[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 2, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67321-67333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27579]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 9 and 20
[Docket No. 07-114; WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 10-177]
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; E911 Requirements
for IP-Enabled Service Providers
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The purpose of this document is to seek comment on improving
the Commission's existing Enhanced 911 (E911) rules to further improve
the location capability of 911 and E911 services for existing and new
voice communications technologies, including new broadband technologies
associated with deployment of Next Generation 911 (NG911) networks.
DATES: Submit comments on or before January 3, 2011. Submit reply
comments on or before January 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114
and WC Docket No. 05-196, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments
on the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: (202)
418-0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Donovan, Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 418-2413, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554; or via the
Internet to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
1. As mobile communications technology evolves, one of the great
potential benefits it provides is to enhance the public's ability to
contact emergency services personnel during times of crisis. To ensure
this benefit is realized, such technology must enable public safety
personnel to obtain accurate information regarding the location of the
caller. The Commission's existing Enhanced 911 (E911) rules require
wireless carriers to meet standards for provision of location
information when emergency calls are made via mobile telephone
networks. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) and
Notice of Inquiry (NOI), as recommended in the National Broadband Plan,
we explore how to further improve the location capability of 911 and
E911 services for existing and new voice communications technologies,
including new broadband technologies associated with deployment of Next
Generation 911 (NG911) networks. Our aim is to ensure that the
Commission is doing everything within its power, in conjunction with
the public safety community and service providers, to ensure that
Americans have access to the most forward-thinking technologically
advanced emergency response systems in the world.
2. Today we take additional steps to improve wireless E911 location
accuracy and reliability by examining
[[Page 67322]]
the next stage of potential regulations that would be commensurate with
the surge in wireless usage, encompassing additional voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) and wireless services, devices, and
applications. In this FNPRM and NOI, we seek comment on several issues
with regard to amending the Commission's wireless 911 and E911
requirements and extending 911 and E911 requirements to additional VoIP
and wireless services. In our continuing endeavor to ensure that
wireless E911 service meets the needs of the American people and public
safety, we request comment on the ongoing evolution in the use of
wireless devices and the development of location technologies. As
recommended in the National Broadband Plan, the issues we examine also
address the impact of NG911 deployment on 911 and E911 location
accuracy requirements. NG911 will integrate the core functions and
capabilities of E911 while adding new 911 capabilities in multiple
formats, such as texting, photos, video and e-mail. This will vastly
improve the quality and speed of response, and provide a more
interoperable and integrated emergency response capability for PSAPs,
first responders, hospitals and other emergency response professionals.
3. First, in the FNPRM, we seek comment on proposals to improve
wireless location accuracy. In this regard, the FNPRM builds upon the
second part of the preceding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the
Commission released on June 1, 2007 and published in the Federal
Register at 72 FR 33948, Jun. 20, 2007. We seek comment on a number of
issues initially raised in the Location Accuracy NPRM, including:
Whether we should consider more stringent location parameters in
Section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules, which specifies the
standards for wireless E911 Phase II location accuracy and reliability;
what methodology carriers should employ to verify compliance, both
initially and during ongoing testing; the format in which accuracy data
should be automatically provided to PSAPs; how to address location
accuracy while roaming; how location information and accuracy can be
improved in more challenging environments; and whether location
accuracy standards should include an elevation (Z-axis) component.
4. In the NOI, we request comment on whether we should require
interconnected VoIP service providers to automatically identify the
geographic location of a customer without the customer's active
cooperation. We also seek comment on what E911 obligations, if any,
should apply to VoIP services that are not fully interconnected to the
public switched telephone network (PSTN). Additionally, we seek comment
on the impact of NG911 developments on location accuracy and automatic
location identification (ALI). Finally, we request comment on the
applicability of 911 and E911 requirements to additional wireless
communications services, devices and applications.
II. Background
5. In this section, we review the prior Commission actions leading
up to the present rules and proposals concerning 911 and E911
requirements for wireless and VoIP services. The Commission has adopted
rules requiring commercial wireless carriers to provide both basic 911
service, which connects the caller to a PSAP, and E911 service, which
provides call-back and location information. The E911 information
requirements consist of two parts: Phase I--which requires wireless
carriers to deliver to a PSAP the telephone number of the wireless 911
caller and the location of the cell site or base station that received
the call, and Phase II--which requires wireless carriers to provide the
location (latitude and longitude) of the caller within particular
accuracy parameters, depending on the location technology that the
carriers have chosen. In its initial E911 Report and Order, released on
July 26, 1996 and published in the Federal Register at 61 FR 40374,
Aug. 2, 1996, the Commission adopted Section 20.18(h), which specifies
the accuracy requirements for the provision of E911 by wireless
carriers. As amended by today's Second Report and Order, Section
20.18(h) requires licensees subject to the wireless E911 requirements,
to ultimately comply with the following Phase II location accuracy and
reliability standards at the county or PSAP service area level, based
on certain benchmarks, limitations, and exclusions: For network-based
technologies: 100 Meters for 67 percent of calls, 300 meters for 90
percent of calls; for handset-based technologies: 50 Meters for 67
percent of calls, 150 meters for 90 percent of calls.
6. In April 2000, the Commission's Office of Engineering and
Technology (OET) issued Bulletin No. 71 to provide assistance in
determining whether wireless licensees comply with the accuracy
standards set by the Commission. The OET Bulletin did not establish
mandatory procedures; rather, it stated that compliance with the OET
guidelines would establish ``a strong presumption that appropriate
means have been applied to ensure that an ALI system complies with the
Commission's rules.'' The OET Bulletin sets forth the Commission's
expectations regarding location accuracy measurement and testing.
7. In June 2005, the Commission released a First Report and Order
and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (VoIP 911 Order and VoIP 911 NPRM),
published in the Federal Register at 70 FR 37273, Jun. 29, 2005, and
adopting rules requiring providers of interconnected VoIP service to
supply E911 capabilities to their customers as a standard feature from
wherever the customer is using the service. The rules adopted by the
VoIP 911 Order apply only to providers of interconnected VoIP services,
which are services that (1) enable real-time, two-way voice
communications; (2) require a broadband connection from the user's
location; (3) require Internet protocol-compatible customer premises
equipment (CPE); and (4) permit users generally to receive calls that
originate on the PSTN and to terminate calls to the PSTN.
Interconnected VoIP service providers generally must provide consumers
with E911 service and transmit all 911 calls, including Automatic
Number Identification (ANI) and the caller's Registered Location for
each call, to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point,
or appropriate local emergency authority.
8. In the VoIP 911 Order, the Commission stated its intent to adopt
a future order containing an advanced E911 solution for portable
interconnected VoIP service, which would include a method for
determining a user's location without assistance from the user as well
as a firm implementation deadline. To that end, the VoIP 911 NPRM
sought comment on what additional steps should be taken to determine
whether there may be ways to automatically identify the location of a
user of a portable interconnected VoIP service, whether to extend the
requirements to other VoIP services, such as services that are not
fully interconnected to the PSTN but may permit users to make calls to
or receive calls from landline and mobile phones, whether providers of
wireless interconnected VoIP service would be more appropriately
subject to the existing commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) 911/E911
rules (contained in Part 20), and whether there are any steps the
Commission should take to ensure that people with disabilities who
desire to use interconnected VoIP service can obtain access to E911
services.
