[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43514-43543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-14402]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 9
[PS Docket No. 21-479; FCC 23-47; FR ID 151653]
Facilitating Implementation of Next Generation 911 Services
(NG911)
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (the
FCC or Commission) proposes rules that will advance the nationwide
transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911). Some states report that they
are experiencing delays in providers connecting to NG911 networks. As a
result of these delays, state and local 911 authorities incur prolonged
costs because of the need to maintain both legacy and NG911 networks
during the transition. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
proposes requiring wireline, interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP), and internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS) providers to complete all translation and routing to deliver 911
calls in the requested Internet Protocol (IP)-based format to an
Emergency Services IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s)
that allow emergency calls to be answered upon request of 911
authorities who have certified the capability to accept IP-based 911
communications. In addition, the NPRM proposes to require wireline,
interconnected VoIP, Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), and
internet-based TRS providers to transmit all 911 calls to destination
point(s) in those networks designated by a 911 authority upon request
of 911 authorities who have certified the capability to accept IP-based
911 communications. Finally, the NPRM proposes that in the absence of
agreements by states or localities on alternative cost recovery
mechanisms, wireline, interconnected VoIP, CMRS, and internet-based TRS
providers must cover the costs of transmitting 911 calls to the
point(s) designated by a 911 authority.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 9, 2023, and reply comments
are due on or before September 8, 2023.
ADDRESSES: 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 may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). You may submit comments,
identified by PS Docket No. 21-479, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety
of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC
Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-
Delivery Policy, public notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-closes-headquarters-open-window-and-changes-hand-delivery-policy.
People with Disabilities: 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).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Wehr, Attorney Advisor, Policy
and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau,
(202) 418-1138, [email protected], or Brenda Boykin, Deputy Division
Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau, (202) 418-2062, [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 23-47, in PS Docket No. 21-479,
adopted on June 8, 2023, and released on June 9, 2023. The full text of
this document is available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-proposes-action-expedite-transition-next-generation-911-0.
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This NPRM may contain proposed new or modified information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) to comment on any information collection requirements
contained in this
[[Page 43515]]
document, as required by the PRA. If the Commission adopts any new or
modified information collection requirements, they will be submitted to
OMB for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general
public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the
new or modified information collection requirements contained in this
proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, we seek specific comment on how we might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees.
The Commission will treat this proceeding as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 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.
Synopsis
Background
In this NPRM, we propose to take steps that will advance the
nationwide transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911).\1\ Like
communications networks generally, dedicated 911 networks are evolving
from Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)-based architectures to Internet
Protocol (IP)-based architectures. With the transition to NG911, 911
authorities will replace the circuit-switched architecture of legacy
911 networks with IP-based technologies and applications, which provide
new capabilities and improved interoperability and system resilience.
Most states have invested significantly in NG911, but some report that
they are experiencing delays in providers connecting to these IP-based
networks. As a result of these delays, state and local 911 authorities
incur prolonged costs because of the need to maintain both legacy and
IP networks during the transition. Managing 911 traffic on both legacy
and IP networks may also result in increased vulnerability and risk of
911 outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For purposes of this NPRM, we use the term Next Generation
911 (NG911) to refer generally to the digital Internet Protocol
(IP)-based 911 systems that are replacing analog time division
multiplexing (TDM) 911 infrastructure. We also seek comment on
defining NG911 for purposes of our proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this proceeding, we propose to expedite the NG911 transition by
adopting certain requirements that would apply to wireline, Commercial
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP), and internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS) providers as state and local 911 authorities transition to IP-
based networks and develop the capability to support NG911 elements and
functions.
First, we propose to require wireline, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to complete all translation and
routing to deliver 911 calls, including associated location
information, in the requested IP-based format to an Emergency Services
IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s) that allow emergency
calls to be answered upon request of 911 authorities who have certified
the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. Wireline and
interconnected VoIP providers would be subject to this requirement six
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement,
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or
local 911 authority, whichever is later. Internet-based TRS providers
would be subject to this requirement twelve months from the effective
date of the IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a
valid request for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority,
whichever is later. This proposal is similar to that proposed for CMRS
and covered text providers in our recent proceeding on wireless
location-based routing.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Location-Based Routing for Wireless 911 Calls, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, PS Docket No. 18-64, FCC 22-96, 2022 WL
17958801, at *2, para. 4 (Dec. 22, 2022) (Location-Based Routing
NPRM). The Commission defines the term ``covered text provider'' as
including ``all CMRS providers as well as all providers of
interconnected text messaging services that enable consumers to send
text messages to and receive text messages from all or substantially
all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers, including through the use
of applications downloaded or otherwise installed on mobile
phones.'' 47 CFR 9.10(q)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, as state and local 911 authorities transition to
IP-based networks, we propose to require wireline, interconnected VoIP,
CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers to transmit all 911 calls to
destination point(s) in those networks designated by a 911 authority,
including to a public safety answering point (PSAP), designated
statewide default answering point, local emergency authority, ESInet,
or other point(s) designated by 911 authorities that allow emergency
calls to be answered, upon request of 911 authorities who have
certified the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications.
Third, we propose that in the absence of agreements by
states or localities on alternative cost recovery mechanisms, wireline,
interconnected VoIP, CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers must cover
the costs of transmitting 911 calls to the point(s) designated by a 911
authority, including any costs associated with completing the
translation and routing necessary to deliver such calls and associated
location information to the designated destination point(s) in the
requested IP-based format. Under this proposal, states and localities
would remain free to establish alternative cost allocation arrangements
with providers. However, in the absence of such arrangements, providers
would be presumptively responsible for the costs associated with
delivering traffic to the destination point(s) identified by the
appropriate 911 authority.
Together, these proposals are intended to expedite the NG911
transition and help ensure that the nation's 911 system functions
effectively and with the most advanced capabilities available. In
addition, they respond to the petition filed in 2021 by the National
Association of State 911
[[Page 43516]]
Administrators (NASNA) \3\ urging the Commission to take actions to
resolve uncertainty and disputes between originating service providers
(OSPs) \4\ and state 911 authorities regarding the NG911 transition. We
seek to create a consistent framework for ensuring that providers
(including wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS
providers) take the necessary steps to implement the transition to
NG911 capability in coordination with state and local 911 authorities.
We also seek to align the NG911 transition rules for wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers with similar
requirements we have proposed for CMRS and covered text providers in
the Location-Based Routing NPRM, thereby promoting consistency across
service platforms. Finally, our demarcation point and cost allocation
proposals seek to address what NASNA described in its Petition as ``the
critical component, and biggest regulatory roadblock, to transitioning
to NG911 services.'' We seek comment on the tentative conclusions,
proposals, and analyses set forth in this NPRM, as well as on any
alternative approaches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Petition for Rulemaking; Alternatively, Petition for Notice
of Inquiry, CC Docket No. 94-102, PS Docket Nos. 18-64, 18-261, 11-
153, and 10-255 (filed Oct. 19, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/1019188969473/1 (NASNA Petition).
\4\ NASNA and other commenters on NASNA's Petition use the term
``originating service providers'' to refer to all service providers
that originate 911 calls and are subject to part 9 of our rules,
including wireline, wireless, and interconnected Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) providers. See, e.g., NASNA Petition at 2. For
purposes of this NPRM, we use the term ``originating service
providers'' (OSPs) to refer collectively to wireline, wireless, and
interconnected VoIP providers, but not to other service providers
covered by part 9 (e.g., telecommunications relay and mobile
satellite services).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
911 service is a vital part of our nation's emergency response and
disaster preparedness system. Since the first 911 call was placed in
1968, the American public increasingly has come to depend on 911
service. The National Emergency Number Association (NENA) estimates
that some form of 911 service is available to over 98 percent of the
population and to over 97 percent of the counties in the United States,
and data collected in our annual 911 fee report indicate that over 220
million calls are made to 911 in the United States each year.\5\ The
availability of this critical service is due largely to the dedicated
efforts of state, local, and Tribal authorities and providers, who have
used the 911 abbreviated dialing code to provide access to increasingly
advanced and effective emergency service capabilities.\6\ Indeed,
absent funding for and appropriate action by states, Tribes, and local
jurisdictions, there can be no effective 911 service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ FCC, Fourteenth Annual Report to Congress on State
Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges
at 15, tbl. 3 (2022), https://www.fcc.gov/file/24628/download
(Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee Report).
\6\ See Implementation of 911 Act; The Use of N11 Codes and
Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, WT Docket No. 00-110, CC
Docket No. 92-105, Fourth Report and Order and Third Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd
17079, 17084, para. 9 (2000) (911 Implementation Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
911 Implementation
The Universal Emergency Number. In 1999, Congress amended section
251(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), and
directed the Commission to designate ``911'' as the nationwide
abbreviated dialing code for contacting wireline and wireless voice
services for public safety and emergency services.\7\ In 2000, the
Commission designated 911 as the national emergency telephone number to
be used for reporting emergencies and requesting emergency assistance.
In 2001, the Commission established a period for wireline and wireless
carriers to transition to routing 911 calls to a PSAP in areas where
one had been designated or, in areas where a PSAP had not yet been
designated, either to an existing statewide default point or to an
appropriate local emergency authority.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999,
Public Law 106-81, 3(a), 113 Stat. 1286, 1287 (911 Act) (codified at
47 U.S.C. 251(e)(3)). The purpose of the 911 Act is to enhance
public safety by encouraging and facilitating the prompt deployment
of a nationwide, seamless communications infrastructure for
emergency services that includes wireless communications. 911
Implementation Notice, 15 FCC Rcd at 17081, para. 1 (citing 911 Act
Sec. 2(b)). The 911 Act further directs the Commission to encourage
and support the states in developing comprehensive emergency
communications throughout the United States so that all
jurisdictions offer seamless networks for prompt emergency service.
Id.
\8\ See Implementation of 911 Act; The Use of N11 Codes and
Other Abbreviated Dialing Arrangements, WT Docket No. 00-110, CC
Docket No. 92-105, Fifth Report and Order, First Report and Order,
and Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 16 FCC Rcd
22264, 22293-95, App. B (2001). The Commission codified in former
section 64.3001 the obligation of telecommunications carriers to
transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, to a designated statewide default
answering point, or to an appropriate local emergency authority. Id.
In addition, the Commission codified in former section 64.3002 the
periods for transition to 911 as the universal emergency telephone
number. Id. The Commission subsequently renumbered sections 64.3001
and 64.3002 as current sections 9.4 and 9.5, respectively.
Implementing Kari's Law and Section 506 of RAY BAUM'S Act; Inquiry
Concerning 911 Access, Routing, and Location in Enterprise
Communications Systems; Amending the Definition of Interconnected
VoIP Service in Section 9.3 of the Commission's Rules, PS Docket
Nos. 18-261 and 17-239, GN Docket No. 11-117, Report and Order, 34
FCC Rcd 6607, 6742, App. B (2019) (Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Order),
corrected by Erratum, DA 19-1217 (PSHSB Dec. 2, 2019), also
corrected by Second Erratum, 87 FR 60104 (Oct. 4, 2022); see 47 CFR
9.4 and 9.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legacy 911 Call Routing. For legacy E911 systems, 911 calls are
routed through the use of a wireline network element--called a
selective router--to a geographically appropriate PSAP based on the
caller's location.\9\ The selective router serves as the entry point
for 911 calls from competitive and incumbent LEC central offices over
dedicated trunks, as well as 911 calls from wireless and interconnected
VoIP providers. In legacy architecture, PSAPs are connected to
telephone switches in the selective router by dedicated trunk lines.
Historically, the selective router and connecting trunk lines have been
implemented, operated, and maintained by a subset of incumbent Local
Exchange Carriers (LECs) and largely paid for by state or local 911
authorities through state tariffs or contracts. Network implementation
has varied from carrier to carrier and jurisdiction to jurisdiction,
but legacy E911 has typically been based on traditional circuit-
switched architecture and implemented with legacy components that place
significant limitations on the functions that can be performed over the
network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See IP-Enabled Services; E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled
Service Providers, WC Docket Nos. 04-36 and 05-196, First Report and
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 10245, 10251,
10252, paras. 13, 15 (2005) (VoIP 911 Order), aff'd sub nom. Nuvio
Corp. v. FCC, 473 F.3d 302 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legacy Demarcation Point. Although the Commission has not
previously set a cost demarcation point for wireline, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers in the E911 environment, the
Commission has set a demarcation point for purposes of the wireless
transition to E911. Early in the implementation of E911 Phase I by
wireless carriers, King County, Washington sought clarification of the
demarcation point for costs in Phase I implementation. In 2001, the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) issued a decision (King County
Letter) identifying the input to the 911 selective router maintained by
the incumbent LEC as the ``proper demarcation point'' for allocating
wireless E911 Phase I information delivery responsibilities and costs
in instances when CMRS providers and 911 authorities could not agree on
an appropriate demarcation point.\10\ In 2002, the Commission issued
[[Page 43517]]
an Order on Reconsideration (King County Order on Reconsideration)
affirming WTB's decision and extending the demarcation point to include
the delivery of wireless E911 Phase II information.\11\ The Commission
affirmed that for a wireless carrier to satisfy its obligation to
provide Phase I information to the PSAP under Sec. 20.18(d) (now Sec.
9.10(d)), the wireless carrier must deliver and bear the costs to
deliver E911 Phase I information to the equipment in the existing 911
system that ``analyzes and distributes it,'' i.e., the 911 selective
router. The Commission also affirmed that PSAPs were required to bear
Phase I costs for delivery beyond the 911 selective router. Together,
these decisions provided guidance to facilitate implementation of E911
in TDM networks. However, the Commission has not previously sought to
address demarcation in the NG911 environment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Letter from Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, to Marlys R. Davis, E911 Program
Manager, King County E-911 Program Office, Department of Information
and Administrative Services, King County, Washington, 2001 WL
491934, at *1 (WTB May 7, 2001) (King County Letter) (clarifying
that ``wireless carriers are responsible for the costs of all
hardware and software components and functionalities that precede
the 911 Selective Router'' and that ``PSAPs . . . must bear the
costs of maintaining and/or upgrading the E911 components and
functionalities beyond the input to the 911 Selective Router'').
\11\ Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Request of King County,
Washington, CC Docket No. 94-102, Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC
Rcd 14789, 14789, 14793, paras. 1, 9-10 (2002) (King County Order on
Reconsideration) (affirming the King County Letter on
reconsideration and extending WTB's analysis to Phase II service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voice Over Internet Protocol. With regard to interconnected VoIP,
the Commission has recognized that consumers expected certain types of
emerging voice technology to have the same ability to reach emergency
services when dialing 911 as their traditional wireline and wireless
services. This recognition resulted in the 2005 VoIP 911 Order, in
which the Commission imposed 911 service obligations on providers of
interconnected VoIP.\12\ The Commission declined to establish an E911
demarcation point for interconnected VoIP service, but it stated that
``[t]o the extent that it becomes a concern, we believe that the
demarcation point that the Commission established for wireless E911
cost allocation would be equally appropriate for VoIP.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ VoIP 911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10246, 10256, paras. 1, 22;
see also 47 CFR 9.3 (defining interconnected VoIP service), 9.11-.12
(giving interconnected VoIP providers duties and rights with respect
to provision of 911 service). The Commission later clarified that
the 911 VoIP requirements extended to ``outbound only''
interconnected VoIP providers, that is, VoIP providers that permit
users to initiate calls that terminate to the PSTN even if they do
not also allow users to receive calls from the PSTN. Kari's Law/RAY
BAUM'S Act Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 6670-71, 6675, paras. 174, 183.
While section 615b uses the term ``IP-enabled voice service,'' it
defines this term as having the same meaning as ``interconnected
VoIP'' in section 9.3 of the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. 615b(8).
We refer to both of these terms in this NPRM as ``interconnected
VoIP service'' (and to providers of such a service as
``interconnected VoIP providers'') and in doing so intend to
encompass all VoIP services subject to 911 obligations under part 9
of our rules, including providers of Internet Protocol Captioned
Telephone Service (IP CTS), who are also the providers of the
associated interconnected VoIP service. IP CTS is a form of
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) ``that permits an individual
with a hearing or a speech disability to communicate in text using
an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet, rather than
using a text telephone (TTY) and the public switched telephone
network.'' 47 CFR 64.601(a)(24). We also include other providers of
internet-based TRS, video relay service (VRS), and Internet Protocol
Relay Service (IP Relay).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
911 Parity. By 2008, Congress recognized that the nation's 911
system was ``evolving from its origins in a circuit-switched world to
an IP-based network'' \13\ and that for VoIP providers to fulfill their
911 service obligations to subscribers, they must have access to the
same emergency services capabilities and infrastructure as other voice
providers.\14\ Congress passed the New and Emerging Technologies
Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act) to facilitate the rapid
deployment of VoIP 911 services and to, among other things, encourage
the transition to a national IP-enabled emergency network. The NET 911
Act extended critical 911 service-related rights, protections, and
obligations to VoIP service providers, and mandated parity for VoIP
providers vis-[agrave]-vis other voice providers subject to 911
obligations with respect to the rates, terms, and conditions applicable
to exercising their rights and obligations to provision VoIP 911
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Implementation of the NET 911 Improvement Act of 2008,
Report and Order, WC Docket No. 08-171, 23 FCC Rcd 15884, 15893,
para. 22 (citing New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act
of 2008, Pub. L. 110-283, Preamble, Sec. 102, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008)
(NET 911 Act).
\14\ See H.R. Rep. No. 110-442, at 6-7 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transition to Next Generation 911
Like communications networks generally, 911 networks are evolving
from TDM-based architectures to IP-based architectures. With the
transition to NG911, the circuit-switched architecture of legacy 911
will eventually be entirely replaced by IP-based technologies and
applications that provide all of the same functions as the legacy 911
system, as well as new capabilities. In its end state, NG911 will
facilitate interoperability and system resilience, improve connections
between 911 call centers, and support the transmission of text, photos,
videos, and data.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., City of New York Office of Technology &
Innovation, 2022 Annual Report on Implementation of Next Generation
9-1-1 in NYC at 4 (2022), https://www.nyc.gov/assets/oti/downloads/pdf/reports/annual-report-next-generation-911-2022.pdf (listing the
primary technical benefits of NG911); see also NENA, Why NG9-1-1 at
1-2 (2009), https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/ng9-1-1_project/whyng911.pdf (identifying the purposes of NG911).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has recognized the Commission's role in facilitating the
transition to NG911. As part of the 2010 National Broadband Plan, the
Commission recommended that Congress consider developing a new ``legal
and regulatory framework for development of NG911 and the transition
from legacy 911 to NG911 networks.'' \16\ Also in 2010, Congress
enacted the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility
Act (CVAA), which authorized the Commission to implement regulations
necessary to achieve reliable and interoperable communication that
ensures access to an internet Protocol-enabled emergency network by
individuals with disabilities, where achievable and technically
feasible.\17\ In 2012, Congress enacted the Next Generation 9-1-1
Advancement Act of 2012 as part of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 (NG911 Act), asking the Commission to prepare and
submit a report to Congress on recommendations for the legal and
statutory framework for NG911 services.\18\ In 2013, the Commission
submitted that report, recommending among other things that Congress
(1) facilitate the exercise of existing authority over NG911 by certain
federal agencies (including the Commission), and (2) consider enacting
legislation that would ensure there is no gap between federal and state
authority over NG911.\19\ The Commission stated that ``[t]he Commission
already has sufficient authority to regulate the 911 and NG911 activity
of, inter alia,
[[Page 43518]]
wireline and wireless carriers, interconnected VoIP providers, and
other IP-based service providers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan,
Recommendation 16.14 at 326 (2010), http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296935A1.pdf (last visited May 16,
2023) (National Broadband Plan).
