Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment:

Federal Register Volume 76, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 12, 2011)

Proposed Rules

Pages 63257-63276

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FR Doc No: 2011-26258

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 1

PS Docket No. 11-153; PS Docket No. 10-255; FCC 11-134

Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next

Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911

Deployment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks to accelerate the development and deployment of Next Generation 911 (NG911) technology that will enable the public to send emergency communications to 911

Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) via text, photos, videos, and data and enhance the information available to PSAPs and first responders for assessing and responding to emergencies. This Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment on a variety of issues related to the short-term and long-term transition to NG911.

DATES: Submit comments on or before December 12, 2011. Submit reply comments on or before January 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 11-153 and/or PS Docket No. 10-255, by any of the following methods:

Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow instructions for submitting comments.

People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418- 0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.

For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Donovan, Attorney Advisor,

(202) 418-2413. For additional information concerning the Paperwork

Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Judith Boley-Herman, (202) 418-0214, or send an e- mail to PRA@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in PS Docket No. 11-153, PS Docket No. 10-255, FCC 11-134, released on September 22, 2011. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or online at http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/.

1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek to accelerate the development and deployment of Next

   Page 63258

   Generation 911 (NG911) technology that will enable the public to send emergency communications to 911 Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) via text, photos, videos, and data and enhance the information available to PSAPs and first responders for assessing and responding to emergencies. Sending text messages, photos, and video clips has become commonplace for users of mobile devices on 21st century broadband networks, yet our legacy circuit-switched 911 system does not support these forms of communication. While continuing to ensure reliable voice-based 911 service will always be essential as we migrate to

   NG911, adding these non-voice capabilities to our 911 system will significantly improve emergency response, save lives, and reduce property damage. Incorporating text and other media into the 911 system will make it more accessible to the public, both for people with disabilities and for people in situations where placing a voice call to 911 could be difficult or dangerous. 2. In addition, these 21st century communications technologies will provide PSAPs with better information that can be synthesized with existing databases to enable emergency responders to assess and respond to emergencies more quickly and effectively. Not only will PSAPs be able to receive text messages, photos, and video clips from the public, but also NG911 can provide them with the tools they need to quickly process and analyze the incoming information. In addition, PSAPs and emergency responders will be able to combine information received from the public with other information sources (e.g., video feeds from traffic or security cameras, automated alarms or sensors in a neighborhood, building, or vehicle) to develop a detailed and data-rich assessment of the emergency in real time. This in turn will enable public safety officials to decide on the appropriate response more quickly, saving precious minutes and seconds that can be critical in many emergencies. 3. In this NPRM, we provide a procedural history, together with technical background, regarding three broad classes of text-capable communications, namely Short Message Service (SMS), IP-based messaging, and Real-Time Text (RTT), comparing their characteristics, strengths, and limitations in supporting emergency communications. This description relies largely on current industry standards, early prototypes, and the record in this proceeding. 4. We then examine potential short-term methods for sending text messages to 911. We do so because of the widespread availability and increasing use of text in communications systems and because many of the emerging IP-based mechanisms for delivering text also have the capability, with relatively minor technical adjustment, to support delivery of photos, videos, and other data as well. We seek comment on what role the Commission should play to facilitate--and, if necessary, accelerate--the implementation of text-to-911 capabilities by providers in the short term. We explore the full range of options for the FCC, including both non-regulatory and regulatory approaches, and seek to adopt the least burdensome approach that would achieve the desired result. We also recognize that we must carefully assess the costs and benefits of different regulatory options to determine the Commission's proper role. 5. We seek to strengthen the record to determine whether to encourage development of interim text-to-911 solutions and, if so, how to maximize their effectiveness and utility to the public and to PSAPs, while minimizing cost and the potential for negative PSAP operational impacts or consumer confusion. Specifically, we explore the potential for using SMS as an interim solution for text-based communication to 911, given the near-universal availability and consumer familiarity with SMS. The responses to our December 2010 Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding identify a number of possible limitations when using SMS for emergency communications, but some commenters also contended that these limitations could be surmounted by appropriate engineering approaches.

   We also examine other short-term options that would rely on software applications capable of delivering text over the existing IP-based infrastructure. We examine the potential costs and benefits of both

   SMS-based and software-based interim approaches as compared to developing more comprehensive text-to-911 solutions over the longer term that will provide more reliable real-time communication and can also support delivery of photos and video. 6. Next, we seek comment on whether 911 traffic should be prioritized to ensure that people in need of assistance have reliable access to emergency services, especially during times of serious emergencies such as large-scale natural and manmade disasters. The

   August 23, 2011 East Coast earthquake and Hurricane Irene have been recent reminders that concentrated demands on the capacity of commercial communications networks during and immediately after emergencies can hinder the ability of consumers to make voice calls, which in turn can jeopardize their ability to contact 911. We seek comment on how best to address this concern in both legacy networks and the emerging broadband networks that will support NG911, including options for prioritizing 911 traffic. 7. We then turn to long-term implementation of NG911, with particular focus on IP-based alternatives for delivering text, photos, videos, and other data to 911 that would leverage the increasing percentage of mobile devices that have the ability to access the

   Internet. We seek comment on the potential for developing downloadable smartphone applications that both consumers and IP-capable PSAPs could acquire to support capabilities for an early roll-out of text and mulitimedia functionality. We note that such applications could also provide early access to key NG911 capabilities for mobile callers, especially those with hearing and speech disabilities. 8. We also seek comment on the path towards integration and standardization of IP-based text-to-911 as commercial providers migrate to all-IP networks and as 911 authorities deploy Emergency Services IP networks (ESInets) that will enable PSAPs to receive the full range of

   IP-based traffic, including voice, text, photos, video, and data. In this all-IP environment, text-to-911 is one of several non-voice services that will be supported by ``native'' IP communications end-to- end solutions, such as the Internet Multimedia Subsystem (IMS).

