Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2297 

regulation that has federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. It will not 

have substantial direct effects on tribal 

governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

approves a State rule implementing a 

Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 30, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–647 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[PS Docket No. 10–255; FCC 10–200] 

Framework for Next Generation 911 

Deployment 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission 

ACTION: Notice of inquiry. 

SUMMARY: The Notice of Inquiry (NOI) 

initiates a comprehensive proceeding to 

address how Next Generation 911 

(NG911) can enable the public to obtain 

emergency assistance by means of 

advanced communications technologies 

beyond traditional voice-centric 

devices. The NOI seeks to gain a better 

understanding of how the gap between 

the capabilities of modern networks and 

devices and today’s 911 system can be 

bridged and seeks comment on how to 

further the transition to IP-based 

communications capabilities for 

emergency communications and NG911. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

February 28, 2011. Submit reply 

comments March 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments. 

Comments may be filed using: (1) the 

Commission’s Electronic Comment 

Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal 

Government’s eRulemaking Portal, or (3) 

by filing paper copies. See Electronic 

Filing of Documents in Rulemaking 

Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (May 1, 1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2298 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 

must be held together with rubber bands 

or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Donovan, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 

418–2413, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554; or via the 

Internet to Patrick.Donovan@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

1. As recommended in the National 

Broadband Plan, this Notice of Inquiry 

(NOI) initiates a comprehensive 

proceeding to address how Next 

Generation 911 (NG911) can enable the 

public to obtain emergency assistance 

by means of advanced communications 

technologies beyond traditional voicecentric devices. In the 

telecommunications industry overall, 

competitive forces and technological 

innovation have ushered in an era of 

advanced Internet-Protocol (IP)-based 

devices and applications that have 

vastly enhanced the ability of the public 

to communicate and send and receive 

information. At the same time, our 

legacy circuit-switched 911 system is 

unable to accommodate the capabilities 

embedded in many of these advanced 

technologies, such as the ability to 

transmit and receive photos, text 

messages, and video. Accordingly, in 

this proceeding, we seek to gain a better 

understanding of how the gap between 

the capabilities of modern networks and 

devices and today’s 911 system can be 

bridged. We also seek comment on how 

to further the transition to IP-based 

communications capabilities for 

emergency communications and NG911. 

II. Background 

2. Since AT&T first made the digits 

‘‘911’’ available nationally in 1968 for 

wireline access to emergency services, 

the American public increasingly has 

come to depend on the service. Today, 

the National Emergency Number 

Association (NENA) estimates that some 

form of 911 service is available to 99 

percent of the population in 96 percent 

of the counties in the United States, and 

240 million calls are made to 911 in the 

United States each year. ‘‘911’’ is as well 

known as any popular brand, and is 

what we routinely teach to children as 

the way to summon help from police, 

fire, and ambulance services. In more 

recent times, 911 has become 

increasingly important for homeland 

security, as the means for ordinary 

citizens—in some ways the true ‘‘first 

responders’’—to report suspicious 

activity or summon emergency 

assistance for themselves and others in 

times of natural or man-made disasters. 

It should therefore come as no surprise 

that the American public has developed 

clear expectations with respect to the 

availability of 911 emergency services 

via certain classes of communications 

devices. 

3. The availability of this critical 

service is due largely to the dedicated 

efforts of State, local, and Tribal 

authorities and telecommunications 

carriers, who have used the 911 

abbreviated dialing code to provide 

access to increasingly advanced and 

effective emergency service capabilities. 

Indeed, absent appropriate action by, 

and funding for, states, Tribes, and local 

jurisdictions, there can be no effective 

911 service. 

4. At the same time, new voice 

communications technologies have 

posed technical and operational 

challenges to the 911 system, 

necessitating the adoption of a uniform 

national approach to preserve the 

quality and reliability of 911 services for 

such communications technologies. 

This was first recognized following the 

introduction of commercial mobile 

radio services (CMRS) in the United 

States, when the Commission in 1996 

established rules requiring CMRS 

carriers to implement basic 911 and 

Enhanced 911 (E911) services. 

5. In 1999, Congress continued this 

recognition when it enacted the 

Wireless Communications and Public 

Safety Act (911 Act) to promote and 

enhance public safety through the use of 

wireless communications services. The 

911 Act directed the Commission to 

designate 911 as the universal 

emergency assistance number for 

wireless and wireline calls, and to 

establish a transition period for areas of 

the country where 911 was not yet 

available. In 2000, the Commission 

adopted an order which established 911 

as the universal emergency telephone 

number in the United States. In 2003, 

the Commission revised ‘‘the scope of 

[its] enhanced 911 rules to clarify which 

technologies and services will be 

required to be capable of transmitting 

enhanced 911 information.’’ In adopting 

rules tailored to specific services, the 

Commission clarified, inter alia, the 

following matters: (1) Telematics service 

providers offering interconnected CMRS 

voice calling service may have an E911 

service requirement and need to 

coordinate with the underlying wireless 

carriers, so that, regardless of the legal 

relationship between them, E911 

requirements can be met; and (2) resold 

and prepaid mobile wireless service 

providers must meet 911 rules to the 

extent the underlying licensee has 

deployed the necessary technology for 

E911 service. The Commission declined, 

however, to impose E911 requirements 

on: (1) Telematics-only services 

providers, reserving the right to revisit 

E911 obligations in the future, (2) 

manufacturers of disposable phones or 

personal data assistants (PDAs) that 

contain a voice service component, and 

(3) multi-line telephone systems, except 

for the Commission’s monitoring of 

states’ progress on implementing E911 

for those systems. 

6. The next significant step in the 

evolution of 911 followed the 

introduction of Voice over Internet 

Protocol (VoIP) services in the United 

States. In this regard, in 2005, the 

Commission established rules requiring 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

to supply E911 capabilities to their 

customers as a standard feature from 

wherever the customer is using the 

service. 

7. While the Commission and the 911 

industry acted to enable 911 service 

availability for wireless and VoIP 

providers, today’s 911 system remains 

reliant on increasingly antiquated 

analog or digital circuit-switched 

facilities. It is thus not capable of 

supporting certain functionalities made 

possible by a transition to broadband IPbased communications technologies— 

functionalities that have become 

commonplace in other communications 

systems. At the same time, the 

introduction of these new technologies 

has created the potential for 

development of and transition to NG911 

to take advantage of the enhanced 

capabilities of IP-based devices and 

networks. 

8. In the last few years, there have 

been several important efforts to address 

the need for a transition to a NG911 

network. In the New and Emerging 

Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 

2008, Congress tasked the National E9– 

1–1 Implementation Coordination Office 

(ICO) to develop ‘‘a national plan for 

migrating to a national [Internet 

Protocol] IP-enabled emergency network 

capable of receiving and responding to 

all citizen-activated emergency 

communications and improving 

information sharing among all 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2299 

emergency response entities.’’ The ICO, 

managed jointly by the Department of 

Commerce’s National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) and the 

Department of Transportation’s National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), released its migration plan in 

September 2009. In March 2010, NENA 

released a handbook to serve as a guide 

for public safety personnel and 

government officials responsible for 

ensuring that Federal, State, and local 

911 laws and regulations effectively 

enable the implementation of NG911 

systems. Specifically, the NENA 

Handbook provides an overview of key 

policy, regulatory, and legislative issues 

that need to be considered to enable the 

transition to NG911. The NENA 

Handbook states that ‘‘it is critical that 

State regulatory bodies and the FCC take 

timely and carefully scrutinized action 

to analyze and update existing 9–1–1, 

PSTN, and IP rules and regulations to 

ensure they optimize 9–1–1 governing 

authority choices for E9–1–1 and NG9– 

1–1 and foster competition by 

establishing a competitively neutral 

marketplace.’’ 

9. On March 16, 2010, the 

Commission delivered the National 

Broadband Plan to Congress, which 

included several recommendations 

related to NG911. Specifically, the Plan 

noted that the Commission was already 

considering changes to its E911 location 

accuracy requirements and 

recommended that the Commission 

expand that proceeding to explore how 

NG911 may affect location accuracy and 

provision of automated location 

information. The Plan further 

recommended that the Commission 

initiate a new proceeding ‘‘to address 

how NG911 can accommodate 

communications technologies, networks 

and architectures beyond traditional 

voice-centric devices,’’ and to ‘‘explore 

how public expectations may evolve in 

terms of the communications platforms 

the public would rely upon to request 

emergency services.’’ 

10. In September 2010, addressing the 

National Broadband Plan 

recommendation with respect to 

location accuracy, we adopted a Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Notice of Inquiry in our E911 Location 

Accuracy proceeding, in which we 

sought comment on a number of issues 

pertaining to the Commission’s location 

accuracy rules, including the impact of 

NG911 deployments on location 

accuracy and Automatic Location 

Identification (ALI). The FNPRM and 

NOI was published in the Federal 

Register at 75 FR 67321, November 2, 

2010. In the Location Accuracy FNPRM/ 

NOI, we limited the scope of our NG911 

inquiry to location issues in the 

provision of voice-based services. In this 

Notice of Inquiry, we initiate the 

broader proceeding recommended in the 

National Broadband Plan concerning the 

migration to NG911. 