\17\ Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility
Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 124 Stat 2751 Sec. 106(g) (2010)
(CVAA) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 615c(g)).
\18\ Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,
Public Law 112-96 (2012), Title VI, Subtitle E, Next Generation 9-1-
1 Advancement Act (NG911 Act) Sec. 6509.
\19\ FCC, Legal and Regulatory Framework for Next Generation 911
Services, Section 4.1.2.2 at 28-29 (2013), https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/db0227/DOC-319165A1.pdf (last visited May 16, 2023) (2013 NG911 Framework
Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The technological and regulatory landscape underlying 911 has
evolved significantly since 2013. The Commission has adopted
requirements for text-to-911, real-time text, wireless indoor location
accuracy, and dispatchable location.\20\ In addition, the Commission
has updated 911 outage and reliability rules, including recognizing the
role of covered 911 entities.\21\ With respect to technology, E911
Phase II is now widely implemented, and many state and local
jurisdictions have deployed ESInets and taken other transitional steps
towards NG911.\22\ Although the NG911 transition remains ongoing and
there are no fully enabled NG911 systems yet operating,\23\ the
technical architecture of NG911 systems has been developed in detail
and is well-established.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ E.g., Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other
Next Generation 911 Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911
Deployment, PS Docket Nos. 11-153 and 10-255, Second Report and
Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd
9846 (2014); Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology;
Petition for Rulemaking to Update the Commission's Rules for Access
to Support the Transition from TTY to Real-Time Text Technology, and
Petition for Waiver of Rules Requiring Support of TTY Technology, CG
Docket No. 16-145, GN Docket No. 15-178, Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 13568 (2016);
Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No. 07-114,
Fourth Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1259 (2015); Wireless E911
Location Accuracy Requirements, PS Docket No. 07-114, Fifth Report
and Order and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC
Rcd 11592 (2019); Wireless E911 Location Accuracy Requirements, PS
Docket No. 07-114, Sixth Report and Order and Order on
Reconsideration, 35 FCC Rcd 7752 (2020); Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act
Order, 34 FCC Rcd 6607.
\21\ E.g., Amendments to Part 4 of the Commission's Rules
Concerning Disruptions to Communications; Improving 911 Reliability;
New Part 4 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Disruptions to
Communications, PS Docket Nos. 15-80, 13-75 and 04-35, Second Report
and Order, FCC 22-88, 2022 WL 17100963 (Nov. 18, 2022).
\22\ According to the most recent National 911 Annual Report,
2,287 PSAPs reported using an ESInet across 47 states in 2021,
nearly a 5% increase from the 2020 data. National 911 Program,
National 911 Annual Report, 2021 Data at 8, 60, 64 (2023), https://www.911.gov/assets/2021-911-Profile-Database-Report_FINAL.pdf
(National 911 Annual Report).
\23\ Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-
International, Inc. (APCO) Comments at 1-2 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022)
(APCO Comments) (``ECCs should be able to receive, process, and
share appropriate information with responders in the field and with
other ECCs in a secure and fully interoperable fashion [but] no part
of the country can be described as having achieved this vision of
NG9-1-1 with end-to-end broadband communications for ECCs.''); see
also APCO, APCO International's Definitive Guide to Next Generation
9-1-1 at 9 (2022), https://www.apcointl.org/ext/pages/APCOng911Guide/APCO_NG911_Report_Final.pdf (noting that
comprehensive, end-to-end NG911 ``does not yet exist anywhere in the
country'').
\24\ See Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA),
Adopted Final Report (2016), https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_FINALReport_012916.pdf (TFOPA Final Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASNA Petition. On October 19, 2021, NASNA filed a petition asking
the Commission to initiate a rulemaking or notice of inquiry to
facilitate the transition to NG911 (NASNA Petition). Specifically,
NASNA asked the Commission to assert authority over the delivery of 911
communications by OSPs to ESInets and to amend the rules as needed to
advance the transition to NG911. As part of its petition, NASNA urged
the Commission to set a default demarcation point in the NG911
environment analogous to its King County ruling in the E911
environment. NASNA also asked the Commission to set deadlines for OSPs
to begin delivering 911 traffic in NG911 format when the relevant state
or local 911 authority achieves NG911 readiness, and to establish a
registry through which 911 authorities would notify OSPs of their NG911
readiness status. The Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB
or Bureau) placed the Petition on public notice on December 17, 2021,
and received twenty-two comments, eight replies, and seven ex
partes.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Seeks Comment on
Petition for Rulemaking Filed by the National Association of State
911 Administrators, CC Docket No. 94-102 and PS Docket Nos. 21-479,
18-261, 18-64, 11-153, and 10-255, public notice, 36 FCC Rcd 17805
(PSHSB 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/document/pshsb-seeks-comment-nasna-petition-rulemaking (public notice). Comments, replies, and ex
partes in this proceeding may be viewed in the Commission's
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS): https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search/search-filings/results?q=(proceedings.name:(%2221-479%22)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Location-Based Routing. In December 2022, we issued the
Location-Based Routing NPRM proposing to require CMRS and covered text
providers to implement location-based routing for 911 calls and texts
nationwide. As part of that proceeding, we proposed to require CMRS and
covered text providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated
routing information in IP format upon request of 911 authorities who
have established the capability to accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911
communications. In addition, we proposed rules to establish time frames
for CMRS and covered text providers to deliver IP-based traffic.
Further, we sought comment on whether to make available a registry or
database that would allow state and local 911 authorities to notify
CMRS and covered text providers of the 911 authorities' readiness to
accept IP-based communications. These proposals, if adopted, would
effectively implement a key element of NASNA's petition with respect to
transition to NG911 for wireless 911 calls and texts, which represent
an estimated 80 percent of 911 traffic in many areas.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The Location-Based Routing NPRM did not propose rules for
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. In
the instant NPRM, we reference some comments received in response to
the Location-Based Routing NPRM with respect to CMRS providers that
could be relevant to our proposals for wireline, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers here. However, we intend to
address the specific proposals made in the Location-Based Routing
NPRM, including IP delivery of 911 calls and texts for CMRS and
covered text providers, as part of that proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To achieve the transition to NG911, state and local 911 authorities
must implement IP-based technologies and applications that will provide
all of the same functions as the legacy E911 system as well as new
capabilities. NG911 relies on IP-based architecture to provide an
expanded array of emergency communications services that encompass both
the core functionalities of legacy E911 and additional functionalities
that take advantage of the enhanced capabilities of IP-based devices
and networks.\27\ In addition to handling 911 calls from wireline,
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers, NG911
networks can receive text, data, and video communications from any
communications device via IP-based networks. They can also be
configured to receive machine-generated data from telematics
applications (e.g., automatic collision notification systems in
vehicles), medical alert systems, and sensors and alarms of various
types. NG911 architecture also supports enhanced flexibility and
resiliency in network design, because it does not require system
components to be in close geographic proximity to each PSAP and because
it provides multiple alternatives for rerouting emergency
communications to avoid congestion or outages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No.
10-255, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 17869, 17877, para. 18 (2010)
(NG911 NOI).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The transition to NG911 involves fundamental changes in the
technology that 911 authorities use to receive and process 911 calls,
and calls for equally fundamental changes in the way that wireline,
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers deliver
such calls to PSAPs. First, in NG911 architecture, PSAPs receive
incoming calls by means of ESInets, which are IP-based networks that
replace the selective routers and
[[Page 43519]]
telephone trunk lines used in legacy 911.\28\ Second, NG911 is
configured to receive and process 911 calls in a specific IP-based
format, with all information needed to route the call and locate the
caller embedded in IP data packets that control call initiation and
set-up.\29\ This means that as part of the transition to NG911,
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers
will need to configure 911 calls in IP format that is compatible with
NG911 call processing specifications and deliver the calls to new
destination points in the IP-based networks established by 911
authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ NG911 NOI, 25 FCC Rcd at 17878, para. 20. ESInets may be
established at the statewide or regional level to serve multiple
PSAPs. Id. at 17878, para. 20 n.52.
\29\ Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA), Adopted
Final Report at 38, fig. 4-1 (2016), https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-tfopa-final-report (TFOPA Final Report); NENA, NENA i3
Standard for Next Generation 9-1-1 at 37-41 (Oct. 7, 2021), https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.nena.org/resource/resmgr/standards/nena-sta-010.3b-2021_i3_stan.pdf (NENA i3 Standard for NG911) (describing the
SIP methods required for an NG911 call); Verizon Comments at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because these changes to 911 call formatting and delivery will take
time and may not be implemented uniformly by all service providers,
NG911 architecture provides for transitional network components to
enable delivery of legacy 911 calls to ESInets during the transition.
These include legacy network gateways,\30\ which convert TDM 911 calls
to IP, and ESInet entry points that accept IP-based 911 calls that do
not include all of the call processing information required for end-
state NG911. These transitional components are important to ensuring
continued delivery of legacy 911 calls until the NG911 transition is
complete, at which point the transitional components can and will be
decommissioned. However, maintaining legacy gateways and other
transitional components adds to the cost of the NG911 transition, and
these costs may be compounded significantly when the transition is
impeded or delayed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ TFOPA defines a ``legacy network gateway'' as ``[a]n NG9-1-
1 Functional Element that provides an interface between an un-
upgraded legacy origination network and the [Next Generation 9-1-1
Core Services].'' TFOPA, Working Group 2 Phase II Supplemental
Report: NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard at 100 (2016), https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_WG2_Supplemental_Report-120216.pdf (TFOPA NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most states have already made significant commitments to
implementing NG911.\31\ Forty-one states and jurisdictions reported to
the FCC in 2022 that they had ESInets operating in 2021.\32\ Despite
investments in these new capabilities, commenters allege that some
providers are delaying or refusing to connect to new NG911
networks.\33\ Disputes with providers include issues of both cost
allocation and the points to which carriers must deliver 911
traffic.\34\ The general availability of state-level cost recovery for
legacy wireline traffic appears to be an additional complicating
factor.\35\ These disputes are widespread and impact 911 networks in
several states across the nation.\36\ As a result, commenters allege
that 911 authorities have incurred substantial costs to support legacy
networks--including state-provided cost recovery for legacy 911
services and the maintenance of legacy gateways and selective routers--
simultaneously with bearing the costs to deploy and support new NG911
networks.\37\ These ongoing costs impact the ability of states and
localities to implement the transition to NG911 in a timely and cost
efficient manner.\38\ Commenters on the NASNA Petition indicate that,
as part of the transition to NG911, it is important to decommission
legacy routers and transition to IP-based infrastructure.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Forty-three states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and
Puerto Rico reported expenditures on NG911 programs in calendar year
2021. Fourteenth Annual Fee Report at 3. The total amount of
reported NG911 expenditures in 2021 was $419,801,018.67. Id.
\32\ Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee Report at 3. For calendar year
2021, twenty-four states and jurisdictions reported having statewide
ESInets; nineteen reported having regional ESInets within the state;
and eleven reported local-level ESInets. Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee
Report at 3. It is possible that these numbers increased since
states and jurisdictions submitted information to the Bureau. See
National 911 Annual Report at 8 (noting that in 2021, 47 states
reported deployment of an ESInet).
\33\ Minnesota Department of Public Safety Comments at 1 (rec.
Jan. 19, 2022) (Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments);
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency Comments at 4-5 (rec. Jan.
19, 2022) (Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments).
\34\ See, e.g., Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at
4 (``One ILEC is requesting that Pennsylvania build the network all
the way out to their switch(es) and that [Pennsylvania Emergency
Mgmt. Agency], or Pennsylvania's NG911 system service provider
assume all costs associated with this effort.'').
\35\ See, e.g., Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments at 1
(noting that OSPs who receive cost recovery have been unwilling to
interconnect to the 911 ingress points identified by the state).
\36\ Comtech Telecommunications Corp. (Comtech) Comments at 7
(rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (Comtech Comments) (``Comtech has been pulled
into nearly identical POI disputes with OSPs in every state and
region in which it has participated in NG911 deployments, which
consistently result in deployment delays and increased costs for 911
Authorities to carry disputing OSPs' customers 911 traffic to the
NG911 system.'').
\37\ Travis Jensen Reply at 1 (rec. Jan. 21, 2022) (filed on
behalf of Arizona Department of Administration 9-1-1 Program Office)
(Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply) (The Arizona Dept. of
Administration is ``currently facing challenges with the legacy 9-1-
1 services and originating service providers (OSPs) that will cause
additional unforeseen costs.''); Letter from A. Keith Godwin, 9-1-1/
Communications Section Chief, Alachua County (FL) 911/Communications
(Alachua County) to FCC, PS Docket No. 21-479, at 1 (filed Feb. 9,
2022) (Alachua County Ex Parte) (``Florida has twenty-nine rural
counties and some may never fully transition to NG-911 services if a
county must continue to pay a LEC for legacy services while
simultaneously paying for NG-911 services.''); Pennsylvania
Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4 (``[Pennsylvania Emergency
Mgmt. Agency] is currently experiencing difficulties in this process
that may impact Pennsylvania's transition to NG911 service and
extend the period of time 911 authorities are paying for both legacy
and NG911 services at the same time.''); Comtech Reply at 5-6 (rec.
Feb. 3, 2022) (Comtech Reply) (``PSAPs and 911 Authorities are
forced to continue paying for existing Legacy 911 services . . .
until all OSPs have migrated callers off the Legacy 911 Network.'').
\38\ Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4; Arizona
Dept. of Administration Reply at 1 (stating that migrating OSPs is
``becoming a significant impediment to the NG911 transition in
Arizona''); Alachua County Ex Parte at 1.
\39\ Iowa Department of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management Comments at 2 (rec. Jan. 18, 2022) (Iowa Dept. of
Homeland Security and Emergency Mgmt. Comments); Minnesota Dept. of
Public Safety Comments at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In this NPRM, we propose to add a new subpart J to our part 9 rules
that would define the requirements that apply to wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers as state and
local 911 authorities transition to NG911. We discuss the specific
elements of these proposals below.
1. Delivery in IP-Based Format
IP Service Delivery. In its Petition, NASNA urges us to assist with
the transition to NG911 by, among other things, amending the
Commission's rules to ``specifically address NG911, including the
standardized requirements associated with NG911 (e.g., Session
Initiation Protocol [SIP] format and provide location information
attached to the SIP header of the call using Presence Information Data
Format Location Object [PIDF-LO]).'' Comments in response to the NASNA
Petition show broad support for the Commission to take action to assist
with the transition to NG911.\40\ Some
[[Page 43520]]
commenters contend that without a clear regulatory framework, 911
authorities in various stages of NG911 deployment will incur increased
costs related to legacy cost recovery and the maintenance of legacy
gateways and selective routers. Commenters also note that continued
delay in transitioning to NG911 means that public safety entities may
not fully realize the benefit of their investments in NG911 and that
consumers may be unable to access the improved capabilities of NG911
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ NENA: The 9-1-1 Association Comments at 1 (rec. Jan. 19,
2022) (NENA Comments); NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association
Comments at 2 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (NTCA Comments); South Carolina
Telephone Coalition Comments at 5 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (South
Carolina Telephone Coalition Comments); Boulder Regional Emergency
Telephone Service Authority Comments at 1 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022)
(BRETSA Comments); Nebraska Public Service Commission Comments at 2
(rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (Nebraska Public Service Comm. Comments); APCO
Comments at 1; Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1-2;
Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 2; Colorado Public
Utilities Commission Comments at 3 (rec. Jan. 14, 2022) (Colorado
Public Utilities Comm. Comments); Comtech Comments at 2, 4, 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today, we propose to require wireline, interconnected VoIP, and
internet-based TRS providers to deliver IP-based 911 traffic under a
similar framework to that proposed for CMRS and covered text providers
in the Location-Based Routing NPRM. Specifically, we propose to require
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to
complete all translation necessary to deliver 911 calls, including
associated location information, in the requested IP-based format to an
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be
answered upon request of 911 authorities who have established the
capability to accept NG911-compatible, IP-based 911 communications. We
seek comment on this proposal.
We believe that this proposal would help jurisdictions that are
seeking to implement NG911 because requiring wireline, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver IP-formatted calls
and accompanying call set-up and location information would alleviate
the burden on state and local 911 authorities of maintaining
transitional gateways and other network elements to process and convert
legacy calls.\41\ The Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA),
a federal advisory committee, concluded in 2016 that a significant
impediment to NG911 service was that originating service providers were
not prepared to deliver 911 calls via IP technology with location
information to NG911 service providers. Some 911 authorities contend
that the use of legacy technology by carriers continues to impede state
and local jurisdictions as they attempt to transition to NG911.\42\
Although some carriers are already delivering IP-based traffic
voluntarily to NG911-capable PSAPs, so long as any providers continue
to deliver 911 calls and routing information in legacy format, 911
authorities must fund and operate transitional technology to receive,
translate, and process such calls within the NG911 system. We seek
comment on the degree to which funding and operating transitional
facilities extend the timeline and add to the cost incurred by state
and local 911 authorities to transition to NG911. In addition, we seek
comment and specific data on the benefits that the public would derive
from our proposal, as well as on the costs to wireline, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver calls in IP-based
format when a state or local 911 authority has requested it. In
particular, with respect to these costs to wireline, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers, we seek comment on the kinds of
costs that would be associated with transport and transit of these
calls in IP format from originating providers to an ESInet or other
designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered upon
request of 911 authorities.\43\ We also seek comment on whether and to
what degree these costs differ depending on where and how the call is
routed and delivered. To the extent that commenters identify cost
differences, we invite commenters to discuss options to mitigate such
cost variations and to identify steps the Commission should take to
optimize the delivery and processing of 911 calls via IP upon request
of 911 authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4-5
(``[Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency] is currently experiencing
difficulties in this process that may impact Pennsylvania's
transition to NG911 service and extend the period of time 911
authorities are paying for both legacy and NG911 services at the
same time.'').
\42\ E.g., Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1
(``[Arizona Dept. of Administration] is currently facing challenges
with the legacy 9-1-1 services and originating service providers
(OSPs) that will cause additional unforeseen costs, becoming a
significant impediment to the migration of NG9-1-1 for the 9-1-1
callers in Arizona.''); Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments
at 4-5.
\43\ See Letter from Michael R. Romano, Executive Vice
President, NTCA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No
21-479, at 3 (filed May 30, 2023) (NTCA Ex Parte) (requesting that
the Commission seek comment on the types of costs that providers
could incur). For further discussion of estimated costs under the
proposed rules, see below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also believe this proposal would complement our pending proposal
in the Location-Based Routing NPRM to require CMRS and covered text
providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated routing
information in IP-based format upon request of 911 authorities who have
established the capability to accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911
communications. Although CMRS providers originate 75 to 80 percent of
911 calls in the U.S., successful implementation of NG911 for all 911
calls cannot occur without similar steps being taken by wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. Therefore, we
propose that wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS
providers should be subject to similar requirements to deliver 911
communications in IP-based format to those we have proposed for CMRS
and covered text providers. We seek comment on this approach. Should we
seek to achieve regulatory parity in our requirements for delivery of
IP-based 911 calls by CMRS, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and
internet-based TRS providers, or are there reasons to apply different
requirements to calls from different platforms?
We seek comment on how to ensure that our proposal to require
delivery of 911 calls in IP-based format would support interoperability
in the NG911 environment, i.e., the ability to transfer 911 calls and
related data from one PSAP to another or from one ESInet to another.