   However, providers may have varying timetables for developing the capacity to deliver IMS communications to PSAPs. PSAP deployment of

   ESINets is also likely to be non-uniform. We seek comment on the necessary steps for providers and PSAPs to support integrated IMS-based communications and the time that this process is likely to take. 9. With over 6,800 PSAPs in the United States, spanning a wide range of sizes and resources, individual PSAPs are likely to have highly varying timetables for developing the technical and operational capability to handle incoming texts in the short term, as well as texts and other media in the longer-term implementation of NG911. While there are significant public safety benefits to enabling the public to send texts and other media to 911 in areas where PSAPs are capable of receiving and processing them, we seek to avoid imposing unnecessary costs on providers to implement NG911 in areas where PSAPs have not yet achieved

   Page 63259

   such capability. For this reason, we seek comment on whether PSAPs should demonstrate a threshold level of technical NG911 capability as a precondition to any obligation by providers to deliver text or other media to PSAPs and whether such demonstration should be at the state or regional level. We also seek comment on potential state or local regulatory barriers to NG911 deployment and whether states should demonstrate that they have adopted legal or regulatory measures to eliminate such barriers to facilitate NG911 deployment. 10. Given that text-to-911 and other NG911 capabilities will likely not be simultaneously deployed nationwide, consumers may be uncertain where non-voice communication with 911 is available. Even where text- to-911 or other NG911 applications are available, the specific capabilities and operational characteristics of these applications may vary. We therefore seek comment on how to best educate consumers about the availability and limitations of text-to-911 and other NG911 solutions, particularly during the transition from legacy 911 to full implementation of NG911, without imposing an undue burden on providers. 11. As noted above, adding text and other media capabilities to our 911 system promises to bring significant benefits for people with disabilities. In this regard, we seek comment on the relationship between this proceeding and our ongoing implementation of the Twenty-

   First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, which, among other things, sets goals for achieving equal access to emergency services for people with disabilities ``as a part of the migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency network.''

   We believe that the transition to NG911 and the implementation of the

   CVAA can be achieved through development of common text-to-911 and multimedia-to-911 solutions that serve both objectives. In this NPRM, therefore, we seek comment on the potential for coordinating the two proceedings to promote broader and more rapid NG911 deployment. 12. Throughout this NPRM, we seek comment to further strengthen our record on these important aspects of the evolution towards NG911 systems and capabilities. In particular, we seek detailed data that quantifies the benefits that text-to-911 and other NG911 applications will bring to the public and to emergency responders, while also quantifying the costs to providers, PSAPs, and consumers. We emphasize the importance of comments being detailed, specific, and supported by data where appropriate. We intend to confer particular weight on arguments and estimates that are supported by data or are otherwise well documented.

2. Background 13. In this section, we review the procedural history leading up to this NPRM. We also provide technical background information classifying the likely technical options for text-to-911, and we recap the record on those options that the Commission received in response to the Notice of Inquiry.

   1. Procedural History 14. In December 2010, as recommended in the National Broadband

      Plan, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry on NG911 (FCC 10-200, released Dec. 21, 2010), which initiated a comprehensive proceeding to address how NG911 can enable the public to obtain emergency assistance by means of advanced communications technologies beyond traditional voice-centric devices. The Notice of Inquiry sought comment on a number of issues related to the deployment of NG911 networks, including: (1)

      NG911 capabilities and applications; (2) NG911 network architecture; and (3) the proper roles of the FCC, other federal agencies, and state, tribal, and local governments. 15. In the last several years, there have been other important efforts to address the need for a transition to an NG911 network. In the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Congress tasked the National E9-1-1 Implementation Coordination Office (ICO) with developing ``a national plan for migrating to a national [Internet

      Protocol] IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving and responding to all citizen-activated emergency communications and improving information sharing among all emergency response entities.''

      The Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and

      Information Administration (NTIA) and the Department of

      Transportation's (DOT's) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

      (NHTSA) jointly manage ICO and released its migration plan in September 2009. 16. In March 2010, the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) released a handbook to serve as a guide for public safety personnel and government officials responsible for ensuring that federal, state, and local 911 laws and regulations effectively enable the implementation of

      NG911 systems. Specifically, the NENA Handbook provides an overview of key policy, regulatory, and legislative issues that need to be considered to enable the transition to NG911. The NENA Handbook states that ``it is critical that state regulatory bodies and the FCC take timely and carefully scrutinized action to analyze and update existing 9-1-1, PSTN, and IP rules and regulations to ensure they optimize 9-1-1 governing authority choices for E9-1-1 and NG9-1-1 and foster competition by establishing a competitively neutral marketplace.'' 17. 3GPP has also published a report on the use of Non-Voice

      Emergency Services (NOVES) that provides a general description of perceived needs. In addition, ATIS has created its own Interim Non- voice Emergency Services (INES) Incubator. The ATIS INES Incubator

      ``provides the industry with a `fast-track' process for resolving technical and operating issues'' and serves as ``an alternative approach toward solutions development.'' 18. On October 8, 2010, the President signed the CVAA into law. As directed by the CVAA, the Chairman established the Emergency Access

      Advisory Committee (EAAC) for the purpose of achieving equal access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities as part of our nation's migration to NG911. The EAAC is composed of state and local government representatives responsible for emergency management and emergency responder representatives, national organizations representing people with disabilities and senior citizens, communications equipment manufacturers, service providers, and subject matter experts. The CVAA directed the EAAC to conduct a national survey of people with disabilities and then to make recommendations on the most effective and efficient technologies and methods to enable NG911 access. The EAAC conducted its survey from March 16, 2011, to April 25, 2011, and received over 3,000 completed responses. On July 21, 2011, the EAAC submitted the report on the completed survey to the

      Commission. The EAAC will make its recommendations to the Commission in

      December 2011, which the Commission is then empowered to implement by regulation. 19. In addition, other federal agencies have initiated efforts to address access to 911 in an Internet-enabled environment for people with disabilities. On March 17, 2010, the United States Access Board proposed draft guidelines for real-time text functionality for adoption by federal agencies as part of its efforts to update guidelines on section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. In a separate

