Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67321 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced elevation 

* Elevation in feet 

NGVD) 

+ Elevation in feet 

(NAVD) 

# Depth in feet 

above ground 

∧Elevation in meters 

MSL) 

Communities affected 

Effective Modified 

Approximately 800 feet upstream of Dusty Pine Trail 

(at Junction 20NK0034).

None +153 

* National Geodetic Vertical Datum. 

+ North American Vertical Datum. 

# Depth in feet above ground. 

∧ Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter. 

** BFEs to be changed include the listed downstream and upstream BFEs, and include BFEs located on the stream reach between the referenced locations above. Please refer to the revised Flood Insurance Rate Map located at the community map repository (see below) for 

exact locations of all BFEs to be changed. 

Send comments to Roy E. Wright, Deputy Director, Risk Analysis Division, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472. 

ADDRESSES 

City of Brooksville 

Maps are available for inspection at 201 Howell Avenue, Brooksville, FL 34601. 

Town of Weeki Wachee 

Maps are available for inspection at 6131 Commercial Way, Weeki Wachee, FL 34606. 

Unincorporated Areas of Hernando County 

Maps are available for inspection at 20 North Main Street, Brooksville, FL 34601. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Dated: October 15, 2010. 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation 

Administrator, Mitigation, Department of 

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27585 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 9 and 20 

[Docket No. 07–114; WC Docket No. 05– 

196; FCC 10–177] 

Wireless E911 Location Accuracy 

Requirements; E911 Requirements for 

IP-Enabled Service Providers 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The purpose of this document 

is to seek comment on improving the 

Commission’s existing Enhanced 911 

(E911) rules to further improve the 

location capability of 911 and E911 

services for existing and new voice 

communications technologies, 

including new broadband technologies 

associated with deployment of Next 

Generation 911 (NG911) networks. 

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

January 3, 2011. Submit reply comments 

on or before January 31, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by PS Docket No. 07–114 and 

WC Docket No. 05–196, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments 

on the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202) 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Donovan, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau, at (202) 

418–2413, Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554; or via the 

Internet to Patrick.Donovan@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

1. As mobile communications 

technology evolves, one of the great 

potential benefits it provides is to 

enhance the public’s ability to contact 

emergency services personnel during 

times of crisis. To ensure this benefit is 

realized, such technology must enable 

public safety personnel to obtain 

accurate information regarding the 

location of the caller. The Commission’s 

existing Enhanced 911 (E911) rules 

require wireless carriers to meet 

standards for provision of location 

information when emergency calls are 

made via mobile telephone networks. In 

this Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (FNPRM) and Notice of 

Inquiry (NOI), as recommended in the 

National Broadband Plan, we explore 

how to further improve the location 

capability of 911 and E911 services for 

existing and new voice communications 

technologies, including new broadband 

technologies associated with 

deployment of Next Generation 911 

(NG911) networks. Our aim is to ensure 

that the Commission is doing everything 

within its power, in conjunction with 

the public safety community and service 

providers, to ensure that Americans 

have access to the most forwardthinking technologically advanced 

emergency response systems in the 

world. 

2. Today we take additional steps to 

improve wireless E911 location 

accuracy and reliability by examining 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67322 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the next stage of potential regulations 

that would be commensurate with the 

surge in wireless usage, encompassing 

additional voice over Internet Protocol 

(VoIP) and wireless services, devices, 

and applications. In this FNPRM and 

NOI, we seek comment on several issues 

with regard to amending the 

Commission’s wireless 911 and E911 

requirements and extending 911 and 

E911 requirements to additional VoIP 

and wireless services. In our continuing 

endeavor to ensure that wireless E911 

service meets the needs of the American 

people and public safety, we request 

comment on the ongoing evolution in 

the use of wireless devices and the 

development of location technologies. 

As recommended in the National 

Broadband Plan, the issues we examine 

also address the impact of NG911 

deployment on 911 and E911 location 

accuracy requirements. NG911 will 

integrate the core functions and 

capabilities of E911 while adding new 

911 capabilities in multiple formats, 

such as texting, photos, video and email. This will vastly improve the 

quality and speed of response, and 

provide a more interoperable and 

integrated emergency response 

capability for PSAPs, first responders, 

hospitals and other emergency response 

professionals. 

3. First, in the FNPRM, we seek 

comment on proposals to improve 

wireless location accuracy. In this 

regard, the FNPRM builds upon the 

second part of the preceding Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking that the 

Commission released on June 1, 2007 

and published in the Federal Register at 

72 FR 33948, Jun. 20, 2007. We seek 

comment on a number of issues initially 

raised in the Location Accuracy NPRM, 

including: Whether we should consider 

more stringent location parameters in 

Section 20.18(h) of the Commission’s 

rules, which specifies the standards for 

wireless E911 Phase II location accuracy 

and reliability; what methodology 

carriers should employ to verify 

compliance, both initially and during 

ongoing testing; the format in which 

accuracy data should be automatically 

provided to PSAPs; how to address 

location accuracy while roaming; how 

location information and accuracy can 

be improved in more challenging 

environments; and whether location 

accuracy standards should include an 

elevation (Z-axis) component. 

4. In the NOI, we request comment on 

whether we should require 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

to automatically identify the geographic 

location of a customer without the 

customer’s active cooperation. We also 

seek comment on what E911 

obligations, if any, should apply to VoIP 

services that are not fully 

interconnected to the public switched 

telephone network (PSTN). 

Additionally, we seek comment on the 

impact of NG911 developments on 

location accuracy and automatic 

location identification (ALI). Finally, we 

request comment on the applicability of 

911 and E911 requirements to 

additional wireless communications 

services, devices and applications. 

II. Background 

5. In this section, we review the prior 

Commission actions leading up to the 

present rules and proposals concerning 

911 and E911 requirements for wireless 

and VoIP services. The Commission has 

adopted rules requiring commercial 

wireless carriers to provide both basic 

911 service, which connects the caller to 

a PSAP, and E911 service, which 

provides call-back and location 

information. The E911 information 

requirements consist of two parts: Phase 

I—which requires wireless carriers to 

deliver to a PSAP the telephone number 

of the wireless 911 caller and the 

location of the cell site or base station 

that received the call, and Phase II— 

which requires wireless carriers to 

provide the location (latitude and 

longitude) of the caller within particular 

accuracy parameters, depending on the 

location technology that the carriers 

have chosen. In its initial E911 Report 

and Order, released on July 26, 1996 

and published in the Federal Register at 

61 FR 40374, Aug. 2, 1996, the 

Commission adopted Section 20.18(h), 

which specifies the accuracy 

requirements for the provision of E911 

by wireless carriers. As amended by 

today’s Second Report and Order, 

Section 20.18(h) requires licensees 

subject to the wireless E911 

requirements, to ultimately comply with 

the following Phase II location accuracy 

and reliability standards at the county 

or PSAP service area level, based on 

certain benchmarks, limitations, and 

exclusions: For network-based 

technologies: 100 Meters for 67 percent 

of calls, 300 meters for 90 percent of 

calls; for handset-based technologies: 50 

Meters for 67 percent of calls, 150 

meters for 90 percent of calls. 

6. In April 2000, the Commission’s 

Office of Engineering and Technology 

(OET) issued Bulletin No. 71 to provide 

assistance in determining whether 

wireless licensees comply with the 

accuracy standards set by the 

Commission. The OET Bulletin did not 

establish mandatory procedures; rather, 

it stated that compliance with the OET 

guidelines would establish ‘‘a strong 

presumption that appropriate means 

have been applied to ensure that an ALI 

system complies with the Commission’s 

rules.’’ The OET Bulletin sets forth the 

Commission’s expectations regarding 

location accuracy measurement and 

testing. 

7. In June 2005, the Commission 

released a First Report and Order and 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (VoIP 

911 Order and VoIP 911 NPRM), 

published in the Federal Register at 70 

FR 37273, Jun. 29, 2005, and adopting 

rules requiring providers of 

interconnected VoIP service to supply 

E911 capabilities to their customers as 

a standard feature from wherever the 

customer is using the service. The rules 

adopted by the VoIP 911 Order apply 

only to providers of interconnected 

VoIP services, which are services that 

(1) enable real-time, two-way voice 

communications; (2) require a 

broadband connection from the user’s 

location; (3) require Internet protocolcompatible customer premises 

equipment (CPE); and (4) permit users 

generally to receive calls that originate 

on the PSTN and to terminate calls to 

the PSTN. Interconnected VoIP service 

providers generally must provide 

consumers with E911 service and 

transmit all 911 calls, including 

Automatic Number Identification (ANI) 

and the caller’s Registered Location for 

each call, to the PSAP, designated 

statewide default answering point, or 

appropriate local emergency authority. 