Are there other elements of interoperability we should consider in the
NG911 environment? \44\ What are the current roles of originating
service providers and PSAPs in ensuring interoperability? What
interoperability issues occur at the demarcation point and how would
commenters define the roles and responsibilities of originating service
providers, PSAPs and 911 authorities, and NG911 service providers with
respect to interoperability? Are there potential interoperability risks
for PSAPs or 911 authorities associated with a requirement to deliver
information in an IP-based format? \45\ If so, what are those risks and
what steps should we take to address them? Should we specify that the
IP-based format requested by 911 authorities and delivered by
originating providers must meet specified criteria to support
interoperability, e.g., by including a requirement that the format
conform to commonly accepted standards? We seek comment on the various
costs for testing connections and resolving compatibility issues with
IP-based interfaces and the parties
[[Page 43521]]
currently responsible for those costs.\46\ Are there standards for
testing equipment and system functions and interactions to ensure
compatibility and interoperability? Are there other requirements or
conditions we should apply to eliminate impediments to interoperability
and support seamless transfer of 911 calls and data? Should we specify
that originating service providers' obligations to deliver calls in an
IP-based format extend to the new communication formats expected for
NG911, such as photos and video? \47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ See Letter from Jeffery S. Cohen, Chief Counsel, APCO, Mark
S. Reddish, Senior Counsel, APCO, and Alison P. Venable, Government
Relations Counsel, APCO, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS
Docket No. 21-479, at 1 (filed June 1, 2023) (APCO Ex Parte)
(requesting that the Commission seek comment on how interoperability
should be defined and relative responsibilities for ensuring
interoperability).
\45\ See APCO Comments at 7 (``The Commission must fully
consider whether requiring originating service providers to deliver
in an IP-based format will be helpful for solving interoperability
problems among ECCs or whether, given the current environment of
proprietary solutions and substantial interoperability challenges,
this risks making the situation worse by further entrenching the
problems.'').
\46\ See APCO Ex Parte at 1 (requesting that the Commission seek
comment on responsibilities for ensuring interoperability).
\47\ See APCO Ex Parte at 2 (requesting that the Commission seek
comment on whether the proposed NG911 obligations extend to requests
for emergency assistance that are not voice calls, e.g., photos and
video, and responsibilities for ensuring interoperability).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also seek comment on how our proposal should extend to 911 calls
that originate on non-IP wireline networks. While the Commission has,
for the last decade, encouraged providers to transition to all-IP
networks,\48\ some wireline carriers continue to use TDM switching
facilities for voice traffic within portions of their networks. We note
that our proposed rule would not require TDM-based carriers to
originate 911 calls in IP-based format on their own networks. However,
it would require such calls to be converted to IP-based format for
delivery to the ESInet or other designated point(s) once a 911
authority has made a valid request to receive IP-formatted calls. We
seek comment on this proposal. Should we instead take steps to require
that wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers
originate all 911 traffic in IP format? What would be the costs and
benefits associated with this proposal? Alternatively, should we limit
our requirement for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based
TRS providers to deliver 911 traffic in IP format to providers that
originate 911 calls in IP? How would such a limitation impact the costs
and benefits of our proposal? If providers fail to include
appropriately formatted routing information, should those providers be
responsible for additional costs beyond the points discussed below? We
also seek comment on the costs specifically associated with originating
providers' conversion of 911 voice traffic from TDM to IP.\49\ In that
connection, we invite commenters to recommend approaches for addressing
cost issues associated with conversion of 911 voice traffic from TDM to
IP as those costs are more precisely identified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Call Authentication Trust Anchor, Notice of Inquiry, WC
Docket No. 17-97, FCC 22-81, 2022 WL 16634852, at *15 (citing
Modernizing Unbundling and Resale Requirements in an Era of Next-
Generation Networks and Services, WC Docket No. 19-308, Report and
Order, 35 FCC Rcd 12425 (2020) (relieving incumbent local exchange
carriers of various unbundled network and avoided-cost resale
requirements); Accelerating Wireline Broadband Deployment by
Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84,
Second Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd 5660 (2018) (streamlining the
discontinuance process for technology transitions); Accelerating
Wireline Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure
Investment, WC Docket No. 17-84, Report and Order, Declaratory
Ruling, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 11128,
11142, para. 33 (2017) (streamlining the copper retirement process);
Technology Transitions et al., GN Docket No. 13-5, WC Docket No. 13-
3, Declaratory Ruling, Second Report and Order, and Order on
Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 8283, 8304-8305, paras. 64-65 (2016)
(adopting the adequate replacement test); Technology Transitions et
al., GN Docket No. 13-5 et al., Order, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Report and Order, Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Proposal for Ongoing Data Initiative,
29 FCC Rcd 1433, 1435, para. 1 (2014) (seeking proposals for
service-based experiments in connection with technology
transitions)).
\49\ See NTCA Ex Parte at 4 (requesting that the Commission seek
comment on the types of costs that providers could incur). For
further discussion of estimated costs under the proposed rules, see
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also seek comment on how we should extend our proposed
requirement to internet-based TRS, which includes IP CTS, VRS, and IP
Relay.\50\ How would internet-based TRS services implement our proposal
if adopted? We note that we do not propose similar requirements for
TTY-based TRS providers. Should we exclude from the proposed
requirements internet-based TRS providers who rely completely on their
customers' underlying voice service providers to handle emergency call
set-up and routing? \51\ In such cases, it may not be necessary to
impose requirements on the internet-based TRS provider if the
underlying service provider is subject to the relevant NG911
requirements. Should covered IP CTS be subject to separate rules, as
under the current part 9 rules? Does extending our proposed requirement
to internet-based TRS raise any issues not considered above? What are
the benefits and costs associated with the application of our proposal
to internet-based TRS? Are there any other providers that we should
require to deliver IP-based 911 services?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ IP CTS is a form of Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS)
``that permits an individual with a hearing or a speech disability
to communicate in text using an internet Protocol-enabled device via
the internet, rather than using a text telephone (TTY) and the
public switched telephone network.'' 47 CFR 64.601(a)(24). VRS
allows people who use sign language to communicate with voice
telephone users with video equipment. A VRS user signs to a
communications assistant (CA) who voices the information to the
hearing party. See 47 CFR 64.601(a)((51) (definition of VRS). IP
Relay allows people with hearing and speech disabilities to
communicate with text using an IP-enabled device over the internet
rather than a TTY and the PSTN. See 47 CFR 64.601(a)(24) (definition
of IP Relay). Current E911 requirements for VRS and IP Relay are set
forth in section 9.14(d) and for covered IP CTS in section 9.14(e).
47 CFR 9.14(d), (e).
\51\ See Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 6688-89,
para. 213 (clarifying that ``these requirements do not apply to TTY-
based TRS providers, or to internet-based TRS providers who
completely rely on their customers' underlying voice service
providers to handle emergency call set-up, routing, and provision of
location information'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Delivery Points and Cost Allocation for IP-Based 911 Calls
Next, we turn to the location(s) to which wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers should deliver
911 traffic in an NG911 environment, as well as whether to establish a
default mechanism for allocating the costs associated with delivering
NG911 traffic to such delivery points. Comments received in response to
the public notice indicate significant disputes have arisen regarding
the obligations for delivery of 911 calls in some states and localities
that have implemented components of NG911.\52\ These disputes concern
the points to which providers should deliver 911 calls,\53\ as well as
which parties should bear the responsibility for the cost to deliver
911 traffic to those points.\54\ Public safety commenters
[[Page 43522]]
assert that these disputes have resulted in delays and costs to public
safety that impact the transition to NG911 in states across the
country.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ E.g., NENA Comments at 2 (``The record already reflects the
widespread occurrence and substantial impact from demarcation-caused
delays in deployment and provision of NG9-1-1.''); Comtech Comments
at 7 (discussing ``nearly identical POI disputes with OSPs in every
state and region in which it has participated in NG911 deployments,
which consistently result in deployment delays and increased costs
for 911 Authorities to carry disputing OSPs' customers 911 traffic
to the NG911 system''); Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1
(``[Arizona Dept. of Administration] is currently facing challenges
with the legacy 9-1-1 services and originating service providers
(OSPs) that will cause additional unforeseen costs, becoming a
significant impediment to the migration of NG9-1-1 for the 9-1-1
callers in Arizona.''); Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments
at 4-5 (``Based on Pennsylvania's experiences to date, the lack of a
defined cost demarcation point and regulatory framework will delay
or even threaten the full end state implementation of NG911.'').
\53\ E.g., Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1 (``Several
Independent Local Exchange Carriers (ILECs) have indicated that they
do not have an obligation to terminate their 9-1-1 traffic to the
points of interconnection (POIs) as designated by [Arizona Dept. of
Administration].''); South Carolina Telephone Coalition Comments at
2 (stating that NG911 service providers should be responsible for
providing points of interconnection within the ILEC service areas).
\54\ E.g., Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4
(``One ILEC is requesting that Pennsylvania build the network all
the way out to their switch(es) and that [Pennsylvania Emergency
Mgmt. Agency], or Pennsylvania's NG911 system service provider
assume all costs associated with this effort.''); South Carolina
Telephone Coalition Comments at 2.
\55\ Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1; Pennsylvania
Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4-5; Alachua County Ex Parte at 1
(``Florida has twenty-nine rural counties and some may never fully
transition to NG-911 services if a county must continue to pay a LEC
for legacy services while simultaneously paying for NG-911
services.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delivery Points for IP-Based 911 Traffic. To address concerns about
the points to which 911 traffic should be delivered as 911 authorities
transition to NG911, we propose to require wireline, CMRS, and
interconnected VoIP providers to transmit all 911 calls to the point(s)
designated by the 911 authority that allow emergency calls to be
answered six months from the effective date of the IP service delivery
requirement, or six months after a valid request for IP-based service
by a state or local 911 authority,\56\ whichever is later. We also
propose to require internet-based TRS providers to transmit all 911
calls to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority that allow
emergency calls to be answered twelve months from the effective date of
the IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a valid
request for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority,
whichever is later. Under this proposal, the delivery point(s) that
could be designated by the 911 authority would include a PSAP,
designated statewide default answering point, appropriate local
emergency authority, ESInet, or other designated point(s) that allow
emergency calls to be answered. This would make clear that the 911
authority may select an ESInet or other designated points on its IP-
based network as the point(s) to which wireline, CMRS, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers must deliver 911 traffic. It
would also clarify that 911 authorities determine and designate the
point(s) to which 911 calls should be transmitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ For discussion of what constitutes a valid request, see
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe our proposal would help to resolve disputes regarding
the point(s) to which wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and
internet-based TRS providers must deliver 911 traffic in order to meet
their obligations in an NG911 environment. Despite the progress many
states have achieved towards implementing NG911,\57\ public safety
commenters indicate that it can be difficult to reach agreement with
providers on connections to new NG911 networks.\58\ Public safety
commenters report lengthy negotiations for providers to connect to
ESInets and contend that issues related to delivery of 911 calls have
been a significant contributing factor.\59\ Comtech asserts that
delivery of 911 traffic to NG911 networks has been an issue ``in every
state and region in which it has participated in NG911 deployments.''
Some small and rural wireline carriers argue that 911 delivery points
should be within service providers' local service areas, and oppose
rules that would require them to deliver 911 calls outside their
service areas. On the other hand, 911 authorities and Comtech argue
that that providers should deliver 911 traffic to NG911 ESInet ingress
points, either to legacy network gateways for TDM traffic or designated
points of interconnection for IP traffic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Forty-three states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and
Puerto Rico reported expenditures on NG911 programs in calendar year
2021. Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee Report at 3. The total amount of
reported NG911 expenditures in 2021 was $419,801,018.67. Id.
\58\ Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4 (``In
some cases, the current environment promotes a contentious,
uncoordinated transition to NG911 service rather than the
cooperative, coordinated transition desired by [Pennsylvania
Emergency Mgmt. Agency.''); Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety
Comments at 1 (``To date, not a single OSP who receives cost
recovery today has submitted an interconnect plan to our ingress
vendor identifying their intent to rehome their 9-1-1 ingress
network. They have indicated that until they understand how the
rehoming will affect their cost recovery, they are unwilling to do
so.''); Comtech Comments at 7.
\59\ Comtech Comments at 4 (describing such disputes as
``protracted''); Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4
(``Some ILECs are embracing the transition to NG911 while others are
looking to negotiate their role and cost responsibilities for NG911
service.''); Arizona Dept. of Administration Reply at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our proposed rule would confirm 911 authorities' role in
designating points for delivery of 911 calls in the NG911 environment,
whether such delivery points are at the ESInet boundary, at individual
PSAPs, or at other points in the network that allow emergency calls to
be answered.\60\ We believe this approach would provide states with a
uniform framework to manage NG911 transition costs and minimize time-
consuming negotiations with providers. We seek comment on this
proposal. Would it help to resolve state-level controversies regarding
the delivery of 911 traffic in an NG911 environment? Should we take
into consideration the number, location, or type of points of
interconnection provided by the state? For example, should we require
delivery of 911 traffic to point(s) designated by the 911 authority
only if the points of interconnection meet certain criteria, e.g., the
points of interconnection are located within the state to which 911
service is being provided, there are a specific number of points of
interconnection per LATA, or the points of interconnection are able to
receive traffic in specific formats (such as TDM or IP)? What would the
benefits and costs be to wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and
internet-based TRS providers and 911 authorities of setting the
demarcation point as proposed?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Most public safety commenters support setting a point for
delivery of NG911 traffic at the ESInet. See, e.g., BRETSA Comments
at 7-8; Texas 9-1-1 Alliance, the Texas Commission on State
Emergency Communications, and the Municipal Emergency Communication
Districts Association Comments at 8 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (Texas 9-1-
1 Entities Comments). We note that the rules we propose in this NPRM
would not affect the 911 resiliency, redundancy, and reliability
rules at part 9, subpart H of the Commission's rules. We also note
that the proposed rules would not affect the extent of the
Commission's jurisdiction over providers that supply services before
and after the point(s) designated by 911 authorities, e.g., covered
911 service providers. See, e.g., 47 CFR 9.19(a)(4)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 9.4 of the Commission's rules currently requires all
telecommunications carriers to ``transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, to a
designated statewide default answering point, or to an appropriate
local emergency authority as set forth in Sec. 9.5.'' Section 9.10(b)
of the Commission's rules refers to this provision to set the point to
which CMRS providers must transmit all wireless calls.\61\ Similarly,
section 9.11(b)(2)(ii) of the Commission's rules refers to Sec. 9.4 to
set the point to which fixed and non-fixed interconnected VoIP service
providers must deliver all 911 calls, ANI, and location
information.\62\ For VRS and IP Relay providers, Sec. 9.14(d)(2)(iii)
also refers to Sec. 9.4 to set the point for delivery of any
communication initiated by an VRS or IP Relay user dialing 911.\63\ For
IP CTS providers, Sec. 9.14(e)(2)(ii) refers to Sec. 9.4 to set the
point for delivery of any communication initiated by an IP CTS user
dialing 911.\64\ Other internet-based
[[Page 43523]]
TRS providers, per Sec. 9.14(b)(2)(i), must determine an appropriate
point for call delivery that corresponds to the caller's location and
relay the call to that entity.\65\ The subpart J we propose in this
NPRM would implement a uniform framework for 911 call-routing in the
NG911 environment by requiring wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and
internet-based TRS providers (including VRS, IP Relay, and IP CTS) to
transmit all 911 calls to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority
within specific timeframes from the effective date of the IP service
delivery requirement or after a valid request for IP-based service by a
state or local 911 authority, whichever is later. The effect of these
proposed rules would be that upon a valid request for IP-based service,
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers
would be required to deliver 911 traffic to the point(s) that allow
emergency calls to be answered that are designated by the local or
state entity that has the authority and responsibility to designate the
point(s) to receive 911 calls. In the absence of a valid request for
IP-based service by the relevant 911 authority, the existing provisions
of Sec. 9.4 and by reference 9.10(b), 9.11(b)(2)(ii), 9.14(d)(2)(iii),
9.14(e)(2)(ii), and 9.14(b)(2)(i) would continue to apply for providers
covered by those provisions. We seek comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\61\ 47 CFR 9.10(b) (requiring CMRS providers to ``transmit all
wireless 911 calls . . . to a designated statewide default answering
point or appropriate local emergency authority pursuant to Sec.
9.4'').
\62\ 47 CFR 9.11(b)(2)(ii) (requiring interconnected VoIP
service providers to transmit 911 calls, ANI, and certain location
information to the PSAP, designated statewide default answering
point, or appropriate local emergency authority that serves the
caller's dispatchable location and that has been designated for
telecommunications carriers pursuant to Sec. 9.4).
\63\ 47 CFR 9.14(d)(2)(iii) (requiring VRS and IP Relay
providers to transmit all 911 calls (provided that ``all 911 calls''
is defined as ``any communication initiated by an VRS or IP Relay
user dialing 911''), ANI, the name of the VRS or IP Relay provider,
and the communications assistant's (CA's) identification number, and
certain location information to the PSAP, designated statewide
default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority
that serves the caller's dispatchable location and that has been
designated for telecommunications carriers pursuant to Sec. 9.4).
\64\ 47 CFR 9.14(e)(2)(ii) (requiring IP CTS providers to
transmit all 911 calls (provided that ``all 911 calls'' is defined
as ``any communication initiated by an IP CTS user dialing 911''),
the telephone number that is assigned to the caller and that enables
direct callback with captions, and certain location information to
the PSAP, designated statewide default answering point, or
appropriate local emergency authority that serves the caller's
dispatchable location and that has been designated for
telecommunications carriers pursuant to Sec. 9.4).
\65\ 47 CFR 9.14(b)(2)(i) (requiring certain internet-based TRS
providers to determine the appropriate PSAP, designated statewide
default answering point, or appropriate local emergency authority
that corresponds to the caller's location, and to relay the call to
that entity).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their comments, the Texas 9-1-1 Entities suggest an approach
that would distinguish between delivery of IP and legacy services.
Under their proposal, within six months of a ``bona fide request'' by a
911 authority or its designated NG911 service provider, non-IP
providers (which the Texas 9-1-1 Entities define as a ``non-IP capable
un-upgraded originating service provider'') would be required to
``directly or indirectly connect, in accordance with industry
standards,'' to the Legacy Network Gateway provided by the 911
authority or its NG911 service provider, while IP-capable providers
would be required to fully support delivery of 911 traffic in NG911
format, i.e., ``(i) directly or indirectly connect, in accordance with
industry standards, via Session Initiation Protocol; (ii) deliver
[Presence Information Data Format--Location Object (PIDF-LO)]; and
(iii) use a Location Validation Function provided by the 9-1-1
authority (or its designated NG9-1-1 System Service Provider agent).''
We seek comment on this alternative approach. What are the benefits and
costs associated with this proposal? Would it be beneficial to treat
IP-based providers differently from providers that are not IP-based?