      Page 63260

      proceeding, the Department of Justice is currently reviewing comments received in response to an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

      (ANPRM) on NG911 access to emergency services by people with disabilities. Current DOJ regulations under the Americans with

      Disabilities Act (ADA) require direct and equal access to telephone emergency services for people with disabilities who use TTYs. In its

      ANPRM, DOJ notes that many individuals with disabilities are now relying on IP-based and digital wireless devices instead of TTYs as their primary mode of telecommunications ``and that 9-1-1 call-taking centers are shifting from existing traditional telephone emergency services to new IP-enabled NG 9-1-1 services.'' The ANPRM addresses two objectives: (1) To identify and remove accessibility barriers for people with disabilities and who attempt to use personal digital or telecommunications devices to directly interact with PSAPs in voice, sign language, or text; and (2) to enhance the ability of PSAPs to incorporate essential accessibility elements into their IP-based system in a coordinated and effective manner. Finally, in compliance with the

      NET 911 Act, the ICO's national plan for migrating to an IP-enabled emergency network explored various solutions for providing enhanced 911 access to people with disabilities. 20. In March 2011, the Communications Security, Reliability, and

      Interoperability Council's (CSRIC's) Working Group 4B (CSRIC 4B) released a report entitled ``Transition to Next Generation 9-1-1.''

      CSRIC is a Federal Advisory Committee that was tasked with providing guidance and expertise on the nation's communications infrastructure and public safety communications. Notably, the CSRIC 4B Report highlighted that ``the FCC must establish clear rules for accomplishing the transition to NG9-1-1'' and that ``[i]f SMS has a role as an interim non-voice service used to contact a PSAP, how it is deployed *

      * * will need to be resolved by the FCC.'' 21. On August 30, 2011, the Transportation Safety Advancement Group

      (TSAG) released a report summarizing information that experts in law enforcement, fire-rescue, emergency medical services (EMS), and transportation operations would like to receive as end users of NG911 systems. The report provides insight into the cultural, organizational, and operational environments of these organizations.

   2. Technical Background 22. In the Notice of Inquiry, we distinguished between use of

      ``primary'' and ``secondary'' media types to communicate with PSAPs. In brief, primary media types are those that are used to initiate a call or communications session with the PSAP, while secondary media types are those that are used to provide additional information to the PSAP after the call or session has been established. In the current E911 system, voice and TTY-based text are the only primary media that are widely available, and secondary media, such as photos and video, are not available. 23. In addition, while we focus in this NPRM on enabling consumers to deliver text and other non-voice media to PSAPs, we note that the adoption of NG911 technology will also provide PSAPs with new tools to process and analyze this information. In the Notice of Inquiry, we cited the potential for NG911 to accommodate a full range of specialized devices and functionalities that would enable PSAPs to combine multiple streams of information in real time to fashion responses to particular emergency scenarios. Examples of such devices and functionalities include environmental sensors capable of detecting chemicals, highway cameras, security cameras, alarms, gunshot sensors, personal medical devices, and telematics in vehicles or on consumer devices. For example, in a traffic accident, NG911 would not only enable the PSAP to receive the 911 call for help from the caller seeking assistance, but also would enable it to correlate the call with 911 calls from others at or near the scene and combine the information with video from nearby traffic cameras to assess the impact on traffic and identify the first responders that could reach the scene the fastest. In addition, if any vehicles in the accident had automatic collision notification systems, the PSAP would receive additional information regarding the severity of the crash that could help determine the likely medical needs of accident victims and the appropriate emergency medical response. Similarly, in a 911 call scenario reporting a crime such as a robbery or assault, NG911 would enable the caller to send important visual information such as a photo of the suspect or a vehicle involved in the crime, and would enable first responders to correlate this information with other sources, such as nearby security cameras, gunshot sensors, or alarm systems, and to quickly access relevant databases that could help identify the suspect or the suspect's vehicle. 24. In this NPRM, we primarily focus on developing text-based mechanisms that would serve as new primary media types for contacting a

      PSAP, supplementing voice calling capability and also supplementing or replacing TTY-based text. We consider photos and video as secondary media that may be used to augment a voice or text call. We recognize that this to some degree oversimplifies the potential media combinations that NG911 will ultimately support, ranging from single- medium communications (i.e., voice-only or text-only) to multi-media

      ``calls'' that may encompass combinations of interactive and stored media, including interactive voice, message-based and real-time text, photos, and both stored (previously recorded) and live video. However, for purposes of this NPRM, we focus on text as a primary media type and photos and video as secondary media types because in early NG911 deployments, primary communication between a caller and a PSAP is most likely to be voice-only or text-only and the availability of secondary media may differ based on caller device capabilities, PSAP and ESInet capabilities, and PSAP operational choices. 25. Based on the comments we received in response to the Notice of

      Inquiry, we can distinguish between a number of technical options for providing text-based and, in some cases, visual information (photos, video) to the PSAP. We briefly summarize these approaches below. We note that these options are not exclusive (i.e., a mobile device may support more than one option, either as an interim measure, or over the longer term). For purposes of this NPRM, we use the term ``caller'' to refer to the originator of the 911 communication, whether based on a traditional voice call, TTY call, or text message. We also discuss (1) mechanisms for providing caller location, both for routing and dispatch; (2) the ability of a caller to know whether his or her text message has been received by the PSAP; and (3) the possibility of establishing a session that permits the caller to conduct a conversation with the call taker. 26. TTY. With a TTY, a person with a hearing or speech disability can use a special text telephone to directly contact the PSAP, where the call taker uses a similar device to receive and transmit text. TTYs have a keyboard and allow people to type their telephone conversations.