8. In the VoIP 911 Order, the 

Commission stated its intent to adopt a 

future order containing an advanced 

E911 solution for portable 

interconnected VoIP service, which 

would include a method for 

determining a user’s location without 

assistance from the user as well as a 

firm implementation deadline. To that 

end, the VoIP 911 NPRM sought 

comment on what additional steps 

should be taken to determine whether 

there may be ways to automatically 

identify the location of a user of a 

portable interconnected VoIP service, 

whether to extend the requirements to 

other VoIP services, such as services 

that are not fully interconnected to the 

PSTN but may permit users to make 

calls to or receive calls from landline 

and mobile phones, whether providers 

of wireless interconnected VoIP service 

would be more appropriately subject to 

the existing commercial mobile radio 

service (CMRS) 911/E911 rules 

(contained in Part 20), and whether 

there are any steps the Commission 

should take to ensure that people with 

disabilities who desire to use 

interconnected VoIP service can obtain 

access to E911 services. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67323 

9. In June 2007, the Commission 

released the Location Accuracy NPRM 

seeking comment on several issues 

relating to wireless E911 location 

accuracy and reliability requirements, in 

addition to the issue that we address in 

the companion Second Report and 

Order, i.e. the geographic level at which 

wireless licensees have to meet the 

location accuracy requirements under 

Section 20.18(h). The Commission 

requested comment on these additional 

issues to ensure that wireless E911 

service meets the needs of public safety 

and the American people, while taking 

into account the evolution in the use of 

wireless devices and the further 

development of location technologies. 

Specifically, the Commission sought 

comment on the capabilities and 

limitations of existing and new location 

technologies, the advantages of 

combining handset-based and networkbased location technologies (a hybrid 

solution), the prospect of adopting more 

stringent location accuracy 

requirements, and compliance testing 

methodologies in regard to different 

environments, such as indoor versus 

outdoor use and rural areas. Also, the 

Commission invited comment on how 

to address location accuracy issues for 

911 calls placed when roaming, 

particularly between carriers employing 

different location technologies. Further, 

the Commission requested comment on 

a number of tentative conclusions and 

proposals, including establishing a 

single location accuracy standard rather 

than the separate accuracy requirements 

for network and handset-based 

technologies, adopting a mandatory 

schedule for accuracy testing, and 

applying the same location accuracy 

standards that apply to circuit-switched 

CMRS services to interconnected VoIP 

services used in more than one location. 

10. In response to the Location 

Accuracy NPRM, a number of parties 

filed comments, including public safety 

organizations, commercial carriers, and 

location technology vendors. Comments 

regarding the prospect of adopting of a 

single location accuracy requirement 

varied, with some supporting an open 

forum to gather more information. In 

regard to the impact of advances in 

location technologies and the use of 

hybrid technologies on location 

accuracy, commenters noted the 

benefits and drawbacks of the 

underlying technologies for handsetbased and network-based solutions. 

Commenters provided a variety of 

specific suggestions regarding whether 

more stringent accuracy requirements 

should be adopted. Also, commenters 

addressed whether the Commission 

should adopt different standards based 

on topographical environments. Some 

commenters supported the inclusion of 

elevation standards and others believed 

that there must be more research and 

development conducted before the 

Commission adopts standards for indoor 

settings, particularly in regard to highrise buildings. 

11. In October 2008, the Commission 

released a Report and Order (NET 911 

Improvement Act Report and Order) 

adopting rules providing 

‘‘interconnected VoIP providers rights of 

access to any and all capabilities 

necessary to provide 911 and E911 

service from entities that own or control 

those capabilities.’’ In the NET 911 

Improvement Act Report and Order, the 

Commission declined to ‘‘issue highly 

detailed rules listing capabilities or 

entities with ownership or control of 

these capabilities’’ because the nation’s 

911 system varies depending on the 

locality and ‘‘overly specific rules would 

fail to reflect these local variations.’’ The 

Commission also declined ‘‘to expand 

the applicability of the rights granted in 

the NET 911 Act to entities beyond 

those encompassed within that statute.’’ 

12. In April 2009, we released a 

public notice seeking nominations for 

membership on the Communications 

Security, Reliability, and 

Interoperability Council (CSRIC). CSRIC 

is a Federal Advisory Committee that 

provides guidance and expertise on the 

nation’s communications infrastructure 

and public safety communications. The 

committee’s duties include 

recommending best practices and 

actions the Commission can take to 

ensure the security, reliability, 

operability and interoperability of 

public safety communications systems, 

and improve reliability and resiliency of 

communications infrastructure. One of 

the Working Groups within CSRIC, 

Group 4C—Technical Options for E911 

Location Accuracy, is responsible for 

examining E911 and public safety 

location technologies in use today, 

identifying current performance and 

limitations for use in next generation 

public safety applications, examining 

emerging E911 public safety location 

technologies, and recommending 

options to CSRIC for the improvement 

of E911 location accuracy timelines. 

13. On March 16, 2010, the 

Commission delivered to Congress the 

National Broadband Plan in which it 

stated that the Commission should 

examine approaches for leveraging 

broadband technologies to enhance 

emergency communications with the 

public by moving towards NG911, 

because NG911 will provide a ‘‘more 

interoperable and integrated emergency 

response capability for PSAPs, first 

responders, hospitals and other 

emergency response professionals.’’ 

Further, the National Broadband Plan 

notes that the Commission is 

‘‘considering changes to its location 

accuracy requirements and the possible 

extension of * * * ALI * * * 

requirements to interconnected VoIP 

services,’’ and recommends that the 

Commission ‘‘expand [the Location 

Accuracy NPRM] proceeding to explore 

how NG911 may affect location 

accuracy and ALI.’’ 

III. Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

14. As noted at the outset, today we 

adopted the Location Accuracy Second 

Report and Order that established an 

eight-year timeframe, consisting of 

interim benchmarks, requiring handsetbased and network-based carriers to 

meet amended wireless location 

accuracy requirements at the county or 

PSAP-based level. The rule changes we 

adopted in this companion order 

complete one of our proceedings and 

will lead to significant improvements in 

wireless location accuracy, thereby 

saving lives and property and improving 

emergency response. At the same time, 

we have more work to do to update and 

complete the remaining inquiries 

initiated by the Commission in 2007 to 

improve wireless E911 service, 

particularly as wireless communications 

continue to proliferate as the primary or 

sole means for many Americans to reach 

911. Accordingly, consistent with our 

devotion to continually improving 

public safety and homeland security, 

this FNPRM expands upon the Location 

Accuracy NPRM, in order to ensure that 

wireless E911 service meets the needs of 

public safety and the American people, 

while taking into account the evolution 

in the use of wireless devices and the 

further development of location 

technologies. The following discussion 

includes proposals for improving 

wireless 911 location accuracy 

requirements. 

15. Existing and Prospective Location 

Technologies. We begin by seeking 

current information on the state of 

wireless location technologies, 

particularly since the Commission 

explored these issues in 2007, as well as 

in light of market trends resulting in 

increasing consumer adoption of 

location-based services. We seek to 

develop a full understanding of the 

capabilities and limitations of existing 

location technologies, as well as any 

new technologies that may provide 

improvements in location accuracy. In 

response to the Location Accuracy 

NPRM, a few location technology 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67324 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

vendors noted that improvements in 

location accuracy were possible with 

some modifications or additional 

investment. While the existing location 

accuracy requirements, particularly 

when complied with at the county or 

PSAP service area level, often provide 

PSAPs with good indications of the 

location of a 911 caller, the limitations 

of existing location determining 

technologies in use by carriers can lead 

to variations of up to 300 meters, or 

more. How can location determination 

be improved upon? Are there existing 

location technologies available today 

that carriers can immediately adopt? If 

so, what are the relative quantitative 

advantages versus costs of deployment? 

What new or prospective location 

technologies might be utilized to 

improve accuracy? What would be the 

feasibility of incorporating newer 

technologies into wireless networks? 

What market incentives, such as for 

location-based services, might drive the 

need for improved accuracy 

technologies, and thus for application to 

911? Commenters, particularly location 

technology vendors, should provide 

quantitative data that provides a basis 

for understanding the relative 

performance capabilities and 

commercial feasibility of the available 

and prospective location technologies. 

We also seek information concerning 

whether certain technologies are better 

suited or targeted to perform best in 

certain environments. As noted above, 

the CSRIC is exploring issues related to 

wireless location technologies. In this 

regard, we look forward to receiving the 

recommendations of this committee. We 

also want to ensure that our E911 

policies properly consider the interests 

of people living with disabilities. 

Should we make any changes to our 

rules to better accommodate persons 

with disabilities who use E911 wireless 

services? Are there technologies that can 

help ensure that E911 services address 

the interests of those living with 

disabilities? 

16. In today’s Location Accuracy 

Second Report and Order, we also 

adopted confidence and uncertainty 

requirements sought by the PSAP 

community, which should permit 

improved expectations concerning the 

location information delivered with 

wireless 911 calls. How does the 

availability of this information impact 

the need for changes or improvements 

to location accuracy information? 

17. Potential Modifications to 

Accuracy Standard. We seek comment 

on whether we should consider 

changing the current location accuracy 

requirements of Section 20.18(h). 

Should we modify the current location 

accuracy standard for network-based 

and handset-based providers? Should 

we adopt a single location accuracy 

standard, rather than maintaining the 

network/handset distinction? Would a 

single standard provide more 

consistency for PSAPs? The 

Commission previously sought 

comment on these issues in the Location 

Accuracy NPRM. In response, APCO 

noted that it ‘‘agrees with the 

Commission’s inclination to require a 

‘uniform accuracy standard at least as 

stringent as that currently in place for 

handset-based technologies’’’ and 

supported ‘‘the Commission’s desire for 

even greater accuracy.’’ Sprint Nextel 

argued that, ‘‘while a single standard is 

an admirable goal, the reality is that 

wireless voice service is provided over 

numerous, ever-increasing varieties of 

networks and technologies.’’ T-Mobile 

stated that, ‘‘[u]nifying the CMRS 

accuracy requirements by requiring the 

network-based providers to meet 

handset-based standards would be 

grossly inequitable, ignoring the 

substantial benefits of network-based 

technologies.’’ We now seek to expand 

and update the record, particularly as 

the CMRS marketplace has evolved over 

the past few years with the deployment 

of advanced networks and devices. 

