Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1799 

pentylacetate, in or on red apples and 

grapes. The petitioner believes no 

analytical method is needed because 

this request is to establish a permanent 

exemption from the requirement of a 

tolerance and, therefore, an analytical 

method is not required. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180 

Environmental protection, 

Agricultural commodities, Feed 

additives, Food additives, Pesticides 

and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: December 12, 2012. 

Sheryl K. Reilly, 

Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution 

Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide 

Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00272 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[PS Docket No. 11–153; PS Docket No. 10– 

255; FCC 12–149] 

Next Generation 911; Text-to-911; Next 

Generation 911 Applications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend its rules 

by requiring all wireless carriers and 

providers of ‘‘interconnected’’ text 

messaging applications to support the 

ability of consumers to send text 

messages to 911 in all areas throughout 

the nation where 911 Public Safety 

Answering Points (PSAPs) are also 

prepared to receive the texts. In 

addition, to inform consumers and 

prevent confusion, the Commission 

proposes to require all wireless carriers 

and interconnected text messaging 

providers to send automated ‘‘bounce 

back’’ error messages to consumers 

attempting to text 911 when the service 

is not available. 

DATES: Comment Date for Section III.A: 

January 29, 2013. 

Reply Comment Date for Section III.A: 

February 8, 2013. 

Comment Date for Other Sections: 

March 11, 2013. 

Reply Comment Date for Other 

Sections: April 9, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments to 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Aaron Garza, Attorney Advisor, (202) 

418–1175. For additional information 

concerning the Paperwork Reduction 

Act information collection requirements 

contained in this document, contact 

Judith Boley-Herman, (202) 418–0214, 

or send an email to PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in PS 

Docket No. 11–153, PS Docket No. 10– 

255, FCC 12–149, released on December 

13, 2012. The full text of this document 

is available for public inspection during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Room CY–A257, 445 

12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554, 

or online at http://www.fcc.gov/ 

document/text-911-further-noticeproposed-rulemaking. 

I. Introduction 

1. Wireless consumers are 

increasingly using text messaging as a 

means of everyday communication on a 

variety of platforms. The legacy 911 

system, however, does not support text 

messaging as a means of reaching 

emergency responders, leading to 

potential consumer confusion and even 

to possible danger. As consumer use of 

carrier-based and third party-provided 

texting applications expands and 

evolves, the 911 system must also 

evolve to enable wireless consumers to 

reach 911 in those emergency situations 

where a voice call is not feasible or 

appropriate. 

2. In this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, we propose rules that will 

enable Americans to send text messages 

to 911 (text-to-911) and that will 

educate and inform consumers 

regarding the future availability and 

appropriate use of text-to-911. 

Specifically, we propose to require all 

wireless carriers and providers of 

‘‘interconnected’’ text messaging 

applications to support the ability of 

consumers to send text messages to 911 

in all areas throughout the nation where 

911 Public Safety Answering Points 

(PSAPs) are also prepared to receive the 

texts. In addition, to inform consumers 

and prevent confusion, we propose to 

require all wireless carriers and 

interconnected text messaging providers 

to send automated ‘‘bounce back’’ error 

messages to consumers attempting to 

text 911 when the service is not 

available. 

3. Our proposals build on the recently 

filed voluntary commitment by the four 

largest wireless carriers—in an 

agreement with the National Emergency 

Number Association (NENA), and the 

Association of Public Safety 

Communications Officials (APCO) 

(Carrier-NENA–APCO Agreement)—to 

make text-to-911 available to their 

customers by May 15, 2014, and to 

provide automatic bounce back 

messages across their networks by June 

30, 2013. The baseline requirements we 

propose in this Further Notice are 

modeled on the Carrier-NENA–APCO 

Agreement, and we seek comment on 

whether all carriers, including regional, 

small and rural carriers, and all 

‘‘interconnected text’’ providers can 

achieve these milestones in the same or 

similar timeframes. To allow for the 

possibility of implementing our bounce 

back proposal by June 30, 2013, we are 

seeking comment on this portion of the 

Further Notice on an accelerated basis. 

Moreover, in light of the importance of 

these issues, we intend to resolve 

promptly the questions we raise in the 

remaining portion of the Further Notice 

in 2013. 

4. Our proposal to add text capability 

to the 911 system will vastly enhance 

the system’s accessibility for over 40 

million Americans with hearing or 

speech disabilities. It will also provide 

a vital and lifesaving alternative to the 

public in situations where 911 voice 

service is unavailable or placing a voice 

call could endanger the caller. Indeed, 

as recent history has shown, text 

messaging is often the most reliable 

means of communications during 

disasters where voice calls cannot be 

completed due to capacity constraints. 

Finally, implementing text-to-911 

represents a crucial next step in the 

ongoing transition of the legacy 911 

system to a Next Generation 911 

(NG911) system that will support not 

only text but will also enable consumers 

to send photos, videos, and data to 

PSAPs, enhancing the information 

available to first responders for 

assessing and responding to 

emergencies. 

5. Our proposed approach to text-to911 is also based on the presumption 

that consumers in emergency situations 

should be able to communicate using 

the text applications they are most 

familiar with from everyday use. 

Currently, the most commonly used 

texting technology is Short Message 

Service (SMS), which is available, 

familiar, and widely used by virtually 

all wireless consumers. In the CarrierNENA–APCO Agreement, the four major 

carriers have indicated that they intend 

to use SMS-based text for their initial 

text-to-911 deployments, and we expect 

other initial deployments to be similarly 

SMS-based. 

6. At the same time, we do not 

propose to limit our focus to SMS-based 

text. As a result of the rapid 

proliferation of smartphones and other 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1800 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

advanced mobile devices, some 

consumers are beginning to move away 

from SMS to other IP-based text 

applications, including downloadable 

software applications provided by 

parties other than the underlying 

carrier. To the extent that consumers 

gravitate to such applications as their 

primary means of communicating by 

text, they may reasonably come to 

expect these applications to also 

support text-to-911, as consumer 

familiarity is vital in emergency 

situations where seconds matter. 

Therefore, in this Further Notice, we 

seek to ensure that consumers 

ultimately have access to the same textto-911 capabilities on the full array of 

texting applications that they use for 

ubiquitous communication—regardless 

of provider or platform. We also propose 

that service providers who offer SMSbased text-to-911 should have the 

flexibility to migrate their customers to 

other text-to-911 applications. 

7. While our proposal is designed to 

accelerate the nationwide availability of 

text-to-911, we recognize that 

deployment will not be uniform, e.g., 

during the transition period, text-to-911 

may be available in certain geographic 

areas while it is not available in others, 

or may be supported by certain carriers 

but not by others. This creates the risk 

of consumer confusion about the 

availability of text-to-911 as the 

transition proceeds—indeed, there is 

evidence that many consumers 

erroneously believe that they can 

already reach 911 by text, and that some 

have attempted to do so. Rapid 

implementation of the bounce back 

notification mechanism that we propose 

in this Further Notice is therefore 

critical to informing consumers and 

lessening potential confusion about textto-911 availability. In addition, we 

intend to begin work immediately with 

PSAPs, carriers, service providers, 

disability organizations, consumer 

groups, and others to educate and 

inform consumers regarding the 

transition, local availability, and 

appropriate use of text-to-911. 

8. Finally, we emphasize that even as 

adding text capability makes the 911 

system more accessible and effective in 

enhancing public safety, text-to-911 is 

and will remain a complement to, rather 

than a substitute for, voice 911 service. 

The voice 911 system that has been 

maintained and improved over decades 

remains the preferred means of seeking 

help in an emergency in most instances. 

Moreover, voice 911 service will 

continue to be central and essential to 

the 911 system even as we add text, 

photo, data, and video capabilities in 

the course of migrating to NG911. 

Therefore, even as we take this first 

major step in the transition to NG911, 

we continue to encourage all consumers 

seeking emergency help to access 911 by 

voice whenever possible. 

II. General Background 

9. In September 2011, the 

Commission released a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) (76 FR 

63257, October 12, 2011), which sought 

comment on a number of issues related 

to the deployment of NG911, including 

potential near-term methods for 

delivering text-to-911; whether and how 

to prioritize 911 in major emergencies; 

how to facilitate the long-term 

deployment of text-to-911; the 

Commission’s role in deploying text-to911 and other NG911 applications; 

consumer education and disclosure 

mechanisms; and the relationship 

between this proceeding and the 

implementation of the Twenty-First 

Century Communications and Video 

Accessibility Act of 2010 (CVAA). 

A. Text-to-911 Deployments and Trials 

10. While some commenters initially 

expressed concerns about implementing 

near-term text-to-911, both wireless 

carriers and public safety entities have 

more recently taken significant steps 

towards the near-term deployment of 

text-to-911, including SMS-based 

solutions. In May 2012, Verizon 

Wireless announced plans to deploy 

text-to-911 capability throughout its 

nationwide network in 2013. On 

December 10, 2012, Verizon Wireless 

commenced its rollout of text-to-911 

service in York County, Virginia. In June 

2012, AT&T also announced the goal of 

launching text-to-911 nationwide in 

2013. In addition, the Alliance for 

Telecommunications Industry Solutions 

(ATIS), an organization consisting of a 

large number of wireless and wireline 

carriers as well as equipment vendors, 

has formed a committee to ‘‘create an 

ATIS standard(s) for SMS-to-9–1–1 that 

incorporates requirements, architecture, 

message flows, and product details.’’ 

ATIS has targeted completion of these 

standards in the first quarter of 2013. 

Most recently, as noted above and 

described in further detail below, the 

four major wireless carriers, Sprint 

Nextel, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon, 

have entered into a voluntary agreement 

with NENA and APCO whereby the 

major carriers will provide text-to-911 

service by May 15, 2014, to PSAPs who 

request the service. 

11. Some of these same wireless 

carriers have already initiated text-to911 trials in partnership with several 

PSAPs to assess the technical feasibility 

of text-to-911 and its impact on PSAP 

operations. Four trials are currently 

under way—three of which have 

yielded positive results. First, as just 

announced, AT&T is ‘‘in the process of 

launching a standards-based trial 

service for text-to-911 in the state of 

Tennessee * * *.’’ Additionally, in June 

2009, Black Hawk County, Iowa 

partnered with Intrado (a provider of 

911 technology solutions) and i wireless 

(a T-Mobile affiliate that offers regional 

wireless communications service), to 

provide text-to-911 service within the 

county. According to Black Hawk 

County, there have been no delayed or 

dropped text messages in the trial, nor 

has there been a ‘‘significant increase in 

incident volume.’’ Indeed, callers have 

benefitted from the technology in 

several situations. This includes women 

who have been at risk of domestic abuse 

who have been able to text for help 

undetected by their assailant; children 

reporting instances of domestic abuse; 

and anonymous reports of imminent 

sales of controlled substances. Black 

Hawk County has expanded the trial 

and now receives text messages from 

individuals throughout the state, which 

it then relays to the appropriate PSAP. 

According to Black Hawk County, the 

trial demonstrates that text-to-911 

service ‘‘is reliable and * * * saves 

lives.’’ 

12. In August 2011, the City of 

Durham, North Carolina (Durham) 

initiated an SMS-to-911 trial in 

partnership with Verizon Wireless and 

Intrado. According to Durham, the 

technology has worked reliably. 

Durham’s trial suggests that callers will 

continue to rely on voice calls to 911 

and that concerns about text messages 

overwhelming PSAPs may be 

unfounded. Durham views the 

technology as a ‘‘valuable asset’’ and the 

North Carolina Director of the Division 

of Services for the Deaf and the Hard of 

Hearing stated that ‘‘the significance of 

the program cannot be overstated.’’ 

More recently, the trial was extended 

‘‘to accommodate Durham’s additional 

outreach to individuals with 

disabilities.’’ 

13. In April 2012, the State of 

Vermont (Vermont) initiated a text-to911 trial allowing any Verizon Wireless 

subscriber to send emergency text 

messages to the Williston, Vermont 

PSAP, provided that the text message is 

transmitted via a cell tower located 

within the physical boundaries of 

Vermont. The Executive Director of the 

Vermont E911 Board stated that 

implementing the trial ‘‘wasn’t * * * 

difficult at all’’ and that so far, the trial 

has proceeded ‘‘very smoothly.’’ 

Vermont believes that fears over the 

volume of emergency text messages are 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1801 

‘‘overblown’’ and ‘‘remain[s] convinced 

that those who can make a voice call 

will make a voice call as that is the most 

efficient way to communicate in an 

emergency.’’ 

14. Vermont further reports that as of 

August 2012, it had received only two 

legitimate emergency text messages, but 

in both cases emergency services were 

able to intervene successfully. In one 

case, a life was saved when emergency 

personnel were able to thwart an 

attempted suicide. In the other case, a 

domestic abuse victim was able to 

contact police, who then arrived on the 

scene and made an arrest. While 

Vermont recognizes that some parties 

would prefer to wait for a more 

advanced text-to-911 solution, Vermont 

maintains that the ‘‘individual whose 

life we saved and the domestic assault 

victim would likely disagree that it is 

too soon to have this technology 

available.’’ Vermont also indicates it has 

experienced some text ‘‘spoofing,’’ but 

notes that ‘‘there is nothing about this 

new technology that is any more likely 

to result in ‘spoof’ contacts than what 

we already deal with on the voice side 

of the system.’’ Additionally, Vermont 

did not experience any problems with 

text slang. 

15. On October 30, 2012, Vermont 

submitted an ex parte filing indicating 

that it is maintaining the text-to-911 

system past the end of its trial and is 

‘‘currently working on enabling a 

second Public Safety Answering Point 

(PSAP) for redundancy purposes.’’ 

Vermont states that it ‘‘can report no 

negative operational impacts on our 

system as the result of the Verizon 

trial,’’ but that it needs the 

Commission’s assistance in 

‘‘encouraging all of the carriers to do the 

right thing and enable text-to-9–1–1 

now.’’ Vermont concludes by stating 

that ‘‘[w]e understand that there are 

some concerns both in the PSAP and 

industry communities about the timing 

of SMS text-to-9–1–1, but so long as the 

most common method of texting on 

today’s devices remains SMS, we feel it 

is important to move ahead and not wait 

for the promises that other texting 

solutions might provide.’’ On December 

3, 2012, Vermont announced that it 

would further expand its text-to-911 

trial to include Sprint Nextel customers, 

in collaboration with the Vermont 

Enhanced 911 Board, Sprint Wireless, 

and Intrado. 

B. Carriers’ Voluntary Commitments 

16. On December 6, 2012, APCO, 

NENA, Sprint Nextel, AT&T, T-Mobile, 

and Verizon, entered into a voluntary 

agreement whereby each of the four 

major carriers will provide text-to-911 

service by May 15, 2014, to PSAPs who 

request such a service. Under the terms 

of the Carrier-NENA–APCO Agreement, 

once a signatory carrier begins to offer 

text-to-911 service, ‘‘valid PSAP 

requests for Text-to-911 service will be 

implemented within a reasonable 

amount of time of receiving such a 

request, not to exceed six months.’’ A 

request will be considered ‘‘valid’’ if the 

‘‘requesting PSAP represents that it is 

technically ready to receive 911 text 

messages in the format requested,’’ and 

‘‘the appropriate local or State 911 

service governing authority has 

specifically authorized the PSAP to 

accept and, by extension, the signatory 

service provider to provide, text-to-911 

service (and such authorization is not 

subject to dispute).’’ Additionally, no 

later than July 1, 2013, the four major 

providers will ‘‘voluntarily provide 

quarterly progress reports to the FCC, 

NENA, and APCO summarizing the 

status of the deployment of a national 

Text-to-911 service capability.’’ 

17. Under the terms of the CarrierNENA–APCO Agreement, the major 

carriers have also agreed to implement 

a bounce-back message capability by 

June 30, 2013. The bounce back message 

will ‘‘alert subscribers attempting to text 

an emergency message to instead dial 

911 when text-to-911 is unavailable in 

that area.’’ 

18. The signatories also agreed on 

additional measures to implement textto-911 voluntarily. Specifically, the 

signatories agree that ‘‘PSAPs will select 

the format for how messages are to be 

delivered,’’ and that ‘‘incremental costs 

for delivery of text messages * * * will 

be the responsibility of the PSAP, as 

determined by individual analysis.’’ 

Additionally, the signatory service 

providers agree to implement a 911 

short code and agreed to implement 

text-to-911 ‘‘independent of their ability 

to recover * * * associated costs from 

state or local governments.’’ The 

signatory providers also agree to ‘‘work 

with APCO, NENA, and the FCC to 

establish an outreach effort to set and 

manage consumer expectations 

regarding the availability/limitations of 

the Text-to-911 service (including when 

roaming) and the benefits of using voice 

calls to 911 whenever possible, and 

support APCO and NENA’s effort to 

educate PSAPs on text-to-911 

generally.’’ 

19. Finally, the Carrier-NENA–APCO 

Agreement limits the proposed 

voluntary text-to-911 solution ‘‘to the 

capabilities of the existing SMS service 

offered by a participating wireless 

service provider on the home wireless 

network to which a wireless subscriber 

originates an SMS message.’’ Thus, the 

carriers state that under the terms of 

their voluntary commitment to deploy 

text-to-911 capability by May 15, 2014, 

‘‘SMS-to-911 will not be available to 

wireless subscribers roaming outside of 

their home wireless network,’’ and 

‘‘[e]ach implementation of SMS-to-911 

will be unique to the capabilities of each 

signatory service provider or its 

Gateway Service Provider.’’ 

III. Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

20. In this Further Notice, we seek 

comment on issues related to text-to-911 

in light of the evolved record, and 

bifurcate the comment cycles in order to 

deal most promptly with the consumer 

notification issue that has the potential 

to alleviate near-term consumer 

confusion as to the availability of textto-911 both during the course of the 

voluntary roll outs that several carriers 

have proposed and during the pendency 

of the Commission’s proceeding. 

Accordingly, comments with respect to 

Section III.A will be due 20 days from 

publication in the Federal Register, and 

reply comments on Section III.A will be 

due 10 days thereafter. Comments and 

reply comments should address only the 

issues posed in this section in order to 

provide the Commission with a focused 

record on this question. Comments and 

reply comment on the remaining 

portion of the Further Notice will be 

due 60 days and 90 days from 

publication in the Federal Register, 

respectively. We also seek comment on 

Section III.C (Legal Authority) as 

relevant to each section in accordance 

with the comment timeframe for that 

section. 

A. Automated Error Messages for Failed 

Text-to-911 Attempts and Consumer 

Expectations and Education 

1. Automated Error Message Proposal 

21. Background. In the Notice, the 

Commission noted the likelihood that as 

text-to-911 is implemented, there will 

be instances where despite efforts to 

educate consumers, some individuals 

will attempt to send text messages to 

911 in locations where text-to-911 is not 

supported. The Commission observed 

that this ‘‘could put consumers at risk 

if they were unaware that an emergency 

text did not go through or were 

uninformed about alternative means of 

reaching the PSAP.’’ To mitigate this 

risk, the Commission proposed that in 

situations where a consumer attempts to 

text 911 in a location where text-to-911 

is not available, the consumer should 

receive an automatic error message or 

similar disclosure that includes 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1802 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

information on how to contact the 

PSAP. 