      This two-way typing communication can occur with the person with the disability and the PSAP

      Page 63261

      call taker reading each other's responses on a small LED or backlit LCD screen. The disabilities community considers TTY an antiquated technology with technical and functional limitations, including its slow speed and half duplex mode; the inability of TTY tones to travel well using IP audio compression, transmission, and packet loss repair techniques without introducing text errors; and its Baudot text encoding standard used in the United States that does not include all of the characters used in modern text communication. Consequently, it is difficult for users to communicate URLs or email addresses, for example. 27. Text-to-Voice TTY-based telecommunications relay service (TRS).

      A TRS system is a telephone service that allows persons with hearing or speech disabilities, or who are deaf-blind, to place and receive telephone calls. With traditional TRS, a person with a communications disability uses a TTY to make a call through a communications assistant

      (CA), who is located at a relay center. To make a relay call, a TTY user calls a TRS relay center and types the number of the person he or she wishes to call, including 911. The CA then makes the call to the receiving party and relays the call back and forth between the parties by speaking what a text user types and typing what a voice telephone user speaks. 28. SMS-based. In SMS-based systems, the caller uses a mobile phone to send a short text message to the destination, which is typically either another mobile phone or an Internet-connected receiver. SMS messages are usually limited to 160 characters, although many modern handsets support concatenated messages that exceed this limit. Almost all existing mobile phones support SMS, except that non-service initialized (NSI) devices currently do not permit a caller to send an

      SMS message. SMS messages do not contain any information about the caller's location and do not identify the cell tower that received the

      SMS message from the caller's handset. SMS messages are delivered through an SMS gateway that relays the messages when capacity is available. Thus, SMS messages could in some circumstances be delayed, or even occasionally lost, when there is network congestion. Senders of

      SMS messages also may not receive confirmation that their message was delivered. More importantly, the sender may not receive an error message if the message was not delivered. SMS also does not support two-way real-time conversation, although SMS messages have identifiers that can allow users to exchange messages in a conversation-like manner. 29. IP-based messaging. There are at least three IP-based messaging mechanisms. However, not all of the IP-based messaging mechanisms are based on Session Initiation Protocol (SIP), which can be offered as part of the Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS). We provide a brief description of the three IP-based messaging mechanisms below.

      SIP-based pager-mode. In this mode, the mobile or stationary device uses SIP MESSAGE method to send text or Multipurpose

      Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) attachments, including photos, to a SIP user agent. Due to the messaging method employed, this method is often referred to as pager-mode, in contrast to session mode, which uses

      Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP). Pager-mode requires an end-to- end IP connection between the originator and the PSAP, and either the originator or the SIP proxy may insert caller location using the SIP

      Geolocation header field. SIP responses allow the originator to determine whether the message has been delivered to the recipient. The

      SIP Call-ID may be used to maintain a conversation.

      Message Session Relay Protocol (MSRP). MSRP establishes a session between the message sender and the receiver that allows the exchange of a series of related instant messages. Typically, MSRP sessions are set up via SIP, similar to an audio or video session. As with SIP pager-mode, MSRP exchanges complete instant messages; however,

      MSRP imposes less of a burden on the signaling infrastructure.

      Other IP-based message-based protocols. We note that there are other proprietary and standards-based Internet text messaging protocols, such as Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP).

      However, it appears unlikely that a PSAP would be able to support all

      Internet text messaging protocols; thus, we believe that proprietary protocols are likely to be converted to one of the options above or to

      XMPP. 30. Real-Time Text (RTT). In RTT, individually-typed characters or groups of characters are transmitted as separate media packets, using the same basic protocol as audio and video sessions. This means that with RTT, unlike SMS or IP-based messaging, the recipient sees each character or word in the message almost immediately after the sender types it. RTT sessions can be established along with audio and video sessions and typically use SIP for session signaling. 31. The table below compares some of the core technical characteristics of the options discussed above.

      Real-time text

      TTY

      SMS-based

      IP-based messaging

      (RTT)

      Delivery to PSAP................ Voiceband modem... SIP MESSAGE....... SIP MESSAGE or

      RTP payload.

      MSRP.

      Text............................ Only upper case

      160 characters of Any amount of text Any amount of letters, numbers, plain text (some

      text. limited

      may allow longer punctuation.

      text).

      Photos, videos in same message? No................ No................ Yes............... No.

      Real-time audio and video in

      No................ No................ Yes............... Yes. same session?

      Real-time text.................. Yes............... No................ No................ Yes.

      Full-duplex conversation (both

      No................ Limited........... Yes............... Yes. sides can send messages at the same time).

      Location information............ Yes, like voice

      Maybe (cell tower; Yes............... Yes, via SIP call.

      may require

      signaling. cellular system changes).

      End-to-end message reliability

      No................ No (may provide

      Yes............... Loss detection and and delivery confirmation.

      some confirmation

      redundancy. for delivery to

      SMSC).

      Message delay................... Minimal........... Variable--seconds Almost always Provisions that require specific technology components for

      E911 service delivery that are not necessarily the same for NG911.

      Regulations that ``assume the existence of legacy components,'' such as the selective router, which may impede the transition to ``NG9-1-1 deployments.'' For example, NENA refers to current Commission rules requiring ``the delivery of wireless and voice over IP (VoIP) 9-1-1 `calls' over the `wireline E9-1-1 network.'''

      State regulations, laws, or tariffs that currently do not allow 911 authorities or new 911 SSPs to receive relevant routing, location, and other related 911 information in the possession of the incumbent SSPs at reasonable rates and terms.

      Existing 911 service arrangements and tariffs that inhibit new entrants from making similar competitive services available on a component-by-component basis, where technically and operationally feasible.