18. We also seek comment on whether 

carriers can employ a combination of 

handset-based and network-based 

location technologies (a hybrid 

solution), rather than employing one or 

the other, to achieve improved location 

accuracies. As the Texas 9–1–1 

Agencies noted, ‘‘handset solutions 

generally work better outdoors and in 

rural areas, while network solutions 

generally work better indoors and may 

have issues in rural areas.’’ TruePosition 

commented that ‘‘a hybrid network-GPS 

technology consisting of U–TDOA and 

A–GPS is well within the realm of 

technical feasibility and it would 

produce enhanced location accuracy.’’ 

Another technology vendor, Polaris, 

argued that ‘‘a hybrid system is the best 

long-term approach to improve location 

accuracy and consistency.’’ Polaris 

considers the ideal hybrid solution to be 

‘‘the pairing of a network-based and a 

handset-based technology,’’ which 

‘‘leverages the strengths of two highly 

complementary technologies.’’ In 

addition to the use of both handsetbased and network-based technologies 

in a single solution, what other 

technical features provide an 

appropriate basis for a definition of 

hybrid solutions? Are hybrid solutions 

better defined as location determination 

systems that can use multiple position 

location technologies either 

individually, or in combination, to 

achieve better performance, accuracy, or 

reliability? Would hybrid technologies 

provide greater location accuracy than 

either network-based or handset-based 

solutions alone? How can hybrid 

solutions improve location performance 

aspects other than accuracy, such as 

increased percentage yield of success of 

location determinations? Has the 

existence of different accuracy 

requirements for handset-based and 

network-based systems influenced the 

focus and direction of research and 

development in location based services 

and 911 technology solutions? How 

does the implementation of 3G and 4G 

networks, services, and devices impact 

wireless E911 requirements? For 

example, as indicated in today’s 

Location Accuracy Second Report and 

Order, the roll-out of 3G networks 

incorporates A–GPS handsets, which 

will improve accuracy over time as they 

are blended into each carrier’s 

subscriber base. How else might 3G, and 

4G, technologies lead to improved 

means or methods of location accuracy? 

Are there any specific ways that 

burgeoning 4G networks, or subsequent 

technology releases, can be 

implemented that would achieve 

location benefits? What are 4G industry 

standards setting bodies considering for 

location identification, and how might 

such activities impact the Commission’s 

flexibility in determining the best 

solution or solutions? Are there ways to 

provide incentives for wireless carriers 

to exceed the Commission’s baseline 

location accuracy requirements? How 

should the Commission implement a 

changed location accuracy requirement? 

Should the Commission continue to 

define a particular minimum accuracy 

requirement, rather than specifying a 

particular solution? 

19. Compliance Testing. We seek to 

refresh the record on what methodology 

carriers should employ to verify 

compliance, both initially and during 

ongoing testing. In response to the 

Location Accuracy NPRM, APCO and 

the Texas 9–1–1 Agencies argued that 

OET Bulletin No. 71 should be revised 

to increase the number of indoor test 

calls to at least 30 percent. According to 

TruePosition, ‘‘[w]ith consumers 

increasingly substituting wireless 

devices for wireline service, 

approximately 40%-60% of E911 calls 

are now made indoors.’’ As a result, 

TruePosition argues that ‘‘the 

Commission’s rules should require 

carrier E911 compliance testing to 

include measurements in indoor 

environments; a carrier’s indoor test 

results for E911 location accuracy 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67325 

should be weighted in accordance with 

its estimated percentage of indoor E911 

calls.’’ Qualcomm, however, argued that 

the Commission should neither convert 

OET Bulletin No. 71 guidelines into 

requirements, nor impose a specified 

level of indoor testing. According to 

Qualcomm, ‘‘the mandate has always 

covered 67% and 95% of the calls to 

911, period. The proportion of mobile 

phone calls to 911 placed from indoors 

varies from PSAP to PSAP, from town 

to town, from county to county, and 

from state to state. Accordingly, it 

would be the height of arbitrary 

decision making for the Commission to 

pick a particular level of indoor testing 

and to simply impose it, now, over a 

decade after it adopted the original 

mandate.’’ We seek comment on these 

views. 

20. If we were to require compliance 

testing, should we use OET Bulletin No. 

71 as the basis, which provides 

guidelines for testing and verifying the 

accuracy of wireless E911 location 

systems to verify compliance? Should 

we make OET Bulletin No. 71 

mandatory? Should we establish a 

measurement procedure in our rules for 

testing and verifying the accuracy of 

wireless E911 location systems? If so, 

what measurement procedure would be 

appropriate? For example, should our 

rules specify a certain level of indoor 

versus outdoor testing in order to reflect 

the proportion of indoor versus outdoor 

use? Should the Commission update 

OET Bulletin No. 71 to include 

measurements in indoor environments? 

What percentage of wireless 911 calls is 

made indoors? What trends reflect the 

growing number of indoor 911 calls? 

How about testing in other challenging 

environments, such as dense urban 

settings, or heavily forested or 

mountainous terrain? Further, what mix 

of equipment (i.e., carrier-provided 

handsets, base stations, or other 

facilities) should be employed for 

accuracy testing? How many test points 

should we require within a PSAP 

service area and how should the test 

points be distributed? What special 

considerations, if any, should we 

establish for tests in rural areas? Should 

we impose other testing parameters to 

accurately assess a consumer’s 

experience when using a carrier’s E911 

service? As an alternative, would it 

beneficial to enable consumers to test 

wireless 911 and E911 capabilities, such 

as by making test calls and seeing the 

identified location data, as well as the 

PSAP that would receive the call? 

21. Schedule for Testing. In the 

Location Accuracy NPRM, the 

Commission tentatively concluded that 

it would establish a mandatory schedule 

for accuracy testing, and sought 

comment on the appropriate schedule 

for such testing. Corr Wireless disagreed 

with the tentative conclusion and 

argued that, ‘‘[t]here is no need for 

periodic testing of E–911 compliance. 

Once accuracy levels are attained, the 

level of accuracy typically only gets 

better, not worse.’’ Is there any data to 

support this conclusion? We seek to 

refresh the record on the appropriate 

schedule for accuracy testing and the 

appropriate statistical methodology for 

determining compliance. Should we 

require testing every two years, as APCO 

suggested, or should we adopt a 

different schedule? As Phase II service 

is extended into new areas, at what 

point should carriers be required to 

conduct compliance testing? Should 

carriers be required to file compliance 

and maintenance testing data with the 

Commission, one or more national 

public safety organizations (such as 

NENA, APCO, and NASNA), local 

PSAPs, or some combination of these 

entities? Should test results be made 

available to the public? Should we treat 

this information in a confidential 

manner? Should carriers be required to 

provide consolidated performance 

statistics to illustrate accuracy levels for 

various topologies or for other reasons? 

Consistent with the Location Accuracy 

NPRM, we tentatively conclude that we 

should establish a mandatory schedule 

for accuracy testing. 

22. Challenging Environments. We 

also seek to refresh the record on how 

location information and accuracy can 

be improved in more challenging 

environments, including indoor 

settings, urban canyons, buildings 

including high-rises, rural environments 

characteristic of heavy forestation, 

mountainous terrain, or sparsely located 

wireless towers. Do accuracy needs 

differ for indoor, outdoor, rural, and 

urban location determinations? Would it 

be appropriate to establish different 

threshold criteria depending on the 

environment? For example, whether a 

caller is located deep within a large 

building, or near a window, might have 

a significant impact on whether it is 

possible to achieve a location fix. How 

should trends in usage (such as 

increasing use of wireless inside 

buildings) impact accuracy 

requirements? What expectations do 

consumers hold in terms of the ability 

for PSAPs to locate them in various 

environments? Do some technologies 

perform better under certain challenging 

circumstances? What factors influence 

how well a particular accuracy solution 

performs? How best can the 

Commission spur innovation in location 

accuracy in both the short term and the 

future in challenging environments? 

What is a reasonable timeframe for 

carriers to significantly improve 

location accuracy in challenging 

environments? Would service providers 

be sufficiently motivated to achieve 

such improvements absent a regulatory 

deadline? How can technologies 

combine information from diverse 

sources, such as Wi-Fi access points or 

other ubiquitous sources, to improve 

location accuracy or other performance 

characteristics? If a service provider 

provisions Wi-Fi access points for 

which it knows the address, should it 

use this information in lieu of end usersupplied location information? We ask 

parties to comment on any other 

potential revisions to our current 

location accuracy requirements that 

could help carriers improve location 

accuracy in challenging environments. 

23. Vertical Location Information. 

There has never been a requirement for 

service providers subject to the CMRS 

911 rules to include vertical or Z-axis 

information with location data. Of 

course, a third dimension of location 

information could greatly enhance 

accuracy, and have particular benefit in 

buildings in terms of identifying the 

floor where the 911 caller is located. We 

seek comment on how location 

information can include an accurate Zaxis component. In response to the 

Location Accuracy NPRM, APCO argued 

that, ‘‘the increased use of wireless 

phones in multiple-story buildings also 

requires potential inclusion of elevation 

information if technologically feasible.’’ 