[[Page 67323]]
9. In June 2007, the Commission released the Location Accuracy NPRM
seeking comment on several issues relating to wireless E911 location
accuracy and reliability requirements, in addition to the issue that we
address in the companion Second Report and Order, i.e. the geographic
level at which wireless licensees have to meet the location accuracy
requirements under Section 20.18(h). The Commission requested comment
on these additional issues to ensure that wireless E911 service meets
the needs of public safety and the American people, while taking into
account the evolution in the use of wireless devices and the further
development of location technologies. Specifically, the Commission
sought comment on the capabilities and limitations of existing and new
location technologies, the advantages of combining handset-based and
network-based location technologies (a hybrid solution), the prospect
of adopting more stringent location accuracy requirements, and
compliance testing methodologies in regard to different environments,
such as indoor versus outdoor use and rural areas. Also, the Commission
invited comment on how to address location accuracy issues for 911
calls placed when roaming, particularly between carriers employing
different location technologies. Further, the Commission requested
comment on a number of tentative conclusions and proposals, including
establishing a single location accuracy standard rather than the
separate accuracy requirements for network and handset-based
technologies, adopting a mandatory schedule for accuracy testing, and
applying the same location accuracy standards that apply to circuit-
switched CMRS services to interconnected VoIP services used in more
than one location.
10. In response to the Location Accuracy NPRM, a number of parties
filed comments, including public safety organizations, commercial
carriers, and location technology vendors. Comments regarding the
prospect of adopting of a single location accuracy requirement varied,
with some supporting an open forum to gather more information. In
regard to the impact of advances in location technologies and the use
of hybrid technologies on location accuracy, commenters noted the
benefits and drawbacks of the underlying technologies for handset-based
and network-based solutions. Commenters provided a variety of specific
suggestions regarding whether more stringent accuracy requirements
should be adopted. Also, commenters addressed whether the Commission
should adopt different standards based on topographical environments.
Some commenters supported the inclusion of elevation standards and
others believed that there must be more research and development
conducted before the Commission adopts standards for indoor settings,
particularly in regard to high-rise buildings.
11. In October 2008, the Commission released a Report and Order
(NET 911 Improvement Act Report and Order) adopting rules providing
``interconnected VoIP providers rights of access to any and all
capabilities necessary to provide 911 and E911 service from entities
that own or control those capabilities.'' In the NET 911 Improvement
Act Report and Order, the Commission declined to ``issue highly
detailed rules listing capabilities or entities with ownership or
control of these capabilities'' because the nation's 911 system varies
depending on the locality and ``overly specific rules would fail to
reflect these local variations.'' The Commission also declined ``to
expand the applicability of the rights granted in the NET 911 Act to
entities beyond those encompassed within that statute.''
12. In April 2009, we released a public notice seeking nominations
for membership on the Communications Security, Reliability, and
Interoperability Council (CSRIC). CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee
that provides guidance and expertise on the nation's communications
infrastructure and public safety communications. The committee's duties
include recommending best practices and actions the Commission can take
to ensure the security, reliability, operability and interoperability
of public safety communications systems, and improve reliability and
resiliency of communications infrastructure. One of the Working Groups
within CSRIC, Group 4C--Technical Options for E911 Location Accuracy,
is responsible for examining E911 and public safety location
technologies in use today, identifying current performance and
limitations for use in next generation public safety applications,
examining emerging E911 public safety location technologies, and
recommending options to CSRIC for the improvement of E911 location
accuracy timelines.
13. On March 16, 2010, the Commission delivered to Congress the
National Broadband Plan in which it stated that the Commission should
examine approaches for leveraging broadband technologies to enhance
emergency communications with the public by moving towards NG911,
because NG911 will provide a ``more interoperable and integrated
emergency response capability for PSAPs, first responders, hospitals
and other emergency response professionals.'' Further, the National
Broadband Plan notes that the Commission is ``considering changes to
its location accuracy requirements and the possible extension of * * *
ALI * * * requirements to interconnected VoIP services,'' and
recommends that the Commission ``expand [the Location Accuracy NPRM]
proceeding to explore how NG911 may affect location accuracy and ALI.''
III. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
14. As noted at the outset, today we adopted the Location Accuracy
Second Report and Order that established an eight-year timeframe,
consisting of interim benchmarks, requiring handset-based and network-
based carriers to meet amended wireless location accuracy requirements
at the county or PSAP-based level. The rule changes we adopted in this
companion order complete one of our proceedings and will lead to
significant improvements in wireless location accuracy, thereby saving
lives and property and improving emergency response. At the same time,
we have more work to do to update and complete the remaining inquiries
initiated by the Commission in 2007 to improve wireless E911 service,
particularly as wireless communications continue to proliferate as the
primary or sole means for many Americans to reach 911. Accordingly,
consistent with our devotion to continually improving public safety and
homeland security, this FNPRM expands upon the Location Accuracy NPRM,
in order to ensure that wireless E911 service meets the needs of public
safety and the American people, while taking into account the evolution
in the use of wireless devices and the further development of location
technologies. The following discussion includes proposals for improving
wireless 911 location accuracy requirements.
15. Existing and Prospective Location Technologies. We begin by
seeking current information on the state of wireless location
technologies, particularly since the Commission explored these issues
in 2007, as well as in light of market trends resulting in increasing
consumer adoption of location-based services. We seek to develop a full
understanding of the capabilities and limitations of existing location
technologies, as well as any new technologies that may provide
improvements in location accuracy. In response to the Location Accuracy
NPRM, a few location technology
[[Page 67324]]
vendors noted that improvements in location accuracy were possible with
some modifications or additional investment. While the existing
location accuracy requirements, particularly when complied with at the
county or PSAP service area level, often provide PSAPs with good
indications of the location of a 911 caller, the limitations of
existing location determining technologies in use by carriers can lead
to variations of up to 300 meters, or more. How can location
determination be improved upon? Are there existing location
technologies available today that carriers can immediately adopt? If
so, what are the relative quantitative advantages versus costs of
deployment? What new or prospective location technologies might be
utilized to improve accuracy? What would be the feasibility of
incorporating newer technologies into wireless networks? What market
incentives, such as for location-based services, might drive the need
for improved accuracy technologies, and thus for application to 911?
Commenters, particularly location technology vendors, should provide
quantitative data that provides a basis for understanding the relative
performance capabilities and commercial feasibility of the available
and prospective location technologies. We also seek information
concerning whether certain technologies are better suited or targeted
to perform best in certain environments. As noted above, the CSRIC is
exploring issues related to wireless location technologies. In this
regard, we look forward to receiving the recommendations of this
committee. We also want to ensure that our E911 policies properly
consider the interests of people living with disabilities. Should we
make any changes to our rules to better accommodate persons with
disabilities who use E911 wireless services? Are there technologies
that can help ensure that E911 services address the interests of those
living with disabilities?
16. In today's Location Accuracy Second Report and Order, we also
adopted confidence and uncertainty requirements sought by the PSAP
community, which should permit improved expectations concerning the
location information delivered with wireless 911 calls. How does the
availability of this information impact the need for changes or
improvements to location accuracy information?