      In some states, liability protection for 911 service providers may be provided only through the tariff of a Local Exchange

      Carrier (LEC) rather than via statute. In such cases, if a LEC withdraws its tariff or NG911 services fall outside the scope of the tariff, providers of NG911 services, and possibly PSAPs as well, will not receive liability protection. 97. States are also concerned about outdated regulations that may hinder the deployment of NG911 networks. The Public Safety

      Communications Office (PSCO) of the California Technology Agency notes that it is ``currently exploring state and local barriers and will seek to remove them'' and ``recommend[s] that the FCC do the same at the federal level.'' The Texas 9-1-1 Agencies request that the Commission address interconnection disputes and the registration and certification of NG911 SSPs. The Ohio PUC supports ``a dual state-federal regulatory framework for NG911 in which the FCC establishes broad, national objectives, standards and benchmarks, but leaves coordinating the implementation and transition to the states.'' 98. Providers and 911 SSPs are similarly concerned about regulatory obstacles that may hinder NG911 development. Dash asserts that

      ``requirements for CLECs to purchase 9-1-1 or CAMA trunks any time the

      CLEC seeks to deploy interconnection facilities * * *. imposes burdens on the PSAPs because [PSAPs] have to conduct interoperability testing on each trunk and otherwise be prepared to receive 9-1-1 calls from those trunks regardless of whether the CLEC is actually using them.''

      In Dash's view, ``this discriminatory behavior'' results in CLECs being

      ``bound to the ILEC's outdated model.'' Dash argues that ``CLECs, VoIP providers and other competitive service providers should be permitted to use * * * new 9-1-1 solutions and not be required to purchase services that they would not absent regulatory or monopoly mandates.''

      AT&T contends that ``[s]tate laws and regulations governing the types of devices and `calls' allowed to access the NG911 network will also require modifications'' in the following areas: (1) Determining ``the eligible use of NG911 funds''; (2) ensuring that requirements do not mandate ``technology components for E911 service delivery that are incompatible with NG911 service''; and (3) ensuring that laws and regulations are ``functional, standards-based, and performance-based without reference to any specific proprietary technology, manufacturer, or service provider.'' Further, L.R. Kimball maintains that

      ``[r]evisions to or the elimination of older laws and tariffs would be necessary in order to require interconnections.'' Moreover, L.R.

      Kimball argues for ``overhaul'' of ``the 911 regulatory environments at both the federal and state level * * * to promote competition.'' L.R.

      Kimball also observes that ``[t]here are currently no regulations in place to drive carriers to implement a SMS to 911 interconnection.'' 99. In light of these concerns, we seek comment on whether as a precondition to Commission action, states should be required to demonstrate that they have adopted appropriate or removed outmoded legal or regulatory measures to facilitate NG911 deployment, such as deregulation of legacy 911 interconnection arrangements and enactment of liability protection for NG911 providers and service providers.

      Would this approach incentivize states to eliminate outdated laws and regulations? Are there other steps that we should take to encourage the elimination or mitigation of state and local regulatory barriers to

      NG911? 100. We also seek comment on what statutory or regulatory changes, if any, would be necessary for the Commission, other federal agencies, states, tribes, or localities to facilitate and oversee the deployment of NG911 networks. Are there specific FCC regulations that the

      Commission should eliminate or modify to facilitate the deployment of

      NG911 networks? What specific actions can the Commission take that would incentivize states and localities to eliminate outdated regulations that hinder the deployment of NG911 networks? b. Advanced Regional 911 Centers 101. AT&T contends that consumer confusion occurred during previous deployment of basic 911 and E911 service and is equally likely with respect to the deployment of NG911. AT&T describes the launch of basic 911 service as having been ``accompanied with significant consumer confusion regarding whether or not there was access to a particular service in a particular area.'' AT&T also contends that widespread publicity concerning the Black Hawk County, Iowa, text-to-911 trial caused confusion elsewhere in the country regarding the availability of text-to-911. AT&T warns that if ``the Commission fails to establish clear direction for a standardized design for non-voice emergency communications, the result will be a patchwork implementation of non- voice emergency capabilities and additional consumer confusion.'' 102. NENA has noted the need for additional technical requirements to address this issue, stating that ``while all [NG911] PSAPs must handle all media, a legacy PSAP behind [an ESInet-to-legacy PSAP gateway] would only handle voice media and TTY. There is no mechanism by which a caller could discover what media the PSAP supports. This will be covered in a future edition of [the NENA i3 Solution].'' We invite comment on the amount of time that will be required for the issuance of such requirements, as well as their adequacy for avoiding caller confusion. 103. AT&T states that use of the aforementioned ``gateways to interwork [ESInets] with legacy PSAPs will only further complicate implementation of NG911.'' Instead, AT&T proposes building ``regional entities to handle non-voice emergency services media types when the local PSAP cannot.'' The regional centers would ``support NG911 capabilities so that every PSAP need not be updated before certain advanced services can be supported.'' According to AT&T, ``[n]ot only will this [approach] ensure interoperability, but it will also limit the capital outlay required to deliver NG911 services, thereby accelerating deployment.'' We seek comment on AT&T's proposal. In particular, we seek comment on the costs and practicability of AT&T's proposed regional PSAP approach relative to the upgrading of individual

      Page 63272

      PSAPs. Would the AT&T approach reduce the amount of capital outlay required as compared to upgrading individual PSAPs? Would it enable more rapid deployment of NG911? How long would it take to implement

      AT&T's approach? Are there benefits to co-locating a regional center with a PSAP that is already being upgraded to NG911? Are there benefits to co-locating a regional center with another location that already supports some NG911capabilities, such as a TRS or VRS center? We also seek comment on the specific protocol interfaces and functionality that should be in place at the advanced 911 centers before providers are required to provide text and other media types to these call centers.

      AT&T also states that the Commission should limit ``advanced functionality in NG911 systems until a baseline network'' of the regional centers exists. Should the Commission go so far as to limit advanced functionality in such circumstances or in any other circumstances?

   5. Consumer Education and Disclosure Mechanisms 104. The Notice of Inquiry sought comment on how to educate and prepare consumers for disparate PSAP capabilities in an NG911 environment. Commenters generally agreed that NG911 applications such as text-to-911 will not be deployed uniformly and that a nationwide education effort will therefore be needed during the transition.