11. Most recently, on October 8, 2010, 

the Twenty-First Century 

Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2010 (Twenty-First 

Century Act) was signed into law. The 

Twenty-First Century Act directs the 

Chairman of the Commission to 

establish an advisory committee, to be 

known as the Emergency Access 

Advisory Committee (EAAC), for the 

purpose of achieving equal access to 

emergency services by individuals with 

disabilities as part of our nation’s 

migration to NG911. The Twenty-First 

Century Act also directs the EAAC to 

conduct a national survey with people 

with disabilities and make 

recommendations on the most effective 

and efficient technologies and methods 

to enable NG911 access. The EAAC will 

be composed generally of State and 

local government representatives 

responsible for emergency management 

and emergency responder 

representatives, national organizations 

representing people with disabilities 

and senior citizens, communications 

equipment manufacturers, service 

providers, and subject matter experts. 

III. Technical Comparison of Legacy 

911 and Next Generation 911 

12. In order to understand the 

opportunities and challenges involved 

with deploying an NG911 system across 

the country, it is instructive to first 

briefly review how, as a technical 

matter, the current 911 system operates 

for wireline, wireless and 

interconnected VoIP 911 calls, and how 

NG911 will differ from legacy 911 in its 

applications and network architecture. 

For brevity, the discussion simplifies 

some of the technical details of both 

legacy and NG911 systems. 

A. Legacy 911 

13. In the United States, legacy 911 

service generally falls into two 

categories—basic and enhanced. Basic 

911 service transmits 911 calls from the 

service provider’s switch to a single 

geographically appropriate Public Safety 

Answering Point (PSAP) or public safety 

agency, usually over dedicated 

emergency trunks. Basic 911 networks 

are not capable of taking into account 

the caller’s location, but simply forward 

all 911 calls from a particular PSTN 

switch to the appropriate PSAP or 

public safety agency. E911 service 

expands basic 911 service by not only 

delivering 911 calls to the appropriate 

PSAP or agency, but also providing the 

call taker with the caller’s call back 

number, referred to as Automatic 

Numbering Information (ANI), and 

location information—a capability 

referred to as Automatic Location 

Identification (ALI). Most areas of the 

country have now implemented E911 

service. 

14. Wireline E911. In wireline E911, 

PSAPs are connected to telephone 

switches by dedicated trunk lines. 

Wireline E911 networks generally have 

been implemented, operated, and 

maintained by a subset of incumbent 

LECs, and are largely paid for by PSAPs 

through tariffs. Network implementation 

varies from carrier to carrier and 

jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but usually 

is 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. Typically, 

a wireline E911 network utilizes a 

selective router, which receives 911 

calls from competitive and incumbent 

LEC central offices over dedicated 

trunks. The selective router then queries 

an incumbent LEC-maintained selective 

router database (SRDB) to determine 

which PSAP serves the caller’s 

geographic area. The selective router 

will then forward the call, along with 

the caller’s phone number (i.e., ANI) to 

the PSAP that has been designated to 

serve the caller’s area. The PSAP then 

forwards the caller’s ANI to an 

incumbent LEC-maintained Automatic 

Location Identification database (ALI 

database). The ALI database returns to 

the PSAP the caller’s physical address 

(that has previously been verified by 

comparison to the MSAG). Wireline 

E911 networks also include a Database 

Management System (DBMS), which 

provides a method for competitive and 

incumbent LECs to enter customer data 

into both the SRDB and the ALI 

Database. 

15. Wireless E911. Under the 

Commission’s wireless E911 rules, 

wireless carriers are obligated to provide 

the telephone number of the originator 

of a 911 call (i.e., ANI) and information 

regarding the caller’s location (i.e., ALI) 

to any PSAP that has requested that 

such information be delivered with 911 

calls. As explained in the VoIP 911 

Order and VoIP 911 NPRM, the mobile 

nature of wireless technology and other 

IP-enabled services presents significant 

obstacles to making E911 effective—in 

particular the provision to PSAPs of 

accurate ALI. Specifically, the mobility 

of wireless service renders the use of 

permanent street addresses as a location 

indicator useless, and often requires the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2300 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

provision of real-time location updates 

to the PSAP. In addition, the caller’s 

phone number (i.e., the ANI 

information) may not be usable by the 

selective router for PSAP routing 

purposes within the specific geographic 

region in which the mobile 911 call was 

placed. To overcome this mobility 

problem, wireless carriers have 

developed various techniques to 

provision ANI and ALI to the PSAP that 

involve enhancements or ‘‘add-ons’’ to 

existing Wireline E911 networks. 

16. Interconnected VoIP E911. Under 

the Commission’s rules, interconnected 

VoIP providers must provide E911 

service to their customers. As with 

wireless service, the mobile nature of 

interconnected VoIP service presents 

challenges in making E911 effective. 

Since an emergency call may be placed 

from outside the caller’s home area 

code, completing the call may require 

the use of ‘‘pseudo-ANI’’ (p-ANI). The 

most difficult challenge, however, is the 

inability of the VoIP device or service 

provider to determine the current 

geographic location of the caller. As a 

result, the Commission requires 

interconnected VoIP providers to obtain 

location information, called ‘‘Registered 

Location,’’ from their subscribers, which 

is either entered manually or based on 

the subscriber’s billing record. Under 

this approach, if a VoIP subscriber does 

not update his or her location, the 

subscriber’s 911 call may be routed to 

the wrong PSAP, which may delay the 

emergency response. 

17. Beyond the basic functionality 

above, the Commission imposes 

additional obligations on interconnected 

VoIP service providers. Under the 

Commission’s rules, interconnected 

VoIP providers must forward all 911 

calls made over their interconnected 

VoIP service, as well as a call back 

number and the caller’s Registered 

Location for each call, to the appropriate 

PSAP. These calls must be routed 

through the use of ANI and, if 

necessary, and similar to wireless 

carriers, p-ANI, via the dedicated 

wireline E911 network, and the caller’s 

Registered Location must be available 

from or through the ALI Database. 

Additionally, interconnected VoIP 

providers must comply with several 

customer notification requirements that 

include apprising their subscribers of 

any limitations in providing E911 

service. 

B. Next Generation 911 

18. Next Generation 911 relies on IPbased architecture rather than the 

PSTN-based architecture of legacy 911 

to provide an expanded array of 

emergency communications services 

that encompasses both the core 

functionalities of legacy E911 and 

additional functionalities that take 

advantage of the enhanced capabilities 

of IP-based devices and networks. 

NENA defines NG911 as ‘‘a system 

comprised of hardware, software, data 

and operational policies and procedures 

* * *, to: Provide standardized 

interfaces from call and message 

services; process all types of emergency 

calls including non-voice (multi-media) 

messages; acquire and integrate 

additional data useful to call routing 

and handling; deliver the calls/messages 

and data to the appropriate PSAPs and 

other appropriate emergency entities; 

support data and communications needs 

for coordinated incident response and 

management provide a secure 

environment for emergency 

communications.’’ 

19. In an NG911 environment, IPbased technologies and applications are 

used to provide call identification, 

location determination, call routing, and 

call signaling for emergency calls. Call 

identification determines that a call 

(which may be a voice call or some 

other form of communication) is indeed 

an emergency call, mapping a uservisible identifier (such as the digits 911 

or 112) to a network-standard uniform 

emergency call identifier, such as an 

emergency service Uniform Resource 

Name (URN). Location determination 

provides the civic or geospatial location 

of the caller to the initiating call router, 

which will then use the emergency call 

identifier and the location information, 

along with other information, to route 

the call to the nearest IP-enabled PSAP. 

20. The NG911 architecture also 

redefines the functions and capabilities 

of PSAPs, who receive and process 

emergency calls by means of Emergency 

Services IP Networks (ESInets). An 

ESInet is an IP-based network used by 

the PSAP and other agencies that may 

be involved in responding to an 

emergency. Emergency calls can be 

delivered to an ESInet from several 

types of originating networks, including 

both NG911 networks and legacy 911 

networks. The ESInet, in turn, 

completes the call to the appropriate 

PSAP. The call signaling uses the same 

standard protocols as non-emergency 

calls, but user devices may use other 

protocols via gateways. 

21. The nature of NG911 technology 

and architecture leads to certain key 

differences when compared to legacy 

911, as detailed in the paragraphs 

below: 

• NG911 networks can be accessed by 

a wide variety of end users and devices, 

many of which will have identifiers 

other than telephone numbers. 

• NG911 networks are capable of 

supporting multiple voice and nonvoice services, whereas legacy 911 

supports voice only. 

• In NG911, the difference between 

mobile, nomadic, and fixed services is 

blurred, because a single device may 

operate in mobile, nomadic, and fixed 

configurations at different times and 

locations. 

• In NG911, network access and 

communications service may be 

provided by separate entities rather than 

the same entity. 

• NG911 network services can be 

provided by servers largely independent 

of location. 