ATIS stated that, ‘‘[c]urrently no 

industry criterion exists for elevation 

and * * * before such information 

could be included in the location 

standard, greater research and 

development must occur.’’ The Texas 

9–1–1 Agencies noted that, ‘‘realizing 

the conceptual potential value of 

elevation, we would like to see more 

information on how ‘elevation’ would 

specifically be proposed for use in 

practice at the PSAP before it would be 

considered further to become a 

requirement.’’ What technologies 

incorporate the use of Z-axis 

components for location awareness? 

What levels of accuracy do these 

technologies support? Would an 

accuracy requirement for a vertical 

component need to be stringent enough 

to distinguish building floors? What is 

the state of industry standardization of 

Z-axis components in geolocation? How 

should evolving standards and 

consumer expectations guide future 

rules? If handsets employ a vertical 

sensor, such as an altimeter, how could 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67326 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

such information be incorporated into 

location data sent to a PSAP? If 

delivering vertical information were 

possible, are PSAPs capable of using 

such information and, if not, what 

would be necessary to enable receipt of 

vertical information? What is a 

reasonable timeframe for carriers to 

include an accurate Z-axis component 

with location data? Would service 

providers be sufficiently motivated to 

implement a vertical location 

component absent a regulatory 

deadline? 

24. Location Accuracy While 

Roaming. We next seek to refresh the 

record with regard to location accuracy 

while roaming. As the Commission 

noted in the Location Accuracy NPRM, 

we are concerned that a wireless caller 

whose carrier employs one type of 

location technology may not be 

provided Phase II service at all when 

roaming on the network of another 

carrier that relies on a different 

technology, or when there is no roaming 

agreement between carriers using 

compatible technologies. In response to 

the Location Accuracy NPRM, APCO 

stated that the Commission ‘‘should 

require that wireless carriers develop a 

viable technical solution to this 

[roaming] problem by a specific 

deadline.’’ NENA stated that, ‘‘[a]s a 

general matter, NENA believes the 

obligation to deliver 9–1–1 calls should 

be met for roamers as well as native 

subscribers, no matter what the 

differences in technologies.’’ Motorola, 

however, argued that full, seamless 

E911 roaming is not achievable in near 

term for carriers deploying disparate 

technologies. Corr Wireless meanwhile 

argued that while different location 

technologies might not serve the needs 

of roamers, ‘‘adoption of a proposal to 

mandate AGPS technology * * * would 

effectively eliminate this issue;’’ 

however, it also noted that, ‘‘so long as 

there are incompatible technologies, it 

would plainly be irrational to expect or 

require carriers to provide a solution to 

roamers that their network is incapable 

of providing to their own customers.’’ 

How can these issues be addressed? 

Should we require carriers to ensure 

delivery of location information to 

PSAPs for every call handled on their 

networks, including calls made by 

customers of another carrier (‘‘roaming 

calls’’) that has deployed a different 

technology in its own network or with 

whom the carrier handling the call has 

no automatic roaming relationship? 

IV. Notice of Inquiry 

25. In this NOI, we launch a broader 

inquiry into how we can ensure that 

providers of VoIP services can offer 

improved or expanded 911 service. We 

begin by focusing on whether we should 

require providers of interconnected 

VoIP services to provide location 

information to PSAPs without the 

customer’s active cooperation. We also 

explore whether the Commission’s 911 

and E911 rules should apply to noninterconnected VoIP service providers. 

We next explore how location accuracy 

and ALI requirements will be impacted 

by the deployment of NG911 systems. 

Finally, we will seek comment on the 

applicability of 911 and E911 

requirements to additional wireless 

communications services, devices, and 

applications. 

A. 911 and E911 Requirements for VoIP 

Services 

26. The Commission’s E911 rules 

presently apply to interconnected VoIP 

services, specifically services that (1) 

enable real-time, two-way voice 

communications; (2) require a 

broadband connection from the user’s 

location; (3) require Internet protocolcompatible customer premises 

equipment (CPE); and (4) permit users 

generally to receive calls that originate 

on the PSTN and to terminate calls to 

the PSTN. In this section, we explore 

whether to impose additional 

requirements upon one subset of 

interconnected VoIP services—those 

that are portable, or ‘‘nomadic,’’ meaning 

they can be used from any available 

broadband Internet access service 

connection. 

27. Automatic Location Identification. 

The Commission’s rules currently do 

not require providers of portable 

interconnected VoIP service to 

automatically provide location 

information to PSAPs without the 

customer’s active cooperation. In the 

VoIP 911 NPRM, the Commission 

requested comment on whether there 

may be ways for portable interconnected 

VoIP service providers to automatically 

identify the geographic location of a 

customer without the customer’s active 

cooperation. In the Location Accuracy 

NPRM, the Commission tentatively 

concluded that ‘‘to the extent that an 

interconnected VoIP service may be 

used in more than one location, 

providers must employ an automatic 

location technology that meets the same 

accuracy standards that apply to those 

CMRS services.’’ 

28. Several commenters generally 

concurred with the Commission’s 

tentative conclusion. For example, 

APCO stated that ‘‘where [an] 

interconnected VoIP service connects to 

a PSAP through a wireless network, 

then the location information should be 

delivered in the same form as required 

of other wireless service providers.’’ 

RCA noted that it ‘‘supports the position 

that standards for [VoIP] service should 

remain equivalent to those for CMRS 

[and it] is both reasonable and 

appropriate that these interconnected 

services be treated in the same manner 

as competing services.’’ However, a 

number of commenters opposed the 

tentative conclusion. For example, TIA 

argued that ‘‘if the FCC decides to 

impose similar location accuracy 

standards on interconnected VoIP 

providers that are applicable to CMRS 

services, the Commission would be 

forced to regulate the entity providing 

the broadband Internet connection (i.e. 

restaurants, coffee shops, hotels, 

municipalities, etc.).’’ Nokia stated that 

interconnected VoIP services ‘‘should 

not be subject to the Commission’s 

CMRS E911 location requirements 

without ensuring that time is taken to 

study location technologies that can be 

used when a wireless 911 call is made 

using VoIP, standards are developed for 

delivering location technology over the 

Internet when a wireless VoIP 911 call 

is made, and technologies to be utilized 

for location are tested and finally 

deployed.’’ WCA argued that the 

Commission ‘‘fails to appreciate the 

enormous technical, operational and 

economic challenges wireless 

broadband network operators and their 

equipment suppliers will face if [the 

Commission] prematurely imposes ALI 

and location accuracy requirements on 

interconnected VoIP service without 

further study.’’ A number of commenters 

recommended that the Commission 

form an advisory committee comprised 

of Commission staff, representatives of 

the VoIP industry, equipment vendors, 

state and local public safety officials, 

and consumer groups to study the 

technical, operational and economic 

issues related to the provision of ALI for 

interconnected VoIP services. 

29. In light of the passage of time, we 

seek to refresh the record and revisit the 

tentative conclusion from the Location 

Accuracy NPRM. Specifically, what 

advanced technologies, if any, permit 

portable interconnected VoIP service 

providers to provide ALI? Have portable 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

implemented any practices or methods 

to provide ALI? If not, what can the 

Commission do to facilitate the 

development of techniques for 

automatically identifying the geographic 

location of users of this service? Should 

interconnected VoIP service providers 

incorporate an ability to automatically 

detect a user’s Internet connectivity, 

identify a user’s location, and prompt a 

user to confirm his/her location, prior to 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67327 

enabling calling features? What 

technologies exist that could locate a 

VoIP user using a standard broadband 

Internet connection? Should we require 

the automatic detection of a subscriber’s 

location prior to enabling calling 

features for a VoIP service, application, 

or device? Should the Commission 

clarify that CMRS operators providing 

interconnected VoIP services may 

deliver location information to a PSAP 

in the same manner as for CMRS, 

specifically, delivering longitude and 

latitude coordinates to the PSAP in lieu 

of a street address? 

30. What have PSAPs experienced 

when VoIP users move to a different 

location and do not update their 

address? Is this scenario common? 

When it does occur, does the PSAP 

receive incorrect location information? 

Would requiring interconnected VoIP 

service providers to provide ALI 

minimize the reporting of erroneous 

location information, whether 

mistakenly or intentionally? What is the 

experience of PSAPs in receiving 

incorrect registered location 

information? How frequently do PSAPs 

receive fraudulent or malicious calls 

from users of interconnected VoIP 

services that appear to intentionally 

report false registered location 

information? Do industry standards and 

commercial trends indicate that ALI 

technologies exist for interconnected 

VoIP services that would be technically 

feasible and commercially viable? What 

privacy concerns are posed by requiring 

the automatic detection of VoIP users’ 

movement on Internet networks? 

Should we require that all terminal 

adapters or other equipment used in the 

provision of portable interconnected 

VoIP service sold as of a certain date be 

capable of providing location 

information automatically, whether 

embedded in other equipment or sold to 

customers at a separate price? Under 

what authority could the Commission 

take such actions? If the Commission 

were to develop an automatic location 

identification requirement for portable 

interconnected VoIP service providers, 

should it also establish a deadline for 

compliance and, if so, what should that 

deadline be? 