What threshold legacy issues would we need to determine before adopting
this proposal either in full or in part? Should we establish a minimum
number of legacy network gateway points of interconnection within each
state? Or should there be a minimum number of legacy network gateway
points of interconnection per LATA? It appears that several states
provide two legacy network gateway points of interconnection per
LATA.\66\ Would this be a reasonable approach? Alternatively, would it
be preferable to require no minimum number of legacy network gateway
points of interconnection before a ``bona fide request'' is made? Are
there any other factors we should consider in connection with this
proposal?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply at 6 & n.20 (rec. Feb. 3,
2022) (Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cost Allocation. In addition to issues regarding the designation of
911 delivery points in the NG911 environment, disagreements over cost
allocation appear to have contributed to delays in transitioning to
NG911.\67\ To address this concern, we propose to establish a default
demarcation point for purposes of cost allocation in the NG911
environment. Under this proposed approach, states and localities would
remain free to establish cost recovery mechanisms as they deem
necessary for the costs of delivering 911 traffic to required
destination point(s), but, in the absence of such mechanisms, the cost
of compliance from call origination to the demarcation point would
presumptively be the responsibility of the wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, or internet-based TRS provider. As a default
mechanism, this proposal would allocate costs only when the parties are
unable to agree on cost recovery measures. It thus would not preempt
state or local authority over 911, including existing 911 cost recovery
mechanisms. There is strong support for this default approach among
public safety commenters, and it is consistent with the request in
NASNA's Petition.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\ The Minnesota Department of Public Safety notes that it has
contracted with a vendor to ``rehome'' the statewide ingress points
for 911 traffic in Minnesota but that, to date, the providers that
receive cost recovery have not submitted interconnection plans to
the vendor and will not do so until they understand how rehoming
will affect their cost recovery. Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety
Comments at 1. Comtech also cites examples of legacy 911 providers
that it contends have refused to interconnect to designated NG911
points of interconnection to preserve the payments they receive for
legacy 911 services. Comtech Comments at 4-5, 7. Comtech asserts
that these delays can result in ongoing costs for 911 authorities
because they must continue to maintain legacy 911 networks until all
providers have migrated to the NG911 network. Comtech Reply at 5-6.
\68\ NASNA Petition at 2-3 (urging the Commission to ``establish
a NG911 cost demarcation point or points, for allocating costs when
the parties cannot agree on the appropriate demarcation point(s)'').
E.g., Colorado Public Utilities Comm. Comments at 4; BRETSA Reply at
1-2; Letter from George Kelemen, Executive Director, iCERT, to
Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, PS Docket No. 21-479, at 3 (filed by
Oct. 16, 2022) (iCERT Ex Parte) (``iCERT agrees with NASNA that any
FCC review of OSP responsibilities should focus on the applicability
of 47 CFR 9.4 and 9.5, as well as the allocation of costs and the
appropriate demarcation points between OSPs and 911 Authorities.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our cost allocation proposal is also consistent with the
Commission's approach to similar cost allocation issues in the King
County proceeding two decades ago. In King County, the Commission
responded to complaints from state and local 911 authorities that
wireless service providers were delaying implementation of wireless
E911 due to disagreements regarding the appropriate demarcation point
for responsibility and cost. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
found, and the Commission later affirmed, that for a wireless carrier
to satisfy its obligation to provide Phase I information to the PSAP,
the carrier must bear the costs to deliver the information to the 911
selective router.\69\ The Bureau found that it was reasonable ``to make
the carriers responsible for those expenditures necessary to deliver
location information in a usable form to the E911 Network so as to
ensure that their customers have access to enhanced 911 services.''
However, the King County decisions also affirmed that 911 authorities
and wireless providers could agree on a different point for cost
allocation and call delivery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ King County Letter at *3. On reconsideration, the
Commission affirmed the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
interpretation of the Commission's rules and extended that
interpretation to require wireless carriers to bring Phase II data
to ``that point at which the system identifies the appropriate PSAP
and distributes the voice call and location data to that PSAP,''
i.e., the selective router in legacy E911 environments. King County
Order on Reconsideration, 17 FCC Rcd at 14789, para. 1; see id. at
14793, paras. 9-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43524]]
Today, as 911 authorities seek to retire legacy selective routers
\70\ and migrate to NG911 networks, legacy selective routers will no
longer be the network element that ``analyzes and distributes''
information to the NG911 network, and therefore will not be relevant
points for determining appropriate cost allocation where state or local
911 authorities have implemented ESInets and other IP-based network
elements. These IP-based network elements perform similar functional
roles to legacy selective routers, while also providing new
capabilities that can support flexible re-routing of 911 calls in
response to on-the-ground conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments at 1 (``[T]he
[legacy selective routers] are end-of-service, end-of-life and
starting to fail[.]''); Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply at 4 (rec. Feb.
3, 2022) (Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply) (``[T]ransitioning may involve
removing the single point of failure for a legacy selective router
by [ ] having legacy OSPs connect to two Legacy Network Gateways
(`LNGs') within the LATA.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As with the King County decisions, we note that the costs of
installing, maintaining, and upgrading components necessary to continue
to deliver 911 traffic to 911 networks are required costs for wireline,
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to continue
to provide 911 service, a significant reason why consumers subscribe to
telecommunications services. Several public safety entities
specifically argue that the Commission should either extend the
precedent set for wireless E911 service in the King County decisions to
NG911 or apply a similar regulatory approach. We tentatively agree that
a regulatory approach similar to King County is appropriate here, with
appropriate modification as needed to reflect the differences between
legacy and NG911 networks. We seek comment on this analysis.
Our proposed approach would clarify that cost obligations for
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers
in the NG911 environment presumptively extend to the demarcation
point(s) designated by state or local 911 authorities in the NG911
environment. We believe that by clarifying responsibility for costs to
connect to NG911 networks, the proposed rules would resolve uncertainty
regarding cost allocation between 911 authorities and wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers and thus would
accelerate the transition to NG911. We also believe that establishing a
common cost allocation framework for wireline, CMRS, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers would promote regulatory parity
across service platforms. We seek comment on this approach. NASNA and
public safety commenters contend that the cost of compliance with the
requirement to deliver 911 traffic to the point of delivery should be
the responsibility of the provider.\71\ However, rural LECs and
Minnesota entities argue that costs for delivery of 911 traffic should
not extend outside of the provider's service area.\72\ Pennsylvania and
Arizona incumbent LECs argue that the state must cover the costs to
deliver traffic from the edge of the incumbent LECs' networks to the
ESInet, if the state does not build out connections to the provider's
switches. We also seek comment on these alternatives proposed by
commenters to the public notice. Should we provide additional limits on
these costs, such as only requiring wireline, CMRS, and interconnected
VoIP providers to bear the cost of delivering traffic when
interconnection points are available within the telecommunication
carrier's LATA or service area? Are there other considerations for
extending this approach to internet-based TRS (IP CTS, VRS, and IP
Relay)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ NASNA Petition at 2-3; Colorado Public Utilities Comm.
Comments at 4 (``While the Commission's current regulation already
implies this relationship through extrapolation, it would be better
for the statute to declare explicitly that OSPs are responsible for
the cost of 911 call delivery to the point of demarcation with the
911 system service provider.''); BRETSA Reply at 2 (``As with any
other call, originating service providers should be responsible for
delivery of the call, and the cost of call delivery, to the called
party (i.e., the PSAP).''); iCERT Ex Parte at 3 (``As was the case
with E911, OSPs should not charge the NG911 service provider for
delivering NG911 calls to the appropriate point of demarcation.'').
\72\ South Carolina Telephone Coalition Comments at 2 (stating
that NG911 service providers should be responsible for ``covering
the costs of transport of traffic from the edge of the ILEC service
area to the NG911 interconnection point''); Minnesota Telecom
Alliance Comments at 3 (rec. Jan. 19, 2022) (stating that because
NG911 routing changes are beyond existing meet points, they are
``wholly within the financial responsibility and operational control
of the state and local agencies''); Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety
at 1 (``For the default, it seems most appropriate the edge of the
OSP's network be defined as the cost demarcation point.''); see also
NTCA Ex Parte at 4 (requesting that the Commission seek comment on
setting an originating provider's network edge as the default cost
demarcation point).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We seek estimates from rural providers and 911 authorities on
specific costs for rural providers to comply with our proposed rules.
What minimum costs would be required, from an implementation
standpoint, for a given wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, or
internet-based TRS provider to connect from current service areas to
(1) legacy network gateways in the same LATA, or (2) an IP point of
interconnection? How would this affect monthly or annual charges to
subscribers, i.e., is there a range or specific dollar amount that
would be newly reflected on customers' monthly bills?
We emphasize that under our proposed cost allocation approach,
states and localities would retain the flexibility to develop
alternative cost allocation mechanisms, including providing cost
recovery for wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based
TRS providers to delivering 911 traffic to designated connection
points. This approach conforms with the requests of NASNA commenters to
preserve state and local authority over 911, especially with regard to
911 cost recovery mechanisms.\73\ In the King County Order on
Reconsideration, the Commission affirmed that 911 authorities and
wireless providers could agree on a different point for cost allocation
and call delivery. Under our proposed rules, states would similarly be
able to implement alternative points to which wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers should bear the
cost to deliver 911 traffic in the NG911 environment. We seek comment
on this aspect of our proposal. Specifically, we seek comment on
whether and how the proposed cost allocation approach would impact
negotiations between providers and 911 authorities on potential cost
allocation mechanisms.\74\ We invite commenters to identify steps that
the Commission should take to promote cooperative efforts by 911
authorities and originating service providers that will lead to
creative technological solutions for accelerating NG911 deployment, and
ultimately improved 911 service for the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ NASNA Petition at 6; BRETSA Comments at 8 (stating that
Commission oversight is helpful, but that it ``must be subject to
state determination of call-routing, allocation of responsibility
for costs of service, and similar matters'').
\74\ See NTCA Ex Parte at 4 (requesting that the Commission seek
comment on whether and how the proposed rules would impact
negotiations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Valid Request for IP-Based Service, Timing, and Registry
Valid Request for IP-based Service. Consistent with our existing
rules for text-to-911 \75\ and our proposal in the Location-Based
Routing NPRM, we propose to define a valid request as one made by a
local or state entity that certifies that it (1) is technically ready
to receive 911 calls in the IP-based
[[Page 43525]]
format requested, (2) is specifically authorized to accept calls in the
IP-based format requested, and (3) has provided notification to the
provider via either a registry made available by the Commission or by
written notification reasonably acceptable to the provider. We believe
that this approach would minimize miscommunication between providers
and 911 authorities and facilitate the timely delivery of 911 calls
once state and local 911 authorities indicate their readiness to
receive calls in IP format at the destination point(s) they designate.
We additionally agree with commenters who indicate that this approach
would provide predictability and clarity to the 911 community. We seek
comment on this approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ 47 CFR 9.10(q)(10)(iii) (defining a valid request for text-
to-911 service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also seek comment on what level of NG911 readiness PSAPs should
achieve to trigger the requirements for (1) wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to transmit 911
calls to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority, and (2)
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to
begin delivering calls, including routing and location information, in
IP-based format. Our proposed approach would establish one level of
readiness to trigger these obligations. We seek comment on whether
specific NG911-related network components or capabilities would need to
be in place to establish readiness. Another approach, as suggested by
NASNA, would be to define three readiness phases based on the TFOPA
``NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard.'' \76\ What are the costs and benefits
associated with NASNA's suggestion? If we were to adopt NASNA's
suggestion, what level of readiness would trigger the requirement for
service from wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based
TRS providers? Are there generally accepted standards for PSAP
readiness to accept IP traffic? How have 911 authorities that accept
some IP traffic navigated readiness with providers? Should we consider
different or additional phases? Should individual PSAPs be able to
trigger the requirement or should readiness be established at a more
aggregated level, e.g., on an ESInet-by-ESInet or state-by-state basis?
As part of a valid request, should a 911 authority be required to
certify or demonstrate the capability of its IP-based network to
support 911 interoperability? Have there been additional lessons
learned from NG911 implementations since the release of the 2016 TFOPA
Final Report? \77\ Regarding NG911 implementation, we ask commenters to
identify best practices that have been developed based on lessons
learned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ NASNA Petition at 7-8. NASNA suggests that in Phase I, the
ESInet would be ready to receive 911 calls from OSPs via a Legacy
Network Gateway. Id. at 7. In Phase II, the ESInet would be ready to
receive 911 calls in SIP format. Id. at 8. In Phase III, the ESInet
would be ready to receive 911 calls in NG911 format. Id. at 8. ``The
911 authority/ESInet administrator may request all three phases
simultaneously if the implementation of the ESInet allows for
this.'' Id. at 8.
\77\ See APCO Ex Parte at 2 (indicating that the TFOPA Final
Report makes ``assumptions about the implementation of NG911 that
are no longer valid'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For purposes of determining whether a state or local 911 authority
could be technically ready to receive calls in IP-based format, we seek
comment on the elements that a state or local 911 authority would need
to have in place before making a valid request.\78\ In the Location-
Based Routing NPRM proceeding, Verizon argues for a ``robust PSAP
readiness standard, that reflects the substantial completion of a
PSAP's NG911 provider's i3 based solution'' as the basis for
considering a request ``valid'' and triggering an implementation
period. Verizon asserts that relevant factors for PSAP readiness to
accept IP interconnection would be, at a minimum: (1) ``PSAP
connectivity with a NG911 provider who has fully deployed a standards-
based i3 IP infrastructure''; (2) ``completion of SIP connectivity
onboarding and testing with Wireless Originating Service Providers'';
(3) ``completion of HTTP-Enabled Location Delivery (HELD)
certification''; and (4) ``PSAP i3-ready call handling equipment.'' We
seek comment on whether some or all of these factors should be
considered in determining readiness before a valid request may be made.
What are the benefits and costs associated with such a proposal? Would
adopting a specific set of factors to establish readiness limit the
flexibility of state and local 911 authorities as they continue their
NG911 deployments? What efficiencies would be gained from adopting a
specific set of factors? Should we consider additional factors to
determine the level of readiness needed before a valid request may be
made? \79\ For example, T-Mobile, in its comments on the Location-Based
Routing NPRM, indicates that comprehensive testing would be required to
determine PSAP readiness. Should we require testing as a precondition
to a valid request? Should we have a separate request process for
triggering IP-based service from internet-based TRS providers from the
valid request process for wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP
providers? If so, are there additional or different readiness criteria
that should be included for IP-based service from internet-based TRS
providers? Are there lessons learned from implementation of real-time
text (RTT) as direct IP traffic from service providers that could be
applied here? \80\ Were there implementation issues that could have
been prevented?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ As an example of possible readiness elements, we note that
TFOPA created a ``NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard'' that categorizes
components of NG911 implementation. TFOPA NG9-1-1 Readiness
Scorecard at 17-21.
\79\ Other commenters in the Location-Based Routing NPRM
proceeding provided additional examples of factors we could consider
to determine readiness. E.g., CTIA Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at
9 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) (CTIA LBR NPRM Comments) (noting that the
TFOPA Readiness Scorecard identifies hardware, software, data,
operational policies and procedures, security, and governance
elements that are necessary for a PSAP to make the full-scale
transition to NG911); Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Solutions Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 5 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023)
(ATIS LBR NPRM Comments) (The Commission ``should not employ a
`registry' approach to trigger implementation deadlines; it is
necessary for state and local governments to engage directly with
individual wireless providers in order to become technically ready
and capable to receive and process 911 calls in IP format in the
first instance.''); Intrado LBR NPRM Comments at 6 (noting that
completion of IP-based delivery requires several steps and time,
such as establishing new connectivity into the ESInet, cutting
traffic over from the old TDM path to IP, nationwide scaling, and
significant testing/validation, and recommending ``further
discussion with the CMRS providers and PSAPs regarding a
standardized definition of PSAP readiness and a flexible
implementation timeframe to account for CMRS/PSAP discussions and
varying implementation steps/timelines'').
\80\ See APCO Ex Parte at 3 (requesting that the Commission seek
comment on whether there are any lessons learned from the
implementation of Real-Time Text as direct IP traffic).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we seek comment as to whether we should define ``IP-
capable'' as part of the readiness determination. Would such a
definition be useful to wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers and state and local 911 authorities? If so, what
level of specificity should be required in the definition? For example,
in the Location-Based Routing NPRM proceeding, T-Mobile indicates that
the Commission should delineate between SIP and NG911 connectivity.
What are the benefits associated with making this distinction in a
potential definition of ``IP-capable'' ? Should IP-capable mean SIP?
Should IP-capable mean one or more specific implementations of SIP?
What are the impacts if the Commission does not specify a particular
implementation of SIP in a definition of IP-capable? We also seek
comment on any existing technological solutions to address challenges
with different SIP implementations. What are the costs of those
solutions to facilitate
[[Page 43526]]
interoperability? NENA argues for using a more specific term in the
rules ``such as `i3 compatible' or some other mutually-agreed
terminology to describe standards-based'' NG911.\81\ Would it be
preferable to tie readiness to i3 compatibility? Are there other
specific terms we should consider instead of or in addition to ``IP-
capable,'' such as ``NG911-capable'' ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ NENA Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 11 (rec. Feb. 15,
2023) (NENA LBR NPRM Comments).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also seek comment on whether 911 authorities should be required
to submit requests to all wireline, interconnected VoIP and internet-
based TRS providers in the serving area as a precondition to
considering the request ``valid'' ? In its comments to the Location-
Based Routing NPRM proceeding, Verizon argues that unless a request is
submitted to all wireless providers in the serving area, the rules
would impose disparate burdens on competing service providers. We seek
comment as to whether that concern would also apply to wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. What are the
benefits and disadvantages of such an approach? Are there any technical
barriers associated with this approach? Would delaying a valid request
to one provider in a service area until it can be sent to all providers
in the service area slow the NG911 transition?
Timing of IP-based Delivery and Delivery to Point(s) Designated by
911 Authorities. For wireline and interconnected VoIP providers to
deliver 911 calls in IP format, we propose an implementation timeline
of six months from the effective date of the IP service delivery
requirement, or six months after a valid request for IP-based service
by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later. For internet-
based TRS providers to deliver calls in IP format, we propose an
implementation timeline of twelve months from the effective date of the
IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a valid request
for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is
later. Our proposals also would allow 911 authorities and wireline,
interconnected VoIP, or internet-based TRS providers to enter into
agreements setting an alternate time frame. In the event of 911
authorities and providers agreeing to an alternate time frame, we
propose that the provider notify the Commission within 30 days of the
parties' agreement. For wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP
providers to deliver 911 traffic to point(s) designated by 911
authorities, we similarly propose an implementation timeline of six
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement,
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or
local 911 authority, whichever is later. For internet-based TRS, we
propose a twelve-month implementation timeline to deliver 911 traffic
to point(s) designated by 911 authorities from the effective date of
the IP service delivery, or twelve months after a valid request for IP-
based service from a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later.
We seek comment on the proposed six-month time frame for delivery
of IP-based services for wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP
providers. Would six months be an adequate amount of time for wireline
and interconnected VoIP providers to deliver 911 calls in IP-based
format, and for wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP providers to
deliver 911 traffic to point(s) designated by 911 authorities? The
record indicates support for a mandatory time frame by which providers
would be required to deliver NG911 services once the PSAP is NG911-
capable, and that six months would be a reasonable time period.\82\
NASNA notes that while it did not propose a specific time in its
Petition, ``six months is an ample time frame for OSPs to make
necessary preparations for transition.'' However, in response to our
proposed six-month time frame for CMRS providers in the Location-Based
Routing NPRM, some industry commenters contend that six months is not
uniformly feasible, and propose time frames longer than six months or
flexible time frames.\83\ Would the same concerns apply to wireline and
interconnected VoIP providers? Is a longer time frame, e.g., 18-24
months, needed to provide sufficient time for most wireline and
interconnected VoIP providers to deliver traffic via IP to most NG911
networks? Should we adopt a tolling mechanism for wireline and
interconnected VoIP providers similar to that proposed by T-Mobile in
response to the Location-Based Routing NPRM? \84\ We also seek comment
on the proposed twelve-month time frame for delivery of IP-based
services for internet-based TRS providers. We propose a longer
timeframe for internet-based TRS consistent with previous Commission
action regarding these services.\85\ Because of operational differences
between internet-based TRS and other providers, we believe that an
additional six months is an appropriate amount of time for internet-
based TRS providers to make necessary network changes once other
providers have come into compliance with the proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ NASNA Reply at 3 (rec. Feb. 3, 2022) (NASNA Reply); see
also Comtech Comments at 5; Texas 9-1-1 Entities Comments at 9
(supporting a six-month time period for compliance with a valid
request).
\83\ Verizon Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 6 (rec. Feb 16,
2023) (Verizon LBR NPRM Comments) (stating that six months for CMRS
providers may be feasible in some circumstances, ``but only if the
PSAP has fully implemented i3 in its network through a NG911
provider that has deployed its service in coordination with
Verizon''); AT&T Services Inc. (AT&T) Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64,
at 7 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) (AT&T LBR NPRM Comments) (proposing 18-24
months for CMRS providers to deliver IP-based traffic to NG911
networks); see also The Industry Council for Emergency Response
Technologies (iCERT) Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 4 (rec. Feb.
14, 2023) (iCERT LBR NPRM Comments) (noting that the adequacy of six
months for CMRS providers is dependent on how NG911 capability is
determined and the process used by the Commission for facilitating
PSAP requests); Intrado Life & Safety, Inc. (Intrado) Comments, PS
Docket No. 18-64, at 6 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) (Intrado LBR NPRM
Comments) (recommending further discussion on PSAP readiness and
flexible implementation time frames).
\84\ T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) Comments, PS Docket No. 18-
64, at 13 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023) (T-Mobile LBR NPRM Comments)
(``Tolling mechanisms will be critical to allow carriers and PSAPs
to collaboratively guarantee PSAP readiness, and timeframes must
acknowledge the varying burdens on PSAPs and their vendors at each
step of readiness.'').
\85\ See Kari's Law/RAY BAUM'S Act Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 6688,
para. 210.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under our proposal, wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers would be able to enter into agreements with local
and state entities to establish an alternate time frame (other than six
months for wireline and interconnected VoIP providers or other than
twelve months for internet-based TRS providers) for delivery of IP-
based traffic. NASNA recommends that ``as with E911 Phase I and II and
text-to-911, mutually agreed upon extensions can be granted by the 911
authority to the OSPs when warranted by circumstances.'' Would this
approach be sufficient to address circumstances where more time is
needed? Should we similarly enable local and state entities to enter
into agreements with wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers to establish an alternate time frame for delivering
911 calls to the point(s) in the IP-based network designated by the 911
authority? We seek comment on the length of time required by wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to complete IP
connectivity onboarding and testing with 911 authorities that have
requested IP-based service.
NG911 Readiness Registry. To facilitate notification, we seek
comment on whether the Commission should require or make available a
registry or database that would allow state and
[[Page 43527]]
local 911 authorities to notify wireline, interconnected VoIP, or
internet-based TRS providers of readiness to receive calls in IP-based
format, including associated location information. In the Location-
Based Routing NPRM, we proposed making available a registry or database
for CMRS providers and covered text providers. If this proposal were
adopted, we believe that establishing a common registry to notify all
providers (wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS)
would be beneficial to public safety entities and providers alike. It
would provide state and local 911 authorities with one notification
platform rather than requiring 911 authorities to use multiple to
determine which providers would receive notice via multiple registries.
We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on the
granularity of such a registry, including whether to organize it by
PSAP, state, ESInet, or other level of specificity. Should it be
combined with our existing Master PSAP Registry and Text-to-911
Registry? If so, what features would be required in such a combined
registry?
We note that in the Location-Based Routing NPRM proceeding,
commenters expressed differing views on whether a PSAP registry would
be useful for triggering delivery of IP-based service.\86\ We believe
that the need for providers to communicate with state and local 911
authorities does not necessarily obviate the need for a registry.
Nevertheless, we seek comment on whether a registry might hamper NG911
transition efforts. Are there any ways in which a registry might
prevent providers and state and local 911 authorities from coordinating
requests for IP-delivery service?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ For example, ATIS argues that the we should not employ a
registry approach, as state and local governments need to engage
directly with wireless providers to become technically ready and
capable to receive IP format calls in the first instance. ATIS LBR
NPRM Comments at 5. Verizon asserts that for wireless providers and
PSAPs, the delivery of 911 calls in IP format will be less like the
implementation of text-to-911 and ``more analogous to--and in most
respects more complex than--the early years of wireless E911
implementation.'' Verizon LBR NPRM Comments at 7-8. Accordingly,
Verizon states, the registry mechanism is ``inappropriate'' in this
context and will create confusion among PSAPs. Id. at 7. On the
other hand, NENA proposes establishment of an ``authoritative
database'' where a jurisdiction could certify that it is ready to
receive IP calls and provide ESInet boundary information. NENA LBR
NPRM Comments at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriate Requesting Entities. Under our proposed rule, the local
or state entity with authority and responsibility to designate the
point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered would be the
appropriate authority to request IP-based service from wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. However,
statewide, regional, or county governmental entities transitioning to
NG911 may deploy shared resources such as a common ESInet or other
network elements, which may provide services for multiple PSAPs or
public safety entities. There are also still many PSAPs serving a
single jurisdiction managed by a city, county, or police or fire
department. We seek comment on the appropriate requesting entity or
entities we should include in our rule given the varied governance of
NG911 deployments. Should the proposed rule include PSAPs, appropriate
local emergency authorities, state or local 911 authorities, and/or
other specified authorities as entities that may initiate a valid
request for IP-based service?
4. Definitions
Next Generation 911 (NG911). We seek comment on defining the term
``Next Generation 911.'' There are multiple definitions of ``NG911'' in
both pending federal legislation and federal law. Most recently, the
Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act of 2023 (H.R. 3565) introduced in
May 2023 includes a definition of ``Next Generation 9-1-1'':
[A]n internet Protocol-based system that--(A) ensures
interoperability; (B) is secure; (C) employs commonly accepted
standards; (D) enables emergency communications centers to receive,
process, and analyze all types of 9-1-1 requests for emergency
assistance; (E) acquires and integrates additional information
useful to handling 9-1-1 requests for emergency assistance; and (F)
supports sharing information related to 9-1-1 requests for emergency
assistance among emergency communications centers and emergency
response providers.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Spectrum Auction Reauthorization Act of 2023, H.R. 3565,
118th Cong. Sec. 159 (2023); Press Release, U.S. House of
Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee, Chair Rodgers
Announces Full Committee Markup of 19 Bills (May 22, 2023), https://energycommerce.house.gov/posts/chair-rodgers-announces-full-committee-markup-of-19-bills (linking to text of H.R. 3565).
In the Next Generation 9-1-1 Advancement Act of 2012, Congress
enacted a definition of ``Next Generation 9-1-1 services'' for purposes
of administration of federal 911 implementation grants.\88\ We note
that in response to the Location-Based Routing NPRM, commenters
discussed whether the Commission should adopt a definition of NG911.
For example, APCO urges the Commission to adopt the definition of NG911
``as defined by the public safety community with support from a variety
of stakeholders'' that appeared in legislation passed by the House of
Representatives in 2022 but was not enacted into law.\89\ However, NENA
urges the Commission to ``be cautious in adopting formal definitions
[of terms such as NG911] . . . without full industry-wide support and
without considering all potential consequences of such definitions.''
\90\ NENA also asks the Commission to consider using the term ``i3
compatible'' or some other mutually-agreed upon terminology rather than
``IP-enabled'' to describe standards-based NG911. We seek comment on
whether we should adopt one of these definitions or incorporate
elements of these or other definitions of NG911 into our rules. Is a
definition of NG911 necessary for compliance with the Commission's
proposed NG911 rules? If so, we seek input on crafting a definition
that would be technologically neutral. We note that recent legislative
definitions include qualitative descriptors of NG911 systems, such as
security, interoperability, and use of commonly accepted standards, as
well as specific technical capabilities. Should we include any or all
of these elements in a definition of NG911 adopted by the Commission?
Do the definitions discussed above encompass current NG911 networks and
technologies, as
[[Page 43528]]
well as possible future NG911 technologies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ The statute provides that ``Next Generation 9-1-1
services'' means ``an IP-based system comprised of hardware,
software, data, and operational policies and procedures that--(A)
provides standardized interfaces from emergency call and message
services to support emergency communications; (B) processes all
types of emergency calls, including voice, data, and multimedia
information; (C) acquires and integrates additional emergency call
data useful to call routing and handling; (D) delivers the emergency
calls, messages, and data to the appropriate public safety answering
point and other appropriate emergency entities; (E) supports data or
video communications needs for coordinated incident response and
management; and (F) provides broadband service to public safety
answering points or other first responder entities.'' 47 U.S.C.
942(e)(5).
\89\ APCO Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 5 (rec. Feb. 16,
2023). APCO urges the Commission to define NG911 as ``an IP-based
system that: (A) ensures interoperability; (B) is secure; (C)
employs commonly accepted standards; (D) enables emergency
communications centers to receive, process, and analyze all types of
9-1-1 requests for emergency assistance; (E) acquires and integrates
additional information useful to handling 9-1-1 requests for
emergency assistance; and (F) supports sharing information related
to 9-1-1 requests for emergency assistance among emergency
communications centers and emergency response providers.'' Id.
(citing Spectrum Innovation Act of 2022, H.R. 7624, 117th Cong.
Sec. 301 (2022)). The language proposed by APCO is identical to
that included in the Next Generation 9-1-1 Act of 2023.
\90\ NENA Reply at 7-8, PS Docket No. 18-64 (rec. Mar. 20, 2023)
(NENA LBR NPRM Reply) (noting that such definitions may have
``substantial impacts'' on state statutes, federal and state
regulatory bodies, future grant programs, and future case law).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet). We propose
to adopt a definition of ``Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network
(ESInet)'' that defines the term in reference to the protocol used on
the network, the entities that manage the network, and the use of the
network for purposes of emergency services communications. We therefore
propose to define ``Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network
(ESInet)'' as ``[a]n Internet Protocol (IP)-based network used for
emergency services communications, including Next Generation 911.'' We
seek comment on this proposed definition.
911 Authority. We propose to adopt a definition of ``911
Authority'' that would define the term for purposes of our rules
relating to the NG911 transition. We propose to define ``911
Authority'' as ``[t]he state, territorial, regional, Tribal, or local
agency or entity with the authority and responsibility under applicable
law to designate the point(s) to receive emergency calls.'' Does this
definition encompass the diverse set of authorities in the United
States that have the authority and responsibility to designate the
point(s) to receive emergency calls? We seek comment on this proposed
definition.
In addition to the proposed definitions of ``Next Generation 911
(NG911),'' ``Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet),''
and ``911 Authority,'' are there any other terms that we should define
for purposes of the cost allocation and IP-delivery rules that we
propose for wireline, CMRS, and interconnected VoIP providers? For
example, should we include definitions of potential entry points for
call delivery in an NG911 environment, such as Legacy Network Gateway
or IP Point of Interconnection?
5. Applicability of Interconnection Statutes to 911
Although the NASNA Petition did not explicitly raise this issue,
the record indicates that disagreement over the applicability of
interconnection requirements to 911 has contributed to disputes
regarding NG911 deployments in several states. Some rural LECs argue
that the interconnection provisions in sections 251 and 252 of the Act
require 911 authorities and their contracted NG911 service providers to
provide points of interconnection for receipt of 911 traffic within LEC
local service areas. Some of these commenters also argue that requiring
carriers to build out to distant points for purposes of 911
interconnection could impose high costs on small rural customer bases
that this would undermine the universal service mandates of section 254
of the Act. NTCA also argues that requiring carriers to interconnect
outside of their networks would be contrary to the Commission's
historical approach to interconnection under the Act, under which rural
telephone companies are not required to agree to interconnect outside
of their network unless a state commission determines that doing so
meets requirements in section 251(f)(1)(A) of the Act. Conversely, some
public safety entities argue that sections 251 and 252 in fact require
LECs to connect to a 911 authority's ESInet.
We propose to clarify that the interconnection requirements of
sections 251 and 252 do not require 911 authorities or their contracted
NG911 service providers to provide points of interconnection for 911
traffic within existing LEC service areas. Sections 251 and 252 were
intended to impose interconnection and negotiation duties on commercial
telecommunications carriers (including both incumbent and competitive
LECs) to promote a competitive telecommunications marketplace.\91\
State and local 911 authorities are not commercial ``telecommunications
carriers'' to which the interconnection requirements of sections 251
and 252 would apply, because they do not offer telecommunications for a
fee directly to the public.\92\ In the context of wireless cost
allocation for E911 service, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit stated that PSAPs are not ``private businesses . .
. providing for-profit services to the public . . . PSAPs are
governmental entities playing a critical role in the provision of
public safety services.'' \93\ Similarly, we propose to clarify that
section 251(f)(1)(A) of the Act, which provides that a rural ILEC is
not required to interconnect under section 251(c) until certain
conditions are met, does not apply because 911 authorities are not
telecommunications carriers requesting interconnection. We seek comment
on this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ The Telecommunications Act of 1996 was intended to
``promote competition and reduce regulation in order to secure lower
prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications
consumers and encourage the rapid deployment of new
telecommunications technologies.'' Telecommunications Act of 1996,
Public Law 104-104, Preamble, 110 Stat 56, 56 (1996 Act). The Senate
conference report on the 1996 Act stated that Section 251(a)
``imposes a duty on local exchange carriers possessing market power
in the provision of telephone exchange service or exchange access
service in a particular local area to negotiate in good faith and to
provide interconnection with other telecommunications carriers that
have requested interconnection for the purpose of providing
telephone exchange service or exchange access service.'' S. Rep. No.
104-230, at 117 (1996) (Conf. Rep.) (1996 Act Conf. Rep.). The same
report indicates that Section 252 imposes ``separate subsidiary and
other safeguards on certain activities of the [Bell Operating
Companies].'' 1996 Act Conf. Rep. at 150.
\92\ A ``telecommunications carrier'' is a provider of a
``telecommunications service,'' which is ``the offering of
telecommunications for a fee directly to the public, or to such
classes of users as to be effectively available directly to the
public, regardless of the facilities used.'' 47 U.S.C. 153(51),
(53).
\93\ U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 78, 84 (D.C. Cir.
2001). The court held, in part, that the Commission's action to
remove a rule that conditioned wireless carriers' obligation to
deliver E911 services on guaranteed state or local government
funding did not violate the cost causation principle, assuming that
this principle applies outside of rate regulation. (Under the cost
causation principle, when the Commission sets rates, it must
specifically justify any rate differential that does not reflect
cost.) In addition, the court held that governmental entities
responsible for coordinating emergency response were not cost-
causers within this principle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring and Compliance
We seek comment on whether the Commission should implement any new
data collections to assist in monitoring compliance with our proposed
rules for NG911. If reporting would be helpful, what specific
information should providers include and how frequently should we
require them to report? For example, should the Commission require
originating service providers to submit implementation plans for
delivering 911 voice traffic in IP format, including converting TDM to
IP, and periodic progress reports for implementing such plans? We also
seek comment on measures the Commission could take to limit the burden
of reporting on the provision of IP-based service. To what extent could
the Commission limit the burden of any reporting requirements by
providing increased flexibility for providers or businesses identified
as small by the Small Business Administration? \94\ As an alternative
to reporting, should the Commission require wireline, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to certify that they are in
compliance with requirements for delivery of calls in IP format? Should
the proposed rules include requirements for disclosures to PSAPs or
other state or local 911 authorities in connection with the proposed
NG911 rules?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ For example, the Commission's requirements for live call
data reporting provide a reduced reporting schedule for non-
nationwide CMRS providers. 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(ii)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public safety entities and members of the public seeking to report
non-compliance with the proposed rules would be able to file complaints
via the
[[Page 43529]]
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's Public Safety Support
Center or through the Commission's Consumer Complaint Center.\95\ We
tentatively conclude that these existing mechanisms should be
sufficient for addressing potential violations of the NG911 rules. We
seek comment on this tentative conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\ The Public Safety Support Center is a web-based portal that
enables PSAPs and other public safety entities to request support or
information from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau and
to notify it of problems or issues impacting the provision of
emergency services. Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
Announces Opening of Public Safety Support Center, public notice, 30
FCC Rcd 10639 (PSHSB 2015); FCC, Public Safety Support Center,
https://www.fcc.gov/general/public-safety-support-center (last
visited May 16, 2023). The Consumer Complaint Center handles
consumer inquiries and complaints, including consumer complaints
about access to 911 emergency services. See FCC, Consumer Complaint
Center, https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us (last visited
May 16, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Proposals
Several commenters responding to the NASNA Petition urge us to
expand the scope of the rulemaking beyond the specific issues raised in
the petition. For example, BRETSA urges us to address how NG911 can
assist non-English speakers and the deaf and hard of hearing, standards
and cost allocation for transferring 911 calls between PSAPs in
different states, and the delivery of text-to-911. NTCA and Nebraska
RLECs advocate looking more broadly at IP interconnection and the
proper allocation of transport costs. The Alarm Industry Communications
Committee urges the Commission to restrict the use of ``device-
initiated emergency service calls to protect the integrity of the NG911
network.'' We decline to address these additional issues in this NPRM.
Legal Authority
The Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act) established
the FCC, in part, ``for the purpose of promoting safety of life and
property through the use of wire and radio communication.'' Beyond that
general mandate, Congress has repeatedly and specifically endorsed a
role for the Commission in the nationwide implementation of advanced
911 capabilities. Section 251(e)(3) of the Act, which directs the FCC
to ``designate 911 as the universal emergency telephone number,'' and
other federal 911-related statutes demonstrate that the Commission's
general jurisdictional grant includes the responsibility to set up and
maintain a comprehensive and effective 911 system, encompassing a
variety of communication services in addition to wireless and IP-
enabled voice services.\96\ The NET 911 Act indicated the congressional
goal to ``promote and enhance public safety by facilitating the rapid
deployment of IP-enabled 911 and E-911 services, encourage the Nation's
transition to a national IP-enabled emergency network, and improve the
911 and E-911 access to those with disabilities.'' The Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA)
advanced the Commission's implementation of technologies such as text-
to-911 by granting authority to promulgate ``regulations, technical
standards, protocols, and procedures . . . 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.'' RAY BAUM'S Act
directed the Commission to consider adopting rules to ensure that
dispatchable location is conveyed with 911 calls ``regardless of the
technological platform used'' and defined the term ``9-1-1 call'' to
include a voice call ``or a message that is sent by other means of
communication.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ 911 Fee Diversion; New and Emerging Technologies 911
Improvement Act of 2008, PS Docket Nos. 20-291, 09-14, Report and
Order, 36 FCC Rcd 10804, 10811-12, para. 16 (2021) (911 Fee
Diversion R&O) (noting that, taken together, federal 911-related
statutes and Communications Act provisions ``establish an
overarching federal interest in ensuring the effectiveness of the
911 system'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Together, these statutes indicate that Congress has given the
Commission broad authority to ensure that the 911 system, including
911, E911, and NG911 calls and texts from all providers, is available
and functions effectively. The Commission has previously concluded that
``[i]n light of these express statutory responsibilities, regulation of
additional capabilities related to reliable 911 service, both today and
in an NG911 environment, would be well within Commission's . . .
statutory authority.'' \97\ The Commission also has stated that ``[t]he
Commission already has sufficient authority to regulate the 911 and
NG911 activity of, inter alia, wireline and wireless carriers,
interconnected VoIP providers, and other IP-based service providers,''
and also that its jurisdiction to regulate 911 extends to the
regulation of NG911 across different technologies.\98\ We seek comment
on this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\97\ Reliability and Continuity of Communications Networks,
Including Broadband Technologies, PS Docket Nos. 13-75, 11-60,
Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 17476, 17529-30, para. 150 (2013).
\98\ 2013 NG911 Framework Report, Section 4.1.2.2 at 28 (noting
that the Commission ``already has sufficient authority to regulate
the 911 and NG911 activity of, inter alia, wireline and wireless
carriers, interconnected VoIP providers, and other IP-based service
providers''); 911 Governance and Accountability, Improving 911
Reliability, PS Docket Nos. 14-193, 13-75, Policy Statement and
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 29 FCC Rcd 14208, 14209-10, 14223,
paras. 3, 34 (2014) (NG911 Policy Statement) (stating that while the
Commission had ``previously undertaken to monitor the transition to
Next Generation 911 (NG911) technologies to determine whether our
rules should be revised or expanded to cover new best practices or
additional entities, recent events have demonstrated that the pace
of change already requires prompt action to review these
vulnerabilities'' (footnotes omitted) and that ``the Commission has
the public safety imperative to oversee each of the increasingly
complex component pieces of the nation's 911 infrastructure'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenters responding to the public notice support the view that
the Commission has authority over NG911 as an extension of its
jurisdiction over 911 generally. No commenter argues that the
Commission does not have authority to regulate NG911 as a general
matter. We agree with commenters who indicate that power to regulate
911 is shared between the Commission and the states, and our proposals
in the NPRM are premised on that assumption. These proposals are not
intended to alter state jurisdiction over 911 or to limit state and
local authorities' ability to take action in their jurisdictions to
advance NG911. The nationwide framework we propose expressly empowers
state and local authorities and affords them flexibility to make
decisions regarding the configuration, timing, and cost responsibility
for NG911 implementation in their jurisdictions. Consistent with past
practice, we intend to carry out our proposals in partnership with
state and local authorities and in light of their unique interest in
the delivery of 911 service to their communities. We seek comment on
additional considerations for striking the most effective balance
between state and federal authority to implement the transition to
NG911.
Promoting Digital Equity and Inclusion
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital
equity for all,\99\ including people of color, persons with
disabilities, persons who live in rural or Tribal areas, and others who
are or have been historically underserved, marginalized, or adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality, invites comment on any
[[Page 43530]]
equity-related considerations \100\ and benefits, if any, that may be
associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein.
Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or
inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\99\ Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended
provides that the FCC ``regulat[es] interstate and foreign commerce
in communication by wire and radio so as to make [such service]
available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United
States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, or sex.'' 47 U.S.C. 151.
\100\ The term ``equity'' is used here consistent with Executive
Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and
impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who
belong to underserved communities that have been denied such
treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American
persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of
color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual,
transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities;
persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely
affected by persistent poverty or inequality. See Exec. Order No.
13985, 86 FR 7009, Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government
(Jan. 20, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Benefits and Costs
Summary of Benefits of Proposed Actions. As discussed above, the
actions we propose in the NPRM have several potential benefits. First,
removing an impediment to the transition to NG911 will speed up the
arrival of NG911's public safety benefits to those who have yet to
receive them. Second, allowing 911 authorities to retire aging legacy
911 systems will save 911 authority funds. Third, retiring legacy 911
systems will improve public safety by moving 911 calls to the more
reliable NG911 system. Fourth, the proposed actions will reduce the
need for negotiations between providers and 911 authorities, resulting
in savings to both parties. We seek detailed comment on the scope and
size of all of these benefits, as well as any additional benefits that
our proposed actions may convey.
Speeding up the NG911 Transition. The proposed action will
facilitate the rapid and effective transition to NG911 by requiring
delivery of 911 calls from wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers in IP-based format and establishing a point for the
delivery of NG911 traffic. We seek comment on whether and how our
proposed rules would benefit state and local 911 authorities by
reducing NG911 transition costs and improve public safety by increasing
the availability of NG911 services. While difficult to quantify
numerically, the benefits of NG911 to the public appear to be extensive
and to affect multiple aspects of 911 systems and response. Commenters
note that these benefits include real-time call routing flexibility,
faster call delivery, additional data for improved situational
awareness, improved service reliability, improved call transfer
capabilities, and better service to disabled and non-English speaking
communities.\101\ Including internet-based TRS providers in this
transition will also benefit individuals with hearing and speech
disabilities who rely on TRS. We seek comment on the magnitude of these
and other benefits that would accrue as a result of our proposed
actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\101\ Comtech Reply at 4 (indicating that benefits of NG911
systems include ``real-time call routing flexibility, faster call
delivery, additional data for improved situational awareness,
capabilities such as integrated text messages (and other multi-media
messages soon), and significantly improved service reliability'');
BRETSA Reply at 4-7 (detailing benefits including ``[c]onferencing
in telephone or video relay and language interpretation services
during 9-1-1 call setup,'' ``interstate 9-1-1 call transfer and CAD
incident data transfer,'' ``geospatial routing,'' and ``transfer of
CAD data with call transfer''); NTCA Comments at 2 (indicating that
NG911 will provide increased situational awareness to first
responders, which will benefit rural consumers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saving 911 Authority Funds. The proposed action will end the need
to maintain legacy 911 systems by requiring wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to connect to the
point(s) designated by the 911 authority, requiring those providers to
cover the costs of transmitting 911 calls to those points and requiring
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to
deliver 911 traffic in IP-based format. Although ESInets are available
in a large majority of jurisdictions, some providers resist connecting
to them at the requested delivery points or transitioning from
providing 911 calls in legacy format to providing 911 calls in IP-based
format compatible with NG911. Our proposed action will allow 911
authorities to discontinue support of legacy networks--including the
maintenance of legacy network gateways and selective routers. Legacy
911 systems include Centralized Automated Message Accounting (CAMA)
trunks, legacy selective routers, and Automatic Location Information
(ALI) databases. We seek comment and specific information on the costs
to 911 authorities to maintain legacy 911 networks while also operating
an NG911 network. In addition, the requirement for wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver IP-
based 911 traffic would eliminate costs for 911 authorities to maintain
transitional gateways to process and convert legacy calls. For states
that deliver calls to PSAPs in IP-based format, our proposal would
require any calls arriving in legacy TDM format to be converted into an
IP-based protocol, such as SIP.\102\ Several states report maintaining
several legacy network gateways to convert legacy-format 911 calls at
the ratio of two legacy network gateways per LATA.\103\ This introduces
an extra step that is inconsistent with the end-state NG911 system
described in NENA's i3 standard. Under the proposed rules, states would
no longer need to maintain these gateways once all providers begin
delivering IP-based traffic to the ESInet. We seek comment on these and
other 911 authority costs that would be avoided if we adopt our
proposed rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Colorado Public Utilities Comm. Comments at 3 (discussing
that because Colorado's ESInet must convert calls from TDM to SIP
format, ``the state's ESInet is that much further from representing
a true NG911 system as described in the NENA i3 standard.'').
\103\ Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply at 4 (stating that
transitioning to NG911 ``may involve removing the single point of
failure for a legacy selective router by the having legacy OSPs
connect to two Legacy Network Gateways (`LNGs') within the LATA.'');
Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments at 1 (indicating that the
state offers ``two diverse TDM [points of interconnection] within
each of Minnesota's five LATA boundaries.''); Pennsylvania Emergency
Mgmt. Agency Comments at 3 (detailing the state's NG911 efforts,
which ``includes establishing two time-division multiplexing OSP
points of interconnection (POI) in each local access and transport
area, as well as two SIP POIs for the state, to ingress calls into
the NG911 system.''); Comtech Comments at 7 (stating that South
Carolina's network design includes two points of interconnection per
LATA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improving Reliability. The proposed actions will move 911 calls off
of the aging legacy 911 system that commenters indicate is increasingly
unreliable,\104\ thus improving public safety. This will also
accelerate consumer access to NG911 services.\105\ NASNA argues that
legacy 911 call routing and legacy network infrastructure is ``beyond
end-of-life and has an increasing failure rate.'' For instance, in
California, the 911 authority has been tracking the reliability and
availability of the legacy 911 system for over 10 years and has seen an
increase in outage minutes for the legacy 911 system. In 2017 the
average number of minutes of outage was 17,000 minutes per month, but
in 2022 the average increased to over 59,000 outage minutes per month.
Moving from legacy systems to IP-based systems will reduce system
outages and strengthen our 911 networks to improve public safety. We
seek comment on the likely magnitude
[[Page 43531]]
of the public safety benefits resulting from improved reliability and
resiliency of the networks transitioning from legacy systems to NG911
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\104\ Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety Comments at 1 (stating
that ``the LSRs [legacy selective routers] are end-of-service, end-
of-life and starting to fail''); Texas 9-1-1 Entities Reply at 4;
NASNA Comments, PS Docket No. 18-64, at 7 (rec. Feb. 16, 2023)
(NASNA LBR NPRM Comments).
\105\ Comtech Reply at 5 (``[D]elays due to unnecessary disputes
with ILEC/RLEC OSPs and Legacy 911 Providers . . . inhibit
consumers' access to NG911 services.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing the Need for Negotiations. Requirements for wireline,
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver
911 traffic to points designated by a 911 authority would minimize
uncertainty, delays, and costs for 911 authorities to repeatedly
negotiate for call delivery and cost responsibility with wireline,
CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. State and
local 911 authorities and their contracted 911 service providers
currently must work with each provider in their locality to negotiate
costs and delivery to new designated delivery points.\106\ Public
safety entities report that there is ambiguity about providers'
obligations to deliver 911 traffic to new NG911 networks and that this
can lengthen negotiation time.\107\ The proposed rules and database
would permit states to notify wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and
internet-based TRS providers via a centralized database of readiness to
accept IP-based 911 traffic, eliminating the need for individualized
and extensive negotiations with providers. This would eliminate
transactional costs for both 911 authorities and wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers and minimize the
uncertainty and attendant delays currently associated with allocating
costs for connecting to NG911 networks. We seek comment on the length
of time that 911 authorities currently spend to negotiate connections,
as well as the costs associated with doing so. Reducing the need to
negotiate may also accelerate the NG911 transition. Comtech states that
delays resulting from disputes between 911 authorities and providers
inhibit consumers' access to NG911 services. We seek comment on these
and other benefits that would result from the proposed actions in this
proceeding, and to the extent possible, the estimated monetary or other
value of such benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ The Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency, for example,
notes that it must work with each incumbent LEC operating in the
state of Pennsylvania to determine costs and delivery to the NG911
system. Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4. Comtech
similarly notes that it must repeatedly negotiate ``the same points
of contention with Legacy 911 Providers and OSPs for each and every
NG911 deployment location.'' Comtech Comments at 2. Iowa notes that
it would have to work with 150 carriers, with 150 different cost
methods to transition to direct SIP. Iowa Dept. of Homeland Security
and Emergency Mgmt. Comments at 2.
\107\ For example, the Pennsylvania Emergency Mgmt. Agency
states that it is ``currently experiencing difficulties in this
process that may impact Pennsylvania's transition to NG911 service
and extend the period of time 911 authorities are paying for both
legacy and NG911 services at the same time. Pennsylvania Emergency
Mgmt. Agency Comments at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feasibility and Costs of Implementation. To determine whether the
proposed requirements are reasonable, we must determine whether they
are technically feasible and do not impose costs that exceed their
benefits. Because commenters note issues only with specific providers,
we assume that some wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers have connected to states' NG911 networks. We also
assume that some wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS
providers have connected via IP to state's NG911 networks. We therefore
tentatively conclude that the actions we propose are technically
feasible and seek comment on this conclusion. The record does not
currently contain detailed information on costs required for wireline,
CMRS, and interconnected VoIP providers to connect to NG911 networks
six months from the effective date of the IP service delivery
requirement, or six months after a valid request for IP-based service
by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later. The record also
does not contain detailed information on costs required for wireline
and interconnected VoIP providers to provide IP-based service six
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement,
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or
local 911 authority, whichever is later. In addition, the record does
not contain detailed information on the costs required for internet-
based TRS providers to connect to NG911 networks or provide IP-based
service twelve months from the effective date of the IP service
delivery requirement, or twelve months after a valid request for IP-
based service by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later.
Accordingly, we seek comment on the level and types of costs that would
be imposed by the implementation of our proposed rules, including costs
for hardware, software, services, or transport, or other costs to
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers
or for state and local 911 authorities. We seek comment on the amount
of those costs and ask commenters to provide sufficiently detailed
information to allow accurate cost calculations.
Cost Estimates. Although the proposed rulemaking may incur
additional costs to wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers through (1) the requirement for wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver 911
calls in IP-based format to 911 facilities and (2) the requirement for
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers
to deliver 911 traffic to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority,
we believe these costs are relatively small. Our initial estimate of
the upper bound of these costs is approximately $103,000 in one-time
costs and $11.6 million in recurring annual costs. We outline those
costs below and seek comment on our cost estimates.
The cost of moving the point for delivery of 911 traffic for
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers
to a point designated by the 911 authority, such as an ESInet, occurs
only once. The cost of changing connecting points should be
insignificant for transporters. To estimate the maximum of this one-
time cost, we assume that all of the 2,327 wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers' 911 calls must
be reconfigured to connect to ESInets.\108\ This is an overestimate
because some providers already are connected to ESInets. We assume that
each provider needs at most one hour of work by a technician to change
connection points.\109\ We use $30 per hour as the wage for workers who
move the connection points.\110\ Marking up this wage by 45% to account
for benefits, we arrive at a total of $44 per hour.\111\ We therefore
estimate that the
[[Page 43532]]
upper bound of one-time costs is $103,000.\112\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\108\ See FCC, Office of Economics and Analytics, Industry
Analysis Division, Voice Telephone Services: Status as of June 30,
2021 at 10, Table 2 (August 2022), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-385814A1.pdf%20 (OEA Voice Telephone Service Status)
(finding that as of June 2021, there were 2,256 wireline end-user
switched access lines and interconnected VoIP subscriptions
providers and 61 mobile telephony providers). There are 10 certified
internet-based TRS providers. FCC, Internet-Based TRS Providers,
https://www.fcc.gov/general/internet-based-trs-providers (last
visited May 16, 2023).
\109\ Based on the FCC internal engineering staff's estimate,
changing an IP-based demarcation point requires system
reconfiguration that will take no more than 30 minutes to complete.
We double the amount of time to allow for variation in the time it
may require across service providers.
\110\ We use the Bureau of Labor Statistics average wage for
telecommunications equipment installers and repairers, except line
installers for the telecommunications industry, which they estimate
at $30.37, which we round to $30 to avoid false precision. See
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics,
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes492022.htm (last visited May 16,
2023).
\111\ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as of
September, 2022, civilian wages and salaries averaged $28.88/hour
and benefits averaged $12.98/hour. Total compensation therefore
averaged $28.88 + $12.98 = $41.86. See Press Release, Bureaus of
Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--
September 2022 (Dec. 15, 2022), https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf. Total compensation therefore averaged $28.88 + $12.98
= $41.86. Id. Using these figures, benefits constitute a markup of
$12.98/$28.88 = 45%. We therefore markup wages by 45% to account for
benefits. $30 x 1.45 = $43.50, which we round to $44.
\112\ One hour per provider x $44/hour x 2,327 providers =
$102,388, which we round to $103,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ongoing costs will be incurred by the small percentage of providers
that do not yet have IP switching facilities for voice traffic.\113\
According to NTCA, 91.5% of respondents to the NTCA Broadband/internet
Availability Survey Report, which we assume are rural wireline
providers, indicate that they already have IP switching facilities for
voice traffic in their networks, and therefore 8.5% do not. As a
result, the cost of converting 911 calls from TDM format to IP format
would only be imposed on 8.5% of rural wireline providers. We assume
the percentage of non-rural telecommunications wireline providers
without IP-switching capability to be similar or smaller. Among the 947
local exchange telephone service providers,\114\ we therefore estimate
that at most 81 providers (8.5% of 947) may need to hire a third-party
to transport their TDM calls in IP format to the ESInets.\115\ The cost
of adding these 81 providers to existing available transport services
would not be particularly burdensome. To estimate the cost of
additional transport service, we make several assumptions. First, we
assume that the 81 providers are evenly spread across 56 U.S. states,
commonwealths, and territories.\116\ This would yield an additional
1.45 providers (81/56) per state. That is, we assume it would require
adding 1.45 providers and 28,281 calls per year into existing transport
services available in each state or territory.\117\ Hiring an
additional full-time telecommunications technician in one transport
service provider per state should be more than sufficient to handle the
increase in calls.\118\ The annual wage, including benefits of a
telecommunication technician would be $44 per hour, as above,
multiplied by 2080 hours, for a total of $91,520 for each state. Given
an estimated average of 55.53% gross margin for the communications
service industry,\119\ the annual cost to providers would be $205,802
for each state.\120\ Multiplying the annual cost per state by 56 states
and territories, we estimate a total annual recurring cost of
$11,524,912, which we round to $11.6 million per year. We note that
small providers could trim costs by leveraging transport procurement
through small provider consortia or entering into interconnectivity
agreements with larger providers. We also note that these annual costs
will fall over time due to ongoing modernization of legacy 911 systems.
We seek comment on all these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\113\ Since VoIP and internet-based TRS providers are already
transmitting calls via IP, we assume that they incur no additional
cost to comply with the requirement of transmitting 911 calls in IP
format.
\114\ See OEA Voice Telephone Service Status, at 10, Table 2 (as
of June 2021, there were 947 providers providing local exchange
telephone service (Switched Access Lines)).
\115\ We multiply 947 providers by 8.5% (the percent of
providers that may not have IP switching facilities) to arrive at 81
providers that may need to hire a third-party to transport their 911
calls [947 x 8.5% = 80.495, rounded up to 81].
\116\ This includes 50 states, Washington DC, American Samoa,
Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin
Islands.
\117\ Per the Fourteenth Annual 911 Fee Report, forty-seven
states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and the U.S. Virgin Islands reported a cumulative total of
220,107,525 voice calls of all types during the 2021 annual period.
Fourteenth Annual Fee Report at 12, para. 14. According to NENA,
more than 80% of 911 calls in the U.S. each year are from wireless
devices. Therefore 20% of 220,107,525 calls, or 44,034,105 calls are
generated via wireline or interconnected VoIP [220,107,525 x 20% =
44,034,105]. Divide 44,034,105 calls by a total of 2,256 wireline
and interconnected VoIP providers, each provider passes an average
of approximately 19,504 call per year [44,034,105/2256 = 19,503.6,
rounded up to 19,504]. Multiply 19,504 by 1.45 providers, the
transport service providers in each state or territory may see an
increase of 28,281 calls [19,504 x 1.45 = 28,280.8, rounded up to
28,281].
\118\ Assuming that, on an annual basis, a full-time, full-year
technician works 2,080 hours to handle the additional 28,281 calls,
each technician would have to support only 14 calls per hour on
average [28,281/2,080 = 13.6, rounded up to 14]. We believe that our
assumption of hiring a technician per state to handle these
additional 911 calls is an overestimate given that converting and
transporting these calls are largely automated with little need of
personnel involvement once the providers' calls are routed to the
transport service providers' site.
\119\ According to Dr. Aswath Damodarn at NYU Stern School of
Business, the gross margin for the telecommunication services sector
is 55.53%. See New York University, Margins by Sector (US), https://
pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/margin.html
(last visited May 16, 2023).