22. Public safety commenters 

generally support such an automatic 

notification requirement. APCO argues 

that ‘‘[i]n situations where a consumer 

attempts to text 9–1–1 in an area that 

does not support this technology, a 

standardized auto message should be 

immediately returned indicating how to 

contact the PSAP and/or that a voice 

call is required. The Commission is 

urged to work with APCO, NENA and 

NASNA to develop best practices and 

model responses.’’ The State of 

California similarly maintains that ‘‘the 

Commission [should] require any 

service provider that provides texting 

capability to its customers to provide an 

immediate, automatic response 

(preferably standard nationwide 

message) to any text-to-911 stating that 

texting to 9–1–1 is not available and 

advising the customer to make a voice 

call to 9–1–1 in an emergency.’’ 

23. In their comments in response to 

the Notice, commercial mobile radio 

service (CMRS) providers acknowledge 

the importance of providing notification 

of non-delivery to consumers, although 

some commenters question whether the 

Commission should adopt a notification 

requirement. Verizon notes that it 

already provides an automated message 

when a wireless customer attempts to 

send a text message to 911 in a location 

where text-to-911 is not available. 

Verizon states that its voluntary practice 

obviates the need for regulation, but 

notes that ‘‘[s]hould the Commission 

nevertheless find a requirement is 

necessary, language like Verizon’s 

would be sufficient and appropriate.’’ 

Sprint argues that before making any 

decision on this issue, the Commission 

should first refer the matter to standards 

organizations ‘‘to review the technical 

aspects associated with delivering an 

error message and to develop a 

consistent error response message.’’ 

Finally, textPlus, a software-based text 

application provider, notes that it 

already ‘‘sends a bounce back message 

to users alerting the user that the 911 

address is not recognized.’’ 

24. Most recently, however, the 

Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement states 

that ‘‘[b]efore the deployment of Text-to911, the signatory service providers will 

implement a bounce-back (auto-reply) 

message to alert subscribers attempting 

to text an emergency message to instead 

dial 9–1–1 when Text-to-9–1–1 is 

unavailable * * *’’ The Agreement 

further states that these providers, the 

four major wireless carriers which 

include Verizon and Sprint, ‘‘will 

implement the bounce-back * * * 

message by June 30, 2013.’’ 

25. Discussion. We propose that 

CMRS providers and other providers of 

text messaging services should be 

required to automatically notify 

consumers attempting to text-to-911 in 

areas where text-to-911 is not supported 

or in other instances where the text 

cannot be transmitted to the PSAP. In 

this respect, there appears to be a clear 

benefit to persons in emergency 

situations being able to know 

immediately if a text message has been 

delivered to the proper authorities. This 

automatic feedback may be life-saving, 

allowing a person in need of assistance 

to immediately seek out an alternative. 

Providing this type of error message 

may also be particularly critical during 

the transition to NG911, as the record to 

date suggests there are likely to be 

numerous instances where consumers 

attempt to send text messages to PSAPs 

in areas where text-to-911 is not yet 

available. 

26. We disagree with the assertion 

that there is no need for a bounce-back 

requirement because certain wireless 

carriers already voluntarily provide 

automatic error messages when 

customers attempt to text-to-911 in areas 

where it is not supported. Rather, we 

believe that all CMRS providers and 

other prospective text-to-911 service 

providers should implement this 

safeguard so that consumers have the 

assurance that they will receive 

automatic notification regardless of 

which provider they choose. While 

consumer education (as discussed 

below) may help to mitigate this risk, 

the possibility remains that without 

such a requirement, a consumer without 

knowledge of where text-to-911 is 

supported could attempt to send a text 

message to 911 and mistakenly believe 

that the text has been successfully 

transmitted to the PSAP. 

27. Moreover, in view of the four 

carriers’ commitment in the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement to implement a 

bounce-back message by the end of June 

2013, a proactive approach for requiring 

automatic error messages appears to be 

feasible at a reasonable cost, especially 

in comparison to the public safety 

benefits that an automatic error message 

can provide consumers. The CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement states that the 

four major wireless carriers ‘‘will meet 

[the] commitments [in the Agreement] 

independent of the [carriers] ability to 

recover these associated costs from state 

or local governments.’’ We believe that 

this representation indicates that the 

costs for implementing a bounce-back 

message are manageable, regardless of 

whether such costs are recoverable 

under current state or local cost 

recovery programs. However, we seek 

comment on this view, particularly in 

regard to the impact that the costs to 

meet the bounce-back requirement 

might have on small and rural CMRS 

providers compared to the public safety 

benefits for their subscribers. 

28. We seek comment on the 

appropriate timeframe for CMRS 

providers to implement a bounce back 

messaging capability. Whether or not 

CMRS providers have developed text-to911 capability, the record to date 

appears to demonstrate that it is 

technically feasible for them to provide 

an automated ‘‘bounce-back’’ text 

message in such circumstances 

instructing the sender to make a voice 

911 call, and that many carriers already 

provide this message voluntarily. We 

recognize that CMRS providers other 

than the four major carriers may need to 

address certain technical and 

operational issues in order to meet our 

proposed notification requirement. 

Nevertheless, we believe that a solution 

should be implemented as quickly as 

possible to avoid the risk of consumer 

confusion. Accordingly, we seek 

comment on whether it is feasible for all 

CMRS providers to provide their 

customers with an automatic 

notification by the June 30, 2013 date 

specified in the Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement. We seek comment on this 

timeframe, and any significant technical 

issues that would bear on the 

achievability of an automatic error 

message within that time frame by 

small, regional, or rural CMRS 

providers. 

29. We also propose to require 

prospective providers of interconnected 

text service to develop an automated 

error message capability. In order to 

reduce potential consumer confusion 

and enhance the ability of consumers to 

communicate by text in emergencies 

using the applications they are most 

familiar with from everyday use, we 

believe that the ‘‘bounce-back’’ 

requirement proposed for CMRS 

providers above should also apply, to 

the extent feasible, to all providers of 

software applications that enable a 

consumer to send text messages to textcapable U.S. mobile telephone numbers 

and receive text messages from the same 

when a user of the application attempts 

to send an emergency text in an area 

where text-to-911 is not supported or 

the provider is otherwise unable to 

transmit the text to the PSAP. 

30. We clarify that we do not propose 

to extend text-to-911 obligations to IPbased messaging applications that 

support communication with a defined 

set of users of compatible applications 

but do not support general 

communication with text-capable 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1803 

telephone numbers. We believe it is less 

likely that consumers will expect such 

applications to support emergency 

communications. Nevertheless, we 

encourage providers of such messaging 

applications to inform their users that 

these applications do not support 

communication to 911. We seek 

comment on this approach. Are there 

other ‘‘flavors’’ of third-party text 

messaging applications that should not 

be included? Why? 

31. We seek comment on the 

feasibility and cost of third-party 

providers to implement such an 

automatic notification and whether they 

must address any unique technical 

issues not faced by CMRS providers in 

executing this requirement. We also 

seek comment on whether it is feasible 

timeframe for third-party providers to 

implement the automatic notification 

requirement by June 30, 2013, or 

whether we should adopt a longer 

timetable. 

32. We clarify that with respect to 

both CMRS providers and 

interconnected text providers, our 

proposed requirement for automatic 

notification to consumers would only 

apply to situations where the provider 

(or the provider’s text-to-911 vendor) 

has direct control over the transmission 

of the text message and is unable to 

transmit the text message to the PSAP 

serving the texting party’s location, 

whether due to network congestion, the 

inability of the PSAP to accept such 

messages, or otherwise. Thus, for 

example, a CMRS provider would not be 

required to provide automatic 

notification where the consumer uses a 

text application provided by a third 

party that the carrier does not control. 

Similarly, notification would not be 

required where the provider is able to 

transmit the text to the PSAP, but a 

failure in the PSAP network results in 

the text not being delivered to a 911 

operator. We seek comment on our 

proposal. We also clarify that we do not 

propose to require all text-to-911 

providers to use the exact same wording 

for their automatic error messages to 

consumers. Rather, we propose that 

providers would be deemed to have met 

our requirement so long as the error 

message includes information on how to 

contact the PSAP. For example, an 

automated message that advises the 

consumer to place a voice call to 911 

would meet the proposed requirement. 

We would, however, encourage carriers 

to work with public safety organizations 

and consumer organizations, including 

disability organizations, on a common 

error message text to simplify consumer 

education. We seek comment on this 

approach. 

2. Consumer Expectations and 

Education 

33. Background. The Notice sought 

comment on how to ensure that 

consumers are informed about the 

availability and non-availability of textto-911 in specific areas. Specifically, the 

Notice sought comment on the expected 

costs and benefits of various approaches 

to consumer education and disclosure 

mechanisms, whether contractual or 

cost considerations would deter 

consumers from texting or sending 

photos or video to 911, and if so, 

whether providers or the Commission 

should develop practices to remedy that 

situation. It also sought comment on 

what types of educational programs 

could be created to reduce and/or 

prevent consumer confusion as text-to911 is deployed in the short term, what 

the appropriate role is for the 

Commission and for other government 

and private sector entities in any public 

education effort, and whether other 

resources could be developed to help 

individuals learn about where text-to911 services are and are not available. 

34. Public safety commenters 

generally agree that there is a significant 

need for a nationwide effort to educate 

the public and prevent consumer 

confusion while text-to-911 is being 

rolled out. For example, the North 

Central Texas Council of Governments 

(NCTCOG) conducted a recent survey 

which noted that approximately onethird of their population believe they 

can text 9–1–1 today. APCO argues that 

‘‘NG9–1–1 and the capabilities for data 

and multimedia will require a focused 

and funded public education plan. 

Consumers must be made aware of the 

limitations of 9–1–1 location accuracy 

and they must be cognizant of the role 

that they need to play in ‘managing their 

emergency.’ ’’ APCO urges the public 

and private sector to ‘‘unite to provide 

a national campaign targeted at public 

education of NG 9–1–1 as it becomes 

available,’’ and offers to help ‘‘craft and 

disseminate an agreed upon 

curriculum.’’ NASNA supports focusing 

educational efforts on ‘‘discrete groups 

that would receive substantial and 

meaningful benefits’’ from near-term 

deployment of text-to-911, ‘‘such as the 

deaf and hard of hearing.’’ NASNA 

suggests these focused educational 

efforts ‘‘could provide a model when 

texting-to-9–1–1 is deployed on a 

permanent basis.’’ NENA ‘‘encourages 

the Commission’’ to implement a 

campaign to ‘‘provid[e] states, regions, 

and localities with template materials 

such as canned video, audio, and print 

materials’’ that ‘‘could provide 

enormous economies of scale * * * and 

help local 9–1–1 systems and centers to 

effectively educate the public about the 

roll-out of new system capabilities.’’ 

NENA also contends that ‘‘it is 

imperative that any text-to-9–1–1 

solution that relies on a digit string or 

short code incorporate the digits ‘9–1– 

1’ ’’ because ‘‘[d]oing so will help to 

minimize consumer confusion and 

reduce public education costs.’’ 

35. Industry commenters also stress 

the importance of consumer education 

and the need for both public and private 

sector participation in education efforts. 

CTIA stresses that ‘‘consumer education 

requires that federal and state entities, 

as well as Public Safety agencies and 

consumer representatives, participate in 

the consumer education process, and 

that the responsibility not be left solely 

to the wireless industry.’’ CTIA also 

supports the concept presented in the 

Notice of developing a consumerfocused map or Web site that would 

provide information on the textcapability of specific PSAPs, but notes 

that ‘‘the cost of developing and 

updating such resources is an issue that 

should be considered in developing a 

map or similar consumer education 

campaign.’’ 

36. Discussion. We agree with 

commenters that educating the public is 

critical to the successful roll-out of textto-911 and preventing consumer 

confusion. Adding text capability to the 

911 system is not likely to occur 

uniformly: during the transition period, 

the availability of text-to-911 will vary 

by area, and the areas of availability will 

change over time as the transition 

progresses. The Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement recognized this and the 

signatory providers agreed to ‘‘work 

with APCO, NENA, and the FCC to 

develop an outreach effort to set and 

manage consumer expectations 

regarding the availability/limitations of 

the Text-to-911 service (including when 

roaming) and the benefits of using voice 

calls to 911 whenever possible, and 

support APCO and NENA’s effort to 

educate PSAPs on Text-to-911 

generally.’’ Therefore, as we initiate the 

transition, a concerted effort will be 

needed to provide the public with 

accurate and up-to-date information 

regarding where text-to-911 is—and is 

not—available. 

37. Aside from educating the public 

about the availability or unavailability 

of text-to-911, education is also 

imperative to inform the public about 

the capabilities and limitations of textto-911 where it is available, and the 

circumstances under which texting 911 

is or is not preferable to making a 911 

voice call. The public needs to be aware 

that text may not provide all of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1804 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

features and functionalities associated 

with voice 911 service, such as 

automatic location. Similarly, the public 

needs to be aware that, while sending an 

emergency text may be preferred in 

instances where the sender is unable to 

communicate by voice (e.g., due to a 

speech or hearing disability, or in a 

hostage or abuse situation where voice 

calling could be dangerous to the caller), 

in most other instances, placing a voice 

call to 911 will continue to be the most 

effective means of communicating with 

emergency responders, and therefore 

will remain the strongly preferable 

option even where text is available. 

38. Given the clear need for consumer 

education, we direct the Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau and the 

Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau to implement a comprehensive 

consumer education program 

concerning text-to-911, and to 

coordinate their efforts with state and 

local 911 authorities, other federal and 

state agencies, public safety 

organizations, industry, disability 

organizations, and consumer groups, 

consistent with those voluntary 

measures taken under the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement. To assist in 

the development of this program, we 

seek comment on what educational 

tools and resources exist or need to be 

developed to combat consumer 

confusion as text-to-911 is deployed. To 

what degree can current 911 educational 

programs be adapted to help consumers 

understand the availability, capability, 

and appropriate use of text-to-911? How 

do we ensure that education and 

outreach efforts on text-to-911 are fully 

accessible to people with disabilities? 

Are there lessons that we can draw from 

educational efforts that were conducted 

during the deployment of basic 911 or 

E911 service? Have other countries 

developed text-to-911 education 

programs? 

39. We also seek comment on whether 

CMRS and interconnected text 

providers should provide educational 

information to their subscribers about 

the availability and use of text-to-911. 

The signatory providers in the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement agreed to work 

with APCO, NENA and the Commission 

to develop an outreach effort to ‘‘set and 

manage consumer expectations’’ 

regarding text-to-911. Should carriers 

also provide information regarding the 

text-to-911 capabilities of specific 

wireless devices that operate on their 

networks? 

40. Would it be feasible to provide 

consumers with the ability to test textto-911 functionality in their devices? 

Allowing customers to send simulated 

or test 911 messages could have benefits 

by enabling customers to verify the 

availability of text-to-911 and 

familiarize themselves with its use. 

However, any test mechanism would 

need to be configured to avoid 

burdening PSAPs with unnecessary text 

messages, e.g., by having the carrier or 

911 text services provider reply to test 

messages with an automated response. 

We seek comment on technical and cost 

issues associated with developing such 

a test capability. 

41. Who should bear the primary 

responsibility for educating consumers 

on the limits of text-to-911? The 

Commission? CMRS and interconnected 

text providers? Public safety 

organizations? Should the Commission 

establish a joint effort in conjunction 

with CMRS and interconnected text 

providers and public safety to 

implement an education effort? To what 

extent should consumer groups, 

including organizations representing the 

interests of people with disabilities, be 

included in such efforts? Should the 

educational effort be federal, regional, 

state, or local-level? What safeguards 

and measures should be taken to ensure 

that education and outreach efforts on 

text-to-911 and its limitations are fully 

accessible to people with disabilities? 

Can the ability to send test text 

messages to a PSAP facilitate consumer 

education? Could the database 

described in Bandwidth.com’s 

comments be used to automatically 

generate up-to-date consumer-facing 

maps of where text-to-911 is available? 

B. Comprehensive Text-to-911 Proposals 

1. Further Background 

42. The Commission has previously 

highlighted the popularity and ubiquity 

of text messaging, the increasing public 

expectation that consumers should be 

able to text to 911 during an emergency, 

and the importance of text to 911 for 

people with disabilities. American 

consumers send billions of SMS text 

messages per day and more than twothirds of mobile phone users have used 

text messaging. Moreover, many of these 

consumers are acquiring advanced 

mobile devices (e.g., 3G and 4G devices) 

that enable them to send text messages 

using ‘‘over-the-top’’ software 

applications that they install on their 

phones and other mobile devices. 

Additionally, text messaging will likely 

play an integral role in providing future 

911 services for persons with 

communications disabilities. Hence, any 

discussion about the near-term 

deployment of text-to-911 must consider 

both SMS and currently available, as 

well as anticipated, software 

applications as potential platforms. 

43. The record in response to the 

Notice indicates that NG911 will 

eventually be capable of supporting the 

full range of possible multimedia-to-911 

communications, including 

transmission of text, photos, video, and 

data. However, due to the complexity 

and cost of deploying NG911 

infrastructure on a national scale, full 

deployment of NG911 will not be 

uniform and will likely take years. At 

the same time, the record indicates that 

it is technically feasible for CMRS 

providers to implement text-to-911 

using existing technologies prior to full 

deployment of NG911, as evidenced by 

the successful trials and demonstrations 

noted above, the University of Colorado 

and Intrado technical studies, and the 

fact that the four largest nationwide 

wireless carriers committed to deploy 

text-to-911 capability throughout their 

networks by May 15, 2014. Thus, textto-911 could be made available to 

virtually all wireless customers in the 

near term and delivered to both ‘‘NGcapable’’ and ‘‘pre-NG’’ PSAPs at a 

reasonable cost to wireless carriers. 

44. As discussed below, we believe 

that enabling consumers to send a text 

message to 911 in the near term will 

substantially improve accessibility to 

emergency services, particularly for 

people with hearing and speech 

disabilities. While we recognize that 

text-to-911 based on pre-NG 

technologies does not provide the full 

functionality of NG911-based text, and 

that it has certain limitations in 

comparison to voice-based 911, we 

believe that these limitations are 

outweighed by the substantial public 

safety benefits that near-term 

implementation of text-to-911 would 

yield. In addition, implementing text-to911 in the near term will provide 

valuable real-world operational 

experience that will help consumers, 

PSAPs and service providers plan for 

full NG911 deployment. Moreover, the 

availability of text-to-911 will provide 

incentives for PSAPs to acquire Internet 

Protocol (IP) connectivity and NG911- 

capable customer premise equipment 

(CPE), which are both critical steps 

towards the full deployment of NG–911. 

We seek comment on these 

observations. 

45. We also believe that adopting a 

mandatory regulatory framework and 

timetable for implementation of text-to911 is necessary. We recognize that 

substantial progress has been achieved 

through the voluntary initiatives of the 

four major CMRS providers, 911 service 

providers, and PSAPs described above. 