31. Additional VoIP Services. Thus 

far, the Commission’s VoIP 911 rules 

have been limited to providers of 

interconnected VoIP services. Since 

these rules were adopted, however, 

there has been a significant increase in 

the availability and use of portable VoIP 

services and applications that do not 

meet one or more prongs of the 

interconnected VoIP definition. In light 

of the increase in use of these services, 

we seek comment on whether we 

should extend 911 and E911 obligations 

to providers of VoIP services that are not 

currently covered by the rules. For 

instance, what 911/E911 obligations, if 

any, should apply to VoIP services that 

are not fully interconnected to the 

PSTN? Specifically, should 911/E911 

obligations apply to VoIP services that 

enable users to terminate calls to the 

PSTN, but do not permit users to receive 

calls that originate on the PSTN? Should 

911/E911 obligations apply to VoIP 

services that enable users to receive 

calls from the PSTN, but do not permit 

the user to make calls terminating to the 

PSTN? Should 911/E911 obligations 

apply to VoIP services that enable users 

to receive calls from the PSTN and 

terminate calls to the PSTN but as 

separately elective services? Even 

though such VoIP services do not fully 

meet the definition of ‘‘interconnected 

VoIP,’’ should such service providers 

assume the same public safety 

responsibilities? Does it continue to 

make sense that because a VoIP service 

permits, for example, only out-bound 

calls to the PSTN, that there should be 

no 911 obligations? Is there a need to 

modify the definition of ‘‘interconnected 

VoIP’’ or create a new definition to cover 

the range of VoIP services that should be 

subject to 911/E911 requirements? How 

do consumer expectations, and the 

needs of PSAPs and emergency 

responders, factor into whether we 

should extend 911 and E911 obligations 

to additional VoIP services not meeting 

the interconnected definition? Would 

adopting additional 911 and E911 

requirements for VoIP services help to 

further ensure that people with 

disabilities who desire to use 

interconnected VoIP service can obtain 

access to 911/E911 services? Would it 

be necessary to extend to noninterconnected VoIP providers rights of 

access to any and all capabilities 

necessary to provide 911 and E911 

service from entities that own or control 

those capabilities? Would such 

extension of capabilities impact 

requirements for mobile handsets, 

terminal adapters or other equipment 

that may be outside the control of the 

non-interconnected VoIP service 

provider? What is a reasonable 

timeframe for providers of VoIP services 

and applications that do not meet the 

interconnected VoIP definition to 

comply with the Commission’s 911 

rules? 

32. Authority. The VoIP 911 Order 

rested on ancillary jurisdiction 

principles in adopting 911 requirements 

for interconnected VoIP services. 

Subsequently, the NET 911 Act required 

interconnected VoIP providers to 

comply with the rules the Commission 

adopted in 2005 ‘‘as such requirements 

may be modified by the Commission 

from time to time.’’ Accordingly, we 

seek comment on the FCC’s jurisdiction 

to extend 911 requirements to VoIP 

services that would not meet the 

‘‘interconnected VoIP’’ definition. Under 

what authority should the Commission 

adopt any such rules? 

B. Impact of NG911 Deployments on 

Location Accuracy and ALI 

33. The National Broadband Plan 

recommends that the Commission 

consider how NG911 deployments may 

affect location accuracy and ALI 

requirements. We seek to examine how 

we may need to revise our location 

accuracy and ALI requirements to 

account for the deployment of NG911 

systems. Although deployments of 

NG911 systems have been limited to 

date, we seek to build a record on the 

expected impact of NG911 deployments 

on the existing wireless location 

accuracy and ALI requirements. What 

has been the nature to date of NG911 

deployments, and what currently might 

be in the planning or deployment 

stages? How will the identification and 

delivery of location information be 

incorporated by NG911 PSAPs? What 

technological or operational changes 

might service providers, applications 

developers, and device manufacturers 

implement that would complement 

NG911 capabilities? As the regulatory 

framework for wireless and VoIP E911 

evolves, what specific considerations 

should the Commission heed as NG911 

systems are deployed throughout the 

nation? Are there a minimum set of 

network, software and/or device criteria 

that would afford flexibility in 

providing location accuracy, but also 

meet consumers’ expectations and 

facilitate the deployment of NG911? 

C. Applicability of 911 and E911 

Requirements to Additional Wireless 

Communications Services, Devices and 

Applications 

34. IP-Based Voice Communications 

Services, Devices, and Applications. 

The wireless 911 and E911 requirements 

currently apply only to CMRS carriers 

meeting the criteria of Section 20.18(a). 

However, many new forms of IP-based 

voice communications are being offered 

to consumers via a variety of wireless 

services, devices and applications for 

use on a wide range of new devices. 

These IP-based communications are 

being carried over CMRS circuitswitched and data networks, unlicensed 

Wi-Fi networks, or some combination of 

both. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67328 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

35. In its recent survey of ‘‘the current 

state of the [broadband] ecosystem,’’ the 

National Broadband Plan found that 

‘‘[d]evices continue to grow in number 

and variety as more computers, phones 

and other machines connect to the 

Internet. New devices have repeatedly 

revolutionized the personal computer 

(PC) market in the past three decades 

[and] about 80% of U.S. households 

have some sort of personal computer 

[and] although desktops initially 

dominated the market, 74% of all new 

personal computers sold today are 

laptops [and] over the next 5 years, 

growth in the netbook and tablet 

markets will far outpace growth in the 

traditional PC market.’’ Similarly, the 

National Broadband Plan reported that 

the ‘‘mobile phone market has also seen 

robust innovation. There were more 

than 850 different certified mobile 

products in the United States in 2009. 

In that same year, approximately 172 

million mobile phones were sold in the 

United States. Of these, 27% were 

Internet-capable smartphones 

manufactured by a wide variety of firms, 

including Apple, HTC, LG, Motorola, 

Nokia, Palm, RIM, Samsung and SonyEricsson.’’ The distinguishing features of 

a smartphone are ‘‘an HTML browser 

that allows easy access to the full, open 

Internet; an operating system that 

provides a standardized interface and 

platform for application developers; and 

a larger screen size than a traditional 

handset.’’ Many smartphones also have 

touch screens and/or a QWERTY 

keypad, and ‘‘run an operating system 

that offers a standard platform for 

application developers to create and sell 

device software through an application 

store.’’ In contrast to traditional handsets 

with applications that include voice and 

messaging, smartphones have more 

user-friendly interfaces that facilitate 

access to the Internet and software 

applications. 

36. The widespread and increasing 

availability and use of smartphones, 

mobile computing devices (e.g., laptops, 

netbooks), and applications are leading 

to many new voice calling capabilities. 

We seek comment on what wireless 

devices, services and applications 

provide the equivalent of mobile 

telephony or interconnected VoIP, 

whether using CMRS, Wi-Fi or other 

combination of wireless connectivity, 

yet are not subject to the interconnected 

VoIP or CMRS 911 and E911 rules. For 

such voice-based services and 

applications, what are the expectations 

of consumers using such technologies in 

terms of being able to dial 911, and 

having the PSAP know where they are 

located? Would adopting 911 and E911 

requirements for additional IP-based 

devices, services and applications help 

to further ensure that people with 

disabilities who desire to use such 

technologies can obtain access to E911 

services? Which if any such devices, 

services and applications should be 

made subject to 911 and E911 

requirements? What is a reasonable 

timeframe for providers of these 

services, devices, and applications to 

comply with the Commission’s 911 

rules? What would be the source of the 

Commission’s jurisdiction to impose 

any such requirements? 

37. If we were to apply 911 and E911 

requirements to these additional 

broadband-enabled voice technologies, 

or to amend the rules that currently 

apply to interconnected VoIP services, 

what approach should we take? What 

technical and economic factors should 

we consider? For any new devices, 

services, and applications that would 

become subject to 911 and E911 

requirements, would we need to extend 

rights of access to any and all 

capabilities necessary to provide 911 

and E911 service from entities that own 

or control those capabilities? Should we 

distinguish the applicability of 911 and 

E911 requirements based on the device 

used, and if so, should any distinction 

be drawn between devices authorized 

for use under parts 22, 24, 27 or 90 of 

the Commission’s rules, which generally 

place the responsibility for compliance 

on the licensee, from devices authorized 

under part 15, which places 

responsibility for compliance on 

manufacturers? Since a number of VoIP 

services and applications are offered by 

third party software developers, should 

we extend 911 and E911 requirements 

to such entities? We seek comment on 

whether the Commission has the 

jurisdiction to impose 911 and E911 

requirements particularly upon software 

application developers. If we adopt new 

rules for these services, devices, and 

applications, should we impose these 

requirements after a date certain? How 

do consumer usage patterns, marketing 

practices, consumer expectations, and 

the needs of the public safety 

community, including PSAPs and first 

responders, impact whether these 

additional communication services 

should be required to provide access to 

emergency services? As an alternative to 

adopting regulatory requirements, 

should the Commission encourage 

industry solutions? Would an industrydeveloped ‘‘model 911 voice app’’ be 

helpful? Could mobile voice 

applications be programmed to 

recognize a 911 attempt, and 

automatically engage the CMRS 

component of the device (if available)? 

38. What particular capabilities or 

limitations might be presented by 

extending the wireless 911 and E911 

requirements to additional voice 

communications methods? Would there 

always be a call-back number? Would it 

be necessary or helpful to distinguish 

those services, devices, and applications 

that utilize the macro CMRS network, as 

opposed to a Wi-Fi connection? If a WiFi connection is utilized, does it further 

make a difference if the Wi-Fi 

connection is in-home, as opposed to a 

public hotspot, such as at a coffee shop, 

airport, bookstore, municipal park, etc.? 

