The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES . Include “Docket No. FAA-2023-0018; Project Identifier AD-2022-00883-R” at the beginning of your comments. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend the proposal because of those comments.

Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov , including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this NPRM.

CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Jared Hyman, Aerospace Engineer, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, Massachusetts 01803; telephone (781) 238-7799; email: 9-AVS-AIR-BACO-COS@faa.gov. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.

The FAA issued AD 2022-02-01, Amendment 39-21898 (87 FR 2316, January 14, 2022) (AD 2022-02-01), for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A helicopters with a swashplate assembly part number (P/N) 92104-15011-042 or P/N 92104-15011-043 that has accumulated 1,600 or more total hours TIS, installed. AD 2022-02-01 was prompted by a notification of an in-service crack in a swashplate assembly inner ring. The crack, discovered during a routine inspection, extended between the uniball bore and near the right-hand trunnion to servo attach bolt hole. This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in fretting wear on the shoulder that supports the clamp-up of the uniball outer race, failure of the swashplate assembly, and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. AD 2022-02-01 requires, within 50 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, visually inspecting the upper and lower surfaces of the swashplate assembly for a crack, nick, dent, and scratch. If there is a crack, nick, dent, or scratch that exceeds allowable limits, AD 2022-02-01 requires removing the swashplate assembly from service before further flight. The agency issued AD 2022-02-01 to address the unsafe condition on these products.

Since the FAA issued AD 2022-02-01, Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation issued Sikorsky S-92 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 92-62-010, Basic Issue, dated January 26, 2022 (ASB 92-62-010), for Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S-92A helicopters with serial numbers 920006 and subsequent equipped with swashplate assembly P/N 92104-15011-042 or P/N 92104-15011-043, delivered as of January 26, 2022 (the issuance date of ASB 92-62-010). ASB 92-62-010 specifies a visual inspection of the swashplate assembly for cracks followed by recurring 50-hour inspections. Depending on the accrued flight time, maximum gross weight, or suspicion of cracks, ASB 92-62-010 specifies performing either an FPI or ECI. Prior to the FAA issuing AD 2022-02-01, Sikorsky Aircraft provided a comment to the NPRM (86 FR 47041, August 23, 2021) for that AD stating that the 50-hour recurring inspections proposed in the NPRM were insufficient based on recent fatigue evaluations, which had introduced a new failure mode. Sikorsky Aircraft further stated that this new failure mode requires improved detection capability, which would be introduced in a forthcoming revision to Sikorsky S-92 Helicopter Alert Service Bulletin ASB 92-62-009, Basic Issue, dated February 6, 2019 (ASB 92-62-009). Sikorsky Aircraft explained that the planned revision would specify special inspections at 50-hour, 375-hour, and 1,500-hour intervals to visually detect a potential fatigue crack at specific regions of the swashplate and would include criteria for when to accomplish an FPI or ECI. Since providing that comment, Sikorsky Aircraft has updated its guidance and retained ASB 92-62-009 and issued ASB 92-62-010. The special 375-hour and 1,500-hour inspections with added specific focus on the swashplate region were incorporated into the maintenance manual and not into a service bulletin. Based on continued analysis, the FAA has determined that the unsafe condition could exist on swashplate assemblies regardless of accumulated usage and accordingly has expanded the applicability of this proposed AD. In addition, the FAA has determined it is necessary to require more detailed inspections to address the new failure mode.

The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

The FAA reviewed ASB 92-62-010, which specifies a visual inspection of the swashplate assembly to determine if there are any cracks and initiates a 50-hour recurring visual inspection. If cracks are found, ASB 92-62-010 specifies replacing the swashplate assembly. Dependent on accrued flight time or suspicion of cracks, an FPI or ECI is performed. ASB 92-62-010 also specifies returning the swashplate assembly, uniball bearing, trunnions, and all attachment hardware to Sikorsky for investigation if cracks are found.

This proposed AD would also require ASB 92-62-009, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of February 18, 2022 (87 FR 2316, January 14, 2022).

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in ADDRESSES .

This proposed AD would continue to require, for swashplate assemblies that have accumulated 1,600 or more total hours TIS, certain recurring visual inspections. This proposed AD would also expand the visual inspections required by AD 2022-02-01 and revise the applicability statement of AD 2022-02-01. This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described, except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the Service Information.”

The applicability statement in this proposed AD does not identify airframe serial numbers, whereas the effectivity of ASB 92-62-010 does. This proposed AD would affect all swashplate assemblies P/N 92104-15011-042 and P/N 92104-15011-043 regardless of delivery date, whereas the effectivity of ASB 92-62-010 is for those part-numbered swashplate assemblies delivered as of January 26, 2022 (the issuance date of ASB 92-62-010). ASB 92-62-009 specifies a one-time visual inspection of the swashplate assembly; this proposed AD would require recurring visual inspections of the swashplate assembly to determine if any crack, nick, dent, or scratch develops over time. This proposed AD does not require returning parts to or contacting Sikorsky, while ASB 92-62-009 and ASB 92-62-010 specify performing those actions.

The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 89 helicopters of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD. Labor costs are estimated at $85 per work-hour.

Visually inspecting a swashplate assembly would take about 1.0 work-hour, for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $7,565 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

Performing an ECI or FPI would take about 8.0 work-hours, for an estimated cost of $680 per helicopter and $60,520 for the U.S. fleet, per inspection cycle.

Replacing the swashplate assembly, if required, would take about 16 work-hours and parts cost about $389,720, for an estimated cost of $391,080 per helicopter.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed regulation:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-1798 Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-32) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the internet at www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-1798 Airspace Docket No. 22-AAL-32.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198.

This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11G lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.

The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to transition the Alaskan en route navigation structure away from the dependency on NDBs. Advances in technology have allowed for alternative navigation methods to support decommissioning high-cost ground navigation equipment. In 2021, the FAA conducted a study in accordance with FAA Order JO 7400.2, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, on whether to decommission PIZ, HHM, and FDV due to the ongoing high cost of maintenance and repairs. Interested parties were invited to submit comments on the study. No comments were received and the FAA scheduled PIZ, HHM, and FDV to be decommissioned.

Colored Federal airway B-2 navigates between PIZ and FDV. Decommissioning PIZ and FDV would render this route unusable. Accordingly, the FAA proposes to revoke B-2 in its entirety. United States Navigational (RNAV) routes T-366, T-367, T-364, and T-260 overlay or parallel the entire route, which mitigates the impact of revoking B-2.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to revoke Colored Federal airway B-2 in the vicinity of Pont Lay, AK due to the scheduled decommissioning of PIZ, HHM, and FDV. B-2 currently extends between PIZ and FDV. The FAA proposes to revoke B-2 in its entirety.

Colored Federal airways are published in paragraph 6009(d) of FAA Order JO 7400.11G dated August 19, 2022 and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Colored Federal airway listed in this document would be removed subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.

FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

Pursuant to Section 18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a(1)(B), and FTC Rule 1.31(f), 16 CFR 1.31(f), notice is hereby given that the above-captioned petition has been filed with the Secretary of the Commission and has been placed on the public record for a period of thirty (30) days. Any person may submit comments in support of or in opposition to the petition. All timely and responsive comments submitted in connection with this petition will become part of the public record. The Commission will not consider the petition's merits until after the comment period closes.

Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at https://www.regulations.gov, you are solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not include any sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number, or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “trade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided by Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2).

Rationale. Based on consideration of a request letter received from an industry representative (Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc.), which is available in the docket for this proposed rule, the EPA is extending the public comment period for an additional 15 days. Therefore, the public comment period will end on February 1, 2023.

Docket. The EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481. All documents in the docket are listed in https://www.regulations.gov/. Although listed, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. With the exception of such material, publicly available docket materials are available electronically in Regulations.gov .

Instructions. Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically to https://www.regulations.gov/ any information that you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. This type of information should be submitted as discussed below.

The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission ( i.e., on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

The https://www.regulations.gov/ website allows you to submit your comment anonymously, which means the EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA without going through https://www.regulations.gov/, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any digital storage media you submit. If the EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should not include special characters or any form of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about the EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

Submitting CBI. Do not submit information containing CBI to the EPA through https://www.regulations.gov/. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on any digital storage media that you mail to the EPA, note the docket ID, mark the outside of the digital storage media as CBI, and identify electronically within the digital storage media the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comments that includes information claimed as CBI, you must submit a copy of the comments that does not contain the information claimed as CBI directly to the public docket through the procedures outlined in Instructions above. If you submit any digital storage media that does not contain CBI, mark the outside of the digital storage media clearly that it does not contain CBI and note the docket ID. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and the EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 2.

Our preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol (FTP), or other online file sharing services ( e.g., Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive). Electronic submissions must be transmitted directly to the OAQPS CBI Office at the email address oaqpscbi@epa.gov, and as described above, should include clear CBI markings and note the docket ID. If assistance is needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file sharing service, please email oaqpscbi@epa.gov to request a file transfer link. If sending CBI information through the postal service, please send it to the following address: OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), OAQPS, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0481. The mailed CBI material should be double wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through the outer envelope.

Throughout this document “we,” “us,” and “our” means EPA. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register , EPA is approving this action as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives such comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Final Rules section of this Federal Register .

This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), FCC 22-96, in PS Docket No. 18-64, adopted on December 21, 2022, and released on December 22, 2022. The full text of this document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/search-results?t=quick&fccdaNo=22-96.

This NPRM may contain proposed new or modified information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on any information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the PRA. If the Commission adopts any new or modified information collection requirements, they will be submitted to OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

Pursuant to §§ 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 in the DATES section above. 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), https://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/fcc98056.pdf.

The Commission will treat this proceeding as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within 2 business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 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.

In this NPRM, we propose to require wireless carriers and covered text providers to implement location-based routing for 911 calls and texts nationwide. 1 With location-based routing, wireless providers that originate 911 calls and texts use precise information about the location of the wireless caller's device to route 911 calls and texts to the appropriate PSAP for that location. 2 Nationwide implementation of location-based routing will significantly reduce misrouted 911 calls and texts and the delays associated with transferring misrouted 911 calls and texts from one PSAP to another. For the millions of wireless 911 callers seeking emergency assistance each year, improving call routing will reduce emergency response times and save lives.

In 2018, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry that sought to determine the best way to avoid misrouted 911 calls. 3 Earlier this year, we refreshed the record on location-based routing with a public notice that sought to update the record on developments since the release of the Notice of Inquiry, including recent technological improvements in location-based routing and the extent to which wireless carriers have deployed location-based routing in their networks. 4

Developments since the Notice of Inquiry and comments in response to the public notice make clear that location technology has advanced significantly since 2018. Location-based routing appears to now be technologically feasible, and indeed is already being implemented by some wireless carriers. Moreover, implementing location-based routing on a nationwide basis has the potential to provide significant public safety benefits. Accordingly, in this NPRM, we propose rules to require all wireless carriers and covered text providers to implement location-based routing for all 911 calls and texts nationwide, including calls and texts originating in legacy, transitional, and Next Generation 911 (NG911)-capable  5 public safety jurisdictions. Specifically, we propose to:

• Require all Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers to (1) deploy technology that supports location-based routing on their IP-based networks ( i.e., 4G, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based networks) and (2) use location-based routing to route all 911 voice calls originating on their IP-based networks when caller location information available during origination of the 911 call meets certain requirements for accuracy and timeliness. Nationwide CMRS providers would have six months from the effective date of final rules to meet these requirements. Non-nationwide CMRS providers would have an additional year ( i.e., eighteen months from the effective date of final rules) to meet the same requirements.

• Require covered text providers to (1) deploy technology that supports location-based routing and (2) use location-based routing to route all 911 texts originating on their IP-based networks when location information available during origination of the 911 text meets certain requirements for accuracy and timeliness. Covered text providers would have eighteen months from the effective date of final rules to meet these requirements.

• Establish baseline requirements with respect to the accuracy and timeliness of location information used for location-based routing. When location information does not meet one or both of these requirements, CMRS providers and covered text providers would be required to route 911 calls and texts based on the best available location information, which may include latitude/longitude coordinates of the cell tower.

To help ensure that public safety jurisdictions transitioning to NG911 can realize the benefits of location-based routing in an efficient and cost-effective manner, we also propose to:

• Require CMRS providers and covered text providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated routing information in IP format upon request of 911 authorities who have established the capability to accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911 communications. Nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers would be subject to this requirement six months from the effective date of final rules on location-based routing or within six months of a valid request for IP-based service from a local or state public safety authority, whichever is later. Non-nationwide CMRS providers would have an additional six months to comply with this requirement.

We believe that the above proposals for location-based routing of 911 calls and texts will promote the safety of life and property by helping to ensure that those in need of emergency assistance can receive the help they need in a more timely manner. We seek comment on the tentative conclusions, proposals, and analyses set forth in this NPRM, as well as on any alternative approaches.

When 911 service was first introduced, all 911 calls originated from wireline networks, and wireline providers used the fixed location of the calling telephone to route 911 calls to the nearest PSAP. With the deployment of the first generation of cellular service, wireless 911 calls could originate from any location served by the wireless network, and the caller could move locations during the call. To enable timely routing of wireless 911 calls, CMRS providers typically programmed their networks to use the location of the first cell tower receiving the call to determine the nearest PSAP and route the call accordingly. This became the basis for routing of wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) calls (legacy E911 routing).