However, we are concerned that 

continuing to rely solely on voluntary 

measures could result in the four major 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1805 

CMRS providers implementing text-to911 while other service providers— 

including regional, small, and rural 

CMRS providers and third party 

interconnected text providers—do not, 

or could lead to non-uniform and 

uncoordinated implementation, 

inconsistent technological approaches, 

and widely varying implementation 

timelines to the detriment of consumers. 

This in turn could lead to a longer 

transition period, increased transition 

costs, and increased consumer 

confusion regarding when and where 

text-to-911 will be supported, what 

functionality it will provide, and when 

and how consumers should use it where 

it is available. We seek comment on this 

analysis. 

46. Public safety commenters made a 

number of ex parte submissions in the 

record highlighting the importance of 

deploying text-to-911 services. NENA 

conducted a comprehensive study and 

reported that the majority of its chapters 

would support a requirement for 

wireless carriers to provide text-to-911 

services to their customers. APCO 

argued that ‘‘deferring action on the 

basic [text-to-911] requirement would 

only lead to uncertainty and delay 

serious consideration of implementation 

issues and requirements.’’ NCTCOG 

submitted an ex parte noting that the 

public expects to be able text-to-911 and 

highlighted that ‘‘a recent market study 

* * * showed that approximately 1⁄3 of 

our population believe they can text 9– 

1–1 today.’’ The Maine Public Utilities 

Commission noted that ‘‘increasingly 

[persons with disabilities are] 

abandoning the use of TTYs for new 

technologies such as text messaging that 

allow them more flexibility to 

communicate with most others except 

9–1–1.’’ 

47. We believe that a mandatory 

regulatory framework that builds on 

existing voluntary initiatives will 

mitigate these risks by providing a 

common deadline for the 

implementation of text-to-911. 

Moreover, while under our proposal 

PSAPs will still have the option to 

choose whether to accept text messages, 

greater uniformity in availability will 

enhance PSAP options and make it 

easier to justify investments in 

upgrades. Uniformity will also promote 

coordinated and consistent deployment 

by establishing a set of baseline 

requirements for all CMRS providers 

and third-party interconnected text 

providers to meet. Finally, it will 

provide greater certainty to consumers 

regarding text-to-911 availability, 

functions, and usage. Given the these 

substantial benefits, we believe that the 

public interest is served by requiring 

CMRS providers and third-party 

interconnected text providers to supply 

text-to-911 capabilities to their 

customers on all text-capable devices. 

We seek comment on this analysis and 

on possible timelines and technical 

options for implementation of these 

proposed requirements. 

2. Public Safety Benefits of Text-to-911 

48. The record indicates that text-to911 can offer significant public safety 

benefits, most notably: (1) Widespread 

consumer availability and ease of use, 

(2) enhanced accessibility to 911 for 

people with hearing and speech 

disabilities, and (3) an alternative means 

of emergency communication for the 

general public when 911 voice service is 

unavailable or when voice calling could 

endanger the caller. We note that textto-911 service may also permit ‘‘texttakers’’ to open multiple texts and 

prioritize the most life-threatening 

situations first, rather than waiting to 

address calls based simply on the order 

in which they arrived. 

a. Availability and Ease of Use 

49. The effectiveness of the legacy 

voice 911 system derives in large part 

from its ease of use by consumers, and 

their familiarity and comfort with voice 

calling on everyday devices. It is much 

easier for people faced with the stress of 

emergency situations to communicate 

quickly and effectively when they are 

able to use the same technologies that 

they use for everyday communications. 

This principle, which has long applied 

to voice calling, is increasingly true for 

communication by text as well. More 

than 2 trillion text messages are sent 

annually and according to the Pew 

Center, more than 7 out of 10 cell phone 

users send or receive text messages. 

Another report suggests that 91 percent 

of smartphone owners actively use SMS. 

Thus, expanding existing text 

technology to support 911 will provide 

the public with a familiar mode of 

communication for emergency use. 

b. Enhanced Accessibility for People 

With Disabilities 

50. Currently, approximately 15 

percent of the United States population, 

or 34.5 million people, have hearing 

disabilities and approximately 7.5 

million people have difficulty using 

their voices. Moreover, there is a strong 

relationship between age and reported 

hearing loss. For example, 18 percent of 

American adults 45–64 years old have a 

hearing loss, 30 percent of adults 65–74 

years old have a hearing loss, and 47 

percent of adults 75 years old or older 

have a hearing loss. By 2030, 20 percent 

of the population will be over 65 years 

old, substantially increasing the number 

of Americans who may need 

alternatives to voice communications 

when accessing 911. Further, an 

increasing number of soldiers are 

returning from overseas and are 

experiencing traumatic brain injury, 

which can result in hearing or speech 

disabilities. 

51. Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA), enacted in 1990 

requires PSAPs to provide persons with 

hearing or speech disabilities with 

direct access to 911 emergency services. 

Since 1991, the U.S. Department of 

Justice (DOJ) has implemented this 

provision by requiring all public safety 

agencies to make their telephone 

emergency services directly accessible 

to TTYs. In the Notice, however, the 

Commission explained that people with 

hearing and speech disabilities have 

increasingly migrated away from 

specialized legacy devices, such as 

TTYs, and towards more widely 

available forms of text communications 

because of the ease of access, 

availability, and practicability of 

modern text-capable communications 

devices. While the migration to widely 

available texting technologies has had 

the unique benefit of bringing prior TTY 

users into the mainstream of our 

nation’s communications systems, this 

transition has also led some commenters 

to suggest that it leaves people with 

hearing and speech disabilities without 

an effective, reliable and direct means of 

accessing 911 services in the event of an 

emergency. 

52. The EAAC noted that individuals 

who cannot hear or speak well enough 

to communicate with 911 currently have 

no direct means of accessing 911 when 

mobile other than TTYs. However, with 

the vast majority of people with hearing 

and speech disabilities having discarded 

their TTYs, these devices are no longer 

considered a viable means of directly 

accessing 911 for this population. 

Nevertheless, the EAAC found that 

many individuals who are deaf have 

service plans that include SMS. One 

‘‘key finding’’ of the EAAC is that 

‘‘individuals with disabilities should be 

able to call 9–1–1 using the same means 

they use for everyday 

telecommunication.’’ 

53. At present, individuals with 

disabilities who have stopped using 

TTYs often have no other option but to 

rely on telecommunications relay 

services (TRS) to access 911 emergency 

services. Text-based relay services 

generally require an emergency call to 

first go to a communications assistant 

(CA), who places the call to the PSAP. 

The CA then relays the conversation 

back and forth between the caller and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1806 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

the PSAP, by voicing all text that is 

typed by the person with a disability to 

the PSAP call taker and typing back 

responses to the caller. As such, many 

have criticized TRS as providing only 

an indirect means of conveying 

information that may result in delays 

and translation errors during an 

emergency. For example, Consumer 

Groups note that IP-Relay, one text form 

of TRS, has not been widely embraced 

by the deaf and hard of hearing 

community for requesting emergency 

services because of the relatively long 

length of time it takes to reach a relay 

operator and then get to the correct 

PSAP, the fact that the call will 

generally arrive on a non-emergency 

line, and the possibility of mistakes by 

the CA in the relaying of the call. 

54. The record in this proceeding and 

the EAAC Report make clear that a 

significant number of people with 

hearing and speech disabilities will 

benefit from the ability to directly send 

a text message to 911 from any device 

that is text-capable. Advocates for and 

individuals who are deaf and hard of 

hearing strongly support 

implementation of a near-term text-to911 solution and disfavor text relay 

approaches due to the risk of delay and 

translation errors. Moreover, enabling 

direct text messaging to 911 by people 

with hearing and speech disabilities 

will allow this population to use mass 

market communication devices that 

have increasingly evolving capabilities. 

While disability advocates have 

previously been skeptical of SMS-to-911 

because it does not support real-time 

text, they have given more recent 

support to SMS as a viable near-term 

solution because of its familiarity and 

ease of use for people with disabilities. 

Respondents to the EAAC survey 

expressed a clear preference for calling 

a PSAP using the same technology that 

they use on a daily basis. Moreover, 87.7 

percent of respondents reported having 

used SMS text messaging and 46.1 

percent reported having used SMS text 

messaging ‘‘almost every day.’’ 

55. Consumer Groups similarly urge 

the Commission to require the 

deployment of SMS-to-911 technologies 

in the near term as a rapid and practical 

means of significantly enhancing 

accessibility to the 911 system for 

people who are deaf and hard of 

hearing. Consumer Groups point out 

that because consumers have already 

embraced SMS technology, and the vast 

majority of wireless providers and 

manufacturers support SMS, this 

capability may be deployed rather 

quickly. Likewise, the Wireless 

Rehabilitation Engineering Research 

Center (RERC) ‘‘strongly supports’’ the 

incorporation of SMS for the initial 

deployment of an NG 911 system. 

Similarly, the RERC on 

Telecommunications Access notes that 

it is imperative for the Commission to 

ensure that mobile text communication 

is available in the near term to people 

who are deaf. 

c. Alternative Means of Emergency 

Communication for the General Public 

56. The ability to send text messages 

to 911 will also provide an important 

alternative means of emergency 

communication to the benefit of the 

general public. While the general public 

will not need to use text-to-911 services 

as frequently as people with hearing and 

speech disabilities, experience has 

shown that there are situations where 

being able to send a text message to 911 

as opposed to placing a voice call could 

be vital to the caller’s safety. For 

example, in the 2007 shooting incident 

at Virginia Tech, a number of students 

attempted unsuccessfully to send SMS 

text messages to 911 so as not to be 

heard and located by the shooter. 

Similarly, in the Black Hawk County, 

Iowa text-to-911 trial, text has been used 

in domestic and child abuse situations 

in which the victim feared that the 

suspect would overhear the call to 911. 

Additionally, the Vermont trial further 

demonstrated text-to-911’s efficacy in 

cases involving suicide and domestic 

violence. 

57. Text-to-911 can also provide a 

lifeline when voice networks are 

impaired or congested. In large-scale 

disasters, for example, circuit-switched 

landline and mobile networks may 

become overloaded, making it difficult 

to place a 911 voice call. Conversely, 

SMS and IP-based text messages to 911 

can still be transmitted because text 

consumes far less bandwidth than voice 

and may use different spectrum 

resources and traffic channels. As TCS 

notes, ‘‘[i]n situations in which a high 

9–1–1 call volume results in blocked 

calls to the PSAP or situations in which 

the wireless infrastructure capacity is 

impacted such that placing voice calls is 

difficult or impossible, SMS 

communications to a PSAP may provide 

the only reasonable communications 

method to emergency services.’’ TCS 

further notes that according to data it 

had drawn from its CMRS provider 

customers, attempts to text-to-911 are 

made regularly and the number of 

attempts to text-to-911 during the recent 

Hurricane Sandy spiked sharply. TCS 

also highlights that unlike phone calls 

that are be handled on a ‘‘first-in, firstaddressed’’ basis without any ability to 

know which queued up calls are 

priorities, a single ‘‘text-taker’’ could 

open more than one text and ‘‘attempt 

to address the more urgent and lifethreatening emergencies with greater 

priority.’’ In addition, the University of 

Colorado finds that ‘‘text users and call 

takers compose and read messages 

offline and only use communication for 

the moment that the message needs to 

be sent [which] saves valuable network 

resources during network congestion.’’ 

Thus, people in disaster areas may still 

be able to send text messages to 911 

even if they cannot place a voice call. 

3. Technical Feasibility, Timing and 

Cost of Text to 911 

58. Balanced against the abovedescribed benefits of text-to-911, we 

believe that the record indicates that 

text-to-911 is technically feasible and 

can be achieved in the near term at a 

reasonable cost to PSAPs, CMRS 

providers, and providers of 

interconnected text. We disagree with 

commenters who argue that the 

Commission should not act until NG911 

is fully deployed. As we note above, it 

will likely take a number of years to 

deploy NG911 on a national scale. The 

record also indicates that it is 

technically feasible for CMRS providers 

to implement a text-to-911 solution 

using existing technologies prior to the 

full deployment of NG911, and we 

believe the same should be true for 

interconnected text providers. Thus, 

text-to-911 could be made available to 

virtually all wireless customers in the 

near-term and delivered to both ‘‘NGcapable’’ and ‘‘pre-NG’’ PSAPs at a 

reasonable cost to wireless carriers. In 

this respect, we also believe that 

investments made now by PSAPs and 

carriers to support text-to-911 can be 

leveraged to support NG911 

deployments, and accordingly 

constitute building blocks towards an 

IP-based emergency network. For 

example, while some PSAPs may 

choose to implement text-to-911 

through existing equipment, such as 

TTY terminals, other PSAPs may choose 

to upgrade their equipment to receive 

text messages in a manner that will also 

support additional data in an NG911 

environment. 

59. We disagree with MetroPCS’s 

argument that any text-to-911 

obligations should ‘‘only be imposed on 

the largest nationwide carriers because 

the costs of increased regulations are 

more easily borne by the largest 

carriers.’’ There is no evidence that the 

cost of implementing a text-to-911 

solution will be substantial enough to 

warrant limiting the obligation to the 

largest carriers. In fact, the first text-to911 trial in the nation was conducted in 

Black Hawk County, Iowa by a small 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1807 

wireless carrier. Further, we believe that 

exempting certain wireless carriers from 

a text-to-911 obligation solely on the 

basis of size would create additional 

consumer confusion, because 

consumers would still be unsure of 

whether their wireless carrier provides 

text-to-911 service or not. We seek 

comment on these views. 

60. Based on these findings and 

consistent with the Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement, we propose that all CMRS 

providers and interconnected text 

providers should be required to 

implement the capability to support 

text-to-911 in their networks. Because 

SMS is the most common texting 

technology in use today, and virtually 

all wireless consumers already have 

access to it and are familiar with its use, 

we expect that most CMRS providers 

will initially support SMS-based text-to911. At the same time, we recognize that 

CMRS providers may eventually seek to 

migrate customers away from SMS to 

other text applications, such as IP-based 

real-time text or Rich Communication 

Services (RCS). Therefore, we do not 

propose to require CMRS providers to 

support SMS-based text-to-911 so long 

as they provide their customers with at 

least one pre-installed text-to-911 option 

per device model that works across the 

provider’s entire network coverage area. 

We propose to allow CMRS providers to 

select any reliable method or methods 

(e.g., mobile-switched, IP-based) for text 

routing and delivery. We seek comment 

on this proposal. 

a. Impact on PSAPs 

61. As noted above, public safety 

commenters generally support the 

implementation of text-to-911 in the 

near term as a first step in the transition 

to NG911. NENA notes that SMS is ‘‘the 

prevailing consumer text mode in the 

United States,’’ and that in addition to 

being the most widely available 

platform, SMS ‘‘is also the most 

interoperable, working between nearly 

every device on every network in the 

United States.’’ NENA also notes that 

Verizon’s text-to-911 announcement 

indicates that ‘‘SMS-to-911 capabilities 

can be technically feasible.’’ NATOA, 

NACo, and NLC state that they support 

the use of SMS as ‘‘an interim solution 

for text-based communication to 911,’’ 

since it is ‘‘particularly beneficial to 

people with disabilities, including 

people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or 

have speech impediments.’’ 

62. Black Hawk County highlights 

that it has not encountered any textrelated problems during its trial and 

notes that ‘‘SMS text-to-911 is reliable 

and available, as clearly demonstrated 

in our project.’’ BRETSA and the 

Colorado 9–1–1 Task Force state that 

‘‘the key advantage of text messaging to 

9–1–1 will be in facilitating 

communications with the PSAP by 

speech and/or hearing impaired 

individuals. Text messaging is generally 

preferred by the speech and hearing 

impaired community over TTY 

communications because it is more 

portable, ubiquitous, and convenient.’’ 

Vermont argues that fears over the 

volume of emergency text messages are 

‘‘overblown’’ and ‘‘remain[s] convinced 

that those who can make a voice call 

will make a voice call as that is the most 

efficient way to communicate in an 

emergency.’’ 

63. While public safety entities 

generally regard near-term text-to-911 as 

feasible, some express concern about the 

potential cost of implementation and 

the impact on PSAP resources if text-to911 results in a heavy influx of text 

messages. The State of California states 

that ‘‘[s]hort-term implementation of 

text-to-911 will likely increase the time 

and resources required for PSAPs to 

process information as compared to 

handling voice calls.’’ APCO states that 

‘‘[w]hile SMS may be appropriate as a 

near-term solution for limited 

circumstances, it is not a long-term 

solution for the general public.’’ 

NASNA opposes encouraging widespread deployment of short-term SMSbased solutions ‘‘[u]ntil such time as 

text-delivery standards are developed, 

adopted and compliance is assured.’’ 

Finally, BRETSA and the Colorado 911 

Task Force argue that ‘‘devoting funds 

to an interim solution for text messaging 

may mean that less funds will be 

available in the future for a more 

effective solution, once NG9–1–1 has 

been deployed and PSAP systems 

updated to take advantage of NG9–1–1.’’ 

64. Based on the record in this 

proceeding, the Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement, and the success of the 

various technology trials noted above, 

we believe that the implementation of 

text-to-911 will not impose an undue 

burden on PSAP operations. First, under 

our proposed framework, PSAPs will 

retain the discretion to decide whether 

to accept text messages. Thus, if a PSAP 

chooses not to accept text messages, 

there would be no requirement for it to 

do so and therefore no cost to the PSAP. 

We believe that PSAPs are able to best 

understand their local technological and 

financial situation, and determine 

whether it is technically and financially 

feasible or desirable to implement textto-911 in their service area. While we 

share BRETSA and the Colorado 911 

Task Force’s funding concerns, we 

believe that PSAPs will be in the best 

position to understand their ongoing 

NG911 funding needs. Additionally, as 

much of the architecture for text-to-911 

service can be leveraged for NG911, we 

do not expect that funding text-to-911 

will divert resources from funding 

future NG911 services. Second, as 

discussed in greater below, for PSAPs 

that elect to accept text messages, we 

propose several options for the receipt 

of text messages, including options that 

will impose minimal costs on the PSAP. 

Third, while we recognize that the 

technology trials noted above are 

limited in scope, the trial results suggest 

that PSAPs are not likely to become 

overwhelmed with text messages. 

b. Impact on CMRS Providers and 

Interconnected Text Providers 

65. In response to the Notice, CMRS 

commenters initially opposed a nearterm text-to-911 mandate and argued 

that the Commission should instead 

focus its efforts on long-term NG911 

solutions. These commenters cited a 

variety of concerns with implementing 

text-to-911 prior to the full development 

of next-generation solutions, including 

technical limitations, limited monetary 

resources, reliability and security, issues 

with consumer education, and liability 

protection. Notwithstanding some of 

these concerns, however, the four major 

wireless carriers voluntarily committed 

to deploy text-to-911 capability 

throughout their nationwide networks 

by May 15, 2014. 

66. Further, the record indicates that 

the cost for CMRS providers to 

implement a text-to-911 solution will be 

minimal. Indeed, according to cost 

estimates that were submitted into the 

record by Intrado and Bandwidth.com, 

the total cost for all CMRS providers to 

implement this solution will be 

approximately $4 million annually. 

