[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47114-47123]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19718]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 9
[PS Docket No. 07-114; GN Docket No. 11-117; WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC
11-107]
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements; E911 Requirements
for IP-Enabled Service Providers
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the
Commission) proposes measures to improve 911 availability and location
determination for users of interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services. First, the Commission considers whether to apply our
911 rules to ``outbound-only'' interconnected VoIP services, i.e.,
services that support outbound calls to the public switched telephone
network (PSTN) but not inbound voice calling from the PSTN. These
services, which allow consumers to place IP-based outbound calls to any
telephone number, have grown increasingly popular in recent years. The
Commission asks whether such services are likely to generate consumer
expectations that they will support 911 calling and consider whether to
extend to outbound-only interconnected VoIP service providers the same
911 requirements that have applied to other interconnected VoIP service
providers since 2005.
The Commission seeks comment on whether our proposal to amend the
definition of interconnected VoIP service for 911 purposes has any
impact on our interpretation of certain statutes that reference the
Commission's existing definition of interconnected VoIP service.
DATES: Submit comments on or before October 3, 2011. Submit reply
comments on or before November 2, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 07-114;
GN Docket No. 11-117; WC Docket No. 05-196, by any of the following
methods:
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
People With Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Donovan, Attorney Advisor,
(202) 418-2413.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in PS Docket No. 07-114, GN Docket No. 11-117, WC Docket No. 05-196,
FCC 11-107, released on July 13, 2011. The full text of this document
is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20554, or online at http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/.
I. Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. Applying E911 Rules to Outbound-Only Interconnected VoIP Service
Providers
1. Background. In 2005, the Commission first asserted regulatory
authority over interconnected VoIP service providers for 911 purposes.
In the VoIP 911 Order, the Commission defined interconnected VoIP
service as a service that (1) enables real-time, two-way voice
communications; (2) requires a broadband connection from the user's
location; (3) requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises
equipment (CPE); and (4) permits users generally to receive calls that
originate on the PSTN and to terminate calls to the PSTN. The
Commission established requirements for these providers to provide 911
services to their customers. Since the Commission's adoption of these
requirements, Congress has codified them and has also given the
Commission the discretion to modify them ``from time to time.''
2. In the Location Accuracy NOI, the Commission noted that the
Commission's VoIP 911 rules have thus far been limited to providers of
interconnected VoIP services as defined above. The Commission also
noted, however, that since these rules were adopted, there has been a
significant increase in the availability and use of portable VoIP
services and applications that do not meet one or more prongs of the
interconnected VoIP service definition. In light of the increase in use
of these services, the Commission sought comment on several
alternatives for expanding the scope of the VoIP 911 rules, including
whether 911/E911 obligations should apply to (1) VoIP services that
enable users to place outbound calls that terminate on the PSTN but not
to receive inbound calls from the PSTN, and (2) VoIP services that
enable users to receive inbound calls from the PSTN but not to make
outbound calls to the PSTN.
3. Comments. In response to the Location Accuracy NOI, a number of
public safety entities argue that the Commission should impose 911
obligations on VoIP services that do not meet the current definition of
interconnected VoIP service. NENA contends that consumers expect that
they will be able to reach 911 from a VoIP telephone. NENA submits that
it is ``reasonable for consumers to expect that services which allow
outbound calling to the PSTN will properly route calls to 9-1-1.''
Further, Texas 9-1-1 Agencies contends that ``vendors of these services
should be required to provide public education materials related to 9-
1-1 limitations and work diligently with public safety and access
network provider[s] * * * to minimize confusion and potential adverse
consequences to their end users.''
4. Some commercial commenters also support the view that changing
consumer expectations support extending 911 requirements beyond the
scope of VoIP providers covered by the existing rules. AT&T highlights
that ``the record suggests that consumers
[[Page 47115]]
expect that outbound, residential VoIP services that provide local
calling capability will support E911.'' Sprint Nextel notes that
``[m]any * * * new services can be viewed as a form of mobile phone
service and, as such, should be treated in a similar way for purposes
of 911.'' TCS states that ``[s]ome VoIP services that otherwise fully
comply with [the interconnected VoIP service] definition are configured
so as to offer only ``one-way'' (i.e., either in-bound or out-bound
calling, but not both) voice services to the PSTN.'' TCS characterizes
this as a ``loophole'' that encourages ``product definition arbitrage''
and urges ``either Congressional action * * * or clarification from the
FCC that such services are included in Sec. 9.3,'' of the Commission's
rules. MobileTREC states that ``since a consumer's expectation is that
all devices that have dial tone would have 911 service, then any device
with dial tone should have a 911 solution, including nomadic or mobile
VoIP services such as MagicJack, Skype, Vonage, and Google Voice.''
DASH believes that ``the primary criteria the Commission should apply
in determining whether to impose 9-1-1 requirements on new products and
services is the reasonable expectations of the subscriber.''
5. The VON Coalition, on the other hand, argues that ``there is a
real risk to innovation if the Commission begins to blur the previously
established clear lines and expectations created in the definition of
interconnected VoIP * * * to trigger 911 obligations on these
innovative applications, products and services.'' The VON Coalition
also notes that ``certain IP-enabled services and devices, including
non-interconnected VoIP services, may not be technically capable of
providing E911, because of the difficulties in identifying the
locations of users.'' In addition, the VON Coalition argues that ``to
the extent E911 or next generation 911 obligations are extended, it
should be considered only for those voice applications or offerings
that are designed to provide the essential qualities of a telephone
service which is the ability to call anyone and receive a call from
anyone in the world.''
6. Discussion. When the Commission adopted VoIP 911 requirements in
2005, it recognized that the definition of interconnected VoIP service
might ``need to expand as new VoIP services increasingly substitute for
traditional phone service.'' Since 2005, there has been a dramatic
increase in the number and popularity of VoIP services. For example,
Skype reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission in 2010 that
it had 20 million users in the United States. Skype also stated that it
had over 8 million paying users worldwide for its SkypeIn and SkypeOut
services and had domestic revenues of over $100 million in 2009. A
number of companies, such as Skype and Google Voice offer a variety of
``one-way'' interconnected VoIP services that enable inbound calls from
the PSTN or outbound calls to the PSTN, but not both.
7. There are now well over 4.2 million subscribers to one-way
interconnected VoIP services, which was the number of two-way
interconnected VoIP subscribers in 2005 when the FCC adopted the
original interconnected VoIP 911 rules. Moreover, since 2005, a number
of hardware products have been introduced that support outbound-only
interconnected VoIP service and are indistinguishable from traditional
landline or cordless phones in their ability to place outbound calls.
8. Outbound-only interconnected VoIP service providers have also
been marketing their services to businesses, which generally require a
higher grade of quality and reliability than residential-based voice
services. For example, since late 2008, Skype has been marketing
several versions of its service to small, medium, and large businesses
that use Session Initiation Protocol-based PBX systems. In addition to
offering low cost rates for outbound calls, the service allows
customers to purchase online numbers to receive inbound calls.
9. Outbound-Only Interconnected VoIP Service. In light of increased
consumer access to and use of outbound-only interconnected VoIP
services, we seek comment on whether to extend our 911 obligations to
outbound-only interconnected VoIP service providers to further the
achievement of long-established regulatory goals to promote the safety
of life and property. We invite comment regarding consumers'
expectations for being able to contact emergency personnel when using
outbound-only interconnected VoIP services. What is the likelihood that
a consumer who needs to place an emergency call and is unfamiliar with
an outbound-only interconnected VoIP phone would expect it to have the
ability to transmit a 911 call? Are warnings at the point of sale
regarding a consumer's inability to reach 911 using a particular
outbound-only interconnected VoIP service effective? Is there a
consumer expectation with respect to being able to contact emergency
personnel when using an inbound-only interconnected VoIP service?
10. If we were to extend 911 obligations to outbound-only
interconnected VoIP service providers, should we also revise our
definition of interconnected VoIP service? As an initial matter, we
seek comment on two potential technical modifications to the definition
of interconnected VoIP service. First, we seek comment on whether we
should modify the second prong of the existing definition, which
requires a broadband voice connection from the user's location. Some
interconnected VoIP service providers have asserted that VoIP services
that are capable of functioning over a dial-up connection as well as a
broadband connection fall outside this definition. Since these services
provide virtually the same user experience, regardless of the fact that
they are in dial-up mode, we seek comment on whether the second prong
should specify an ``Internet connection,'' rather than a broadband
connection, as the defining feature.
11. Second, we seek comment on whether we should modify the fourth
prong of the existing definition to define connectivity in terms of the
ability to connect calls to United States E.164 telephone numbers
rather than the PSTN. Such a change could reflect the fact that
interconnected VoIP service providers are not limited to using the
circuit-switched PSTN to connect or receive telephone calls. Indeed, as
networks evolve away from circuit-switched technology, VoIP users are
increasingly likely to place and receive telephone calls in which the
end-to-end transmission is entirely over IP-based networks. By
referencing E.164 telephone numbers and eliminating reference to the
PSTN, the definition of interconnected VoIP service might be
technically more accurate and avoid potential technical obsolescence.
12. Thus, we seek comment on whether to extend 911 requirements to
any service that (1) Enables real-time, two-way voice communications;
(2) requires an Internet connection from the user's location; (3)
requires Internet protocol-compatible customer premises equipment; and
(4) permits users to terminate calls to all or substantially all United
States E.164 telephone numbers. Would such a new definition accurately
reflect current and evolving consumer expectations and the needs of
PSAPs and first responders? In the companion Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, we seek comment on whether a new definition, were we to
adopt one, should be used for any regulatory purpose other than 911 and
on issues related to the changing the definition for 911 purposes only.
[[Page 47116]]
13. We also seek comment on the cost and technical feasibility of
extending the Commission's existing 911 requirements to outbound-only
interconnected VoIP service providers. In this regard, we seek comment
on the ability of an outbound-only interconnected VoIP service provider
to support callback capability. Does the fact that outbound-only
interconnected VoIP service providers have already implemented call-
back mechanisms for non-emergency purposes mean that it would be
feasible for an outbound-only interconnected VoIP service provider to
support callback capability for emergency purposes as well? If the
Commission were to extend existing 911 requirements to outbound-only
interconnected VoIP service providers, what would be an appropriate
timeframe for doing so?
14. Would the costs for outbound-only interconnected VoIP service
providers to come into compliance with these requirements be no
greater, and potentially be lower, than the costs that two-way
interconnected VoIP service providers incurred when the Commission
adopted its original VoIP 911 requirements in 2005? Has the development
since 2005 of mechanisms to support VoIP 911 and the provision of
registered location information led to efficiencies that could reduce
the cost for outbound-only interconnected VoIP service providers to
come into compliance? Conversely, do outbound-only interconnected VoIP
services face any additional costs due to technical challenges in
transmitting 911 calls, providing call-back information, or using
customer-generated location information when compared to bidirectional
services?
15. To establish the baseline from which to calculate benefits and
costs of extending 911 service requirements to outbound-only
interconnected VoIP service providers, we seek comment on the number of
firms and subscribers that would be affected; the number of firms that
currently provide 911 service for outbound-only interconnected VoIP
calls; the number of households and businesses that use outbound-only
interconnected VoIP services, including the number that use outbound-
only interconnected VoIP services to the exclusion of two-way voice
calling services; the projected growth in use of outbound-only
interconnected VoIP services, including any growth in the use of such
services to the exclusion of two-way voice calling services; and the
number of outbound-only interconnected VoIP 911 calls placed annually
to PSAPs.
16. We seek comment on the appropriate manner to calculate the
benefits that would result from extending 911 service requirements to
outbound-only interconnected VoIP services. These benefits may include
decreased response times for emergencies; reductions in property
damage, the severity of injuries and loss of life; and the increase in
the probability of apprehending criminal suspects. We recognize that
these benefits will be tempered when consumers have access to other
telecommunications services that already provide 911 service and may
increase when outbound-only interconnected VoIP service use grows in
the future. Potential benefits may also include less tangible and
quantifiable factors, such as an increased sense of security. We seek
comment on how these intangibles should be accounted for in any
analysis.
17. We seek comment on the costs and technical issues associated
with providing 911 services. These costs may include hardware upgrades,
software updates, customer service costs, the cost of sending
additional 911 calls, decreased innovation and investment in services,
market exit, liability concerns, as well as other potential costs not
enumerated here. We seek comment on any changes to the proposed rules
that could mitigate these cost factors while maintaining the goals of
extending access to emergency services to users of outbound-only
interconnected VoIP services. We seek comment on how any two-way or
outbound-only interconnected VoIP service providers that currently
offer 911 service provision these services and ask for a precise
quantification of the initial and ongoing costs associated with
establishing 911 calling, as well as the number of subscribers that
have utilized this feature.
18. We seek further comment on any potential costs that public
safety personnel may incur if the Commission were to impose 911
obligations upon outbound-only interconnected VoIP service providers.
For instance, assuming that most PSAPs are already capable of receiving
911 calls from two-way VoIP providers, would they incur additional
costs were they also to receive 911 calls from outbound-only
interconnected VoIP providers? For example, could there be potential
costs if emergency response personnel are sent to the wrong location or
if PSAPs are forced to deal with an increase in the number of
fraudulent 911 calls?
19. Finally, with the introduction of advanced consumer equipment
and applications for use on desktop computers and mobile devices, we
expect significant innovation to continue in the provision of voice
services over IP networks. Thus, we also seek comment on whether there
are voice services that are presently being offered that would fall
outside the scope of the proposed new definition for outbound-only
interconnected VoIP service for which consumers may have a reasonable
expectation of being able to contact 911.
B. Automatic Location Requirements for Interconnected VoIP Services
20. Background. The Commission's rules currently do not require
providers of portable interconnected VoIP service to automatically
provide location information to PSAPs without the customer's active
cooperation. In the Location Accuracy NPRM, the Commission tentatively
concluded that ``to the extent that an interconnected VoIP service may
be used in more than one location, providers must employ an automatic
location technology that meets the same accuracy standards that apply
to those CMRS services.'' The Location Accuracy NOI sought to refresh
the record on this tentative conclusion.
21. Specifically, in the Location Accuracy NOI, the Commission
sought comment on a range of questions related to automatic provision
of location information for interconnected VoIP services. The
Commission sought information on what advanced technologies, if any,
permit portable interconnected VoIP service providers to provide ALI,
whether portable interconnected VoIP service providers had implemented
any practices or methods to provide ALI, and if not, what the
Commission could do to facilitate the development of techniques for
automatically identifying the geographic location of users of this
service. Further, the Commission sought comment on whether
interconnected VoIP service providers should incorporate the ability to
automatically detect a user's Internet connectivity, identify a user's
location, and prompt a user to confirm his/her location, prior to
enabling calling features. The Commission also sought comment on
whether CMRS operators that provide interconnected VoIP services can
deliver location information to a PSAP in the same manner as for CMRS,
specifically, delivering longitude and latitude coordinates to the PSAP
in lieu of a street address.
22. Comments. Several commenters argue that the dramatic growth of
interconnected VoIP services has created a market segment too large to
[[Page 47117]]
remain exempt from E911 location accuracy and that interconnected VoIP
service providers as well as broadband providers should work together
to address technical solutions for providing automatic location
information for VoIP subscribers (including wireless VoIP callers),
with the goal of recommending a standard. APCO maintains that
``[c]allers using IP devices expect and should receive the same E9-1-1
service as callers using other types of devices'' and that ``automatic
location requirements should therefore be imposed on all devices that
the public uses in the same * * * manner as interconnected
telephones.'' NENA argues that ``[i]t is entirely reasonable for
consumers to expect that services which allow outbound calling to the
PSTN will properly route calls to 9-1-1, [and] that this is indeed the
expectation held by the overwhelming majority of VoIP users.'' St.
Louis County believes these services must provide location and routing
information similar to that provided by wireline voice providers.
23. NENA has two primary concerns about the inability of
interconnected VoIP service providers to provide ALI for 911 calls.
First, although NENA lacks quantitative figures, it has received a
``wealth of anecdotal evidence that PSAPs frequently receive calls
routed incorrectly due to a failure of nomadic VoIP systems to update
user locations.'' Second, according to NENA, there is evidence that
callers sometimes intentionally falsify location information, which is
``impossible to detect and can negatively impact * * * safety and
security * * * by diverting resources away from legitimate emergency
calls or directing attention away from [a crime] scene [and] when
fraudulent calls are detected, it is technically * * * difficult to
locate the perpetrator. St. Louis County states that ``while
improvements to location accuracy have been [made], there remain
inaccuracies and other limiting factors requiring additional time and
effort at the point of call taking to adequately determine the location
of the reporting party,'' a problem compounded by nomadic callers who
``seldom [are] aware of their geographic location and can offer only
observed landmarks thus delaying initial response.''
24. A number of commenters argue that the existing Registered
Location requirement, whereby VoIP subscribers register their physical
location with their provider, has worked well and should continue to
serve as the basis for routing 911 calls. Vonage states that it has
worked with public safety to adapt Vonage's 911 service to the
equipment or infrastructure on which PSAPs rely, resulting in the
delivery of more information to the PSAP than is provided by CMRS
carriers. Vonage also asserts that ``public safety has not requested
ALI data from Vonage.''
25. While commenters differ on whether ALI requirements for
interconnected VoIP service are needed, commenters generally agree that
at this time there is no technological or cost-effective means to
provide ALI for interconnected VoIP service providers. Commenters also
state that there are no industry standards to support ALI for
interconnected VoIP calls and that ``the static ALI database in use
today is ill-suited to provide location information for any mobile or
nomadic communications service.'' According to AT&T, the services
encompassed within the Commission's definition of interconnected VoIP
service ``operate over a myriad of portable devices and technologies
that permit portability, including commercial mobile smartphones
running VoIP applications, Wi-Fi enabled VoIP handsets, portable
terminal adapters, USB dongles, PC-based softphones [and] VoIP users
might access the Internet through traditional wired broadband
connections, public or private wireless access points, or commercial
mobile broadband networks [such that] each permutation of device and
network access may have unique technical and logistical challenges,
which makes it infeasible today to rely on a single standard or
technology for determining and relaying accurate ALI to PSAPs.''
Likewise, Qwest states that ``[w]ireline networks, e.g., the
architecture defining VoIP 911, have no ability to read each other's
end-user locations [and] no existing technology, let alone applicable
industry-agreed standards, support the automatic delivery of user
address information from a VoIP piece of equipment to a database
capable of manipulating it and getting it delivered to a PSAP.'' Vonage
argues that ``it is particularly critical that the Commission recognize
the distinction between fixed, nomadic, and mobile interconnected VoIP
service [because] ``[f]or fixed and nomadic services, moving to CMRS
location requirements would degrade, rather than improve, the accuracy
and reliability of emergency caller location information [and] [f]or
VoIP mobile products, moving to CMRS location requirements will
introduce duplication, inefficiency and confusion.''
26. Motorola states that ``[i]mplementation of this functionality *
* * would require substantial standards development, investment, and
infrastructure upgrades by both VoIP service providers and PSAPs.''
Vonage argues that ``existing and proposed automatic location
identification technology is significantly less reliable than network
end-point location information * * * especially * * * in dense urban
environments'' and therefore ``the Commission should not prematurely
impose technological requirements and risk likely decreases in public
safety and IVS autolocation.''
27. A number of commenters recommend that the Commission encourage
industry and public safety entities to work together to develop
automatic location identification solutions for VoIP. NENA states that
``[i]n the future, some form of Automatic Location Determination should
be mandatory for all portable or nomadic VoIP devices and
applications'' and recommends that ``the Commission consult closely
with industry to begin fashioning workable 9-1-1 and E9-1-1 rules for
PSTN-terminating VoIP providers.''
28. According to AT&T, one possible technological solution that
warrants further consideration would be ``to include integrated ALI
capabilities in the design of terminal adapters or other user devices
employed in the provision of portable VoIP services.'' AT&T states that
``these devices could include A-GPS, passive CMRS wireless receivers,
or both, for use in trilateration and identification of the user's
location.'' Nevertheless, AT&T cautions that GPS-based automatic
location information poses technical limitations, as many
interconnected VoIP subscribers use their service indoors or in urban
environments, making GPS less effective if satellite transmissions are
reflected off buildings and other obstructions or satellite
connectivity is lost when VoIP users are deeper indoors. Dash argues
that a key element in an ALI solution for interconnected VoIP service
is a Location Information Server (LIS) hosted by the service and/or
broadband provider and therefore capable of determining, storing,
updating, validating and providing location information to first
responders. Motorola supports the provision of a validated Master
Street Address Guide (MSAG) ``where an interconnected VoIP service
connects to a PSAP through an IP/wireline technology, but
interconnected VoIP services that connect over wireless networks should
not be held to the same location accuracy standard as CMRS networks at
this time.''
29. Some commenters believe that the costs associated with the
deployment of
[[Page 47118]]
VoIP automatic location capability would be very high. In addition,
commenters point out that there is no mechanism for cost recovery.
Qwest states that ``it is unclear whether cost recovery would come from
the Federal government, or whether VoIP service providers would need to
look to the states (and their funding mechanisms, such as 911
surcharges and state funds) for recovery of their significant costs * *
* [a]nd it is even less clear where non-regulated entities would go for
their cost recovery.'' AT&T argues that any solution will require
``substantial up-front investment well before any appreciable results
would be seen'' and ``necessitate significant reengineering'' as well
as replacement of existing devices with ``significant consumer outreach
efforts and additional expense for subscribers and service providers.''
30. Discussion. We agreee with commenters that, given the
increasing popularity and adoption of interconnected VoIP services, the
provision of accurate location information to PSAPs is becoming
essential information to facilitate prompt emergency response and
protect life, health and property. Although some commenters point out
that the current Registered Location requirement can provide the
necessary detailed location of callers, the current regime remains
dependent upon subscribers manually and accurately entering their
location information and updating it in a timely manner. NENA indicates
that a number of VoIP 911 calls have provided erroneous or fraudulent
location information to PSAPs, leading to the waste of scarce emergency
resources and squandering time that could have been spent responding to
other emergencies. We note that proposals related to NG911 would allow
the transmission of multiple location objects for a call and thus
permit the PSAP to receive the benefit of both the additional
information contained in a civic address provided by a user (e.g., an
apartment number or street address) and the automatically determined
location information that is less subject to data entry errors, lack of
timely updates, and possible misrepresentations.
31. In light of the increasing prevalence of VoIP calling, the
evolution of consumer expectations, and the limitations of the
Registered Location method, we believe it is imperative to continue
working towards an automatic location solution for interconnected VoIP
calls to 911. At the same time, given the lack of presently available
solutions, we are not proposing to adopt specific ALI requirements for
interconnected VoIP services at this time but instead seek comment on a
potential framework for developing solutions that would enable us to
consider implementing ALI for interconnected VoIP service at a later
date.
32. We agree with commenters that the provision of ALI in the
interconnected VoIP context is particularly challenging because of the
increasing prevalence of ``over-the-top'' VoIP service, where the over-
the-top VoIP service provider that offers interconnected VoIP service
to consumers is a different entity from the broadband provider that
provides the underlying Internet connectivity. In this scenario, there
will frequently be circumstances where the over-the-top VoIP service
provider has a direct connection to the consumer but does not have
information about the user's location, while the broadband provider may
be aware of the consumer's location based on the access point he or she
is using but is not aware of when the consumer is placing an emergency
call. In these situations, the most efficient and accurate ALI solution
may require that both the broadband provider and the over-the-top VoIP
service provider play a part.