Should devices supporting voice-based 

applications, including those that access 

the macro cellular network, Wi-Fi, or 

both, incorporate the capability to 

become location aware or require 

subscriber self-reporting of location? 

Should the Commission clarify that 

CMRS operators providing 

interconnected VoIP services may 

deliver location information to a PSAP 

in the same manner as for CMRS, 

specifically, delivering longitude and 

latitude coordinates to the PSAP in lieu 

of a street address. Would incorporating 

A–GPS chips or passive CMRS wireless 

receivers be effective in triangulating 

position? What would be the costs of 

doing so? 

39. Consumer Disclosures. Some IPbased voice services offered via an 

Internet connection, and/or as a 

smartphone application, contain various 

forms of disclosures indicating that such 

services do not provide access to 

emergency services. For those voicebased communications services, 

devices, and applications that do not 

support 911, what disclosures are 

currently being provided to the public 

and PSAPs about the lack of 911 

capability? What do consumers expect 

concerning 911 and E911 for voicecalling services and applications? Are 

such voice-based services and 

applications the sole means for certain 

consumers to place voice calls, and thus 

to access 911? Should we adopt 

disclosure requirements for certain 

types of communications services, 

devices, and applications if they do not 

support 911 access? If so, what type of 

disclosure requirements should we 

adopt? Is there a basis for distinguishing 

certain VoIP services, such as those 

offered over a standard broadband 

Internet connection, or those that are 

used with mobile smartphones, or other 

devices such as netbooks, etc.? What 

would be the Commission’s best source 

of authority for adopting such consumer 

disclosure requirements? 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67329 

40. Emerging Network Devices. In 

connection with the provision of 

existing CMRS offerings, wireless 

carriers are incorporating a variety of 

network components that enhance 

coverage, capacity, and spectrum 

efficiency. Examples include femtocells, 

picocells, microcells, and distributed 

antenna systems. A femtocell is a 

miniature base station that transmits in 

a wireless carrier’s licensed spectrum 

and provides improved coverage within 

a subscriber’s home. Femtocells 

typically use a subscriber’s home 

broadband connection for backhaul. A 

picocell offers a wider range of 

connectivity than a femtocell, but still 

has a limited range of connectivity and 

is often employed to provide coverage 

over an area such as a single floor of a 

building, a train station platform, or an 

airport terminal. A microcell offers a 

larger deployment footprint than a 

picocell, such as a residential 

neighborhood, an office complex, or an 

entire airport. A distributed antenna 

system is a network of spatially 

separated antenna sites called ‘‘nodes’’ 

connected to a common source that 

provides wireless service within a 

geographic area or structures. 

41. Since carriers are deploying these 

network components, it may be very 

helpful to consider the prospect of 

leveraging these devices to enhance 

location accuracy. Therefore, we seek to 

understand the capabilities and 

limitations of imposing location 

accuracy requirements that utilize these 

types of network components. In what 

ways can these devices and technologies 

be used to improve location accuracy? 

For example, a femtocell could be 

viewed as typically installed in a semipermanent manner at a particular home 

or office, that could thus be 

programmed with an exact address, or 

even have an embedded A–GPS chip. If 

that address could be transported with 

a 911 call, that would lead to significant 

improvement in location accuracy, akin 

to the location quality of wireline 

networks. Similarly, the location of a 

picocell alone could provide greater 

location accuracy for 911 calls handled 

by a picocell. Are there opportunities 

for these network elements to provide a 

means to transmit more accurate 

location information? If so, how can we 

best incorporate these capabilities into 

the location information transmitted 

with a wireless 911 call? 

V. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

42. This is a permit-but-disclose 

notice and comment rulemaking 

proceeding. Ex parte presentations are 

permitted, except during the Sunshine 

Agenda period, provided they are 

disclosed pursuant to the Commission’s 

rules. 

B. Comment Period and Procedures 

43. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

44. Electronic Filers: Comments may 

be filed electronically using the Internet 

by accessing the ECFS: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/or the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Filers should 

follow the instructions provided on the 

Web site for submitting comments. All 

comments shall be filed in PS Docket 

No. 07–114 and WC Docket No. 05–196. 

In completing the transmittal screen, 

filers should include their full name, 

U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and 

the applicable docket or rulemaking 

number. Parties may also submit an 

electronic comment by Internet e-mail. 

To get filing instructions, filers should 

send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and 

include the following words in the body 

of the message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample 

form and directions will be sent in 

response. 

45. Paper Filers: Parties who choose 

to file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. Filings 

can be sent by hand or messenger 

delivery, by commercial overnight 

courier, or by first-class or overnight 

U.S. Postal Service mail (although we 

continue to experience delays in 

receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All 

filings must be addressed to the 

Commission’s Secretary, Office of the 

Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. The Commission’s 

contractor will receive hand-delivered 

or messenger-delivered paper filings for 

the Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. Commercial 

overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal 

Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) 

must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 

Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. 

Postal Service first-class, Express, and 

Priority mail must be addressed to 445 

12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. 

46. People with Disabilities: To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (Braille), 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an e-mail to 

fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

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

47. The public may view the 

documents filed in this proceeding 

during regular business hours in the 

FCC Reference Information Center, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554, and on the 

Commission’s Internet Home Page: 

http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments 

and reply comments are also available 

through the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC, 20554, 1–800–378– 

3160. 

C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

48. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), the 

Commission has prepared an Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities of the policies 

and rules proposed in the NPRM 

portion of this document. We request 

written public comment on the IRFA 

analysis. Comments must be filed by the 

same dates as listed in the first page of 

this document, and must have a 

separate and distinct heading 

designating them as responses to the 

IRFA. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, will send a copy of 

this NPRM, including the IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

49. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry seek 

comments on how to ensure that 

wireless E911 service meets the needs of 

public safety and the American people, 

while taking into account the evolution 

in the use of wireless devices and the 

further development of location 

technologies. The Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking part of this item 

seeks comment on the impact of 

technological changes in the use of 

wireless devices and the further 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67330 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

development in the capabilities of 

location technologies on the standards 

for E911 Phase II location accuracy and 

reliability under Section 20.18(h) of the 

Commission’s rules. As amended by the 

companion Second Report and Order, 

Section 20.18(h) requires licensees 

subject to the Commission’s E911 

requirements to meet those standards at 

the county or PSAP-based level. 

50. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking expands upon the second 

part of the preceding Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking that the Commission 

released on June 1, 2007 (Location 

Accuracy NPRM) and seeks to update 

the other inquiries and tentative 

conclusions that the Commission 

initiated and reached, respectively. 

Specifically, the Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment 

on a number of issues raised in the 

Location Accuracy NPRM, including the 

following tentative conclusions by the 

Commission. 

51. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking tentatively concludes that 

the Commission should establish a 

mandatory testing and compliance 

regime and invites comment on the 

format in which accuracy data should 

be automatically provided to PSAPs. 

52. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking also tentatively concludes 

that ‘‘to the extent that an 

interconnected VoIP service may be 

used in more than one location, 

providers must employ an automatic 

location technology that meets the same 

accuracy standards that apply to those 

CMRS services,’’ and asks for updated 

comment on whether the Commission 

should require carriers to ensure 

delivery of location information to 

PSAPs for every call handled on their 

networks, including calls made by 

customers of another carrier (‘‘roaming 

calls’’) that has deployed a different 

technology in its own network or with 

whom the carrier handling the call has 

no automatic roaming relationship. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

foregoing tentative conclusions. 

53. Additionally, the Commission 

seeks comment on the other issues 

related to E911 location accuracy on 

which it previously sought comment in 

the Location Accuracy NPRM. 

Legal Basis 

54. The legal basis for any action that 

may be taken pursuant to this Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and 

Notice of Inquiry is contained in 

Sections 4(i) and 332 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 332. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 

Rules Would Apply 

55. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as having 

the same meaning as the terms ‘‘small 

business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ and 

‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ In 

addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ has 

the same meaning as the term ‘‘small 

business concern’’ under the Small 

Business Act. A small business concern 

is one which: (1) Is independently 

owned and operated; (2) is not 

dominant in its field of operation; and 

(3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

56. Nationwide, there are a total of 

approximately 22.4 million small 

businesses, according to SBA data. A 

‘‘small organization’’ is generally ‘‘any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.’’ 

Nationwide, as of 2002, there were 

approximately 1.6 million small 

organizations. The term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined 

generally as ‘‘governments of cities, 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 

population of less than fifty thousand.’’ 

Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate 

that there were 87,525 local 

governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. We estimate that, of this 

total, 84,377 entities were ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we 

estimate that most governmental 

jurisdictions are small. 

Telecommunications Service Entities 

Wireless Telecommunications Service 

Providers 

57. Pursuant to 47 CFR 20.18(a), the 

Commission’s 911 Service requirements 

are only applicable to Commercial 

Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 

‘‘[providers], excluding mobile satellite 

service operators, to the extent that they: 

(1) Offer real-time, two way switched 

voice service that is interconnected with 

the public switched network; and (2) 

Utilize an in-network switching facility 

that enables the provider to reuse 

frequencies and accomplish seamless 

hand-offs of subscriber calls. These 

requirements are applicable to entities 

that offer voice service to consumers by 

purchasing airtime or capacity at 

wholesale rates from CMRS licensees.’’ 