Based on our review of the record, the 

Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the 

cost estimates provided by vendors, and 

the success of the text-to-911 trials and 

demonstrations, we believe that it is 

feasible for all CMRS providers to costeffectively implement a text-to-911 

solution in the near term. We seek 

comment on this view. We also seek 

comment below on the appropriate 

timetable for implementing our proposal 

in order to address the concerns raised 

by CMRS commenters. We also seek 

comment on the cost for interconnected 

text providers to implement a text-to911 solution. More specifically, what 

are the likely initial and ongoing costs 

for interconnected text providers? For 

routing purposes, can interconnected 

text providers use the same service 

providers as CMRS providers? If so, 

would the cost be similar? Would a perincident service model be feasible for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1808 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

smaller interconnected text providers? 

Are there any other potential costs that 

the Commission should consider? To 

that end, we seek quantitative 

information for our cost-benefit 

analysis. 

4. Cost-Benefit Case Study 

67. States and localities collect 

approximately $2 billion in 911 fees and 

taxes annually for the operation and 

support of the legacy voice-based 911 

system. Most states have reported to the 

Commission that ‘‘they used the fees or 

surcharges that they collected for 911/ 

E911 service solely to fund the 

provision of 911/E911 service.’’ 

Dependent on the regulatory mechanism 

set forth in each statute, states distribute 

funding either to the carriers directly, or 

to a designated state or local entity 

which then reimburses carriers. As we 

have noted previously, the highest 

vendor estimate submitted in this record 

regarding the cost to carriers to 

implement nationwide text-to-911 

capability is $4 million annually, a mere 

fraction of the cost of the current voice 

911 system. 

68. Balanced against this low cost, the 

implementation of text-to-911 will 

provide substantial benefits both for 

people with disabilities and the general 

public in a variety of scenarios. While 

not all of the benefits associated with 

these scenarios are quantifiable, we 

have conducted a cost-benefit analysis 

of the potential impact of text-to-911 in 

the area of cardiac emergencies—a 

category that represents less than 10 

percent of 911 calls but for which 

detailed statistical information is 

available. Even when we limit our 

analysis of benefits to this subset of total 

emergencies, we find that the potential 

benefits of text-to-911 for just this one 

category of 911 calls outweighs the costs 

of implementing text-to-911 for all 

carriers and PSAPs. We seek comment 

on our case study analysis below. 

69. Our analysis is based on a 2002 

study of cardiac emergencies in 

Pennsylvania that found adoption of 

E911 to be associated with 

improvements in the health status of 

patients, particularly those with cardiac 

conditions. That Cardiac Study shows 

that, when precise location information 

is provided contemporaneously with a 

911 call, response time is notably 

shortened and correlated with an over 

34 percent reduction in mortality rates 

from cardiac arrest within the first 48 

hours following the incident. 

70. The life-saving benefits 

demonstrated in the Cardiac Study 

provide a useful reference point for 

assessing the importance of timely and 

effective 911 communication to 

response time and positive outcomes for 

medical emergencies. We therefore have 

extrapolated from the Cardiac Study to 

determine the likely number of cases in 

which text-to-911 might extend similar 

benefits to people with hearing and 

speech disabilities who cannot use 

voice to contact 911, but who would be 

able to communicate location 

information if text were available. 

71. Based on the Cardiac Study, we 

calculate that for the voice-based 911 

system as a whole, improved response 

time resulting from delivery of precise 

location information saves 

approximately 4,142 lives annually 

nationwide. To determine the 

proportionate benefit for people with 

disabilities that would result from 

availability of text-to-911, we consider 

only the 0.7 percent of the population 

with the most severe hearing and speech 

impairments (0.5 percent for extreme 

hearing difficulty and 0.2 percent for 

extreme speech difficulty). Assuming a 

proportional number of 911 calls in 

cardiac emergencies from this 

population, and limiting our calculation 

to intentional wireless calls in which 

the hearing- or speech-disabled person 

cannot rely on a speaking person to 

make the 911 call, we calculate that 

text-to-911 would save approximately 7 

lives annually in cardiac emergencies. 

Using an accepted statistical value-oflife model developed by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation, we 

estimate the value of each life saved to 

be $6.2 million. This yields a total 

benefit of $43.4 million annually for 

cardiac victims alone, or more than ten 

times the highest estimated cost of the 

rules proposed herein. 

72. We emphasize that the benefits 

calculated above for cardiac 

emergencies represent only a subset of 

the benefits that will be generated by 

text-to-911. The record reflects 

numerous other benefits that are less 

quantifiable but that may be similarly or 

even more substantial. Black Hawk 

County and Vermont have cited 

concrete examples where text-to-911 

enabled callers to reach 911, but could 

not make a voice call for safety reasons. 

Similarly, the record includes 

additional compelling evidence that 

text-to-9–1–1 may provide significant 

benefits in disaster scenarios due to the 

relatively high reliability of SMS 

messages and the relatively low amount 

of network capacity required to deliver 

an SMS message. These benefits, though 

not specifically quantifiable, provide 

compelling evidence that the aggregate 

benefits of text-to-911 will significantly 

exceed the specific benefits quantified 

here—and will be generated at no 

additional cost. 

5. Reliability of Text-to-911 

73. In response to the Notice, several 

commenters raise concerns about the 

reliability of text-to-911, and 

particularly SMS-based text. 4G 

Americas notes that ‘‘it found no shortterm solution that did not exhibit 

limitations with respect to capability, 

performance, and impacts to users, 

network operators and/or PSAPs.’’ CTIA 

states that ‘‘SMS was not designed to be 

used as an emergency service’’ and 

urges the Commission to focus on the 

deployment of ‘‘advanced 9–1–1 

emergency communications services in 

emerging wireless technologies.’’ Other 

commenters similarly assert that certain 

technical aspects of SMS limit its 

reliability for emergency 

communications. Among the factors 

cited are that SMS (1) is one-way rather 

than session-based; (2) lacks delivery or 

performance guarantees, and may not 

inform the sender when a text is not 

timely delivered; (3) does not prioritize 

emergency messages; (4) does not assure 

that multiple messages will arrive in the 

sequence they were sent; (5) does not 

support 911 location technologies that 

are used for 911 voice calls; and (6) 

lacks protections against transmission of 

spurious or fraudulent 911 messages. 

74. Technical Studies. In response to 

the Notice, two commenters conducted 

technical studies which present 

evidence that SMS-to-911 is as reliable 

as voice, and in some instances, may be 

even more reliable than voice. In the 

first study, researchers at the University 

of Colorado tracked several hundred 

SMS text messages and found that ‘‘the 

reliability of text messages and mobile 

phone voice calls, in terms of data loss, 

are very similar.’’ The University of 

Colorado study ‘‘found that all of the 

text messages sent were received by the 

cellular network, resulting in a ‘data 

loss rate’ of 0% and a reliability level of 

100%.’’ In addition, the University of 

Colorado study noted that ‘‘[o]ther 

researchers have tested the reliability of 

* * * SMS * * * and found that the 

‘data loss rate’ over several thousand 

messages was less than 1%, resulting in 

a reliability level of 99%. The statistical 

implication is that large samples might 

experience a small percentage of data 

loss, but overall the reliability for text 

messages is similar to that of voice 

calls.’’ 4G Americas criticizes the 

University of Colorado’s findings and 

notes that the ‘‘study was executed in an 

academic environment with a predetermined technology and setting. The 

study did not involve a large number of 

subscribers, and hence, no real-world 

traffic conditions.’’ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1809 

75. The University of Colorado study 

also found that text messaging is 

actually more reliable than voice 

communications when a weak signal 

exists, ‘‘such as when the caller is in the 

mountains, in the midst of high rise 

buildings, inside a building, under a 

collapsed building following an 

earthquake or explosion, or in a trunk of 

a car [or] closet.’’ The University of 

Colorado notes that ‘‘[c]ommunication 

at the edge of coverage can be sporadic, 

allowing only momentary windows of 

communications coverage that are not 

long enough to support a voice call but 

a short burst of a text message can get 

through. In addition, some 

implementations of SMS automatically 

keep trying to send a text message until 

a transmission window opens.’’ 

76. Intrado conducted the second 

technical study, in which it sent ‘‘tens 

of thousands of actual SMS messages 

[from] a simulated PSAP to a mobile 

device and from a mobile device to the 

simulated PSAP.’’ The study found that 

‘‘by using techniques such as the 9–1– 

1 SMSC [short message service center], 

SMS can be used to create a very 

reliable and timely 9–1–1 

communication infrastructure.’’ 

According to Intrado, ‘‘90% [of the text 

messages] were delivered within 3–4 

seconds.’’ 

77. Discussion. While 4G Americas, 

CTIA, Motorola, and several other 

commenters provide anecdotes about 

the limited reliability of SMS-to-911, the 

University of Colorado and Intrado 

conducted the only two technical 

studies on this issue. Notably, both of 

these studies found that the reliability of 

SMS-to-911 is comparable to voice, and 

in some instances, even more reliable 

than voice. Further, we believe that the 

success of the existing trials, the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement, and the 

continued rollout of text-to-911 services 

throughout the nation demonstrate that 

industry has already overcome many of 

the reliability deficiencies that were 

originally cited in the comments. While 

SMS was certainly not designed for 

emergency communications, we 

disagree with T-Mobile’s claim that 

‘‘SMS is fundamentally unsuited for 

emergency communications.’’ Indeed, a 

life was saved in Vermont as a direct 

result of Verizon’s SMS-to-911 trial. 

Additionally, we note that, for callers 

who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, 

reaching 911 by voice may not be 

possible at all, so that even a 

mechanism that is not perfectly reliable 

can provide significant benefit. For 

callers who are not deaf, text-to-911 

provides an additional way to reach 

PSAPs, thus increasing the overall 

probability of obtaining help. Finally, 

we believe that our proposal for wireless 

carriers to provide a ‘‘bounce-back’’ 

capability will further mitigate 

reliability concerns. Accordingly, given 

the significant benefits of text-to-911 

service, we do not believe that 

reliability concerns should delay the 

deployment of text-to-911. We seek 

comment on this analysis. 

6. Carrier and Third Party Non-SMSBased Text-to-911 Applications 

78. As technology and consumer 

habits evolve, consumer expectations 

also change and the need to meet those 

expectations in times of emergency 

must also evolve. As more consumers 

use SMS-substitutes, whether provided 

by the underlying carrier or by a third 

party, it is important that we evaluate 

ways to alleviate consumer confusion 

and promote regulatory parity. We note, 

however, that despite this proliferation 

of SMS-substitutes, the Carrier-NENAAPCO Agreement is limited to SMS 

services provided by the signatory 

providers. 

79. Accordingly, as discussed below, 

we are seeking comment on a variety of 

issues associated with non-SMS 

messaging applications, including 

‘‘over-the-top’’ texting applications 

provided by third-parties. In this regard, 

our focus is on those applications that 

are most like SMS and therefore most 

likely to be the subject of a consumer 

expectation that they may reach 911, 

namely those two-way texting 

applications that allow text messages to 

be sent to any U.S. phone number, 

irrespective of the hardware utilized to 

send that message. 

80. Background. In the Notice, the 

Commission sought comment on nonSMS text-to-911 alternatives, including 

IP-based messaging, real-time text, and 

downloadable software applications. 

While noting the potential advantages of 

SMS as an interim solution, the 

Commission also sought comment on 

how to encourage the development of 

non-SMS options that could provide 

more flexibility and functionality to 

consumers. 

81. Commenters generally support 

allowing carriers and service providers 

to develop alternatives to SMS-based 

text. NENA notes that smartphone-based 

text-to-911 applications could lower 

costs for both consumers and PSAPs 

and that ‘‘because 9–1–1 text 

applications would run on smartphones 

or advanced devices, their call streams 

could, in some instances, operate 

outside the normal 911 voice call path.’’ 

The University of Colorado observes 

that ‘‘there are an increasing number of 

smartphone applications and other SMS 

short cuts that provide for pre-stored 

and automatically composed messages, 

such as contact information for an 

epileptic having a seizure, or to include 

location [GPS] coordinates.’’ 

Bandwidth.com notes that applications 

can be ‘‘specifically geared toward 

enhancing the ability of the deaf and 

hard of hearing to access public safety 

via texting.’’ LR Kimball states that 

‘‘[s]oftware applications that can 

integrate into the legacy 911 system 

should be the first choice in the short 

term to allow for more complete access. 

* * * [and] should be developed in a 

way that makes use of services currently 

in use at PSAPs.’’ AT&T urges the 

Commission to avoid imposing text-to911 regime that would force carriers to 

continue supporting SMS-based text-to911 after SMS has become 

technologically obsolete or 

economically uncompetitive. 

82. In the Notice, the Commission 

also observed that consumers are 

acquiring more advanced mobile 

devices (e.g., 3G and 4G handsets) that 

enable them to install ‘‘over-the-top’’ 

software applications. In the Notice, we 

sought comment on whether text-to-911 

requirements should apply to both 

CMRS and non-CMRS providers alike. 

The Commission sought comment on 

the feasibility of using general texting or 

911-specific software applications to 

send text messages to PSAPs. The 

Commission noted that both providers 

and third parties, including vendors that 

provide services and equipment to 

PSAPs, could develop such 

applications. 

83. In response to the Notice, CTIA 

and AT&T noted the proliferation of 

‘‘over-the-top’’ software applications 

and highlighted the need for the 

Commission to implement technology 

neutral regulations that apply equally to 

both carrier-provided and non-carrierprovided texting solutions. CTIA stated 

that ‘‘it is * * * unclear how a national 

SMS-based interim solution would work 

in the context of over-the-top 

applications or other non-carrierprovided SMS solutions’’ and 

emphasizes that ‘‘the [FCC] must * * * 

consider the severed link between the 

licensed CMRS service provider and the 

emergency calling capabilities, such as 

location accuracy, of end-user devices 

and over-the-top applications.’’ AT&T 

notes that: (1) ‘‘limiting the mandate of 

[t]ext-to-911 services to SMS services 

provided by telecommunications 

carriers would be short-sighted, and 

thus a great disservice to the general 

public[;]’’ (2) a ‘‘mandate that is 

exclusive to the SMS platform fails to 

account for the fact that such services 

are experiencing both declining 

revenues and usage due to the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1810 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

proliferation of free [‘over-the-top’] 

texting applications[;]’’ and (3) ‘‘[t]he 

FCC must adopt a technologicallyneutral solution that applies equally to 

carrier-provided SMS services and 

competitive alternatives to avoid 

distorting the marketplace to the 

detriment of one service provider.’’ 

AT&T further explains that ‘‘failing to 

include [‘over-the-top’] substitutes in 

the mandate may cause significant 

customer confusion regarding the 

accessibility of emergency services via 

text message’’ and that ‘‘applying this 

mandate on a technology neutral basis 

ensures that the effectiveness of the 

mandate does not depend on the 

dominance of any platform or on the 

market position of any group of service 

providers.’’ Additionally, AT&T notes 

that ‘‘including [‘over-the-top’] 

providers in the scope of a text-to-911 

mandate would assist ongoing industry 

standards work by encouraging [those] 

providers to participate in * * * 

developing a text-to-911 solution.’’ 

84. On the other hand, several entities 

express concerns about the Commission 

extending text-to-911 obligations to 

‘‘over-the-top’’ software applications. 

Sprint notes that ‘‘[m]any * * * overthe-top messaging providers are 

relatively small and likely may not have 

the financial resources to achieve PSAP 

integration.’’ Sprint also asserts that ‘‘it 

would not be able to control * * * 

third-party commercial offerings nor 

influence how wireless consumers 

utilize such applications.’’ Further, 

Sprint highlights the limitations 

associated with ‘‘over-the-top’’ software 

solutions, including the ability to 

‘‘obtain location information associated 

with a particular call.’’ Similarly, U.S. 

Cellular states that it prefers text-to-911 

to ‘‘be considered in the context of 

native SMS,’’ and that it does not favor 

covering over-the-top text applications. 

U.S. Cellular also notes that ‘‘on some 

devices, SMS messages up-convert to 

MMS, and delivery of those converted 

messages to PSAP[s] would need to be 

further explored.’’ Motorola Mobility 

maintains that ‘‘any regulatory 

responsibility for over-the-top text-to911 applications, including collection of 

precise location information, must rest 

only on the application developer.’’ 

85. The VON Coalition argues that 

‘‘there is no public policy justification 

for extending SMS-to-911 obligations to 

over-the-top IP text applications’’ and 

maintains that ‘‘[t]here is no evidence 

that customers using over-the-top 

applications expect that they can use 

these applications to contact emergency 

services.’’ The VON Coalition contends 

that ‘‘[i]t seems highly unlikely that a 

wireless user with both an SMS 

functionality and an over-the-top 

messaging application would in some 

instances choose to open an application, 

sign in and then send an ‘SMS’ to a 

PSAP rather than simply using the 

wireless phone’s SMS capability that (a) 

the customer likely uses on a near-daily 

basis, and (b) is readily available to the 

user without opening any application or 

providing sign-in information.’’ The 

VON Coalition highlights that ‘‘over-thetop messaging applications, which are 

dependent on the availability of 

broadband Internet access, are less 

reliable than a wireless carrier’s SMS 

text services that require no broadband 

availability and, moreover, very little 

bandwidth vis-a`-vis voice or other data 

communications on a wireless carrier’s 

network.’’ The VON Coalition also notes 

that ‘‘there currently are no location 

solutions for over-the-top applications— 

neither for routing a message to the 

appropriate PSAP nor to provide 

sufficient location information 

associated with the caller.’’ The VON 

Coalition adds that ‘‘[b]ecause an overthe-top message is provided over 

another provider’s network—whether a 

wireless carrier, wireline carrier or a WiFi hotspot—there is no real-time 

location information associated with the 

over-the-top message.’’ Accordingly, the 

VON Coalition ‘‘recommend[s] that 

over-the-top IP-based messaging and 

text services that rely on the mobile 

operator’s data network should be 

excluded from an interim [text-to-911 

requirement] as they are precisely the 

type of communications capability for 

which NG911 is intended.’’ 

86. More recently, the VON Coalition 

reiterates these points and further 

argues that the lack of user location 

information is an impediment to 

enabling routing of an emergency text to 

the appropriate PSAP. Moreover, they 

argue that implementing an interim 

solution directed at text-to-911 may 

impact the transition to NG911, or may 

stifle innovation and alter business 

models. Should the Commission pursue 

a 911 obligation for IP-based SMS 

providers, the VON Coalition urges that 

any obligation be limited to ‘‘two-way’’ 

over-the-top SMS, so that a texting 

customer is able to receive a bounceback message where a PSAP is unable 

to receive text-to-911 messages. 

