[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55413-55425]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-21852]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 20

[PS Docket Nos. 11-153, 10-255; FCC 14-118]


Facilitating the Deployment of Text to 911 and Other Next 
Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911 
Deployment

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third 
Further Notice), the Commission seeks comment on technical issues 
related to the provision of enhanced location information and support 
for roaming for texts to 911, as well as the capabilities of future 
texting services. Comments received will inform the Commission of the 
technological and business issues related to the provision of location 
and roaming support for text-to-911, and how text-to-911 may be applied 
to future texting services. If the proposals are adopted, they will 
enhance existing text-to-911 service and lead to improved emergency 
response.

DATES: Submit comments on or before October 16, 2014 and reply comments 
by November 17, 2014. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act 
proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the 
public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested 
parties on or before November 17, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by either PS Docket No. 
10-255 or PS Docket No. 11-153, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://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 email: [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: Dana Zelman of the Policy and 
Licensing Division of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 
(202) 418-0546 or [email protected]. For additional information 
concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection 
requirements contained in this document, contact Benish Shah, (202) 
418-7866, or send an email to [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Third 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS Docket Nos. 10-255 and 11-
153, released on August 13, 2014. 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://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-text-911-rules. The Second Report and Order that was adopted concurrently with 
the Third Further Notice is published elsewhere in this issue of the 
Federal Register. Parties wishing to file materials with a claim of 
confidentiality should follow the procedures set forth in Sec.  0.459 
of the Commission's rules. Confidential submissions may not be filed 
via ECFS but rather should be filed with the Secretary's Office 
following the procedures set forth in 47 CFR 0.459. Redacted versions 
of confidential submissions may be filed via ECFS.

Summary of the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Introduction

    1. In this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third 
Further Notice), we affirm the Commission's commitment to ensuring 
access to emergency services for all Americans. The Commission's rules 
must evolve as legacy networks and services transition to next 
generation technologies, and as

[[Page 55414]]

consumer expectations and needs evolve. Current trends in mobile 
wireless usage show the continued evolution from a predominantly voice-
driven medium of communication to one based more on text and data 
transmissions. The need to provide text-to-911 service in a timely 
manner is made more pressing because many consumers believe text-to-911 
is already an available service, because of the unique value of text-
to-911 for the millions of Americans with hearing or speech 
disabilities, and because of the crucial role it can play in protecting 
life and property when making a voice call would be dangerous, 
impractical, or impossible due to transmission problems.

Background

    2. In September 2011, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM), 26 FCC Rcd 13615, which sought comment on a number 
of issues related to the deployment of Next Generation 911 (NG911), 
including how to implement text-to-911. In the NPRM, the Commission 
stated that sending text messages, photos, and video clips has become 
an everyday activity for mobile device users on 21st century broadband 
networks, and that adding non-voice capabilities to our 911 system will 
substantially improve emergency response, save lives, and reduce 
property damage, as well as expand access to emergency help, both for 
people with disabilities and for people in situations where placing a 
voice call to 911 could be difficult or dangerous.
    3. In December 2012, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon 
Wireless entered into a voluntary agreement with the National Emergency 
Number Association (NENA) and APCO International (APCO) in which each 
of the four carriers agreed to be capable of providing text-to-911 
service to requesting PSAPs by May 15, 2014 (Carrier-NENA-APCO 
Agreement). As part of the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the four major 
carriers committed to implementing text-to-911 service to a PSAP making 
a ``valid'' request of the carrier ``within a reasonable amount of 
time,'' not to exceed six months. Carriers promised to meet these 
commitments ``independent of their ability to recover these associated 
costs from state or local governments.'' The commitments specifically 
did not extend to customers roaming on a network.
    4. Also in December 2012, the Commission released a Further Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice), 27 FCC Rcd 15659, which 
proposed, inter alia, to require all CMRS providers, as well as 
interconnected text messaging providers, to support text messaging to 
911 in all areas throughout the nation where PSAPs are capable of and 
prepared to receive the texts. The Commission defined interconnected 
text messaging applications as those using IP-based protocols to 
deliver text messages to a service provider and the service provider 
then delivers the text messages to destinations identified by a 
telephone number, using either IP-based or Short Message Service (SMS) 
protocols. The Further Notice noted the extent to which consumers had 
begun to gravitate toward IP-based messaging applications as their 
primary means of communicating by text, that consumers may reasonably 
come to expect these applications to also support text-to-911, and that 
consumer familiarity is critical in emergency situations where each 
second matters. To that end, the Further Notice sought to ensure 
consumers' access to text-to-911 capabilities on the full array of 
texting applications available today--regardless of provider or 
platform.
    5. Recognizing that text-to-911 would not be rolled out uniformly 
across the country or across text messaging platforms, the Commission 
took steps to provide consumers with clarity regarding the availability 
of text-to-911. In May 2013, the Commission issued a Report and Order, 
28 FCC Rcd 7556, requiring covered text providers to provide consumers 
attempting to send a text to 911 with an automatic bounce-back message 
when the service is unavailable. The Commission found a ``clear benefit 
and present need'' for persons who attempt to send text messages to 911 
to know immediately if their text cannot be delivered to the proper 
authorities. The Commission noted specifically that, ``[a]s these 
applications proliferate, consumers are likely to assume that they 
should be as capable of reaching 911 as any other telephone number.''
    6. In January 2014, we adopted a Policy Statement, 29 FCC Rcd 1547, 
stating that the Commission believes that every provider of a text 
messaging service that enables a consumer to send text messages using 
numbers from the North American Numbering Plan (NANP) should support 
text-to-911 capabilities. The Commission clarified that it intends to 
take a technologically neutral approach to any rules adopted for text-
to-911 service, and it encouraged voluntary agreements to support text-
to-911.
    7. We also released a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(Second Further Notice), 29 FCC Rcd 1547, seeking comment on technical 
issues for the implementation of text-to-911 service with respect to 
interconnected text providers, the provision of location information 
with texts to 911, and roaming support for text-to-911 service.

Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Enhanced Location
    8. While we recognize that enhanced location information is not yet 
universally attainable for texts to 911 over either SMS or other 
messaging platforms protocols under development, we seek comment on the 
specific approaches and a likely timeframe for covered text providers 
to achieve the capability to provide enhanced location with text-to-911 
communications. This additional functionality will enable PSAPs to 
dispatch first responders more directly and quickly to the scene of an 
emergency. We acknowledge the collaborative effort underlying CSRIC's 
report, CSRIC IV WG1, Final Report--Investigation into Location 
Improvements for Interim SMS (Text) to 9-1-1 (rel. June 19, 2014) 
(Enhanced Location Report), available at http://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/advisory/csric4/CSRIC_IV_WG-1_Task-1_Final_061814.pdf, and CSRIC's recommendation that the 
Commission ``refrain from wireless E9-1-1 Phase II-like mandates'' for 
SMS text to 911 service and instead encourage further development and 
implementation of more robust solutions. CSRIC's report, however, 
suggests that one CMRS provider can currently deliver enhanced location 
information, using a commercial location-based technology in support of 
SMS text-to-911. In light of our important public safety interest in 
delivering more accurate location information with texts to 911, and 
considering that enhanced location technologies already exist and that 
other standards development beyond the current J-STD-110 have been 
underway, we see no reason to delay the potentially life-saving 
delivery of enhanced location information.
    9. We propose that, no later than two years of the effective date 
of the adoption of final rules on enhanced location, covered text 
providers must deliver enhanced location information (consisting of the 
best available location that covered text providers could obtain from 
any available location technology or combination of technologies, 
including device-based location) with texts to 911. We seek comment on 
whether solutions could be developed to provide enhanced location in 
this timeframe and, if not, what would be a

[[Page 55415]]

suitable timeframe. Our ultimate location accuracy objective is to 
require covered text providers to deliver all communications with 911 
with location information that is sufficiently granular to provide a 
``dispatchable address.''
    10. For purposes of a near-term requirement, we propose to use the 
term ``enhanced location'' to mean the best available location. We 
recognize that the granularity of the enhanced location may vary by 
text-to-911 session, according to the user's particular device 
capabilities and settings. In some instances, we would expect that the 
device would approximate the user's address, consistent with what a 
consumer could expect from commercial location-based services (cLBS) 
capabilities today. We believe an enhanced location requirement would 
provide substantial public safety benefits to consumers who need to 
reach 911 through text-capable communications. We seek comment on this 
assertion, particularly to the extent to which such improvements would 
result in tangible benefits with respect to the safety of life and 
property compared to the cost of meeting the proposed requirements.
    11. Technical feasibility. The Policy Statement and Second Further 
Notice, 29 FCC Rcd 1547, indicated that ``developing the capability to 
provide Phase II-comparable location information'' with 911 text 
messages ``would be part of the long-term evolution of text-to-911.'' 
The Second Further Notice requested comment on the provision of Phase 
II-equivalent location information with text-to-911 calls. In response, 
the majority of commenters indicate that delivery of enhanced location 
information is not possible at this time.
    12. CSRIC's Enhanced Location Report assesses the capability to 
include enhanced location information for SMS text-to-911 services and 
addresses the limitations of the current standard, ATIS/TIA J-STD-110, 
underlying SMS text-to-911. In view of the differences between the SMS 
text platform and the CMRS network, CSRIC finds three key limitations 
contributing to the problem of delivering enhanced location information 
over SMS architecture: (1) The current standard does not include a 
specification for the emergency message interaction with the handset, 
such that an emergency text to 911 cannot enable location information 
by overriding user location privacy settings and GPS location 
capabilities enabled by the handset; (2) enhanced location information 
takes more time to generate than coarse location, such that relying on 
enhanced location to initially route an SMS text to 911 could delay the 
routing process up to 30 seconds; and (3) only some of the location 
platforms that are currently deployed have the technology necessary to 
generate enhanced location information. CSRIC's Enhanced Location 
Report concludes that ``there is no solution for generating enhanced 
location in an SMS text to 9-1-1 session for any currently deployed 
systems that does not require user equipment (UE) changes, network 
changes, or both.''
    13. Although current text-to-911 deployments may not support 
enhanced location, CSRIC's report recommends several approaches that 
stakeholders could explore to provide enhanced location information 
during SMS text-to-911 sessions. In particular, CSRIC examines four 
approaches: (1) Network-based location; (2) handset-based approaches; 
(3) end-to-end text-to-911 with location embedded in the SMS message, 
and (4) a modified ``embedded location'' approach using a user-
downloaded texting application. We seek comment on these different 
approaches, as described in the Enhanced Location Report, and whether 
they could support the delivery of enhanced location information with 
texts to 911 in a near-term timeframe. What challenges must be overcome 
and what are the costs associated with implementation of the different 
approaches? In what timeframe could these approaches be implemented?
    14. We observe that using device-specific location appears to be 
technically feasible, given CSRIC's remark that handset-based location 
technology, ``using cLBS methods, is currently being used by at least 
one U.S. CDMA carrier for network deployments supporting SMS text-to-9-
1-1.'' We acknowledge CSRIC's findings that the delivery of more 
granular location information than coarse location continues to present 
challenges. For this reason, we believe that an enhanced location 
requirement that is premised upon the delivery of best available 
location, using any available location technology or combination of 
technologies, strikes a balance that promotes our important public 
safety objectives, while being practicable and reasonable within these 
potential limitations. We seek comment on how ``best available'' 
location information would be determined. Among multiple ``available'' 
locations, what would determine which available location information is 
``best?'' What are the necessary conditions for a location technology 
to be considered ``available,'' to the device, such that a covered text 
provider may use it for routing or providing additional location 
information? Are there any additional factors we should consider with 
respect to assessing what should be considered the ``best available 
location'' for a particular text-to-911 session?
    15. In addition to the approaches examined by CSRIC, two commenters 
suggest that the delivery of some form of enhanced location information 
by CMRS providers is technically feasible in the near term. First, 
TruePosition contends that existing network-based U-TDOA location 
capabilities could be used to deliver location information, with 
``relatively minor development effort,'' for texts to 911. TruePosition 
asserts that, although ``[t]he solutions produced by the voluntary 
Carrier-NENA-APCO agreement, and the J-STD-110 standard, do not 
currently define an interface protocol to retrieve sender/customer 
location information,'' those solutions provide a platform ``to build a 
more permanent solution to the problem of identifying the location of 
the customer who has sent an emergency text message.'' We seek comment 
on the technical feasibility of TruePosition's proposed approach and 
whether it offers a path forward for providing enhanced location. Would 
the ``silent SMS'' approach be feasible for other location 
determination mechanisms other than U-TDOA, such as A-GPS? What 
standards development work would be necessary to implement such an 
approach?
    16. Second, TCS asserts that what it characterizes as ``updated 
Phase II compatible'' location technology is readily available to CMRS 
providers as deployable cLBS platforms, and that such solutions can be 
deployed either by the user or the CMRS provider. According to TCS, 
these cLBS solutions support existing 2G and 3G systems, and are 
possible under the current J-STD-110. TCS's view appears to be 
consistent with CSRIC's reporting that the J-STD-110 architecture also 
``allows for routing based on a more accurate enhanced location,'' and 
that one U.S. CMRS provider is using ``using cLBS methods.'' CSRIC 
observes, however, that while enhanced location may be possible where a 
cLBS platform is available, ``based on a CMRS provider's existing 
network infrastructure, the availability to provide a cLBS platform can 
be limited or technically challenging.'' We seek comment on these 
particular implementation challenges, and whether it would be possible 
for covered text providers to deliver enhanced location information in 
this manner within a near-term timeframe.

[[Page 55416]]

    17. Further, the comment record indicates that technical 
complexities exist for interconnected text providers to deliver 
enhanced location. For example, Microsoft submits that, for OTT 
applications, ``the cell site location is not readily available'' and 
that server-based implementation approaches would require testing of 
location accuracy information, as well as the creation of 
``standardized acquisition and transmission of that location 
information'' through TCC gateways. Bandwidth contends that there is a 
need for location accuracy solutions that are consistent with both 
established technical standards supporting existing CMRS solutions and 
``a broad range of application-derived location solutions commonly used 
by today's OTT providers.'' TCS proposes that OTT providers leverage 
the existing J-STD-110 standard to require that ``emergency text 
message requests re-use existing SMS APIs in the device, effectively 
changing the OTT text message interaction into an SMS message dialogue 
. . .'' TCS submits that, although this approach ``would require OTT 
text application software modifications,'' it ``represents the shortest 
path to having support for emergency OTT text.'' We seek comment on the 
different approaches described by TCS, as well as any additional 
proposals that would resolve the technical issues of covered text 
providers in delivering enhanced location information.
    18. Further Standards-Setting Work. Most commenters indicate that 
standards bodies and covered text providers will need more time to 
develop and implement the capability to deliver enhanced location 
information with texts to 911. Many of the commenters believe that, 
rather than investing further to modify the interim J-STD-110, the 
standards work should focus on a long-term approach that would 
incorporate the enhanced features and location capabilities that NG911 
is expected to provide for more granular location information. For 
example, NENA supports a longer-term approach based on standards 
efforts that ``would incorporate an integrated location standard which 
. . . would apply to both voice and text service providers.'' 
Additionally, CSRIC reports that modifying the J-STD-110 ``would 
require substantial [3GPP] standards development work, requiring 
significant development costs and potentially lead to major operational 
impacts on existing network systems.'' We seek comment on the extent to 
which development of enhanced location solutions for the interim SMS 
standard would divert resources from NG911 solutions. We also seek 
comment on when the relevant standards work, referenced by the 
commenters, is likely to be completed, and whether covered text 
providers ultimately will be capable of providing dispatchable address 
information, consistent with the Commission's long-term goals.
    19. We note that Verizon indicates there is ``under development'' 
standards work on the Global Text Telephony (GTT) standard. Verizon 
asserts that this effort focuses on providing capabilities for LTE 
networks ``to include more precise caller location than cell site 
location by leveraging the same location solution currently under 
development for VoLTE.'' We seek comment on the current status of the 
GTT standards effort for the following potential capabilities: (1) 
Providing interoperability or interworking between text messaging 
platforms and E911 legacy and NG911 networks; and (2) enabling CMRS and 
other covered text providers to deliver granular location information 
to PSAPs as more CMRS providers implement LTE networks.
    20. Further, the record indicates that LTE networks present the 
opportunity for providing enhanced location determination with text. We 
seek comment on what measures covered text providers would need to take 
to implement in LTE networks the ability to provide enhanced location. 
What would be the costs of implementing such capability? What should 
the Commission do to encourage the necessary standards work?
    21. Similarly, we seek comment on the provision of enhanced 
location information with MMS-to-911 texts and for location 
determination of MMS callers. For purposes of providing enhanced 
location information, MMS-to-911 will need to be evaluated once ATIS 
develops such standard in which cost effectiveness of MMS is 
considered, as well as potential problems with receiving MMS at PSAPs. 
What is the status of standards work on MMS messaging to include 
enhanced location information? We also seek comment on what factors 
exist that could affect covered text providers' use of MMS to route 
texts to 911 with enhanced location information. Will the eventual 
sunset of SMS further our goal of providing dispatchable address 
information for communications to 911 on all text-capable media? We 
seek comment on the costs for covered text providers to develop, test, 
and implement the capability to provide enhanced location information 
using MMS.
    22. Finally, the record reflects that the technological 
developments and standards-setting efforts on LTE networks, MMS, and 
multimedia message emergency services (MMES) have already commenced. 
With developments in the CMRS wireless industry to migrate to LTE 
networks already underway, and the continued evolution and growth of 
OTT text applications in response to consumer demand, we believe that a 
reasonable basis exists to anticipate that within the near future, 
standards bodies will be adopting or releasing standards that address 
the provision of enhanced location information for 911 text messages. 
We seek comment on this view.
    23. Enhanced Location through the Use of Commercial Location-Based 
Services. cLBS may present a solution for covered text providers to 
deliver enhanced location information in the near term. In light of the 
significant potential that cLBS might offer, we seek comment on the 
technical, privacy, and security issues associated with using cLBS for 
text-to-911 enhanced location information.\1\ CSRIC suggests that the 
use of cLBS platforms is limited and challenging. More specifically, 
CSRIC reports that, concerning cLBS support for A-GPS generated 
location information, ``not all carriers have location platforms 
capable of providing A-GPS location fixes to support the [TCC].''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Here, we take cLBS to refer narrowly to the location 
services that allow a third party to query for the geo-location of a 
device, rather than many cLBS, such as apps, that rely on location 
information provided by operating system location application 
programming interfaces (APIs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    24. The record is mixed concerning capabilities for covered text 
providers to use cLBS platforms. T-Mobile urges that ``[t]he Commission 
. . . ensure that any rules it adopts regarding SMS text-to-911 
location information acknowledge the fundamental difference between 
Phase II E911 voice location estimates and cLBS-based enhanced location 
estimates,'' and that ``those requirements must be grounded in the 
technical and economic limitations of the cLBS service.'' ATIS suggests 
that location information derived from cLBS may be a `` `best 
available' location'' and ``not equivalent to the location information 
obtained for voice emergency calls.'' Similarly, CSRIC observes that 
CMRS providers do not exercise the same control over cLBS platforms as 
they do for E911 voice calls, and thus, ``location estimates may

[[Page 55417]]

or may not be as reliable or accurate'' as E911 voice location 
technologies.
    25. We seek further comment on how cLBS could be leveraged to 
provide enhanced location information for text-to-911 in the short term 
and more granular, dispatchable address information in the long term. 
While cLBS may deliver location information that is not equivalent to 
voice location, there are also many instances where cLBS could offer 
even more granular location than Phase II information provided with 
voice calls to 911. In fact, consumers today regularly use applications 
that leverage cLBS to pinpoint their location to a high level of 
precision. We recognize, however, that cLBS information may vary in 
quality and reliability. How likely is it that location information 
derived from cLBS will increase in reliability and accuracy over time? 
What additional standards work must be accomplished? What would be the 
costs for covered text providers to test and implement the capabilities 
that cLBS offer?
    26. Privacy. Commenters submit that leveraging cLBS services for 
purposes of providing enhanced location information raises privacy 
concerns. For example, Verizon notes that, in order to deliver location 
information using cLBS, covered text providers may ``need to maintain 
ongoing access to providers' and devices' commercial [LBS] 
capabilities,'' which ``may require a user to turn off all the device's 
privacy settings with respect to all communications, not just 911-
related communications.'' Sprint and other commenters observe that with 
cLBS, ``a user is capable of disabling GPS location services on the 
device and there is currently no `override' that exists on most 
wireless handsets to enable GPS to function if a text message is 
directed to emergency services.'' CSRIC also reports that the 
capability to override privacy settings may not be possible, depending 
on the smartphone operating system and the device's equipment 
manufacturer.
    27. We seek comment on what solutions need to be developed for cLBS 
platforms to address these privacy issues. What technological 
developments and standards work needs to occur to override privacy 
settings for SMS text-based applications over legacy networks in order 
for enhanced location to be acquired and transmitted consistently to 
PSAPs with texts to 911? How quickly could these modifications be made? 
We emphasize that any such override of a user's device settings should 
be limited to those instances where a user is sending a 911 text 
message, and for the sole purpose of delivering the 911 text message to 
the appropriate PSAP.\2\ Similarly, in the long term, for advanced 
NG911-compatible networks, such as IP-based text over LTE networks, 
what technological developments and standards work by stakeholders must 
occur to enable overriding of privacy settings for emergency texts to 
911? The record generally suggests that, at least for a certain subset 
of devices, covered text providers and OS providers routinely upgrade 
the firmware and OS software. Could any modifications to implement 
emergency overriding of privacy settings be accomplished in this 
manner? What are the specific costs that both firmware and software 
approaches would entail?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In this discussion, we are focused on the development of 
standards necessary to enable an ``emergency mode'' for texts to 
911, similar to the functionality that would be enabled if the user 
were to place a voice call to 911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    28. Finally, what measures can or should the Commission take to 
address Heywire's contention that OS providers and hardware 
manufacturers have been removing or disabling access to geo-location 
functions available to applications outside of the native pre-
authorized applications? How many applications and what OS platforms 
have been affected by this? What coordination must occur to address the 
issue of privacy settings?
    29. Security. The record further indicates that the technical and 
privacy issues in implementing enhanced location over cLBS also raise 
the issue of security. TCS contends that ``application-managed location 
solutions place too much reliance on handset environment, 
configuration, and capability and are subject to security threats, 
including authentication and location spoofing.'' Motorola Mobility 
asserts that ``[a]ny location privacy override solution for SMS to 911 
must be thoroughly validated using elaborate regression testing,'' and 
that ``[w]hile the [original equipment manufacturers] that develop 
smartphones could apply such rigorous testing to the system SMS 
[application], they have no control over the testing regimen applied to 
an OTT [application].'' We seek comment on what solutions need to be 
developed for cLBS to enable enhanced location capability that is 
secure. What measures can the Commission take to promote secure 
enhanced location capability and guard against security risks such as 
location spoofing? What would the cost burdens be on covered text 
providers, OS providers, and other stakeholders? Should we task CSRIC 
with location issues further--particularly in the context of making 
recommendations for enabling the use of cLBS and addressing security 
concerns to provide enhanced location for texts-to-911?
    30. Timeframe. Based on the CSRIC Enhanced Location Report and the 
record, we seek comment on the timeframe in which covered text 
providers could reasonably offer either enhanced location information 
or more granular location information sufficient to provide 
dispatchable address information for some or all text-to-911 users. 
Based on the record, if we wait for covered text providers to migrate 
from interim SMS solutions to 4G LTE solutions before including 
enhanced location, we may be looking at a time horizon of five years or 
more.
    31. In light of the serious public safety implications, we seek 
comment on what can be accomplished to deliver enhanced location in a 
shorter timeframe. With respect to the timeframe to migrate to LTE, 
TruePosition contends it is ``simply far too long to wait while tens of 
millions of wireless users are left without a Phase II-like location 
capability.'' We agree. While NENA asserts that a ``Commission mandate 
for enhanced text location capabilities would, at this juncture, be 
premature,'' it notes that ``multiple industry stakeholders have 
already begun developing solutions to enable more precise location 
capabilities. . . .'' RWA suggests that its members will need ``at 
least two years'' to ``be capable of achieving more precise location 
capabilities.'' Heywire adds that an ``undertaking'' to address OS 
providers and hardware manufacturers removing or disabling access to 
``geo-location functions'' could take ``at least two years,'' and that 
``until . . . a technical method'' is found, ``it would be impossible 
to establish a realistic timeframe. . . .'' In light of these comments, 
and balanced against the significant public policy interest and 
statutory mandate to promote public safety, we believe that a two-year 
timeframe to provide enhanced location--from the adoption of final 
rules on this issue--should be reasonable. We seek comment on this 
view, as well as how the various factors, including privacy and 
security concerns, would impact the establishment of timeframes for 
covered text providers to deliver enhanced location information.
    32. Confidence and Uncertainty. Finally, we seek comment on CSRIC's 
recommendation that ``[a]lthough not all location platforms may be 
capable of delivering enhanced location information, when such 
information is available it should be delivered with uncertainty and 
confidence values.''

[[Page 55418]]

CSRIC recommends that the Commission ``encourage appropriate standards 
development organizations to incorporate confidence and uncertainty 
values into existing standards for enhanced location when it can be 
provided.'' Is this a necessary component for the delivery of enhanced 
location with texts to 911? Additionally, CSRIC observes that only one 
Class of Service (CoS) designation is available under the interim J-
STD-110 and recommends adding CoS values to assist PSAPs ``in 
determining the best way to use additional resources to locate a caller 
in the event the location is not provided or the location that is 
verbally provided is inaccurate.'' We seek comment on CSRIC's 
recommendations and how these additional features would support the 
provision of enhanced location for texts to 911, and whether they would 
help PSAPs respond to texts to 911 by dispatching emergency resources 
more expeditiously.

Roaming Support

    33. In the Second Further Notice, we emphasized that access to 911 
through text messaging is just as critical for roaming consumers as it 
is for consumers utilizing a home CMRS provider's network, especially 
because consumers may be unaware of when they are roaming. Further, 
roaming is necessary to encourage competition by allowing smaller and 
rural CMRS providers the ability to offer their subscribers services 
comparable to those of larger CMRS providers. We recognize that roaming 
limitations are likely to disproportionately affect subscribers of 
smaller and rural CMRS providers, which often ``rely extensively'' on 
roaming.
    34. Moreover, we acknowledged in the Second Further Notice that 
routing 911 text messages from roaming consumers presented technical 
complexities that might be necessary to resolve before we could require 
covered text providers to support text-to-911 in roaming situations. A 
key component of providing text-to-911 while roaming is obtaining 
location information to ensure proper routing of the text to the 
appropriate PSAP. Current SMS text delivery protocols do not allow for 
location information to be included with SMS texts-to-911 while 
roaming, which precludes the ability of covered text providers to route 
texts to an appropriate PSAP. SMS texts to 911 are handled by the 
consumer's home network,\3\ which routes the text to the appropriate 
PSAP based on coarse location the TCC obtains from a location server in 
the home CMRS provider's network. When a consumer is roaming, the SMS 
text-to-911 is sent back to the home network for handling. As T-Mobile 
explains, ``[l]ocation lookup occurs in the home network,'' but ``in 
the case of roaming SMS messages, that lookup, which allows the TCC to 
determine whether an applicable PSAP accepts 911 texts, will fail 
because the location information was not generated by the home network 
but rather by the serving network, and the serving network does not 
pass along this location data with the SMS.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The ``home network'' refers to the network of the 
subscriber's CMRS provider, whereas the ``serving network'' refers 
to the network of the roaming partner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    35. While the record shows that roaming cannot be supported for 
text-to-911 at this time, there is also evidence that there may be 
several different solutions that could be implemented to address this 
issue. We therefore refrain from adopting a roaming requirement at this 
time, but propose to require covered text providers to support roaming 
for text-to-911 no later than two years from the effective date of the 
adoption of final roaming rules, and we seek comment on this approach. 
Specifically, we seek comment on whether solutions could be developed 
to provide roaming support in this timeframe and, if not, what would be 
a suitable timeframe.
    36. One potential solution would be to update the current text-to-
911 standard for SMS to provide for sharing of cell sector data through 
a hub-and-spoke mechanism. RWA notes that ``the establishment of a 
centralized database of supported PSAPs accessible to all carriers 
could address this issue.'' Using a ``hub-and-spoke'' model, CCA 
states, ``carriers' location platforms would interconnect into a 
centralized hub which could make cell sector information available to 
all connected providers.'' We seek comment on the technical feasibility 
of adopting the hub-and-spoke approach to address near-term roaming 
issues, and on any challenges associated with this approach. We also 
seek comment on whether this approach could be implemented within two 
years of the effective date of the adoption of final roaming rules. TCS 
claims that initial implementation of this approach could take place 
within six months, with full implementation within 18 months.
    37. We also seek comment on the technical feasibility of other 
solutions. For example, we seek comment on the feasibility of modifying 
the current text-messaging protocol to provide that texts to 911 are 
handled by the serving network's TCC when a consumer is roaming. 
Modifying the protocol would resolve the routing issue and enable the 
text to be sent to the appropriate PSAP. Sprint argues that treating 
text-to-911 as a ``local `break out' service'' in this manner ``would 
require changes in how SMS messages are routed and would involve 
changes to the SMS servers and likely to handsets as well.'' What 
changes to handsets are likely to be necessary, and could any such 
changes be implemented through an over-the-air software update? What 
SMS server changes would be necessary, and how quickly could these 
changes be implemented? We also seek comment on whether the serving 
network could either: (1) Automatically include location information 
embedded in the message, which could then be used by the home network 
to route the text to the appropriate PSAP; or (2) otherwise communicate 
and coordinate location information with the home network through other 
means, such as by responding to a location query from the home network 
to provide the serving cell's location, rather than the serving cell's 
identification number.
    38. For each potential solution, we seek detailed and specific 
information on the potential technical hurdles associated with each 
step of the implementation process. We emphasize that we will not be 
persuaded by vague or unsupported arguments. We sought comment on 
supporting roaming for text-to-911 in our Second Further Notice, and we 
made it clear that roaming is an important public safety consideration. 
We therefore reasonably expect that studies regarding support for text-
to-911 while roaming should already be underway, if not completed, and 
we ask covered text providers to include detailed information regarding 
the results of such studies in their comments in this proceeding.
    39. We also seek comment on the potential costs. We recognize that 
commenters generally do not support the adoption of roaming 
requirements for an interim SMS standard, arguing instead that we 
should refrain from such requirements while covered text providers 
focus their resources on next-generation networks and applications. We 
seek comment on whether requiring near-term investments to support SMS-
based roaming for text-to-911 would delay the deployment of new 
wireless technologies that incorporate roaming capability and, if so, 
by what length of time. We also seek comment on T-Mobile's statement 
that wireless networks are transitioning to LTE, which has ``native 
support . . . for robust text-to-911 features.''

[[Page 55419]]

Specifically, to what extent do LTE networks support roaming for text-
to-911? In what timeframe could covered text providers support roaming, 
using an LTE network, on a nationwide basis?
    40. We also seek comment on NENA's proposal that the Commission 
combine elements of two different approaches to ``achieve the right 
balance of incentives to ensure that the current lack of roaming 
support is timely resolved, while facilitating, and preserving 
resources for, the IP and NG transitions.'' First, the Commission could 
encourage industry standards work and establish a ``medium-term roaming 
capability requirement,'' tied to the development of necessary 
standards, for integrated text origination platforms. Second, the 
Commission could require roaming support for text-to-911 service ``as a 
precondition to the turn-up of any IP-based replacement for current-
generation integrated text platforms.'' NENA also proposes that covered 
text providers may opt out of the medium-term deadline if they 
voluntarily commit to transition from their current generation 
platforms to NG911-compatible protocols and location mechanisms. 
Specifically, NENA proposes that the Commission ``establish a three-
year deadline (December 31st, 2017) for roaming support on existing 
platforms, extendable to five years (December 31st, 2019) for carriers 
who commit to supporting NG-compatible text service on a network-wide 
basis by that date.'' NENA contends that this timeframe ``would better 
align with handset development cycles, encourage consumer adoption of 
more advanced handsets capable of leveraging the new texting platforms, 
and allow carriers additional time to recoup investments in their 
existing SMS platforms, which could continue to exist in parallel with 
newer platform for some time.'' We seek comment on NENA's proposal, and 
whether this two-step approach would achieve near-term support for 
roaming for text-to-911 while encouraging deployment of next generation 
wireless networks that provide automatic location information while 
roaming. We also seek comment on whether NENA's proposed timeframes are 
reasonable and would encourage investment and standards work for 
roaming support. In order to qualify for the opt-out provision, should 
covered text providers be required to substantiate their voluntary 
commitment to transitioning to NG-compatible technology, such as by 
providing the Commission with a transition timeline and specific 
benchmarks that show how they will support roaming for text-to-911 by 
the end of 2019? What other factors should we consider in evaluating 
this approach?
    41. Finally, we seek comment on whether CSRIC should be tasked with 
investigating roaming support for delivering texts to 911. Several 
commenters suggest that it would be useful for CSRIC to examine 
roaming. What specific technical approaches and standards for roaming 
support should we task CSRIC with examining? What additional 
information could we expect from CSRIC that could not be provided by 
commenters that could help facilitate our decision-making process?
    42. International Roaming. As we noted in the Second Further 
Notice, due to the limitations of the current ATIS/TIA J-STD-110 
standard, significant changes to the SMS text platform would be 
necessary to handle roaming internationally. The comments indicate that 
international roaming present unique challenges to implement text-to-
911 for consumers roaming on CMRS networks in the United States. 
Motorola Mobility suggests that ``any roaming requirements . . . 
should, like the 911 rules as a whole, be limited to equipment 
manufactured or imported for sale in the United States.'' We seek 
comment on this suggestion. Also, we seek comment on the role of U.S. 
standards bodies in coordinating with international standards 
organizations. Are U.S. standards bodies working on an international 
roaming standard for LTE networks as part of the IP transition? Are 
ATIS and similar standards groups addressing international roaming in 
the context of their standards work on MMES? What would be the costs 
for covered text providers, OS providers, and other relevant 
stakeholders to support of international roaming for text-to-911 in the 
U.S.?

Cost-Benefit Analysis for Enhanced Location and Roaming

    43. In the Second Report and Order, we examine the overall benefits 
compared to the costs of a requirement for covered text providers to 
deliver 911 text messages. In assessing the benefits of the 
requirement, we stress that a universal capability to send 911 text 
messages can provide substantial, quantifiable public safety benefits 
to the disabilities community and to the public at large. In this Third 
Further Notice, we seek comment on the public safety benefits and 
improvements that our proposed enhanced location information and 
roaming requirements will provide, compared to the costs of meeting 
such requirements.
    44. In particular, we seek comment on the extent to which the 
improvements proposed herein would result in tangible benefits with 
respect to safety of life and property compared to the costs of 
providing the best available location that covered text providers could 
obtain from any available location technology or technologies. We 
believe that enhanced location and a nationwide roaming capability will 
assist public safety entities in dispatching first responders more 
expeditiously and directly to the scene of emergencies, thereby saving 
lives. We seek quantitative data on this issue.
    45. We acknowledge that quantifying the benefits and burdens for 
delivering enhanced location and roaming support for texts to 911 is 
potentially difficult. However, we anticipate that the proposed 
requirements will further contribute to the broad benefits of text 
messages to 911. We believe that our proposed requirements will enable 
public safety entities to better respond to texted requests for 
emergency assistance. Moreover, the roaming requirement will expand the 
benefits of text-to-911 to more consumers--those traveling beyond their 
home service area or those who may not realize they are roaming when 
their text-capable device is attached to a cell sector of their CMRS 
provider's roaming partner. We therefore expect the proposed 
requirements to provide an additional level of benefits beyond the 
estimated ``benefits floor'' of $63.7 million for the text-to-911 
requirements adopted by the Second Report and Order. We seek comment on 
the increased value and benefits for providing more accurate location 
information enhanced location and a roaming capability with text 
messages to 911.
    46. Further, we seek comment on the extent to which the generally 
recognizable benefits of the proposed requirements can be quantified 
with respect to the safety of life and property. In its pending E911 
Location Accuracy proceeding, the Commission analyzed a 2013 study of 
the Salt Lake City, Utah area and derived from the study's relevant 
data an annual benefit of approximately $92 billion, based on an 
estimate that improvements in location accuracy for wireless 911 voice 
calls could save approximately 10,120 lives annually. We seek comment 
on whether our analysis and underlying assumptions are relevant to 
similarly quantifying the benefits of more granular location 
information and a roaming capability for text messages to 911.
    47. We recognize that implementing the proposed location and 
roaming

[[Page 55420]]

requirements will impose costs on covered text providers. We seek 
detailed information on all of the costs covered text providers 
estimate the proposed enhanced location and roaming requirements would 
impose, including how these costs were determined. We seek comment on 
what universal costs would be necessary across all enhanced location 
and roaming technologies, as well as on any specific costs that are 
unique to the solutions that covered text providers may choose to 
implement. For instance, if covered text providers choose to use CMRS-
based solutions using the SMS text-to-911 platform to meet the proposed 
requirements, we seek quantitative cost data for any possible 
modifications to the J-STD-110 and for the SMS text-to-911 platform in 
the near-term, e.g., the next five years. We also request similarly 
detailed and quantitative data on the costs to implement enhanced 
location and roaming capabilities for LTE or other IP-based networks. 
Does the recent and ongoing the implementation of LTE networks result 
in the long run in lower overall cost levels, compared to the costs of 
changes to the SMS text-to-911 platform and of stranding investment in 
that current platform?
    48. We also seek comment regarding the specific costs providers of 
interconnected text messaging applications may incur to resolve the 
technical complexities in delivering enhanced location and to meet the 
proposed roaming requirement. To the extent those costs may vary 
depending on the approaches that an interconnected text provider 
chooses, we seek quantitative cost information on these different 
approaches. Further, what other potential costs, if any, to 
interconnected text providers should the Commission consider? Since 
many interconnected text providers offer their services at no charge 
and they may incur significant costs to implement text-to-911, will 
interconnected text providers have to charge for these services, or are 
there other ways to obtain revenues to cover those costs? Finally, we 
seek comment on any additional costs or burdens that covered text 
providers may incur as a result of our proposed requirements.

Future Texting Services

    49. Scope of text-to-911 service and requirements. In this 
proceeding, we believe that a forward-looking view of text messaging 
services, encompassing all text-capable media, is necessary to ensure 
continued access to emergency services as covered text providers 
migrate from legacy 911 networks to an all-IP environment. The 
limitations of SMS-based text-to-911, made clear in the record, 
underscore the need for further development of platform architectures 
and standards that can deliver enhanced location and support roaming 
with text-to-911. As new text messaging platforms are deployed, and to 
ensure that all consumers can reach 911 by sending a text message, we 
seek comment on our ultimate goal that text-to-911 be available on all 
text-capable media, regardless of the transmission method (e.g., 
whether texts are delivered by IP or circuit-switched networks).
    50. There is support in the record for a more expansive scope of 
our text-to-911 requirements. NASNA contends that the Commission's 
rules ``should apply to all text applications capable of texting to 
911, regardless of the technology used.'' NENA emphasizes that, to 
ensure that future text users can be located in an emergency, the 
Commission should clarify that ``NG9-1-1 location determination and 
transmission obligations will eventually apply to access network 
providers and text originating service providers, respectively.'' 
Further, comments in response to the Second Further Notice indicate 
that consumers' expectations regarding the availability text-to-911 are 
likely to increase as covered text providers implement and offer new 
text messaging services. In further addressing these issues, we seek 
comment on the following matters: (1) 911 text messages delivered over 
Wi-Fi and non-CMRS networks; (2) non-interconnected text applications; 
(3) rich media services, including texts, video, photos, and the like; 
(4) real-time text communications; and (5) telematics and potentially 
additional public safety services.
    51. Location Information for Wi-Fi Enabled Devices. In the Second 
Report and Order, we exclude 911 text messages that come from Wi-Fi 
only locations from the scope of the requirements at this time. In view 
of the record and recent trends suggesting the growth in the use of Wi-
Fi generally, we believe that the public interest warrants further 
exploration of the feasibility of sending 911 text messages over non-
CMRS networks. For instance, CMRS providers migrating to 4G LTE 
networks have network traffic and engineering incentives to off-load 
their subscriber traffic on to Wi-Fi networks that are connected to 
wired broadband connections, such as those provided by cable or 
telephone companies. The Commission's Sixteenth Mobile Wireless 
Competition Report observed that the large demand for wireless data by 
mobile users at public locations has been inducing CMRS providers to 
reduce congestion on their mobile wireless networks, and that the 
forecast for total mobile data traffic offload from CMRS mobile 
wireless networks to wireless local area networks (WLANs), which 
primarily use Wi-Fi technology will increase from 11 percent (72 
petabytes/month) in 2011 to 22 percent (3.1 exabytes/month) in 2016.
    52. We seek comment on the feasibility of sending text messages to 
911 via Wi-Fi networks and on the ability of covered text providers to 
route those texts to the proper PSAP and provide granular location 
data. Public safety commenters support moving ahead on evaluating 
location solutions that could route text-to-911 messages using Wi-Fi 
networks only. NENA suggests that the Commission's medium- to long-term 
focus on text-to-911 should take a general approach that would address 
``emerging technologies such as WiFi positioning.''
    53. The record includes contrasting views. For example, Heywire 
submits that the technical issues will require ``substantial 
development'' to address matters ranging from ``the mobile devices 
themselves'' to the ``validity of the identification'' of individuals 
who use text-to-911 on Wi-Fi only devices. Similarly, VON Coalition 
contends that ``[i]n a Wi-Fi-only environment there is a lack of 
reliable location information and no reliable way for the text to be 
routed.'' In contrast, TCS submits that ``[a]dvances in the user plane 
protocol enable'' location techniques, including Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, 
that are not dependent on the macro cellular network. Also, Bandwidth 
describes two options for location capability with text-to-911 through 
Wi-Fi service: (1) ``Platform-derived location options,'' querying a 
database of Wi-Fi hotspots, and knowing the Wi-Fi router locations; and 
(2) ``off-platform services,'' available to application developers . . 
. that use hybrid positioning technology to determine a consumer's 
location. We seek comment on the approaches suggested by TCS and 
Bandwidth, as well as any other potential solutions.
    54. Non-interconnected text applications. Additionally, the Second 
Further Notice sought comment on non-interconnected text applications 
that only support communications between a defined set of users, but do 
not support general communication with all or substantially all North 
American Numbering Plan numbers. The record shows support for 
addressing consumer expectations with respect to the use of such non-
interconnected text applications. For instance, TCS submits that an 
interconnected text provider that

[[Page 55421]]

offers a service that sends and receives text messages ``between 
essentially any data-capable device should be required to fulfill the 
same 9-1-1 obligations as an OTT provider that provides such a service 
via one interface.'' Heywire observes that the differences between an 
interconnected versus non-interconnected application are not understood 
by the average person, and that further confusion arises with non-
interconnected text providers using the consumer's mobile phone number 
for identification purposes or ``sending an `authorization' SMS 
message'' to the consumer's mobile device. We seek comment on the 
appropriate approach to address non-interconnected text services--
whether through voluntary commitments or by extending the text-to-911 
rules we adopt today. We also seek comment generally on the scope of 
non-interconnected text applications that should be covered by any 
requirements. Should text-to-911 requirements address non-
interconnected text providers offering services to consumers who 
participate in social media or choose to use applications that enable 
texting within an affinity group but that do not use NANP numbers? What 
could the Commission do to encourage rather than require relevant 
stakeholders to implement the text platforms and technologies necessary 
to achieve text-to-911, and in what timeframe? What standards are being 
developed or would have to be adopted to allow stakeholders to 
implement text-to-911 on all text-capable media on a technologically 
neutral basis?
    55. We also seek comment on what bases of authority the Commission 
has that are sufficient for us to extend the scope of our text-to-911 
requirements. VON Coalition opposes regulations that would apply to 
non-interconnected text services, especially services that ``only 
permit users to text other users of the same service.'' Additionally, 
the Second Further Notice sought comment on non-interconnected 
applications that only support communications between a defined set of 
users, but do not support general communication with using North 
American Numbering Plan numbers. The record shows support for 
addressing consumer expectations with respect to the use of such non-
interconnected text applications. ITIC contends that this proceeding 
should not include text applications that ``only allow consumers to 
communication with other users running the same application.'' We seek 
comment on whether the legal authority set forth in the Second Report 
and Order would also support extending text-to-911 obligations to non-
interconnected text providers. Alternatively, does the Commission have 
adequate bases of authority to require non-interconnected text 
providers to provide a bounce-back message that text-to-911 service to 
911 not available? VON Coalition suggests that the Commission should 
recommend that non-interconnected text providers ``notify customers in 
their terms of use that texting 911 is not available'' but refrain from 
imposing requirements on such providers. We seek comment on VON 
Coalition's view.
    56. We also seek comment on the technical feasibility for non-
interconnected text messaging providers to deliver texts-to-911. 
Bandwidth asserts that because the ``application-centric model'' posed 
in the Second Further Notice ``does not depend on the 10-digit number 
assigned to the underlying communications device,'' that model would 
``technically allow for the possible expansion of text-to-911 
requirements to include non-interconnected OTT application providers in 
the future.'' Heywire suggests that the CMRS-based model would be 
feasible for non-interconnected text providers as well as 
interconnected text providers. We seek comment on these proposals. What 
costs would non-interconnected text providers incur to comply with 
requirements to provide either text-to-911 or a bounce-back message?
    57. Rich media text services. We also seek comment on the delivery 
of multimedia messages to PSAPs.\4\ Both MMS and MMES provide the 
capability to send multimedia, including photos and videos, in addition 
to text. We seek comment on PSAP implementation of multimedia messaging 
services and how the delivery of multimedia could affect PSAPs. Are 
PSAPs concerned regarding the amount of multimedia information they may 
receive? Currently, certain covered text providers remove non-text 
content and non-911 addresses from a MMS before delivery to the PSAP. 
Verizon adds that the ``potential for PSAP and consumer confusion'' can 
arise ``in various scenarios associated with MMS,'' and that the 
Commission should ``allow industry and public safety stakeholders to 
address issues concerning non-voice and non-text content in the context 
of NG911 systems and IP-enabled originating networks.'' Verizon 
contends that if the Commission intends to regulate messages delivered 
as MMS, it will need to provide ``the opportunity to resolve the 
technical issues in a consistent, standard way, and to address the 
potential for consumer confusion.'' ATIS urges that ``industry begin 
its technical evaluation quickly,'' because users today connect to CMRS 
and Wi-Fi networks ``at the same time to run SMS-like applications,'' 
including ``sophisticated applications that incorporate texting with 
other multimedia capabilities.'' We seek comment on these industry 
views. We also seek comment on what factors public safety entities must 
consider before they can efficiently handle text, photos, and video 
from whatever multimedia technologies covered text and other service 
providers choose to deploy. What best practices are being developed as 
more PSAPs implement IP-based or NG911 capabilities? Do regional or 
virtual PSAPs provide efficiencies to filter the flow of multimedia 
messages to 911, especially in disasters or other critical 
circumstances? Should the Commission impose requirements on covered 
text providers to restrict multimedia information to PSAPs? What 
cybersecurity concerns might multimedia messages introduce for covered 
text providers and PSAPs? We seek comment generally on the promise and 
potential of media-rich text messaging services, and how soon those 
capabilities will be realized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The text portion of text-to-911 message initiated using an 
MMS or other text messaging platform must be transmitted to the PSAP 
pursuant to our requirements set forth in the Second Report and 
Order. In this section, we discuss the inclusion of rich media, 
including images, video, and the like.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    58. Real-Time Text. Further, we seek comment on the delivery of 
real-time text communications to PSAPs, wherein the text is transmitted 
as it is typed. The EAAC recommended that ``standards and functional 
requirements be adopted that are technically and economically 
feasible'' to achieve direct access to 911 using, among other IP-based 
text communications, real-time text communications. We note that real-
time text differs from traditional forms of text communications such as 
SMS, in that it provides an instantaneous exchange, character by 
character or word by word, whereas SMS and other traditional forms of 
text communications require uses to finish their typed message before 
sending it. According to the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center 
for Telecommunications Access (RERC-TA), in an emergency, real-time 
text can allow for interruption and reduce the risk of crossed messages 
because the PSAP call taker is able to read the caller's message as it 
is being typed, rather than waiting until the caller presses the 
``send'' key.
    59. Telematics and additional public safety services. Telematics 
services offer

[[Page 55422]]

a number of public-safety oriented services, including automatic crash 
notification (ACN), navigation, concierge, and diagnostic features. 
Until recently, these telematics services have not offered texting 
capability. Telematics services have now evolved, however, to enable 
text messaging over SMS platforms or platforms incorporating the 
ability to connect with LTE networks, either through device toggling or 
through a voice-to-text recognition capability in the telematics device 
embedded in the architecture of vehicles. We seek comment on the 
capabilities of telematics services devices to enable consumers to use 
text messaging to reach 911 services other than through the telematics 
call centers. For instance, we note that telematics-connected ``docks'' 
in vehicles can enhance the capabilities of smart phones to access 
telematics services. Additionally, we recognize that 911-only mobile 
devices and certain alarm services using either CMRS data or Wi-Fi 
networks have also evolved to incorporate new capabilities that can 
include 911-specific text messaging.
    60. We request comment on whether the Commission should extend the 
scope of text-to-911 requirements to apply to public safety-oriented 
telematics services that include text capability. What expectations do 
consumers have in reaching PSAPs directly, using such telematics 
services, rather than through a third-party call center? What sources 
of jurisdictional authority does the Commission have to adopt text-to-
911 requirements for such telematics services? What are the costs and 
benefits of including these services within the scope of the text-to-
911 requirements for the purposes of providing enhanced location 
information or routing the emergency text-to-911 message to the 
appropriate PSAP?

Procedural Matters

    61. Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding of which this Third Further 
Notice is a part is a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance 
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte 
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a 
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days 
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the 
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations 
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list 
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at 
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the 
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data 
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, 
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide 
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, 
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or 
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of 
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to 
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with 47 CFR1.1206(b). 
In proceedings governed by 47 CFR 1.49(f) or for which the Commission 
has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, 
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic 
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed 
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). 
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the 
Commission's ex parte rules.
    62. Comment Filing Procedures. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 
1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 
parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates 
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments should be filed 
in PS Dockets No. 11-153 and 10-255. 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).
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file 
an original and one copy of each filing.
    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.
    1. 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 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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.
    2. 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.
    3. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must 
be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
    63. Accessible Formats. To request materials in accessible formats 
for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the Consumer & 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 
(TTY).
    64. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As required by the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared 
an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact of the proposal described in the attached 
Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third Further Notice) on 
small entities. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. 
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed 
by the deadlines for comments in the Third Further Notice. The 
Commission will send a copy of the Third Further Notice, including this 
IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA). In addition, the Third Further Notice and IRFA 
(or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    65. In the Third Further Notice, we seek comment on ways to improve 
text-to-911 service for Americans by providing enhanced location and 
roaming support, and how to best include future texting services within 
the scope of existing and proposed text-to-911 requirements. We seek 
comment regarding the technical feasibility of specific approaches, and 
likely timeframe for covered text providers to achieve these 
capabilities. We seek comment on solutions for roaming support and 
whether we should consider near-term requirements for roaming, or 
whether we should focus on roaming in conjunction with the deployment 
of next generation wireless networks, such as LTE. Finally, we seek 
comment on how newer services and

[[Page 55423]]

networks will affect the delivery of text-to-911. These improvements 
will further long-term objectives to improve 911 communications and 
enable PSAPs to dispatch first responders directly and quickly to the 
scene of an emergency.
    66. Currently, SMS text-to-911 does not provide for enhanced 
location of a mobile device due to differences in platforms for voice 
and text to send enhanced location information. We propose that, no 
later than two years from the effective date of the adoption of final 
rules, covered text providers must deliver enhanced location 
information (consisting of the best available location that covered 
text providers could obtain from any location technologies, or 
combination of technologies, including device-based location) with 
texts to 911. We also seek comment on the technical, privacy, and 
security issues associated with using commercial location-based 
services (cLBS) for enhanced text-to-911 location information. Lastly, 
we seek comment on the feasibility of sending text messages to 911 
through Wi-Fi networks and on the capability of covered text providers 
to deliver location information with texts routed based on Wi-Fi 
location. There are times when a user's cell phone has only Wi-Fi as a 
means of connectivity, and being able to utilize it to connect with 
PSAPs when no other medium is available could save lives.
    67. We must also consider the availability of roaming. If a 
subscriber is outside of his or her coverage area, the subscriber may 
not be able to reach 911 via text message unless roaming technology is 
provided where the mobile device can ``roam'' on another network and 
connect to other service providers that can support the delivery of 911 
text messages. Thus we propose to require covered text providers to 
support roaming for text-to-911 no later than two years from the 
effective date of the adoption of final roaming rules and seek comment 
on this approach.
    68. We also seek specific comment on NENA's proposal with regard to 
roaming solutions. NENA's proposal would first have the Commission 
encourage industry standards work and establish a medium-term roaming 
requirement, tied to the development of necessary standards, for 
integrated text origination platforms. Second, the Commission would 
require roaming support for text-to-911 service as a precondition to 
the launch of any IP-based replacement for current-generation 
integrated text platforms. NENA also proposes that covered text 
providers could opt out of the medium-term deadline if they voluntarily 
commit to transition from their current generation platforms to NG911-
compatible protocols and location mechanisms. Specifically, NENA 
proposes that the Commission ``establish a three-year deadline 
(December 31st, 2017) for roaming support on existing platforms, 
extendable to five years (December 31st, 2019) for carriers who commit 
to supporting NG-compatible text service on a network-wide basis by 
that date.'' Providing roaming support for text-to-911 is important to 
ensure that the benefits of text-to-911 are shared by all consumers, 
and to encourage wireless competition by allowing smaller and rural 
CMRS providers the ability to offer their subscribers comparable 
services as larger CMRS providers.
    69. Finally, we seek comment on our ultimate goal that text and 
other messaging to 911 be available on all text-capable media, 
regardless of the transmission method. The limitations of SMS-based 
text-to-911 underscore the need for further development of evolving 
platform architectures and standards that can deliver enhanced location 
and support roaming with text-to-911. We believe that a forward-looking 
view of text messaging services, encompassing all text-capable media, 
is warranted to ensure continued access to emergency services as some 
covered text providers migrate from legacy 911 networks to an all-IP 
environment. We also seek comment on how newer services and networks, 
as well as the transition to such newer services and networks, will 
affect the delivery of text-to-911, including text messages originating 
from Wi-Fi only locations, non-interconnected text applications, rich 
media text services, real-time text, and telematics and other public 
safety services. Thus, in the Third Further Notice, we seek to ensure 
that consumers have access to non-voice/text capabilities to our 911 
system with enhanced location, roaming support, and future texting 
services, affirming our commitment to ensuring access to emergency 
services for all Americans, as well as advance the Commission's goal of 
enabling text, photo, and video transmission to 911.

B. Legal Basis

    70. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to 
this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is contained in 
sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 251(e), 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, 
and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 
152, 154(i), 154(j), 154(o), 251(e), 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, 403, 
and section 4 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 
1999, Public Law 106-81, sections 101 and 201 of the New and Emerging 
Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-283, and 
section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615a, 615a-1, 
615b, 615c.

C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Proposed Rules Would Apply

    71. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where 
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the proposed rules. The RFA generally defines the term 
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).
    72. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. The Commission's current Master 
PSAP registry indicates that there are more than 6,000 active PSAPs, 
which we conclude fall into this category. Should a PSAP choose to 
implement text-to-911, they will be affected by the proposed rules. We 
emphasize, however, that PSAPs retain the choice of whether to 
implement text-to-911; any PSAP that chooses not to implement text-to-
911 will not be affected by the adopted rules. As of 2009, small 
businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the 
United States, according to the SBA. Additionally, a ``small 
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' 
Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small 
organizations. Finally, the term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is 
defined generally as ``governments of cities, counties, towns, 
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census Bureau data for 2007 
indicate that there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the 
United States. We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 
entities may

[[Page 55424]]

qualify as ``small governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that 
most governmental jurisdictions are small.
    73. Other Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Would Apply. 
The following small entities may be affected by the proposed rules: 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite); Wireless 
Service Providers; Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs); 
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive 
Access Providers (CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other 
Local Service Providers; Broadband Personal Communications Service; 
Narrowband Personal Communications Services; Specialized Mobile Radio; 
AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 
MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 
2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)); Wireless Communications Services; Upper 
700 MHZ Band Licensees; Lower 700 MHz Band Licensees; Wireless 
Telephony; Satellite Telecommunications Providers; Radio and Television 
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing; 
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing; Software Publishers; 
Internet Service Providers; Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and 
Web Search Portals.
    The full Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA), which 
includes descriptions and estimates of the small entities to which the 
rules proposed would apply, can be found in the Third Further Notice, 
available at http://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-text-911-rules. The 
Third Further Notice and its accompanying IRFA can also be accessed 
through the Commission's Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS) 
by searching for FCC No. 14-118.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    74. The Third Further Notice proposes that no later than two years 
of the effective date of the adoption of final rules, covered text 
providers must deliver enhanced location information (consisting of the 
best available location that covered text providers could obtain from 
any available location technology or combination of technologies, 
including device-based location) with texts to 911. The Third Further 
Notice also proposes to require covered text providers to support 
roaming for text-to-911 no later than two years from the effective date 
of the adoption of final rules. The Third Further Notice also seeks 
comment on alternative proposals for enhanced location and roaming 
support.

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    75. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, 
specifically small business alternatives that it has considered in 
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing 
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into 
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the 
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use 
of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) and exemption 
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.''
    76. The Third Further Notice analyzes a variety of ways in which 
covered text providers could use enhanced location to route 911 text 
messages, as well as provide the PSAP with the caller's actual 
location, and seeks comment on associated costs. It also seeks comment 
on possible roaming solutions and the evolution of texting applications 
and how consumers use them. The Third Further Notice seeks comment on 
costs associated with the proposed requirements for enhanced location 
and roaming support, as well as the costs associated with alternative 
proposals. It also seeks comment on how future texting services would 
be best and most cost-efficiently incorporated into the 911 ecosystem.
    77. The Third Further Notice also seeks comment on ways existing 
infrastructure and resources could be used to comply with the proposed 
rules, as well as how enhanced location and roaming capabilities could 
be addressed via expenditures made for broader NG911 deployments.
    78. Paperwork Reduction Analysis. This document contains proposed 
new information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its 
continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general 
public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the 
information collection requirements contained in this document, as 
required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In 
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 
Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment 
on how we might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    79. We note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief 
Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we 
previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might 
``further reduce the information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
    80. Congressional Review Act. The Commission will send a copy of 
this Third Further Notice in a report to be sent to Congress and the 
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Ordering Clauses

    81. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
4(j), 4(o), 251(e), 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, and 403 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
154(j), 154(o), 251(e), 303(b), 303(g), 303(r), 316, 403, and section 4 
of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public 
Law 106-81, sections 101 and 201 of the New and Emerging Technologies 
911 Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110-283, and section 106 of the 
Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 
2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c, that the 
Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
in PS Docket No. 11-153 and PS Docket No. 10-255 is adopted and shall 
become effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or 
summary thereof in the Federal Register, except for those rules and 
requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, which shall become 
effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal 
Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
    82. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20

    Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.


[[Page 55425]]


Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.

Proposed Rules

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Part 20 as follows:

PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for Part 20 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201(b), 225, 301, 303(b), 
303(g), 303(r), 316, 403, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, and 47 U.S.C. 615c.

0
2. Section 20.18 is amended by adding paragraphs (n)(12) and (13) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  20.18  911 Service.

* * * * *
    (n) * * *
    (12) Enhanced location for 911 text messages. Covered text 
providers subject to this section must provide the designated Public 
Safety Answering Point enhanced location, i.e., the best available 
location that covered text providers can obtain from any available 
location technology or combination of technologies, with 911 text 
messages no later than [DATE 2 YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL 
RULE].
    (13) Roaming. Covered text providers subject to this section must 
support roaming for 911 text messages no later than two years from the 
effective date of this rule.

[FR Doc. 2014-21852 Filed 9-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P