In legacy E911 routing, because the location of the cell tower may be some distance from the caller's location, CMRS providers may route a wireless 911 call to a PSAP other than the one designated by the relevant state or local 911 authority to receive calls from the actual location of the caller. For example, a cell tower in Northern Virginia may pick up a wireless 911 call originating in Washington, DC, but route the call to a Virginia PSAP. 6 The Commission considers calls routed to a PSAP other than the one designated for the actual location of the caller to be “misrouted.”  7 Misroutes can occur for several reasons, including when more than one PSAP is within the coverage area of a cell site or sector. 8 The record indicates that misroutes are frequent where legacy E911 routing is used. NENA: The 9-1-1 Association (NENA) estimates that 23 million calls using legacy E911 routing are misrouted annually. Other parties estimate that approximately 11-12% of legacy E911 calls are misrouted, 9 and the percentage of misrouted calls can vary between and even within jurisdictions. For example, the Fayetteville (Arkansas) Police Department reports that 30% of the 911 calls its jurisdiction receives are misrouted from neighboring jurisdictions. 10 Intrado estimates that Palm Beach County, Florida, experiences misrouted calls at a rate as high as 20-50% along PSAP boundaries.

When a 911 call is misrouted, the answering telecommunicator must transfer the call to the PSAP that has jurisdiction to dispatch aid to the 911 caller's location. This process consumes time and resources for both the transferring PSAP and the receiving PSAP and delays the dispatch of first responders to render aid. 11 Commenters submit anecdotal evidence that a typical misroute introduces a delay of about a minute. 12 NENA estimates that call transfers consume over 200,000 hours per year of excess 911 professional labor. Misrouted wireless calls can also contribute to confusion and delay in emergency response. 13 This delay can have deadly consequences. 14

In 2018, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on issues related to misrouted wireless 911 calls, including the feasibility of location-based routing. 15 The Commission observed that it had not previously addressed the accuracy of wireless 911 call routing. Historically, precise caller location information typically took too long to generate to be available for routing purposes. The Commission noted, however, that then-recent advances in location technology suggested it was feasible to pinpoint a 911 caller's location quickly enough to support an initial routing determination. The Commission found that many location-based routing methods were promising and sought comment on the “technical and operational implications, limitations, deployments, and best common practices” of location-based routing. The Commission also requested comment on the frequency of wireless 911 call misroutes, the impact of misroutes on public safety, and the implementation of location-based routing technologies, including location-based routing capabilities for jurisdictions that had deployed elements of NG911. In addition, the Commission requested specific comment on the findings and recommendations of a 2016 report on location-based routing released by CSRIC V ( CSRIC V LBR Report ). 16 The Commission also sought comment on the means available to facilitate improvements to 911 routing and reduce the likelihood of misrouted 911 calls, including the promotion of voluntary best practices, implementation of incentive-based mechanisms, or regulatory action, and on costs and benefits relating to location-based routing.

The Commission received 22 comments and 14 reply comments in response to the Notice of Inquiry. 17 The record reflected uncertainty about the capabilities of location-based routing at the time. 18 In particular, nationwide CMRS providers noted the lack of available handset-based solutions that could generate a fix within a short period of time  19 and the presumption that any feasible solution would require significant investments from PSAPs. 20

Since the comment period for the Notice of Inquiry closed over four years ago, several developments indicate that location-based routing has become a viable methodology for CMRS providers to route 911 calls and texts. These developments include studies on misroutes and location-based routing technology, increased deployment of device-based hybrid (DBH) location technologies on consumer handsets, 21 and voluntary implementation of location-based routing on CMRS provider networks. In 2018, CTIA announced that the nationwide wireless carriers planned to add DBH location technologies to their networks to improve 911 location accuracy. In 2019, the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) published two studies with new information on legacy E911 misroutes and the feasibility of location-based routing. 22 In those studies, ATIS concluded that “location-based routing is technically feasible within the timing considerations recommended by CSRIC V” and evaluated where “sub-optimal routing” occurred for a sample set of wireless emergency calls. In a 2019 ex parte filing in the instant docket, Apple Inc. (Apple) noted that it had made DBH location technology available on certain device models that would support carrier implementation of location-based routing. 23

The three nationwide wireless carriers (AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon) now indicate that they have deployed or plan to deploy location-based routing to varying extents on their networks. T-Mobile launched location-based routing on its network in the states of Texas and Washington in 2020 and as of July 2022 was offering location-based routing to 770 PSAPs. AT&T completed the rollout of location-based routing on its network in June 2022 and uses location-based routing to deliver 911 calls and texts to nearly all PSAPs nationwide, whether they are legacy or NG911-capable and without any additional action from the receiving PSAP. 24 Verizon has indicated that it plans to start work in the first quarter of 2023 to enable location-based routing nationwide. 25

In June 2022, the Commission released a public notice to refresh the record on location-based routing developments since the Notice of Inquiry. The Commission sought information on industry trends, the 2019 ATIS studies on misroutes and location-based routing, increased deployment of DBH, the use of location-based routing for text-to-911, and implementation of location-based routing on carrier networks. The Commission received 15 comments and 6 reply comments in response to the public notice. We discuss these comments below in the context of the proposals made in this NPRM.

Developments since the Notice of Inquiry and the record received in response to the public notice indicate that nationwide location-based routing is now feasible and has the potential to provide significant public safety benefits by reducing the number of misrouted calls to 911. Commenters confirm that continued reliance on cell tower-based routing results in a considerable number of 911 calls being misrouted  26 and that this is a significant problem for public safety. 27 NENA estimates that nationwide implementation of location-based routing would reduce misrouted wireless 911 calls by 85% from 23 million to 3.45 million per year. Other commenters agree that implementation of location-based routing can significantly mitigate misroutes and, as a result, save lives and property.

The record also indicates that carrier deployments of location-based routing have already had a positive impact. As noted above, two nationwide carriers, T-Mobile and AT&T, have already implemented location-based routing: as of July 2022, T-Mobile was offering location-based routing to 770 PSAPs, 28 while AT&T has implemented location-based routing throughout its network and is using it to deliver 911 calls and texts to nearly all PSAPs nationwide. 29 Commenters report that jurisdictions where carriers have implemented location-based routing now experience fewer misroutes, fewer transfers, and faster dispatch times. AT&T states that in trials and in subsequent deployment, its location-based routing solution has significantly improved call routing: AT&T estimates that it is able to route 80% of 911 calls on its network to the correct PSAP using location-based routing, and that approximately 10% of these calls would have been misrouted (and would have required a transfer) if it had used legacy E911 routing based on cell tower location. 30 The Texas 911 Entities state that the rollout of T-Mobile's location-based routing solution has had a “noticeably positive impact” on PSAPs experiencing misrouted calls and has resulted in fewer transfers for some PSAPs. 31 In 2020, T-Mobile announced that some areas where it implemented location-based routing experienced 40% fewer call transfers. Commenters' reported experiences align with CSRIC V's finding that location-based routing would reduce call transfers when a location fix is available within a few seconds of call origination.

The record further indicates that it is now technologically feasible for all CMRS providers to support location-based routing for a significant percentage of wireless 911 calls. In its 2019 feasibility study, ATIS concluded that location-based routing is technically feasible within the five-second window recommended by CSRIC V. 32 The feasibility of location-based routing has also significantly increased as a result of the widespread availability of DBH technologies to support 911 location. Android devices using Emergency Location Service (ELS) and iOS devices using Hybridized Emergency Location (HELO) are capable of generating high accuracy, low latency location information in time to support 911 call routing. 33 In response to the public notice released in 2022, several commenters note that these DBH location technologies are widely available on mobile devices and can be used for routing a high percentage of wireless 911 calls. This is a significant change from the comments received in response to the Notice of Inquiry, which indicated uncertainty regarding the availability of technology that would support location-based routing information. 34

Based on the above, we propose to require that all CMRS providers (1) deploy technology that supports location-based routing and (2) use location-based routing to route all wireless 911 voice calls originating on IP-based networks, when timely and accurate information about the caller's location is available. When such information is not available in time for routing the call, we propose to allow CMRS providers to route 911 calls using the best available location information, which may include cell tower coordinates. We also propose to establish timeframes for compliance with these requirements and to define specific terms to clarify the obligations of regulated entities. We seek comment on these proposals.

Public safety commenters agree that early location-based routing implementations by CMRS providers have shown that the technology is technically feasible. Intrado states that AT&T's deployment of location-based routing can serve as a model for other CMRS providers. We seek comment on this analysis. For nationwide and non-nationwide carriers that have not implemented location-based routing across their entire networks, we seek comment on the feasibility and cost of network upgrades (including hardware, software, Geographic Information System (GIS), and service upgrades) and testing that would be required to implement location-based routing in their service areas by the proposed deadlines.

We tentatively conclude that a high percentage of consumer handsets currently in use on nationwide and non-nationwide networks are technically capable of supporting location-based routing using device-based location technology. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. AT&T states that device-based location routing solutions do not require changes to the network core and are relatively easy to implement. 35 However, T-Mobile states that “not every carrier is prepared to use DBH location estimates for routing today,”  36 and Peninsula Fiber Network states that “[o]ne major provider has a 99% failure rate in providing the caller's location within the 5 second window.” We seek comment on whether there are technology or cost barriers that prevent some CMRS providers from supporting device-based location solutions.

Public safety entities and some technology providers urge the Commission to require all CMRS providers to support location-based routing. 37 For example, APCO states that location-based routing technology “is available today, and the Commission should act quickly to require service providers to implement it.” NENA states that the Commission should establish rules to implement location-based routing nationwide to reduce response times for millions of 911 calls and save lives. However, some CMRS providers urge us not to adopt requirements and instead to permit carriers to implement location-based routing voluntarily. We believe that requiring all CMRS providers to support location-based routing would generate substantial public safety benefits, whereas allowing CMRS providers to implement location-based routing voluntarily would result in inconsistent routing of calls to PSAPs and a higher risk of 911 misroutes for subscribers on CMRS networks that did not support location-based routing. 38 We seek comment on whether there are countervailing reasons to allow voluntary implementation of location-based routing by carriers rather than adopting a requirement.

We also seek comment on whether CMRS providers should be required to use location-based routing to deliver 911 calls to all PSAPs served by their networks, or whether the requirement should be triggered by PSAP request or limited to certain categories of PSAPs. T-Mobile and Verizon assert that not all PSAPs are currently interested in receiving calls routed using device location and that in some instances it could adversely impact PSAP operations. However, AT&T provides location-based routing to virtually all PSAPs on its network and asserts that it can do so without action by the PSAP. We seek comment on whether there have been instances in which carrier implementation of location-based routing has imposed costs or had an adverse impact on PSAPs or where public safety authorities have had “significant issues with implementation.”

Some commenters contend that location-based routing should only be made available to PSAPs that have achieved some level of NG911 capability. Verizon supports location-based routing only for PSAPs that are operating in accordance with NG911 standards. T-Mobile states that it deploys NG911 and location-based routing “where jurisdictions are ready,” noting that it does so for PSAP operational awareness and awareness of situations “where service-area boundaries require specific routing to achieve optimal routing improvements.” CTIA argues that providers and PSAPs need flexibility to implement location-based routing in a manner that accounts for PSAP capabilities. However, AT&T has implemented location-based routing for both legacy and NG911 PSAPs across its network, with only very limited exceptions and without a requirement that PSAPs take any particular action to receive calls using location-based routing. In addition, the ATIS-0700042 standard supports location-based routing of 911 calls delivered to both Emergency Services internet Protocol Networks (ESInets) and legacy selective routers.

We seek comment on our tentative conclusion that location-based routing should be required for wireless 911 calling in legacy E911 jurisdictions as well as jurisdictions that have achieved partial or full NG911 capability. Although many PSAPs are connected to ESInets and some have become wholly or partially NG911-capable, approximately half of primary PSAPs in the United States are not yet connected to an ESInet. 39 Thus, limiting location-based routing to jurisdictions that are ESInet-connected or have developed some level of NG911 capability would deprive legacy PSAPs and the communities they serve of the benefits of location-based routing. We seek comment on whether the requirement for CMRS providers to support location-based routing should be conditioned on a determination that jurisdictions are “ready” to receive location-routed calls, and if so, what criteria should be used to make this determination.

Some commenters contend that location-based routing should only be required in jurisdictions with the highest incidence of misroutes. T-Mobile asserts that location-based routing would not improve emergency response in all jurisdictions and that the Commission should not require location-based routing where it would not improve emergency response. ATIS suggests that legacy E911 routing may be preferred for cell sectors “which display a very low (or no) incidence of sub-optimal routing behavior” and “[i]n these cases, the potential time delay associated with LBR may not be justifiable.”  40 We note, however, that AT&T has implemented location-based routing across all jurisdictions regardless of the prior frequency of misroutes, without a significant impact on call-routing time compared to legacy E911 routing. 41 We tentatively conclude that any potential time delay associated with location-based routing is likely to be negligible even for sectors that do not have frequent legacy E911 misroutes. In addition, CMRS providers or PSAPs may lack granular data on misroutes, making it difficult to identify which sectors have misroutes most frequently. We seek comment on whether attempting to limit location-based routing to sectors prone to misroutes would be less costly or provide any greater benefits than supporting location-based routing across all jurisdictions. How would the Commission determine which jurisdictions or sectors would benefit most from location-based routing, and what are the constraints on obtaining such information? Are there other approaches the Commission should consider for implementing location-based routing?