87. Similarly, Apple urges the 

Commission, in addition to considering 

the jurisdictional and technical issues 

associated with implementing a text-to911 obligation for over-the-top text 

messaging application providers, to 

limit its proposals to those applications 

that (1) are installed on a device that 

determines the user’s location using a 

technology that meets the enhanced 911 

requirements set forth in Section 

20.18(h) of the Commission’s rules; and 

(2) independently enables the user to 

send text-based messages to and receive 

text-based messages from any valid 

North American Numbering Plan 

telephone number via the short message 

service protocol. 

88. Discussion. As smartphone 

technology and applications proliferate, 

wireless consumers increasingly have 

the ability to send and receive text 

messages using downloadable software 

applications. These applications may be 

provided to the consumer by the 

underlying wireless service provider or 

by third party software providers, and 

may use one of a variety of text delivery 

methods. For example, some text 

applications deliver text to mobile 

telephone numbers over the carrier’s 

existing mobile-switched SMS network, 

while other applications deliver text 

over IP data networks, and some 

applications support both delivery 

methods and can also deliver MMS 

content. Several over-the-top 

applications hold themselves out as 

competitive alternatives to CMRSprovided SMS services. In addition, 

some software providers have 

developed 911-specific software 

applications for smartphone users that 

are designed specifically to support 

communication by text and other media 

with PSAPs that install and operate the 

application. As the Wall Street Journal 

recently noted, the volume of SMS text 

messages per month sent by consumers 

has recently dropped 3 percent, with the 

most likely explanation of this ‘‘major 

shift in mobile communications’’ 

attributable to migration of these 

messages to over-the-top messaging 

platforms. Another study suggests that 

over 45 percent of smartphone owners 

use an SMS alternative such as over-thetop messaging apps in addition to or in 

lieu of traditional SMS. And while other 

analysts predict that SMS will continue 

to grow globally through 2016, they 

further predict a large scale drop-off in 

SMS in favor of over-the-top 

applications thereafter. 

89. This trend towards development 

and use of new third-party text 

applications has significant implications 

for the implementation of text-to-911. 

While SMS is currently the most widely 

available and heavily used texting 

method in the U.S., and is likely to 

remain so for some time, consumer 

access to and use of third-party text 

applications is likely to increase over 

time. As this occurs, some consumers 

may choose to use such applications as 

their primary means of communicating 

by text, relying less on SMS or possibly 

bypassing SMS entirely. In that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1811 

eventuality, consumers that become 

familiar with software applications by 

using them for everyday non-emergency 

communications will be increasingly 

likely to prefer them for emergency 

communications. Moreover, consumers 

faced with the pressure of an emergency 

may attempt to use the most familiar 

application available to contact 911 

even if they are not certain that it will 

work. 

90. Given this emerging trend for 

technology and consumer behavior 

patterns, we believe it is important to 

consider whether certain third partyprovided text applications and carrierprovided applications should be subject 

to text-to-911 obligations, particularly 

those that hold themselves out as 

substitutes for carrier-provided SMS 

services. In choosing to use a particular 

text application from a variety of 

available options, consumers may not 

even be aware of the identity of the 

party providing the application or the 

nature of network technology that the 

application uses to deliver the text. 

Thus, imposing text-to-911 

requirements based on the identity of 

the provider or the delivery technology 

could lead to some applications 

supporting text-to-911 while other 

applications that are functionally 

similar from the consumer perspective 

do not support text-to-911. In this 

respect, it may be important to consider 

consumer expectations both now and in 

the future as a matter of public safety, 

as well as to consider means to promote 

competitive neutrality to ensure that 

like services are treated comparably, 

thereby avoiding arbitrage created by 

artificial regulatory distinctions. 

91. As discussed above, consumers 

now have access to a wide variety of 

tools that allow the sending of text 

messages on almost any computing and 

communication device. However, as the 

VON Coalition notes, consumers may 

not have the expectation to send text 

messages to 911 from all possible text 

applications, and some of these may 

face significant technical difficulties in 

delivering text messages to the correct 

PSAP, possibly depending on the 

platform the application is running on. 

Thus, we divide text applications into 

two broad categories, namely (1) 

interconnected text applications that 

use IP-based protocols to deliver text 

messages to a service provider, which 

the service provider then delivers the 

text messages to destinations identified 

by a telephone number, using either IPbased or SMS protocols, and (2) noninterconnected applications that only 

support communication with a defined 

set of users of compatible applications 

but do not support general 

communication with text-capable 

telephone numbers. We seek comment 

on applying text-to-911 obligations on 

the former category, but not the latter. 

92. In this respect, we seek comment 

on the characteristics of interconnected 

text applications to which text-to-911 

obligation should apply, if adopted. As 

described above, Apple suggests a twoprong approach to determine whether 

an interconnected text application 

would fall within the Commission’s 

proposed text-to-911 obligations. The 

VON Coalition similarly suggests that 

over-the-top applications should be 

‘‘two way’’ in order for a text-to-911 

obligation to attach. Are either of these 

definitions appropriate? Are they too 

limited? Do these characteristics 

conform to consumer expectations? For 

example, if a text messaging application 

only provides for ‘‘outbound-only’’ 

messaging to a U.S. telephone number, 

would a consumer still expect to be able 

to reach 911? Are there other 

characteristics that we should take into 

account? 

93. We also propose to treat providers 

of such non-SMS text applications 

similarly to CMRS providers with 

respect to the obligation to provide textto-911 capability to their users within a 

defined timeframe. By enabling text 

communication with any text-capable 

mobile number, these ‘‘interconnected 

text’’ applications provide effectively 

the same functionality that SMS 

provides currently. Therefore, we 

believe the same text-to-911 obligations 

should apply on a technology-neutral 

and provider-neutral basis. We seek 

comment on this proposal generally and 

on the issues discussed below. 

94. We also seek comment on whether 

third-party interconnected text software 

providers face technical issues or 

obstacles in the implementation of textto-911 that could affect the extent to 

which a text-to-911 requirement may be 

implemented, or the timeframe for such 

implementation. Commenters agree that 

flexibility in implementation is 

important to reduce the burden of 

deploying text-to-911. This is likely to 

be particularly important for 

interconnected text applications, since 

they are often designed by smaller 

enterprises. Do third-party software 

providers face difficulties assuring that 

their application works reliably on all 

hardware platforms, operating systems, 

and operation system versions 

supported by the application? Do these 

applications have access, possibly after 

asking for user permission, to cell tower 

and/or geo location information via 

platform application programming 

interfaces? Can applications warn users 

that disabling location functionality for 

an application may interfere with the 

ability to send text-to-911 messages? 

Could operating system providers 

facilitate the access to location 

information for emergency calling and 

texting purposes? If the text application 

cannot obtain location information, 

under what circumstances can the 

application deliver the text message to 

a gateway and have the gateway service 

determine the approximate location of 

the message sender? Can texting 

applications determine the cellular 

telephone number of handsets to help 

locate the mobile device? 

95. To facilitate discussion, we posit 

three possible implementation choices 

and invite comment on their respective 

advantages and disadvantages, as well 

as descriptions of additional options. 

The descriptions are meant to be 

illustrative, and are not meant to limit 

how implementers achieve the goal of 

providing text-to-911 to users of their 

applications. 

96. The first implementation option 

leverages the SMS application 

programming interface (API) offered by 

common smartphone operating systems. 

The interconnected text application 

would use the API to deliver any text 

message addressed to 911, while using 

the application-specific mechanism for 

all other, non-emergency messages. It 

appears that many applications already 

separate messages by destination, as 

they often only deliver messages using 

Internet protocols for certain countries 

or regions. 

97. In the second option, text-to-911 

messages are handled the same as any 

other text message and delivered to the 

SMS gateway provider chosen by the 

application vendor. The gateway 

provider then delivers those messages to 

text-capable destinations. This gateway 

provider handles text messages 

addressed to 911 and delivers them to 

the location-appropriate PSAP, possibly 

with the assistance of a third party 911 

message routing service. 

98. Finally, in the third option, textto-911 messages are delivered via 

Internet application layer protocols to 

PSAPs, without being converted to SMS 

along the way, using NG911 protocol 

mechanisms. The messages can be 

delivered to PSAPs either by the 

provider of the text messaging 

application or a third-party service 

provider. 

99. Are there alternative mechanisms 

that might be used? Which of these 

methods provides advantages or 

disadvantages for the application 

developer? For the PSAP? For the 

consumer? Which options are more 

likely to transition seamlessly to NG911, 

or provide a foundation that can be 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1812 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

leveraged by one or more of the parties 

in the NG911 delivery chain? How do 

these options differ in terms of 

implementation complexity, reliance on 

technologies not readily available, cost 

to the text messaging provider or 

reliability? 

100. Commenters have previously 

expressed concerns about the lack of 

access by the third party provider to 

consumer location information 

associated with a text-to-911 message, 

impacting both the ability to deliver the 

text message to the appropriate PSAP 

and the ability to locate the consumer 

seeking assistance. Which of the options 

described above facilitate delivery of 

location information? Are there other 

technical mechanisms or commercial 

arrangements that would facilitate the 

ability of a third party text application 

to ascertain the location from which the 

text originated? Can a requirement to 

provide text-to-911 precede such an 

ability? Can privacy controls utilized by 

some applications to limit access to 

location information interfere with the 

ability to identify the origination of a 

text-to-911 message? Are there other 

privacy concerns that need to be 

considered, or is it reasonable to assume 

that a person sending a text to 911 

implicitly waives such privacy 

concerns? Can third party text 

messaging applications bypass any 

privacy safeguards when 911 is the 

destination short code? 

7. Timetable for Text-to-911 

Implementation 

101. We seek comment on whether all 

CMRS providers and interconnected 

text providers should be required to 

implement the capability to support 

text-to-911 throughout their networks by 

May 15, 2014. In light of the public 

safety benefits of making text-to-911 

available to consumers regardless of 

carrier or service provider, and the 

benefits to both PSAPs and consumers 

from coordinated implementation, we 

believe it may be desirable for all CMRS 

providers, including small and rural 

carriers, and all interconnected text 

providers to implement text-to-911 

capability in their networks on a 

timetable comparable to the four largest 

wireless carriers. Setting a single, 

uniform deadline for all providers 

would arguably facilitate coordination 

among text-to-911 providers, vendors, 

and PSAPs, reduce the likelihood of 

non-uniform deployment, and provide 

consumers with a clear expectation of 

when text-to-911 will be supported 

regardless of which carrier or service 

provider they use. 

102. We seek comment on this 

approach. Would a uniform timetable 

help minimize consumer confusion? Is 

such a uniform timeframe feasible, or 

are there factors that could prevent 

small, rural, and regional CMRS 

providers and third-party 

interconnected text providers from 

implementing text-to-911 in the same 

timeframe as the four major CMRS 

providers? For example, some parties 

have posited that the relatively small 

size and lack of resources for certain 

applications developers would limit 

their ability to comply with a text-to-911 

requirement. Is this accurate? Are there 

other factors we should consider? 

103. The Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement also states that once a 

‘‘valid’’ PSAP request is made for 

delivery of text messages, ‘‘service will 

be implemented within a reasonable 

amount of time of receiving such 

request, not to exceed six months.’’ 

Further, a request for service will be 

‘‘considered valid if, at the time the 

request is made: (a) the requesting PSAP 

represents that it is technically ready to 

receive 9–1–1 text messages in the 

format requested; and (b) the 

appropriate local or State 9–1–1 service 

governing authority has specifically 

authorized the PSAP to accept and, by 

extension, the signatory service provider 

to provide, text-to-911 service (and such 

authorization is not subject to dispute).’’ 

Are these reasonable conditions? Is six 

months an appropriate timeframe? What 

steps does a CMRS or interconnected 

text provider have to take to add a PSAP 

to its list of text recipients and how 

much time are such steps likely to take? 

Should the same timeframe apply for 

both CMRS providers and 

interconnected text providers? Should 

this timeframe become shorter over time 

as the process for responding to PSAP 

requests becomes more established and 

routine? 

8. 911 Short Code 

104. Background. Short codes for 

mobile-switched text messaging are 

administered by the Common Short 

Code Administration (CSCA) and are 

typically five-digit or six-digit numbers. 

In the Notice, the Commission sought 

comment on whether a national short 

code for text-to-911 should be 

designated by the Commission, a 

standards-setting body, or some other 

entity. The Commission also asked how 

the short code should be designated or 

implemented. 

105. Commenters in general agree that 

the Commission should establish and 

reserve the digits ‘9–1–1’ as a national 

short code for text-to-911. Most notably, 

under the Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement, the four largest wireless 

carriers committed to ‘‘implement a ‘9– 

1–1’ short code that can be used by 

customers to send text messages to 9–1– 

1.’’ APCO notes that ‘‘text-to-9–1–1 

should involve the digits ‘9–1–1’ and 

not a different short code’’ and that 

‘‘[a]ny short code other than 9–1–1 will 

eventually need to be phased out as 

regions are able to accept text solutions 

direct to the PSAPs via NG911.’’ NENA 

urges that ‘‘any short code implemented 

must be uniform across carriers and 

geographic or political boundaries.’’ 

King County states that ‘‘a national short 

code, ideally using the digits 9–1–1, 

should be designated by Congress or the 

[FCC], similar to the designation of 911 

as the national emergency number by 

Congress.’’ AT&T argues that the 

Commission should ‘‘establish and 

reserve a standardized SMS short code’’ 

and that it ‘‘makes sense to use some 

variation of the present abbreviated 

dialing pattern 9–1–1 for this purpose.’’ 

Intrado believes that ‘‘an appropriate 

text solution should use the digits 911.’’ 

Motorola, however, cautions that there 

may be technical issues associated with 

using 911 as an SMS short code in some 

devices, and that ‘‘end users 

experiences in trying to use 911 as an 

SMS short code may be seriously 

lacking.’’ Nevertheless, Motorola notes 

that it ‘‘has released well in excess of 

100 mobile devices and software 

combinations in the U.S. market within 

the past three years, none of which has 

been tested for support of 911 as a SMS 

short code.’’ 

106. Discussion. The evolution of 911 

as the national emergency telephone 

number has resulted in the digits ‘‘9–1– 

1’’ being widely and uniformly 

associated with emergency 

communication in the United States. 

American consumers are familiar with 

dialing 911 to place an emergency voice 

call, and children are routinely taught to 

dial 911 as the way to summon help 

from police, fire, and ambulance 

service. This widespread use and 

consumer recognition of 911 makes it 

logical and highly desirable to 

implement 911 as a standard three-digit 

short code for sending emergency text 

messages to PSAPs wherever and 

whenever feasible. 

107. Moreover, the general technical 

feasibility of using 911 as a text short 

code appears to be established. In each 

of the text-to-911 trials that have 

occurred to date, subscribers of the 

participating CMRS providers have been 

able to use 911 as the short code for text 

messages to participating PSAPs. 

Moreover, under the Carrier-NENAAPCO Agreement, the four largest 

wireless carriers committed to 

‘‘implement a ‘9–1–1’ short code that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1813 

can be used by customers to send text 

messages to 9–1–1.’’ 

108. Given the apparent technical 

feasibility of a 911 short code and the 

widespread consumer recognition of 

911 as the standard emergency number 

in the U.S., we do not believe that other 

CMRS providers should encounter any 

substantial issues with using a 911 short 

code. We therefore propose that 

whenever technically feasible, all CMRS 

providers should configure their 

networks and text-capable cell phones 

to support 911 as the three-digit short 

code for emergency text messages sent 

to PSAPs. We seek comment on this 

proposal. We also seek comment on 

whether there are any text-capable cell 

phones being sold in the United States 

that are incapable of using the digits 911 

as a short code. If so, what are those 

devices and how many of them are in 

use? To what extent, if any, could such 

devices be modified or updated by a 

consumer or wireless retail store to 

support a three-digit code? In the event 

that certain devices cannot be so 

modified or updated, should we 

designate an alternate short code (e.g., a 

five-digit code) that such devices could 

use? 

109. With respect to interconnected 

text applications, we recognize that 

‘‘short codes’’ per se may not be 

appropriate conceptually for non-SMS 

texting. We therefore seek comment 

about whether there are any technical 

obstacles or other issues associated with 

such applications using the three-digit 

identifier 911. How can these issues, if 

any, be addressed? Are they specific to 

particular applications, or to IP-text 

messaging generally? Should 

interconnected text applications provide 

an icon indicating the ability to reach 

text-to-911? 

9. TTY Compatibility Requirement for 

Wireless Services and Handsets 

110. The Commission first adopted a 

requirement for wireless carriers to be 

capable of transmitting TTY calls to 911 

services in July 1996. Although the 

initial deadline set for implementation 

of this requirement was October 1, 1997, 

efforts to find a technical solution to 

support TTY (Baudot) technology over 

digital wireless systems ended up taking 

years of research and testing. As a 

result, the Commission granted multiple 

extensions of time for entities to comply 

with this mandate, ultimately requiring 

compliance by June 30, 2002. At that 

time, per the 1996 Order, wireless 

service providers were required to 

upgrade their digital networks to be 

compatible with TTYs and handset 

manufacturers were required to provide 

a means by which users could select a 

TTY mode on their phone’s menus. 

However, by the time these changes 

were implemented, new digital 

technologies, more mobile and less 

expensive, had caused most TTY users 

to migrate away from use of these 

devices as their primary communication 

mode. 

111. It is for this reason that the 

CVAA included a provision for the 

EAAC to consider deadlines ‘‘for the 

possible phase out of the use of currentgeneration TTY technology to the extent 

that this technology is replaced with 

more effective and efficient technologies 

and methods to enable access to 

emergency services by individuals with 

disabilities.’’ ATIS points to this 

provision in recommending that the 

Commission waive the TTY 

compatibility requirement for new 

wireless handsets where such handsets 

support the ATIS INES Incubator 

recommended solution. Specifically, 

ATIS argues that ‘‘[w]hile PSAPs and 

wireless networks should support TTY 

services for the foreseeable future, the 

TTY requirement for wireless handsets 

may be a redundant communication 

modality for future wireless handsets 

that support the recommended ATIS 

INES Incubator solution. 

112. As we noted earlier, the EAAC 

survey confirmed the declining use of 

TTYs by people with disabilities as well 

as the need for new forms of accessible 

communications to reach 911 services— 

including text and video—by persons 

who have hearing or speech disabilities. 

The decline in TTY usage is also 

reflected in the steep reduction in the 

number of minutes of TTY-based TRS 

over the last several years. At the same 

time, an estimated 100,000 users make 

approximately 20,000 emergency calls 

annually using TTY. In other words, 

while it is true that TTY use is 

declining, TTY still provides an 

invaluable, real-time 911 service for its 

users. Additionally, no similar robust 

products exist for mobile and IPnetworks, where the expected lifetime 

of a product is about two years as 

opposed to TTY’s ten year expected 

lifetime. Finally, users of TTY may not 

wish to switch to a new communication 

mechanism with which they are not 

familiar. 