22. As pointed out by the Internet 

Engineering Task Force, Emergency 

Context Resolution with Internet 

Technologies (IETF–ECRIT) working 

group, the use of the Internet rather than 

circuit-switched networks changes the 

requirements and operating conditions 

of IP-based emergency calling. For 

example, in an NG911 call scenario, the 

caller’s provider of Internet access 

services may not be the same entity that 

provides voice calling services, i.e., that 

routes calls and bridges them to the 

PSTN when needed. Moreover, the 

voice service provider may be located 

far away from the caller, possibly in 

another country, while the Internet 

access provider remains, by physical 

necessity, local to the caller. The voice 

service provider may also not be a 

traditional telecommunications 

provider, particularly as the need to 

interconnect with the PSTN diminishes. 

23. Unlike communications systems 

that interconnect with the PSTN, IPbased communication systems are 

media-neutral, i.e., they can transport 

any digital information, regardless of 

content, and are not limited to voice or 

voice-band data (TTY). As a result, a 

wide variety of voice and non-voice 

services can share the same Internet 

infrastructure. Moreover, while wireless 

or wireline E911 network users need no 

special capabilities to dial 911, current 

standards-based architectures for NG911 

envision a more active role for end-user 

devices and systems in identifying 

emergency calls and acquiring the 

caller’s location information. This 

makes it easier for NG911 networks to 

add media beyond voice, although it 

also creates additional challenges such 

as security. 

24. NG911 will also require a new and 

more multi-faceted approach to caller 

identification. In legacy E911 networks, 

all callers have telephone numbers as 

identifiers, most of which are domestic 

(+1) numbers. Initially, most users of IPbased systems (e.g., interconnected 

VoIP) will also have telephone numbers, 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2301 

but an increasing percentage of these 

users are likely to have international 

rather than domestic numbers. 

Moreover, in the longer term, as IPbased networks support an increasing 

diversity of non-interconnected and 

non-voice services, potential NG911 end 

users and devices are less likely to have 

any type of telephone number and more 

likely to have identifiers such as email 

addresses, Session Initiation Protocol 

(SIP) URLs or service-specific ‘‘handles.’’ 

25. In contrast to the device-specific 

connection protocols in legacy 911 

networks for wireline, wireless, and 

interconnected VoIP phones, NG911 

will need to provide IP-enabled devices 

with multiple means of accessing the 

NG911 network, resulting in a blurring 

of the difference between stationary, 

nomadic and mobile devices. For 

example, an IP-enabled mobile device 

may be capable of accessing the Internet 

via a Wi-Fi hotspot, a cable modem, or 

a 4G wireless broadband network. 

NG911 networks will need mechanisms 

to recognize which form of access the 

device is using when an emergency call 

is made and to provide the appropriate 

caller identification, location 

determination, call routing, and call 

signaling in each case. 

26. NG911 also provides far more 

flexibility to provide network services 

that are not constrained by the location 

of the caller or the nearest PSAP to the 

caller. In circuit-switched networks, the 

location of many types of network 

services is constrained by the network 

topology. For example, a selective router 

has to be relatively close to the PSAPs 

it serves. For NG911, since call routing 

and media transport are completely 

disjoint, almost any network server can 

be located and replicated anywhere. As 

an example, a SIP proxy that routes call 

can be in a different part of the country, 

incurring only a few milliseconds of 

additional packet propagation delays. 

IV. Discussion 

27. While, as detailed above, the 911 

system has been adapted to 

accommodate wireless and 

interconnected VoIP services, the 

success of the 911 system, combined 

with the antiquated aspects of today’s 

911 infrastructure and the development 

of advanced IP-based devices and 

applications in the telecommunications 

industry overall, creates a gulf between 

consumer assumptions about the 

system’s robust capabilities and its 

actual limitations. Indeed, there is 

widespread concurrence among 

academics, industry experts, and 

politicians that ‘‘the current 

communications landscape is a far cry 

from the one for which the current 9– 

1–1 system was engineered’’ and, 

furthermore, that ‘‘our emergency 

communications networks are unable to 

accommodate what is increasingly 

viewed as basic functionality inherent 

in many of today’s technologies.’’ In 

short, because 911 service was designed 

to succeed in the legacy wireline 

telephone environment, there are unmet 

consumer expectations concerning 

emergency service capability and 

reliability across new communications 

technologies (such as text messaging 

requests for help, sending IP-based 

information, including medical data, 

photos, videos, car collision telemetry, 

environmental sensors, gun shot 

sensors, etc. via smartphones, and 

delivering precise location information 

from behind MLTS systems). 

28. The deployment of and transition 

to NG911 presents multiple 

opportunities for the benefit of public 

safety and homeland security. First, 

replacing today’s system with a 

broadband-enabled, IP-based 911 

network will offer far more flexibility, 

resilience, functionality, innovation 

potential, and competitive opportunities 

than is presently possible. NG911 holds 

the promise to bridge the gap between 

traditional means of voice-based 

communications and the advanced 

capabilities already in widespread use 

by consumers using smartphones, 

netbooks, and advanced wireless 4G. In 

particular these digital devices have 

powerful processor and storage 

capabilities and are capable of 

transmitting not only voice 

communications, but also text, data, 

telemetry, image, and video signals, 

which have benefits to particular 

communities such as persons with 

disabilities. Unlike the circuit-switched 

technology that lies at the heart of the 

legacy 911 system, today’s wireless 

networks increasingly use all-digital 

packet switched technology based upon 

the Internet Protocol suite. Thus, while 

these networks are capable of conveying 

text, data, image, and video in addition 

to voice, the legacy 911 systems are not 

capable of receiving or processing these 

communications, and will not be until 

NG911 is deployed across the country. 

29. The adoption of broadband IPbased technology also creates the 

potential for our 911 system to 

accommodate a full range of specialized 

devices and functionalities tailored to 

particular emergency response 

scenarios. For example, NG911 could 

permit the simultaneous transmission of 

critical health data along with a 911 call 

for help, both from the ‘‘caller’’ seeking 

assistance to a dispatcher, and back out 

from a dispatcher to a first responder 

arriving on scene or to an emergency 

room receiving the patient. Likewise, a 

vehicle’s Automatic Collision 

Notification System could automatically 

call for help while conveying other 

relevant information such as the 

vehicle’s location and the severity of the 

crash. NG911 will also enable 911 call 

routing based on caller characteristics, 

not just the location of the call. For 

example, a 911 call might be made via 

a video-enabled device by a deaf caller 

whose native language is American Sign 

Language. In this situation, rather than 

routing the call to the ‘‘geographically 

appropriate’’ PSAP, it may be preferable 

to enable the 911 system to route the 

911 call to a PSAP that is video-enabled 

and has a 911 call taker prepared to 

respond to the caller using the caller’s 

native sign language. NG911 will permit 

this to happen. NG911 will also create 

the ability to utilize a ‘‘virtual PSAP.’’ 

Today’s 911 system generally requires a 

call taker to answer a 911 call from 

within the walls of a physical PSAP. In 

a NG911 network, however, a call taker 

will be able to answer a 911 call from 

virtually any location. This capability 

will be particularly advantageous during 

disasters and high call volume 

situations. NG911 will also complement 

the deployment of related next 

generation emergency communications 

networks, such as next generation 

alerting systems and advanced public 

safety broadband networks. 

30. In this proceeding, we seek to gain 

a general understanding of NG911 and 

the applications that it supports. We 

examine and seek comment about how 

the applications and architecture of 

NG911 will affect the interface with the 

general public, the internal workings of 

PSAPs, and the interface with 

Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and 

other first responder organizations, 

including dispatch and database access. 

We then look at issues associated with 

implementing NG911 and how the 

transition from legacy 911 will impact 

the current architecture, structure, and 

costs of today’s PSAPs over time. 

Finally, we seek comment on the proper 

roles of the FCC, other Federal agencies, 

and State, Tribal, and local governments 

in developing NG911 elements and 

facilitating the transition to NG911 over 

time. 

A. NG911 Capabilities and Applications 

31. In this section, we review the 

potential capabilities that the 

deployment of NG911 systems will 

provide to the public, and the likely 

architecture of NG911 networks. We 

seek comment on each of these elements 

as a component of NG911. Are there 

core elements that should be part of 

every NG911 system and standardized 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2302 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

across all NG911 deployments? Are 

there non-core elements that could be 

part of NG911 but are optional or can be 

varied locally? How will these elements 

(both core and non-core) be affected by 

future technological change? 

1. Potential Media Types in an NG911 

Environment 

32. Because NG911 architecture is IPbased, NG11 networks have the 

potential to support a variety of nonvoice communications applications or 

‘‘media types.’’ There is broad consensus 

in the public safety community that 

NG911 should include some 

combination of non-voice media types, 

and to this end, NENA, the IETF, and 

others have been actively engaged in 

developing and harmonizing technical 

standards to support such IP-based 

NG911 solutions. In addition, the U.S. 

Department of Transportation and other 

Federal agencies have engaged in the 

development of standards in this area. 

We identify and discuss the most likely 

media types below, and seek comment 

on the potential for each of the media 

types to be supported in the 

development and deployment of NG911 

networks. We also seek comment on 

whether there are any additional media 

types that we should consider for 

inclusion in NG911. 

33. Message-Based Text. When using 

message-based text, two or more parties 

have the ability to send complete, 

typically short, text messages to each 

other. Examples include Short Message 

Service (‘‘SMS’’), instant messaging 

(‘‘chat’’) sessions, or web-based tools. To 

send a message-based text, a user must 

make an explicit action, such as hitting 

an SMS send key, or the return key on 

a keyboard. Chat sessions are 

bidirectional through their protocol 

definition. While services such as SMS 

consist of independent messages, they 

may be presented to the user as a thread 

of back-and-forth messages. 

34. Real-Time Text. ‘‘Real-Time Text 

(RTT) is conversational text that is 

generally sent and received on a 

character-by-character basis. The 

characters are sent immediately (in a 

fraction of a second) once they are typed 

and are also displayed immediately to 

the receiving person(s). This 

functionality allows text to be used in 

the same conversational mode as voice.’’ 

RTT is viewed by many in the disability 

community as a replacement for the 

dated TTY technology and preferable, 

from a human interface perspective, to 

message-based text, as it more closely 

approximates the speed and flow of 

human voice conversation. RTT also 

prevents messages from crossing each 

other during a call, and for this reason 

may be preferred over SMS as a means 

of facilitating the exchange of 

information between the caller and the 

PSAP dispatcher. 

35. Still Images (Photos). Still images 

are captured by a digital camera, 

typically encoded into a compressed file 

format, such as JPEG, and made 

available as a single data object (file). 

Still images may help 911 call takers 

and first responders assess the severity 

of an incident or apprehend a criminal 

suspect. 

36. Real-Time Video. Real-time (live) 

video may be captured by a webcam, a 

camera built into a mobile phone, a 

networked security camera, or another 

video-capable device. The live nature of 

real-time video distinguishes it from 

streaming video, which is typically used 

for watching entertainment content. 

Real-time video will help first 

responders better gauge the scope and 

nature of an incident and will also help 

determine a caller’s precise location. 

37. Telemetry Data. Telemetry data 

includes all sensor measurements that 

quantify physical, chemical, or 

biological phenomena. Examples 

include vehicular information (such as 

current speed and crash-related data), 

biological and environmental sensors 

that measure wind and temperature, and 

physiometric sensors that measure 

human pulse rates. 

38. Auxiliary Medical and other 

Personal Data. Auxiliary data would 

include relevant information about the 

caller’s medical conditions and 

particular treatment needs, as well as 

information related to those categories. 

Such information could be provided on 

a prior-consent basis to the PSAP for 

forwarding to EMS personnel or other 

first responders. 

2. Primary vs. Secondary Usage of 

Media Types 

39. We also seek comment on the 

degree to which each of the media types 

discussed above will be used as a 

primary versus a secondary form of 

communication on NG911 networks. By 

‘‘primary’’ media, we refer to media that 

provide the basic communications link 

between the 911 caller and the PSAP 

during the emergency call. By 

‘‘secondary’’ media, we refer to media 

that may convey additional information 

between the caller (or the device used 

by the caller) and the PSAP to augment 

the primary communication. Primary 

media will likely include voice, RTT, 

and text-based messaging (SMS, instant 

messaging), because to differing degrees, 

all of these media types will permit live 

conversations between the 911 caller 

and the PSAP. Thus, primary media can 

also be considered ‘‘conversational 

media.’’ Primary media will likely be 

used to convey the nature and location 

of an emergency to a PSAP. In some 

cases, primary media may not be 

available to a 911 caller (e.g., due to 

network congestion or end system 

limitations). In these cases, we seek 

comment on whether e-mail or social 

network status pages could possibly be 

used as the primary means of contacting 

a PSAP. Secondary media will likely 

include transmission of photos, live 

video, and sensor data (e.g., data 

acquired from sensors commonly found 

in mobile devices, vehicles, and medical 

monitoring systems). We envision a 

PSAP most frequently using secondary 

media to acquire supplemental 

information from a 911 caller or the 

caller’s device. 

40. The Commission seeks comment 

on what primary and secondary media 

types PSAPs and service providers will 

likely support. Should individual 

PSAPs be able to choose the media 

types that they will support, or should 

all PSAPs be expected or required to 

support a specific set of media types? 

Should different standards or 

requirements apply to primary 

conversational media as opposed to 

secondary non-conversational media? If 

secondary non-conversational media 

include the capability to transmit 

sensitive personal data, what privacy 

protection concerns are raised and how 

should they be addressed? Would 

changes in current laws, regulations, 

tariffs, and overall policies be needed to 

enable NG911 to support these media 

types and system features? 

3. SMS for Emergency Communications 

41. In light of the popularity and 

ubiquity of SMS, many consumers may 

assume that they are or will soon be able 

to text to 911. Indeed, consumer use of 

SMS has exploded in the past decade 

and billions of SMS messages are sent 

each day. Also, unlike some of the other 

media types discussed above, SMS is 

readily available on most mobile 

phones, and thus its implementation 

into the NG911 network may be one of 

the first steps in moving beyond a voiceonly emergency calling framework. 

SMS, however, has limitations that will 

need to be addressed if it is to become 

a reliable means for emergency 

communications. For example, a recent 

study noted that SMS is an 

asynchronous messaging service that 

does not provide a means for the sender 

to know whether and when the message 

has reached its destination. In addition, 

the study noted that because each SMS 

is independent of its predecessors, it is 

difficult to ensure that messages within 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2303 

the same logical conversation are routed 

to the same destination. 

42. Given these limitations, we seek 

comment on how the increasing use of 

SMS may impact emergency 

communications and whether NG911 

networks should be configured to 

support SMS emergency 

communications. For example, are there 

any proposed technical standards or 

approaches that would sufficiently 

address routing and location concerns? 

Further, will it be possible to use the 

existing short code system to reach 

PSAPs? Are there measurement results 

for mobile-to-fixed messaging that 

indicate the reliability and delay of SMS 

delivery under specified circumstances? 

Would it be possible to add location 

information to SMS messages to help in 

routing such messages and, if so, how? 

Would it be possible to maintain session 

continuity across messages, e.g., at the 

gateway between the cellular network 

and the IP network? Can end-system 

SMS applications address some of the 

location-related issues, e.g., waiting to 

send an emergency SMS until location 

information has been acquired? Have 

there been trials or operational 

experiences using SMS within the 

NG911 architecture? Should SMS be 

considered primarily as a fall-back 

mechanism when voice 

communications are difficult or 

impossible to transmit? As wireless 

systems evolve to IP based 4G 

architectures, can the reliability and 

features of SMS messaging be improved 

for the purposes of emergency 

communications and if so, how? 

43. We also seek comment on existing 

and future public expectations related to 

the use of SMS for emergency 

communications. Do consumers 

understand that currently available SMS 

generally does not support sending text 

messages to 911? Could the 

implementation of NG911 lead to 

changes in consumer expectations and 

public misunderstandings about SMS 

capabilities? Is there a need for 

programs to educate the public about 

the limitations of SMS for emergency 

communications, and if so, what entity 

should be responsible for developing 

such programs? Are there liability issues 

that could arise if consumers 

unsuccessfully attempt to use SMS for 

emergency communications? 

4. NG911 Applications for Persons with 

Disabilities and Special Needs 

44. According to the ICO Plan, ‘‘[t]he 

biggest gap between the technologies 

used for daily communication and those 

that can access 9–1–1 services is that for 

the deaf and people with hearing or 

speech impairments.’’ As noted in 

paragraph 11, supra, the Twenty-First 

Century Act directs the Commission to 

form the EAAC with the purpose of 

determining the most effective and 

efficient technologies and methods by 

which to enable access to NG911 

emergency services by individuals with 

disabilities. Moreover, the Twenty-First 

Century Act provides that ‘‘[t]he 

Commission shall have the authority to 

promulgate regulations to implement 

the recommendations proposed by the 

[EAAC], as well as any other 

regulations, technical standards, 

protocols, and procedures as are 

necessary to achieve reliable, 

interoperable communication that 

ensures access by individuals with 

disabilities to an Internet protocolenabled emergency network, where 

achievable and technically feasible.’’ In 

addition, the National Broadband Plan 

recommended that NHTSA include ‘‘an 

analysis of the needs of persons with 

disabilities and should identify 

standards and protocols for NG911 and 

for incorporating VoIP and ‘Real Time 

Text’ standards.’’ ICO has noted that 

when it analyzed trial deployments of 

IP-enabled emergency networks, texting 

access through various IP-devices, RTT, 

and third-party conferencing was 

successfully demonstrated. 

Additionally, streaming video and SMS 

were successfully demonstrated, but 

with key shortcomings. 