17. Potential Modifications to Accuracy Standard. We seek comment
on whether we should consider changing the current location accuracy
requirements of Section 20.18(h). Should we modify the current location
accuracy standard for network-based and handset-based providers? Should
we adopt a single location accuracy standard, rather than maintaining
the network/handset distinction? Would a single standard provide more
consistency for PSAPs? The Commission previously sought comment on
these issues in the Location Accuracy NPRM. In response, APCO noted
that it ``agrees with the Commission's inclination to require a
`uniform accuracy standard at least as stringent as that currently in
place for handset-based technologies''' and supported ``the
Commission's desire for even greater accuracy.'' Sprint Nextel argued
that, ``while a single standard is an admirable goal, the reality is
that wireless voice service is provided over numerous, ever-increasing
varieties of networks and technologies.'' T-Mobile stated that,
``[u]nifying the CMRS accuracy requirements by requiring the network-
based providers to meet handset-based standards would be grossly
inequitable, ignoring the substantial benefits of network-based
technologies.'' We now seek to expand and update the record,
particularly as the CMRS marketplace has evolved over the past few
years with the deployment of advanced networks and devices.
18. We also seek comment on whether carriers can employ a
combination of handset-based and network-based location technologies (a
hybrid solution), rather than employing one or the other, to achieve
improved location accuracies. As the Texas 9-1-1 Agencies noted,
``handset solutions generally work better outdoors and in rural areas,
while network solutions generally work better indoors and may have
issues in rural areas.'' TruePosition commented that ``a hybrid
network-GPS technology consisting of U-TDOA and A-GPS is well within
the realm of technical feasibility and it would produce enhanced
location accuracy.'' Another technology vendor, Polaris, argued that
``a hybrid system is the best long-term approach to improve location
accuracy and consistency.'' Polaris considers the ideal hybrid solution
to be ``the pairing of a network-based and a handset-based
technology,'' which ``leverages the strengths of two highly
complementary technologies.'' In addition to the use of both handset-
based and network-based technologies in a single solution, what other
technical features provide an appropriate basis for a definition of
hybrid solutions? Are hybrid solutions better defined as location
determination systems that can use multiple position location
technologies either individually, or in combination, to achieve better
performance, accuracy, or reliability? Would hybrid technologies
provide greater location accuracy than either network-based or handset-
based solutions alone? How can hybrid solutions improve location
performance aspects other than accuracy, such as increased percentage
yield of success of location determinations? Has the existence of
different accuracy requirements for handset-based and network-based
systems influenced the focus and direction of research and development
in location based services and 911 technology solutions? How does the
implementation of 3G and 4G networks, services, and devices impact
wireless E911 requirements? For example, as indicated in today's
Location Accuracy Second Report and Order, the roll-out of 3G networks
incorporates A-GPS handsets, which will improve accuracy over time as
they are blended into each carrier's subscriber base. How else might
3G, and 4G, technologies lead to improved means or methods of location
accuracy? Are there any specific ways that burgeoning 4G networks, or
subsequent technology releases, can be implemented that would achieve
location benefits? What are 4G industry standards setting bodies
considering for location identification, and how might such activities
impact the Commission's flexibility in determining the best solution or
solutions? Are there ways to provide incentives for wireless carriers
to exceed the Commission's baseline location accuracy requirements? How
should the Commission implement a changed location accuracy
requirement? Should the Commission continue to define a particular
minimum accuracy requirement, rather than specifying a particular
solution?
19. Compliance Testing. We seek to refresh the record on what
methodology carriers should employ to verify compliance, both initially
and during ongoing testing. In response to the Location Accuracy NPRM,
APCO and the Texas 9-1-1 Agencies argued that OET Bulletin No. 71
should be revised to increase the number of indoor test calls to at
least 30 percent. According to TruePosition, ``[w]ith consumers
increasingly substituting wireless devices for wireline service,
approximately 40%-60% of E911 calls are now made indoors.'' As a
result, TruePosition argues that ``the Commission's rules should
require carrier E911 compliance testing to include measurements in
indoor environments; a carrier's indoor test results for E911 location
accuracy
[[Page 67325]]
should be weighted in accordance with its estimated percentage of
indoor E911 calls.'' Qualcomm, however, argued that the Commission
should neither convert OET Bulletin No. 71 guidelines into
requirements, nor impose a specified level of indoor testing. According
to Qualcomm, ``the mandate has always covered 67% and 95% of the calls
to 911, period. The proportion of mobile phone calls to 911 placed from
indoors varies from PSAP to PSAP, from town to town, from county to
county, and from state to state. Accordingly, it would be the height of
arbitrary decision making for the Commission to pick a particular level
of indoor testing and to simply impose it, now, over a decade after it
adopted the original mandate.'' We seek comment on these views.
20. If we were to require compliance testing, should we use OET
Bulletin No. 71 as the basis, which provides guidelines for testing and
verifying the accuracy of wireless E911 location systems to verify
compliance? Should we make OET Bulletin No. 71 mandatory? Should we
establish a measurement procedure in our rules for testing and
verifying the accuracy of wireless E911 location systems? If so, what
measurement procedure would be appropriate? For example, should our
rules specify a certain level of indoor versus outdoor testing in order
to reflect the proportion of indoor versus outdoor use? Should the
Commission update OET Bulletin No. 71 to include measurements in indoor
environments? What percentage of wireless 911 calls is made indoors?
What trends reflect the growing number of indoor 911 calls? How about
testing in other challenging environments, such as dense urban
settings, or heavily forested or mountainous terrain? Further, what mix
of equipment (i.e., carrier-provided handsets, base stations, or other
facilities) should be employed for accuracy testing? How many test
points should we require within a PSAP service area and how should the
test points be distributed? What special considerations, if any, should
we establish for tests in rural areas? Should we impose other testing
parameters to accurately assess a consumer's experience when using a
carrier's E911 service? As an alternative, would it beneficial to
enable consumers to test wireless 911 and E911 capabilities, such as by
making test calls and seeing the identified location data, as well as
the PSAP that would receive the call?
21. Schedule for Testing. In the Location Accuracy NPRM, the
Commission tentatively concluded that it would establish a mandatory
schedule for accuracy testing, and sought comment on the appropriate
schedule for such testing. Corr Wireless disagreed with the tentative
conclusion and argued that, ``[t]here is no need for periodic testing
of E-911 compliance. Once accuracy levels are attained, the level of
accuracy typically only gets better, not worse.'' Is there any data to
support this conclusion? We seek to refresh the record on the
appropriate schedule for accuracy testing and the appropriate
statistical methodology for determining compliance. Should we require
testing every two years, as APCO suggested, or should we adopt a
different schedule? As Phase II service is extended into new areas, at
what point should carriers be required to conduct compliance testing?
Should carriers be required to file compliance and maintenance testing
data with the Commission, one or more national public safety
organizations (such as NENA, APCO, and NASNA), local PSAPs, or some
combination of these entities? Should test results be made available to
the public? Should we treat this information in a confidential manner?
Should carriers be required to provide consolidated performance
statistics to illustrate accuracy levels for various topologies or for
other reasons? Consistent with the Location Accuracy NPRM, we
tentatively conclude that we should establish a mandatory schedule for
accuracy testing.
22. Challenging Environments. We also seek to refresh the record on
how location information and accuracy can be improved in more
challenging environments, including indoor settings, urban canyons,
buildings including high-rises, rural environments characteristic of
heavy forestation, mountainous terrain, or sparsely located wireless
towers. Do accuracy needs differ for indoor, outdoor, rural, and urban
location determinations? Would it be appropriate to establish different
threshold criteria depending on the environment? For example, whether a
caller is located deep within a large building, or near a window, might
have a significant impact on whether it is possible to achieve a
location fix. How should trends in usage (such as increasing use of
wireless inside buildings) impact accuracy requirements? What
expectations do consumers hold in terms of the ability for PSAPs to
locate them in various environments? Do some technologies perform
better under certain challenging circumstances? What factors influence
how well a particular accuracy solution performs? How best can the
Commission spur innovation in location accuracy in both the short term
and the future in challenging environments? What is a reasonable
timeframe for carriers to significantly improve location accuracy in
challenging environments? Would service providers be sufficiently
motivated to achieve such improvements absent a regulatory deadline?
How can technologies combine information from diverse sources, such as
Wi-Fi access points or other ubiquitous sources, to improve location
accuracy or other performance characteristics? If a service provider
provisions Wi-Fi access points for which it knows the address, should
it use this information in lieu of end user-supplied location
information? We ask parties to comment on any other potential revisions
to our current location accuracy requirements that could help carriers
improve location accuracy in challenging environments.
23. Vertical Location Information. There has never been a
requirement for service providers subject to the CMRS 911 rules to
include vertical or Z-axis information with location data. Of course, a
third dimension of location information could greatly enhance accuracy,
and have particular benefit in buildings in terms of identifying the
floor where the 911 caller is located. We seek comment on how location
information can include an accurate Z-axis component. In response to
the Location Accuracy NPRM, APCO argued that, ``the increased use of
wireless phones in multiple-story buildings also requires potential
inclusion of elevation information if technologically feasible.'' ATIS
stated that, ``[c]urrently no industry criterion exists for elevation
and * * * before such information could be included in the location
standard, greater research and development must occur.'' The Texas 9-1-
1 Agencies noted that, ``realizing the conceptual potential value of
elevation, we would like to see more information on how `elevation'
would specifically be proposed for use in practice at the PSAP before
it would be considered further to become a requirement.'' What
technologies incorporate the use of Z-axis components for location
awareness? What levels of accuracy do these technologies support? Would
an accuracy requirement for a vertical component need to be stringent
enough to distinguish building floors? What is the state of industry
standardization of Z-axis components in geolocation? How should
evolving standards and consumer expectations guide future rules? If
handsets employ a vertical sensor, such as an altimeter, how could
[[Page 67326]]
such information be incorporated into location data sent to a PSAP? If
delivering vertical information were possible, are PSAPs capable of
using such information and, if not, what would be necessary to enable
receipt of vertical information? What is a reasonable timeframe for
carriers to include an accurate Z-axis component with location data?
Would service providers be sufficiently motivated to implement a
vertical location component absent a regulatory deadline?
24. Location Accuracy While Roaming. We next seek to refresh the
record with regard to location accuracy while roaming. As the
Commission noted in the Location Accuracy NPRM, we are concerned that a
wireless caller whose carrier employs one type of location technology
may not be provided Phase II service at all when roaming on the network
of another carrier that relies on a different technology, or when there
is no roaming agreement between carriers using compatible technologies.
In response to the Location Accuracy NPRM, APCO stated that the
Commission ``should require that wireless carriers develop a viable
technical solution to this [roaming] problem by a specific deadline.''
NENA stated that, ``[a]s a general matter, NENA believes the obligation
to deliver 9-1-1 calls should be met for roamers as well as native
subscribers, no matter what the differences in technologies.''
Motorola, however, argued that full, seamless E911 roaming is not
achievable in near term for carriers deploying disparate technologies.
Corr Wireless meanwhile argued that while different location
technologies might not serve the needs of roamers, ``adoption of a
proposal to mandate AGPS technology * * * would effectively eliminate
this issue;'' however, it also noted that, ``so long as there are
incompatible technologies, it would plainly be irrational to expect or
require carriers to provide a solution to roamers that their network is
incapable of providing to their own customers.'' How can these issues
be addressed? Should we require carriers to ensure delivery of location
information to PSAPs for every call handled on their networks,
including calls made by customers of another carrier (``roaming
calls'') that has deployed a different technology in its own network or
with whom the carrier handling the call has no automatic roaming
relationship?
IV. Notice of Inquiry
25. In this NOI, we launch a broader inquiry into how we can ensure
that providers of VoIP services can offer improved or expanded 911
service. We begin by focusing on whether we should require providers of
interconnected VoIP services to provide location information to PSAPs
without the customer's active cooperation. We also explore whether the
Commission's 911 and E911 rules should apply to non-interconnected VoIP
service providers. We next explore how location accuracy and ALI
requirements will be impacted by the deployment of NG911 systems.
Finally, we will seek comment on the applicability of 911 and E911
requirements to additional wireless communications services, devices,
and applications.
A. 911 and E911 Requirements for VoIP Services
26. The Commission's E911 rules presently apply to interconnected
VoIP services, specifically services that (1) enable real-time, two-way
voice communications; (2) require a broadband connection from the
user's location; (3) require Internet protocol-compatible customer
premises equipment (CPE); and (4) permit users generally to receive
calls that originate on the PSTN and to terminate calls to the PSTN. In
this section, we explore whether to impose additional requirements upon
one subset of interconnected VoIP services--those that are portable, or
``nomadic,'' meaning they can be used from any available broadband
Internet access service connection.
27. Automatic Location Identification. The Commission's rules
currently do not require providers of portable interconnected VoIP
service to automatically provide location information to PSAPs without
the customer's active cooperation. In the VoIP 911 NPRM, the Commission
requested comment on whether there may be ways for portable
interconnected VoIP service providers to automatically identify the
geographic location of a customer without the customer's active
cooperation. In the Location Accuracy NPRM, the Commission tentatively
concluded that ``to the extent that an interconnected VoIP service may
be used in more than one location, providers must employ an automatic
location technology that meets the same accuracy standards that apply
to those CMRS services.''
28. Several commenters generally concurred with the Commission's
tentative conclusion. For example, APCO stated that ``where [an]
interconnected VoIP service connects to a PSAP through a wireless
network, then the location information should be delivered in the same
form as required of other wireless service providers.'' RCA noted that
it ``supports the position that standards for [VoIP] service should
remain equivalent to those for CMRS [and it] is both reasonable and
appropriate that these interconnected services be treated in the same
manner as competing services.'' However, a number of commenters opposed
the tentative conclusion. For example, TIA argued that ``if the FCC
decides to impose similar location accuracy standards on interconnected
VoIP providers that are applicable to CMRS services, the Commission
would be forced to regulate the entity providing the broadband Internet
connection (i.e. restaurants, coffee shops, hotels, municipalities,
etc.).'' Nokia stated that interconnected VoIP services ``should not be
subject to the Commission's CMRS E911 location requirements without
ensuring that time is taken to study location technologies that can be
used when a wireless 911 call is made using VoIP, standards are
developed for delivering location technology over the Internet when a
wireless VoIP 911 call is made, and technologies to be utilized for
location are tested and finally deployed.'' WCA argued that the
Commission ``fails to appreciate the enormous technical, operational
and economic challenges wireless broadband network operators and their
equipment suppliers will face if [the Commission] prematurely imposes
ALI and location accuracy requirements on interconnected VoIP service
without further study.'' A number of commenters recommended that the
Commission form an advisory committee comprised of Commission staff,
representatives of the VoIP industry, equipment vendors, state and
local public safety officials, and consumer groups to study the
technical, operational and economic issues related to the provision of
ALI for interconnected VoIP services.
29. In light of the passage of time, we seek to refresh the record
and revisit the tentative conclusion from the Location Accuracy NPRM.
Specifically, what advanced technologies, if any, permit portable
interconnected VoIP service providers to provide ALI? Have portable
interconnected VoIP service providers implemented any practices or
methods to provide ALI? If not, what can the Commission do to
facilitate the development of techniques for automatically identifying
the geographic location of users of this service? Should interconnected
VoIP service providers incorporate an ability to automatically detect a
user's Internet connectivity, identify a user's location, and prompt a
user to confirm his/her location, prior to
[[Page 67327]]
enabling calling features? What technologies exist that could locate a
VoIP user using a standard broadband Internet connection? Should we
require the automatic detection of a subscriber's location prior to
enabling calling features for a VoIP service, application, or device?
Should the Commission clarify that CMRS operators providing
interconnected VoIP services may deliver location information to a PSAP
in the same manner as for CMRS, specifically, delivering longitude and
latitude coordinates to the PSAP in lieu of a street address?
30. What have PSAPs experienced when VoIP users move to a different
location and do not update their address? Is this scenario common? When
it does occur, does the PSAP receive incorrect location information?
Would requiring interconnected VoIP service providers to provide ALI
minimize the reporting of erroneous location information, whether
mistakenly or intentionally? What is the experience of PSAPs in
receiving incorrect registered location information? How frequently do
PSAPs receive fraudulent or malicious calls from users of
interconnected VoIP services that appear to intentionally report false
registered location information? Do industry standards and commercial
trends indicate that ALI technologies exist for interconnected VoIP
services that would be technically feasible and commercially viable?
What privacy concerns are posed by requiring the automatic detection of
VoIP users' movement on Internet networks? Should we require that all
terminal adapters or other equipment used in the provision of portable
interconnected VoIP service sold as of a certain date be capable of
providing location information automatically, whether embedded in other
equipment or sold to customers at a separate price? Under what
authority could the Commission take such actions? If the Commission
were to develop an automatic location identification requirement for
portable interconnected VoIP service providers, should it also
establish a deadline for compliance and, if so, what should that
deadline be?
31. Additional VoIP Services. Thus far, the Commission's VoIP 911
rules have been limited to providers of interconnected VoIP services.
Since these rules were adopted, however, there has been a significant
increase in the availability and use of portable VoIP services and
applications that do not meet one or more prongs of the interconnected
VoIP definition. In light of the increase in use of these services, we
seek comment on whether we should extend 911 and E911 obligations to
providers of VoIP services that are not currently covered by the rules.
For instance, what 911/E911 obligations, if any, should apply to VoIP
services that are not fully interconnected to the PSTN? Specifically,
should 911/E911 obligations apply to VoIP services that enable users to
terminate calls to the PSTN, but do not permit users to receive calls
that originate on the PSTN? Should 911/E911 obligations apply to VoIP
services that enable users to receive calls from the PSTN, but do not
permit the user to make calls terminating to the PSTN? Should 911/E911
obligations apply to VoIP services that enable users to receive calls
from the PSTN and terminate calls to the PSTN but as separately
elective services? Even though such VoIP services do not fully meet the
definition of ``interconnected VoIP,'' should such service providers
assume the same public safety responsibilities? Does it continue to
make sense that because a VoIP service permits, for example, only out-
bound calls to the PSTN, that there should be no 911 obligations? Is
there a need to modify the definition of ``interconnected VoIP'' or
create a new definition to cover the range of VoIP services that should
be subject to 911/E911 requirements? How do consumer expectations, and
the needs of PSAPs and emergency responders, factor into whether we
should extend 911 and E911 obligations to additional VoIP services not
meeting the interconnected definition? Would adopting additional 911
and E911 requirements for VoIP services help to further ensure that
people with disabilities who desire to use interconnected VoIP service
can obtain access to 911/E911 services? Would it be necessary to extend
to non-interconnected VoIP providers rights of access to any and all
capabilities necessary to provide 911 and E911 service from entities
that own or control those capabilities? Would such extension of
capabilities impact requirements for mobile handsets, terminal adapters
or other equipment that may be outside the control of the non-
interconnected VoIP service provider? What is a reasonable timeframe
for providers of VoIP services and applications that do not meet the
interconnected VoIP definition to comply with the Commission's 911
rules?
32. Authority. The VoIP 911 Order rested on ancillary jurisdiction
principles in adopting 911 requirements for interconnected VoIP
services. Subsequently, the NET 911 Act required interconnected VoIP
providers to comply with the rules the Commission adopted in 2005 ``as
such requirements may be modified by the Commission from time to
time.'' Accordingly, we seek comment on the FCC's jurisdiction to
extend 911 requirements to VoIP services that would not meet the
``interconnected VoIP'' definition. Under what authority should the
Commission adopt any such rules?
B. Impact of NG911 Deployments on Location Accuracy and ALI
33. The National Broadband Plan recommends that the Commission
consider how NG911 deployments may affect location accuracy and ALI
requirements. We seek to examine how we may need to revise our location
accuracy and ALI requirements to account for the deployment of NG911
systems. Although deployments of NG911 systems have been limited to
date, we seek to build a record on the expected impact of NG911
deployments on the existing wireless location accuracy and ALI
requirements. What has been the nature to date of NG911 deployments,
and what currently might be in the planning or deployment stages? How
will the identification and delivery of location information be
incorporated by NG911 PSAPs? What technological or operational changes
might service providers, applications developers, and device
manufacturers implement that would complement NG911 capabilities? As
the regulatory framework for wireless and VoIP E911 evolves, what
specific considerations should the Commission heed as NG911 systems are
deployed throughout the nation? Are there a minimum set of network,
software and/or device criteria that would afford flexibility in
providing location accuracy, but also meet consumers' expectations and
facilitate the deployment of NG911?
C. Applicability of 911 and E911 Requirements to Additional Wireless
Communications Services, Devices and Applications
34. IP-Based Voice Communications Services, Devices, and
Applications. The wireless 911 and E911 requirements currently apply
only to CMRS carriers meeting the criteria of Section 20.18(a).
However, many new forms of IP-based voice communications are being
offered to consumers via a variety of wireless services, devices and
applications for use on a wide range of new devices. These IP-based
communications are being carried over CMRS circuit-switched and data
networks, unlicensed Wi-Fi networks, or some combination of both.