58. Below, for those services subject 

to auctions, we note that, as a general 

matter, the number of winning bidders 

that qualify as small businesses at the 

close of an auction does not necessarily 

represent the number of small 

businesses currently in service. Also, 

the Commission does not generally track 

subsequent business size unless, in the 

context of assignments or transfers, 

unjust enrichment issues are implicated. 

59. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). Since 2007, 

the Census Bureau has placed wireless 

firms within this new, broad, economic 

census category. Prior to that time, such 

firms were within the now-superseded 

categories of ‘‘Paging’’ and ‘‘Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications.’’ 

Under the present and prior categories, 

the SBA has deemed a wireless business 

to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. Because Census Bureau data 

are not yet available for the new 

category, we will estimate small 

business prevalence using the prior 

categories and associated data. For the 

category of Paging, data for 2002 show 

that there were 807 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 804 

firms had employment of 999 or fewer 

employees, and three firms had 

employment of 1,000 employees or 

more. For the category of Cellular and 

Other Wireless Telecommunications, 

data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

60. Broadband Personal 

Communications Service. The 

broadband Personal Communications 

Service (PCS) spectrum is divided into 

six frequency blocks designated A 

through F, and the Commission has held 

auctions for each block. The 

Commission defined ‘‘small entity’’ for 

Blocks C and F as an entity that has 

average gross revenues of $40 million or 

less in the three previous calendar 

years. For Block F, an additional 

classification for ‘‘very small business’’ 

was added and is defined as an entity 

that, together with its affiliates, has 

average gross revenues of not more than 

$15 million for the preceding three 

calendar years.’’ These standards 

defining ‘‘small entity’’ in the context of 

broadband PCS auctions have been 

approved by the SBA. No small 

businesses, within the SBA-approved 

small business size standards bid 

successfully for licenses in Blocks A 

and B. There were 90 winning bidders 

that qualified as small entities in the 

Block C auctions. A total of 93 small 

and very small business bidders won 

approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 

licenses for Blocks D, E, and F. On 

March 23, 1999, the Commission reauctioned 347 C, D, E, and F Block 

licenses. There were 48 small business 

winning bidders. On January 26, 2001, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67331 

the Commission completed the auction 

of 422 C and F Broadband PCS licenses 

in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning 

bidders in this auction, 29 qualified as 

‘‘small’’ or ‘‘very small’’ businesses. 

Subsequent events, concerning Auction 

35, including judicial and agency 

determinations, resulted in a total of 163 

C and F Block licenses being available 

for grant. 

61. Narrowband Personal 

Communications Services. To date, two 

auctions of narrowband personal 

communications services (PCS) licenses 

have been conducted. For purposes of 

the two auctions that have already been 

held, ‘‘small businesses’’ were entities 

with average gross revenues for the prior 

three calendar years of $40 million or 

less. Through these auctions, the 

Commission has awarded a total of 41 

licenses, out of which 11 were obtained 

by small businesses. To ensure 

meaningful participation of small 

business entities in future auctions, the 

Commission has adopted a two-tiered 

small business size standard in the 

Narrowband PCS Second Report and 

Order. A ‘‘small business’’ is an entity 

that, together with affiliates and 

controlling interests, has average gross 

revenues for the three preceding years of 

not more than $40 million. A ‘‘very 

small business’’ is an entity that, 

together with affiliates and controlling 

interests, has average gross revenues for 

the three preceding years of not more 

than $15 million. The SBA has 

approved these small business size 

standards. In the future, the 

Commission will auction 459 licenses to 

serve Metropolitan Trading Areas 

(MTAs) and 408 response channel 

licenses. There is also one megahertz of 

narrowband PCS spectrum that has been 

held in reserve and that the Commission 

has not yet decided to release for 

licensing. The Commission cannot 

predict accurately the number of 

licenses that will be awarded to small 

entities in future auctions. However, 

four of the 16 winning bidders in the 

two previous narrowband PCS auctions 

were small businesses, as that term was 

defined. The Commission assumes, for 

purposes of this analysis, that a large 

portion of the remaining narrowband 

PCS licenses will be awarded to small 

entities. The Commission also assumes 

that at least some small businesses will 

acquire narrowband PCS licenses by 

means of the Commission’s partitioning 

and disaggregation rules. 

62. Specialized Mobile Radio. The 

Commission awards ‘‘small entity’’ 

bidding credits in auctions for 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

geographic area licenses in the 800 MHz 

and 900 MHz bands to firms that had 

revenues of no more than $15 million in 

each of the three previous calendar 

years. The Commission awards ‘‘very 

small entity’’ bidding credits to firms 

that had revenues of no more than $3 

million in each of the three previous 

calendar years. The SBA has approved 

these small business size standards for 

the 900 MHz Service. The Commission 

has held auctions for geographic area 

licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz 

bands. The 900 MHz SMR auction was 

completed in 1996. Sixty bidders 

claiming that they qualified as small 

businesses under the $15 million size 

standard won 263 geographic area 

licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. The 

800 MHz SMR auction for the upper 200 

channels was conducted in 1997. Ten 

bidders claiming that they qualified as 

small businesses under the $15 million 

size standard won 38 geographic area 

licenses for the upper 200 channels in 

the 800 MHz SMR band. A second 

auction for the 800 MHz band was 

conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA 

licenses. One bidder claiming small 

business status won five licenses. 

63. The auction of the 1,050 800 MHz 

SMR geographic area licenses for the 

General Category channels began was 

conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders won 

108 geographic area licenses for the 

General Category channels in the 800 

MHz SMR band qualified as small 

businesses under the $15 million size 

standard. In an auction completed in 

2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area 

licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 

800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of 

the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed 

‘‘small business’’ status and won 129 

licenses. Thus, combining all three 

auctions, 40 winning bidders for 

geographic licenses in the 800 MHz 

SMR band claimed status as small 

business. 

64. In addition, there are numerous 

incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees 

and licensees with extended 

implementation authorizations in the 

800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not 

know how many firms provide 800 MHz 

or 900 MHz geographic area SMR 

pursuant to extended implementation 

authorizations, nor how many of these 

providers have annual revenues of no 

more than $15 million. One firm has 

over $15 million in revenues. In 

addition, we do not know how many of 

these firms have 1500 or fewer 

employees. We assume, for purposes of 

this analysis, that all of the remaining 

existing extended implementation 

authorizations are held by small 

entities, as that small business size 

standard is approved by the SBA. 

65. Mobile Satellite Service Carriers. 

Neither the Commission nor the U.S. 

Small Business Administration has 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for mobile satellite 

service licensees. The appropriate size 

standard is therefore the SBA standard 

for Satellite Telecommunications, 

which provides that such entities are 

small if they have $13.5 million or less 

in annual revenues. Currently, the 

Commission’s records show that there 

are 31 entities authorized to provide 

voice and data MSS in the United 

States. The Commission does not have 

sufficient information to determine 

which, if any, of these parties are small 

entities. The Commission notes that 

small businesses are not likely to have 

the financial ability to become MSS 

system operators because of high 

implementation costs, including 

construction of satellite space stations 

and rocket launch, associated with 

satellite systems and services. 

66. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase I 

Licensees. The 220 MHz service has 

both Phase I and Phase II licenses. Phase 

I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 

1992 and 1993. There are approximately 

1,515 such non nationwide licensees 

and four nationwide licensees currently 

authorized to operate in the 220 MHz 

Band. The Commission has not 

developed a definition of small entities 

specifically applicable to such 

incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. 

To estimate the number of such 

licensees that are small businesses, we 

apply the small business size standard 

under the SBA rules applicable to 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite). This category 

provides that a small business is a 

wireless company employing no more 

than 1,500 persons. The Commission 

estimates that most such licensees are 

small businesses under the SBA’s small 

business standard. 

67. 220 MHz Radio Service—Phase II 

Licensees. The 220 MHz service has 

both Phase I and Phase II licenses. The 

Phase II 220 MHz service is a new 

service, and is subject to spectrum 

auctions. In the 220 MHz Third Report 

and Order, the Commission adopted a 

small business size standard for 

defining ‘‘small’’ and ‘‘very small’’ 

businesses for purposes of determining 

their eligibility for special provisions 

such as bidding credits and installment 

payments. This small business standard 

indicates that a ‘‘small business’’ is an 

entity that, together with its affiliates 

and controlling principals, has average 

gross revenues not exceeding $15 

million for the preceding three years. A 

‘‘very small business’’ is defined as an 

entity that, together with its affiliates 

and controlling principals, has average 

gross revenues that do not exceed $3 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
67332 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

million for the preceding three years. 

The SBA has approved these small size 

standards. Auctions of Phase II licenses 

commenced on and closed in 1998. In 

the first auction, 908 licenses were 

auctioned in three different sized 

geographic areas: Three nationwide 

licenses, 30 Regional Economic Area 

Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 

Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 

908 licenses auctioned, 693 were sold. 

Thirty-nine small businesses won 373 

licenses in the first 220 MHz auction. A 

second auction included 225 licenses: 

216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. 