113. Therefore, we seek further 

comment on whether the Commission 

should sunset the TTY requirement for 

new handsets, and if so, what criteria 

should be adopted before such action is 

taken. If the Commission does sunset 

the TTY requirement for new wireless 

handsets, should it do so only 

contingent upon a wireless texting 

capability? The EAAC recommended 

that the Commission lift the TTY 

requirement only for those handsets that 

have ‘‘at a minimum real time text or, 

in an LTE environment, IMS 

Multimedia Telephony that includes 

real-time text.’’ In addition, the EAAC’s 

2012 Subcommittee on TTY Transition 

concluded that ‘‘[c]onsistent 

implementation of a well-defined ‘TTY 

replacement’ with higher functionality 

real-time text, simultaneous voice and 

better mobility can fill an important 

need in accessible communication for 

user to user calls, relayed calls and 9– 

1–1 calls.’’ We seek comment on these 

EAAC recommendations concerning the 

removal of the TTY requirement. 

Should the ubiquitous use of SMS, 

alone or with other forms of text 

capability, be a factor in determining 

whether to lift the TTY requirement? Or, 

does the real-time nature of TTY 

communication make it fundamentally 

different from SMS, such that SMS is 

not a valid replacement for TTY-capable 

handsets? 

10. Routing and Location Accuracy 

114. In the Notice, the Commission 

sought comment on how to ensure that 

text messages to 911 include accurate 

location information for routing to the 

appropriate PSAP and for determination 

of the sender’s location by the PSAP. 

The record developed in response to the 

Notice indicates that it is technically 

feasible to route text messages 

originated on CMRS mobile switched 

networks to the appropriate PSAP based 

on the cell sector from which the text 

originated. Therefore, we propose to 

require CMRS providers (and their 

associated text-to-911 vendors) to use 

cell sector location to route 911 text 

messages originated on their networks 

to the appropriate PSAP. We also seek 

comment on any technical or 

informational challenges for third party 

interconnected text providers with 

respect to determining caller location 

and providing the appropriate routing. 

We do not propose at this time to 

require provision of E911 Phase II 

location information in conjunction 

with 911 text messages, although we 

encourage its provision where 

technically feasible. We discuss these 

proposals in greater detail below. 

a. Routing of Text Messages to the 

Appropriate PSAP 

115. Background. While the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement does not speak 

specifically to routing issues, the 

signatory providers agreed to provide 

text-to-911 on an interim ‘‘best-efforts’’ 

service subject to a valid PSAP request. 

However, the provision of text-to-911 

under the Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement is limited to ‘‘the capabilities 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1814 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

of the existing SMS service offered by a 

participating wireless service provider 

on the home wireless network to which 

a wireless subscriber originates an SMS 

message.’’ Many commenters, including 

public safety entities, argue that any 

text-to-911 solution must be capable of 

routing text messages to the appropriate 

PSAP based on the sender’s location. 

APCO states that ‘‘any solution must 

provide PSAP call routing capability 

that is as good as or better than what is 

being deployed today.’’ BRETSA and 

the Colorado 9–1–1 Task Force agree 

that ‘‘[t]he location of the caller must be 

available for the purposes of routing the 

call to the correct PSAP.’’ 

116. Focusing on SMS-to-911, some 

CMRS commenters contend that there 

are technical difficulties in routing SMS 

messages to the correct PSAP. The 

Blooston Rural Carriers claim that 

‘‘current SMS standards do not support 

automated routing to the PSAP or 

automated location information.’’ Sprint 

Nextel states that ‘‘location information 

is not included with SMS text messages 

and would not be available for PSAP 

routing.’’ 4G Americas argues that ‘‘SMS 

* * * provides no location 

information—not even a cell tower—so 

the originating network may not 

accurately route the message to the 

correct PSAP. Because the lack of 

location and session information, false 

messages can be easily spoofed * * * 

without the PSAP detecting the spoof.’’ 

117. However, commenting vendors 

counter that even if SMS was not 

initially designed to support automatic 

routing to PSAPs, it is technologically 

feasible to add the capability to route 

SMS text messages to a specific PSAP 

based on the sender’s location. 

According to Intrado, SMS messages can 

be routed to the appropriate PSAP by 

adding a Text Positioning Center (TPC) 

to the existing wireless network. Intrado 

states that the TPC will ‘‘function like 

a [Mobile Position Center] associated 

with wireless voice calls’’ and that 

‘‘[u]pon a mobile device’s initial text-to911, the TPC will determine the 

appropriate PSAP to which to route the 

text request for assistance.’’ Intrado also 

notes that the ‘‘routing determination 

will be based upon the location of the 

cell sector to which the mobile device 

is connected.’’ TCS similarly states that 

SMS messages can be routed to the 

appropriate PSAP ‘‘[b]y combining 

existing location technologies with 

existing SMS protocol capabilities.’’ The 

VON Coalition also notes routing 

challenges for third-party over-the-top 

application providers, which may not 

have direct access to caller location. 

118. Discussion. Verizon and TCS 

have indicated that they will use coarse 

location as the basis for PSAP routing 

determination in their deployment of 

text-to-911. Moreover, according to the 

Tennessee Emergency Communications 

Board (TECB), ‘‘[t]he TECB would not 

have agreed to host the pilot [with 

AT&T] had it not included the 

capability for location information to 

travel with the text. The Tennessee pilot 

will include a texting solution that 

includes rough location information.’’ 

The coarse or rough location 

information as referred to by Verizon 

and TECB is the equivalent to the 

location of the cell sector from which 

the wireless 911 call is made—or 

generally E911 Phase I information 

under the Commission’s E911 rules. 

Given the apparent technical feasibility 

of cell sector location and its actual use 

in text-to-911 trials to date, we propose 

that CMRS providers be required to 

route text messages automatically to the 

appropriate PSAP based on the cell 

sector to which the mobile device is 

connected. We also propose to define 

the ‘‘appropriate’’ PSAP presumptively 

for text-to-911 routing purposes to be 

the same PSAP that would receive 911 

voice calls from the same cell sector. 

However, we recognize that in some 

instances, state or local 911 authorities 

may wish to have text messages routed 

to a different PSAP from the one that 

receives 911 voice calls from the same 

location (e.g., to have all 911 texts 

within a state or region routed to a 

single central PSAP rather than to 

individual local PSAPs). Therefore, we 

propose to allow designation of an 

alternative PSAP for routing purposes 

based on notification by the responsible 

state or local 911 authority. We seek 

comment on these proposals. We also 

seek comment on whether there are any 

technical obstacles or cost factors that 

could make it more difficult for some 

CMRS providers, such as small or rural 

carriers, to support automated routing of 

text messages to the appropriate PSAP. 

119. We also seek comment on 

specific technical or informational 

challenges that third-party over-the-top 

messaging applications providers may 

face with respect to assessing caller 

location and the associated PSAP. 

Apple, for example, suggests that textto-911 obligations should only attach for 

third-party text messaging applications 

where the applications is installed on a 

phone that meets the Commission’s 

location accuracy requirements. Will 

this be sufficient to enable such 

applications to accurately route a 911 

call to the appropriate PSAP? Are there 

other agreements or protocols that 

would be necessary between the thirdparty application provider and the 

underlying carrier to ensure appropriate 

routing? What would these entail? 

120. Several commenters noted that 

spoofing could compromise the 

accuracy of location-based routing of 

SMS text messages to PSAPs. We note, 

however, that the proposed systems use 

systems not under the control of the 

caller to query for cell tower location. 

SMS messaging uses the same 

mechanism as calls to provide the 

originating number to the network, and 

thus, there is no unique attribute of text 

messaging that leaves it open to 

spoofing. We also note that the potential 

for spoofing already exists for VoIP calls 

to 911. As Vermont indicates with 

regard to its text-to-911 trial, ‘‘there is 

nothing about this new technology that 

is any more likely to result in ‘spoof’ 

contacts than what we already deal with 

on the voice side of the system.’’ 

Accordingly, we seek comment on 

whether the potential for spoofing text 

messages is any greater than the 

potential for spoofing VoIP calls. Are 

there any actions that the Commission 

could take to minimize the risk of textbased spoofing? 

b. 911 Location Accuracy Requirements 

121. Background. In the Notice, the 

Commission noted that some parties 

had expressed concerns about the 

inability of SMS to provide the sender’s 

precise location. The Commission 

sought comment on ways to overcome 

this limitation. Specifically, the Notice 

asked whether it is technologically 

feasible for the recipient of an 

emergency SMS text message to query 

for the texting party’s location using the 

phone number provided The CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement does not 

specifically address location accuracy 

issues. However, the Carrier-NENAAPCO Agreement does limit the 

provision of text-to-911 to ‘‘the 

capabilities of the existing SMS service 

offered by a participating wireless 

service provider on the home wireless 

network to which a wireless subscriber 

originates an SMS message.’’ 

122. Commenters indicate that, while 

it is feasible to use cell sector location 

to route emergency texts to the 

appropriate PSAP, it may be more 

difficult for CMRS providers to provide 

more precise location information in 

connection with text messages. Neustar 

notes that ‘‘some wireless operators use 

network based location determination 

mechanisms that depend on the handset 

being in a voice call to receive enough 

measurement data to determine the 

location of the caller accurately. Such 

networks could not be expected to 

respond with high resolution location 

information for texters. This will be true 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1815 

for any SMS to 911 solution.’’ On the 

other hand, TCS indicates that its 

system would use ‘‘the same location 

technologies and strategies used today 

for 9–1–1 voice calls to both route the 

text message to the appropriate PSAP, 

and for delivering a more precise 

location of the sender to PSAP 

personnel.’’ TCS notes, however, that 

‘‘the carrier’s 9–1–1 location platform 

may not be able to provide location 

outside of a 9–1–1 voice call’’ and that 

‘‘coarse [location] may be the only 

available location for initial service 

launch.’’ The VON Coalition expresses 

similar concerns with respect to 

providers of ‘‘over-the-top’’ text 

messaging applications in terms of their 

inability to access user location 

information. 

123. Discussion. The record in this 

proceeding indicates that providing 

precise location information in 

connection with text messages is 

technically feasible but could involve 

significant changes and upgrades to 

existing SMS-based text networks. We 

are therefore concerned that it could 

initially be overly burdensome to 

require CMRS providers to comply with 

the Commission’s Phase II E911 location 

accuracy rules when transmitting text 

messages to 911. While we recognize the 

importance of providing precise 

location information to PSAPs, we 

believe that the benefits of enabling 

consumers, particularly consumers with 

hearing and speech disabilities, to send 

SMS-based or non-SMS-based text 

messages to 911 outweigh the 

disadvantages of being unable to 

provide precise location information. 

Accordingly, we propose that the 

Commission’s Phase II E911 location 

accuracy requirements not apply to the 

initial implementation of text-to-911. 

Nevertheless, we encourage the 

voluntary development of automatic 

location solutions for text-to-911 that 

provide at least the same capability as 

Phase II location information for voice 

calls to 911, even if the location solution 

does not use the same underlying 

location infrastructure. For example, 

messaging applications could transmit 

location information that is available on 

handsets using the data channel. 

Further, applications that use IP-based 

message delivery may also be able to 

include location information obtained 

via a mobile device API along with the 

text message. We also seek comment on 

whether operating system vendors or 

CMRS providers can facilitate the 

delivery of more precise location for 

interconnected text providers. Are there 

any other factors that the Commission 

should consider in regard to location 

delivery for interconnected text 

providers? 

c. Roaming 

124. Background. Roaming enables 

wireless consumers to use mobile 

devices outside the geographical 

coverage area provided by their home 

network operator. In the Notice, the 

Commission asked whether it is 

technically feasible to determine the 

originating location of an emergency 

text message in all situations or whether 

it is feasible only in situations where the 

customer is not roaming. As noted 

above, the Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement does not provide text-to-911 

capability to wireless subscribers 

roaming outside of a subscriber’s home 

wireless network. Because sending and 

receiving texts while roaming involves 

two networks, the consumer’s home 

network and the visited roaming 

network, roaming may create issues for 

text-to-911 because of the greater 

technical complexity of routing the 

message to the correct PSAP based on 

the consumer’s location. In the nonemergency context, when a wireless 

consumer sends an SMS message while 

roaming on a visited network, the 

visited network passes the text message 

via designated signaling links to the 

user’s home network, which in turn 

sends the text message to its final 

destination. 

125. Several commenters address textto-911 in the context of roaming 

customers. In considering vendor 

proposals for text-to-911 solutions, 

NENA contends that applicable location 

requirements must be met regardless of 

whether a consumer initiates or 

continues a text-to-911 string through 

the consumer’s home network or a 

roaming partner. Similarly, APCO 

argues that when a device roams to a 

visited network, 911 text messages must 

be capable of remaining connected with 

not only the PSAP, but also the specific 

call taker. T-Mobile voices a number of 

concerns about roaming, stating that 

‘‘SMS-to-911 does not work when 

roaming.’’ T-Mobile further notes that 

‘‘SMS for a T-Mobile customer roaming 

on another carrier’s network remains 

supported by T-Mobile’s network and 

messaging infrastructure, rather than by 

the carrier providing roaming. However, 

T-Mobile will not have location 

information when its subscriber is 

roaming, and thus can neither 

determine whether a roaming subscriber 

is in an area that supports text-to-911 

nor route the 911 text to the appropriate 

PSAP.’’ U.S. Cellular stresses ‘‘the need 

for the FNPRM to include a discussion 

regarding the need for requirements to 

address customers sending texts to 911 

while roaming outside of their carrier’s 

network and for the resulting need to 

address interoperability across carrier 

networks.’’ Finally, Sprint Nextel urges 

the Commission to refer technical 

considerations like roaming to technical 

working groups and standards-setting 

bodies for further discussion. 

126. Discussion. We agree with NENA 

and APCO that it is critical for 

consumers who are roaming to have the 

ability to text-to-911 during an 

emergency, and we further note that 

current voluntary measures do not 

provide for text-to-911 service while a 

subscriber is roaming. Accordingly, we 

seek comment on whether both the 

home and visited network operators 

must cooperate to support the delivery 

of the text to the appropriate PSAP 

serving the sender’s location when a 

consumer sends a text message to 911 

while roaming. We also seek comment 

on T-Mobile’s assertion that its network 

is unable to collect location information 

on a roaming subscriber and is thus, 

technically limited from providing textto-911 for roaming subscribers. Could 

the visited network intercept text-to-911 

messages and determine the mobile 

device location? What technical and 

economic obstacles need to be 

addressed in order to provide text-to911 service to consumers? How can 

these obstacles be overcome? We also 

seek comment on whether the same 

approach should apply to international 

roamers while they are located in the 

United States. 

11. PSAP Options for Receiving Text-to911 

127. There appears to be general 

agreement that the NG911 architecture 

offers an IP standards-based interface 

protocol that supports the delivery of 

text messages, regardless of the 

technology used by the mobile device. 

While some PSAPs are currently 

NG911-capable, or soon will be, many 

other PSAPs will not be NG911-capable 

for an extended period of time, limiting 

their options for handling text messages 

in the interim. Thus, in order to 

implement text-to-911, particularly on a 

nationwide basis, the Commission must 

take the disparate capabilities of PSAPs 

into account. Accordingly, we propose a 

set of near-term options that would 

enable all PSAPs to accept text messages 

transmitted by CMRS or interconnected 

text providers, regardless of whether the 

PSAPs are NG911-capable. This 

proposed approach provides nonNG911-capable PSAPs with the 

flexibility to handle text messages in the 

near term without requiring PSAPs to 

fund significant upfront investments or 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1816 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

upgrades. We seek comment on each 

option and the proposal as a whole. 

a. NG911-Capable PSAPs 

128. We propose that text-to-911 

service providers deliver text messages 

to NG911-capable PSAPs using a 

standardized NG911 protocol, such as 

the NENA i3 protocol. This will ensure 

a consistent format for delivery of text 

messages to all NG911-capable PSAPs. 

We seek comment on this proposal. 

Should the current NENA i3 protocol be 

the single protocol used for delivery of 

all text messages to NG911-capable 

PSAPs? How should we account for 

future releases of NENA i3 that may 

support additional protocol interfaces? 

b. Non-NG911-Capable PSAPs 

129. For non-NG911-capable PSAPs, 

several technical options are available 

that could be used for receipt of text 

messages. For its part, the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement allows PSAPs 

to ‘‘select the format for how messages 

are to be delivered.’’ We propose that 

non-NG911-capable PSAPs be allowed 

to choose among several options, and to 

designate a preferred option and one or 

more fallback options. 

(i) Web Browser 

130. Under this option, a PSAP would 

receive text messages via a web browser 

installed in the PSAP (typically at one 

or more terminals used by PSAP calltakers) and connected to a third-party 

service provider. Verizon Wireless and 

TCS have stated that with respect to 

Verizon’s roll-out of text-to-911, they 

will offer PSAPs the ability to receive 

text messages using the web browser 

approach. TCS states that it has 

‘‘demonstrated a D–IP SMS client 

application that runs in a web browser 

and gives a PSAP call-taker who has 

connectivity to the IP-messaging 

network the ability to receive, view, and 

respond to the SMS 9–1–1 call.’’ This 

approach will require the PSAP to have 

Internet connectivity, but not full 

NG911 capability. 

131. We seek comment on the web 

browser approach. Because many PSAPs 

already have Internet connectivity even 

if they are not NG911-capable, we 

believe that this approach would offer 

PSAPs a cost-effective alternative for 

receiving text messages without having 

to upgrade to NG911. We seek comment 

on what costs, other than Internet 

access, a PSAP would have to incur 

when implementing a web browser 

solution. For example, T-Mobile 

contends that TCS’ web browser 

application would require PSAPs to 

upgrade their CPE. Is this accurate, and 

if so, what would the nature and cost of 

the required upgrade? 

132. We also seek comment on how 

the web browser option should be 

implemented in a multi-party 

environment where multiple web 

browser options and applications may 

be available to both PSAPs and text-to911 service providers. For example, it is 

possible that individual text-to-911 

service providers could offer different 

web browser applications to the same 

PSAP, requiring the PSAP to either 

support all of the offered applications or 

to request that the providers use a 

common application. Alternatively, 

neighboring PSAPs could select 

different web browser applications from 

one another, requiring a text-to-911 

service provider serving both PSAPs to 

support multiple applications or to 

request that the PSAPs choose a 

common application. 

133. As a practical matter, we expect 

that many of these issues can be 

resolved through development by 

vendors of standards-based 

interoperable web applications that 

enable CMRS providers, interconnected 

text providers, and PSAPs to choose 

single-source solutions rather than 

having to support multiple solutions. 

Nevertheless, we seek comment on how 

such issues should be resolved where 

CMRS providers, interconnected text 

providers, and PSAPs cannot agree on a 

common web browser solution. 

Specifically, if the PSAP chooses to 

receive text messages via web-based 

delivery, under what circumstances 

should CMRS or interconnected text 

providers be obligated to accommodate 

the PSAP’s choice of web browser 

application? If the PSAP uses a service 

provider (‘‘text service provider’’) to 

render text messages to a web browser, 

as appears likely based on the service 

trials, a problem would arise only if two 

CMRS or third-party text providers use 

different service providers on their end 

to route text-to-911 messages. In that 

scenario, we proposed to allow the 

PSAP to designate its text service 

provider as the recipient of text 

messages under two conditions. First, 

the PSAP text service provider must 

accept text messages using industrystandard protocols, such as the NENA i3 

standard. Second, the PSAP text service 

provider must not charge the CMRS or 

interconnected text provider a fee for 

delivering such messages. We seek 

comment on this proposal. 

