a SBA small business size standard 
is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers 
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and 
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications 
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services 
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this 
industry resell telecommunications and they do not operate transmission 
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) 
are included in this industry. Under the SBA size standard for this 
industry, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry 
provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,375 firms 
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, for this industry under 
the SBA small business size standard, the majority of providers can be 
considered small entities.
    Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry 
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing 
semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products 
made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips, 
microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other 
optoelectronic devices. The SBA small business size standard for this 
industry classifies entities having 1,250 or fewer employees as small. 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 729 firms in this 
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 673 firms 
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size 
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered 
small.
    Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Providers. 
Telecommunications relay services enable individuals who are deaf, hard 
of hearing, deaf-blind, or who have a speech disability to communicate 
by telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to using voice 
communication services. Internet-based TRS (iTRS) connects an 
individual with a hearing or a speech disability to a TRS 
communications assistant using an Internet Protocol-enabled device via 
the internet, rather than the public switched telephone network. Video 
Relay Service (VRS) one form of iTRS, enables people with hearing or 
speech disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice 
telephone users over a broadband connection using a video communication 
device. Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) another 
form of iTRS, permits a person with hearing loss to have a telephone 
conversation while reading captions of what the other party is saying 
on an internet-connected device. Providers must be certified by the 
Commission to provide VRS and IP CTS and to receive compensation from 
the TRS Fund for TRS provided in accordance with applicable rules.
    Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business 
size standard specifically for TRS Providers. All Other 
Telecommunications is the closest industry with a SBA small business 
size standard. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are included in this industry. The SBA 
small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with 
annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that 
operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less 
than $25 million. Based on Commission data there are ten certified iTRS 
providers. The Commission however does not compile financial 
information for these providers. Nevertheless, based on available 
information, the Commission estimates that most providers in this 
industry are small entities.

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

    The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on implementing new NG911 
requirements for 911 voice calls, that if adopted, may impose new or 
modified reporting or recordkeeping, and other compliance obligations 
on small entities. Some of our proposed requirements contain written 
notification and certification requirements that will be applicable to 
small entities. For example, in the NPRM we propose to require 
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to 
complete all translation and routing to deliver 911 calls, including 
associated location information, in the requested IP-based format to an 
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be 
answered upon request of 911 authorities who have certified the 
capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. Wireline and 
interconnected VoIP providers would be subject to this requirement six 
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement, 
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or 
local 911 authority, whichever is later. Internet-based TRS providers 
would subject to this requirement twelve months from the effective date 
of the IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a valid 
request for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority, 
whichever is later. Wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based 
TRS providers and state or local 911 authorities would be allowed to 
agree to alternate time frames for delivery of IP-formatted calls and 
associated routing information as long as the wireline, interconnected 
VoIP, or internet-based TRS provider notifies the Commission of the 
alternate time frame within 30 days of the parties' agreement.
    To determine whether wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers' have received a ``valid request,'' the criteria we 
proposed to constitute a valid request includes certification from a 
requesting local or state entity that it meets the following 
conditions, (1) it is technically ready to receive calls and/or texts 
in the IP-based format requested, (2) it is specifically authorized to 
accept calls and/or texts in the IP-based format requested, and (3) it 
has provided notification to the wireline, interconnected VoIP, or 
internet-based TRS providers via either a registry made available by 
the Commission or any other written notification reasonably acceptable 
to the wireline, interconnected VoIP, or internet-based TRS provider.
    In the NPRM, we seek comment on whether to implement any new data 
collections to assist in monitoring performance and compliance with the 
proposed NG911 rules. For example, we ask: (1) whether to require 
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to 
provide a certification of compliance with the proposed rules, and (2) 
if reporting would be helpful, what specific information should 
providers include and at what frequency we should require them to 
report it. We also seek information on whether the proposed rules 
should include requirements for disclosures to the PSAP or other state 
or local 911 authority in connection with compliance with the NG911 
rules.
    Our inquiry into the potential reporting obligations that may be 
necessary to complement our proposed NG911 rules includes requesting 
comment on measures the Commission could take to limit the burden of 
reporting on the transition to NG911. In particular, in the NPRM we 
seek information on the extent that the Commission could limit the 
burden of

[[Page 43540]]

any reporting requirements on businesses identified as small by the 
SBA. We also assess whether we need to adopt requirements and systems 
for reporting non-compliance with the proposed NG911 rules. While we 
tentatively conclude that our existing mechanisms (which would allow 
public safety entities and members of the public seeking to report non-
compliance with the proposed rules to file complaints via the Public 
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's Public Safety Support Center or 
the Commission's Consumer Complaint Center) should be sufficient to 
address any potential violations, we seek comment on this tentative 
conclusion.
    Although the proposed rulemaking may impose additional costs to 
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers 
as a result of (1) the requirement for wireline, interconnected VoIP, 
and internet-based TRS providers to deliver 911 calls in IP-based 
format to 911 facilities, and (2) the requirement for wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver 911 
traffic to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority, we believe 
these costs are relatively small. Our initial estimate of the upper 
bound of these costs for all such providers in total is approximately 
$103,000 in one-time costs and $11.6 million recurring annual costs. We 
outline the details of those costs below and seek comment on our cost 
estimates in the NPRM.
    The cost of moving the point for delivery of 911 traffic for 
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers 
to a point designated by the 911 authority, such as an ESInet, occurs 
only once. Further, we believe the cost of changing connecting points 
should be insignificant for transporters. To estimate the maximum of 
this one-time cost, we assume that all of the 2,327 wireline, CMRS, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers' 911 calls must 
be reconfigured to connect to ESInets. This is likely an overestimate 
because some providers already are connected to ESInets. We assume that 
each provider needs at most one hour of work by a technician to change 
connection points. We use $30 per hour as the wage for workers who move 
the connection points. Marking up this wage by 45% to account for 
benefits, we arrive at a total of $44 per hour. We therefore estimate 
that the upper bound of one-time costs is $103,000.
    Ongoing costs will be incurred by the small percentage of providers 
that do not yet have IP switching facilities for voice traffic. 
According to NTCA, 91.5% of respondents to the NTCA Broadband/internet 
Availability Survey Report, which we assume are rural wireline 
providers, indicate that they already have IP switching facilities for 
voice traffic in their networks, and therefore 8.5% do not. As a 
result, the cost of converting 911 calls from TDM format to IP format 
would only be imposed on 8.5% of rural wireline providers. We assume 
the percentage of non-rural telecommunications wireline providers 
without IP-switching capability to be similar or smaller. Among the 947 
local exchange telephone service providers, we therefore estimate that 
at most 81 providers (8.5% of 947) may need to hire a third-party to 
transport their TDM calls in IP format to the ESInets. The cost of 
adding these 81 providers to existing available transport services 
would not be particularly burdensome. To estimate the cost of 
additional transport service, we make several assumptions. First, we 
assume that the 81 providers are evenly spread across 56 U.S. states, 
commonwealths, and territories. This would yield an additional 1.45 
providers (81/56) per state. That is, we assume it would require adding 
1.45 providers and 28,281 calls per year into existing transport 
services available in each state or territory. Hiring an additional 
full-time telecommunications technician in one transport service 
provider per state should be more than sufficient to handle the 
increase in calls. The annual wage, including benefits of a 
telecommunication technician would be $44 per hour, as above, 
multiplied by 2080 hours, for a total of $91,520 for each state. Given 
an estimated average of 55.53% gross margin for the communications 
service industry, the annual cost to providers would be $205,802 for 
each state. Multiplying the annual cost per state by 56 states and 
territories, we estimate a total annual recurring cost of $11,524,912, 
which we round to $11.6 million per year. We note that small providers 
could trim costs by leveraging transport procurement through small 
provider consortia or entering into interconnectivity agreements with 
larger providers. We also note that these annual costs will fall over 
time due to ongoing modernization of legacy 911 systems. We seek 
comment on all of these estimates.
    The record in this proceeding does not currently contain detailed 
information on the costs required for the implementation of wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS IP-based 911 service 
delivery. Therefore, at this time, the Commission is not in a position 
to determine whether implementation of IP-based service delivery would 
result in significant costs for small wireline, interconnected VoIP, 
and internet-based TRS providers, NG911 services providers, or state 
and local 911 authorities, or require small entities to hire 
professionals to comply, if our proposals are adopted. To help the 
Commission more fully evaluate the cost of compliance, we seek 
additional detailed information on the various cost issues implicated 
by our proposed rules. In the NPRM, we specifically request information 
on the costs of compliance for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and 
internet-based TRS providers to implement the required hardware, 
software, services, or transport, or other significant costs to 
telecommunications carriers or to state and local 911 authorities. We 
also request information on planned or expended costs from providers 
that have already transitioned to providing 911 traffic to the ESInet 
via IP or via legacy network gateway. Further, we ask whether costs to 
connect to NG911 are significantly different for different types of 
providers.

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

    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 such small entities; (3) the 
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small 
entities.''
    Delivery in IP-Based Format. We believe our proposal to require 
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to 
complete all translation and routing to deliver 911 calls, including 
associated location information, in the requested IP-based format to an 
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be 
answered upon request of 911 authorities who have certified the 
capability to accept IP-based 911 communications would help to advance 
NG911 and benefit small entities in several ways. Specifically our 
proposal would, (1) help address operational and

[[Page 43541]]

routing issues for small and other jurisdictions that have implemented 
NG911; (2) help alleviate the burden on small state and local 911 
authorities of maintaining transitional gateways and other network 
elements to process and convert legacy calls; and (3) help small and 
other jurisdictions realize additional public safety benefits available 
on NG911 networks. In assessing NG911 requirements, we considered 
whether there any other providers that we should require to deliver IP-
based 911 services. In the NPRM, we seek comment on these matters.
    Delivery Points and Cost Allocation for IP-Based 911 Calls. We 
propose to require wireline, interconnected VoIP, CMRS, and internet-
based TRS providers to transmit all 911 calls to destination point(s) 
in those networks designated by a 911 authority. In addition, we 
propose that in the absence of agreements by states or localities on 
alternative cost recovery mechanisms, wireline, interconnected VoIP, 
CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers must cover the costs of 
transmitting 911 calls to the point(s) designated by a 911 authority, 
including any costs associated with completing the translation and 
routing necessary to deliver such calls and associated location 
information to the designated destination point(s) in the requested IP-
based format. Under this proposal, states and localities would remain 
free to establish alternative cost allocation arrangements with 
providers. As a default mechanism, this proposal would allocate costs 
only when the parties are unable to agree on cost recovery measures. 
The proposal also provides flexibility to small entities to negotiate 
for state-level cost recovery when and if needed, which could minimize 
the economic impact for small entities.
    Commenters representing rural and other telecommunications carriers 
generally oppose the establishment of a point for delivery of 911 
traffic, arguing that it is unnecessary or would slow the rollout of 
NG911. These commenters maintain that any demarcation point should be 
within service providers' local service areas. NTCA cautions that to do 
otherwise would place a significant cost burden on rural customers and 
place universal service at risk. As part of our consideration of these 
comments, we seek estimates from rural providers (usually small 
entities) and 911 authorities on specific costs for rural providers to 
comply with our proposed rules.
    We also reviewed and considered an alternate proposal from the 
Texas 9-1-1 Entities which could impact small entities. In our 
consideration of this proposal, we inquire and seek comment on whether 
we should adopt all or any parts of the Texas 9-1-1 Entities proposal; 
whether it would be beneficial to treat ``IP-based providers'' 
differently than ``non-IP-based providers''; whether there are 
``threshold legacy issues'' would we need to determine before adopting 
the Texas 9-1-1 Entities proposal either in full or in part, and 
whether there any other factors we should consider in connection with 
the proposal.
    Universal Service Impact. Small entities could potentially incur an 
economic impact if requiring the delivery of IP 911 traffic to specific 
points were to increase universal costs. However, given that under our 
proposal there are measures available for small carriers to lower their 
costs such as participation in ``collaborative consortiums of smaller 
carriers to leverage transport procurement, interconnectivity 
agreements with larger carriers, and the carriers' transition to IP,'' 
and states would remain free to implement cost recovery mechanisms as 
they deem necessary, we do not believe that our proposed rules would 
adversely impact universal service. To gain a better understanding of 
the implications for small entities, in the NPRM we seek comment on the 
feasibility of these measures and their capability to defray costs for 
small carriers. In addition, we seek comment on the impacts of our 
proposed rules on the availability of universal service and universal 
service support under section 254 of the Act.
    Compliance Timelines. We provide flexibility in the proposed 
compliance timelines for implementation of the requirements which 
should reduce the economic burden for small entities. For the 
requirements we propose to help ensure that jurisdictions transitioning 
to NG911 networks can access IP connections from wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers, we propose to 
allow local and state entities to enter into agreements with wireline, 
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers that establish an 
alternate time frame for meeting those requirements. The flexibility to 
negotiate an alternative time frame which meets providers' business and 
financial needs is a significant step by the Commission that could 
minimize the economic impact for small entities.
    Further, we provide a longer time frame for internet-based TRS 
providers which are primarily small entities, to complete all 
translation and routing to deliver 911 calls, including associated 
location information, in the requested IP-based format to an Emergency 
Services IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s) that allow 
emergency calls to be answered upon request of 911 authorities who have 
certified the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. The 
compliance obligation we propose for internet-based TRS providers is 
twelve months from the effective date of the IP service delivery 
requirement, or twelve months after a valid request for IP-based 
service by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later, rather 
than the six months applicable to wireline and interconnected VoIP 
providers.
    Costs of Implementation. In the previous section, we discussed the 
absence of detailed information in the record on the costs for 
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to 
implement the required software, hardware, and service upgrades 
necessary to comply with our proposed rules. Having data on the costs 
and economic impact of the proposals and other matters discussed in the 
NPRM will allow the Commission to better evaluate options and 
alternatives to minimize the impact on small entities. Based on our 
request for specific and detailed cost implementation information, and 
for information on the extent that the Commission could limit the 
burden of any reporting requirements, we expect to more fully consider 
the economic impact on small entities following our review of comments 
filed in response to the NPRM, and to this IRFA. The Commission's 
evaluation of this information will shape the final alternatives it 
considers to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on 
small entities, the final conclusions it reaches, and any final rules 
it promulgates in this proceeding.

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

Ordering Clauses

    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 
214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 214, 222, 225, 
251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332; the Wireless Communications and Public 
Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 
615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and 
Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, 
that this notice of proposed rulemaking is adopted.

[[Page 43542]]

    It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set 
forth in Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the notice of 
proposed rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the 
Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days after 
publication in the Federal Register.
    It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of 
the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9

    Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications 
equipment, Internet, Radio, Telecommunications, Telephone.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 9 as follows:

PART 9--911 REQUIREMENTS

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

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201, 
202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303, 
307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615 
note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721, 
and 1471, and Section 902 of Title IX, Division FF, Pub. L. 116-260, 
134 Stat. 1182, unless otherwise noted.

0
2. Revise Sec.  9.1 to read as follows:


Sec.  9.1  Purpose.

    The purpose of this part is to set forth the 911, E911, and Next 
Generation 911 service requirements and conditions applicable to 
telecommunications carriers (subpart B); commercial mobile radio 
service (CMRS) providers (subpart C); interconnected Voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers (subpart D); providers of 
telecommunications relay services (TRS) for persons with disabilities 
(subpart E); multi-line telephone systems (MLTS) (subpart F); and 
Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) providers (subpart G). The rules in this 
part also include requirements to help ensure the resiliency, 
redundancy, and reliability of communications systems, particularly 911 
and E911 networks and/or systems (subpart H), acceptable obligations 
and expenditures of 911 fees (subpart I), and Next Generation 911 
obligations (subpart J).
0
3. Revise Sec.  9.4 to read as follows:


Sec.  9.4  Obligation to transmit 911 calls.

    Except as otherwise provided in subpart J, all telecommunications 
carriers shall transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, to a designated 
statewide default answering point, or to an appropriate local emergency 
authority as set forth in Sec.  9.5.
0
4. Add Subpart J to read as follows:

Subpart J--Next Generation 911 Obligations

Sec.
9.27 Applicability.
9.28 Definitions.
9.29 Next Generation 911 Transition Requirements and Cost 
Allocation.
9.30 Valid Request.


Sec.  9.27  Applicability.

    The rules in this subpart apply to wireline, commercial mobile 
radio service, interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol service 
providers, and internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service 
providers.


Sec.  9.28  Definitions.

    911 Authority. The state, territorial, regional, Tribal, or local 
agency or entity with the authority and responsibility under applicable 
law to designate the point(s) to receive emergency calls.
    Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet). An Internet 
Protocol (IP)-based network managed by public safety authorities and 
used for emergency services communications, including Next Generation 
911.


Sec.  9.29  Next Generation 911 Transition Requirements and Cost 
Allocation.

    (a) Wireline Providers.
    (1) By [six months from the effective date of paragraph (a) of this 
section], or within 6 months of a valid request as defined in Sec.  
9.30 for Internet Protocol-based service by the 911 Authority, 
whichever is later:
    (i) Wireline providers shall transmit all 911 calls to the point(s) 
designated by the 911 Authority, including to a PSAP, to a designated 
statewide default answering point, to an appropriate local emergency 
authority, or to an ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow 
emergency calls to be answered.
    (ii) Wireline providers shall complete all translation and routing 
to deliver all 911 calls, including associated location information, in 
the requested Internet Protocol-based format, to an ESInet or other 
designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered.
    (2) 911 Authorities may enter into agreements with wireline 
providers that establish an alternate time frame for meeting the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. The wireline 
providers must notify the Commission of the dates and terms of the 
alternate time frame within 30 days of the parties' agreement.
    (b) Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers. By [six months from 
the effective date of this paragraph (b)], or within 6 months of a 
valid request as defined in Sec.  9.30 for Internet Protocol-based 
service by the 911 Authority, whichever is later, commercial mobile 
radio service (CMRS) providers shall transmit all 911 calls to the 
point(s) designated by the 911 Authority, including to a PSAP, to a 
designated statewide default answering point, to an appropriate local 
emergency authority, or to an ESInet or other designated point(s) that 
allow emergency calls to be answered.
    (c) Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol Providers.
    (1) By [six months from the effective date of paragraph (c) of this 
section], or within 6 months of a valid request as defined in Sec.  
9.30 for Internet Protocol-based service by the 911 Authority, 
whichever is later:
    (i) Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers 
shall transmit all 911 calls to the point(s) designated by the 911 
Authority, including to a PSAP, to a designated statewide default 
answering point, to an appropriate local emergency authority, or to an 
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be 
answered.
    (ii) Interconnected VoIP providers shall complete all translation 
and routing to deliver all 911 calls, including associated location 
information, in the requested Internet Protocol-based format, to an 
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be 
answered.
    (2) 911 Authorities may enter into agreements with interconnected 
VoIP providers that establish an alternate time frame for meeting the 
requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. The 
interconnected VoIP providers must notify the Commission of the dates 
and terms of the alternate time frame within 30 days of the parties' 
agreement.
    (d) Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service Providers.
    (1) By [twelve months from the effective date of paragraph (d) of 
this section], or within twelve months of a valid request as defined in 
Sec.  9.30 for Internet Protocol-based service by the 911 Authority, 
whichever is later:

[[Page 43543]]

    (i) Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) providers 
shall transmit all 911 calls to the point(s) designated by the 911 
Authority, including to a PSAP, to a designated statewide default 
answering point, to an appropriate local emergency authority, or to an 
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be 
answered.
    (ii) Internet-based TRS providers shall complete all translation 
and routing to deliver all 911 calls, including associated location 
information, in the requested Internet Protocol-based format, to an 
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be 
answered.
    (2) 911 Authorities may enter into agreements with Internet-based 
TRS providers that establish an alternate time frame for meeting the 
requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section. The Internet-
based TRS providers must notify the Commission of the dates and terms 
of the alternate time frame within 30 days of the parties' agreement.
    (e) Cost allocation. In the absence of agreement by states or 
localities on alternative cost recovery mechanisms, wireline providers, 
interconnected VoIP providers, Internet-based TRS providers, and CMRS 
providers are responsible for the costs of transmitting 911 calls to 
the point(s) designated by a 911 Authority, including any costs 
associated with completing the translation and routing necessary to 
deliver such calls and associated location information in the requested 
Internet Protocol-based format.
    (f) This Sec.  9.29 contains information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements. Compliance will not be required until after 
review by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will 
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the compliance 
date and revising this section accordingly.


Sec.  9.30  Valid Request.

    Valid request means that:
    (a) The requesting 911 Authority is, and certifies that it is, 
technically ready to receive 911 calls in the Internet Protocol-based 
format requested;
    (b) The requesting 911 Authority has been specifically authorized 
to accept 911 calls in the Internet Protocol-based format requested; 
and
    (c) The requesting 911 Authority has provided notification to the 
provider that it meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section. Registration by the requesting 911 Authority in a 
database made available by the Commission in accordance with 
requirements established in connection therewith, or any other written 
notification reasonably acceptable to the provider, shall constitute 
sufficient notification for purposes of Sec.  9.29.
    (d) This Sec.  9.30 contains information collection and 
recordkeeping requirements. Compliance will not be required until after 
review by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will 
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the compliance 
date and revising this section accordingly.

[FR Doc. 2023-14402 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P