      Motorola warns that while ``the transition to NG911 is underway, misinformation and confusion about the deployment details are likely to spread'' and maintains that an ongoing ``comprehensive and multifaceted public education effort'' that is ``keyed to the actual deployment of new services'' will be key to helping civilians understand the capabilities and limitations of the NG911 system.'' NENA urges that

      ``left unchecked, this confusion could lead consumers to waste time texting 9-1-1 or leave unused other means of communications at their disposal, wasting precious seconds in an emergency.'' 1. Expected Benefits 105. Even using the most optimistic assumptions about the deployment of NG911, consumers are unlikely to have access to text or other NG911 applications everywhere in the United States at the same time. Access to these applications will vary depending on the consumer's location, and even in areas where NG911 is deployed, specific applications may vary locally or regionally depending on the

      PSAP's policies for accepting text or multimedia messages. In addition, technical factors such as variations in the capabilities of different caller handsets may lead to non-uniform access. At the same time, as

      NG911 deployment occurs in certain communities or regions, consumers elsewhere are likely to learn through the media, social networking, and other sources that text, photos, and video to 911 are available in some places, which may lead consumers to be uncertain or confused about availability of these capabilities in the consumer's own community. 106. Given the significant risk of consumer uncertainty and confusion, there are clear benefits to be gained from providing the public with accurate and up-to-date information about the availability or non-availability of NG911 applications in their home communities and in other locations where they may travel. For example, if the public is not adequately informed about the availability or non-availability of text-to-911 in specific areas, consumers could put themselves at risk by attempting to send text messages to the local PSAP and being unaware that the text has not been received. In deciding how the Commission can most effectively minimize consumer confusion throughout the transition to NG911, we seek to maximize the benefits to consumers from any action we would take while taking into consideration the burden of compliance to providers. We therefore seek comment on the expected benefits and costs of implementing various approaches to consumer education and implementing disclosure mechanisms. We also ask whether there are any contractual issues that might deter consumers from texting or sending photos or video to 911. How many subscribers would face additional charges for sending texts, photos, or video to PSAPs from their mobile devices? Could such additional charges in some cases deter them from doing so? If so, should providers, the Commission, or others develop practices to address this situation? 2. Approaches for Education and Disclosure 107. Commenters agree that there is a significant need for a nationwide education effort while text-to-911 is being rolled out. We seek comment on the types of educational programs that should be created to abate and prevent consumer confusion as text-to-911 services are deployed in the short term. Are there lessons that we can draw from educational efforts that were conducted during the deployment of basic 911 or E911 service? Have other countries developed text-to-911 education programs? Can current 911 educational programs be adapted to help individuals understand text-to-911? Should educational programs differ depending upon the group that is being targeted, such as the disabilities community or non-English speakers? How should educational programs evolve as text-to-911 services become more prevalent? Would any of the educational approaches that the FCC used in the past, such as the campaign to inform purchasers of wireless microphones of the need to clear the 700 MHz band for public safety purposes, be useful here? 108. We also seek comment on the appropriate role for the

      Commission and for other government and private sector entities in any public education effort. Motorola notes that ``[e]ntities at the local, state, and federal levels all need to be thinking about how to disseminate accurate information to the public'' and suggests that

      ``beyond formal education efforts, providers of next generation communications services need to clearly communicate to their users any limitations with respect'' to 911 service access. Qualcomm suggests that federal agencies, including the FCC and DHS, in conjunction with state and local governments, take responsibility for consumer education. The State of California suggests that the Commission should take a role in education akin to its role in the digital television transition by creating a national public information campaign. More specifically, NENA suggests ``the FCC should collaborate with industry and media partners and public safety to educate consumers about the current and ongoing limitations of SMS for emergency communications.''

      TSAG, however, comments that education ``begins with a nationally recognized institution, driving a baseline national program * * * supportive of state and local efforts'' but leadership ``should reside in states and [be] delivered through regional and local NG911 organizations and institutions.'' Wichita-Wilbarger believes the

      Commission should not ``require states to specifically designate an organization to be responsible for the statewide organizing, planning or implementing of NG9-1-1.'' We seek further comment on what entities should be involved in educational programs. What role should the

      Commission play? What role can other federal agencies, state and local entities, and those in the public and private sectors play? Where would the Commission or other federal agencies obtain funding for consumer education efforts? What are the advantages and

      Page 63273

      disadvantages of various approaches to consumer education? How can the

      Commission and other federal agencies support local agencies and the media as they work to educate their communities? What are the best methods of educating consumers about the availability or non- availability of NG911 applications in their communities? Should we require providers to disclose limitations on the availability of NG911 applications? If so, should we require such notice at the physical point-of-sale, online, in bill inserts, or elsewhere? Could providers leverage existing marketing and billing practices to provide notice to consumers on a cost-effective basis? 109. Aside from educational programs, could other resources be developed to help individuals learn about where text-to-911 services are and are not available? For instance, what is the feasibility of developing a consumer-focused map or website showing such availability, possibly building on the PSAP database that the Commission maintains or on other sources? Could local availability information be built into text-to-911 applications themselves, so that the application would automatically indicate whether text-to-911 is available at the caller's current location? What would the cost be of developing such resources initially and of updating them as the availability of text-to-911 expands to new areas? Could information be provided in bills sent to consumers and instructional materials included with new mobile devices to increase awareness? 110. Finally, despite educational programs and resources, some individuals will likely attempt to send text messages to 911 in locations where text-to-911 is not supported. AT&T notes that ``there is a chance that a failed non-voice emergency call could result in no immediate feedback.'' This could put consumers at risk if they were unaware that an emergency text did not go through or were uninformed about alternative means of reaching the PSAP. To mitigate such risk, we believe that in situations where a consumer attempts to text 911 in a location where text-to-911 is not available, the consumer should receive an automatic error message or similar disclosure that includes information on how to contact the PSAP (e.g., a message directing the consumer to dial a 911 voice call). We seek comment on this approach, including what methods are necessary to ensure that such disclosure is accessible to people with different types of disabilities. What currently happens when consumers attempt to send SMS or other text- based messages to 911? Do wireless providers send an error message in response? If so, what information does the error message convey? Is it technically feasible for all providers to provide such error messages to consumers? What would the cost be to implement this capability across all providers and regions? Should error messages contain certain standardized information? What role, if any, should the Commission play in developing best practices, model responses, or requirements for the provision of standardized error messages?

   6. Overlap With CVAA and EAAC 111. In October 2010, Congress enacted the CVAA, which amends the

      Communications Act and imposes a variety of new obligations on service providers, equipment manufacturers, and the Commission that relate to providing access to communications services for people with disabilities. Section 106 of the CVAA requires the Commission to take certain steps ``[f]or the purpose of achieving equal access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities, as a part of the migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency network.''

      Specifically, Section 106 requires the Chairman, within 60 days after enactment of the Act, to establish the EAAC. Within one year of its establishment, the EAAC must: (1) Conduct a national survey of individuals with disabilities to determine the most effective and efficient technologies and methods by which to enable emergency access; and (2) submit to the Commission recommendations to implement such technologies and methods. Section 106 grants the Commission ``the authority to promulgate regulations to implement the recommendations proposed by the Advisory Committee, as well as any other regulations, technical standards, protocols, and procedures as are 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.'' 112. As required by the CVAA, the Chairman established the EAAC in

      December 2010, 60 days after enactment of the statute. The EAAC is composed of state and local government representatives responsible for emergency management and emergency responder representatives, national organizations representing people with disabilities and senior citizens, communications equipment manufacturers, service providers, federal agency representatives responsible for implementation of the

      NG911 system, and subject matter experts. Section 106(c) of the CVAA specifically requires the EAAC to provide recommendations to the

      Commission:

      (1) With respect to what actions are necessary as a part of the migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled network to achieve reliable, interoperable communication transmitted over such network that will ensure access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities;

      (2) For protocols, technical capabilities, and technical requirements to ensure reliability and interoperability necessary to ensure access to emergency services by people with disabilities;

      (3) For the establishment of technical standards for use by public safety answering points, designated default answering points, and local emergency authorities;

      (4) For relevant technical standards and requirements for communication devices and equipment and technologies to enable the use of reliable emergency access;

      (5) For procedures to be followed by IP-enabled network providers to ensure that such providers do not install features, functions, or capabilities that would conflict with technical standards;

      (6) For deadlines by which providers of interconnected and non- interconnected VoIP services and manufacturers of equipment used for such services shall achieve the actions required in paragraphs (1) through (5), where achievable, and for the possible phase out of the use of current-generation TTY technology to the extent that this technology is replaced with more effective and efficient technologies and methods to enable access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities; and

      (7) For the establishment of rules to update the Commission's rules with respect to 9-1-1 services and E-911 services (as defined in section 158(e)(4) of the National Telecommunications and Information

      Administration Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942(e)(4))), for users of telecommunications relay services as new technologies and methods for providing such relay services are adopted by providers of such relay services;

      (8) That take into account what is technically and economically feasible. Since its establishment, the EAAC has met on a monthly basis and has conducted the required survey of people with disabilities, which was released in July 2011. In December 2011, one year after its establishment, the EAAC will

      Page 63274

      submit its recommendations to the Commission on the NG911 accessibility issues set forth above. The CVAA then empowers the Commission to implement the EAAC's recommendations by regulation, to the extent such recommendations are achievable and technically and economically feasible. 113. There is considerable overlap between the NG911 text and multimedia capabilities discussed in this Notice and the NG911 accessibility issues being considered by the EAAC in its implementation of the CVAA. As we have observed in our discussion of potential benefits earlier in this Notice, adding text and multimedia applications to the 911 system can provide significant benefits to both people with disabilities and non-disabled people. Moreover, we believe it is important to encourage to the fullest extent possible the development of common text-to-911 and multimedia-to-911 solutions that serve both the broad goals of NG911 and the NG911 accessibility goals of the CVAA. By focusing on developing common solutions rather than developing specialized technologies solely for use by people with disabilities, we are more likely to be able to spread the cost of such technology across all network users and providers and to generate economies of scale that lower such costs. We seek comment on this approach. Will the development of common text-to-911 and multimedia-to- 911 solutions benefit both people with disabilities and non-disabled people and lead to greater cost efficiencies? Are there limitations to this approach, such as instances where people with disabilities may still require development of more specialized technology to meet their emergency accessibility needs? 114. In light of the overlapping issues, we also seek comment on the relationship between this proceeding and our implementation of the

      CVAA and the work of the EAAC. Should we incorporate the EAAC's recommendations into the record in this proceeding? Would coordinating or combining the two proceedings promote broader and more rapid NG911 deployment?

   7. Legal Authority 115. Background. In the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission recognized that ``[s]tate, Tribal, and local governments are the primary administrators of the legacy 911 system and are responsible for establishing and designating PSAPs or appropriate default answering points, purchasing customer premises equipment, retaining and training

      PSAP personnel, and purchasing 911 network services.'' Nevertheless, the Commission noted that ``[c]ertain communications technologies * * * necessitated the adoption of a uniform national approach'' and sought comment on whether there should be some level of federal oversight for the transition to NG911. Further, the Commission sought comment ``on the extent of the FCC's jurisdiction to oversee the transition to

      NG911, since PSAPs, service providers, consumer device manufacturers, and software developers will all be involved.'' The Commission also invited comment on the role that other federal agencies, such as ICO, should play in the transition to NG911. 116. Comments. Several commenters encourage the Commission to implement a uniform national approach. Other commenters, however, assert that the Commission's authority over certain providers, such as broadband access providers, is still undetermined and will require further clarification or legislation. For instance, CTIA states that

      ``some of these providers of current and future application-based communications services are not FCC licensees and thus fall outside the

      FCC's regulatory jurisdiction entirely.'' CTIA argues that while the

      CVAA gives the Commission some regulatory power to enact the recommendations of the EAAC, ``it does not give the Commission plenary authority over electronic messaging and video conferencing services''and ``the limits of the Commission's authority under the

      CVAA

      are unclear.'' 117. Discussion. Since 1996, the Commission has exercised authority under Title III of the Communications Act to require CMRS providers, as spectrum licensees, to implement basic 911 and E911 services. This authority includes--as a fundamental and pervasive element of the

      Commission's licensing authority--the power and obligation to condition its licensing actions on compliance with requirements that the

      Commission deems consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Existing E911 requirements for wireless service providers clearly further the public interest in ways directly connected to the

      Commission's mandate in section 151 to ``promot[e] safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication.'' Similarly, the options we consider in this proceeding to facilitate availability of text-to-911 and other NG911 capabilities to consumers would fall within our broad Title III authority over spectrum licensees as requirements that serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity by, for example ``promoting safety of life and property.'' Therefore, we believe that we have well-established legal authority under sections 151, 301, and 303(r) and other Title III provisions to take the regulatory and non-regulatory measures described herein that would apply to users of spectrum. We seek comment on this analysis. 118. We also believe that the CVAA confers authority with respect to implementation of text-to-911 and other NG911 features to the extent that such implementation serves the statutory goal of ``achieving equal access to emergency services for people with disabilities, as a part of the migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency network.'' As noted in the previous section, the CVAA authorizes the

      Commission to promulgate regulations to ``ensure the accessibility, usability, and compatibility of advanced communications services and the equipment used for advanced communications services by individuals with disabilities'' and to do what is 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.'' The CVAA defines ``advanced communications services'' to include electronic messaging service, defined as a ``service that provides real-time or near real-time non- voice messages in text form between individuals over communications networks.'' The CVAA also includes in the definition of ``advanced communications services'' ``interconnected VoIP service'' and ``non- interconnected VoIP service.'' The CVAA's mandate to ensure ``the accessibility, usability, and compatibility'' of this broad category of advanced communications services provides generous authority to cover many of the actions we consider in this proceeding, including, for example, requiring 911 capabilities for text-based communications services. We seek comment on this reading of the CVAA and whether there are any limitations to the scope of this authority relevant to our proposals in this proceeding. 119. Furthermore, we believe that the Commission would also have the ancillary authority to regulate certain entities over which (or over whose actions at issue) we may not have express regulatory authority. Under section 4(i) of the Communications Act and the judicial precedent recognizing the Commission's ancillary authority,

      Page 63275

      the Commission is empowered to impose requirements when it lacks specifically enumerated authority, provided its actions fall within the agency's general grant of jurisdiction over ``interstate and foreign communication by wire or radio'' and the regulation is reasonably necessary to effectuate the Commission's responsibilities under the Act and rules promulgated pursuant to the Commission's express authority.

      Applying this principle to the NG911 context, it appears that the successful application of text-to-911 and other multimedia NG911 requirements to communications providers pursuant to the direct mandates of Title III or the CVAA may require that we impose certain requirements on broadband access providers, System Service Providers

      (SSPs), network operators, and other entities involved in the provision of broadband Internet access and other network services. For instance, a CMRS provider may be unable to provide text-to-911 without adjustments to the database management and call routing services currently provided by the SSP. In addition, a non-interconnected VoIP provider may need the cooperation of the operator of the broadband network over which the text to 911 travels to identify the user's location. In such instances, we would have ancillary authority to impose rules on entities that fall under our subject matter jurisdiction as necessary to ensure that Title III licensees, entities subject to our authority under the CVAA, and other entities subject to direct statutory authority can fulfill their new NG911 obligations.

      Similarly, we may also decide, pursuant to our direct, express mandate under the CVAA, that individuals with disabilities must have access to an IP-enabled emergency network that allows them to send text and other multimedia information to the PSAP, without further delay. In this case, we would also have ancillary authority to require action that has broader effects on the non-disabled community, should it be infeasible at this time, for technical or other reasons, for providers to tailor implementation of their CVAA obligations only to individuals with disabilities. We seek comment on this analysis. We also ask commenters to address other potentially relevant sources of authority. 120. A number of commenters note that liability protection will need to be expanded to include all entities that participate in the

      NG911 environment. The Commission recognizes that existing sources of liability protection will possibly need to be updated to accommodate the range of parties, services, and devices that will be involved in the provisioning of NG911 services. The primary basis for liability protection related to the provisioning of NG911 services stems from section 201 of the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act

      (Net 911 Act). Under this section, a ``wireless carrier, IP-enabled voice service provider, or other emergency communications provider * *

      * shall have'' the same liability protection as a local exchange carrier under federal and state law. We seek comment on whether the NET 911 Act's extension of liability protection embraces the full range of technologies and service providers that will be involved in the provisioning of NG911 services. We also seek comment on whether the

      Commission has the authority to extend liability protection to entities involved in the provisioning of NG911 services or whether Congressional action is necessary.

4. Procedural Matters

   1. Ex Parte Presentations 121. The proceeding initiated by this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be treated 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 Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules 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.

   2. Comment Filing Procedures

      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 in response to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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).

      Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

      Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy 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. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's

      Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

      All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes 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.

      Page 63276

   3. Accessible Formats 123. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental

      Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

   4. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 124. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5

      U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory

      Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.

      The IRFA is set forth in the Appendix. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set forth on the first page of this document and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

   5. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 125. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by Paperwork Reduction Act. 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.''

5. Ordering Clauses 126. It is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, and 332, of the

   Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 157, 201, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, and 332; section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47

   U.S.C. 1302; section 4 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety

   Act of 1999, as amended by the New and Emerging Technologies 911

   Improvement Act of 2008, 47 U.S.C. 615a; and sections 104 and 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 47 U.S.C. 615c, 617, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted. 127. 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.

   Federal Communications Commission.

   Marlene H. Dortch,

   Secretary.

   FR Doc. 2011-26258 Filed 10-11-11; 8:45 am

   BILLING CODE 6712-01-P