\120\ We assume that these wireline service providers need to
hire a third-party to provide this transport service, and we further
assume that these third-party transport service providers mark up
their service, so the gross profit margin is 55.53% according to the
estimated industry average. If the cost is $91,520, the after mark-
up price of transport service would be $205,802 [= $91,520/(1-
55.53%) = 205,802]. In other words, if a third-party transport
provider charges $205,802 to provide the additional services, it
retains $114,282 [= $205,802 * 55.53%] as its gross profit after
paying $91,520 in wages and benefits to the additional technician it
has to hire.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs Imposed on Rural Local Exchange Carriers. Some rural LEC
commenters oppose NASNA's proposal to define the ESInet gateway as the
demarcation point for delivery of the NG911 services, arguing that this
framework would impose substantial and unrecoverable costs on rural
service providers. For example, the South Carolina Telephone Coalition
notes that imposing additional costs for 911 transport would create an
unfair burden on rural providers and their customers. In addition, the
South Carolina Telephone Coalition notes that the costs to connect to
IP points of interconnection would involve ``hiring third-party
transport providers to deliver . . . traffic to two diverse points.''
NTCA calls these ``significant new transport costs.''
We seek comment on specifics of these anticipated costs under our
proposed rules. What are the estimated initial and ongoing costs for a
wireline provider to connect to an NG911 network via IP? For wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers that have already
transitioned to providing 911 traffic to the ESInet via IP or via
legacy network gateway, what are the costs to provide such service?
What variables impact the costs to different providers? Are costs to
connect to NG911 significantly different for different providers? If
so, how? We seek cost information associated with different use cases.
In addition, we note that many rural incumbent LECs offer broadband in
addition to telephony, and these providers likely have already
established IP peering relationships with other providers.\121\ NASNA
asserts that small providers' transition to IP ``diminishes the
argument that the distance to ESInet point of interconnection [POI] is
cost prohibitive.'' \122\ We seek comment on
[[Page 43533]]
this assertion. We tentatively conclude that the costs for rural LECs
providing broadband to transmit 911 traffic via IP to a state's NG911
point of interconnection would be small, and we seek comment on this
tentative conclusion. We also seek comment on costs for IP transport to
points of interconnection located in adjacent states.\123\ In addition,
we seek comment and specific data on wireline, interconnected VoIP, and
internet-based TRS provider costs to implement NG911 in rural areas,
including any costs that could be avoided or reduced. Further, we seek
comment on any additional costs to transition to NG911 for a rural LEC
that already provides broadband service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\ See, e.g., NTCA, Entry Into Telecommunications: Rural ILEC
Perspective at slide 4 (June 25, 2015) https://www.justice.gov/atr/entry-telecommunications-rural-ilec-perspective (92% of Independent
Rural Carriers offer internet); NTCA 2022 Broadband Survey Report at
4 (The ``vast majority'' of respondents (91.5%) to the NTCA's annual
survey ``indicate that they have IP switching facilities for voice
traffic in their networks. Just over one-half of respondents (53.4%)
still use TDM switching facilities for voice traffic within some
portion of their ILEC networks.'' The response rate to this survey
was 38.3%.); see Connect America Fund; ETC Annual Reports and
Certifications; Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local
Exchange Carriers; Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation
Regime, Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and
Order on Reconsideration, 33 FCC Rcd 11893, 11925-27, paras. 101-12
(2018) (applying the requirement to provide broadband to those
carriers that have not adopted one of the Alternative Connect
America Cost Model support programs or the Alaska Plan).
\122\ NASNA Reply at 3-4. But see NTCA Ex Parte at 4
(questioning the relationship between a provider's ability to
originate traffic in IP format or provide broadband services and the
costs for that provider to transmit 911 traffic in IP format outside
the boundaries of its network).
\123\ South Carolina Telephone Coalition Reply at 5 (indicating
that the two diverse points for Comtech's ESInet implementation in
South Carolina are in adjacent states).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impact of Proposed Approach on Universal Service. Some commenters
argue that requiring the delivery of IP 911 traffic to specific points
would place universal service in jeopardy through increased costs. With
respect to section 254 of the Act, we do not believe that our proposed
rules would cause injury to the principles of universal service, given
that states would remain free to implement cost recovery mechanisms as
they deem necessary. As NASNA points out, costs to small providers may
also be addressed by other means, including ``collaborative consortiums
of smaller providers to leverage transport procurement,
interconnectivity agreements with larger providers, and the providers'
transition to IP.'' We seek comment on the feasibility of these
measures and their capability to defray costs for small providers. In
addition, we seek comment on the impacts of our proposed rules on the
availability of universal service and universal service support under
section 254 of the Act.
Benefits Expected to Exceed Costs. The proposed actions would have
important benefits outlined above, as well as impose some costs. We
tentatively conclude that the Commission's proposals would produce
benefits far exceeding the costs imposed on wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers, and we seek
comment on this tentative conclusion.
Procedural Matters
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed
in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to
the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines in the NPRM.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In the NPRM, we propose to take steps that will advance the
nationwide transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911). Like
communications networks generally, dedicated 911 networks are evolving
from Time Division Multiplexing (TDM)-based architectures to internet
Protocol (IP)-based architectures. With the transition to NG911, 911
authorities will replace the circuit-switched architecture of legacy
911 networks with IP-based technologies and applications, which provide
new capabilities and improved interoperability and system resilience.
Most states have invested significantly in NG911, but some report that
they are experiencing delays in providers connecting to these IP-based
networks. As a result of these delays, state and local 911 authorities
incur prolonged costs because of the need to maintain both legacy and
IP networks during the transition. Managing 911 traffic on both legacy
and IP networks may also result in increased vulnerability and risk of
911 outages.
In the NPRM, we propose to expedite the NG911 transition by
adopting certain requirements that would apply to wireline, Commercial
Mobile Radio Service (CMRS), interconnected Voice over internet
Protocol (VoIP), and internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service
(TRS) providers as state and local 911 authorities transition to IP-
based networks and develop the capability to support NG911 elements and
functions.
First, we propose to require wireline, interconnected
VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to complete all translation and
routing to deliver 911 calls, including associated location
information, in the requested IP-based format to an Emergency Services
IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s) that allow emergency
calls to be answered upon request of 911 authorities who have certified
the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. Wireline and
interconnected VoIP providers would be subject to this requirement six
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement,
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or
local 911 authority, whichever is later. Internet-based TRS providers
would be subject to this requirement twelve months from the effective
date of the IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a
valid request for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority,
whichever is later. This proposal is similar to what was proposed for
CMRS and covered text providers in our recent proceeding on wireless
location-based routing.
Second, as state and local 911 authorities transition to
IP-based networks, we propose to require wireline, interconnected VoIP,
CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers to transmit all 911 calls to
destination point(s) in those networks designated by a 911 authority,
including to a public safety answering point (PSAP), designated
statewide default answering point, local emergency authority, ESInet,
or other point(s) designated to receive 911 calls that allow emergency
calls to be answered, upon request of 911 authorities who have
certified the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications.
Third, we propose that in the absence of agreements by
states or localities on alternative cost recovery mechanisms, wireline,
interconnected VoIP, CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers must cover
the costs of transmitting 911 calls to the point(s) designated by a 911
authority, including any costs associated with completing the
translation and routing necessary to deliver such calls and associated
location information to the designated destination point(s) in the
requested IP-based format. Under this proposal, states and localities
would remain free to establish alternative cost allocation arrangements
with providers. However, in the absence of such arrangements, providers
would be presumptively responsible for the costs associated with
delivering traffic to the destination point(s) identified by the
appropriate 911 authority.
Together, these proposals are intended to expedite the NG911
transition and help ensure that the nation's 911 system functions
effectively and with the most advanced capabilities available. In
addition, they respond to the petition filed in 2021 by the National
Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA) urging the Commission
to take actions to resolve uncertainty and disputes between originating
service providers (OSPs) and state 911 authorities regarding the NG911
transition. We seek to create a consistent framework for ensuring that
providers (including wireline, CMRS,
[[Page 43534]]
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers) take the
necessary steps to implement the transition to NG911 capability in
coordination with state and local 911 authorities. We also seek to
align the NG911 transition rules for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and
internet-based TRS providers with similar requirements we have proposed
for CMRS and covered text providers in the Location-Based Routing NPRM,
thereby promoting consistency across service platforms. Finally, our
demarcation point and cost allocation proposals seek to address what
NASNA described in its Petition as ``the critical component, and
biggest regulatory roadblock, to transitioning to NG911 services.''
B. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
201, 214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332; the Wireless
Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, 47
U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, 615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-First
Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law
111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines
the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms
``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently owned
and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe, at the
outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size
standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory
flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business
Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business
is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types
of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United
States, which translates to 32.5 million businesses.
Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000
or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for
small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were
approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting
revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data
for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were
90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of
this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county,
municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000
and 12,040 special purpose governments--independent school districts
with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on
the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at least
48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental
jurisdictions.''
Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a
general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small
businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent
the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the
Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in
the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.
All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)--(1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz
bands (AWS-1); 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-
2180 MHz bands (AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3); 2000-2020 MHz and
2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4)). Spectrum is made available and licensed in
these bands for the provision of various wireless communications
services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is
the closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable
to these services. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
According to Commission data as December 2021, there were
approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small
business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for
bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for
these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined
a ``small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues
for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a ``very
small business'' as an entity with average annual gross revenues for
the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these
definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small
businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS
licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small
businesses won licenses.
[[Page 43535]]
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Wired Telecommunications Carriers. The U.S. Census Bureau defines
this industry as establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that
they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired communications networks. Transmission facilities
may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.
Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications
network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services,
such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services, wired
(cable) audio and video programming distribution, and wired broadband
internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite
television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure
that they operate are included in this industry. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers
or fixed local service providers.
The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications
Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers,
the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard,
most of these providers can be considered small entities.
Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA
has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically
applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these services
include both incumbent and competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with an SBA small business size standard. Wired Telecommunications
Carriers are also referred to as wireline carriers or fixed local
service providers. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 4,590 providers
that reported they were fixed local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,146 providers have
1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business
size standard, most of these providers can be considered small
entities.
Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (LECs). Neither the Commission
nor the SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses
specifically applicable to local exchange services. Providers of these
services include several types of competitive local exchange service
providers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry
with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size
standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having
1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017
show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 3,378
providers that reported they were competitive local exchange service
providers. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 3,230
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs). Neither the
Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard
specifically for incumbent local exchange carriers. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers is the closest industry with an SBA small
business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for Wired
Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer
employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there
were 3,054 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees.
Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service
Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 1,212 providers
that reported they were incumbent local exchange service providers. Of
these providers, the Commission estimates that 916 providers have 1,500
or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of incumbent local
exchange carriers can be considered small entities.
Interexchange Carriers (IXCs). Neither the Commission nor the SBA
have developed a small business size standard specifically for
Interexchange Carriers. Wired Telecommunications Carriers is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA small
business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies
firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data
for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this
industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with
fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the
2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021,
there were 127 providers that reported they were engaged in the
provision of interexchange services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 109 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, the
Commission estimates that the majority of providers in this industry
can be considered small entities.
Local Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed
a small business size standard specifically for Local Resellers.
Telecommunications Resellers is the closest industry with a SBA small
business size standard. The Telecommunications Resellers industry
comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and network
capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications networks and
reselling wired and wireless
[[Page 43536]]
telecommunications services (except satellite) to businesses and
households. Establishments in this industry resell telecommunications;
they do not operate transmission facilities and infrastructure. Mobile
virtual network operators (MVNOs) are included in this industry. The
SBA small business size standard for Telecommunications Resellers
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry
provided resale services for the entire year. Of that number, 1,375
firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on
Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of
December 31, 2020, there were 293 providers that reported they were
engaged in the provision of local resale services. Of these providers,
the Commission estimates that 289 providers have 1,500 or fewer
employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard,
most of these providers can be considered small entities.
Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal
communications services (PCS) spectrum encompasses services in the
1850-1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands. The closest industry with a SBA
small business size standard applicable to these services is Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). The SBA small business
size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the
entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates
that a majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were
approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband
PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in
the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these
licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years,
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS
licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the
number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small
under the SBA's small business size standard.
Narrowband Personal Communications Services. Narrowband Personal
Communications Services (Narrowband PCS) are PCS services operating in
the 901-902 MHz, 930-931 MHz, and 940-941 MHz bands. PCS services are
radio communications that encompass mobile and ancillary fixed
communication that provide services to individuals and businesses and
can be integrated with a variety of competing networks. Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to these services.
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can
be considered small.
According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 4,211 active Narrowband PCS licenses. The Commission's
small business size standards with respect to Narrowband PCS involve
eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction
of licenses for these services. For the auction of these licenses, the
Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues
for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million. A ``very
small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with affiliates
and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for the three
preceding years of not more than $15 million. Pursuant to these
definitions, 7 winning bidders claiming small and very small bidding
credits won approximately 359 licenses. One of the winning bidders
claiming a small business status classification in these Narrowband PCS
license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several
UHF television broadcast channels that are not used for television
broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of
Mexico. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to
this service. The SBA small business size standard for this industry
classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that
operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837
firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size
standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this
industry can be considered small. Additionally, based on Commission
data, as of December 2021, there was one licensee with an active
license in this service. However, since the Commission does not collect
data on the number of employees for this service, at this time we are
not able to estimate the number of licensees that would qualify as
small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments
primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and
wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
[[Page 43537]]
cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and
television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business
size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,250
employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire
year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. Thus,
under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can
be considered small.
Rural Radiotelephone Service. Neither the Commission nor the SBA
have developed a small business size standard specifically for small
businesses providing Rural Radiotelephone Service. Rural Radiotelephone
Service is radio service in which licensees are authorized to offer and
provide radio telecommunication services for hire to subscribers in
areas where it is not feasible to provide communication services by
wire or other means. A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone
Service is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS). Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), is the closest
applicable industry with a SBA small business size standard. The SBA
small business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite) classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as
small. For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 2,893 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Rural
Radiotelephone Services firm are small entities. Based on Commission
data as of December 27, 2021, there were approximately 119 active
licenses in the Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission does not
collect employment data from these entities holding these licenses and
therefore we cannot estimate how many of these entities meet the SBA
small business size standard.
Wireless Communications Services. Wireless Communications Services
(WCS) can be used for a variety of fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and
digital audio broadcasting satellite services. Wireless spectrum is
made available and licensed for the provision of wireless
communications services in several frequency bands subject to Part 27
of the Commission's rules. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite) is the closest industry with an SBA small business size
standard applicable to these services. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.
Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS
involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the
auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS.
When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS
frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of
small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and
entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in
conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified
in the designated entities section in Part 27 of the Commission's rules
for the specific WCS frequency bands.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show
that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the
entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250
employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal
Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594
providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless
services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511
providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's
small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered
small entities.
Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal
communications services, and specialized mobile radio telephony
carriers. The closest applicable industry with an SBA small business
size standard is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). The size standard for this industry under SBA rules is that
a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893
firms that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms
employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission
data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December
31, 2021, there were 331 providers that reported they were engaged in
the provision of cellular, personal communications services, and
specialized mobile radio services. Of these providers, the Commission
estimates that 255 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees.
Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of
these providers can be considered small entities.
700 MHz Guard Band Licensees. The 700 MHz Guard Band encompasses
spectrum in 746-747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz frequency
bands. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the
closest industry with a SBA small business size standard applicable to
licenses providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size
standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that
there were 2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire
year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees.
Thus under the SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a
majority of licensees in this industry can be considered small.
According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's
small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band
licensees involve eligibility for bidding
[[Page 43538]]
credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the
auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a ``small business''
as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for
the preceding three years, and a ``very small business'' an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the
preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, five winning
bidders claiming one of the small business status classifications won
26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming small business won two
licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a small business status
classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band license auctions had an
active license as of December 2021.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The lower 700 MHz band encompasses
spectrum in the 698-746 MHz frequency bands. Permissible operations in
these bands include flexible fixed, mobile, and broadcast uses,
including mobile and other digital new broadcast operation; fixed and
mobile wireless commercial services (including FDD- and TDD-based
services); as well as fixed and mobile wireless uses for private,
internal radio needs, two-way interactive, cellular, and mobile
television broadcasting services. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite) is the closest industry with a SBA small business
size standard applicable to licenses providing services in these bands.
The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a
business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census
Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms that operated in
this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,837 firms employed
fewer than 250 employees. Thus under the SBA size standard, the
Commission estimates that a majority of licensees in this industry can
be considered small.
According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The
Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700
MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and
installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower
700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups
of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has
average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the
preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years,
and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for
Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a
small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning
bidders claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and
three winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all
five auctioned licenses.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. The upper 700 MHz band encompasses
spectrum in the 746-806 MHz bands. Upper 700 MHz D Block licenses are
nationwide licenses associated with the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz
bands. Permissible operations in these bands include flexible fixed,
mobile, and broadcast uses, including mobile and other digital new
broadcast operation; fixed and mobile wireless commercial services
(including FDD- and TDD-based services); as well as fixed and mobile
wireless uses for private, internal radio needs, two-way interactive,
cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) is the closest industry
with a SBA small business size standard applicable to licenses
providing services in these bands. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or
fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
2,893 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of that
number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the
SBA size standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of
licensees in this industry can be considered small.
According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were
approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's
small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band
licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment
payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses,
the Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a
``very small business'' an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these
definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status
won five of the twelve available licenses.
In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the
Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction
does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently
in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent
business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers,
unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the
Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for
licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to
estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would
qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
Wireless Resellers. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have
[[Page 43539]]
developed a small business size standard specifically for Wireless
Resellers. The closest industry with a SBA small business size standard
is Telecommunications Resellers. The Telecommunications Resellers
industry comprises establishments engaged in purchasing access and
network capacity from owners and operators of telecommunications
networks and reselling wired and wireless telecommunications services
(except satellite) to businesses and households. Establishments in this
industry resell telecommunications and they do not operate transmission
facilities and infrastructure. Mobile virtual network operators (MVNOs)
are included in this industry. Under the SBA size standard for this
industry, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 1,386 firms in this industry
provided resale services during that year. Of that number, 1,375 firms
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, for this industry under
the SBA small business size standard, the majority of providers can be
considered small entities.
Semiconductor and Related Device Manufacturing. This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
semiconductors and related solid state devices. Examples of products
made by these establishments are integrated circuits, memory chips,
microprocessors, diodes, transistors, solar cells and other
optoelectronic devices. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies entities having 1,250 or fewer employees as small.
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 729 firms in this
industry that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 673 firms
operated with fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size
standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered
small.
Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) Providers.
Telecommunications relay services enable individuals who are deaf, hard
of hearing, deaf-blind, or who have a speech disability to communicate
by telephone in a manner that is functionally equivalent to using voice
communication services. Internet-based TRS (iTRS) connects an
individual with a hearing or a speech disability to a TRS
communications assistant using an Internet Protocol-enabled device via
the internet, rather than the public switched telephone network. Video
Relay Service (VRS) one form of iTRS, enables people with hearing or
speech disabilities who use sign language to communicate with voice
telephone users over a broadband connection using a video communication
device. Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS) another
form of iTRS, permits a person with hearing loss to have a telephone
conversation while reading captions of what the other party is saying
on an internet-connected device. Providers must be certified by the
Commission to provide VRS and IP CTS and to receive compensation from
the TRS Fund for TRS provided in accordance with applicable rules.
Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business
size standard specifically for TRS Providers. All Other
Telecommunications is the closest industry with a SBA small business
size standard. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied
telecommunications connections are included in this industry. The SBA
small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with
annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that
operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less
than $25 million. Based on Commission data there are ten certified iTRS
providers. The Commission however does not compile financial
information for these providers. Nevertheless, based on available
information, the Commission estimates that most providers in this
industry are small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
The NPRM proposes and seeks comment on implementing new NG911
requirements for 911 voice calls, that if adopted, may impose new or
modified reporting or recordkeeping, and other compliance obligations
on small entities. Some of our proposed requirements contain written
notification and certification requirements that will be applicable to
small entities. For example, in the NPRM we propose to require
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to
complete all translation and routing to deliver 911 calls, including
associated location information, in the requested IP-based format to an
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be
answered upon request of 911 authorities who have certified the
capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. Wireline and
interconnected VoIP providers would be subject to this requirement six
months from the effective date of the IP service delivery requirement,
or six months after a valid request for IP-based service by a state or
local 911 authority, whichever is later. Internet-based TRS providers
would subject to this requirement twelve months from the effective date
of the IP service delivery requirement, or twelve months after a valid
request for IP-based service by a state or local 911 authority,
whichever is later. Wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based
TRS providers and state or local 911 authorities would be allowed to
agree to alternate time frames for delivery of IP-formatted calls and
associated routing information as long as the wireline, interconnected
VoIP, or internet-based TRS provider notifies the Commission of the
alternate time frame within 30 days of the parties' agreement.
To determine whether wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-
based TRS providers' have received a ``valid request,'' the criteria we
proposed to constitute a valid request includes certification from a
requesting local or state entity that it meets the following
conditions, (1) it is technically ready to receive calls and/or texts
in the IP-based format requested, (2) it is specifically authorized to
accept calls and/or texts in the IP-based format requested, and (3) it
has provided notification to the wireline, interconnected VoIP, or
internet-based TRS providers via either a registry made available by
the Commission or any other written notification reasonably acceptable
to the wireline, interconnected VoIP, or internet-based TRS provider.
In the NPRM, we seek comment on whether to implement any new data
collections to assist in monitoring performance and compliance with the
proposed NG911 rules. For example, we ask: (1) whether to require
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to
provide a certification of compliance with the proposed rules, and (2)
if reporting would be helpful, what specific information should
providers include and at what frequency we should require them to
report it. We also seek information on whether the proposed rules
should include requirements for disclosures to the PSAP or other state
or local 911 authority in connection with compliance with the NG911
rules.
Our inquiry into the potential reporting obligations that may be
necessary to complement our proposed NG911 rules includes requesting
comment on measures the Commission could take to limit the burden of
reporting on the transition to NG911. In particular, in the NPRM we
seek information on the extent that the Commission could limit the
burden of
[[Page 43540]]
any reporting requirements on businesses identified as small by the
SBA. We also assess whether we need to adopt requirements and systems
for reporting non-compliance with the proposed NG911 rules. While we
tentatively conclude that our existing mechanisms (which would allow
public safety entities and members of the public seeking to report non-
compliance with the proposed rules to file complaints via the Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau's Public Safety Support Center or
the Commission's Consumer Complaint Center) should be sufficient to
address any potential violations, we seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
Although the proposed rulemaking may impose additional costs to
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers
as a result of (1) the requirement for wireline, interconnected VoIP,
and internet-based TRS providers to deliver 911 calls in IP-based
format to 911 facilities, and (2) the requirement for wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to deliver 911
traffic to the point(s) designated by the 911 authority, we believe
these costs are relatively small. Our initial estimate of the upper
bound of these costs for all such providers in total is approximately
$103,000 in one-time costs and $11.6 million recurring annual costs. We
outline the details of those costs below and seek comment on our cost
estimates in the NPRM.
The cost of moving the point for delivery of 911 traffic for
wireline, CMRS, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers
to a point designated by the 911 authority, such as an ESInet, occurs
only once. Further, we believe the cost of changing connecting points
should be insignificant for transporters. To estimate the maximum of
this one-time cost, we assume that all of the 2,327 wireline, CMRS,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers' 911 calls must
be reconfigured to connect to ESInets. This is likely an overestimate
because some providers already are connected to ESInets. We assume that
each provider needs at most one hour of work by a technician to change
connection points. We use $30 per hour as the wage for workers who move
the connection points. Marking up this wage by 45% to account for
benefits, we arrive at a total of $44 per hour. We therefore estimate
that the upper bound of one-time costs is $103,000.
Ongoing costs will be incurred by the small percentage of providers
that do not yet have IP switching facilities for voice traffic.
According to NTCA, 91.5% of respondents to the NTCA Broadband/internet
Availability Survey Report, which we assume are rural wireline
providers, indicate that they already have IP switching facilities for
voice traffic in their networks, and therefore 8.5% do not. As a
result, the cost of converting 911 calls from TDM format to IP format
would only be imposed on 8.5% of rural wireline providers. We assume
the percentage of non-rural telecommunications wireline providers
without IP-switching capability to be similar or smaller. Among the 947
local exchange telephone service providers, we therefore estimate that
at most 81 providers (8.5% of 947) may need to hire a third-party to
transport their TDM calls in IP format to the ESInets. The cost of
adding these 81 providers to existing available transport services
would not be particularly burdensome. To estimate the cost of
additional transport service, we make several assumptions. First, we
assume that the 81 providers are evenly spread across 56 U.S. states,
commonwealths, and territories. This would yield an additional 1.45
providers (81/56) per state. That is, we assume it would require adding
1.45 providers and 28,281 calls per year into existing transport
services available in each state or territory. Hiring an additional
full-time telecommunications technician in one transport service
provider per state should be more than sufficient to handle the
increase in calls. The annual wage, including benefits of a
telecommunication technician would be $44 per hour, as above,
multiplied by 2080 hours, for a total of $91,520 for each state. Given
an estimated average of 55.53% gross margin for the communications
service industry, the annual cost to providers would be $205,802 for
each state. Multiplying the annual cost per state by 56 states and
territories, we estimate a total annual recurring cost of $11,524,912,
which we round to $11.6 million per year. We note that small providers
could trim costs by leveraging transport procurement through small
provider consortia or entering into interconnectivity agreements with
larger providers. We also note that these annual costs will fall over
time due to ongoing modernization of legacy 911 systems. We seek
comment on all of these estimates.
The record in this proceeding does not currently contain detailed
information on the costs required for the implementation of wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS IP-based 911 service
delivery. Therefore, at this time, the Commission is not in a position
to determine whether implementation of IP-based service delivery would
result in significant costs for small wireline, interconnected VoIP,
and internet-based TRS providers, NG911 services providers, or state
and local 911 authorities, or require small entities to hire
professionals to comply, if our proposals are adopted. To help the
Commission more fully evaluate the cost of compliance, we seek
additional detailed information on the various cost issues implicated
by our proposed rules. In the NPRM, we specifically request information
on the costs of compliance for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and
internet-based TRS providers to implement the required hardware,
software, services, or transport, or other significant costs to
telecommunications carriers or to state and local 911 authorities. We
also request information on planned or expended costs from providers
that have already transitioned to providing 911 traffic to the ESInet
via IP or via legacy network gateway. Further, we ask whether costs to
connect to NG911 are significantly different for different types of
providers.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
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 such small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
Delivery in IP-Based Format. We believe our proposal to require
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to
complete all translation and routing to deliver 911 calls, including
associated location information, in the requested IP-based format to an
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be
answered upon request of 911 authorities who have certified the
capability to accept IP-based 911 communications would help to advance
NG911 and benefit small entities in several ways. Specifically our
proposal would, (1) help address operational and
[[Page 43541]]
routing issues for small and other jurisdictions that have implemented
NG911; (2) help alleviate the burden on small state and local 911
authorities of maintaining transitional gateways and other network
elements to process and convert legacy calls; and (3) help small and
other jurisdictions realize additional public safety benefits available
on NG911 networks. In assessing NG911 requirements, we considered
whether there any other providers that we should require to deliver IP-
based 911 services. In the NPRM, we seek comment on these matters.
Delivery Points and Cost Allocation for IP-Based 911 Calls. We
propose to require wireline, interconnected VoIP, CMRS, and internet-
based TRS providers to transmit all 911 calls to destination point(s)
in those networks designated by a 911 authority. In addition, we
propose that in the absence of agreements by states or localities on
alternative cost recovery mechanisms, wireline, interconnected VoIP,
CMRS, and internet-based TRS providers must cover the costs of
transmitting 911 calls to the point(s) designated by a 911 authority,
including any costs associated with completing the translation and
routing necessary to deliver such calls and associated location
information to the designated destination point(s) in the requested IP-
based format. Under this proposal, states and localities would remain
free to establish alternative cost allocation arrangements with
providers. As a default mechanism, this proposal would allocate costs
only when the parties are unable to agree on cost recovery measures.
The proposal also provides flexibility to small entities to negotiate
for state-level cost recovery when and if needed, which could minimize
the economic impact for small entities.
Commenters representing rural and other telecommunications carriers
generally oppose the establishment of a point for delivery of 911
traffic, arguing that it is unnecessary or would slow the rollout of
NG911. These commenters maintain that any demarcation point should be
within service providers' local service areas. NTCA cautions that to do
otherwise would place a significant cost burden on rural customers and
place universal service at risk. As part of our consideration of these
comments, we seek estimates from rural providers (usually small
entities) and 911 authorities on specific costs for rural providers to
comply with our proposed rules.
We also reviewed and considered an alternate proposal from the
Texas 9-1-1 Entities which could impact small entities. In our
consideration of this proposal, we inquire and seek comment on whether
we should adopt all or any parts of the Texas 9-1-1 Entities proposal;
whether it would be beneficial to treat ``IP-based providers''
differently than ``non-IP-based providers''; whether there are
``threshold legacy issues'' would we need to determine before adopting
the Texas 9-1-1 Entities proposal either in full or in part, and
whether there any other factors we should consider in connection with
the proposal.
Universal Service Impact. Small entities could potentially incur an
economic impact if requiring the delivery of IP 911 traffic to specific
points were to increase universal costs. However, given that under our
proposal there are measures available for small carriers to lower their
costs such as participation in ``collaborative consortiums of smaller
carriers to leverage transport procurement, interconnectivity
agreements with larger carriers, and the carriers' transition to IP,''
and states would remain free to implement cost recovery mechanisms as
they deem necessary, we do not believe that our proposed rules would
adversely impact universal service. To gain a better understanding of
the implications for small entities, in the NPRM we seek comment on the
feasibility of these measures and their capability to defray costs for
small carriers. In addition, we seek comment on the impacts of our
proposed rules on the availability of universal service and universal
service support under section 254 of the Act.
Compliance Timelines. We provide flexibility in the proposed
compliance timelines for implementation of the requirements which
should reduce the economic burden for small entities. For the
requirements we propose to help ensure that jurisdictions transitioning
to NG911 networks can access IP connections from wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers, we propose to
allow local and state entities to enter into agreements with wireline,
interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers that establish an
alternate time frame for meeting those requirements. The flexibility to
negotiate an alternative time frame which meets providers' business and
financial needs is a significant step by the Commission that could
minimize the economic impact for small entities.
Further, we provide a longer time frame for internet-based TRS
providers which are primarily small entities, to complete all
translation and routing to deliver 911 calls, including associated
location information, in the requested IP-based format to an Emergency
Services IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s) that allow
emergency calls to be answered upon request of 911 authorities who have
certified the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. The
compliance obligation we propose for internet-based TRS providers is
twelve months from the effective date of the IP service delivery
requirement, or twelve months after a valid request for IP-based
service by a state or local 911 authority, whichever is later, rather
than the six months applicable to wireline and interconnected VoIP
providers.
Costs of Implementation. In the previous section, we discussed the
absence of detailed information in the record on the costs for
wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers to
implement the required software, hardware, and service upgrades
necessary to comply with our proposed rules. Having data on the costs
and economic impact of the proposals and other matters discussed in the
NPRM will allow the Commission to better evaluate options and
alternatives to minimize the impact on small entities. Based on our
request for specific and detailed cost implementation information, and
for information on the extent that the Commission could limit the
burden of any reporting requirements, we expect to more fully consider
the economic impact on small entities following our review of comments
filed in response to the NPRM, and to this IRFA. The Commission's
evaluation of this information will shape the final alternatives it
considers to minimize any significant economic impact that may occur on
small entities, the final conclusions it reaches, and any final rules
it promulgates in this proceeding.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
Ordering Clauses
Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201,
214, 222, 225, 251(e), 301, 303, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 214, 222, 225,
251(e), 301, 303, 316, 332; the Wireless Communications and Public
Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106-81, 47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a,
615b; and section 106 of the Twenty-First Century Communications and
Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Public Law 111-260, 47 U.S.C. 615c,
that this notice of proposed rulemaking is adopted.
[[Page 43542]]
It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures set
forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the notice of
proposed rulemaking on or before 30 days after publication in the
Federal Register, and reply comments on or before 60 days after
publication in the Federal Register.
It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this notice of proposed rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications
equipment, Internet, Radio, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 9 as follows:
PART 9--911 REQUIREMENTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201,
202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303,
307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615
note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721,
and 1471, and Section 902 of Title IX, Division FF, Pub. L. 116-260,
134 Stat. 1182, unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Revise Sec. 9.1 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to set forth the 911, E911, and Next
Generation 911 service requirements and conditions applicable to
telecommunications carriers (subpart B); commercial mobile radio
service (CMRS) providers (subpart C); interconnected Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers (subpart D); providers of
telecommunications relay services (TRS) for persons with disabilities
(subpart E); multi-line telephone systems (MLTS) (subpart F); and
Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) providers (subpart G). The rules in this
part also include requirements to help ensure the resiliency,
redundancy, and reliability of communications systems, particularly 911
and E911 networks and/or systems (subpart H), acceptable obligations
and expenditures of 911 fees (subpart I), and Next Generation 911
obligations (subpart J).
0
3. Revise Sec. 9.4 to read as follows:
Sec. 9.4 Obligation to transmit 911 calls.
Except as otherwise provided in subpart J, all telecommunications
carriers shall transmit all 911 calls to a PSAP, to a designated
statewide default answering point, or to an appropriate local emergency
authority as set forth in Sec. 9.5.
0
4. Add Subpart J to read as follows:
Subpart J--Next Generation 911 Obligations
Sec.
9.27 Applicability.
9.28 Definitions.
9.29 Next Generation 911 Transition Requirements and Cost
Allocation.
9.30 Valid Request.
Sec. 9.27 Applicability.
The rules in this subpart apply to wireline, commercial mobile
radio service, interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol service
providers, and internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service
providers.
Sec. 9.28 Definitions.
911 Authority. The state, territorial, regional, Tribal, or local
agency or entity with the authority and responsibility under applicable
law to designate the point(s) to receive emergency calls.
Emergency Services Internet Protocol Network (ESInet). An Internet
Protocol (IP)-based network managed by public safety authorities and
used for emergency services communications, including Next Generation
911.
Sec. 9.29 Next Generation 911 Transition Requirements and Cost
Allocation.
(a) Wireline Providers.
(1) By [six months from the effective date of paragraph (a) of this
section], or within 6 months of a valid request as defined in Sec.
9.30 for Internet Protocol-based service by the 911 Authority,
whichever is later:
(i) Wireline providers shall transmit all 911 calls to the point(s)
designated by the 911 Authority, including to a PSAP, to a designated
statewide default answering point, to an appropriate local emergency
authority, or to an ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow
emergency calls to be answered.
(ii) Wireline providers shall complete all translation and routing
to deliver all 911 calls, including associated location information, in
the requested Internet Protocol-based format, to an ESInet or other
designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered.
(2) 911 Authorities may enter into agreements with wireline
providers that establish an alternate time frame for meeting the
requirements of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section. The wireline
providers must notify the Commission of the dates and terms of the
alternate time frame within 30 days of the parties' agreement.
(b) Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers. By [six months from
the effective date of this paragraph (b)], or within 6 months of a
valid request as defined in Sec. 9.30 for Internet Protocol-based
service by the 911 Authority, whichever is later, commercial mobile
radio service (CMRS) providers shall transmit all 911 calls to the
point(s) designated by the 911 Authority, including to a PSAP, to a
designated statewide default answering point, to an appropriate local
emergency authority, or to an ESInet or other designated point(s) that
allow emergency calls to be answered.
(c) Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol Providers.
(1) By [six months from the effective date of paragraph (c) of this
section], or within 6 months of a valid request as defined in Sec.
9.30 for Internet Protocol-based service by the 911 Authority,
whichever is later:
(i) Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers
shall transmit all 911 calls to the point(s) designated by the 911
Authority, including to a PSAP, to a designated statewide default
answering point, to an appropriate local emergency authority, or to an
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be
answered.
(ii) Interconnected VoIP providers shall complete all translation
and routing to deliver all 911 calls, including associated location
information, in the requested Internet Protocol-based format, to an
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be
answered.
(2) 911 Authorities may enter into agreements with interconnected
VoIP providers that establish an alternate time frame for meeting the
requirements of paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section. The
interconnected VoIP providers must notify the Commission of the dates
and terms of the alternate time frame within 30 days of the parties'
agreement.
(d) Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service Providers.
(1) By [twelve months from the effective date of paragraph (d) of
this section], or within twelve months of a valid request as defined in
Sec. 9.30 for Internet Protocol-based service by the 911 Authority,
whichever is later:
[[Page 43543]]
(i) Internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) providers
shall transmit all 911 calls to the point(s) designated by the 911
Authority, including to a PSAP, to a designated statewide default
answering point, to an appropriate local emergency authority, or to an
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be
answered.
(ii) Internet-based TRS providers shall complete all translation
and routing to deliver all 911 calls, including associated location
information, in the requested Internet Protocol-based format, to an
ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be
answered.
(2) 911 Authorities may enter into agreements with Internet-based
TRS providers that establish an alternate time frame for meeting the
requirements of paragraph (d)(1)(ii) of this section. The Internet-
based TRS providers must notify the Commission of the dates and terms
of the alternate time frame within 30 days of the parties' agreement.
(e) Cost allocation. In the absence of agreement by states or
localities on alternative cost recovery mechanisms, wireline providers,
interconnected VoIP providers, Internet-based TRS providers, and CMRS
providers are responsible for the costs of transmitting 911 calls to
the point(s) designated by a 911 Authority, including any costs
associated with completing the translation and routing necessary to
deliver such calls and associated location information in the requested
Internet Protocol-based format.
(f) This Sec. 9.29 contains information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. Compliance will not be required until after
review by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the compliance
date and revising this section accordingly.
Sec. 9.30 Valid Request.
Valid request means that:
(a) The requesting 911 Authority is, and certifies that it is,
technically ready to receive 911 calls in the Internet Protocol-based
format requested;
(b) The requesting 911 Authority has been specifically authorized
to accept 911 calls in the Internet Protocol-based format requested;
and
(c) The requesting 911 Authority has provided notification to the
provider that it meets the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section. Registration by the requesting 911 Authority in a
database made available by the Commission in accordance with
requirements established in connection therewith, or any other written
notification reasonably acceptable to the provider, shall constitute
sufficient notification for purposes of Sec. 9.29.
(d) This Sec. 9.30 contains information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. Compliance will not be required until after
review by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will
publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the compliance
date and revising this section accordingly.
[FR Doc. 2023-14402 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P