45. The Commission seeks comment 

on what media types and devices (e.g., 

text, video) persons with disabilities 

will likely use to make an emergency 

call in an NG911 environment. We 

understand that some people with 

hearing and speech disabilities make 

emergency calls directly; others use 

telecommunications relay services 

(TRS), a more indirect method to make 

these calls. How can the Commission 

ensure that persons with disabilities 

receive the appropriate benefits from the 

NG911 system? What, if any, technical 

or accessibility requirements should be 

imposed to ensure that persons with 

disabilities have the necessary access to 

the NG911 system? To what extent can 

real-time text, which permits the live 

exchange of information with a PSAP 

during a call, assist individuals with 

hearing or speech disabilities who wish 

to call 911 directly? Finally, the 

Commission requires IP-based text and 

video relay providers to ensure the 

prompt and automatic call handling of 

emergency calls. What considerations 

are necessary to ensure effective access 

to NG911 services for callers who 

continue to rely on IP-based relay 

services for their 911 calls? Are there 

different considerations for individuals 

who continue to use PSTN-based relay 

services? 

46. The Commission recognizes the 

significant public safety interest in 

ensuring that non-English speakers have 

access to emergency services. We seek 

comment on what media types nonEnglish speakers likely will use to make 

an emergency call in an NG911 

environment. What types of devices 

may non-English speakers use to make 

an emergency call in an NG911 

environment? How can the Commission 

ensure that non-English speakers 

receive the appropriate benefits from the 

NG911 system? 

47. The ability to share information— 

including medical information—could 

be of particular value to EMS and other 

first responders. Should such 

information be provided in the ordinary 

course to EMS and other first 

responders in a manner similar to the 

provision of medical condition 

information described in paragraph 37, 

supra? Since privacy protection 

concerns would seemingly be 

implicated in this case, as in the case of 

transmitted medical information, how 

should such concerns be addressed? 

48. Independently of the 

Commission’s efforts in connection with 

the EAAC, we seek comment on 

whether the Commission should 

conduct a separate rulemaking to ensure 

that individuals with disabilities have 

access to an Internet protocol-enabled 

emergency network, where achievable 

and technically feasible. 

B. NG911 Network Architecture 

1. Transport Mechanisms in an NG911 

Environment 

49. In this section, we seek comment 

on the mechanisms that will be used to 

transport digital content across NG911 

networks. In an IP-based NG911 

architecture, unlike a circuit-switched 

architecture, a variety of protocols can 

be used to transport media types across 

the network from the 911 caller to the 

PSAP. For example, still images can be 

carried: (1) As Multimedia Messaging 

Services (MMS) sent by mobile devices, 

(2) as attachments to Internet e-mail, (3) 

within instant images and uploaded to 

social network services, or (4) on other 

web services. We note that a diverse mix 

of physical infrastructures, networking 

protocols, applications, and devices 

may facilitate the carriage of potential 

NG911 media types from a 911 caller to 

a NG911-enabled PSAP. For example, 

some carriage scenarios may rely solely 

on ‘‘pure’’ IP-based solutions, some may 

rely heavily on existing legacy 

infrastructure, and some may rely on 

gateway packet-based communications 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2304 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

between callers and PSAPs. We seek 

comment on each of these technical 

approaches and request that 

commenters discuss operational, 

business, and other policy strengths and 

weaknesses of each approach. For 

example, while application of IP-based 

approaches has generally led to robust 

and unexpected innovations in 

communications technologies, PSAPs 

could face operational and funding 

burdens from supporting a large number 

of IP-based NG911 architectures, and 

resources could be diverted from 

technical solutions that incorporate 

standardized features and 

implementation approaches. Similarly, 

introduction of operational 

requirements such as reliability, 

scalability, and standardized technology 

could result in tradeoffs between 

various legacy, proprietary, end-to-end 

open-standard, or other approaches for 

IP-based NG911 systems. We request 

that commenters identify these 

tradeoffs, or other relevant tradeoffs, 

and discuss the relative strengths and 

weaknesses of these technical 

approaches. 

2. NG911 Participants 

50. In the traditional 911 system, only 

a small number of entities participated 

in the provisioning of emergency calling 

services because an E911 call would 

originate from an end user device that 

was in practice tightly-coupled, both 

technically and administratively, with 

the service provider’s transport network. 

Examples include a conventional 

wireline phone, a mobile phone, and an 

interconnected VoIP phone. 

51. In a NG911 environment, 

however, end user devices are far more 

likely to be liberated from a particular 

transport network. This treatment 

acknowledges important industry 

trends, such as the increasing portability 

of devices among service providers, 

open access possibilities, and the 

increasing use of user-selected IP-based 

devices that may exploit widelyavailable sources of Internet access. As 

such, the number of participants in an 

NG911 environment will increase 

dramatically. The table below lists the 

potential NG911 participants and their 

possible roles in an NG911 

environment. 

Participant/Affected by Media transport 

and encodings 

Call/Message 

identification 

Location provisioning Call/Message 

routing 

PSAPs ...................................................................................... X X X X 

VSP and application service providers .................................... X X 

Residential ISP ........................................................................ X 

Non-traditional ISP (hotels, coffee shops, community networks, etc.) ........................................................................... X 

Enterprise IP–PBX ................................................................... X X X X 

UE vendors .............................................................................. X X X X 

Communication software developers ...................................... X X X X 

Home gateway manufacturers ................................................. X 

52. Currently, only devices that 

provide telephone services are capable 

of transmitting 911 calls. In the future, 

however, most electronic devices will 

have communication capabilities, 

ranging from televisions, in-car systems, 

portable music players, tablet 

computers, and game consoles. We seek 

comment on what devices can usefully 

provide emergency calling services. 

Should every consumer device with 

Internet or cellular connectivity and a 

suitable user interface have the ability to 

request emergency assistance? Should 

such devices be certified and labeled as 

911-capable? How will a user of a 

device or software be able to tell 

whether a device or communication 

software is capable of placing 911 calls? 

If this capability is conditional, e.g., on 

properly-configured network 

connectivity, can the user or device test 

911 reachability? 

53. In the E911 Scope Order, the 

Commission established the following 

four criteria for determining which 

licensees should be subject to the 

wireless enhanced 911 obligations: 

Those licensees that (1) offer real-time, 

two-way switched voice service, 

interconnected with the PSTN, either on 

a stand-alone basis or packaged with 

other telecommunications services; (2) 

whose customers clearly expected 

access to 911 and E911; (3) that 

competed with analog and broadband 

PCS providers; and (4) where it is 

technically and operationally feasible to 

provide enhanced 911 service. Should 

the Commission consider expanding or 

modifying the four criteria from the 

E911 911 Scope Order to apply to 

additional NG911 participants? For 

example, should hot-spot providers that 

are not traditional communications 

providers, such as coffee shops, hotels, 

bus lines, and public parks be expected 

to play a role in the deployment of 

NG911? 

3. Interoperability and Standards 

54. Many potential NG911 media 

types permit a range of encoding and 

performance parameters. For example, 

photos are typically compressed using 

the JPEG standard, but may also use 

other formats. Photos may also include 

meta data (EXIF), ranging from camera 

settings to embedded geographic 

location. Further, camera images can 

range from low-resolution web cam 

photos with less than one megapixel to 

professional-quality images with more 

than 15 megapixels and several 

megabytes in size. For text, accented 

and foreign language characters can be 

represented in a range of character 

encodings with Unicode in its UTF–8 

encoding among the most popular. 

While a wide variety of digital formats 

are potentially available for encoding 

such information, NG911 will require 

use of compatible formats across the 

network, so that PSAPs can receive and 

process the text, photos, and other 

digital information that are sent by the 

public. We seek comment on how best 

to ensure such compatibility in the 

formatting and coding of text, photos, 

and other digital information. Should 

there be standards for media encodings? 

Should we specify minimal 

performance ranges, e.g., minimum file 

sizes for digital images, that NG911 

networks must support and PSAPs be 

able to accept? 

55. If there is a need to develop 

standards for digital information 

transported on NG911 networks, what 

entity should set and update these 

standards, or assist in their 

coordination? Should the standards be 

national or international? Are there 

standards efforts currently under way 

that could form the basis for future 

evolution in this regard? Should specific 

technical standards or architectures be 

mandated? How can the interoperability 

of end user devices and PSAP devices 

be ensured (e.g., through 

interoperability testing)? Should there 

be a certification process that indicates 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2305 

whether a device or downloadable 

software application is compliant with 

certain standards? If so, what form of 

certification seems to be the most 

suitable, e.g., self-certification or 

approved certification organizations? 

Should all devices of a certain class be 

required to meet the certification 

criteria? As more people—especially 

within the disability community—begin 

to make video-based telephone calls, are 

there steps needed to ensure that NG911 

networks interoperate seamlessly with 

the video software and applications 

being utilized in smart phones, tablets, 

computers and other devices? Similarly, 

are there steps needed to ensure 

interoperability with the video 

communication services provided by all 

video relay service providers? 

4. PSAP Functions in an NG911 

Environment 

56. As noted earlier, IP-based 

technology removes many of the 

location constraints of traditional 

circuit-switched technology. In 

particular, a PSAP no longer has to be 

in a single building at a fixed location. 

Call takers that are organizationally part 

of a single PSAP can be located virtually 

anywhere an Internet connection can be 

found, and a single call taker could be 

supporting multiple PSAPs. Such 

‘‘virtual PSAP’’ arrangements may allow 

more flexible and efficient staffing and 

may allow PSAPs to better recover from 

major disasters by temporarily 

relocating operations. We seek comment 

on the potential for development of 

virtual PSAPs as part of the transition 

from legacy 911 to NG911. Are current 

technologies sufficient to support 

virtual PSAPs? Are there regulatory or 

legal barriers changes that are necessary 

to facilitate the development and 

operation of virtual PSAPs? Are there 

current PSAP databases that would need 

to be standardized to support a remote 

‘‘virtual PSAP’’? How could local data 

that is contained in current Computer 

Aided Dispatch Data Bases, MSAGs, and 

other repositories that are necessary for 

an efficient response by emergency 

personnel be distributed on a timely and 

reliable basis for use by non-local 

PSAPs? 

57. While emergency service networks 

and PSAPs will continue to be operated 

and managed regionally, the 

deployment of NG911 may require a set 

of national infrastructure components. 

Based on the current NENA NG911 

architecture, these may include: (1) A 

national PSAP and ESInet lookup 

directory, called the LoST ‘‘forest 

guide’’; (2) a public-key cryptography 

certificate to ensure that other NG911 

entities can authenticate PSAPs and to 

ensure that PSAPs are capable of 

receiving access to sensitive 

information; and (3) interconnection to 

an IP-based national network to ensure 

that emergency calls can be routed 

amongst PSAPs without PSAPs losing 

information. The Commission seeks 

comment on whether it is necessary to 

establish a national set of infrastructure 

components to ensure the deployment 

of NG911. If it is necessary, what entity 

should operate this national set of 

infrastructure components? 

C. Other Specialized NG911 

Applications 

58. Device-Initiated Services for 

Emergency Communications. In an IPbased network architecture, emergency 

calls can be placed not only by human 

beings, but by a variety of automatically 

triggered devices. Examples of such 

devices include environmental sensors 

capable of detecting chemicals, highway 

cameras, security cameras, alarms, 

personal medical devices, telematics, 

and consumer electronics in 

automobiles. We seek comment on how 

the deployment of NG911 will facilitate 

the ability of device-initiated emergency 

services to reach PSAPs. What steps are 

needed to facilitate such deployment? Is 

there a need to modify existing laws, 

regulations, or tariffs to ensure that 

device-initiated emergency services 

have access to the NG911 network? 

59. Social Media for Emergency 

Communications. How have consumers 

used social media to report an 

emergency or contact public safety 

during an emergency? How will 

consumers expect to use social media 

for emergency purposes in the future? 

To what extent might State and local 

public safety jurisdictions employ social 

media tools as a way to interact with the 

public? How will these tools impact the 

deployment of NG911? 

60. N11 Numbers and Other Services 

for Emergency Communications. The 

basic functionality of NG911 is similar 

to many other location-based 

information and assistance services, 

such as 211 (community information 

and referral), 311 (non-emergency city 

services), 511 (traffic information), 

poison control, call-before-you-dig, and 

other similar services. Since these 

services share much of the same 

technical functionality, it may be 

possible to reduce cost and improve 

service by integrating some of these 

services to use a common technology 

platform. Further, callers may need to 

be transferred from one service to 

another, e.g., from 911 to 311 or 211. 

Can such coordination and integration 

be helpful and cut costs? How will the 

deployment of NG911 address N11 

numbers, including N11 services such 

as 311, which is designated for nonemergencies? How will the deployment 

of NG911 impact other emergency 

services, such as poison control centers 

using 800 services? How will the 

deployment of NG911 affect TRS that 

use 711? 

61. Auxiliary Data. NG911 offers the 

opportunity to provide additional data 

to PSAPs and first responders, such as 

the caller’s medical history, a 

description of the caller’s residence or 

business location, and related data, 

including building floor plans, 

information about hazardous materials, 

and building occupants with special 

needs. This data will often be 

maintained and provided by third 

parties, such as health care 

organizations that maintain electronic 

medical records or commercial 

landlords that maintain floor plans. 

How should the PSAP be informed 

about the availability of this data? What 

entity should associate this information 

with the call or message, such as the 

application service provider or a third 

party? Is there a need for regulations 

that require an application service 

provider to supply these services, e.g., 

by providing the appropriate call 

signaling or lookup functionality? Is 

there a need for standards to ensure that 

PSAPs and first responders receive 

access to this data without every PSAP 

having to make individual arrangements 

with each data source? Since this 

auxiliary data may be considered part of 

the 911 call record and therefore subject 

to public disclosure, is there a need to 

protect the privacy of this data 

differently than the remainder of the 

call information? 

62. Disaster Planning and Recovery. 

How will NG911 facilitate disaster 

planning and recovery? How will 

NG911 interact with existing and future 

public alerting systems? Can national 

security be enhanced by the consistent 

implementation of interoperable NG911 

systems across the nation? What key 

NG911 elements should be the focus for 

consistent implementation and 

interoperability? 

63. MLTS for Emergency 

Communications in an NG911 

Environment. Currently, MLTS 

operators are not subject to the FCC’s 

E911 regulations. In 2003, the 

Commission found that economic and 

competitive factors existed that 

rendered it impracticable to adopt E911 

requirements for MLTS. The 

Commission, however, sought comment 

on its ‘‘jurisdiction over MLTS 

operators, in light of the Commission’s 

earlier interpretations of its section 4(i) 

authority and its prior statement that 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2306 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

‘the reliability of 911 service is 

integrally related to our responsibilities 

under section 1 of the Act.’ ’’ In light of 

NG911’s potential impact on MLTS, we 

seek comment on whether the 

Commission has the jurisdiction to 

regulate MLTS operators. How will the 

deployment of NG911 improve 

emergency services for MLTS users? 

Will MLTS operators be able to provide 

improved location information in an 

NG911 environment? 

D. Issues Related to NG911 

Implementation/Transition 

64. We seek comment on the potential 

operational, technical, and other 

challenges associated with the transition 

to NG911. As both the ICO Plan and the 

National Broadband Plan highlight, the 

transition to NG911 will be an 

evolutionary process, involving 

technological, economic, and 

institutional challenges. The ICO Plan 

also noted that ‘‘a timetable for national 

deployment of NG9–1–1 is difficult to 

estimate due to the lack of: 

• Consistent funding for planning, 

training, deployment and 

implementation; 

• Complete set of standards and time 

required to develop them; and 

• Coordinated planning and 

implementation efforts by stakeholders 

at all levels (e.g., government, industry, 

OSPs, standards organizations).’’ 

65. In light of these challenges, what 

actions should the Commission take to 

encourage the deployment of NG911? 

Have there been any recent 

developments that provide additional 

details on a potential timeline for 

NG911 deployment? Have there been 

any coordinated management efforts by 

State, Tribal, or local governments? 

Should there be a national set of 

milestones that provide a planning 

horizon? If so, what entity or entities 

should set those milestones, measure 

progress, and disseminate the 

measurement results? What are the 

milestones that will be useful to 

accelerate and measure NG911 

deployment? What changes will need to 

take place in the emergency 

communications governance structures, 

at both the Federal and non-Federal 

levels, to facilitate NG911 planning and 

implementation? What policies can be 

established to enable and instigate the 

development and deployment of shared 

State-wide ESInet, and related 

cooperative working agreements 

between Federal, State, Tribal, and local 

agencies, as a fundamental 911 and 

emergency communications policy 

objective? Will waivers of certain rules 

and regulations be necessary during the 

transition to NG911? Should the FCC 

provide certain criteria for consideration 

of waiver grants? 

1. Disparate PSAP Capabilities in an 

NG911 Environment 

66. Because the transition to NG911 is 

likely to be gradual rather than a large 

scale ‘‘flash cut,’’ what can be done to 

ensure that NG911 networks 

interoperate seamlessly with legacy 

networks? PSAPs will likely offer 

different capabilities for both primary 

and secondary media types during the 

transition to NG911; however, 

consumers in need of emergency 

services will also expect a uniform 

experience. For example, it may confuse 

consumers if they can use IP-based 

devices and applications to reach a 

PSAP in one county, but cannot use 

them to reach a PSAP in a neighboring 

county. Will the deployment of NG911 

permit statewide or nationwide PSAPs 

to uniformly support new emergency 

communication capabilities? We seek 

comment on whether a timetable or 

deadline should be established for all 

PSAPs to support a minimal set of 

NG911 capabilities. Should we 

implement a timetable or deadline to 

ensure that all primary media types can 

be used to contact 911? Should certain 

media types, such as message-based 

text, only be permitted for emergency 

purposes when a threshold percentage 

of PSAPs across the country can accept 

these media types? Is fallback routing 

acceptable, where larger regional 

entities handle media types, such as 

SMS, when the local PSAP cannot? If 

this is not the best path forward, how 

should consumers determine what 

media types they can use to reach 

emergency services in their locality? 

Should NG911-enabled devices be able 

to automatically discover the local 

NG911 capabilities? 

2. 911 Competition 

67. In the current 911 system, 

incumbent local exchange carriers are 

the primary 911 System Service 

Providers (SSPs); however, in the 

NG911 environment, there are likely to 

be multiple SSPs offering a variety of 

service capabilities and options. Thus, 

NG911 systems will provide the 

opportunity for competitive services to 

emerge in the 911 marketplace. 

However, as NENA has pointed out, 

there are many State, local, and Federal 

regulations that may inadvertently 

inhibit the transition to NG911. We seek 

comment on both the potential benefits 

and potential drawbacks of competition 

in the 911 marketplace. If competition 

does provide a benefit, what steps 

should be taken at both the Federal and 

non-Federal level to enable competition 

for the delivery of NG911 services? 

68. Since many 911 laws and 

regulations were written in an era where 

the technological capabilities of NG911 

did not exist, we seek comment on how 

legislative and regulatory bodies can 

modify their laws and regulations to 

ensure that they keep pace with the 

rapidly changing public safety 

marketplace. As NENA noted, ‘‘[d]uring 

the transition to NG9–1–1 * * * rights 

and obligations are unclear for those 

companies that are providers of IP 

services and seek to provide complete 

systems or components of 9–1–1 

systems * * * [thus] * * * a 

clarification of rules impacting the 

delivery of 9–1–1 and emergency 

services is needed in the near term.’’ 

Given these new opportunities, what 

regulations should the Commission 

implement, or clarify, to facilitate an 

open and competitive NG911 

environment? 

69. How competitive is today’s 911 

system in terms of call routing, 

switching, transport, and database 

management services? Are there current 

laws and regulations that would inhibit 

an interoperable environment for 

NG911? Can these laws and regulations 

be modified to enable the IP-based, 

software, and database controlled 

structure of NG911? How do State laws 

and local ordinances that currently 

exclude non-voice based 

communications, automated 911 access, 

and sensors affect the deployment of 

NG911? Are disparate cost recovery 

mechanisms for originating 911 traffic 

and data costs and varying 

interconnection requirements impeding 

the transition to NG911? Do incumbent 

911 system service providers have 

sufficient incentives to upgrade their 

technology absent regulatory change? 

Specifically, will NG911 architecture 

encourage more competition in the 

provision of 911 services? Should the 

FCC encourage such competition, and if 

so, how? What actions are necessary to 

optimize 911 governing authority 

choices for competitive NG911 SSPs, 

including the ability of governing 

authorities to act directly as SSPs? 

Should existing regulations, laws, or 

tariffs be modified to ensure that 911 

governing authorities or new 911 SSPs 

are entitled to receive relevant routing, 

location, and other related 911 

information at reasonable rates and 

terms? Should laws, regulations, and 

tariffs be modified to account for the 

responsibility of cost distribution for the 

decreasing use of shared legacy 

resources, such as legacy selective 

routers? 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2307 

70. NENA has also recommended that 

the Commission examine its use of the 

term ‘‘wireline E9–1–1 network’’ as 

defined in section 9.3 of the 

Commission’s rules. According to 

NENA, ‘‘[i]t could be argued that this 

definition would not allow for the 

routing of 9–1–1 calls via an IP-based 

NG9–1–1 system.’’ The Commission 

seeks comment on NENA’s 

recommendation. What other 

regulations need to be modified or 

expanded to enable data based services 

and other NG911 capabilities, including 

the expansion of call routing from a 

location-only basis to more effective 

forms, such as caller characteristics or 

needs (e.g., hearing or speech impaired, 

preferred language, etc.)? 

3. Liability Concerns 

71. NG911 will promote a more 

complex service delivery environment, 

with more types of services able to 

connect to NG911 systems, more 

external data sources available to 

PSAPs, and increased informationsharing options among emergency 

response agencies. While this flexibility 

promises to provide benefits to the 

public and PSAPs, it is also likely to 

create more complex liability issues and 

may require new forms of liability 

protection for providers of NG911- 

related services. 

72. Liability concerns may arise in a 

variety of contexts, based on the 

variability and complexity of NG911 

services. For example, PSAPs may face 

differing liability scenarios depending 

on whether they choose to receive all 

possible information from all devices or 

to limit their systems to receipt of 

certain information or devices. 

Moreover, because NG911 can provide 

far more detailed information in real 

time than legacy 911, new liability 

issues may arise if errors occur in the 

transition of such data. For example, a 

911 call could arrive at a PSAP from a 

telematics-equipped vehicle with 

information on the severity of a crash 

along with information from the vehicle 

occupants’ electronic health records. 

Based on this information, algorithms 

may be able to predict the probability of 

severe injury and suggest a certain type 

of response. These capabilities are 

intended to result in the appropriate 

level of care quickly being sent to 

victims in need of assistance; however, 

they may also result in unintentional 

errors and liability exposure. Liability 

issues may also arise from the transfer 

of emergency calls and data outside the 

NG911 system, such as among multiple 

national N11/800 numbers (e.g., 211, 

311, 811, 911, suicide hotline, poison 

control centers). The current ability to 

transfer calls and data among the 

multiple N11 entities is limited, but will 

not be as NG911 systems are deployed 

and N11 calls are able to be routed over 

shared networks. As a result, these 

entities may be exposed to liability. 

73. These examples illustrate that 

NG911 may raise liability concerns both 

for PSAPs and for commercial providers 

of NG911-related services, and that 

liability protections may therefore need 

to be modified in an NG911 

environment. Some of the new 

communication services that have been 

proposed for inclusion in the NG911 

ecosystem may offer benefits to the 

intended user. However, in their present 

implementation, these services may not 

provide the reliability and quality of 

service that is associated with an 

emergency service. We seek comment 

on whether and how liability 

protections should be modified to 

ensure that NG911 service providers 

and PSAPs are adequately protected in 

an NG911 environment. How should the 

benefits of these new modes of 

communication be balanced against the 

potential liabilities they may introduce? 

Are there actions that the FCC can take, 

consistent with its statutory authority, 

in regard to modifying liability 

protections? Should liability protection 

extend to all forms of information 

pushed to a PSAP or pulled from 

external sources by a PSAP, regardless 

of the platform over which information 

travels? Should liability protection 

extend beyond the PSAP to all entities 

appropriately involved in the 

emergency response? Should the FCC 

review its requirement that all 911 calls 

be routed to the ‘‘geographically 

appropriate’’ PSAP to ensure that 911 

calls are not prevented from being 

intelligently routed to the appropriate 

PSAP, even if it is not the 

geographically closest PSAP? Does the 

possibility of 911 calls being answered 

by a ‘‘virtual’’ PSAP give rise to liability 

concerns that would need to be 

addressed? 

4. Confidentiality and Privacy Concerns 

74. The legacy 911 system is a 

dedicated, closed, single-purpose 

system. Since information associated 

with a 911 call in today’s system is 

generally stored in a single restricted 

location, preserving the confidentiality 

of the information and retaining 

appropriate records as required by law 

is relatively straightforward. Conversely, 

NG911 systems will be shared systems 

comprised of multiple entities. Indeed, 

the NG911 network may be only one 

part of a much larger system that will be 

shared with government, private sector, 

and other public safety entities. As 

previously noted, the number of media 

types that may be received by PSAPs 

and shared with emergency response 

agencies will greatly surpass that of 

current E911 systems. 

75. In light of the shared nature of 

NG911 architecture, we seek comment 

on whether privacy laws or regulations 

will need to be modified to adapt to the 

NG911 environment. What privacy 

concerns will be introduced with the 

deployment of NG911? What existing or 

new regulations might be necessary to 

ensure appropriate privacy controls? 

Will the definition of a ‘‘911 call’’ need 

to be modified in certain statutes and 

rules? How should we address concerns 

regarding private personal information 

that may be transmitted as part of an 

NG911 communication, for example, 

personal medical information that 

NG911 can provide to PSAPs and other 

third parties? How can 911 call takers at 

virtual PSAPs legally access 911 call 

data when necessary, while requiring 

adherence to appropriate 

confidentiality, disclosure, and 

retention statutes and rules? 

5. Location Capabilities 

76. As noted in the ICO Plan, new 

location-based technologies and 

applications have generated an 

increased demand for location services, 

yet the decoupling of originating service 

providers from network operators will 

make the delivery of real-time, 

automatic location information more 

challenging. To what degree should 

Federal regulations require that access 

providers provide call location data to 

end systems and/or voice service 

providers on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, using standard 

protocol interfaces? How can stationary, 

nomadic, and mobile end systems in 

wireline and non-cellular wireless 

networks (including Wi-Fi) reliably 

discover their location information to 

ensure call routing and dispatch? What, 

if any, obligations need to be imposed 

on Internet service providers, residential 

and enterprise equipment vendors, and 

other parties to ensure that location 

information can be discovered, 

conveyed, and validated? Is there a need 

for a national or regional certification 

entity that will allow a provider of 

location information to 

cryptographically sign the location 

information? 

6. Network and Data Security Concerns 

77. The IP-based nature of NG911 

architecture, and its complex 

relationship with other systems, gives 

rise to concerns about maintaining the 

security, integrity, and reliability of 

NG911 networks and information. We 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
2308 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

seek comment on how to address these 

concerns. Will the deployment of 

NG911 allow increased security of 

information through role-based access 

control and data rights management that 

limits access to information only to 

authorized entities? What additional 

security concerns will be implicated by 

the transition to NG911 as compared to 

the legacy 911 security functionality? 

How can the NG911 network be 

protected against viruses, cyber attacks, 

fraudulent or harassing transmissions, 

and other unwarranted intrusions and 

interruptions? 

7. Education 

78. What role will public information 

campaigns play in the transition to 

NG911? How can the Commission 

ensure that public safety personnel, 

consumers, and carriers are aware of 

NG911 deployments? What entities 

should lead and contribute to consumer 

education? Should the Commission 

foster common terms and terminology to 

facilitate the deployment of NG911? 

How can we ensure that other relevant 

organizations are aware of NG911’s 

benefits, such as mobile health and 

telemedicine? Beyond the EAAC, how 

can we ensure that the disability 

community is involved with and aware 

of the transition to NG911? 

8. Unidentified Caller Access to NG911 

79. Given the proliferation of services 

and devices that will be able to initiate 

emergency calls in an NG911 

environment, there will likely be many 

more ways for callers to contact a PSAP, 

including those callers that do not have 

an active subscription with an 

application (voice) service provider, or 

do not have access privileges for the 

wireless network available at their 

current location. 

80. We are concerned that 

unauthorized access to the NG911 

network will increase the number of 

unintentional, prank, or malicious calls 

to a PSAP. However, there may be 

opportunities to reduce the risks by 

creating authorization models that are 

separate from traditional subscriber 

arrangements. As a hypothetical 

example, State motor vehicle authorities 

could provide, as part of their normal 

identity management operations, 

network and Application Service 

Provider (ASP) credentials that would 

be valid for emergency calls. We seek 

comment on whether such emergencycall-only credentials would be desirable 

and feasible? If so, how can they be 

implemented? What regulatory 

arrangements would be necessary to 

facilitate this emergency-call 

authentication? 

81. Even if new authorization 

procedures can be developed, it may 

still be necessary for NG911 systems to 

support emergency communications in 

some circumstances where the caller 

cannot be identified. We seek comment 

on how this problem can be addressed. 

When would it be appropriate for the 

NG911 system to support emergency 

calls without authentication and/or 

authorization? Should ASPs be required 

to support emergency calls for zerobalance customers? Should providers of 

public and semi-public wireless data 

networks, such as 802.11 hot spots, be 

required to provide access for 

emergency calls? 

9. International Issues 

82. Currently, an international 

traveler can make a 911 call in the 

United States as long as the traveler’s 

mobile phone can connect to the local 

wireless network. In an NG911 

environment, an international traveler’s 

home ASP can route an emergency call 

to the appropriate PSAP in the United 

States, even if the ASP is located in 

another country. However, regulatory 

arrangements may be needed to make 

this call routing feasible. Should these 

types of calls be supported by NG911? 

What kind of arrangements and 

regulatory changes will be needed to 

facilitate these calls? 

E. Jurisdiction, Authority, and 

Regulatory Roles 

83. State, Tribal, and local 

governments are the primary 

administrators of the legacy 911 system 

and are responsible for establishing and 

designating PSAPs or appropriate 

default answering points, purchasing 

customer premises equipment, retaining 

and training PSAP personnel, and 

purchasing 911 network services. 

Certain communications technologies, 

however, necessitated the adoption of a 

uniform national approach. For 

example, following the introduction of 

CMRS in the United States, the 

Commission established rules requiring 

CMRS carriers to implement basic 911 

and E911 services. In addition, Congress 

adopted the 911 Act to promote and 

enhance public safety through the use of 

wireless communications services. The 

911 Act directed the Commission to 

designate 911 as the universal 

emergency assistance number for 

wireless and wireline calls, which the 

Commission accomplished in 1999. The 

911 Act also required the Commission 

to consult and cooperate with State and 

local officials in its role of encouraging 

and supporting the deployment of 

‘‘comprehensive end-to-end emergency 

communications infrastructure and 

programs.’’ Similarly, in applying E911 

rules to interconnected VoIP in 2005, 

the Commission noted that a uniform 

national approach was necessary to 

ensure that the quality and reliability of 

911 service would not be damaged by 

the introduction of new 

communications technologies that 

posed technical and operational 

challenges to the 911 system. In 2008, 

Congress codified these rules in the NET 

911 Act. 

84. The level and manner of Statelevel coordination of 911 services varies 

widely. In some states, 911 service is 

strictly a local matter. Other states have 

centralized the 911 program function or 

have otherwise established a statewide 

coordination mechanism, although their 

circumstances and authority vary 

widely. Another factor that varies 

widely is the extent to which states have 

coordinated their 911 systems with 

those of Tribal governments. Although 

the staffing of PSAPs and handling of 

911 calls will generally remain a local 

function, certain aspects of transitioning 

to NG911 will require State-level 

planning and implementation 

coordination. For example, according to 

NENA, ‘‘ESInets will be developed and 

managed locally or regionally, but will 

need strong State-level leadership and 

coordination to ensure both operability 

and interoperability of State, local, and 

regional ESInets.’’ In light of the 

variation in State-level approaches to 

legacy 911, we seek comment on the 

ability of states to effectively coordinate 

the transition to NG911. Should each 

State designate an organization that will 

be responsible for planning, 

coordinating, and implementing the 

NG911 system in that particular State? 

Similarly, we seek comment on how 

coordination with Tribal governments is 

effectuated at the local level. 

85. We also seek comment on whether 

there should be Federal oversight or 

governance of State deployment of 

NG911. The National Broadband Plan 

called on Congress to enact and the FCC 

to implement a Federal NG911 

regulatory framework that confers 

Federal jurisdiction and oversight for 

the ‘‘development and transition to 

NG911 networks’’ while preserving 

‘‘existing State authority for 911 

services.’’ We seek comment on the 

extent of the FCC’s jurisdiction to 

oversee the transition to NG911, since 

PSAPs, service providers, consumer 

device manufacturers, and software 

developers will all be involved. We also 

seek comment on the role that other 

Federal agencies, such as ICO and those 

entities with responsibilities to Tribal 

lands, should play. Should a single 

Federal entity be established to oversee 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2011 / Proposed Rules 2309 

the transition to NG911? Should there 

be a single Federal entity to ensure 

compliance with required standards, 

coordination, implementation, and 

policies? Should there be a national 

policy established by the Commission or 

another Federal entity to ensure 

consistent regulation? What entity 

should enable and instigate the 

development and deployment of shared 

State-wide ESInets and related 

cooperative working agreements 

between Federal, State, tribal, and local 

agencies? What functions and 

responsibilities should be performed at 

the Federal, regional, State, Tribal, and 

local levels in the implementation, 

transition to, and ongoing operation of 

NG911 in areas including networks, 

NG911 functional elements, databases, 

system operation, and PSAP operation? 

What statutory or regulatory changes, if 

any, would be necessary for the 

Commission, other Federal agencies, 

States, Tribes, or localities to facilitate 

and oversee NG911? 

86. How should the FCC coordinate 

with other Federal agencies on issues 

related to the deployment of NG911, 

such as mobile health, telemedicine and 

disability access? How should the FCC 

and other Federal agencies coordinate 

with the states and Tribal governments? 

Should the FCC provide oversight to the 

states as they assume leadership roles in 

the transition to and implementation of 

NG911 systems within and between 

states? 

V. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act 

87. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 47 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4). 

B. Ex Parte Presentations 

88. The inquiry this Notice initiates 

shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance with 

the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one or two 

sentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. Other requirements pertaining 

to oral and written presentations are set 

forth in section 1.1206(b) of the 

Commission’s rules. 

C. Comment Filing Procedures 

89. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

• Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary must be 

delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 

12th St., SW., Room TW–A325, 

Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours 

are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries 

must be held together with rubber bands 

or fasteners. Any envelopes must be 

disposed of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

90. People with Disabilities: To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty). 

VI. Ordering Clause 

91. Accordingly, it is ordered that, 

pursuant to the authority contained in 

sections 4(i), 4(j), 10, 218, 303(b), 303(r), 

and 403 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 

154(j), 160, 218, 303(b), 303(r), and 403, 

this Notice of Inquiry is adopted. 

Federal Communications Commission 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2011–565 Filed 1–12–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 575 

[Docket No. NHTSA 2011–0005] 

RIN 2127–AK06 

Consumer Information Regulations; 

Fees for Use of Traction Skid Pads 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This NPRM proposes to 

amend NHTSA’s consumer information 

regulations on uniform tire quality 

grading standards by updating the fees 

currently charged for use of the traction 

skid pads at NHTSA’s San Angelo Test 

Facility, formerly called the Uniform 

Tire Quality Grading Test Facility, in 

San Angelo, Texas and by eliminating 

fees for course monitoring tires, which 

are no longer supplied by NHTSA. This 

NPRM updates the fees in accordance 

with Office of Management and Budget 

Circular A–25, which governs fees 

assessed for Government services and 

use of Government goods or resources. 

DATES: Comments to this proposal must 

be received on or before March 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by the docket number in the 

heading of this document, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the electronic docket site by clicking 

on ‘‘Help’’ or ‘‘FAQ.’’ 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., West Building Ground 

Floor, Rm. W12–140, Washington, DC 

20590. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS