[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]



47 CFR Part 9

[PS Docket No. 07-114; GN Docket No. 11-117; WC Docket No. 05-196; FCC 

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

    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 
    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 
    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 
    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 
    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-

[[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 
     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,
[FR Doc. 2011-19718 Filed 8-3-11; 8:45 am]