33. Given the increasing use of interconnected VoIP services, we
seek comment whether the Commission should adopt proposed general
location accuracy governing principles that could be applied to
interconnected VoIP service providers and over-the-top VoIP service
providers but that would allow both types of providers the flexibility
to develop technologically efficient and cost-effective solutions. The
IETF GEOPRIV working group has defined a suite of protocols that allow
broadband providers to provide location information to subscribers'
devices through standard protocol interfaces. One governing principle
might be that when an interconnected VoIP user accesses the Internet to
place an emergency call, the underlying broadband provider must be
capable of providing location information regarding the access point
being used by the device or application, using industry-standard
protocols on commercially reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. For
example, a broadband provider might be able to satisfy its obligation
by providing the access point location information to: (1) the end
user, (2) the over-the-top VoIP service provider, and/or (3) the PSAP.
Another general principle might be that when an interconnected VoIP
user places an emergency call, the over-the-top VoIP service provider
must either provide ALI directly (e.g., using geo-location information
generated by the device or application) or must support the provision
of access point location information by the broadband provider as
described above.
34. We seek comment on whether we should adopt these or any other
governing principles. The Commission asks for comment on the
appropriate timeframes for their implementation should the Commission
decide to adopt them, considering the technological, cost, and
operational aspects of the services and devices that the Commission
proposes to subject to the new requirements. We also seek comment on
the potential costs and benefits of this proposal. We seek comment on
the most cost effective solution for providing reasonably accurate
location information for interconnected VoIP services. These comments
should address both currently available solutions and solutions under
development. We seek detailed comment on the relative merits of any
potential solutions, including the degree of location accuracy, the
cost of implementing the location solution, the degree of coordination
required to implement the solution, to which types of VoIP service
providers the location systems would apply (e.g. interconnected VoIP,
outbound-only interconnected VoIP, ``over-the-top'' VoIP, etc.) and any
other limitations that may be relevant.
35. We seek comment on the potential benefits of extending location
accuracy requirements to interconnected VoIP services. Are they similar
to those described above for extending 911 requirements to outbound-
only interconnected VoIP service, including decreased response time to
emergencies; reductions in property damage, the severity of injuries,
and loss of life; and an increase in the probability of apprehending
criminal suspects? We recognize that the extent of any benefits will be
in part a function of the degree to which current location
methodologies provide incorrect or imprecise location information and
thereby delay emergency personnel from arriving at the scene. To aid in
the estimation of these benefits, we seek comment on the extent to
which the receipt of imprecise or incorrect location information from
interconnected VoIP service providers has resulted in problems for
first responders. We seek precise quantification of the extent to which
emergency personnel are deployed to incorrect locations and the
difference in response times for calls initiated from interconnected
VoIP service providers versus wireline and wireless service providers.
[[Page 47119]]
36. We invite comment on the costs associated with various VoIP
location accuracy technologies and how these costs and solutions vary
by type of VoIP service. These costs may include hardware upgrades,
software updates, liability concerns, and any transaction costs. With
respect to the last component, we understand that an interconnected
VoIP service provider has a relationship with the user but does not
have information about the user's location, while the network provider
may be aware of the device or application's location based on the
access point being used but is not aware of when an emergency call is
being placed. We seek comment on how a solution to this problem can be
found and how transaction costs between interconnected VoIP service
providers and network providers can be reduced in order to provide the
most cost effective and accurate location information. Finally, to the
extent that there are any other costs and benefits that we should
consider, we seek comment on the nature and quantification of their
magnitude.
37. Privacy Concerns. We note that section 222 of the
Communications Act requires carriers (including CMRS providers) to
safeguard the privacy of customer proprietary network information
(CPNI), including location information. Section 222 generally permits
carriers to disclose CPNI ``with the approval of the customer.'' The
statute provides heightened protection for location information: A
customer shall not be considered to have given approval with regard to
``call location information concerning the user of a commercial mobile
service * * * or the user of an IP-enabled voice [interconnected VoIP]
service'' without ``express prior authorization,'' except that a
carrier or interconnected VoIP service provider may provide such
information ``to providers of emergency services, and providers of
emergency support services, solely for purposes of delivering or
assisting in the delivery of emergency services.'' How would section
222 apply to broadband providers if we were to amend our rules to
require them to assist interconnected VoIP service providers in
providing ALI? Could the Commission use authority ancillary to sections
222 and 615a-1 to require broadband providers to maintain the
confidentiality of location information except as consistent with
section 222? Could the Commission extend the exception to the prior
authorization rule for providers of emergency services to broadband
providers? Are there other sources of authority that would enable the
Commission to address privacy concerns in this area?
38. Liability Protection. In the larger context of our effort to
transition to NG911, we have asked whether some type of liability
protection might be necessary or appropriate for those involved in the
provision of emergency services. Today we revisit this question in the
context of interconnected VoIP service providers and our proposal to
extend ALI requirements to them and to broadband providers. Would a
broadband provider be considered an ``other emergency communications
provider'' subject to the liability protections of section 615a(a)? The
Commission also seeks comment on the extent to which the Commission can
address the liability of device manufacturers that include software
capable of supporting ALI for interconnected VoIP service. Are there
other sources of authority pursuant to which the Commission could
address liability issues for service and equipment providers?
C. Location-Capable Broadband Voice Technologies
39. In the Location Accuracy NOI, we observed that ``many new forms
of IP-based voice communications are being offered to consumers via a
variety of wireless services, devices, and applications for use on a
wide range of new devices.'' These IP-based communications are being
carried over CMRS circuit-switched and data networks, as well as on Wi-
Fi and other types of wireless connectivity and these communications
may not be subject to our existing interconnected VoIP service or CMRS
rules and therefore would not be included within the scope of our
proposed revision to the interconnected VoIP service definition for 911
purposes. The record indicates that most smartphones, and many other
new broadband-enabled mobile devices, now offer one or more location
capabilities, such as A-GPS, network-based location determination, and
Wi-Fi based positioning. Often, these capabilities work in combination
to provide fairly accurate location determination. St. Louis County
reports that ``with the advent of the `smart phone', it has been
observed that the location reported by the device is enormously more
accurate than that currently provided by Phase II wireless
technologies'' and such phones should use their ``inherent geo-based
accuracy for reporting the location of the calling party.'' Some
commenters argue that an industry advisory group would be able to
provide an orderly and standards driven approach to leveraging
commercial location-based service for use in providing location
information for emergency calls.
40. The introduction of more sophisticated mobile devices has
allowed service providers to offer their customers a wide range of
commercial location-based services. Such services allow users to
navigate by car or on foot, find nearby points of interest such as
restaurants or gas stations, tag photos, share their location
information with friends, track jogging mileage, obtain coupons from
nearby merchants, receive reminders of errands, or play location-based
games. The location-based capabilities inherent in the design of these
devices and applications could perhaps be leveraged when consumers
contact 911 using non-CMRS-based voice services. These location-based
services could potentially permit service providers and applications
developers to provide PSAPs with more accurate 911 location
information. Exploiting commercially available location determination
technologies already in devices may offer a more cost efficient method
by which to provide critical life saving information to PSAPs. The
Commission seeks comment on whether we should encourage mobile service
providers to enable the use of commercial location-based services for
emergency purposes. We also seek comment on developing operational
benchmarks to assist consumers in evaluating the ability of carriers to
provide precise location information for emergency purposes based on
the location-based capabilities of devices. Should the Commission
develop such benchmarks, and if so, what should they be? In addition,
the CSRIC should be directed to explore and make recommendations on
methodologies for leveraging commercial location-based services for 911
location determination. CSRIC should also suggest whether it is
feasible or appropriate for the Commission to adopt operational
benchmarks that will allow consumers to evaluate carriers' ability to
provide accurate location information. We seek comment on whether the
adoption of such benchmarks would be effective in enabling consumers to
be better informed about the ability of wireless devices and
technologies to provide a PSAP with accurate location information.
41. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs and benefits of
the approaches described above. As in our discussion above regarding
location accuracy in the interconnected VoIP service context, we seek
to encourage the development of cost-effective solutions for location-
capable
[[Page 47120]]
broadband voice technologies to support the provision of accurate
location information to PSAPs and first responders. The Commission
seeks comment on both currently available solutions and solutions under
development, including the degree of location accuracy provided, the
cost of implementing the solution, the degree of coordination required
to implement the solution, the types of service, application, and
network providers that would be affected, and any other limitations
that may be relevant. The Commission also seeks comment on the
potential benefits for the public and for public safety in terms of
improved access to 911 services, reducing response time to emergencies,
and enhancing the protection of life, safety, and property.
D. Improving Indoor Location Accuracy
1. Indoor Location Accuracy Testing
42. Background. In the Location Accuracy FNPRM, the Commission
sought comment on whether it should extend location accuracy testing to
indoor environments. Noting the growing number of wireless 911 calls,
the Commission asked whether the Commission should update OET Bulletin
71 to include measurements in indoor environments.
43. Comments. Some commenters support the Commission's imposing an
indoor testing requirement. Polaris ``strongly advocates that the
Commission establish testing and reporting requirements for in-building
location accuracy and yield. With better information regarding the
scope and impact of the challenges associated with indoor E911 location
information, the Commission will be able to properly assess the best
way to improve indoor performance (and the appropriate metrics that
need to be put in place).'' Polaris argues that ``the Commission should
hold workshops and other events to get input from industry members and
advisory groups regarding indoor testing. Based on this input, the
Commission should also consider requiring indoor testing and
establishing a testing schedule.''
44. NENA argues that the growing number of ``wireless-only
households * * * may prompt a need for new indoor/outdoor testing to
more accurately reflect consumer trends in the use of mobile devices.''
However, NENA states that it ``lacks sufficient quantitative
information to recommend a particular fraction of testing that should
be conducted indoors.'' Finally, TruePosition argues that the testing
structure ``should encompass those environments from which most calls
are made, including indoors. [Testing] must keep pace with consumer
expectations and emergency response requirements.''
45. Carriers generally oppose expanding testing to indoor
environments. T-Mobile argues that unlike outdoor data collection,
``which can be performed by drive testing, there is no feasible way to
perform indoor testing on any large scale.'' However, if indoor testing
is required, ``T-Mobile agrees with the ESIF recommendation that
testing representative indoor environments would be far preferable to
repetitive application of indoor testing at the local level.'' Sprint
Nextel also opposes an indoor testing standard, stating that ``the
proportion of calls placed to 911 from indoors varies from PSAP to
PSAP, from town to town, from county to county and from state to
state'' and that because of these variations, ``adopting a specified
level of indoor testing is not reasonable without further data.''
Sprint Nextel further argues that ``technology for performing indoor
testing is still in the process of being developed,'' and therefore,
``[i]t would be premature to impose specific indoor testing
requirements on the carriers at this time.''
46. AT&T also argues against an indoor testing requirement because,
``[p]ractically speaking, AT&T already finds it difficult to conduct
outdoor testing on private property,'' and it anticipates that
``gaining indoor building access for testing purposes will be even more
difficult.'' AT&T contends that ``obtaining access to the number of
indoor sites required to meet a 30% standard may be impossible.''
Finally, Qualcomm argues that ``[t]he FCC has no basis to use OET
Bulletin No. 71 as the starting point for indoor compliance testing,
and definitely should not make its `guidelines' mandatory or define a
level of indoor versus outdoor testing.'' Qualcomm states that ``the
level of 911 wireless calls made indoors versus outdoors is not only
presently unquantified, but it is effectively irrelevant to the
Commission's ultimate goal of improving the location accuracy of calls
made from inside of buildings.''
47. Discussion. Publicly available reports, such as a March 2011
study from J. D. Power and Associates, indicate that indoor wireless
calls have increased dramatically in the past few years, to an average
of 56 percent of all calls, up from 40 percent in 2003. Indoor
locations pose particular challenges for first responders, as the
location of an emergency may not be as obvious as emergencies that
occur outdoors. For example, since indoor incidents are often not
visible to the first responder without entering the building, a
location accuracy of 100/300 meters or cell-tower only would only
identify the city block in which a building is located, which in urban
environments could potentially contain thousands of apartments. Thus,
we consider indoor location accuracy to be a significant public safety
concern that requires development of indoor technical solutions and
testing methodologies to verify the effectiveness of such solutions.
48. While we recognize the importance of indoor testing, we believe
that further work is needed in this area and seek comment on whether
the Commission should require indoor location accuracy testing and, if
so, using what standards. Can outdoor testing methodologies be used in
indoor environments, or should the standards for outdoor and indoor
location accuracy testing be different? Are traditional sampling and
drive testing methods used for outdoor testing appropriate for indoor
testing, or do we need new testing methodologies tailored to indoor
environments? What indoor location accuracy testing methodologies are
available today, and what are the costs and benefits associated with
each? We also seek comment on the percentage of emergency calls that
are placed indoors today and a quantification of how much an indoor
location accuracy testing standard could improve the ability of
emergency responders to locate someone in an emergency.
49. We also refer the indoor testing issue to the CSRIC for further
development of technical recommendations. We direct that the CSRIC
provide initial findings and recommendations to the Commission, taking
into account the cost effectiveness of any recommendations, within nine
months of the referral of this issue to the CSRIC.
2. Wi-Fi Positioning and Network Access Devices
50. Wi-Fi Positioning. In the Location Accuracy NOI, the Commission
sought comment on the potential use of Wi-Fi connections to support
location accuracy determination in indoor environments, including both
residential environments and public hotspots, such as coffee shops,
airports, or bookstores. In the last several years, many more homes,
offices, shops, and public spaces have installed Wi-Fi access points,
and a growing number of mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, laptops, and
tablet PCs) use Wi-Fi positioning capability as one means of
determining the device user's location.
[[Page 47121]]
To locate a mobile device using Wi-Fi positioning, a technology vendor
must first create a database of Wi-Fi access point information (a Wi-Fi
Database). The caller's device must then measure information from
visible Wi-Fi access points and send that information to a Wi-Fi
Location Server that has access to the Wi-Fi Database. The device's
location is then determined by the Wi-Fi Location Server. Since the
radii for Wi-Fi access points are typically small, Wi-Fi positioning
can produce reasonably accurate location information.
51. While some consumer location-based services rely on Wi-Fi
positioning, Wi-Fi positioning is not currently used for emergency
calls. According to the CSRIC 4C Report, Wi-Fi positioning is not being
used to deliver emergency calls because: (1) Current deployments for
Wi-Fi positioning are based on proprietary implementations; (2) support
for transporting Wi-Fi measurements to the Wi-Fi Location Server are
not available in the E911 control plane interface standards; (3) only a
small fraction of mobile phones in the marketplace have Wi-Fi
capability, although the penetration rate is growing rapidly with the
increasing adoption of smartphones; and (4) use of Wi-Fi positioning
reduces a portable device's battery life. Despite the fact that Wi-Fi
positioning is not currently being used for emergency calls, the CSRIC
Report states that the use of Wi-Fi positioning for emergency purposes
warrants more detailed study.
52. T-Mobile has concerns about using Wi-Fi positioning for
emergency calls and states that ``WiFi Proximity only works in urban
and dense suburban areas, and only with phones that have Wi-Fi receive
capability. WiFi Proximity methods also share common weaknesses with A-
GPS in many indoor environments (where access points cannot readily be
located and documented) and in heavily forested rural areas (where
access point densities are low).'' T-Mobile also notes that ``current
E911 control plane interface standards do not support the use of WiFi
Proximity location estimates for E911 purposes, and developing and
maintaining the required database to support this method is
operationally intensive and costly.'' T-Mobile concludes by noting that
``the WiFi Proximity method has considerable shortcomings: limited
areas of applicability, potentially low reliability, only a subset of
handsets that can be located, no standards support for E911, limited
accuracy, and high cost. For these reasons, though the approach has
found some success as a medium accuracy location method for some
commercial-location-based smartphone applications, at present no
vendors have even proposed using this method for E911.''
53. Network Access Devices. Many fixed broadband Internet access
devices, particularly those provided to the consumer by the broadband
service provider, are permanently located at a civic (street) address,
which is known to the network provider. Indeed, in some access network
architectures, the device is designed to cease functioning when it has
been moved to a different network attachment point. Thus, when a caller
uses a wireless phone that is communicating with a Wi-Fi access point
or femtocell, the wireless carrier may be able to use the civic address
to better locate the caller. For example, in a high- rise building,
access to the civic address of the network access device could
alleviate the need for vertical location information, since the civic
address would include information that is capable of locating the
source of the call, such as a floor or apartment number.
54. Discussion. We would not expect Wi-Fi positioning to serve as a
replacement for other location technologies such as A-GPS or
triangulation-based techniques, but could it complement these
technologies, particularly in indoor or urban canyon settings where
alternative location technologies such as A-GPS may not work reliably?
Given the potential public safety benefits of using Wi-Fi positioning
to locate emergency callers, we seek comment on whether, and if so,
how, the Commission could encourage the use of location information
that has been derived using Wi-Fi positioning for 911 purposes. How
might location information derived from Wi-Fi positioning be conveyed
to the PSAP, VoIP service provider, or broadband Internet access
provider in both E911 and NG911 settings? Can network devices now or
will they in the future be capable of providing Internet connectivity
(e.g., home gateways, hot spots, and set-top boxes)? If so, will they
be able to self-locate using Wi-Fi positioning? What are the potential
costs of including this capability in devices and how much time would
be needed to implement it? The Commission seeks comment on the merits
of these proposals.
55. We also seek comment on whether fixed broadband Internet access
service providers could provision their network access devices to be
capable of providing location information (civic or geospatial) to
network hosts that attach to these network access devices. Further, we
seek comment on the methods and technologies that would most
effectively enable the provision of location information to network
access devices. Because we recognize that it may be highly inefficient
and burdensome for manufacturers of consumer equipment and software
applications to make individual arrangements with every broadband
provider to provide location information using network access devices,
we seek comment on whether network access devices could provide
location information using one or more recognized industry standards.
56. As in prior sections, the Commission seeks comment on the costs
and benefits of the potential indoor accuracy solutions described
above, including both currently available solutions and solutions under
development. We recognize that the efficacy of any particular indoor
solution may vary depending on the nature of the indoor environment,
the broadband networks available within the environment, and the
particular device, service, or application being used by the consumer
to place an emergency call. We seek comment on the relative costs and
benefits of each such solution and the costs and benefits of developing
multiple solutions that can provide more accurate location information
when combined.
E. Legal Authority
57. We seek comment on our analysis that we have legal authority to
adopt the proposals described herein. First, we believe that modifying
the definition of interconnected VoIP service as proposed flows from
the Commission's authority to regulate interconnected VoIP 911 service,
which was ratified by the NET 911 Improvement Act. The NET 911
Improvement Act defines ``IP-enabled voice service'' as having ``the
meaning given the term `interconnected VoIP service' by Sec. 9.3 of
the Federal Communications Commission's regulations.'' The legislative
history of the NET 911 Improvement Act indicates that Congress did not
intend to lock in the then-existing definition of interconnected VoIP
service as a permanent definition for NET 911 Improvement Act purposes.
58. We also believe that we have authority to modify the 911
obligations of interconnected VoIP service providers. The NET 911
Improvement Act requires interconnected VoIP service providers to
provide 911 service ``in accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Communications Commission, as in effect on July 23, 2008 and as
such requirements may be
[[Page 47122]]
modified by the Commission from time to time.'' Thus, our authority to
modify the manner in which interconnected VoIP service providers
provide E911 service falls under Congress's explicit delegation to us
to modify the requirements applying to interconnected VoIP service
``from time to time.''
59. To the extent the regulation of network operators or others is
reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of the Commission's
statutory responsibilities to oversee the activities of interconnected
VoIP service providers, and such regulation lies within our subject
matter jurisdiction, as specified in Title I of the Communications Act,
the Commission has authority, under section 4(i) of the Communications
Act and judicial precedent regarding the Commission's ancillary
jurisdiction to adopt requirements applicable to these other entities.
Broadband, Internet access, and other network service providers fall
within our general jurisdictional grant as providers of ``interstate
and foreign communication by wire or radio.'' In addition, many VoIP
911 calls are carried over such networks. Accordingly, if a network
used by the interconnected VoIP service provider does not accommodate
the provider's efforts to comply with the 911 obligations that we
establish for such provider pursuant to our express statutory
obligations under the NET 911 Improvement Act, the element required for
exercising ancillary jurisdiction over such networks--i.e., that the
regulation is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of our
statutory duties--appears to be met, since the requirements we would
impose on the network would be designed to enable the provider's
compliance with the 911 obligations that we had promulgated under our
express statutory mandate. To the extent the record that develops
supports a conclusion that the regulation of other entities will enable
interconnected VoIP service providers to fulfill their statutory duties
as described herein, then we conclude that the Commission may exercise
its ancillary authority to promulgate such regulations. We seek comment
on this analysis.
60. We also ask commenters to address other potentially relevant
sources of authority. For example, as to wireless broadband providers,
does the Commission have authority, pursuant to Title III provisions,
to impose license conditions in the public interest and adopt the
proposals discussed herein to support the provision of 911/E911
services by interconnected VoIP service providers? How would the
statutory goals of sections 1302(a) and (b) be furthered by the rules
we propose?
II. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Amending the Definition of
Interconnected VOIP Service in Section 9.3 of the Commission's Rules
61. In the Second Further Notice above, we seek comment on whether
to include outbound-only interconnected VoIP service within the
definition of interconnected VoIP service solely for purposes of our
911 rules and not for any other purpose. We note that since enactment
of the NET 911 Improvement Act, Congress has passed two other statutes
that refer to the definition of interconnected VoIP service in Sec.
9.3 of the Commission's rules. In October 2010, the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) become law.
It requires, among other things, that the Commission promulgate
regulations to ``ensure the accessibility, usability, and compatibility
of advanced communications services and the equipment used for advanced
communications services by individuals with disabilities'' and to do
what is necessary to ``achieve reliable, interoperable communication
that ensures access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet
protocol-enabled emergency network, where achievable and technically
feasible.'' The CVAA defines ``advanced communications services'' to
include interconnected VoIP service as defined in Sec. 9.3 of the
Commission's rules ``as such section may be amended from time to
time,'' as well as ``non-interconnected VoIP'' service, which is
service other than interconnected VoIP service ``that * * * enabled
real-time voice communications that originate from or terminate to the
user's location using Internet protocol or any success protocol; and *
* * requires Internet protocol compatible customer premises
equipment.'' In December 2010, the Truth in Caller ID Act became law.
It amends section 227 of the Communications Act to prohibit any person
from engaging in caller ID spoofing in connection with ``any
telecommunications service or IP-enabled voice service.'' That Act
defines ``IP-enabled voice service'' to have ``the meaning given that
term by Sec. 9.3 of the Commission's regulations (47 CFR 9.3), as
those regulations may be amended by the Commission from time to time.''
62. We seek comment on whether, if we decide to amend the
definition of interconnected VoIP service in Sec. 9.3 of the
Commission's rules, we should amend it for 911 purposes only. Would an
amendment for 911 purposes only necessarily require the Commission to
use the same definition when implementing the CVAA or the Truth in
Caller ID Act? Would there be any necessary effect on the Commission's
other rules that cross-reference Sec. 9.3 of the Commission's rules?
III. Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Presentations
63. The proceedings initiated by this Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceedings in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules. In
proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules or for
which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
[[Page 47123]]
B. Comment Filing Procedures
64. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments in response to this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on or before the dates
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121
(1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties that choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St., SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
C. Accessible Formats
65. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
D. Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
66. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5
U.S.C. 604, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.
Written public comments are requested in the IRFA. These comments must
be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed
in response to this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set forth on the first page of this
document, and have a separate and distinct heading designating them as
responses to the IRFA.
E. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
68. The Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking contain proposed new information collection
requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to
reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment
on the information collection requirements contained in this document,
as required by PRA. 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.''
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-19718 Filed 8-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P