Compliance Timeframe. We propose to require nationwide CMRS providers to deploy and commence use of location-based routing for 911 voice calls within six months from the effective date of final rules on location-based routing. The three nationwide CMRS providers have already deployed or are actively working toward deploying location-based routing capabilities on their networks. The six-month implementation timeframe is intended to provide the nationwide providers adequate time to complete the implementation of location-based routing. We seek comment on this proposal and on whether a longer or shorter compliance timeframe should be considered for nationwide CMRS providers.

We propose to provide non-nationwide CMRS providers an additional year ( i.e., eighteen months from the effective date of final rules on location-based routing) to deploy and commence use of location-based routing for 911 voice calls. This would give non-nationwide providers additional time to take necessary steps to implement location-based routing on their networks. Additionally, we anticipate that location-based routing solutions will be more readily available to non-nationwide providers on an extended timeframe. We note that no non-nationwide providers submitted comments in response to the Notice of Inquiry or public notice, and we seek comment on whether a longer or shorter compliance period would be appropriate for such providers.

Calls Originating on IP-Based Networks. To reduce potential cost burdens for CMRS providers, we propose to require location-based routing for 911 calls originating on IP-based networks, but not for 911 calls originating on circuit-switched, time-division multiplex (TDM) networks. ATIS assumes for purposes of ATIS-0700042 that location-based routing is only supported on originating networks supporting Long Term Evolution (LTE) and beyond. Intrado asserts that 4G and 5G networks provide a “much more supportive setting for LBR” and notes that 4G LTE and newer networks no longer require call holding to implement location-based routing because the routing element has sufficient time to transmit and evaluate confidence and uncertainty information and to query the location server for PSAP routing instructions before the time to route. Nationwide CMRS providers are also in the process of retiring or have completed the retirement of TDM 2G and 3G networks, 42 and some non-nationwide providers have announced dates to sunset their 3G networks in 2022. In light of the technical obstacles and upcoming retirement of these networks, we tentatively conclude that requiring location-based routing for 911 calls originating on TDM-based networks would be unduly burdensome. Accordingly, we propose to require location-based routing only for calls originating on IP-based networks, i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based networks. We seek comment on this proposal and on our analysis.

Default to Best Available Location Information. We propose to require that when location information does not meet one or both requirements for accuracy and timeliness under our rules, wireless providers shall route 911 calls based on the best available location information available at the time the call is routed, which may include cell tower coordinates. We agree with commenters who assert that there is a continued need for cell-sector based routing as a fallback method because accurate location information is not available to support call routing in all scenarios. 43 Our proposed requirement to default to best available location information would be consistent with the ATIS-0500039 report, which assumes that the fallback for location-based routing should be cell sector routing “for cases wherein no position estimate is available in time to be used for [location-based routing] or the position estimates lack requisite accuracy.” It also would be consistent with current CMRS provider deployments of location-based routing, which default to legacy E911 routing when location does not meet carriers' standards of accuracy and timely availability. 44 In addition, we agree with commenters who assert that CMRS providers should be able to route based on the best available location information at the time of routing. We believe that our proposal would allow carriers to take full advantage of the location information available at the time of routing while permitting them the flexibility to use other information, including cell tower coordinates, when precise location is not available in time. We seek comment on our proposal. We also seek comment on the percentage of calls that CMRS providers would continue to route using legacy E911 routing rather than location-based routing under our proposed rules.

Disclosure of Location-Based Routing Information. We seek comment on whether the proposed rules should require CMRS providers to provide information to PSAPs or state or local 911 authorities regarding the routing methodology used for each 911 call. NASNA states that “it is important for the telecommunicator dispatching the call to know what type of location technology has been used to route a 911 call” and that it is “critical” to provide the type of location technology CMRS providers used to derive the caller's location, such as “specific LBR technology versus E-911,” to the PSAP with each call. ATIS states that any method providing location-based routing must be transparent to the emergency services network and the PSAP. 45 NENA notes that there are already NG911 elements that partly meet NASNA's requirements, and that additional standards under development should meet them in full. Given the forthcoming development of additional standards by NENA, we do not propose to add specific disclosure requirements at this time, but we encourage state and local 911 authorities, service providers, and vendors to develop mechanisms to provide PSAPs with information on call routing methodology that could assist them in identifying the caller's location and dispatching emergency response. We also note that our proposed accuracy and timeliness criteria for location-based routing include confidence and uncertainty metrics to ensure that CMRS providers use the best available location information to route the call in each instance. We seek comment on this approach. If we were to adopt disclosure requirements, what information should be disclosed, what would be the public safety benefits, and would such benefits justify the cost to CMRS providers of making such disclosures to PSAPs?

Texting to 911 has become an integral component of emergency response in many jurisdictions. Currently available data indicate that in calendar year 2020, over 3,000 PSAPs in the U.S. supported text-to-911 and that 11 states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico had jurisdiction-wide text-to-911 coverage. 46 Although the volume of 911 texts in these jurisdictions is typically much lower than the volume of 911 voice calls, it is equally important that all 911 texts as well as voice calls be routed to the appropriate PSAP responsible for dispatch of emergency response to the texting party's location. Therefore, for the same reasons set forth above with respect to 911 voice calls, we propose to require covered text providers to use location-based routing to route all 911 texts originating on IP-based networks, provided that the information used for routing meets the same requirements for accuracy and timeliness that would apply to 911 voice calls. We further propose that when location information for routing texts to 911 does not meet either one or both of these requirements, covered text providers would be required to route texts to 911 on the basis of the best available location information at time of routing. We seek comment on this proposal.

The record indicates that location-based routing for 911 texts is technically feasible and already in use by some providers. AT&T reports that it has used location-based routing for its text-to-911 service since 2016 and that it uses DBH location to route the majority of its text messages. The Massachusetts State 911 Department reports that two wireless carriers in the state provide location information to its NG911 network to route texts to the appropriate PSAP. We also note that no commenter has contended that location-based routing for 911 texts is not technically feasible or expressed opposition to using location-based routing for 911 texts as well as voice calls.

We seek comment on the technical feasibility of location-based routing for 911 texts and whether there are any considerations specific to 911 texting that would warrant adopting different location-based routing requirements from those applicable to 911 voice calls. If so, how should the requirements for text to 911 differ? Can providers use DBH to support location-based routing of both voice and text? Are there routing solutions besides DBH available to covered text providers to route 911 texts? We seek comment and specific data on the benefits of requiring covered text providers to implement location-based routing for texts originating on IP-based networks, as well as the costs involved in such a requirement.

We propose to require covered text providers to deploy and commence use of location-based routing for 911 texts within eighteen months from the effective date of final rules on location-based routing. This proposed implementation timeframe is intended to provide the diverse set of covered text providers, which includes nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers offering text service as well as other providers, adequate time to take necessary steps to complete the implementation of location-based routing on their networks. We seek comment on this proposed timeframe and on whether a longer or shorter compliance period should be considered.

We propose to adopt a definition of “location-based routing” that requires routing based on the location of the calling device, as opposed to the location of network elements such as cell site or sector. We therefore propose to define “location-based routing” as “the use of information on the location of a device, including but not limited to device-based location information, to deliver 911 calls and texts to point(s) designated by the authorized local or state entity to receive wireless 911 calls and texts, such as an Emergency Services internet Protocol Network (ESInet) or PSAP, or to an appropriate local emergency authority.” We propose to define “device-based location information” as “[i]nformation regarding the location of a device used to call or text 911 generated all or in part from on-device sensors and data sources.”

We seek comment on this proposed definition. Specifically, we seek comment on whether the proposed definition of “device-based location information” adequately encompasses current DBH location technologies, such as Apple's HELO and Android's ELS, as well as possible future location technologies that can determine the location of the calling device. We seek comment on whether we should include other specific location technologies as examples in our definition, such as Assisted-Global Navigation Satellite System (A-GNSS) or Wi-Fi. 47 We note that the Commission also uses the term “device-based location information” in its existing rule on delivery of 911 text messages and intend that our proposed definition would also apply to that rule.

We also seek comment on our proposal to explicitly identify ESInets as an example of an end point that state or local 911 authorities can designate for delivery of calls where location-based routing is used. Because ESInets are an important component of NG911 networks, we believe it is appropriate to identify them as a potential delivery point. We also note that this proposed definition is not intended to modify CMRS providers' obligation under § 9.10 of the Commission's rules, which requires such providers to transmit all wireless 911 calls to a PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority. Thus, under our proposed definition, state and local 911 authorities would retain the authority to specify the delivery point for location-routed calls, whether the delivery point is an ESInet, a legacy selective router, or some other designated facility. We seek comment on this proposal.

We propose to require CMRS providers and covered text providers to use location-based routing for 911 calls and texts when they have location information that meets the following specifications for timeliness and accuracy: (i) the information must be available to the provider network at the time the call or text is routed, and (ii) the information must identify the caller's horizontal location within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. We discuss the timing and accuracy elements of the proposed rule below and seek comment on each.

Timeliness of Location-Based Routing Information. Location-based routing requires information about the caller's location to be available quickly enough to enable the call to be routed without delaying the normal call set-up process. For location-based routing of 911 voice calls to be feasible without delaying call set-up, caller location information would need to be made available to the CMRS provider's Mobile Switching Center (MSC) within five seconds or less of the call being dialed. At the time of the Notice of Inquiry, commenters questioned whether available technology could generate caller location information this quickly. However, the record indicates that significant technological advances have been made since then and that currently available technology is routinely capable of delivering caller location information in time to route the call without delay, and well within the five-second threshold identified by CSRIC V. Intrado states that 4G LTE and newer networks can obtain device-based location information, calculate confidence and uncertainty, and query the location server for PSAP routing instructions within the normal call set-up interval. Intrado further notes that AT&T's location-based routing solution provides location-based routing “without any impact to the timeline or the call.”  48 In a 2019 filing, Apple stated that HELO can normally generate and transmit device location information during call set-up. Google has stated that ELS can obtain a first location of Android devices 3-4 seconds after a call has been started.

Based on these developments, we propose to require CMRS and covered text providers to use location-based routing only if caller location information is available at the time that the provider would otherwise route the call (and if the information meets the proposed accuracy requirements in the rules). Our proposal is intended to avoid delay in transmitting 911 calls and texts because there would be no requirement to hold calls and texts for purposes of obtaining a routing fix. We seek comment on this proposal. For what percentage of calls and texts would caller location-based routing information be available at the time of routing, as contemplated by our proposal? Does the absence of any required holding time protect against the risk of delaying transmission of 911 calls and texts?

Accuracy of Location-Based Information. Location-based routing requires caller location information to be sufficiently accurate and reliable to support a routing decision that directs the call to the correct PSAP for the caller's location and avoids misrouting the call. The CSRIC V LBR Report recommends that wireless service providers that deliver 911 calls “must have metrics and procedures in place to ensure that internal positioning methodologies used are reliable, consistent and performing at expected accuracy and quality requirements.” ATIS notes that location-based routing solutions “must consider uncertainty, in addition to the estimated location, in making the decision whether to use” a location fix for routing purposes. 49

We note that the location information used for routing a 911 call to the correct PSAP may not need to be as precise as the location information required under our location accuracy rules to support dispatch to the caller's location. For example, AT&T's location-based routing solution uses a horizontal accuracy metric of 165 meters and a 90% confidence threshold, i.e., if device-based location information provided at call set-up establishes the caller's location within a 165-meter radius at a 90% confidence level, AT&T will use the information to route the call. While this is a less granular accuracy threshold than the 50-meter horizontal accuracy metric that CMRS providers must meet for dispatch purposes, Intrado reports that the 165 meter/90% confidence metric has enabled AT&T to use location-based routing for 80% of 911 calls on its network.

Consistent with these developments, we propose to require that CMRS and covered text providers use location-based routing if the location information available at the time of routing identifies the caller's horizontal location within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. These metrics are consistent with AT&T's implementation of location-based routing. In addition, our proposed confidence metric is consistent with ATIS' recommendation that uncertainty values for location-based routing “be standardized to a 90% confidence for effective call handling.” We seek comment on this proposal. As BRETSA notes, even where location-based routing is used, misroutes may still occur, e.g., when a caller is very near a jurisdictional boundary. Do our proposed accuracy and confidence metrics strike the right balance in terms of maximizing the number of calls that will be successfully routed to the correct PSAP while minimizing the number of potential misroutes? If not, how should we modify those metrics, and what effect would such changes have on our goal to reduce misrouted calls and texts? In addition, for calls that fall outside the accuracy and confidence thresholds, should we provide a minimum standard or standards for the determining the best available location information for routing the call?

Validation. Several commenters recommend that carriers validate location estimates for location-based routing against positioning information from other sources, such as the originating cell sector. 50 We seek comment on whether we should require validation of caller location information for purposes of location-based routing and, if so, what validation steps we should require CMRS and covered text providers to take. We intend for our proposed confidence and uncertainty requirements to ensure that CMRS providers and covered text providers use accurate device location for routing purposes when it is available. Considering these proposals, do commenters believe that additional validation steps are necessary? We also ask commenters to address the validation process, including what information CMRS providers and covered text providers should use to validate device-based hybrid location information. 51 Are there additional costs associated with validation and, if so, what are they? In addition, we seek comment on which parties should be responsible for validation, at what point in the network validation should occur, and whether requiring validation would introduce any delay.

In the Notice of Inquiry and the public notice, the Commission sought comment on potential interdependencies between location-based routing and the transition to Next Generation 911. As the Commission observed in the Notice of Inquiry, NG911 call routing differs from legacy E911 call routing because NG911 architecture requires originating service providers to route calls to ESInets rather than to legacy selective routers, and calls are then routed over the ESInet to the appropriate PSAP. 52 In addition, NG911 differs from legacy E911 in that it is configured for originating service providers to deliver 911 calls and associated call routing information in IP-based format. Specifically, in NG911 call flow, the originating service provider uses Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) to embed routing information in the IP data packets that control call initiation and set-up and uses the SIP call routing information to route the call to the appropriate ESInet. Then, the ESInet operator directs the call to the appropriate PSAP by applying geospatial routing policies to the routing information embedded in the call.

In the public notice, we asked how the Commission could help to ensure that the delivery of location information to NG911-capable PSAPs is consistent with NG911 systems and architecture. In response, commenters generally support the end goal of having originating service providers deliver IP-formatted calls and SIP-based call routing information to NG911-capable PSAPs, and some nationwide CMRS providers state that they are already doing so. 53 Some commenters, including NENA, urge the Commission to require carriers to deliver calls and routing information in IP-based format to NG911-capable PSAPs that request it, arguing that this will speed the NG911 transition and reduce transition costs.

We propose to require CMRS and covered text providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated routing information in IP-based format to NG911-capable PSAPs that request it. We seek comment on this proposal. We believe that such a requirement, combined with our proposed location-based routing requirements described above, would help to advance the NG911 transition in several ways. First, it would help to address operational and routing issues for jurisdictions that have implemented NG911. The Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA) report in 2016 concluded that a significant impediment to NG911 service was that originating service providers were not prepared to deliver 911 calls via IP technology with location information to NG911 service providers. Some 911 authorities contend that the use of legacy technology by originating service providers continues to be an obstacle to the ability of jurisdictions to transition to NG911. 54

Second, requiring originating service providers to deliver IP-formatted calls and routing information to NG911-capable PSAPs would alleviate the burden on state and local 911 authorities of maintaining transitional gateways and other network elements to process and convert legacy calls. While some carriers are already delivering IP-based traffic voluntarily to NG911-capable PSAPs, so long as any providers continue to deliver 911 calls and routing information in legacy format, the state or local 911 authority must fund and operate transitional technology to receive the traffic in the ESInet and process it within the NG911 system. We seek comment on the degree to which funding and operating transitional facilities extend the timeline and add to the cost incurred by state and local 911 authorities to transition to NG911.

Third, the proposed IP-based delivery requirement would help jurisdictions realize additional public safety benefits available on NG911 networks, including enhanced policy routing functions, support for communication in multiple languages, and enhanced services to disabled communities. When NG911 systems have access to precise IP-formatted location information for 911 calls, they can use it to support geospatial routing and can more frequently update GIS data. IP-formatted data can also support policy routing that flexibly routes calls to PSAPs based on variables such as call volume, available telecommunicator resources, or the need for specialized response to particular emergencies. In addition, routing on NG911 networks can result in material time savings for telecommunicators. For example, the Massachusetts State 911 Department reports that using location-based routing on its NG911 network has resulted in a reduction of over a half million minutes per year in unwanted transfers.

We seek comment and specific data on the benefits that the public would derive from our proposals, as well as on the costs to nationwide and non-nationwide providers to deliver calls and texts in IP-based format when a state or local 911 authority has requested it. We also seek comment on what level of NG911 readiness PSAPs should have achieved in order to trigger the requirement for providers to begin delivering calls, texts, and location information in IP format. Should individual PSAPs be able to trigger the requirement or should readiness be established at a more aggregated level, e.g., on an ESInet-by-ESInet or state-by-state basis?

Timing of IP Service Delivery. For delivery of IP-formatted calls, texts, and location information by nationwide CMRS and covered text providers, we propose an implementation timeline of six months from the effective date of the location-based routing requirement, or six months after a valid request by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later. We also propose to provide non-nationwide CMRS providers an extra six months to accommodate these requests. We seek comment on these proposed timeframes for implementation. We also propose to allow 911 authorities and service providers to agree to alternate timeframes for delivery of IP-formatted calls and texts, provided that the CMRS provider or covered text provider notifies the Commission of the alternate timeframe within 30 days of the parties' agreement. We seek comment on this proposal.

Valid Request for IP Service. Because state or local 911 authorities would need to notify CMRS providers and covered text providers of their readiness to receive calls in NG911-compatible formats, we propose a framework for providing such notification. Consistent with our rules for text-to-911, 55 we propose to define a valid request as one made by a local or state entity that certifies that it (1) is technically ready to receive 911 calls and texts in the IP-based format requested, (2) is specifically authorized to accept calls and/or texts in the IP-based format requested, and (3) has provided notification to the CMRS provider or covered text provider via either a registry made available by the Commission or by written notification reasonably acceptable to the CMRS provider or covered text provider. We believe that this approach would minimize miscommunication between carriers and 911 authorities  56 and facilitate the timely delivery of IP-based service once state and local 911 authorities indicate their readiness. For purposes of determining whether a state or local 911 authority could be technically ready to receive calls and texts in an IP-based format, we seek comment on the elements that a state or local 911 authority would need to have in place before making a valid request. 57 In addition, we seek comment on whether we should require separate requests for IP-based call and text delivery.

To facilitate notification, we seek comment on whether the Commission should make available a registry or database that would allow state and local 911 authorities to notify CMRS providers and covered text providers of readiness to receive calls and texts in IP-based format with associated location information. Such a registry could simplify the request process for state and local 911 authorities as well as CMRS providers and covered text providers. State and local 911 authorities are already familiar with the process of requesting text-to-911 and RTT services via a similar process. 58 We seek comment on the granularity of such a registry, including whether to organize it by PSAP, state, ESInet, or other level of specificity. Should it be combined with our existing Master PSAP Registry and Text-to-911 Registry? If so, what features would be required in such a combined registry?

Timing Requirements for NG911 Routing. As previously noted, in NG911 architecture, device-based location information embedded in IP-formatted 911 calls is first used to route the call to an ESInet, and the ESInet operator then applies NG911 network routing policies to the embedded information to route the call to the appropriate PSAP. Some commenters express concern that delay in making device location information available to the ESInet operator could inhibit or prevent the full application of these routing functions within NG911 networks, thus depriving 911 authorities of the potential benefits of location-based routing in the NG911 environment. T-Mobile, however, asks the Commission not to impose mandates on carriers with respect to the use of location-based routing in NG911 systems, as such deployments rely on multi-stakeholder processes. We do not propose such mandates, but we seek comment on whether there are factors that could impact the length of time between the completion of the initial device location fix by an originating service provider and the availability of device location information to an NG911 network. Does our proposal to require delivery of IP-formatted calls and texts address commenters' concerns about making location information available in time for routing within NG911 networks?

Appropriate Requesting Entities. Under our proposed rule, the local or state entity with authority and responsibility to designate the point(s) to receive wireless 911 calls or texts would be the appropriate authority to request IP-based service from CMRS providers and covered text providers. However, statewide, regional, or county governmental entities may deploy shared resources such as an ESInet, and an ESInet may provide services for multiple PSAPs or public safety entities. There are also still many PSAPs serving a single jurisdiction managed by a city, county, or police or fire department. Should the proposed rule include PSAPs, appropriate local emergency authorities, state or local 911 authorities, and/or other specified authorities as entities that may initiate a valid request for IP-based service? We seek comment on the appropriate requesting entity or entities we should include in our rule given the varied governance of ESInet deployments.

We seek comment on whether the Commission should implement any new data collections to assist in monitoring compliance with our proposed location-based routing rules. For example, should we require CMRS providers and/or covered text providers to provide performance data on location-based routing, such as relative percentages of calls or texts routed using location-based routing versus other routing methods such as cell tower location? Should reporting on routing be included as an additional component of the 911 live call data reports that CMRS providers already file pursuant to our wireless location accuracy rules? 59 If reporting would be helpful, what specific information should providers include and how frequently should we require them to report? Should we require CMRS and covered text providers to report information on misrouted 911 calls and texts? Would a separate data collection from NG911 service providers be helpful, as Peninsula Fiber Network suggests? If so, what information should the Commission seek in such a data collection? We also seek comment on measures the Commission could take to limit the burden of reporting on location-based routing. To what extent could the Commission limit the burden of any reporting requirements by providing increased flexibility for non-nationwide CMRS providers or businesses identified as small by the Small Business Administration?  60 As an alternative to reporting, should the Commission require providers to certify that they are in compliance with requirements for location-based routing and/or delivery of calls and texts in IP format?

Peninsula Fiber Network suggests that the Commission “establish a reporting system where 9-1-1 system service providers and local agencies can report non-compliance information, and the Commission can levy forfeiture orders to the providers for non-compliance.” To the extent Peninsula Fiber Network suggests establishment of a separate reporting system for location-based routing information, we do not believe such a reporting system is necessary. Public safety entities and members of the public seeking to report non-compliance with the proposed rules would be able to file informal complaints via the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's Public Safety Support Center or the Commission's Consumer Complaint Center, or formal complaints under the Commission's enforcement rules. 61 We tentatively conclude that these existing mechanisms should be sufficient for addressing potential violations of the proposed location-based routing rules. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

Further Study. Some commenters assert that the Commission should facilitate additional study of various aspects of location-based routing, 62 and Comtech asserts that the problem of misrouted emergency wireless calls is not yet fully understood or sufficiently documented to justify regulatory changes. APCO, on the other hand, states that there is a general public safety consensus that misroutes are a problem and that the Commission should not delay action while waiting for additional data. As discussed above, we believe that misroutes resulting from legacy E911 routing are a well-documented occurrence and impact a significant percentage of 911 calls. 63 The record also indicates that nationwide location-based routing would reduce misrouted 911 calls and save 911 telecommunicators hundreds of thousands of hours a year. Therefore, we do not propose to postpone regulatory changes pending further study or documentation of misrouted emergency calls as Comtech advocates. We seek comment on this approach.

Additional Measures to Decrease Call Transfer Times. Some commenters recommend that the Commission encourage measures that would decrease call transfer times. 64 We encourage PSAPs and relevant state and local 911 authorities to pursue these additional capabilities, but at this time do not propose to undertake additional regulatory steps to do so. We seek comment on this approach.

The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, 65 including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations  66 and benefits, if any, that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.

Benefits of Location-Based Routing. Any solution to the problem of misrouted 911 calls and texts, no matter how effective, must withstand the test of feasibility and functionality relative to cost. We therefore seek comment on whether the implementation of location-based routing for calls and texts can improve upon the speeds at which emergency personnel and services relying on a legacy 911 system can reach the caller, with a resulting improvement in the health and safety of the caller and preservation of property, and the magnitude of this presumed benefit. The record indicates that location-based routing may correct for a substantial percentage of calls that would otherwise be misrouted using legacy E911 routing, 67 thereby minimizing transfers and saving time required to transfer calls.

The potential benefits of location-based routing are very large. Our proposed rules are directed at eliminating the estimated 23 million misrouted 911 calls which occur annually. 68 Moreover, NENA, APCO, and Peninsula Fiber Network assert that a “typical” transfer takes about a minute. 69 Thus, by eliminating the need for transfer, the proposed rules would shorten response time for these calls. As discussed above, routing these calls accurately would reduce confusion, speed emergency response, and save lives and property. The Commission has previously relied on a study of emergency response incidents in Salt Lake City (Salt Lake City Study) to estimate the reduction in mortality attributable to measures that would decrease the total response time to a 911 call. 70 The Commission found that the Salt Lake City Study demonstrates that faster response time in response to a 911 call lowers mortality risk. The Salt Lake City Study shows a one-minute decrease in ambulance response times reduced the likelihood of 90-day mortality from approximately 6% to 5%, representing a 17% reduction in the total number of deaths. 71 Using this analysis, the Commission in the Indoor Location Accuracy Fourth Report and Order estimated that wireless location accuracy for purposes of dispatching first responders would save approximately 10,120 lives annually when fully implemented. We apply a comparable analysis here to estimate that implementation of location-based routing would save 13,837 lives annually. 72 Despite some implementation of location-based routing on CMRS provider networks, most of this life-saving benefit has not yet been realized because routing for most wireless calls is still heavily reliant on cell tower locations. Beyond saving lives, other benefits will also accrue, including better health outcomes, less property loss, and savings of PSAP resources. In all, we find these benefits to be sufficiently large to justify the costs the proposed rules will entail.

Estimating the dollar value of these benefits raises certain challenges. While we do not attempt to place a value on human life, regulators have estimated the value that consumers place on mortality risk reduction by their willingness to purchase safety features on cars and other products. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has created such an estimate, which concludes that consumers, as a group, show a willingness to pay $11.8 million to reduce risk sufficiently that one life would likely be saved. 73 Therefore, to reduce expected mortalities by 13,837, the DOT estimate of value would be 13,837 x $11.8 million or approximately $163 billion. This estimate is conservative. First, it excludes the value of reduced human suffering and property destruction occurring due to a delayed arrival of first responders. In addition, it does not include the benefits of location-based routing for text messages.

The record indicates that location-based routing solutions are expected to benefit PSAPs by resulting in time savings for telecommunicators. 74 In addition, the proposal to require service providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, and location information in IP-based format to NG911-capable PSAPs could enable state and local 911 authorities avoid the cost and inefficiency of maintaining legacy and NG911 systems simultaneously. 75 We therefore seek additional specificity on the time and cost savings to PSAPs and state and local 911 authorities under these proposed rules. We also seek comment on the reasonableness of the underlying assumptions in our above analysis of lives expected to be saved under the proposed rules. Further, we ask commenters to identify other benefits, such as a reduction in both human suffering and property damage, that have been or could be accrued from adoption of location-based routing or other provisions in our proposed rules.

Costs of Implementation. In order to determine whether the proposed requirements are reasonable, we must determine whether they are feasible and do not impose costs that exceed their benefits. Because three nationwide carriers are already providing location-based routing and IP-based service to PSAPs now, or plan to do so in the near future, we tentatively conclude that the proposed rules are feasible. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. With respect to costs, the record does not currently contain detailed information on costs required for nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers to implement location-based routing and IP-based service delivery. We therefore seek comment on whether the implementation of location-based routing and IP-based service delivery as proposed under our rules would result in significant hardware, software, services, GIS, testing, or other costs to CMRS and covered text providers, NG911 services providers, or state and local 911 authorities. We seek comment on the amount of those costs and ask commenters to provide sufficiently detailed information to allow accurate cost calculations.

T-Mobile asserts that implementing location-based routing may involve procedural and technical complexities and that not all carriers are prepared to implement location-based routing on their networks using DBH location. We seek additional detailed information on whether the providers referenced by T-Mobile are unable to implement location-based routing, and if so, an explanation of why they are unable to do so. T-Mobile also notes that it worked closely with Operating System (OS)-based location providers to generate DBH location quickly for location-based routing. Do other carriers need to make similar investments or efforts in working with OS-based location providers? If yes, what would be the timeline and cost to do so? We seek additional detailed information on the costs for nationwide and non-nationwide carriers and covered text providers to implement the required software, hardware, and service upgrades to comply with our proposed rules. Where specifically would these upgrades need to occur on the end-to-end network, e.g., on the device, on specific CMRS providers' network elements, or on specific 911 network elements? How many software, hardware, and service upgrades would be required for nationwide and non-nationwide carriers and covered text providers? How many work-hours would be necessary to implement these upgrades and what kind of workers would be required to implement these upgrades?

We are especially interested in cost data on existing deployments of location-based routing. We also seek information on planned or expended costs by CMRS providers and covered text providers that have voluntarily implemented or plan to implement location-based routing to any extent on their networks. To what extent would non-nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers be able to leverage costs already incurred by nationwide CMRS providers, such as costs to develop and test location-based routing solutions, to reduce their own costs to comply with our proposed rules? Intrado maintains that CMRS providers would need to make “appropriate investments” and rigorously test location-based routing solutions before implementation, but that once these steps are taken “there should be insignificant cost and administrative effort for nationwide deployment[.]” Are costs to implement location-based routing significantly different for different network operators? If so, why? We seek comment on the details and the amount of these investments as well as the anticipated cost of testing location-based routing solutions. We also seek information on what equipment and software CMRS providers and covered text providers would need to test, how these tests would be performed, and CMRS providers' and covered text providers' plans for testing.

We also seek comment on whether there are differences for CMRS and covered text providers with respect to investments required to implement location-based routing when the receiving jurisdiction is legacy or NG911-capable, and, if so, a detailed explanation of costs associated with each scenario. Would the implementation of location-based routing require public safety investment? APCO comments that “[l]ocation-based routing can and should be implemented without imposing additional costs on [PSAPs],” and AT&T states that a PSAP “does not need to take any action to receive 911 calls that utilize location-based routing when the wireless call originates on AT&T's network.” However, T-Mobile appears to disagree with APCO's assertion that location-based routing should not impose costs on public safety, noting that “the single most useful milestone for location-based routing would be widespread implementation of NG911,” and only supports location-based routing for certain PSAPs. 76 What are the comparative costs of CMRS provider or covered text provider implementations of location-based routing for NG911-capable versus legacy jurisdictions? Are additional investments required for CMRS providers and covered text providers to implement location-based routing when the receiving jurisdiction has not implemented NG911 components? If so, what are these investments and what are their costs? If these investments are services from third-party service providers, are these services available for all CMRS providers and covered text providers?

We also seek comment on the specific costs to nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers to deliver IP-based 911 calls, texts, and SIP-formatted location information to requesting state and local 911 authorities within the specified timeframes under our proposed rules. What specific investments would be required for hardware, software, and services for CMRS providers and covered text providers to deliver IP-based service? Verizon states that it will formally launch end-to-end i3 call delivery during 2022. T-Mobile says it has converted over 1,900 PSAPs from TDM to SIP. Are other CMRS providers and covered text providers planning to implement IP-based delivery? Is there additional cost to requiring IP-based delivery within six months? Would a longer timeframe for IP-based delivery result in lower costs to CMRS and covered text providers? What specific upgrades would be required to comply with the requirement to deliver IP-based service under our proposed rules, and what would such upgrades cost?

We seek information on the costs of nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers providing text service and other covered text providers to implement location-based routing for texts as described under our rules, including hardware, software, and service upgrade costs. AT&T states that it has already implemented nationwide location-based routing for texts. What costs would non-CMRS text providers incur to comply with our proposed rules? What costs would non-CMRS text providers incur for hardware, software, and service upgrades, as well as any other types of upgrades? What other types of costs, such as testing, would covered text providers incur?

In the absence of a detailed record on costs, we provide estimates below, and ask commenters to provide information to improve these estimates if necessary. To be conservative in our approach, we seek to provide upper-bound estimates, so that actual costs will be at or below these levels. First, we separate the costs into material costs and labor costs. T-Mobile states that it deployed location-based routing to some PSAPs and not others, so we rely on this statement in tentatively concluding that CMRS providers implement location-based routing at the PSAP level and CMRS providers incur material costs on a per-PSAP basis. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. The record also suggests that material costs may require the use of additional software features  77 and changes to legacy components if the PSAP has not yet upgraded to NG911. There is little in the record to suggest what the average material cost of software features or component upgrades would be, so as a starting point, we set the total material costs for each CMRS provider at $10,000 per PSAP as an upper bound. 78 We ask commenters to provide cost information to inform our estimate of per-PSAP costs.

Our proposed upper bound on material costs for CMRS providers is then $10,000 per PSAP times the total number of CMRS providers communicating to PSAPs. AT&T states that it has already deployed location-based routing to its network, so our proposed rules will not impose any additional material costs on AT&T. The news media report that Verizon plans to implement location-based routing in the future, so it is unclear the extent to which Verizon plans to implement location-based routing on its network at this time. T-Mobile states that it has deployed location-based routing to 770 PSAPs and intends to deploy it to another 62, for a total of 832 PSAPS for which our proposed rules will impose no additional material costs. 79 There are approximately 5,728 PSAPs nationally, which would mean that T-Mobile may have to implement location-based routing for another 4,896 PSAPs. Staff analysis of Form 477 data suggests that when that when there is a fourth non-nationwide wireless provider in any particular location, it is usually the only one. 80 Thus an upper bound for the number of PSAPs non-nationwide wireless providers must upgrade would be the full national set of 5,728 PSAPs. Including the 4,896 PSAPs T-Mobile does not already plan to upgrade, our upper bound of PSAPs is 10,624, and the implied material cost upper bound is approximately $106 million. 81

We propose to calculate labor costs in line with the 2016 Weather Alerts Order, 82 the 2017 Blue Alerts Order, 83 and the 2022 Comprehensible Alerts Order. 84 The Office of Management and Budget approved an estimate of $25 per hour of labor cost for an EAS Participant to fill out the Commission online report form for EAS National Tests in 2011. 85 We find that the labor cost of employing software workers would be similar and adjust the labor cost upward to $35.25 to reflect inflation since 2011. 86 While some workers may be involved in physical labor to install equipment or run trials, they are likely to be compensated less than software workers, so assuming they are compensated at $35.25 would be an overestimate of their labor costs. AT&T reports that their rollout of location-based routing nationwide took two months, following several months of trials. 87 We therefore assume that a reasonable upper bound of the time to implement the upgrades with trials is 6 months (26 weeks) and workers have a forty hour work week, or 1040 hours per worker. 88 It is unclear how many workers are required to implement the upgrades, but we find 10 simultaneous workers at a time on average is a generous upper bound, resulting in 10,400 labor hours per CMRS provider. Multiplying this by the hourly labor cost of $35.25, the labor cost per CMRS provider is $366,600. Our proposed estimates of labor cost for the 58 non-nationwide CMRS providers  89 plus T-Mobile is then $366,600 × 59, or $21,629,400, which we round up to $22 million as a labor cost upper bound. 90

The proposed upper bound of total material and labor costs we estimate is therefore $128 million, which is easily justified by the thousands of lives projected to be saved by location-based routing of 911 calls. Because our conservative estimate of benefits of the proposed rules is in the billions of dollars, the prospective benefits to be realized by the proposed rules will well exceed their cost even under the conservative upper-bound assumptions we make here. We seek comment on the reasonableness of the above methodology, assumptions, and estimates.

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

In the NPRM, we propose requirements for Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers and covered text providers to implement location-based routing for 911 calls and texts nationwide. In 2018, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry that sought to determine the best way to avoid misrouted 911 calls. 91 We recently refreshed the record on location-based routing with a public notice that sought to update the record on developments since the release of the Notice of Inquiry, including technological improvements in location-based routing and the extent to which CMRS providers have deployed location-based routing in their networks. Developments since the Notice of Inquiry and comments in response to the public notice indicate that location-based routing is both feasible and reliable and that implementing it on a nationwide basis would provide significant public safety benefits. Based on the record, we determine that our proposed rule changes are necessary to reduce emergency response time because implementation of location-based routing will significantly reduce misrouted 911 calls and the delays associated with transferring misrouted calls from one public safety answering point (PSAP) to another. Consistent with our authority in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, we propose to amend our rules to ensure that more people will receive better 911 service.

We propose rules in the NPRM that will require CMRS providers and covered text providers to implement location-based routing for 911 calls and texts nationwide, including calls and texts originating in both legacy and Next Generation 911 (NG911) jurisdictions. More specifically, we propose the following steps to advance location-based routing of wireless calls and texts:

• Require all Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers to (1) deploy technology that supports location-based routing on their internet Protocol (IP)-based networks ( i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based networks) and (2) use location-based routing to route all 911 voice calls originating on their IP-based networks when caller location information available during origination of the 911 call meets certain requirements for accuracy and timeliness. Nationwide CMRS providers would have six months from the effective date of final rules to meet these requirements. Non-nationwide CMRS providers would have an additional year ( i.e., eighteen months from the effective date of final rules) to meet the same requirements.

• Require covered text providers to (1) deploy technology that supports location-based routing and (2) use location-based routing to route all 911 texts originating on their IP-based networks when location information available during origination of the 911 text meets certain requirements for accuracy and timeliness. Covered text providers would have eighteen months from the effective date of final rules to meet these requirements.

• Establish baseline requirements with respect to the accuracy and timeliness of location information used for location-based routing. When location information does not meet one or both of these requirements, CMRS providers and covered text providers would be required to route 911 calls and texts based on the best available location information, which may include latitude/longitude coordinates of the cell tower.

To help ensure that public safety jurisdictions transitioning to NG911 can realize the benefits of location-based routing in an efficient and cost-effective manner, we also propose to:

• Require CMRS providers and covered text providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, associated routing information in IP format upon request of 911 authorities who have established the capability to accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911 communications. Nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers would be subject to this requirement six months from the effective date of final rules on location-based routing or within six months of a valid request for IP-based service from a local or state public safety authority, whichever is later. Non-nationwide CMRS providers would have an additional six months to comply with this requirement.

We believe that the above proposals for location-based routing of 911 calls and texts will promote the safety of life and property by helping to ensure that those in need of emergency assistance can receive the help they need in a more timely manner.

The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, 332; the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and Section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 32.5 million businesses.

Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. 92 Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS. 93

Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments  94 indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. 95 Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, 96 municipal, and town or township  97 ) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts  98 with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. 99 Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”  100

Pursuant to 47 CFR 9.10(a), the Commission's 911 service requirements are only applicable to “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) Use 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.”

Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.

All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of internet services ( e.g. dial-up ISPs) or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. 101 Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)—(1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3); 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4)). Spectrum is made available and licensed in these bands for the provision of various wireless communications services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. 102 Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 103 Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as December 2021, there were approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. 104 The Commission's small business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small businesses won licenses.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services include several types of competitive local exchange service providers. 105 Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 106 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 3,956 providers that reported they were competitive local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,808 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 107 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 1,227 providers that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 929 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local exchange carriers can be considered small entities.

Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in the 1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 108 Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. 109 The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these licenses, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Narrowband Personal Communications Services (Narrowband PCS) are PCS services operating in the 901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 MHz bands. PCS services are radio communications that encompass mobile and ancillary fixed communication that provide services to individuals and businesses and can be integrated with a variety of competing networks. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 110 Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 4,211 active Narrowband PCS licenses. 111 The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Narrowband PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $15 million. Pursuant to these definitions, 7 winning bidders claiming small and very small bidding credits won approximately 359 licenses. One of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in these Narrowband PCS license auctions had an active license as of December 2021. 112

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico. 113 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to this service. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 114 Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small. Additionally, based on Commission data, as of December 2021, there was one licensee with an active license in this service. 115 However, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for this service, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. 116 Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

Rural Radiotelephone Service. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for small businesses providing Rural Radiotelephone Service. Rural Radiotelephone Service is radio service in which licensees are authorized to offer and provide radio telecommunication services for hire to subscribers in areas where it is not feasible to provide communication services by wire or other means. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). 117 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite), is the closest applicable industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite) classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 118 Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Rural Radiotelephone Services firm are small entities. Based on Commission data as of December 27, 2021, there were approximately 119 active licenses in the Rural Radiotelephone Service. 119 The Commission does not collect employment data from these entities holding these licenses and therefore we cannot estimate how many of these entities meet the SBA small business size standard.

Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services (WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite services. Wireless spectrum is made available and licensed for the provision of wireless communications services in several frequency bands subject to part 27 of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 120 Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules for the specific WCS frequency bands. 121

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 122 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 797 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 715 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small business size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The size standard for this industry under SBA rules is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 123 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 407 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of cellular, personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 333 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band encompasses spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz frequency bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 124 Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. 125 The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small business status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming small business won two licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band license auctions had an active license as of December 2021. 126

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band encompasses spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 127 Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. 128 The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower 700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and three winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all five auctioned licenses.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band encompasses spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. 129 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers ( except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. 130 Thus, under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.

According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. 131 The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status won five of the twelve available licenses.

In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.

Wireless Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically for Wireless Resellers. The closest industry with a SBA small business size standard is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications and they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. Under the SBA size standard for this industry, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,375 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 132 Thus, for this industry under the SBA small business size standard, the majority of providers can be considered small entities.

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. 133 Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips, microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other optoelectronic devices. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies entities having 1,250 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 729 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 673 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. 134 Thus under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on implementing new location-based routing requirements for 911 voice calls and text messages, that if adopted, may impose new or modified reporting or recordkeeping, and other compliance obligations on small entities. Some of our proposed requirements contain written notification and certification requirements that will be applicable to small entities. For example, in the NPRM we propose to require that not later than six months from the effective date of final rules on location-based routing, or within six months of a valid request for delivery of IP-formatted calls, texts, and location information by a local or state authority, whichever is later, CMRS providers and covered text providers must deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated routing information in IP-based format to NG911-capable PSAPs that request it. Non-nationwide providers would have an additional six months to comply with this requirement. CMRS and covered text providers and state or local 911 authorities would be allowed to agree to alternate timeframes for delivery of IP-formatted calls, texts, and associated routing information as long as the CMRS or covered text provider notifies the Commission of the alternate timeframe within 30 days of the parties' agreement.

Regarding CMRS or covered text providers' receipt of a “valid request,” the criteria we proposed to constitute a valid request includes certification from a requesting local or state entity that is technically ready to receive calls and/or texts in the IP-based format requested, that it is specifically authorized to accept calls and/or texts in the IP-based format requested, and that has provided notification to the CMRS or covered text providers via either a registry made available by the Commission or any other written notification reasonably acceptable to the CMRS provider or covered text provider.

In the NPRM, we seek comment on whether to implement any new data collections to assist in monitoring performance and compliance with the proposed location-based routing rules. For example, we ask: (1) whether to require CMRS providers or covered text providers to provide performance data on location-based routing, such as relative percentages of calls or texts routed using location-based routing versus other routing methods such as cell tower location, (2) if so, whether to do so as part of their existing live call data reports or as a new and separate reporting process, and (3) if reporting would be helpful, what specific information should providers include and at what frequency should we require them to report it. We also seek information on whether the proposed rules should include requirements for disclosures to the PSAP or other state or local 911 authority in connection with location-based routing.

Our inquiry into the potential reporting obligations that may be necessary to complement our proposed location-based routing rules includes requesting comment on measures the Commission could take to limit the burden of reporting on location-based routing. In particular, we seek information on the extent that the Commission could limit the burden of any reporting requirements by providing increased flexibility for non-nationwide CMRS providers or businesses identified as small by the SBA. We also assess whether we need to adopt requirements and systems for reporting non-compliance with the proposed location-based routing rules. While we tentatively conclude that our existing mechanisms (which would allow public safety entities and members of the public seeking to report non-compliance with the proposed rules to file complaints via the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's Public Safety Support Center or the Commission's Consumer Complaint Center) should be sufficient to address any potential violations, we seek comment on this tentative conclusion.

The record in this proceeding does not currently contain detailed information on the costs required for nationwide and non-nationwide carriers, covered text providers, and other parties to implement location-based routing and wireless IP-based service delivery. Therefore, at this time, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether implementation of location-based routing and IP-based service delivery as proposed in the NPRM would result in significant costs for small CMRS and covered text providers, NG911 services providers, or state and local 911 authorities, or require small entities to hire professionals to comply, if our proposals are adopted. To help the Commission more fully evaluate the cost of compliance, we seek additional detailed information on various cost issues implicated by our proposed rules.

Specifically, we have requested information on the costs for nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers to implement the required software, hardware, and service upgrades to comply with our proposed rules, and specifically where the required upgrades need to occur on the end-to-end network, e.g., on the device, on specific CMRS providers' network elements, or on specific 911 network elements. We have also requested information on planned or expended costs by CMRS providers that have voluntarily implemented or plan to implement location-based routing to any extent on their networks, and to what extent would non-nationwide providers be able to leverage already incurred costs by nationwide CMRS providers, such as costs to develop and test location-based routing solutions, to reduce their own costs to comply with our proposed rules. Further, we inquire whether the costs to implement location-based routing are significantly different for different network operators, and if so, why, and we seek information on the details, and the amount of these investments, as well as the anticipated cost of testing location-based routing solutions. Additionally, we seek information on what equipment and software CMRS providers would need to test, how the testing would be performed, and what plans CMRS providers have for testing. We expect the information that we receive in response to our requested cost inquiries will to help the Commission identify and the evaluate compliance costs and burdens for small entities that may result from the proposals and inquiries we make in the NPRM to implement location-based routing.

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.

The proposals in the NPRM are intended to be cost effective and minimally burdensome for small and other entities impacted by the rules. There are significant public safety benefits to be achieved from requiring all CMRS and covered text providers to implement location-based routing for 911 calls and texts originating on IP-based networks on a nationwide basis. The record indicates a substantial number of wireless 911 calls are misrouted, which is a significant problem for public safety. 135 The longer it takes for a 911 call or text to be properly routed, the longer it will take for the 911 caller to reach and receive the emergency services they may need. By taking action to require CMRS and covered text providers to implement location-based routing for 911 calls and texts originating on IP-based networks, the Commission can help save lives when individuals in need of emergency services place 911 calls using wireless devices.

In this proceeding the record suggests that in jurisdictions where CMRS providers have implemented location-based routing, PSAPs are experiencing fewer misroutes, fewer transfers, and faster dispatch times. 136 The record also indicates that nationwide implementations of location-based routing may be technically feasible for nationwide carriers, and high accuracy, low latency location information from consumer handsets is generally available to carriers for routing. Moreover, the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) estimates that universal implementation of location-based routing would reduce misrouted wireless calls by 85% from 23 million to 3.45 million per year. Public safety entities and some technology providers urge the Commission to require all CMRS providers to support location-based routing. 137 It appears to be technologically feasible for CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for a significant percentage of wireless 911 calls. Below we discuss proposals in the NPRM which could minimize any significant economic impact on small entities and the alternatives we considered.

Location-Based Routing Requirements. To reduce potential cost burdens for small and other wireless providers, our location-based routing proposal would apply only to calls and texts originating on IP-based networks ( i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of IP-based networks). The record indicates that while nationwide CMRS providers are in the process of retiring or have completed the retirement of circuit-switched, time-division multiplex (TDM) 2G and 3G networks, and some non-nationwide providers have announced dates to sunset their 3G networks in 2022, the transition from these networks which are less compatible with location-based routing is not universally complete. In the NPRM, we therefore tentatively conclude that requiring location-based routing for 911 calls or texts originating on TDM-based networks would be unduly burdensome, especially for non-nationwide providers who would bear the greatest burden, even if given additional time to comply with such a requirement. Moreover, although we considered requiring location-based routing for all 911 calls, we ultimately proposed to require location-based routing only for 911 calls originating on IP-based networks, i.e., 4G LTE, 5G, and subsequently deployed IP-based networks. The limited scope of this requirement will minimize some burdens and economic impact for small entities, particularly those that are non-nationwide providers.

Our proposed location-based routing rules provide flexibility to small and other entities to route 911 calls or texts based on best available location information, which may include cell tower coordinates or other information, when the location information available at time of routing does not meet either one or both of the requirements for accuracy and timeliness under our rules, rather than adopting a rigid location-based routing requirement. We recognize the continued need for cell-sector based routing, at least as a fallback method, because accurate device location information is not available in all scenarios. Further, our proposed requirement to default to best available location would be consistent with the ATIS-0700042 standard for location-based routing, which assumes that the fallback for location-based routing should be cell sector routing for cases where no position estimate is available in time to be used for location-based routing or the position estimate lacks requisite accuracy, as well as with current CMRS provider deployments of location-based routing, which default to legacy E911 routing when location does not meet CMRS providers' standards of accuracy and timeliness. 138

The Commission has also taken steps to minimize the economic impact of our proposed location-based routing requiring requirements on small and other entities, by proposing definitions relevant to the rules, that are consistent with industry standards and existing Commission definitions. For example, we propose to define “location-based routing” as “use of information on a caller's location, including but not limited to device-based location information, to deliver 911 calls and texts to point(s) designated by the authorized local or state entity to receive wireless 911 calls and texts, such as an ESInet or PSAP, or to an appropriate local emergency authority.” We also propose to define “device-based location information” as “information regarding the location of a device used to call or text 911 generated all or in part from on-device sensors and data sources.” Having definitions and requirements for location-based routing that are consistent with industry standards and existing Commission rules should lessen the chance that small entities and other providers will be burdened by conflicting requirements. To avoid such a conflict, in the NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on whether the proposed definition of “device-based location information” would adequately encompass current device-based hybrid (DBH) location technologies currently on the market, as well as possible future location technologies that can determine the location of the calling device. We also propose to interpret the definition of “device-based location information” to apply to our existing rule on delivery of 911 text messages, which includes that term.

We have also proposed baseline requirements involving the accuracy and timeliness of location information used for location-based routing which is consistent with industry standards. CMRS and covered text providers would use location-based routing only if the location information is available to the provider network at the time the call or text is routed and the information identifies the caller's horizontal location with a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. These metrics are consistent with AT&T's implementation of location-based routing. In addition, our proposed confidence metric is consistent with ATIS' recommendation that uncertainty values for location-based routing “be standardized to a 90% confidence for effective call handling.” To minimize any significant economic impact on small entities and other impacted providers, when location information does not meet the baseline accuracy and timeliness requirements, CMRS and covered text providers would be required to route based on best available location information, which may include latitude/longitude coordinates of the cell tower, as mentioned in the section above.

Compliance Timelines. We provide flexibility in the proposed compliance timelines for implementation of the requirements that should reduce the economic burden for small entities. First, we propose different implementation deadlines for nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers to route all 911 voice calls originating on their IP-based networks using location-based routing, when available location information meets requirements for accuracy and timeliness. Nationwide providers would be required to implement the requirements no later than six months after the effective date of the final rules adopting location-based routing. Non-nationwide providers, which would include a substantial number of small entities, would be required to implement the requirements no later than eighteen months after the effective date of the final rules adopting location-based routing.

Next, when available location information meets requirements for accuracy and timeliness, we propose to require covered text providers to route all 911 texts originating on their IP-based networks using location-based routing, no later than eighteen months after the effective date of the final rules adopting location-based routing. We minimize any significant economic impact on small entities since this requirement is limited to operators of IP-based networks when certain requirements are met. In other words, small entities would not be required to comply with this requirement if they do not operate an IP-based network, or if the location information available on the IP-based network does not meet either one or both of the requirements for timeliness and accuracy, in which case, small entities may use the best available location information for routing.