(ii) Text-to-Voice Gateway Centers 

134. Under this option, a PSAP would 

receive text messages via a gateway 

center where emergency-trained 

telecommunicators would translate 

between text and voice. The gateway 

center would operate in a manner 

similar to a telematics call center of the 

kind that telematics providers such as 

OnStar use to handle emergency calls 

from their subscribers and transmit such 

calls to 911. Telematics providers use 

cell-site location to determine the 

caller’s location, match the location to 

the associated PSAP, and then use VoIPbased routing to connect with the PSAP 

over its 911 trunks. Intrado has 

proposed a similar solution for delivery 

of text messages through a gateway. 

135. Some commenters express 

concerns about implementing a gateway 

approach. T-Mobile notes that ‘‘a 

national SMS relay center does not exist 

today, and would have to be created and 

funded, which also cannot be 

accomplished rapidly.’’ Sprint submits 

that Intrado’s proposal ‘‘would require 

the installation of extensive 

infrastructure to adapt wireless 

networks to the solution. Whether this 

proposal could ultimately be successful 

nationwide as an interim text-to-911 

solution cannot be gauged, since testing 

has been very limited to date.’’ 

136. We seek comment on the 

feasibility of establishing one or more 

gateway centers for translation and 

transmission of text messages to PSAPs. 

What are the potential costs of 

implementing this approach, and how 

would such costs be allocated? Are 

CMRS providers or vendors offering 

text-to-911 services likely to develop 

and offer a gateway option to nonNG911-capable PSAPs? Are non-NG911- 

capable PSAPs likely to choose this 

option over the web browser or TTYbased delivery options if it is available? 

137. We also seek comment on how 

best to ensure that text-to-voice 

translation offered as part of the gateway 

option does not lead to harmful delays 

in communication between the sender 

and the PSAP. We anticipate that with 

proper certification and training, 

telecommunicators will be able to 

handle these responsibilities efficiently 

and professionally with a minimum of 

delay. We also anticipate that as an 

increasing number of PSAPs become 

capable of accepting IP-based text, the 

number of 911 text messages that will 

require text-to-voice translation will 

decrease, though text-to-voice or text-toTTY (see below) may continue to be 

necessary until all PSAPs have been 

upgraded. 

(iii) Text-to-TTY Translation 

138. Under this option, text messages 

would be converted into TTY calls that 

the PSAP would receive over its existing 

TTY facilities. Since all PSAPs already 

have TTY capability, this is potentially 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1817 

a very low-cost solution that can be 

deployed relatively quickly. Moreover, 

this solution supports direct 

communication between the sender and 

the PSAP. 

139. A number of commenters express 

support for this option. Neustar 

contends that using TTY to transmit 

SMS-originated text messages is a viable 

interim solution that could ‘‘bridge the 

gap’’ before and during the transition to 

NG911. Neustar notes that ‘‘almost all 

mobile phones are SMS capable but 

cannot do TTY and almost all PSAPs 

[are] TTY capable but cannot handle 

SMS.’’ Neustar further asserts that this 

option could be implemented at 

minimal cost because ‘‘carriers would 

only need to make small investments in 

providing cell ID query mechanisms 

where they are not already deployed for 

itinerate use, and PSAPs should be able 

to handle text-to-911 using their existing 

TTY equipment.’’ Verizon Wireless and 

TCS have stated that they intend to 

permit PSAPs that lack Internet 

connectivity to receive text messages 

using this approach. 

140. On the other hand, some 

commenters state that TTY is an 

outdated technology that could be 

susceptible to errors in an automated 

text-to-TTY translation process. TMobile states that TTYs ‘‘are not sized 

for general public use’’ and ‘‘present 

their own technical problems.’’ TMobile also contends that investment in 

TTYs would be a dead end investment, 

that TTYs are asynchronous and use 

Baudot tones, and that the half-duplex 

nature of TTYs can lead to messages 

being garbled if the texting party and 

PSAP call taker send messages over the 

top of one another. INdigital submits 

that ‘‘using the TTY protocol with a 1% 

total character error rate * * * imposes 

a technical requirement that is nearly 

impossible to meet.’’ T-Mobile asserts 

that ‘‘many PSAPs have a limited 

number of TTY-equipped answering 

stations [and that] the capital 

investment required to handle the much 

larger volume of messages that would 

result from a general public SMS-to-911 

system could be substantial for cashstrapped PSAPs.’’ APCO adds that 

PSAPs ‘‘us[ing] standalone TTY devices 

* * * will face additional challenges if 

the volume of calls to these legacy 

devices increase[s] dramatically.’’ 

141. We seek comment on the 

feasibility and potential costs and 

benefits of making the text-to-TTY 

approach available as a text delivery 

option for CMRS providers, 

interconnected text providers, and 

PSAPs. Given the age and technical 

limitations of the PSAPs’ existing TTY 

equipment, are PSAPs capable of 

handling a volume of text messages 

transmitted over TTY from the general 

public that could be much larger than 

the low current volume of TTY 911 

traffic? Could the technical problems 

associated with TTYs result in 

translation errors? Are there measures 

that could be taken to improve the 

capacity and reliability of TTY 

equipment to handle text-to-911? Are 

larger PSAPs likely to make use of TTYs 

to receive text-to-911 messages, 

compared to the other options discussed 

earlier? Do most PSAPs have standalone TTY devices or are these more 

likely to be built into the call taker 

equipment and would thus be able to 

handle a larger text volume? 

(iv) State/Regional Approach 

142. Under this option, a state or 

regional 911 authority could designate a 

NG911-capable PSAP to receive and 

aggregate 911 text messages over a large 

region served by multiple non-NG911- 

capable PSAPs, such as a county, a 

multi-county region, or an entire state. 

The NG911-capable PSAP would 

exchange text messages with the caller 

and then communicate by voice with 

the non-text-capable PSAP that serves 

the caller’s location. This approach is 

being applied in the Black Hawk 

County, Iowa text-to-911 trial, where the 

Black Hawk County PSAP accepts text 

messages from any i-Wireless user 

located in the state, thus acting as a 

gateway for other PSAPs in the state. 

143. We seek comment on this 

approach. In general, allowing 911 

authorities to aggregate handling of text 

messages through a single PSAP on a 

statewide or regional basis could 

accelerate the availability of text-to-911 

and lead to cost savings in its 

implementation. This approach would 

also minimize the operational and 

technological impact of text-to-911 for 

non-text-capable PSAPs. However, 

relaying text messages from the 

designated PSAP to other PSAPs in the 

state or region could lead to delay in 

responding to emergency text as 

compared to emergency voice calls. We 

seek comment on what measures, if any, 

could reduce the risk of such delay. 

c. Notification of PSAP Acceptance and 

Delivery Method 

144. In order for CMRS and 

interconnected text providers to deliver 

and PSAPs to receive emergency texts 

under the framework proposed in this 

Further Notice, a mechanism will be 

needed for each PSAP to notify 

providers (or their text-to-911 vendors) 

that it is prepared to accept text 

messages and indicating the delivery 

option it has chosen. In the Notice, the 

Commission sought comment on the 

possibility of developing a centralized 

routing database or databases that 

would identify which PSAPs are 

accepting text-to-911 messages and the 

routing a delivery method selected by 

each PSAP. The Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement does not specify a specific 

notification procedure; however, it 

defines a ‘‘valid request’’ for text-to-911 

service as one in which ‘‘the requesting 

PSAP represents that it is technically 

ready to receive 911 text messages in the 

format requested,’’ and ‘‘the appropriate 

local or State 911 service governing 

authority has specifically authorized the 

PSAP to accept and, by extension, the 

signatory service provider to provide, 

text-to-911 service (and such 

authorization is not subject to dispute).’’ 

145. In its comments, Bandwidth.com 

proposes a gateway architecture that 

includes a database of all PSAPs with 

their preferences for handling text 

messages. This approach would 

arguably have efficiency advantages 

because it would enable PSAPs to 

provide notification regarding text 

delivery only once to all parties, rather 

than having to inform every wireless 

carrier or systems service provider 

individually. It would also enable 

providers of text-to-911 routing services 

to coordinate their databases for the 

routing of text messages. We seek 

comment on the feasibility and cost of 

implementing a gateway architecture or 

database mechanism. If such 

coordination is desirable, how can it be 

encouraged or facilitated? What entity 

should operate the database? How 

should PSAPs declare their preferences? 

Can the registry of preferences be 

implemented as an extension of the 

Commission’s PSAP database? Should 

there be a default preference to ensure 

that PSAPs that do not declare their text 

delivery option by a certain date are 

then assumed to prefer text-to-TTY 

delivery, since that option should be 

available without further PSAP action? 

What constitutes a valid notification? 

The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement 

requires an appropriate local or State 

911 service governing authority to 

specifically authorize a PSAP to accept 

text-to-911. Should this be a 

requirement for a valid notification? 

146. We seek comment on the 

feasibility and cost of implementing 

Bandwidth.com’s proposal or a similar 

gateway architecture or database 

mechanism. This approach would 

arguably have efficiency advantages 

because it would enable PSAPs to 

provide notification regarding text 

delivery only once to all parties, rather 

than having to inform every CMRS 

provider or systems service provider 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1818 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

individually. It would also enable 

providers of text-to-911 routing services 

to coordinate their databases for routing 

text messages, via the ECRF. If such 

coordination is desirable, how can it be 

encouraged or facilitated? How should 

PSAPs declare their preferences? 

Should there be a default preference to 

ensure that PSAPs that do not declare 

their text delivery option by a certain 

date are assumed to prefer text-to-TTY 

delivery, since that option should be 

available without further PSAP action? 

Who should operate such a database? 

Can this registry of preferences be 

implemented as an extension of the 

Commission PSAP database? 

12. Cost Recovery and Funding 

147. While we seek to structure our 

proposals to keep text-to-911 costs as 

low as possible for both text-to-911 

service providers and PSAPs, we seek 

comment on whether there are 

additional actions that the Commission 

could take to enable text-to-911 service 

providers and PSAPs to recover their 

costs. We note that under the CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement, signatory 

providers agreed to provide text-to-911 

‘‘independent of their ability to recover 

these associated costs from state or local 

governments.’’ At the same time, the 

Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement 

requires that ‘‘incremental costs for 

delivery of text messages (e.g. additional 

trunk groups to the PSAP’s premises 

required to support TTY delivery) will 

be the responsibility of the PSAP, as 

determined by individual analysis.’’ 

a. Text Messaging Providers 

148. Background. In response to the 

Notice, a number of CMRS commenters 

express concerns over funding text-to911. CTIA states that ‘‘[a]ppropriate 

funding is a significant uncertainty 

given the considerable resources that 

would be needed to deploy text-to-911 

capabilities on a nationwide basis.’’ 

RCA notes that ‘‘[c]oncern for adequate 

funding of future 911 systems is 

widespread and the increasing burden 

on wireless and IP-based providers to 

maintain the 911 system moving 

forward is troubling.’’ 

149. Vendors contend that existing 

911 cost allocation mechanisms can be 

used to recover the cost to implement 

near-term text-to-911 for both CMRS 

providers and PSAPs. Intrado asserts 

that the cost of every ‘‘functional 

element’’ of a text-to-911 solution ‘‘can 

be allocated to wireless carrier networks 

and PSAPs consistent with how they are 

assigned today under the Commission’s 

King County demarcation ruling.’’ 

Intrado submits that, depending on 

which ‘‘functional elements’’ PSAPs 

choose to implement at each stage of 

text-to-911, ‘‘the cost allocations can be 

changed if funding considerations 

dictate.’’ 

150. Some commenters suggest that 

existing funding mechanisms, such as 

TRS and the Universal Service Fund 

(USF) could be applied to recover costs 

of text-to-911 implementation. Intrado 

contends that ‘‘the FCC can and should 

determine that SMS is eligible for TRS 

funding to the same extent that IP-Relay 

is eligible for TRS funding.’’ 

Bandwidth.com submits that ‘‘a default 

destination for text messages that do not 

have location info must be determined’’ 

and contends that ‘‘[t]he TRS/VRS and 

IP Relay service providers provide an 

excellent option for this function given 

their existing role in facilitating 

communications between deaf or hardof-hearing callers and PSAP personnel.’’ 

NASNA also urges the Commission to 

consider ‘‘[u]se of the Universal Service 

Fund to assist States and regions with 

the costs of NG911.’’ 

151. Discussion. We believe that 

existing cost recovery mechanisms are 

sufficient to support implementation of 

text-to-911 under the framework 

presented in this Further Notice. 

Generally, CMRS providers recover their 

911 implementation costs from their 

subscriber base. Since CMRS providers 

already support SMS and other texting 

applications in their networks, and have 

the ability to recover costs of those 

applications from their customers, it 

appears that the primary additional cost 

for CMRS providers to implement textto-911 will be to establish and support 

the specific routing and relay functions 

needed to transmit emergency text 

messages to PSAPs. Additionally, under 

the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the 

major carriers have agreed to provide 

this service independent of cost 

recovery from state or local 

governments. The record indicates that 

the incremental cost would be in the 

range of $4 million annually. 

152. We also note that an additional 

source of funding to reimburse wireless 

carriers for their 911 service 

implementation costs can be found in 

certain cost recovery programs that have 

been established through state 

legislation. Most states have reported to 

the Commission that ‘‘they used the fees 

or surcharges that they collected for 

911/E911 service solely to fund the 

provision of 911/E911 service.’’ 

Dependent on the regulatory mechanism 

set forth in each statute, states distribute 

funding either to the carriers directly, or 

to a designated state or local entity 

which then reimburses carriers. For 

example, Alabama provides that ‘‘20% 

of the service charges collected are 

retained by the [States’ Wireless 9–1–1] 

board * * * to reimburse wireless 

service providers for Phase I and II 

expenses.’’ In comparison, Nebraska 

provides that from its 911 fund 

‘‘payments are also made directly to 

wireless carriers for costs incurred for 

the provision of enhanced wireless 911 

services.’’ Though the means and extent 

to which carriers receive stateprescribed reimbursement for 911 

implementation costs vary from state to 

state, we find that such cost recovery 

programs are an available and 

significant source of funding that can 

facilitate the roll-out of text-to-911 

capability. Moreover, some states have 

started to apply their 911 funding to 

initiate deployment of full NG911 

capabilities. 

153. Additionally, many states allow 

qualifications for cost to include NG911- 

capable components for which CMRS 

providers might recover their outlays. 

For example, Verizon and Verizon 

Wireless note that ‘‘[m]any state and 

local governments have * * * begun 

reconfiguring their funding mechanisms 

to facilitate NG911 deployment. We find 

that such actions could provide CMRS 

providers with additional funding 

flexibility to develop routing and 

gateway functions. We seek comment on 

this view and request that commenters 

update the Commission on any such 

efforts that are underway. 

154. We also seek comment on 

whether USF funding could play a role 

in cost recovery, particularly for lowcost text to-911 options such as the 

TTY-based approach. Could using these 

funding mechanisms expedite text-to911 implementation? What 

modifications, if any, would the 

Commission have to make to these 

funding programs to achieve those 

objectives? In commenting on these 

approaches, commenters should 

consider the Commission’s recent 

amendment of its universal service rules 

to specify that the functionalities of 

eligible voice telephony services 

include, among other things, access to 

911 and E911 emergency services to the 

extent the local government in an 

eligible carrier’s service area has 

implemented 911 or E911 systems. The 

Commission noted that Eligible 

Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) 

‘‘will be required to comply with NG911 

rules upon implementation by state and 

local governments.’’ 

155. Finally, we seek comment on 

current or potential approaches that 

would enable third party interconnected 

text providers to receive cost recovery 

for obligations they may have to provide 

services and offerings to implement 

text-to-911 capabilities. In view of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1819 

funding mechanisms in several states 

for CMRS providers to receive cost 

recovery, we seek comment on whether 

such state level mechanisms might 

currently apply to enable 

interconnected text providers to receive 

cost recovery in complying with text-to911 obligations proposed in this Further 

Notice. We also seek comment on 

whether states or other jurisdictions 

provide or plan to provide cost recovery 

mechanisms that could apply to 

interconnected text providers. We note 

that under our proposed framework, the 

infrastructure used by interconnected 

text providers would be similar to the 

infrastructure used by CMRS providers 

for the delivery of text messages to a 

PSAP. We seek comment on whether 

this would facilitate extending existing 

cost recovery mechanisms on CMRS 

providers to interconnected text 

providers. 

b. PSAPs 

156. Background. A number of public 

safety commenters express concerns 

about funding, noting that many PSAPs 

are subject to state and local regulatory 

mandates that may affect their ability to 

fund the implementation of text-to-911 

service. APCO asserts that ‘‘[m]any 

PSAPs are mandated to answer 90% of 

their incoming 9–1–1 calls in 10 

seconds or less to qualify for receipt of 

wireless surcharge and other 9–1–1 

funds.’’ APCO further contends that ‘‘[i]t 

is unlikely that these * * * mandates 

will be modified to accommodate the 

additional time that interim solution 

based text calls may have on the PSAP’s 

ability to meet these standards.’’ APCO 

argues that, consequently, 

‘‘implementing SMS text-to-9–1–1 may 

jeopardize some PSAPs eligibility for 

surcharge funds.’’ NATOA concurs, 

stating that ‘‘localities could lose vital 

911 fees and other funding in the event 

they fail to meet performance mandates 

due to the increased time necessary to 

handle text-based calls.’’ Other 

commenters, however, assert that recent 

trials have not substantiated the alleged 

increase in call-taking time due to the 

characteristics of SMS text. 

157. Wireless carrier commenters also 

question whether PSAPs have the 

necessary funding to support the 

transition to text-to-911. The Blooston 

Rural Carriers argue that ‘‘at this point 

in time and for the foreseeable future, 

PSAPs are simply not equipped (and 

will not be equipped) to process SMS 

text-to-911 transmissions, and the costs 

associated with the PSAP upgrades 

needed to achieve this capability are apt 

to be great.’’ Verizon and Verizon 

Wireless assert that ‘‘many PSAPs will 

need to secure funding sources, all will 

need time to upgrade their own 

networks and facilities and train 

personnel, and all will need to educate 

consumers on where NG911 is available. 

* * *.’’ Verizon and Verizon Wireless 

further submit that ‘‘the Commission 

should avoid mandates for short-term 

solutions that would force NG911 to 

compete with SMS-based solutions for 

PSAP and service provider resources.’’ 

4G Americas cites the ‘‘[s]carce funding 

for PSAP NG911 upgrades [a]s a major 

concern’’ and argues that ‘‘[it] would do 

little good to mandate carrier near-term 

deployment of technologies that would 

require massive investments by PSAPs 

or require a complete overhaul of 

existing emergency communications 

systems.’’ 

158. In view of perceived funding 

difficulties, both public safety 

commenters and CMRS providers 

advocate a regional or state-level 

approach to lower costs and generate 

economies of scale in implementing 

near-term text-to-911 as well as 

facilitating a transition to NG911. CTIA 

contends that ‘‘[a] statewide approach to 

NG911 deployment will encourage 

wireless service providers and PSAPs to 

coordinate their efforts to deploy 

requested services in a reasonable and 

efficient manner and mitigate public 

confusion regarding the capabilities 

available to a local PSAP.’’ Verizon and 

Verizon Wireless submit that ‘‘[a] 

statewide approach provides a brightline mechanism that is consistent with 

funding mechanisms, which are 

generally governed at the state level 

* * *.’’ Verizon and Verizon Wireless 

refer to a ‘‘current trend in state 

governments toward greater PSAP 

consolidation and statewide 

coordination of NG911 efforts.’’ King 

County notes that ‘‘it may not be 

feasible to fund the upgrades necessary 

for NG911 at the state’s 64 PSAPs’’ and 

that ‘‘[t]he State E911 Office and the 

NG911 Subcommittee have developed a 

plan for the centralization of equipment 

at various hubs throughout the state that 

will serve multiple PSAPs in order to 

reduce equipment upgrade costs.’’ 

Verizon and Verizon Wireless remark 

that ‘‘[i]t is not necessary that every 

jurisdiction within a state be NG911 

capable prior to a service provider’s 

initiation of service within the state.’’ 

RCA adds that ‘‘the current economic 

climate and need for financial restraint 

make consolidation of PSAPs an 

essential part of the transition to 

NG911’’ and that ‘‘[c]onsolidation is one 

of the most important preliminary steps 

on the path to widespread NG911 

deployment.’’ 

159. Further, NENA contends that 

‘‘[i]t will prove most efficient if requests 

for text service originate from these 

larger units, reducing costs for both the 

public and the providers called upon to 

provide service.’’ NENA cautions, 

however, ‘‘that 9–1–1 remains * * * [a 

local service] that, in many states, is 

provided by small local agencies below 

the county level with little or no higher 

level coordination or oversight.’’ ‘‘[T]o 

maintain the autonomy to which 9–1–1 

system operators have become 

accustomed,’’ NENA suggests that the 

Commission ‘‘refrain from mandating a 

regional or state-wide approach to 

system readiness showings, and instead 

make such aggregated showings 

optional, at the election of the states.’’ 

160. Discussion. PSAPs generally pay 

for their 911 costs from state and local 

revenues generated by monthly 911 fees 

that CMRS providers collect from their 

subscribers. Wireless carriers argue that 

cost recovery regulations in many 

jurisdictions are inadequate to meet 

PSAP funding needs for text-to-911. 

Verizon and Verizon Wireless note that 

‘‘[s]ome jurisdictions impose significant 

restrictions on use of 911-related fees or 

taxes by limiting the use of such monies 

for traditional local exchange and 

commercial mobile radio services, or 

imposing explicit restrictions on the 

types of equipment and services that 

may be purchased.’’ Verizon and 

Verizon Wireless add that ‘‘[s]tate and 

local jurisdictions that face funding 

constraints may, if given a choice 

between a costly SMS-based solution 

versus a more robust IP-enabled NG911 

technology, opt for the former.’’ 

Although ‘‘a particular jurisdiction 

[could] fund both direct SMS and 

NG911 solutions, such an outcome 

could result in even higher fees imposed 

on consumers with marginal additional 

public safety benefit.’’ 

161. As discussed above, we propose 

several options that consider the 

disparities in PSAPs’ current technical 

capabilities and that enable non-NG911- 

capable PSAPs to handle texts without 

significant cost or upgrades. For 

instance, both the Web delivery and the 

TTY-translation options is a low cost 

alternative because PSAPs already have 

TTY capability. While this option 

employs an IP-gateway to facilitate 

routing functions compared to the 

traditional relay function of TTY/TDD, 

we believe that, in view of the relatively 

low cost to PSAPs to implement TTYtranslation-based text-to-911, existing 

funding mechanisms can serve to defray 

the costs. Similarly, PSAPs that choose 

the gateway center option can limit 

costs by using already-trained CAs to 

translate between text and voice. 

162. Moreover, contrary to Verizon 

and Verizon Wireless’ assertion that 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1820 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

funding for interim text-to-911 solutions 

would adversely affect the resources 

available to support a transition to full 

NG911 capabilities, we believe that the 

low cost options discussed above 

constitute a reasonable and cost efficient 

alternative to resolving possible 

limitations in funding at the state or 

local level. Additionally, we note that 

under the current Carrier-NENA-APCO 

Agreement, PSAPs would be 

responsible for their incremental costs 

for delivery of text messages. We seek 

comment on this view. 

163. Based on our proposal to offer 

PSAPs an array of text-to-911 delivery 

options, including options that entail 

very limited cost, we believe that 

existing funding mechanisms constitute 

a sufficient resource to implement textto-911 within our proposed time frame. 

We seek comment on this approach. We 

also seek comment on whether these 

funding mechanisms could be applied 

to other IP-based component upgrades. 

If not, what modifications need to 

occur? Are there actions the 

Commission could take to encourage or 

facilitate those modifications at the state 

or regional level? We invite comment on 

approaches that the Commission could 

pursue to encourage the states or 

regional entities to address such 

changes in funding to incentivize 

deploying the necessary text-to-911 

upgrades within the proposed 

timeframe. 

13. Liability Protection 

164. Background. In general, liability 

protection for provision of 911 service is 

governed by state law and has 

traditionally been applied only to LECs. 

However, Congress has expanded the 

scope of state liability protection by 

requiring states to provide parity in the 

degree of protection provided to 

traditional and non-traditional 911 

providers, and more recently, to 

providers of NG911 service. In 2008, 

Congress enacted the New and Emerging 

Technologies 911 Improvement Act (Net 

911 Act), which provides that a 

‘‘wireless carrier, IP-enabled voice 

service provider, or other emergency 

communications provider * * * shall 

have’’ the same liability protection as a 

local exchange carrier under federal and 

state law. In February 2012, Congress 

further extended state liability 

protection to providers of NG911 service 

in the Next Generation 9–1–1 

Advancement Act of 2012. The Next 

Generation 911 Advancement Act 

provides that ‘‘a provider or user of Next 

Generation 9–1–1 services * * * shall 

have immunity and protection from 

liability under Federal and State law [to 

the extent provided under section 4 of 

the Wireless Communications and 

Public Safety Act of 1999],’’ with 

respect to ‘‘the release of subscriber 

information related to emergency calls 

or emergency services,’’ ‘‘the use or 

provision of 9–1–1 services, E9–1–1 

services, or Next Generation 9–1–1 

services,’’ and ‘‘other matters related to 

9–1–1 services, E9–1–1 services, or Next 

Generation 9–1–1 services.’’ 

165. In the Notice, which was 

released prior to the Next Generation 

911 Advancement Act, the Commission 

asked whether the liability provisions in 

the NET 911 Act embrace the full range 

of technologies and service providers 

that will be involved in the provisioning 

of NG911 services. The Notice also 

asked whether the Commission has the 

authority to extend liability protection 

to entities involved in the provisioning 

of NG911 services or whether 

Congressional action is necessary. 

166. In response to the Notice, 

numerous commenters argue that 

liability protection is essential as part of 

any extension of 911 requirements to 

include text. Commenters also assert 

that the lack of express liability 

protection for NG911 has hampered the 

deployment of NG911 networks. 

Commenters also argue that federal law 

requiring parity in state law protection 

does not adequately protect 911 and 

NG911 service providers because the 

scope of underlying liability protection 

is dictated by state law and varies from 

state to state. AT&T, for example, argues 

that ‘‘liability protection presently 

provided under the NET 911 Act is 

insufficient because it is tied to the 

protection afforded under various state 

laws and, often, a local exchange 

carrier’s tariff.’’ Motorola argues that 

‘‘[n]ational consistency in liability 

protection will be essential to 

encouraging investment and promoting 

a smooth NG911 transition.’’ 

167. Discussion. We recognize that 

adequate liability protection is needed 

for PSAPs, CMRS providers, third party 

interconnected service providers, and 

vendors to proceed with 

implementation of text-to-911 as 

contemplated in this Further Notice. 

The recent passage of the Next 

Generation 911 Advancement Act has 

significantly expanded the scope of 

liability protection and potentially 

resolved some of the issues raised by 

commenters by making clear that states 

must provide the same level of 

protection for NG911 as for traditional 

911 and E911. We also note that under 

the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the 

four major wireless carriers have 

committed to deploy text-to-911 

capability throughout their nationwide 

networks without any precondition 

requiring additional liability protection 

other than the protection that is 

provided by current state and Federal 

law. Nevertheless, we seek comment on 

whether there are additional steps the 

Commission could take—consistent 

with our regulatory authority—to 

provide additional liability protection to 

text-to-911 service providers. We also 

seek comment on whether the combined 

parity protection afforded by the NET 

911 Act and the Next Generation 911 

Advancement Act extends to all 

providers of text-to-911 service, 

regardless of whether such service is 

provided using pre-NG911 or NG911 

mechanisms. We seek comment on 

whether providers of text-to-911 service 

have sufficient liability protection under 

current law to provide text-to-911 

services to their customers, or whether 

additional protection may still be 

needed or desirable. 

C. Legal Authority 

168. We seek comment on the 

Commission’s authority to apply the 

automated error message and more 

comprehensive text-to-911 rules 

proposed herein to both CMRS 

providers and other entities that offer 

interconnected text messaging services 

(including third-party providers of 

‘‘over-the- top’’ text messaging 

applications). In doing so, we 

incorporate herein the portions of our 

2011 Notice regarding the Commission’s 

authority to adopt text-to-911 rules. We 

note that, in response to our 2011 

Notice, numerous parties addressed the 

Commission’s authority to adopt text-to911 rules under the CVAA, Title III, and 

our ancillary authority. Since then, we 

have modified our proposals and taken 

into account recent developments 

regarding the deployment of text-to-911 

offerings, including the recent CarrierNENA-APCO Agreement. 

169. We now ask parties to refresh the 

record on the legal authority issues and 

to address their comments to the 

particular rules being proposed herein. 

Specifically, we ask commenters to 

address the Commission’s authority 

under the CVAA to apply the proposed 

rules to this circumstance, and in 

particular to other entities that offer 

interconnected text messaging service. 

In this regard, we seek comment on how 

the Commission’s ‘‘authority to 

promulgate regulations to implement 

the recommendations proposed by’’ 

EAAC applies to this circumstance. 

Would the Commission’s decision to 

adopt the proposed text-to-911 rules 

implement EAAC recommendation 

P4.1, titled ‘‘Interim Text Access,’’ or 

recommendation T1.2, titled ‘‘Interim 

Mobile Text Solution’’? Are there other 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 1821 

EAAC recommendations relevant to our 

authority under Section 615c(g)? We 

also invite comment on how the 

Commission’s authority to promulgate 

‘‘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’’ 

applies to these proposals, and in 

particular to other entities that offer 

interconnected text messaging service. 

170. In addition to the CVAA, we ask 

commenters to address the 

Commission’s authority under Title III, 

including our authority under Sections 

301, 303, 307, 309, and 316, to adopt the 

rules proposed herein. We note that, 

when analyzing our legal authority in 

the 2011 Notice, we stated our ‘‘belie[f] 

that we have well-established legal 

authority under * * * Title III 

provisions to take the regulatory and 

non-regulatory measures described 

[t]herein that would apply to users of 

spectrum.’’ Since then, the D.C. Circuit 

provided additional guidance regarding 

the scope of our Title III authority in 

Cellco Partnership v. FCC. We now seek 

additional comment on our Title III 

authority in light of this decision. 

171. Among other points, we seek 

comment on whether Title III grants the 

Commission authority to apply the 

proposed rules to third-party 

interconnected text providers and, if so, 

which specific provisions of Title III 

apply to them. Does the Commission’s 

Title III authority over those entities 

depend on how they offer their service? 

For example, does the FCC’s Title III 

authority over them turn on whether the 

entity holds a Commission’s license or 

other authorization, and, if so, whether 

such authorization is integral to that 

entity’s interconnected texting service? 

Do any third-party interconnected text 

messaging providers hold any such 

authorizations? We also ask commenters 

to address the Commission’s authority 

to impose regulations on CMRS 

providers that indirectly affect thirdparty providers. For example, does the 

Commission have authority to require 

CMRS providers to take steps to prevent 

the use of certain third-party 

applications that do not support text-to911? If so, would such steps be 

consistent with the Commission’s open 

platform requirements for the 700 MHz 

C Block and other agency precedent? 

172. We also ask commenters to 

address the Commission’s ability to rely 

on its ancillary authority to adopt the 

rules proposed herein. The Commission 

may act pursuant to its ancillary 

authority when ‘‘(1) the Commission’s 

general jurisdictional grant under Title 

I [of the Communications Act] covers 

the regulated subject and (2) the 

regulations are reasonably ancillary to 

the Commission’s effective performance 

of its statutorily mandated 

responsibilities.’’ We ask commenters to 

discuss both prongs of this test. Would 

the Commission’s decision to adopt the 

proposed rules be ancillary to certain 

Title III provisions, the CVAA, or other 

statutory provisions? Is application of 

the proposed rules to all providers of 

interconnected text-messaging services 

necessary to avoid consumer confusion 

or achieve the public safety benefits 

associated with applying such rules to 

CMRS providers? We seek comment on 

these questions. 

IV. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Presentations 

173. The proceedings initiated by this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

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

with the Commission’s ex parte rules. 

Persons making ex parte presentations 

must file a copy of any written 

presentation or a memorandum 

summarizing any oral presentation 

within two business days after the 

presentation (unless a different deadline 

applicable to the Sunshine period 

applies). Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must: (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made; and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 

B. Comment Filing Procedures 

174. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments in 

response to this Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking on or before the 

dates indicated on the first page of this 

document. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties that choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

one copy of each filing. If more than one 

docket or rulemaking number appears in 

the caption of this proceeding, filers 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• All hand-delivered or 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 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand 

deliveries must be held together with 

rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes and boxes must be disposed 

of before entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. 

C. Accessible Formats 

175. To request materials in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities 

(braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format), send an email to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
1822 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

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

D. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

176. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. sec. 

604, the Commission has prepared an 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on small entities of the 

policies and rules addressed in this 

document. The IRFA is set forth in 

Appendix B. Written public comments 

are requested in the IRFA. These 

comments must be filed in accordance 

with the same filing deadlines as 

comments filed in response to this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

as set forth on the first page of this 

document, and have a separate and 

distinct heading designating them as 

responses to the IRFA. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

177. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking contains proposed new 

information collection requirements. 

The Commission, as part of its 

continuing effort to reduce paperwork 

burdens, invites the general public and 

OMB to comment on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this document, as required by PRA. In 

addition, pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

we seek specific comment on how we 

might ‘‘further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees.’’ 

V. Ordering Clauses 

178. It is further ordered, pursuant to 

Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 222, 

251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 

307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 316(a), 

332, 615a, 615a–1, 615b, 615c(a), 

615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

sec. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 

214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 303(b), 

303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 

316(a), 332, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, 615c, 

615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1) that this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

is hereby adopted. 

179. It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 20 

Communications common carriers. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 20 as follows: 

PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE 

SERVICES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 20 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152(a), 154(i), 

157, 160, 201, 214, 222, 251(e), 301, 302, 303, 

303(b), 303(r), 307, 307(a), 309, 309(j)(3), 316, 

316(a), 332, 615a, 615a–1, 615b, 615c, 

615c(c), 615c(g), and 615(c)(1). 

■ 2. Section 20.18 is amended by adding 

paragraph (n) to read as follows: 

§ 20.18 911 Service. 

* * * * * 

(n) Text-messaging for 911. CMRS 

providers subject to this section and 

third party interconnected text 

providers as defined in paragraph (n)(6) 

of this section shall comply with the 

following requirements: 

(1) CMRS providers subject to this 

section shall provide an automated error 

text message that notifies consumers 

attempting to send text messages to 911 

in areas where text-to-911 is unavailable 

or in other instances where the carrier 

is unable to transmit the text to the 

PSAP serving the texting party’s 

location for reasons including, but not 

limited to, network congestion, the 

inability of the PSAP to accept such 

messages, or otherwise. The 

requirements of this paragraph only 

apply when the CMRS provider (or the 

CMRS provider’s text-to-911 vendor) 

has direct control over the transmission 

of the text message. The automatic 

notification must include information 

on how to contact the PSAP. CMRS 

providers shall meet the requirements of 

this paragraph no later than June 30, 

2013. 

(2) No later than May 15, 2014, CMRS 

providers shall offer their subscribers 

the capability to send 911 text messages 

to the appropriate PSAP from any textcapable wireless handset. 

(i) CMRS providers must provide their 

subscribers with at least one preinstalled text-to-911 option per mobile 

device model under a CMRS provider’s 

direct control. The pre-installed text-to911 option must be capable of operating 

over the provider’s entire network 

coverage area. Where a consumer has 

obtained the device from an unaffiliated 

third party and uses the device on a 

CMRS provider’s network, CMRS 

providers must offer a text-to-911 

application that the consumer can load 

on to the device. 

(ii) To meet the requirement of 

paragraph (n)(2) of this section, CMRS 

providers may select any reliable 

method or methods for text routing and 

delivery. For example, CMRS providers 

may use Short Message Service (SMS), 

mobile-switched, or Internet Protocol 

(IP)-based methods for text routing and 

delivery. 

(3) 911 is the designated short code 

for text messages sent to PSAPs. 

(4) CMRS providers must route all 911 

text messages to the appropriate PSAP, 

based on the cell sector to which the 

mobile device is connected. In 

complying with this requirement, CMRS 

providers must route text messages to 

the same PSAP to which they currently 

route 911 calls, unless the responsible 

local or state entity designates a 

different PSAP to receive 911 text 

messages and informs the carrier of that 

change. 

(5) Roaming. When a consumer is 

roaming, both the home and visiting 

network operators must cooperate to 

support the delivery of the text to the 

appropriate PSAP serving the sender’s 

location. 

(6) Third party interconnected text 

providers. (i) All third-party 

interconnected text application 

providers that offer the capability for 

consumers to send to and receive text 

messages from text-capable mobile 

telephone numbers shall send an 

automated error text message when a 

user of the application attempts to send 

an emergency text in an area where textto-911 is not supported or the provider 

is otherwise unable to transmit the text 

to the PSAP for reasons including, but 

not limited to, network congestion, the 

inability of the PSAP to accept such 

messages, or otherwise. The automatic 

error notification must include 

information on how to contact the 

PSAP. Third party interconnected text 

providers subject to this paragraph shall 

meet the above requirements no later 

than June 30, 2013. 

(ii) No later than May 15, 2014, all 

third party interconnected text 

providers that provide the capability for 

consumers to send to and receive text 

messages from text-capable mobile 

telephone numbers must offer the 

capability described in paragraph (n)(2) 

of this section during time periods when 

the mobile device is connected to a 

CMRS network. 

[FR Doc. 2013–00159 Filed 1–8–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with