[[Page 67328]]
35. In its recent survey of ``the current state of the [broadband]
ecosystem,'' the National Broadband Plan found that ``[d]evices
continue to grow in number and variety as more computers, phones and
other machines connect to the Internet. New devices have repeatedly
revolutionized the personal computer (PC) market in the past three
decades [and] about 80% of U.S. households have some sort of personal
computer [and] although desktops initially dominated the market, 74% of
all new personal computers sold today are laptops [and] over the next 5
years, growth in the netbook and tablet markets will far outpace growth
in the traditional PC market.'' Similarly, the National Broadband Plan
reported that the ``mobile phone market has also seen robust
innovation. There were more than 850 different certified mobile
products in the United States in 2009. In that same year, approximately
172 million mobile phones were sold in the United States. Of these, 27%
were Internet-capable smartphones manufactured by a wide variety of
firms, including Apple, HTC, LG, Motorola, Nokia, Palm, RIM, Samsung
and Sony-Ericsson.'' The distinguishing features of a smartphone are
``an HTML browser that allows easy access to the full, open Internet;
an operating system that provides a standardized interface and platform
for application developers; and a larger screen size than a traditional
handset.'' Many smartphones also have touch screens and/or a QWERTY
keypad, and ``run an operating system that offers a standard platform
for application developers to create and sell device software through
an application store.'' In contrast to traditional handsets with
applications that include voice and messaging, smartphones have more
user-friendly interfaces that facilitate access to the Internet and
software applications.
36. The widespread and increasing availability and use of
smartphones, mobile computing devices (e.g., laptops, netbooks), and
applications are leading to many new voice calling capabilities. We
seek comment on what wireless devices, services and applications
provide the equivalent of mobile telephony or interconnected VoIP,
whether using CMRS, Wi-Fi or other combination of wireless
connectivity, yet are not subject to the interconnected VoIP or CMRS
911 and E911 rules. For such voice-based services and applications,
what are the expectations of consumers using such technologies in terms
of being able to dial 911, and having the PSAP know where they are
located? Would adopting 911 and E911 requirements for additional IP-
based devices, services and applications help to further ensure that
people with disabilities who desire to use such technologies can obtain
access to E911 services? Which if any such devices, services and
applications should be made subject to 911 and E911 requirements? What
is a reasonable timeframe for providers of these services, devices, and
applications to comply with the Commission's 911 rules? What would be
the source of the Commission's jurisdiction to impose any such
requirements?
37. If we were to apply 911 and E911 requirements to these
additional broadband-enabled voice technologies, or to amend the rules
that currently apply to interconnected VoIP services, what approach
should we take? What technical and economic factors should we consider?
For any new devices, services, and applications that would become
subject to 911 and E911 requirements, would we need to extend rights of
access to any and all capabilities necessary to provide 911 and E911
service from entities that own or control those capabilities? Should we
distinguish the applicability of 911 and E911 requirements based on the
device used, and if so, should any distinction be drawn between devices
authorized for use under parts 22, 24, 27 or 90 of the Commission's
rules, which generally place the responsibility for compliance on the
licensee, from devices authorized under part 15, which places
responsibility for compliance on manufacturers? Since a number of VoIP
services and applications are offered by third party software
developers, should we extend 911 and E911 requirements to such
entities? We seek comment on whether the Commission has the
jurisdiction to impose 911 and E911 requirements particularly upon
software application developers. If we adopt new rules for these
services, devices, and applications, should we impose these
requirements after a date certain? How do consumer usage patterns,
marketing practices, consumer expectations, and the needs of the public
safety community, including PSAPs and first responders, impact whether
these additional communication services should be required to provide
access to emergency services? As an alternative to adopting regulatory
requirements, should the Commission encourage industry solutions? Would
an industry-developed ``model 911 voice app'' be helpful? Could mobile
voice applications be programmed to recognize a 911 attempt, and
automatically engage the CMRS component of the device (if available)?
38. What particular capabilities or limitations might be presented
by extending the wireless 911 and E911 requirements to additional voice
communications methods? Would there always be a call-back number? Would
it be necessary or helpful to distinguish those services, devices, and
applications that utilize the macro CMRS network, as opposed to a Wi-Fi
connection? If a Wi-Fi connection is utilized, does it further make a
difference if the Wi-Fi connection is in-home, as opposed to a public
hotspot, such as at a coffee shop, airport, bookstore, municipal park,
etc.? Should devices supporting voice-based applications, including
those that access the macro cellular network, Wi-Fi, or both,
incorporate the capability to become location aware or require
subscriber self-reporting of location? Should the Commission clarify
that CMRS operators providing interconnected VoIP services may deliver
location information to a PSAP in the same manner as for CMRS,
specifically, delivering longitude and latitude coordinates to the PSAP
in lieu of a street address. Would incorporating A-GPS chips or passive
CMRS wireless receivers be effective in triangulating position? What
would be the costs of doing so?
39. Consumer Disclosures. Some IP-based voice services offered via
an Internet connection, and/or as a smartphone application, contain
various forms of disclosures indicating that such services do not
provide access to emergency services. For those voice-based
communications services, devices, and applications that do not support
911, what disclosures are currently being provided to the public and
PSAPs about the lack of 911 capability? What do consumers expect
concerning 911 and E911 for voice-calling services and applications?
Are such voice-based services and applications the sole means for
certain consumers to place voice calls, and thus to access 911? Should
we adopt disclosure requirements for certain types of communications
services, devices, and applications if they do not support 911 access?
If so, what type of disclosure requirements should we adopt? Is there a
basis for distinguishing certain VoIP services, such as those offered
over a standard broadband Internet connection, or those that are used
with mobile smartphones, or other devices such as netbooks, etc.? What
would be the Commission's best source of authority for adopting such
consumer disclosure requirements?
[[Page 67329]]
40. Emerging Network Devices. In connection with the provision of
existing CMRS offerings, wireless carriers are incorporating a variety
of network components that enhance coverage, capacity, and spectrum
efficiency. Examples include femtocells, picocells, microcells, and
distributed antenna systems. A femtocell is a miniature base station
that transmits in a wireless carrier's licensed spectrum and provides
improved coverage within a subscriber's home. Femtocells typically use
a subscriber's home broadband connection for backhaul. A picocell
offers a wider range of connectivity than a femtocell, but still has a
limited range of connectivity and is often employed to provide coverage
over an area such as a single floor of a building, a train station
platform, or an airport terminal. A microcell offers a larger
deployment footprint than a picocell, such as a residential
neighborhood, an office complex, or an entire airport. A distributed
antenna system is a network of spatially separated antenna sites called
``nodes'' connected to a common source that provides wireless service
within a geographic area or structures.
41. Since carriers are deploying these network components, it may
be very helpful to consider the prospect of leveraging these devices to
enhance location accuracy. Therefore, we seek to understand the
capabilities and limitations of imposing location accuracy requirements
that utilize these types of network components. In what ways can these
devices and technologies be used to improve location accuracy? For
example, a femtocell could be viewed as typically installed in a semi-
permanent manner at a particular home or office, that could thus be
programmed with an exact address, or even have an embedded A-GPS chip.
If that address could be transported with a 911 call, that would lead
to significant improvement in location accuracy, akin to the location
quality of wireline networks. Similarly, the location of a picocell
alone could provide greater location accuracy for 911 calls handled by
a picocell. Are there opportunities for these network elements to
provide a means to transmit more accurate location information? If so,
how can we best incorporate these capabilities into the location
information transmitted with a wireless 911 call?
V. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
42. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rulemaking
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed pursuant to the
Commission's rules.
B. Comment Period and Procedures
43. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
44. Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using
the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments. All comments shall be filed in PS Docket No. 07-114 and WC
Docket No. 05-196. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should
include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to [email protected], and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
45. Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and four copies of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in
receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission. The Commission's contractor will receive
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7
p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or
fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the
building. Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
46. People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille), large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
47. The public may view the documents filed in this proceeding
during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's Internet Home Page:
http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments and reply comments are also
available through the Commission's duplicating contractor: Best Copy
and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC,
20554, 1-800-378-3160.
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
48. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),
the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM portion of this document.
We request written public comment on the IRFA analysis. Comments must
be filed by the same dates as listed in the first page of this
document, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating
them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a
copy of this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
49. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry
seek comments on how to ensure that wireless E911 service meets the
needs of public safety and the American people, while taking into
account the evolution in the use of wireless devices and the further
development of location technologies. The Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking part of this item seeks comment on the impact of
technological changes in the use of wireless devices and the further
[[Page 67330]]
development in the capabilities of location technologies on the
standards for E911 Phase II location accuracy and reliability under
Section 20.18(h) of the Commission's rules. As amended by the companion
Second Report and Order, Section 20.18(h) requires licensees subject to
the Commission's E911 requirements to meet those standards at the
county or PSAP-based level.
50. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking expands upon the
second part of the preceding Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that the
Commission released on June 1, 2007 (Location Accuracy NPRM) and seeks
to update the other inquiries and tentative conclusions that the
Commission initiated and reached, respectively. Specifically, the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on a number of
issues raised in the Location Accuracy NPRM, including the following
tentative conclusions by the Commission.
51. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking tentatively concludes
that the Commission should establish a mandatory testing and compliance
regime and invites comment on the format in which accuracy data should
be automatically provided to PSAPs.
52. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also tentatively
concludes that ``to the extent that an interconnected VoIP service may
be used in more than one location, providers must employ an automatic
location technology that meets the same accuracy standards that apply
to those CMRS services,'' and asks for updated comment on whether the
Commission should require carriers to ensure delivery of location
information to PSAPs for every call handled on their networks,
including calls made by customers of another carrier (``roaming
calls'') that has deployed a different technology in its own network or
with whom the carrier handling the call has no automatic roaming
relationship. The Commission seeks comment on the foregoing tentative
conclusions.
53. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on the other issues
related to E911 location accuracy on which it previously sought comment
in the Location Accuracy NPRM.
Legal Basis
54. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to
this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry is
contained in Sections 4(i) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 332.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Would Apply
55. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
56. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million
small businesses, according to SBA data. A ``small organization'' is
generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of
2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The
term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as
``governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts,
or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.''
Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate that there were 87,525 local
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of
this total, 84,377 entities were ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
Telecommunications Service Entities
Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers
57. Pursuant to 47 CFR 20.18(a), the Commission's 911 Service
requirements are only applicable to Commercial Mobile Radio Service
(CMRS) ``[providers], excluding mobile satellite service operators, to
the extent that they: (1) Offer real-time, two way switched voice
service that is interconnected with the public switched network; and
(2) Utilize an in-network switching facility that enables the provider
to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber
calls. These requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice
service to consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale
rates from CMRS licensees.''
58. 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.
59. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Since
2007, the Census Bureau has placed wireless firms within this new,
broad, economic census category. Prior to that time, such firms were
within the now-superseded categories of ``Paging'' and ``Cellular and
Other Wireless Telecommunications.'' Under the present and prior
categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Because Census Bureau data are not yet
available for the new category, we will estimate small business
prevalence using the prior categories and associated data. For the
category of Paging, data for 2002 show that there were 807 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 804 firms had employment
of 999 or fewer employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000
employees or more. For the category of Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications, data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms that
operated for the entire year.
60. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband
Personal Communications Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into six
frequency blocks designated A through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The Commission defined ``small entity'' for
Blocks C and F as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40
million or less in the three previous calendar years. For Block F, an
additional classification for ``very small business'' was added and is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three
calendar years.'' These standards defining ``small entity'' in the
context of broadband PCS auctions have been approved by the SBA. No
small businesses, within the SBA-approved small business size standards
bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the Block C auctions. A
total of 93 small and very small business bidders won approximately 40
percent of the 1,479 licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On March 23,
1999, the Commission re-auctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block licenses.
There were 48 small business winning bidders. On January 26, 2001,
[[Page 67331]]
the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in this auction,
29 qualified as ``small'' or ``very small'' businesses. Subsequent
events, concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being
available for grant.
61. Narrowband Personal Communications Services. To date, two
auctions of narrowband personal communications services (PCS) licenses
have been conducted. For purposes of the two auctions that have already
been held, ``small businesses'' were entities with average gross
revenues for the prior three calendar years of $40 million or less.
Through these auctions, the Commission has awarded a total of 41
licenses, out of which 11 were obtained by small businesses. To ensure
meaningful participation of small business entities in future auctions,
the Commission has adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in
the Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order. A ``small business'' is an
entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than
$40 million. A ``very small business'' is an entity that, together with
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. The SBA has
approved these small business size standards. In the future, the
Commission will auction 459 licenses to serve Metropolitan Trading
Areas (MTAs) and 408 response channel licenses. There is also one
megahertz of narrowband PCS spectrum that has been held in reserve and
that the Commission has not yet decided to release for licensing. The
Commission cannot predict accurately the number of licenses that will
be awarded to small entities in future auctions. However, four of the
16 winning bidders in the two previous narrowband PCS auctions were
small businesses, as that term was defined. The Commission assumes, for
purposes of this analysis, that a large portion of the remaining
narrowband PCS licenses will be awarded to small entities. The
Commission also assumes that at least some small businesses will
acquire narrowband PCS licenses by means of the Commission's
partitioning and disaggregation rules.
62. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission awards ``small
entity'' bidding credits in auctions for Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands to firms that
had revenues of no more than $15 million in each of the three previous
calendar years. The Commission awards ``very small entity'' bidding
credits to firms that had revenues of no more than $3 million in each
of the three previous calendar years. The SBA has approved these small
business size standards for the 900 MHz Service. The Commission has
held auctions for geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz
bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in 1996. Sixty bidders
claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million
size standard won 263 geographic area licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band.
The 800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 channels was conducted in
1997. Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses
under the $15 million size standard won 38 geographic area licenses for
the upper 200 channels in the 800 MHz SMR band. A second auction for
the 800 MHz band was conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses.
One bidder claiming small business status won five licenses.
63. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz SMR geographic area licenses
for the General Category channels began was conducted in 2000. Eleven
bidders won 108 geographic area licenses for the General Category
channels in the 800 MHz SMR band qualified as small businesses under
the $15 million size standard. In an auction completed in 2000, a total
of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz
SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed ``small
business'' status and won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all three
auctions, 40 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR
band claimed status as small business.
64. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide 800
MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation
authorizations, nor how many of these providers have annual revenues of
no more than $15 million. One firm has over $15 million in revenues. In
addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1500 or fewer
employees. We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the
remaining existing extended implementation authorizations are held by
small entities, as that small business size standard is approved by the
SBA.
65. Mobile Satellite Service Carriers. Neither the Commission nor
the U.S. Small Business Administration has developed a small business
size standard specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The
appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite
Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they
have $13.5 million or less in annual revenues. Currently, the
Commission's records show that there are 31 entities authorized to
provide voice and data MSS in the United States. The Commission does
not have sufficient information to determine which, if any, of these
parties are small entities. The Commission notes that small businesses
are not likely to have the financial ability to become MSS system
operators because of high implementation costs, including construction
of satellite space stations and rocket launch, associated with
satellite systems and services.
66. 220 MHz Radio Service--Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service
has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted
by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515 such non
nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized
to operate in the 220 MHz Band. The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent
220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such licensees
that are small businesses, we apply the small business size standard
under the SBA rules applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). This category provides that a small business is a
wireless company employing no more than 1,500 persons. The Commission
estimates that most such licensees are small businesses under the SBA's
small business standard.
67. 220 MHz Radio Service--Phase II Licensees. The 220 MHz service
has both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service is
a new service, and is subject to spectrum auctions. In the 220 MHz
Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a small business size
standard for defining ``small'' and ``very small'' businesses for
purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such
as bidding credits and installment payments. This small business
standard indicates that a ``small business'' is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
that do not exceed $3
[[Page 67332]]
million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small
size standards. Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on and closed
in 1998. In the first auction, 908 licenses were auctioned in three
different sized geographic areas: Three nationwide licenses, 30
Regional Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA)
Licenses. Of the 908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. Thirty-nine
small businesses won 373 licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. A
second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG
licenses. Fourteen companies claiming small business status won 158
licenses. A third auction included four licenses: 2 BEA licenses and 2
EAG licenses in the 220 MHz Service. No small or very small business
won any of these licenses. In 2007, the Commission conducted a fourth
auction of the 220 MHz licenses. Bidding credits were offered to small
businesses. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that
exceeded $3 million and did not exceed $15 million for the preceding
three years (``small business'') received a 25 percent discount on its
winning bid. A bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues
that did not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years received a
35 percent discount on its winning bid (``very small business'').
Auction 72, which offered 94 Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses,
concluded in 2007. In this auction, five winning bidders won a total of
76 licenses. Two winning bidders identified themselves as very small
businesses won 56 of the 76 licenses. One of the winning bidders that
identified themselves as a small business won 5 of the 76 licenses won.
68. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services (PCS), and specialized mobile radio
(SMR) telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. According to Trends in
Telephone Service data, 434 carriers reported that they were engaged in
wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 have 1,500 or fewer
employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees. We have estimated
that 222 of these are small under the SBA small business size standard.
69. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a
size standard for small businesses specific to the Rural Radiotelephone
Service. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is
the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (``BETRS''). In the present
context, we will use the SBA's small business size standard applicable
to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately
1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the Commission
estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the
Rural Radiotelephone Service that may be affected by the rules and
policies adopted herein.
70. Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has
previously used the SBA's small business definition applicable to
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons. There are approximately
100 licensees in the Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and under that
definition, we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service licenses through competitive bidding, the
Commission has defined ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross
revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. A
``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues
for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. These
definitions were approved by the SBA. In 2006, the Commission completed
an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service
licenses in the 800 MHz band (Auction 65). Later in 2006, the auction
closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground Radiotelephone
Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small
business status.
71. 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. There is presently 1 licensee in this service. We do
not have information whether that licensee would qualify as small under
the SBA's small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite) services. Under that SBA small business
size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
72. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard
specifically for providers of international service. The appropriate
size standards under SBA rules are for the two broad census categories
of ``Satellite Telecommunications'' and ``All Other
Telecommunications.'' Under both categories, such a business is small
if it has $13.5 million or less in average annual receipts.
73. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.
These two economic census categories address the satellite industry.
The first category has a small business size standard of $13.5 million
or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a
size standard of $23.5 million or less in annual receipts. The most
current Census Bureau data in this context, however, are from the
(last) economic census of 2002, and we will use those figures to gauge
the prevalence of small businesses in these categories.
74. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.'' For this category, Census Bureau data for 2002
show that there were a total of 371 firms that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 307 firms had annual receipts of under $10
million, and 26 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
Consequently, we estimate that the majority of Satellite
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by
our action.
75. The second category of Other Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in (1) providing specialized
telecommunications applications, such as satellite tracking,
communications telemetry, and radar station operations; or (2)
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
operationally connected with one or more terrestrial communications
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to or receiving
telecommunications from satellite systems.'' For this category, Census
Bureau data for 2002 show that there were a total of 332 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this total, 303 firms had annual
receipts of under $10 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $10
million to $24,999,999. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of
Other Telecommunications
[[Page 67333]]
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
Equipment Manufacturers
76. Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. The Census
Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television
broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products
made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving antennas,
cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones,
mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: All such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there
were a total of 1,041 establishments in this category that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 1,010 had employment of under 500, and
an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under this size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
77. Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. These
establishments manufacture ``computer storage devices that allow the
storage and retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical,
or magnetic/optical media.'' The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is
500 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there
were 1,082 establishments in this category that operated for the entire
year. Of these, 987 had employment of under 500, and 52 establishments
had employment of 500 to 999.
78. Computer Storage Device Manufacturing. These establishments
manufacture ``computer storage devices that allow the storage and
retrieval of data from a phase change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/
optical media.'' The SBA has developed a small business size standard
for this category of manufacturing; that size standard is 1,000 or
fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were
209 establishments in this category that operated for the entire year.
Of these, 197 had employment of under 500, and eight establishments had
employment of 500 to 999.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
79. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry
seeks comment broadly on certain modifications to the compliance levels
set forth in rules section 20.18(h).
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
80. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
81. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry
seeks comment on various proposed changes to location accuracy
standards. To assist in the analysis, commenters are requested to
provide information regarding how small entities would be affected if
the Commission were to adopt its proposed changes or any alternative
proposals offered by other commenters.
82. With regard to accuracy testing, we tentatively concluded that
we should adopt a mandatory testing regime. We seek comments both as to
the parameters of this testing regime and any alternative testing
regimes that may assist small business in complying with the
requirements. Should we require testing every two years or would a
different schedule be more appropriate? We seek comment on various
alternatives for tracking compliance with the location accuracy
requirements.
83. With regard to interconnected VoIP, the Commission tentatively
concluded that ``to the extent that an interconnected VoIP service may
be used in more than one location, providers must employ an automatic
location technology that meets the same accuracy standards that apply
to those CMRS services.'' Should interconnected VoIP providers be
subject to the Commission's CMRS E911 location requirements? Should the
Commission consider first appointing an advisory committee to examine
the technological and economic impacts of such a requirement? We seek
comment on this and any other alternative proposals.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
84. None.
D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis
85. This document does not contain proposed information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified ``information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27579 Filed 11-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P