Finally, for the requirements we propose to help ensure that jurisdictions transitioning to NG911 networks can realize the benefits of location-based routing in an efficient and cost-effective manner, we also propose different implementation deadlines for nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers. We propose to require nationwide CMRS providers and covered text providers to deliver IP-formatted 911 calls, texts, and associated routing information to the point(s) designated by state and local 911 authorities no later than six months from the effective date of the final rule or within six months of a valid request, whichever is later. For non-nationwide CMRS providers, we propose a deadline of no later than twelve months from the effective date of the final rule or within 12 months of a valid request, whichever is later. We also propose that local and state entities may enter into agreements with CMRS providers and covered text providers that establish an alternate timeframe for meeting these requirements. Regardless of whether a small entity is a nationwide or non-nationwide CMRS provider or covered text provider, the flexibility to negotiate an alternative timeframe which meets their business and financial needs is a significant step by the Commission that could minimize the economic impact for small entities.

Costs of Implementation. In the previous section, we discussed the absence of detailed information in the record on the costs for nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS and covered texts providers to implement the required software, hardware, and service upgrades to comply with our proposed rules. Having data on the costs and economic impact of the proposals to require implementation of located-based routing proposals and other matters discussed in the NPRM will allow the Commission to better evaluate options and alternatives to minimize the economic impact on small entities. Based on our request for specific and detailed cost implementation information, and for information on the extent that the Commission could limit the burden of any reporting requirements by providing increased flexibility for non-nationwide CMRS or covered text providers or businesses identified as small by the SBA, we expect to more fully consider the economic impact on small entities following our review of comments filed in response to the NPRM, and this IRFA. The Commission's evaluation of this information will shape the final alternatives it considers to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on small entities, the final conclusions it reaches, and any final rules it promulgates in this proceeding.

None.

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 10, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332, of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 316, 332; the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and Section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c, that this notice of proposed rulemaking is adopted.

It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the Federal Register , and reply comments on or before 60 days after publication in the Federal Register .

It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

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

This is a summary of the Commission's notice of proposed rulemaking, FCC 22-95, adopted December 21, 2022, and released December 22, 2022. The full text is available online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-95A1.pdf. The document is also available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).

• Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.

• Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an original and one copy of each filing.

○ Filings may be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

○ Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

○ Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

• People With Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), or to request reasonable accommodations for filing comments (accessible format documents, sign language interpreters, CART, etc.), send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call 202-418-0530 (voice) or 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200(a), this proceeding will 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

1. The notice of proposed rulemaking, seeks comment on changes to the Commission's rules, policies, or practices to facilitate the acceptance for filing of satellite and earth station applications under 47 CFR part 25. We propose to revise a procedural rule to formally allow consideration of satellite applications and petitions that request waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations to operate in a frequency band without an international allocation. We also seek comment on typical processing timeframes for satellite applications. This Notice will help Commission processing stay apace with the unprecedented number of innovative satellite applications in the new space age.

2. The Commission's rules establish filing criteria for satellite and earth station applications submitted under 47 CFR part 25. An application that does not meet these criteria will be deemed unacceptable for filing and will be dismissed and returned to the applicant, with a brief statement identifying the omissions or discrepancies, unless the application requests a waiver of any conflicting rule or requirement or the Commission grants such a waiver on its own motion. A satellite application or petition that has been found defective and must be re-submitted will receive a later filing date under the Commission's first-come, first-served licensing process for geostationary-satellite orbit (GSO)-like satellite applications, or in some instances may result in an applicant missing the cut-off date of a processing round for non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO)-like satellite applications, both consequences that may negatively affect the ultimate spectrum sharing conditions of the satellite system. In general, a delay in acceptability for filing may result in a delay in action on the application. The Commission also adopted procedural safeguards against applications that are considered more likely to be speculative or intended to warehouse spectrum resources, including the prohibition on multiple NGSO-like applications or unbuilt NGSO system licenses in the same frequency band. Commission staff conducts an initial review of applications for acceptability for filing and compliance with procedural and substantive rules before they are placed on public notice for comment. Typical issues that prolong staff review and delay acceptance for filing include internal inconsistencies in the application, omission of information required by the rules, omission of waiver requests, missed filing deadlines, and novel issues being raised.

3. Under the rules, an application filed under 47 CFR part 25 is considered unacceptable for filing if:

(1) The application is defective with respect to completeness of answers to questions, informational showings, internal inconsistencies, execution, or other matters of a formal character;

(2) The application does not substantially comply with the Commission's rules, regulations, specific requests for additional information, or other requirements;

(3) The application requests authority to operate a satellite in a frequency band that is not allocated internationally for such operations under the Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), unless the application is a streamlined small space station application filed pursuant to 47 CFR 25.122 or a streamlined small spacecraft application filed pursuant to 47 CFR 25.123; or

(4) The application is identical to a pending satellite application that was timely filed pursuant to the processing round procedure in 47 CFR 25.157 or the first-come, first-served processing procedure in 47 CFR 25.158.

4. Applications found defective under criteria (1) or (2) may be accepted for filing if the application requests a waiver, with supporting rationale, of any rule or requirement with which the application is in conflict or if the Commission grants such a waiver upon its own motion. Satellite applications found defective under criteria (3) or (4), under current rules, will not be considered.

5. Under our part 25 rules, the standard for determining whether an application is acceptable for filing is not “letter perfection.” The Commission may place on public notice applications with minor inaccuracies that are not material to the Commission's or the public's review. However, the rules require all applications under 47 CFR part 25 to be substantially complete when they are filed. As a practical matter, in some recent instances, staff has found it efficient to aid applicants to address discrepancies or omissions in their pending applications before placing them on public notice, resulting in fewer applications being dismissed prior to being accepted for filing.

6. As noted above, unlike most application defects, an application requesting authority to operate a satellite in a frequency band that is not allocated internationally for such operation under the ITU Radio Regulations is deemed unacceptable for filing regardless of whether a waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations is requested. When the Commission adopted this rule in 2003, it explained that it would dismiss satellite applications without prejudice as “premature” if the application is filed before the ITU adopts a necessary frequency allocation because it can take several years for the ITU to adopt a new allocation. Furthermore, the Commission reasoned that when an applicant files its application “years before it will be possible to provide service,” it is likely that the application may be a “place holder.”

7. Drawing on more recent experience, the Commission has observed that, in the context of small satellites, there may be benefits associated with operations not consistent with the current International Table of Frequency Allocations in certain circumstances. Accordingly, in 2019 the Commission modified the acceptability for filing rule to provide an exception, so that streamlined small satellite applications requesting to operate in bands not allocated internationally, and which include an appropriate waiver request, can be considered on their merits without being deemed unacceptable for filing.

8. If a waiver is granted for satellite operations not in conformance with the International Table of Frequency Allocations, international provisions also apply. Specifically, Article 4.4 of the ITU Radio Regulations states that an administration shall not assign any frequency in derogation of the International Table of Frequency Allocations except on the express condition that the station shall not cause harmful interference to, and shall not claim protection from harmful interference caused by, a station operating in accordance with the provisions of the ITU Constitution, Convention and Radio Regulations. In addition, ITU Rule of Procedure 1.6 provides that an administration, prior to bringing into use any frequency assignment to a transmitting station operating under No. 4.4, shall determine: (a) that the intended use of the frequency assignment to the station under No. 4.4 will not cause harmful interference into the stations of other administrations operating in conformity with the Radio Regulations; and (b) what measures it would need to take in order to comply with the requirement to immediately eliminate harmful interference.

9. Another provision that may forestall or delay processing of NGSO applications is the limit on unbuilt NGSO systems. This rule prevents a party from applying for an additional NGSO-like satellite system license in a particular frequency band if that party already has an application for an NGSO-like satellite system license on file or a licensed-but-unbuilt NGSO-like satellite system in the band. The rule was adopted, in addition to bond and milestone requirements, as a means to restrain speculation without restricting applicants' business plans and to give licensees an incentive to turn in licenses for satellite systems that they do not intend to build.

10. In 2015, before the recent surge in applications for NGSO systems, the Commission noted the following expected processing periods for what it described as “straightforward” satellite applications that are not contested, barring any complication:

(1) applications for initial space station authorization or for modification of authorization will be placed on public notice within 45 days of receipt, and acted upon within 60 days after close of the comment period; and

(2) applications for special temporary authority (STA) for a space station will be placed on public notice within 14 days of receipt, if public notice is required, and acted upon within 30 days after close of the comment period. For space-station STA requests that do not require public notice, we expect to act within 30 days of receipt.

11. In 2016, the Satellite Division of the International Bureau announced the following expected processing times for straightforward, uncontested earth station applications, barring any complication:

(1) Applications for an initial earth station authorization or for a modification of authorization will be placed on public notice within 45 days of confirmation of receipt of payment, if not defective per 47 CFR 25.112, and acted upon within 60 days after close of the comment period.

(2) Applications for initial registration of receive-only earth stations or for a modification of registration will be placed on public notice within 30 days of confirmation of receipt of payment, if not defective per 47 CFR 25.112, and acted upon within 45 days after close of the comment period.

(3) Applications for special temporary authority for earth stations will be placed on public notice within 14 days of confirmation of receipt of payment, if not defective per 47 CFR 25.112 and if compliant with 47 CFR 25.120, and acted upon within 30 days after close of the comment period. For such requests that do not require notice to the public before action, if they are not defective per 47 CFR 25.112 and are compliant with 47 CFR 25.120, we expect to act within 30 days of receipt subject to confirmation of receipt of payment.

12. As the Commission experiences increasing satellite licensing activity we must keep pace with demand and reassess our processes to identify opportunities for streamlining. We tentatively conclude that it is in the public interest to move quickly on license application processing and specifically to begin building a public record on applications early in the process of evaluating them. In this respect, we note that placing an application on public notice as accepted for filing should not be seen as implying that the Commission has no questions regarding the application or that the application is being looked upon favorably for grant.

13. We propose one initial action to streamline the acceptability for filing of satellite applications. As the Commission concluded in the context of small satellites, we believe there are some cases in which a waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations is warranted to permit operations not in conformance with current international allocations. These may, for example, be operations that can be conducted immediately on an unprotected and non-harmful interference basis and do not represent a “placeholder” for future service after a new international allocation is adopted. We believe waiver requests for satellite operations not in conformance with the International Table of Frequency Allocations, with sufficient supportive reasoning, should be considered on their merits rather than being automatically deemed unacceptable for filing as under current rules. Therefore, we propose to amend the acceptability criteria to place these waiver requests on an equal procedural footing with other requests for waiver of substantive rules, and allow them to be accepted for filing. We invite comment on this proposal, and on any alternatives.

14. In addition, we seek comment on whether to provide guidance, in a rule or otherwise, on the conditions under which a waiver of the International Table of Frequency Allocations is more likely. For example, we could specify that waiver applicants should provide a sufficient electromagnetic compatibility analysis to support a Commission finding that the intended use of the frequency assignment will not cause harmful interference to all other stations operating in conformance with the ITU Radio Regulations. We would indicate that the applicant must make a good-faith effort to demonstrate compatibility at the time of filing its application, with the understanding that it may need to supplement that showing in response to additional information about existing operations provided in the record by conforming spectrum users. We could also specify that an applicant should state its willingness to accept an assignment on a non-interference, unprotected basis. We could additionally indicate that waiver is more likely if there are ongoing, favorable studies and activities in the relevant ITU study group in support of a potential future allocation at a World Radiocommunication Conference. We seek comment on these proposals, and on whether there is other information applicants should submit in support of a waiver request, on other limitations that should be adopted, or alternative means to ensure that the Commission has a full record on which to evaluate requests for waiver of the Table of Frequency Allocations in these instances.

15. We also seek comment on whether the limit on unbuilt NGSO systems rule may be a hinderance to the acceptability of legitimate satellite applications and if so, whether it should be amended. For example, given that this rule was adopted in the context of processing rounds for NGSO applications, should we revise our rules such that it will not apply to NGSO applications that are granted outside of a processing round? Are there other ways in which the rules limiting unbuilt systems should be updated to reflect the current state of development of NGSO systems? Are the rationales underlying the rules equally relevant today? We seek comment generally on updates to our unbuilt NGSO systems rules. Should these rules be revised or eliminated altogether?

16. In the context of overall application processing under 47 CFR part 25, in recent years Commission staff have assisted applicants to correct certain omissions or inconsistencies in their applications that need to be corrected in order for an application to be deemed complete and acceptable for filing under our rules. We seek comment on this approach in several respects. Would it speed application review and ultimately encourage better-prepared applications if we instead dismiss applications containing internal inconsistencies or omissions under 47 CFR 25.112(a)(1)? These applications would be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. We note that in those cases where we do dismiss applications, our approach has been to issue a decision detailing the specific deficiencies in the application. We seek comment on the benefits and drawbacks of the alternative approaches. Alternatively, if we were to loosen the standards for acceptability for filing, would this result in a faster overall processing time for applications? For instance, how should we balance the speed of processing with the completeness and coherence of an application when it is placed on public notice for comment? Is there information that applicants should be able to correct or cure during the public notice period, and how would such an approach affect the ability of interested parties to review and comment on applications? Should we provide additional specificity in our acceptability for filing criteria? Given that internal inconsistencies and omissions are a source of delay in initial application processing, are there any part 25 application rules or application filing guidance that would assist applicants in overcoming this hurdle? For instance, if applicants were to submit relevant technical and other information in only one place in an application, would that reduce the risk of inconsistency? Would any such changes lower the reliability of information provided to the Commission? Is there any technical information currently required to be provided which is more likely to be overlooked or omitted from applications, and therefore delay their processing, that actually is not necessary for Commission or public evaluation of the application? Should certain inconsistencies, for example, in the description of frequency bands being requested, result in dismissal? Is there additional guidance or other assistance we should provide to applicants to avoid required information being omitted in their initial filings? Are there additional ways to reduce the number of errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in application filings, such as by incorporating additional completeness and compliance checks directly into the initial application process, or by introducing additional certifications in place of certain narrative information? Should applications omitting necessary waiver requests be dismissed? How well-supported should a waiver request need to be to overcome the acceptability for filing requirements, including waivers of filing deadlines or waivers that raise novel issues? Are there rules, policies, or practices for other licensing activities at the Commission that could helpfully be applied to satellite or earth station application processing? Are there ways in which we can better streamline inter-Bureau reviews in shared spectrum bands? Are there other areas where the Commission can streamline processing for initial or modification applications including the elimination of duplicative processing requirements, for example duplicative coordination requirements in satellite and earth station licensing? We also seek comment broadly on other process updates, rule changes, or policy reforms the Commission could adopt to help streamline application processing.

17. Finally, we invite comment on the anticipated processing times for straightforward, uncontested satellite and earth station applications noted above, which types of applications (including modification applications) the Commission should consider “straightforward,” and therefore fall under these guidelines, and whether, given the rapidly changing environment of operations in space and associated requests for Commission satellite authorizations, it would make sense to codify or otherwise better highlight our expected processing times for such applications. Or, given the pace of change in space activities and corresponding number of applications presenting unique or complex issues, would identification of a limited number of “straightforward” or “routine” applications result in improved processing times overall? Or would a more flexible approach to processing timeframes allow for the Commission to take into consideration other factors such as anticipated launch dates, and whether the request is an extension of a previously granted application?

18. Specifically regarding applications to add points of communication to existing earth station licenses, should these qualify as “straightforward” so long as the satellite system to be added is either U.S.-licensed or has been granted U.S. market access within the parameters requested in the earth station application and the applicant identifies either the satellite call sign or the earth station license(s) in which the satellite was granted market access? What steps can the Commission take to ensure applicants provide enough information regarding the requested satellite points of communication to facilitate its review, confirm that no additional market access is being sought for any non-U.S.-licensed point of communication, and otherwise expedite these types of applications? For any “straightforward” applications to add an earth station point of communication, would it be appropriate to automatically deem them granted 60 days after they are filed absent other Commission action? To address cases where an earth station applicant may wish to be licensed before it identifies any specific satellite points of communication, should we make any changes to our rules, policies, or practices to permit these cases?

19. Should we consider creating deadlines for certain satellite or earth station applications for making a determination about acceptability for filing, with the alternative being dismissal, and would this result in overall shorter processing times? If so, what deadline might be reasonable? Should the deadline vary depending on the type of application ( e.g., GSO, NGSO)? Should there be limitations on the applicability of this deadline—for example, where an operator requests operations not consistent with the International Table of Frequency Allocations, or where the application could involve initiation of a new NGSO processing round, or for contested applications? Would a deadline for making a determination potentially result in more dismissals of applications, since a decision would need to be made on the acceptability of an application within that specific timeframe? Should we adopt broader “shot clocks” for ultimate action on certain types of satellite or earth station applications?

20. We seek comment generally on these issues, and on any other guidance that may assist applicants and speed application processing.

21. Digital Equity and Inclusion. Finally, the Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color, persons with disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, as well the scope of the Commission's relevant legal authority.

22. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice. We request written public comments on this IRFA. Commenters must identify their comments as responses to the IRFA and must file the comments by the deadlines provided on the first page of the Notice and as instructed above in paragraph 21. The Commission will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register .

23. The notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) seeks comment on ways to facilitate the acceptance for filing of satellite and earth station applications under 47 CFR part 25 to keep pace with growing demand for satellite services. The NPRM specifically inquires whether to change the acceptability rules regarding satellite applications that request to operate a service in a frequency band for which there is no international allocation, and whether to alter the limit of one unbuilt, non-geostationary system application or license in a particular frequency band.

24. The proposed action is authorized under §§ 4(i), 7(a), 303, 308(b), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 308(b), 316.

25. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

26. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “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.” Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The category has a small business size standard of $35 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.

27. The NPRM invites comment on potential changes to the acceptability for filing requirements for satellite and earth station applications in order to expedite their processing. Rule changes adopted as a result of this inquiry would be likely to decrease, or leave unaffected, the compliance requirements for small entities due to any streamlining of the Commission's application processing rules.

28. 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 and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”

29. The NPRM invites comment on ways to expedite and streamline the initial processing of satellite and earth station applications, which might also benefit small entities such as earth station operators.

30. None.

31. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303, and 308(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 308(b), that the notice of proposed rulemaking is Adopted.

32. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center will send a copy of the notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with § 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 25 as follows:

This is a summary of the Media Bureau's Public Notice in MB Docket No. 22-459, DA 22-1364, that was released on December 22, 2022. The complete text of this document is available electronically via the search function on the FCC's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) web page at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ ( https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/ ). To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov (mail to: fcc504@fcc.gov ) or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

1. With this Public Notice, the Media Bureau commences the 2022 Quadrennial Review of the Commission's media ownership rules. Accordingly, the Bureau seeks comment, pursuant to the obligation under section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, on whether the media ownership rules remain “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.” Although the Commission has not yet adopted final rules in the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding, we remain cognizant of the statutory obligation to review the broadcast ownership rules every four years. Just as the previous (2018) quadrennial review was initiated in December of 2018, we seek to commence this subsequent (2022) review before the end of the 2022 calendar year.

2. As the Commission has observed previously, the media marketplace can change dramatically in between its periodic regulatory reviews. Moreover, economic studies and data collection, which we welcome as part of this proceeding, may take significant time to complete. Therefore, we find it prudent to provide commenters with ample time and advance notice so they may begin undertaking such efforts, if they so choose, as soon as possible. Accordingly, the Media Bureau finds that initiating the 2022 Quadrennial Review despite the pendency of the 2018 Quadrennial Review is appropriate in this instance. The Commission similarly initiated the 2014 Quadrennial Review prior to completing the 2010 review. In that previous instance, the Commission incorporated the existing 2010 record into the 2014 review. Here, the Media Bureau is creating a new docket for the Commission's future consideration of the 2022 proceeding.

3. Background. As stated, Section 202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 requires the Commission to review its media ownership rules every four years to determine whether they remain “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.” On December 12, 2018, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to initiate the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding and to seek comment on whether to retain, modify, or eliminate any of its media ownership rules. The three rules on which the Commission sought comment in the 2018 Quadrennial Review NPRM, 84 FR 6741 (Feb. 28, 2019), are the Local Radio Ownership Rule (47 CFR 73.3555(a)), the Local Television Ownership Rule (47 CFR 73.3555(b)), and the Dual Network Rule (47 CFR 73.658(g)).

4. After the original comment period closed for the 2018 Quadrennial Review, a number of legal developments ensued that necessitated delaying Commission action on that proceeding. Specifically, several parties had sought judicial review of the 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review Order on Reconsideration, 83 FR 755 (Jan. 8, 2018), which had concluded the 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review and adopted rule changes that then became the basis for comment in the subsequent 2018 Quadrennial Review. On September 23, 2019, in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 939 F.3d 567 (3d Cir. 2019), the Third Circuit vacated and remanded the bulk of the Commission's actions in the 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review Order on Reconsideration. Accordingly, on December 20, 2019, the Media Bureau issued an Order, 85 FR 5163 (Jan. 29, 2020), reinstating the rules as set forth in the 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review Order. The Third Circuit's actions thus effectively called into question the rules under review in the 2018 Quadrennial Review until the status of the Commission's rule modifications and repeals in the 2010/2014 Quadrennial Review Order on Reconsideration could be legally settled.

5. The Commission and broadcast industry petitioners filed separate Petitions for Writ of Certiorari before the Supreme Court, each asking the Supreme Court to review and overturn the Third Circuit's decision on different grounds. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Third Circuit's decision in FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 141 S. Ct. 1150, on April 1, 2021, in a unanimous decision. By then, however, nearly two years had passed since the original comment period closed for the 2018 Quadrennial Review.

6. On June 4, 2021, the Bureau released a public notice seeking to refresh the record in the 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding. In that Public Notice, 86 FR 35089 (July 1, 2021), the Media Bureau sought any new and relevant information concerning the proceeding, including new empirical and statistical evidence, proposals, and detailed analysis. Additionally, the Bureau sought comment on how the media marketplace had evolved since early 2019 and whether new technological innovations had spurred noticeable trends or changed industry practices, as well as how any trends had impacted the manner in which consumers obtain local and national news and information. That proceeding remains pending.

7. Discussion. As with each new quadrennial review required by Congress, we start this proceeding to examine the media ownership rules in light of the media landscape of 2022 and beyond. Although they remain subject to the ongoing 2018 Quadrennial Review proceeding, the three rules currently in place and subject to this review are the Local Radio Ownership Rule and the Local Television Ownership Rule—which limit ownership by a single entity of broadcast radio or television stations in local markets respectively—and the Dual Network Rule, which effectively prohibits mergers among the Big Four broadcast television networks (ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC). In the context of these three rules, as with prior reviews, we seek information regarding the media marketplace, including ongoing trends or developments ( e.g., consolidation, technological innovation, or the emergence of new video or audio options for consumers), that commenters find relevant to the Commission's review of its media ownership rules.

8. In addition, we note that the statutory directive of section 202(h) is explicitly tied to the public interest standard, in that it requires the Commission to determine whether the rules remain “necessary in the public interest as the result of competition.” Accordingly, we seek comment on the impact of the rules on the American public as consumers of media and the function and objectives of the rules as they relate to broadcasters' public interest obligations. Have the rules served, and do they continue to serve, consumers, particularly with respect to the Commission's longstanding policy goals of competition, localism, and diversity? If so, in what ways? Are there ways in which the rules have fallen short? Has the marketplace under our current rules delivered sufficient “returns” for consumers with respect to competition, localism, and diversity? How can the Commission measure or evaluate any “returns” that consumers have received as a result of those rules? Should the Commission adjust its analysis of the audio and video programming marketplace to account for fundamental changes in consumer behavior ( e.g., use of streaming alternatives)? Are there areas in which consumers rely uniquely on broadcast media? More generally, how should the Commission define or redefine the policy goals for the rules? Are there other policy goals, besides competition, localism, and diversity, that the Commission should consider in relation to the rules?

9. We further note that commenters in prior proceedings have encouraged the Commission to evaluate the effects of its rules on the ownership of broadcast stations by minorities and women. To this end, we seek comment on barriers to minority and female ownership of broadcast stations and areas in which commenters believe those barriers relate to, intersect with, or could be addressed by changes to the three ownership rules that are the subject of this proceeding. Specifically, we encourage commenters to identify concrete changes the Commission could or should make with respect to these or any additional ownership rules. We ask commenters to explain in detail or to demonstrate with legal analysis and empirical evidence how any such changes or additions would address concerns regarding minority and female ownership and how they could withstand legal scrutiny.

10. As always, commenters may provide any additional information regarding legal or economic factors, changes, or issues that the Commission should consider, evaluate, and/or address in the context of the 2022 Quadrennial Review. The record compiled in response to this Public Notice will help inform the Commission's next steps in the 2022 proceeding, such as any subsequent Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In this regard, we reiterate the request from previous quadrennial reviews that commenters submit empirical evidence, data, and studies in support of their claims and positions wherever possible. We encourage commenters to draw any conclusions or connections between data and potential policy or rule changes as tightly and as explicitly as possible. In addition to identifying, analyzing, and submitting existing data, commenters are encouraged to compile new data or to conduct further research that can be submitted to the Commission as part of the 2022 proceeding.

11. Ex Parte Rules—Permit But Disclose. This proceeding 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 rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda 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.

12. Filing Comments and Replies. All filings must be submitted in MB Docket No. 22-459. Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing.

• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020). https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.

13. People With Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

14. Additional Information. For additional information on this proceeding, please contact Ty Bream of the Media Bureau, Industry Analysis Division, Ty.Bream@fcc.gov, (202) 418-0644.

On November 17, 2022, we published a proposed rule (87 FR 68975) to revise the rule for the African elephant ( Loxodonta africana ) promulgated under section 4(d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The proposed rule opened a 60-day comment period, ending January 17, 2023. We received requests to extend the public comment period. With this document, we are announcing an extension of the comment period an additional 60 days (see DATES , above) to allow the public further opportunity to provide comments on the proposed rule.

For a description of previous Federal actions concerning the African elephant and information on the types of comments that would be helpful to us in promulgating this rulemaking action, please refer to the November 17, 2022, proposed rule (87 FR 68975).

If you already submitted comments or information on the November 17, 2022 (87 FR 68975), proposed rule, please do not resubmit them. Any such comments are incorporated as part of the public record of the rulemaking proceeding, and we will fully consider them in the preparation of any final rule.

You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed rule by one of the methods listed under ADDRESSES . We will not accept comments sent by email or fax or to an address not listed under ADDRESSES .

If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.

Shannon Estenoz, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, approved this action on January 4, 2023, for publication. On January 12, 2023, Shannon Estenoz authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of the Interior.