Fourteen companies claiming small 

business status won 158 licenses. A 

third auction included four licenses: 2 

BEA licenses and 2 EAG licenses in the 

220 MHz Service. No small or very 

small business won any of these 

licenses. In 2007, the Commission 

conducted a fourth auction of the 220 

MHz licenses. Bidding credits were 

offered to small businesses. A bidder 

with attributed average annual gross 

revenues that exceeded $3 million and 

did not exceed $15 million for the 

preceding three years (‘‘small business’’) 

received a 25 percent discount on its 

winning bid. A bidder with attributed 

average annual gross revenues that did 

not exceed $3 million for the preceding 

three years received a 35 percent 

discount on its winning bid (‘‘very small 

business’’). Auction 72, which offered 94 

Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses, 

concluded in 2007. In this auction, five 

winning bidders won a total of 76 

licenses. Two winning bidders 

identified themselves as very small 

businesses won 56 of the 76 licenses. 

One of the winning bidders that 

identified themselves as a small 

business won 5 of the 76 licenses won. 

68. Wireless Telephony. Wireless 

telephony includes cellular, personal 

communications services (PCS), and 

specialized mobile radio (SMR) 

telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard for Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite). Under the SBA small business 

size standard, a business is small if it 

has 1,500 or fewer employees. 

According to Trends in Telephone 

Service data, 434 carriers reported that 

they were engaged in wireless 

telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 

have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 

have more than 1,500 employees. We 

have estimated that 222 of these are 

small under the SBA small business size 

standard. 

69. Rural Radiotelephone Service. The 

Commission has not adopted a size 

standard for small businesses specific to 

the Rural Radiotelephone Service. A 

significant subset of the Rural 

Radiotelephone Service is the Basic 

Exchange Telephone Radio System 

(‘‘BETRS’’). In the present context, we 

will use the SBA’s small business size 

standard applicable to Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), i.e., an entity employing no 

more than 1,500 persons. There are 

approximately 1,000 licensees in the 

Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the 

Commission estimates that there are 

1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in 

the Rural Radiotelephone Service that 

may be affected by the rules and 

policies adopted herein. 

70. Air-Ground Radiotelephone 

Service. The Commission has previously 

used the SBA’s small business 

definition applicable to Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite), i.e., an entity employing no 

more than 1,500 persons. There are 

approximately 100 licensees in the AirGround Radiotelephone Service, and 

under that definition, we estimate that 

almost all of them qualify as small 

entities under the SBA definition. For 

purposes of assigning Air-Ground 

Radiotelephone Service licenses 

through competitive bidding, the 

Commission has defined ‘‘small 

business’’ as an entity that, together with 

controlling interests and affiliates, has 

average annual gross revenues for the 

preceding three years not exceeding $40 

million. A ‘‘very small business’’ is 

defined as an entity that, together with 

controlling interests and affiliates, has 

average annual gross revenues for the 

preceding three years not exceeding $15 

million. These definitions were 

approved by the SBA. In 2006, the 

Commission completed an auction of 

nationwide commercial Air-Ground 

Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 

800 MHz band (Auction 65). Later in 

2006, the auction closed with two 

winning bidders winning two AirGround Radiotelephone Services 

licenses. Neither of the winning bidders 

claimed small business status. 

71. Offshore Radiotelephone Service. 

This service operates on several UHF 

television broadcast channels that are 

not used for television broadcasting in 

the coastal areas of states bordering the 

Gulf of Mexico. There is presently 1 

licensee in this service. We do not have 

information whether that licensee 

would qualify as small under the SBA’s 

small business size standard for 

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 

(except Satellite) services. Under that 

SBA small business size standard, a 

business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. 

72. The Commission has not 

developed a small business size 

standard specifically for providers of 

international service. The appropriate 

size standards under SBA rules are for 

the two broad census categories of 

‘‘Satellite Telecommunications’’ and ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications.’’ Under 

both categories, such a business is small 

if it has $13.5 million or less in average 

annual receipts. 

73. Satellite Telecommunications and 

All Other Telecommunications. These 

two economic census categories address 

the satellite industry. The first category 

has a small business size standard of 

$13.5 million or less in average annual 

receipts, under SBA rules. The second 

has a size standard of $23.5 million or 

less in annual receipts. The most 

current Census Bureau data in this 

context, however, are from the (last) 

economic census of 2002, and we will 

use those figures to gauge the 

prevalence of small businesses in these 

categories. 

74. The category of Satellite 

Telecommunications ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

providing telecommunications services 

to other establishments in the 

telecommunications and broadcasting 

industries by forwarding and receiving 

communications signals via a system of 

satellites or reselling satellite 

telecommunications.’’ For this category, 

Census Bureau data for 2002 show that 

there were a total of 371 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 307 firms had annual receipts of 

under $10 million, and 26 firms had 

receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of Satellite 

Telecommunications firms are small 

entities that might be affected by our 

action. 

75. The second category of Other 

Telecommunications ‘‘comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

(1) providing specialized 

telecommunications applications, such 

as satellite tracking, communications 

telemetry, and radar station operations; 

or (2) providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

operationally connected with one or 

more terrestrial communications 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to or receiving 

telecommunications from satellite 

systems.’’ For this category, Census 

Bureau data for 2002 show that there 

were a total of 332 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of this total, 303 

firms had annual receipts of under $10 

million and 15 firms had annual 

receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. 

Consequently, we estimate that the 

majority of Other Telecommunications 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 2, 2010 / Proposed Rules 67333 

firms are small entities that might be 

affected by our action. 

Equipment Manufacturers 

76. Wireless Communications 

Equipment Manufacturing. The Census 

Bureau defines this category as follows: 

‘‘This industry comprises establishments 

primarily engaged in manufacturing 

radio and television broadcast and 

wireless communications equipment. 

Examples of products made by these 

establishments are: Transmitting and 

receiving antennas, cable television 

equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, 

cellular phones, mobile 

communications equipment, and radio 

and television studio and broadcasting 

equipment.’’ The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for Radio 

and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing, which is: All such firms 

having 750 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

2002, there were a total of 1,041 

establishments in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of this 

total, 1,010 had employment of under 

500, and an additional 13 had 

employment of 500 to 999. Thus, under 

this size standard, the majority of firms 

can be considered small. 

77. Semiconductor and Related 

Device Manufacturing. These 

establishments manufacture ‘‘computer 

storage devices that allow the storage 

and retrieval of data from a phase 

change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/ 

optical media.’’ The SBA has developed 

a small business size standard for this 

category of manufacturing; that size 

standard is 500 or fewer employees. 

According to Census Bureau data for 

1997, there were 1,082 establishments 

in this category that operated for the 

entire year. Of these, 987 had 

employment of under 500, and 52 

establishments had employment of 500 

to 999. 

78. Computer Storage Device 

Manufacturing. These establishments 

manufacture ‘‘computer storage devices 

that allow the storage and retrieval of 

data from a phase change, magnetic, 

optical, or magnetic/optical media.’’ The 

SBA has developed a small business 

size standard for this category of 

manufacturing; that size standard is 

1,000 or fewer employees. According to 

Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 

209 establishments in this category that 

operated for the entire year. Of these, 

197 had employment of under 500, and 

eight establishments had employment of 

500 to 999. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

79. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry seeks 

comment broadly on certain 

modifications to the compliance levels 

set forth in rules section 20.18(h). 

Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

80. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) and exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.’’ 

81. The Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry seeks 

comment on various proposed changes 

to location accuracy standards. To assist 

in the analysis, commenters are 

requested to provide information 

regarding how small entities would be 

affected if the Commission were to 

adopt its proposed changes or any 

alternative proposals offered by other 

commenters. 

82. With regard to accuracy testing, 

we tentatively concluded that we 

should adopt a mandatory testing 

regime. We seek comments both as to 

the parameters of this testing regime and 

any alternative testing regimes that may 

assist small business in complying with 

the requirements. Should we require 

testing every two years or would a 

different schedule be more appropriate? 

We seek comment on various 

alternatives for tracking compliance 

with the location accuracy 

requirements. 

83. With regard to interconnected 

VoIP, the Commission tentatively 

concluded that ‘‘to the extent that an 

interconnected VoIP service may be 

used in more than one location, 

providers must employ an automatic 

location technology that meets the same 

accuracy standards that apply to those 

CMRS services.’’ Should interconnected 

VoIP providers be subject to the 

Commission’s CMRS E911 location 

requirements? Should the Commission 

consider first appointing an advisory 

committee to examine the technological 

and economic impacts of such a 

requirement? We seek comment on this 

and any other alternative proposals. 

Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

84. None. 

D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis 

85. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27579 Filed 11–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 64 

[CG Docket No. 03–123; WC Docket No. 

05–196; WC Docket No. 10–191; FCC 10– 

161] 

Telecommunications Relay Services 

and Speech-to-Speech Services for 

Individuals With Hearing and Speech 

Disabilities, E911 Requirements for IPEnabled Service Providers, InternetBased Telecommunications Relay 

Service Numbering 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) seeks comment on steps 

the Commission should take to improve 

assignment of telephone numbers 

associated with Internet-based 

Telecommunications Relay Service 

(iTRS), specifically, Video Relay Service 

(VRS) and IP Relay. 

DATES: Comments on the proposed rules 

are due on or before December 2, 2010 

and reply comments are due on or 

before December 17, 2010. Written 

comments on the Paperwork Reduction 

Act proposed information collection 

requirements must be submitted by the 

public, Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB), and other interested 

parties on or before January 3, 2011. If 

you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS