Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and 
Other Next Generation 911 Applications
Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment
)
)
)
)
)
)
PS Docket No. 11-153
PS Docket No. 10-255
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted:  May 8, 2013 Released:  May 17, 2013
By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski and Commissioners Clyburn and Rosenworcel issuing 
separate statements; Commissioner Pai concurring and issuing a statement; Commissioner McDowell not 
participating.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 4
III. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 8
A. Need for a Bounce-back Requirement ............................................................................................. 8
1. Benefits of a Bounce-back Requirement................................................................................... 8
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis.............................................................................................................. 18
B. Service Providers Subject to Bounce-back Requirement............................................................... 30
1. CMRS Providers...................................................................................................................... 30
2. Interconnected Text Providers................................................................................................. 33
C. Circumstances Requiring Bounce-back Notification..................................................................... 42
D. Implementation Deadline............................................................................................................... 55
E. Bounce-back Message Content...................................................................................................... 63
F. Other Technical Issues................................................................................................................... 70
1. Roaming .................................................................................................................................. 70
2. Limited Exception for Certain Devices................................................................................... 73
G. Consumer Education...................................................................................................................... 77
1. Responsibility for Consumer Education.................................................................................. 77
2. Consumer Testing.................................................................................................................... 84
H. Legal Authority.............................................................................................................................. 88
1. Title III .................................................................................................................................... 89
2. The CVAA ............................................................................................................................ 100
3. Ancillary Authority ............................................................................................................... 128
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 141
A. Accessible Formats ...................................................................................................................... 141
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ................................................................................................... 142
C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis.................................................................................................... 143
D. Congressional Review Act........................................................................................................... 144
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
2
V. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 145
APPENDIX A – Final Rules 
APPENDIX B – Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
APPENDIX C – List of Commenters
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Report and Order, we require all Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) 
providers and providers of interconnected text messaging services (i.e., all providers of software 
applications that enable a consumer to send text messages to all or substantially all text-capable U.S. 
telephone numbers and receive text messages from the same) to provide an automatic “bounce-back” text 
message in situations where a consumer attempts to send a text message to 911 in a location where text-
to-911 is not available.  The rules we adopt today will substantially reduce the risk of a person sending a 
text message to 911 in an emergency and mistakenly believing that 911 authorities have received it.  
Instead, the text sender will receive an immediate response that text-to-911 is not supported along with 
direction to use another means to contact emergency services, e.g., place a voice call to 911.
2. Requiring all CMRS providers and interconnected text providers to implement a bounce-
back mechanism is particularly important because while deployment of text-to-911 has begun, the 
transition is still in the very early stages and will not be uniform.  During the transition, text-to-911 will 
be available in certain geographic areas sooner than it is available in others and may be supported by 
certain service providers but not by others.  At the same time, as text-to-911 becomes more widely 
available, it is likely to generate increased consumer expectations as to its availability, which makes it 
increasingly important for consumers to be made aware when it is not available in an emergency.  
3. The record in this proceeding indicates that some service providers already send an
automatic bounce-back message to their subscribers when a subscriber attempts to send a text to 911.  In 
addition, the four largest CMRS providers – AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon – have 
voluntarily committed to provide bounce-back messaging capability throughout their networks by June 
30, 2013.  In this Report and Order, we build on this voluntary commitment and conclude that all CMRS 
providers and text application providers that enable consumers to send text messages to and receive text 
messages from all or substantially all text-capable telephone numbers (collectively, “covered text 
providers”) should be required to provide this capability.  We further specify the circumstances under 
which a bounce-back message must be provided and the information that the message must contain.  
Finally, while we find it is technically and economically feasible for all covered text providers to 
implement this capability quickly, we recognize that not all providers may be able to do so by the June 
30, 2013 date to which the four major carriers are committed.  Therefore, we establish September 30, 
2013 as the deadline for all covered text providers to implement the bounce-back capability required by 
this Report and Order.  However, we encourage covered text providers to implement bounce-back 
message capabilities as soon as possible in order to deal expeditiously with the existing consumer 
confusion about the availability of text-to-911.  The automatic bounce-back message requirements we 
adopt today establish minimum requirements.  We note that providers may voluntarily commit to other 
terms, provided they meet or exceed the requirements we establish herein by September 30, 2013.  
Although this new requirement will impose additional costs on some of the covered text providers, we 
have determined that these costs are small and likely will be far exceeded by the public benefits of 
substantially reducing the risk of persons sending a text message to 911 in an emergency and mistakenly 
believing that 911 authorities have received it.  
II. BACKGROUND
4. In September 2011, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2011 
Notice), which sought comment on a number of issues related to the deployment of Next Generation 911 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
3
(NG911), including how to facilitate the deployment of text-to-911.
1
  In the 2011 Notice, the Commission 
observed that as text-to-911 is implemented, there will be instances where, despite efforts to educate 
consumers, some individuals will attempt to send text messages to 911 in locations where text-to-911 is 
not supported.  The Commission found that this “could put consumers at risk if they were unaware that an 
emergency text did not go through or were uninformed about alternative means of reaching the PSAP.”
2
  
To mitigate this risk, the Commission proposed that when a consumer attempts to text 911 in a location 
where text-to-911 service is not supported, the consumer should receive an automatic reply text message 
from the CMRS provider informing him or her that the text was not received by 911 and providing 
information on how to otherwise contact 911.
3
  
5. In response to the 2011 Notice, commenters generally acknowledged the importance of 
providing notification of non-delivery to consumers.
4
  However, some CMRS providers questioned 
whether the Commission should adopt a notification requirement.
5
  Other commenters supported a 
requirement to ensure that all consumers would receive notification regardless of which carrier or service 
provider they use.
6
  
6. On December 6, 2012, AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon entered into a 
voluntary agreement with the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and APCO International 
(APCO) in which each of the four carriers agreed to provide text-to-911 service by May 15, 2014 to 
Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) that are capable of and request to receive text-to-911 service 
(Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement).
7
  In addition, the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement provided that the 
major carriers would implement a bounce-back message to alert subscribers attempting to text an 
                                                     
1
In the Matter of Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications, 
Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No. 11-153, PS Docket No. 10-255, Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 13615 (2011) (2011 Notice).
2
2011 Notice, 26 FCC Rcd at 13628-30, ¶ 110.
3
See id.  The Commission sought comment on the approach, including what methods are necessary to ensure that 
such disclosure is accessible to people with different disabilities; what happens when consumers attempt to send 
SMS for other text-based messages to 911; whether CMRS providers send any message in response and if so the 
information conveyed in the message; the technical feasibility for all providers to provide such messages; whether 
such messages should contain certain standardized information; and what role the Commission should play in 
developing best practices, model responses, or requirements for the provision of standardized messages. Id.
4
See, e.g., Verizon Wireless 2011 Notice Comments at 18 (noting that it already provides an automated message 
when a wireless customer attempts to send a text message to 911 in a location where text-to-911 is not available).  
See also Nov. 14, 2011 Ex Parte of interconnected text messaging provider textPlus at 1 (noting that it already 
“sends a bounce-back message to users alerting the user that the 911 address is not recognized”). 
5
See Sprint Nextel 2011 Notice Comments at 24 (arguing that before making any decision on this issue, the 
Commission should first refer the matter to standards organizations “to review the technical aspects associated with 
delivering an error message and to develop a consistent error response message”).
6
See, e.g., APCO 2011 Notice Comments at 18; NASNA 2011 Notice Comments at 9; State of California 2011 
Notice Comments at 8; Texas 911 Alliance Nov. 1, 2012 Ex Parte at 1; Minnesota Department of Public Safety 
Nov. 3, 2012 Ex Parte at 1; State of Hawaii 911 Nov. 6, 2012 Ex Parte at 1; California Technology Agency Nov. 9, 
2012 Ex Parte at 1; BRETSA Nov. 16, 2012 Ex Parte at 2. 
7
See Letter from Terry Hall, APCO International; Barbara Jaeger, National Emergency Number Association 
(NENA); Charles W. McKee, Sprint Nextel; Robert W. Quinn, Jr., AT&T; Kathleen O’Brien Ham, T-Mobile USA; 
and Kathleen Grillo, Verizon, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, and 
Commissioners McDowell, Clyburn, Rosenworcel and Pai, PS Docket 11-153, PS Docket No. 10-255 (Dec. 6, 
2012) (Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
4
emergency message to instead dial 911 when text-to-911 is unavailable in a particular area.
8
  The 
agreement stated that all four carriers would provide this capability by June 30, 2013.
9
  
7. In December 2012, we adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further 
Notice),
10
which proposed, inter alia, to require all CMRS providers, as well as interconnected text 
messaging providers, to send automated reply messages to consumers attempting to text 911 when the 
service is not available.
11
  The Further Notice sought additional comment on how best to implement the 
bounce-back message component to the text-to-911 system,
12
and proposed that CMRS providers
13
and 
other providers of text messaging services be required to automatically notify consumers attempting to 
text-to-911 in areas where text-to-911 is not supported or in other instances where the text cannot be 
transmitted to the PSAP.
14
III. DISCUSSION
A. Need for a Bounce-back Requirement
1. Benefits of a Bounce-back Requirement
8. Background.  In the Further Notice, the Commission proposed to require providers of 
text messaging services to automatically notify consumers attempting to text-to-911 in areas where text-
to-911 is not supported or in other instances where the text cannot be transmitted to the PSAP.  We stated 
that “there appears to be a clear benefit to persons in emergency situations being able to know 
immediately if a text message has been delivered to the proper authorities.”
15
  The Commission further 
noted that “this automatic feedback may be life-saving, allowing a person in need of assistance to 
immediately seek out an alternative,” and that it may be “particularly critical during the transition to 
NG911, as the record to date suggests there are likely to be numerous instances where consumers attempt 
to send text messages to PSAPs in areas where text-to-911 is not yet available.”
16
9. In general, public safety commenters agree on the necessity of requiring a bounce-back 
message rather than relying on voluntary measures.  The Texas 911 Entities argue that CMRS providers
and other text messaging providers “should be required to automatically notify consumers attempting to 
text-to-911 in areas where text-to-911 is not supported or in other instances where text cannot be 
                                                     
8
Id. at 2-3.
9
Id. at 3.
10
In the Matter of Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications 
Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No. 11-153,  PS Docket No. 10-255, Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 15659, 78 FR 1799 (2012) (Further Notice).
11
Id. at ¶ 2.  The Further Notice used the term “automated error messages” for failed text-to-911 attempts, but in 
this Order we use the more accurate phrase “bounce-back” message as the reply text message is not notification to 
the consumer that the consumer has committed an error in sending the text or that the CMRS provider or 
interconnected text messaging provider experienced a network failure resulting in the failure to deliver the text to a 
PSAP.  Bounce-back more accurately describes the instance as one associated with the CMRS provider or 
interconnected text messaging provider informing consumers that text-to-911 service is not available in the area they 
are texting from.
12
See Further Notice at ¶ 2.
13
47 C.F.R. § 20.3.
14
Id. at ¶ 25.
15
Further Notice at ¶ 25.
16
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
5
transmitted to the Public Safety Answering Point.”
17
  BRETSA similarly describes a bounce-back 
requirement as “critical, so that users sending such text messages will know to pursue other alternatives” 
rather than “relying on a text message that was never delivered and waiting in vain for help to arrive.”
18
  
APCO notes that “[p]ublicity regarding text-to-9-1-1 is increasingly creating a false public impression 
that text-to-9-1-1 capability exists today across the nation when, in fact, it is only available in a handful of 
test areas…Over time, the requirement will also be important as text-to-9-1-1 capability is rolled out on 
an incremental basis across the nation’s PSAPs, some of whom may initially choose not to accepts 
texts.”
19
  Finally, NENA argues that, “the potential benefits of implementing bounce-back messaging are 
enormous because doing so would serve to dispel widespread consumer confusion about the availability 
of text-to-9-1-1 now, while setting the stage for effective text-to-9-1-1 service in the future.”
20
10. CMRS providers also agree on the benefits of bounce-back messaging.  CTIA maintains 
that “clarifying the purpose and scope of the automatic message will help prevent consumer confusion 
and promote the public’s understanding of current NG9-1-1 system limitations,” but it believes that “the 
Commission should make clear that receipt of an automated message is tied only to the availability of the 
text-to-9-1-1 service and is not associated with isolated transmission errors.”
21
  Motorola Mobility 
supports the Commission’s bounce-back proposal because “[a]lerting customers immediately when their 
text to 911 cannot go through because the service has not been deployed in their location is essential to 
protecting the public” and will “help eliminate one potential source of uncertainty and confusion on the 
part of customers who may believe they can reach 911 via a text message where that is not the case, [the 
absence of which may cause a customer to] unwittingly be put in jeopardy waiting for a first responder 
who is not even aware of the emergency.”
22
  AT&T argues that “…all concerned—the Commission, the 
public safety community, and providers—have recognized the need to provide end users with some sort 
of alert when access to emergency services via text messaging is unavailable,” and thus, AT&T “fully 
support[s] the Commission’s proposal that all ‘CMRS providers and other providers of text messaging 
services should be required to automatically notify consumers attempting to use text-to-911 in areas 
where text-to-911 is not supported or in other instances where text cannot be transmitted to the PSAP.’”
23
11. Disabilities rights groups believe that requiring a bounce-back message will benefit 
wireless consumers who rely on non-voice communications tools to contact emergency services.  
Consumer Groups and TAP
24
stress the importance of bounce-back messaging for persons with 
disabilities, and urges codification of the Carrier-NENA-APCO agreement to require that “all service 
providers, including small and rural carriers do their part in implementing the error messages.”
25
  Wireless 
                                                     
17
Texas 911 Entities Comments at 2.  See also County of Fairfax Comments at 1; TCS Comments at 5; NENA 
Comments at 2. 
18
BRETSA Comments at 2.
19
APCO Comments at 2.
20
NENA Comments at 2.
21
CTIA Comments at 9-10.
22
Motorola Mobility Comments at 2.
23
AT&T Comments at 2-3.
24
A coalition of consumer groups including Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (TDI), Deaf and 
Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network (DHHCAN), National Association of the Deaf (NAD), Hearing Loss 
Association of America (HLAA), Association of Late-Deafened Adults, Inc. (ALDA), Cerebral Palsy and Deaf 
Organization (CPADO), California Coalition of Agencies Serving Deaf and Hard of Hearing People (CCASDHH), 
and Technology Access Program at Gallaudet University (TAP) (collectively known as “Consumer Groups and 
TAP”).
25
Consumer Groups and TAP at 6; see also TCS Comments at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
6
RERC similarly argues that people with hearing loss or speech disabilities need to be informed when text-
to-911 is not available.
26
  While acknowledging the voluntary measures taken by the top four CMRS 
providers, Wireless RERC states that “it is necessary that all mobile service providers be held to the same 
standards” with respect to providing bounce-back messages.
27
12. One commenter, the Tarrant County 9-1-1 District Board of Managers (Tarrant County), 
expresses concern that requiring a bounce-back message could “create an unrealistic citizen expectation” 
regarding the future implementation of text-to-911.
28
  Tarrant County suggests that “without a guaranteed 
funding mechanism and national standard to support [bounce-back] service, the presence of a return 
message will stimulate expectations that local communities will not be able to afford nor deliver.”
29
  
13. Discussion.  We find that there is a clear benefit and present need for persons who 
attempt to send emergency text messages to know immediately if their text cannot be delivered to the 
proper authorities.  In the Further Notice, the Commission cited evidence that many consumers already 
believe they can send text messages to 911.
30
  Moreover, there is substantial data to suggest that some 
consumers are acting on this belief in areas where text to 911 is not available.  For example, in a recent 
webinar sponsored by APCO, TCS reported that Verizon subscribers had sent over 23,000 text messages 
to 911 since October 2012, and that approximately 13,000 of these were sent in areas where the text-to-
911 was not supported.
31
  Given this volume of attempted text messages to 911 over a single carrier’s 
network, the volume of attempted texts over all networks combined is undoubtedly substantially larger. 
14. Furthermore, in emergency situations, where call volumes can spike and networks 
become congested, consumers are often unable to place voice calls.  Under these circumstances, it is 
particularly important that consumers seeking emergency assistance by text receive a notification when 
text-to-911 functionality is not available.    
15. We also believe the likelihood of consumers attempting to text to 911 extends beyond 
traditional Short Message Service (SMS) and Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS) text services offered 
by CMRS providers.  As we observed in the Further Notice, the rapid proliferation of smartphones and 
other advanced mobile devices is providing consumers with numerous new options for IP-based text 
applications.
32
  In fact, Informa estimates that “By the end of 2013…41 billion OTT messages will be sent 
                                                     
26
Wireless RERC Reply Comments at 3.
27
Id.  See also University of California, Berkley Comments at 1 (“the proposed rule [text-to-911] is essential to the 
health and safety of millions of Americans who have barriers to hearing and/or speaking”).
28
Tarrant County Comments at 3.
29
Id.
30
The Commission cited a survey conducted by the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) 
which found that approximately one-third of their population believed they could text 911. Further Notice at ¶ 7 n. 
7; Letter from Christy Williams, 9-1-1 Program Manager, NCTCOG, to David S. Turetsky, Chief, Public Safety and 
Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 1, 2012).
31
See Joint Presentation by the York-Poquoson-Williamsburg Emergency Communications Center, Cassidian 
Communications, TeleCommunication Systems, Inc., and Verizon Wireless, “Understanding the Challenges of 
Implementing Text to 9-1-1: The PSAP and the Vendor Perspectives” (Mar. 6, 2013) at 6 available at: 
https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/443513602 (registration required) (last visited April 10, 2013).
32
Further Notice at ¶ 6.  See Chen, Brian, “Apps Redirect Text Messages, and Profits, From Cellular Providers,”
New York Times, Dec. 4, 2012, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/technology/free-messaging-apps-
siphon-profits-from-cellular-providers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20121205&_r=0 (last accessed Dec. 
5, 2012). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
7
every day, compared with an average of 19.5 billion P2P SMS messages.”
33
Moreover, some of these 
applications are being developed expressly for the purpose of enabling consumers to text to virtually 
anyone, anywhere, including to anyone with a text-capable telephone number.
34
  As these applications 
proliferate, consumers are likely to assume that they should be as capable of reaching 911 as any other 
telephone number.
35
  Moreover, as more consumers become familiar with these applications and use 
them for everyday text communications, they will be more likely to attempt to use them in emergencies.
16. In light of these trends, automatic message feedback where text-to-911 is not available 
may be life-saving, allowing a person in need of assistance to immediately seek out an alternative means 
of communicating with emergency services providers.  Moreover, while voluntary steps by individual text 
providers to implement bounce-back capability are important, there is a risk of further consumer 
confusion if all covered text providers do not implement this capability.  In particular, during the 
transition period, the availability of text-to-911 will not be uniform but will vary both by service provider 
and by area, and the extent of availability will change over time as the transition progresses.  Consumers 
may therefore be unaware which service providers support text-to-911 capabilities and which do not, and 
they may be confused about the availability of text-to-911 in their geographic area.  While Tarrant County 
fears that bounce-back messages may give consumers an unrealistic expectation of future text-to-911 
deployment, such expectations do not create any risk of immediate physical harm to the consumer and do 
not engender confusion in the consumer caller about the availability of first responder assistance at the 
time such assistance is needed.  Accordingly, in comparison to the dangers posed by the possibility that 
consumers might mistakenly believe that text-to-911 is likely to be deployed in their particular 
communities, we consider the dangers of consumer confusion and harm to be far greater – and more 
imminent – in situations where consumers receive no responsive information when they attempt to send a 
text.  As the Commission’s Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC)
36
noted, “[u]sers will expect 
to receive information on the success or failure of a text-to-9-1-1 message.  If PSAPs in an area do not 
support text-to-9-1-1 yet, the user will expect to receive an automated text response immediately that 
states that text-to-9-1-1 is not available and that a call should be made to 9-1-1.”
37
17. Finally, the bounce-back requirement we adopt today is an important measure in 
preparing the public, as well as relevant 911 stakeholders, for the transition to NG911.  As we noted in the 
Further Notice, “implementing text-to-911 represents a crucial next step in the ongoing transition of the 
legacy 911 system to a Next Generation 911 (NG911) system that will support not only text but will also 
enable consumers to send photos, videos, and data to PSAPs, enhancing the information available to first 
responders for assessing and responding to emergencies.”
38
  Congress has also recognized that, until the 
nation completes the transition to a fully IP-based, NG911 environment, it is critical that persons with 
disabilities have interim solutions that can provide them with access to emergency services.
39
  The 
                                                     
33
Clark-Dickson, Pamela, “Press release: OTT messaging traffic will be twice the volume of P2P SMS traffic by 
end-2013,” Informa Telecoms and Media (Apr. 29, 2013) available at http://blogs.informatandm.com/12861/news-
release-ott-messaging-traffic-will-be-twice-the-volume-of-p2p-sms-traffic-by-end-2013/ (last accessed May 1, 
2013).
34
See, e.g., Fitchard, Kevin, “TextMe tries to recreate Skype as a mobile-first app,” Gigaom.com, available at
http://gigaom.com/2013/03/19/textme-tries-to-recreate-skype-as-a-mobile-first-app/ (last accessed Mar. 29, 2013).
35
See, e.g., ¶¶ 9-11 supra (discussing the record evidence regarding consumer expectations). 
36
The establishment of the EAAC was mandated by the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video 
Accessibility Act (CVAA), Pub. L. No. 111-260 § 106.
37
Emergency Access Advisory Committee, Report of Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) 
Subcommittee 1 on Interim Text Messaging to 9-1-1, Mar. 1, 2013 at 6.
38
Further Notice at ¶ 4.
39
See 47 U.S.C. § 615c(g).  See also Part III.H. supra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
8
bounce-back notification mechanism is a critical component of this interim solution, because it will 
provide consumers with important information regarding the availability (and unavailability) of text-to-
911 during the transition.  In addition, bounce-back notification will continue to be important when 
NG911 is fully deployed, because even in an NG911 environment, instances may occur where text-to-911 
is temporarily unavailable and bounce-back notification will be necessary during the temporary 
suspension.  
2. Cost-Benefit Analysis
18. Background.  In the Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on the costs as 
compared to the benefits associated with implementing a bounce-back requirement.  Noting that the four 
major CMRS providers had voluntarily agreed to implement bounce-back capability without seeking 
recovery of such costs from state or local government, the Commission found this to suggest that the 
implementation costs are manageable.
40
  The Commission sought comment on this view, on the cost of 
implementation for other providers (small and rural CMRS providers, interconnected text providers), and 
on how such costs compared to the public safety benefits for their subscribers.
41
    
19. NENA argues that “the relative additional cost of implementing bounce-back messaging 
now as compared with sometime in the future will be small, limited to the time value of capital 
expenditures required to implement bounce-back messaging over the period between the effective date of 
a potential mandate and the date on which deployment would have otherwise occurred.”
42
  NENA argues 
that “the deployments of bounce-back messaging by carriers and other service providers indicate that such 
deployments are competitively efficient and would likely be undertaken by all carriers eventually, even in 
the absence of an agreement or regulatory mandate.”
43
  Therefore, NENA argues, the Commission should 
focus its cost-benefit analysis on “the relative costs and benefits of compelling nation-wide deployment 
on a shorter timeframe than would otherwise naturally occur, rather than on the overall costs of 
implementing bounce-back messaging.”
44
  
20. CMRS providers challenge the Commission’s inference in the Further Notice that the 
absence of cost recovery provisions in the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement shows the costs of 
implementing a bounce-back requirement to be manageable.
45
  CTIA notes that the agreement was 
intended to allow, although not to require, existing cost recovery to be utilized for the bounce-back 
implementation.
46
  CTIA also contends that each carrier has “unique network architectures for text 
messaging services and therefore the costs associated with implementing a bounce-back notification 
system may vary widely amongst providers.”
47
  T-Mobile warns against underestimating the cost burden 
                                                     
40
Further Notice at ¶ 27.
41
Id.
42
NENA Comments at 2-3.
43
Id.
44
Id. at 2.
45
CTIA Comments at 12-13.  See also CCA Reply Comments at 2-3 (“The FCC mistakenly assume [sic] that costs 
for implementing a bounce-back message are manageable because the national carrier-signatories to the Carrier-
NENA-APCO Agreement made their commitments independent of cost recovery.”).
46
Id.
47
Id. at 13.  See also Sprint Nextel Comments at 7 (“The signatories to the Voluntary Commitment have committed 
to provide an auto-reply message “independent” of their ability to recover these associated costs from state or local 
governments.  This does not mean, however, that wireless providers will not seek cost recovery from state or local 
governments.  Further, simply by making the commitment to provide an auto-reply message, wireless providers are 
in no way representing that the costs associated with sending auto-reply messages are reasonable.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
9
on small carriers to mirror commitments made by the four nationwide carriers.
48
  T-Mobile also suggests 
that “as PSAPs begin to accept text messages, implementation will become much more complex and more 
costly, as carriers will have to determine when and where bounce-back messages should be sent.”
49
  
21. In its initial comments, Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) argued that the June 30 
deadline is neither technically nor financially feasible for small or rural carriers and the Commission 
should not “force non-Tier I carriers to implement a bounce-back message on the same deadline as the 
signatories to the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement.”
50
  However, in a March 25, 2013 ex parte filing, 
CCA now states that, notwithstanding its prior concerns, it believes that “…based on recent business 
developments cultivated by CCA and its members, most CCA carrier members will now be able to 
implement a bounce-back message by June 30, 2013.”
51
     
22. Discussion.  In the Further Notice, the Commission presented a cost-benefit case study in 
which it found that the potential benefits of text-to-911 for a single category of 911 calls (cardiac-related 
911 calls) outweighed the costs of implementing text-to-911 for all carriers and PSAPs.
52
  The 
Commission case study was based on a 2002 study of cardiac emergencies in Pennsylvania (Cardiac 
Study), which found that the adoption of E911 was associated with improvements in the health status of 
patients, particularly those with cardiac conditions.
53
  The Cardiac Study demonstrated that the faster 
response times associated with E911 was correlated with an over 34 percent reduction in mortality rates 
from cardiac arrest within the first 48 hours following the incident.
54
  Using the Cardiac Study data, the 
Commission found that access to text-to-911 would accelerate emergency response and thereby save 
approximately seven lives annually in cardiac emergencies.  Applying a value-of-life statistical model 
developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Commission estimated the public safety benefits 
of text-to-911 for cardiac patients to be more than ten times the highest estimated cost in the record of 
implementing text-to-911, which was calculated to be no more than $4 million annually.
55
23. While the cost-benefit case study in the Further Notice did not separate out the cost of 
implementing the bounce-back portion of text-to-911, it provides a useful framework for assessing the 
relative costs and benefits of a bounce-back requirement.  The evidence in the record indicates that the 
cost of implementing bounce-back capability is certain to be lower than the estimated $4 million cost of 
                                                     
48
T-Mobile Comments at 2.
49
Id. at 3.
50
CCA Reply Comments at 2-3.
51
Letter from Rebecca Murphy Thompson, General Counsel, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, in PS Docket No. 11-153 and PS Docket No. 10-255, March 25, 2013 (CCA Ex 
Parte).
52
Further Notice at ¶ 68.
53
See id. at ¶ 69; Susan Athey and Scott Stern, The Impact of Information Technology on Emergency, The RAND 
Journal of Economics, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Autumn 2002), available at http://kuznets.fas.harvard.edu/~athey/itemer.pdf
(last accessed on Aug. 27, 2012) (Cardiac Study).  The study examined 19,746 ambulance rides resulting in an 
emergency hospital admission in 66 Pennsylvania counties during 1994 and 1996.  It found a -.012 reduction in the 
48 hour mortality rate for cardiac patients due to E911.  Given the studies estimate of 304 cardiac incidents each 
year per 273,000 people (the average population size of a Pennsylvania county), this implies that E911 adoption 
resulted in 3.648 (i.e. -.012 x 304) lives saved per 273,000 people.  The Cardiac Study additionally found that
cardiac emergency calls account for less than 20 percent of medical emergency calls and less than 10 percent of total 
emergency calls, thus the likely benefit of enhanced response times is likely to accrue to a much larger segment of 
the population than solely cardiac emergencies.
54
See Cardiac Study.
55
Further Notice at ¶ 67.    
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
10
implementing text-to-911.  Significantly, no party has provided data to suggest that bounce-back 
implementation would be more costly, nor has any party contended that cost is a significant factor with 
respect to the bounce-back component.  Indeed, as noted above, CCA, which initially raised cost as a 
potential issue, has subsequently indicated that most of its members will be able to implement bounce-
back capability by June 30, 2013.  
24. We estimate that our new requirement will impose an implementation cost of $43,200.  
We base this estimate on changes required in functional elements used by SMS/MMS providers and 
interconnected text providers.  Across these functional elements, discussed in more detail below, the 
program logic is very similar, consisting of a conditional statement or rule that invokes a message 
notification if text-to-911 is unavailable.  Depending on the capabilities of the functional elements, adding 
a 911 rule may simply require a configuration change or may require the equipment or software 
manufacturer to add programming logic.  One method for determining the cost of altering an existing 
software program is the Constructive Cost Model II (COCOMO II), which can provide an estimate of the 
cost, effort, and schedule for planning new software development activity.
56
  The model analyzes a 
number of variables concerning software size, specifically source lines of code, whether new, reused, 
modified, or some combination thereof; software scale drivers; software cost drivers related to product, 
personnel, operating system platform specifics, and project specifics; and software labor rates.
57
  We 
estimate that approximately ten source lines of code are necessary for an application to recognize that a 
consumer is attempting to text to 911 and trigger the required automatic 911 bounce-back message.  
Using the COCOMO II model and the Bureau of Labor Statistics occupational wages for software 
developers, we estimate a one-time cost of $360 to add ten new source lines of code to an existing 
application.
58
25. First, for SMS and MMS text-to-911 traffic, we assume that the cellular network provider 
can implement the required bounce-back by a minor change in short message service center (SMSC) 
configuration settings. In cases where the configuration options do not include this capability, a change 
similar to the one anticipated for interconnected text messages needs to be implemented by the SMSC 
vendor.
59
  For interconnected text messaging services, the bounce-back message can be implemented 
either within the text application installed on the handset or in the server that routes these messages to 
either another subscriber of the same service via the Internet or to an SMS/MMS gateway to reach SMS 
                                                     
56
See University of Southern California, Center for Systems and Software Engineering, COCOMO II, available at
http://csse.usc.edu/csse/research/COCOMOII/cocomo_main.html (last accessed Apr. 12, 2013).
57
Id.
58
The COCOMO II web-based tool requires one to enter the total new source lines of code and the cost per person-
month in dollars and to set a number of software scale and cost drivers at subjective levels (e.g., very low, low, 
nominal, high, very high, extra high).  See COCOMO II, Constructive Cost Model, available at
http://csse.usc.edu/tools/COCOMOII.php (last accessed Apr. 12, 2013).  This model estimates that a one-time cost
of $360 will be incurred, assuming that (a) ten new sources lines of code must be added to an existing application in 
order to meet the bounce-back message mandate, (b) the software labor rate is $19,391 per person-month, and (c) all 
cost drivers in the model are set to “nominal.”  Cost per Person-Month is estimated as follows: average software 
engineer/developer/programmer total mean annual salary of $92,080 (Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), May 2011); 
a cost per person-month of approximately 173 hours; hourly rate of $44.27 (BLS, May 2011) plus an estimated 
overhead factor of 2.5, or $106.25 per person hour.  ($93,080 X 2.5)/12 = $19,392 cost per person-month.  For mean 
annual wage of a software developer of applications, see Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment 
Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wages, May 2011, at http://bls.gov/oes/current/oes151132.htm.  In 
general, overhead costs are between 150–250 percent of the cost of a direct labor hour.  See Cynthia R. Cook, John 
C. Graser, RAND, Military Airframe Acquisition Costs (2001) available at 
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1325/MR1325.ch9.pdf (last accessed May 7, 
2013).
59
We assume that most carriers would receive the update as part of their normal software maintenance.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
11
and MMS-capable devices. Since these servers are shared by all operating systems platforms and server 
changes do not require that the consumer updates their application, this option appears to be more likely 
to be exercised and would reduce the cost below the estimate offered below. In addition, many 
interconnected text providers use the same gateway platform, further reducing the number of instances 
that need to be upgraded.
26. We estimate that at present, there are approximately thirty interconnected text messaging 
services, offering their services on anywhere from one to five different operating system platforms.  The 
application developer generally makes updates available through application stores, such as Apple, Inc.’s 
App Store and the numerous application stores supporting Google Android applications.  (The most 
common offerings are available on Google Android and Apple iOS.)
60
To account for future 
proliferation of platform offerings, we estimate that all service providers offer their service across four 
main operating system platforms and that each of them will incur a one-time cost of $360 to add ten new 
source lines of code to an existing application, as discussed above.
61
  The resulting nationwide 
implementation cost for these affected applications is therefore approximately $43,200 (i.e., 30 x 4 x 
$360), and an SMSC modification cost of $1,800 (i.e., 5 x $360).
62
  
27. Implementing bounce-back messages will require that each interconnected text 
messaging application developer alter an existing application, add the capability to new interconnected 
text message applications, or modify its server platform.
63
  Thus, our analysis indicates that the potential 
cost of bounce-back implementation for interconnected text messaging services is small.  
28. The nationwide cost of requiring bounce-back implementation by covered text providers 
is further mitigated by the fact that some text providers are already providing bounce-back messages 
voluntarily, so their cost will be effectively zero.  We also agree with NENA that service providers who 
are not already providing bounce-back messaging are likely to do so eventually, even in the absence of 
regulations, as a matter of civic responsibility, customer service, and protection against potential 
liability.
64
  To the extent that service providers would offer bounce-back messaging in the absence of a 
                                                     
60
Apple iOS is the mobile operating system for a range of Apple, Inc. manufactured devices, including iPhones, 
iPads, and iPods.  iOS supports software applications designed specifically for it.  See Apple, Inc., iOS, available at 
https://developer.apple.com/technologies/ios/.  Google Android is a Linux-based operating system designed for 
mobile devices, including smartphones and tablet computers.  Android is based on an open standard for mobile 
devices, allowing any application developer to create applications for a mobile device.  See Google, Android, 
available at http://www.android.com/about/.
61
See supra ¶ 24.  
62
We assume that five SMC implementations are affected by this change, although the number of such vendors is 
likely to be smaller.  
63
See Letter of Brian D. Weimer, Counsel for textPlus, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission (Apr. 26, 2013) (“Making and implementing changes to the code in an application update cycle like 
this typically takes two to four week to complete. There are no external costs associated with such an application 
update cycle and all necessary alterations are completed through code changes in the textPlus application; there are 
no server side changes required”).  See also Letter of Gene Lew, CTO of Media Friends Inc., to Marlene Dortch, 
Secretary, FCC (Apr. 22, 2013) (“MediaFriends implemented the SMS911 bounce back function based on a ‘cloud’ 
network architecture to facilitate the greatest flexibility for future enhancements. It was completed very efficiently 
and expeditiously in conformance with recent directives regarding SMS 911 requirements and serves the public 
interest”).  Heywire indicates that, in its experience, “As a Cloud based architecture with flexibility of complex 
systems inherent, the addition of a bounce back message for SMS 911 purposes was conceptualized, architected, 
designed and implemented with great speed (1 day) and affected 100% coverage of every HeyWire subscriber 
immediately upon activation of the feature. No changes to the client software were required.”  Letter of Gene Lew, 
CTO of Media Friends Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (May 1, 2013).
64
See NENA Comments at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
12
requirement, the additional cost of mandating an earlier deployment of bounce-back messaging is only a 
small fraction of our $43,200 cost estimate.
65
  Instead, this additional cost would be limited to the time 
value of incurring that cost this year instead of at some future date.  The rules we adopt today merely 
ensure that this transition will occur sooner and provide more immediate protection to consumers.  Thus, 
in part, the cost we take into consideration here is the difference in cost between a shorter implementation 
timeframe and a longer one.
29. In summary, we find that an automatic bounce-back requirement will yield benefits 
significantly in excess of the costs. Our estimated total implementation cost of $43,200 is far below the 
$6.2 million that the Department of Transportation estimates for the value of a human life.
66
  We believe 
this new requirement likely will save many lives but, even if only one life is saved, the benefits will 
exceed the costs imposed.  
B. Service Providers Subject to Bounce-back Requirement
1. CMRS Providers
30. In the Further Notice, the Commission proposed to require all CMRS providers to 
provide their customers with an automatic bounce-back notification, as already agreed to by the four 
major carriers in the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement.  Specifically, the Commission sought comment 
on any significant technical issues for small, regional, or rural CMRS providers that would impact the 
achievability of an automatic message within that timeframe.
31. CTIA contends that the wireless industry faces “very real technical limitations” and that 
“any automated message requirements that the Commission adopts must be technically feasible.”
67
  
Specifically, CTIA expresses concern that carriers using Short Message Service (SMS) may not be able to 
generate automatic bounce-back messages in all situations where a PSAP fails to receive a text.
68
  Some 
commenters also express concern about extending the bounce-back obligation to smaller and rural CMRS 
providers.  T-Mobile advises the Commission not to “underestimate the challenges for all CMRS carriers 
to mirror commitments made by the four nationwide carriers,” noting that smaller carriers may “find it 
challenging” to implement bounce-back capability, “particularly on a short timeframe and without cost 
recovery from state and local governments.”
69
  However, in a recent ex parte, the CCA, the primary 
association representing small and rural CMRS providers, states that most of its members will be able to 
implement bounce-back capability by the June 30, 2013 date agreed to by the major carriers.
70
32. Discussion.  We find that it is technically feasible for all CMRS providers to provide 
automatic bounce-back messages.  The four major CMRS providers have already committed to do so by 
June 30, 2013, and as CTIA notes in its comments, some of its carrier members have already done so.
71
  
CCA’s recent ex parte indicates that it is feasible for small and rural carriers to implement the same 
capability without significant difficulty.  We recognize, however, that there are circumstances where a 
                                                     
65
NENA Comments at 2-3.
66
See Memorandum from Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, and Robert S. Rivkin, 
General Counsel, to Secretarial Officers and Modal Administrators, U.S. Department of Transportation, “Treatment 
of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analysis- 2011 Interim Adjustment” (July 29, 2011).  
See also Further Notice at ¶ 71 n. 178.
67
CTIA Comments at 5.
68
Id.  See also Sprint Nextel Comments at 4-5 (“SMS has a number of significant technical limitations.”).
69
T-Mobile Comments at 2.
70
CCA Ex Parte at 1.
71
CTIA Comments at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
13
PSAP may not receive a text.  Therefore, we limit the bounce-back requirement for CMRS providers to 
the specific circumstances discussed in Section III.C. below.
2. Interconnected Text Providers
33. In the Further Notice, the Commission proposed that interconnected text providers be 
required to send a bounce-back message when a user of the provider’s program or application attempts to 
text to 911 where that service is not available.
72
  The Commission proposed to define “interconnected text 
provider” to include “all providers of software applications that enable a consumer to send text messages 
to text-capable U.S. mobile telephone numbers and receive text messages from the same.”
73
  The
Commission proposed to exclude from this definition IP-based messaging applications that support 
communications with a defined set of users of compatible applications but that do not support general 
communication with text-capable telephone numbers.
74
  The Commission sought comment on this 
approach and whether other types of third party text messaging applications should be included.
75
  It also 
sought comment on the feasibility and cost for third party providers to implement automatic notification 
and whether they face any unique technical issues not faced by CMRS providers.
76
  The Commission also 
sought comment on whether interconnected text providers could implement a bounce-back requirement 
by June 30, 2013, or whether they should be subject to a longer timetable.
77
34. Commenters generally support requiring interconnected text providers to implement a 
bounce-back capability.  APCO argues that the requirement should cover all providers because 
“consumers are likely to have the same expectations of all text-to-9-1-1 capabilities, regardless of the 
specific method of text transmission.”
78
  AT&T similarly argues that any bounce-back message regime 
“will fail unless all interconnected text messaging service providers are required to provide a bounce-back 
message to texting subscribers” because “in a world where the bounce-back message exists, the 
subscriber will be unable to differentiate between providers that do and do not provide it.”
79
  TCS states 
that “any messaging application that purports to be a general ‘anyone to anyone’ communications system 
should support, at least, automated bounce-back notification when text-to-911 capability is not 
available.”
80
  
35. NENA states that it has tested several interconnected text messaging services and text 
applications available on Android and iPhone handsets to determine whether they generate bounce-back 
messages.  NENA found that in every case, the text application provided “disclaimers to the effect that 
the application under test did not support 9-1-1,” but that virtually none of the applications “produced an 
explicit message when we attempted to text 9-1-1.”
81
  Nevertheless, NENA states that given the existing 
ability of text applications to support automated user notifications, it is “convinced that implementing 
                                                     
72
Further Notice at ¶ 29.
73
Id. at ¶ 29.
74
Id. at ¶ 91. 
75
Id. at ¶ 92.
76
Id. at ¶ 31.
77
Id. at ¶ 31.
78
APCO Comments at 2.
79
AT&T Comments at 6.
80
TCS Comments at 4.
81
NENA Comments at 3-4. NENA reports that some applications would not identify “9-1-1” as a contact and did 
not open a text conversation, while others “gave the appearance that a conversation had been established before 
showing (in some cases subtly) that our test message could not be delivered.”
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
14
bounce-back messaging (or its equivalent) will be straightforward and inexpensive for interconnected text 
messaging service providers.” 
82
  
36. Providers of interconnected text services acknowledge that implementing a bounce-back 
mechanism is technically feasible.  VON Coalition states that “it should be possible for interconnected 
text application providers to implement an application-generated message informing users – in every 
instance – that a text cannot be sent to 911 using the application.”
83
  VON Coalition further states that 
because bounce-back messages associated with interconnected text applications can be handled within the 
application itself rather than being “dependent on a third-party gateway or an underlying carrier,” the 
challenges to enabling such a message “are exponentially smaller than these other options.”
84
  While 
acknowledging the technical feasibility of bounce-back messaging, VON Coalition “urges the 
Commission not to adopt any new obligations at this time on interconnected text messaging applications 
to provide automatic error messages for texts to 911.”
85
37. textPlus similarly states that although interconnected text providers may face “hurdles” in 
providing text-to-911, providing bounce-back messages does not raise “significant technical challenges 
[and] it is reasonable for the Commission to broadly apply the bounce back requirement to SMS providers 
and application texting providers.”
86
  At the same time, textPlus cautions that “in considering a mandate 
to provide bounce back messages or any other mandate under consideration in the Notice, the 
Commission should remain cognizant of the significant technical differences between over-the-top (OTT) 
text messaging companies like textPlus and the carriers.”
87
  According to textPlus, “unlike a typical 
CMRS subscriber who has immediate access to text messaging services directly on their wireless phone 
(smart or basic), textPlus users must open and log into the textPlus application on a smart phone before 
sending a text message.”
88
38. OnStar cautions against applying text-to-911 requirements to any service which does not 
already provide interconnected text messaging services and requests that the Commission “clarify in its 
final rules that CMRS providers that do not offer interconnected text messaging services (such as OnStar 
with its pre-paid hands-free wireless calling (‘HFC’) services) are not subject to the requirements.”
89
  
OnStar argues that such a “clarification would ease concerns by OnStar and other similarly situated 
providers that final rules in this proceeding could be interpreted as requiring the introduction of brand-
new interconnected text messaging services in order to comply with the Commission’s new rules.”
90
  
Texas 911 Entities agrees with OnStar that a provider who offers ‘only voice services’ should not be 
subject to the text-to-911 requirement.
91
39. Discussion.  We find that it is technically feasible for interconnected text messaging 
providers to provide a bounce-back message to their users.  We define interconnected text providers as 
those providers that enable a consumer to send text messages to all or substantially all text-capable U.S. 
                                                     
82
Id.
83
VON Coalition Comments at 3.
84
Id.
85
Id. at 8.
86
textPlus Reply Comments at 4.
87
Id.
88
textPlus Comments at 2.
89
OnStar Comments at 2.
90
Id.
91
Texas 911 Entities Reply Comments at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
15
telephone numbers and receive text messages from the same.
92
  Even commenters that oppose a bounce-
back requirement for interconnected text providers nevertheless state that application-generated bounce-
back messaging is technically feasible for interconnected text providers, and some interconnected text 
providers, such as textPlus and Heywire, already provide this capability.
93
  Therefore, in light of the 
public safety and other benefits discussed herein, we extend the bounce-back requirements adopted in this 
Report and Order to all interconnected text messaging providers.  For interconnected text applications on 
the market prior to the adoption of this Report and Order, interconnected text providers must make an 
update available by the implementation date set forth below.  For future applications not on the market as 
of the date of the adoption of this Report and Order, interconnected text providers must incorporate a 
bounce-back message capability into their initial programming.  As in the case of CMRS providers, we 
limit the bounce-back requirement for interconnected text messaging providers to the specific 
circumstances discussed in Section III.C. below.
40. We affirm that we are extending this provision only to interconnected text message 
applications as defined herein,
94
and not to non-interconnected IP-based messaging applications that 
support communication with a defined set of users of compatible applications but that do not support 
general communication with text-capable telephone numbers.  Additionally, we agree with OnStar that 
the requirements we adopt today should not apply to those providers that offer only voice service, and we 
therefore clarify that these rules do not apply to voice-only service providers.
41. We affirm that we are extending this provision only to providers of interconnected text 
messaging services, which we define as providers that enable a consumer to send text messages to all or 
substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers and receive text messages from the same.
95
  Such 
providers of interconnected text messaging service include providers that enable the transmission of 
covered messages over their own networks or facilities (e.g., CMRS licensees), as well as third-party or 
over-the-top (OTT) providers that enable the transmission of covered texts over another providers’ 
network or facilities, including through the use of applications downloaded on mobile phones. For 
clarity, we have slightly modified the wording of the definition from that proposed in the Further Notice, 
by explicitly stating that the service must be capable of reaching “all or substantially all” text-capable 
U.S. telephone numbers and removing the reference to mobile numbers, since the North American 
Numbering Plan does not make distinctions between numbers in the plan.  We also affirm that the 
definition of interconnected text does not extend to text messages that are directed by IP-based messaging 
applications that support communication with a defined set of users of compatible applications but that do 
not support general communication with all or substantially all text-capable telephone numbers.
96
Additionally, we agree with OnStar that the requirements we adopt today should not apply to those 
providers that offer only voice service, and we therefore clarify that these rules do not apply to voice-only 
service providers.
                                                     
92
See Appendix A 47 CFR 20.18(n)(1). The term “provider” refers to the entity that provides the application to the 
consumer.  On-line “stores” that enable to consumers to browse and select applications from multiple providers,
such as the Apple App Store or Google Play, are not “providers” for purposes of this definition.
93
See, e.g., the VON Coalition Comments at at 3; Letter from Brian D. Weimer, Counsel for textPlus, to Marlene 
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (Nov. 14, 2012) at 1. (textPlus Nov. 14 Ex Parte).
94
See discussion supra ¶ 39.  See also Appendix A 47 CFR 20.18(n)(1).
95
See Appendix A 47 CFR 20.18(n)(1).  
96
We also note that to the extent this limited type of application hands off a text to another application that does, in 
fact, support general communication with all or substantially all text-capable telephone numbers, the provider of the 
service performed by the second application (i.e., the one that supports the general communication) would be 
considered a provider of interconnected text messaging service and subject to our bounce-back rules.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
16
C. Circumstances Requiring Bounce-back Notification
42. Background.  In the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the four major carriers agreed to 
implement bounce-back messaging “when Text-to-9-1-1 is unavailable in that area.”
97
  In the Further 
Notice, we proposed that CMRS providers and interconnected text providers should similarly be required 
to automatically notify consumers attempting to text-to-911 “in areas where text-to-911 is not supported 
or in other instances where the text cannot be transmitted to the PSAP.”
98
  We clarified, however, that our 
proposed requirement for automatic notification to consumers would only apply to situations where the 
provider (or the provider’s text-to-911 vendor) has direct control over the transmission of the text 
message and is unable to transmit the text message to the PSAP serving the texting party’s location, 
whether due to network congestion, the inability of the PSAP to accept such messages, or otherwise.
99
  
We noted that, under our proposal, notification would not be required where the provider is able to 
transmit the text to the PSAP, but a failure in the PSAP network results in the text not being delivered to a 
911 operator and sought comment on this proposal.
100
  
43. Commenters generally support the Commission’s proposal, but some commenters 
propose clarification or modification of the specific circumstances in which a bounce-back message 
would be required.  For example, commenters generally agree that bounce-back notification should be 
required in geographic areas where text-to-911 is not supported by the PSAP or by the originating service 
provider.
101
  The EAAC Subcommittee #1 also supports this approach in its report and recommendations 
to the EAAC.
102
  Commenters also generally agree that providers should not be required to provide 
automatic notification where the consumer uses a text application provided by a third party that the carrier 
does not control.
103
44. While commenters generally support the approach proposed in the Further Notice, some 
commenters express concern that the rule could be over-inclusive in defining the circumstances under 
which a bounce-back message would be required.  CTIA contends that SMS-based text providers may not 
be able to generate automatic bounce-back messages “for granular issues such as network congestion, 
return receipts, and an individual [PSAP’s] ability to respond to a text message in a timely manner 
(‘PSAP busy notification’).”
104
Given the technical limitations of SMS, CTIA argues that carriers should 
only be required to provide notifications “relating to the general support for text-to-911 service in that 
geographic area by the wireless carrier or PSAP,” but should not be required to provide a bounce-back 
                                                     
97
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement at 3.  
98
See Further Notice at ¶ 25.  
99
Id. at ¶ 32.  
100
Id.  
101
See, e.g., Texas 911 Entities Comments at 2; County of Fairfax Comments at 1; TCS Comments at 5; NENA 
Comments at 2; BRETSA Comments at 2; APCO Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 9-10; Motorola Mobility 
Comments at 2; Consumer Groups and TAP Comments at 6; TCS Comments at 2-3; Wireless RERC Reply 
Comments at 3; University of California, Berkley Comments at 1.
102
The EAAC Subcommittee #1 Report states that “an automatic response should be provided if text-to-911 service 
is unavailable due to a lack of network or PSAP support.”  See Report of Emergency Access Advisory Committee 
(EAAC) Subcommittee 1 on Interim Text Messaging to 9-1-1, March 1, 2013 at 23 (EAAC Subcommittee #1 
Report). 
103
See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4; BRETSA Comments at 8; Sprint Comments at 5.
104
CTIA Comments at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
17
message when the inability to deliver text-to-911 is due to “the PSAP’s temporary inability to receive text 
messages, whether due to technical, operational or personnel issues.”
105
  
45. AT&T states that “the Commission should make it clear that individual PSAPs are 
responsible for ‘courtesy messages’ when the PSAP determines that, under the circumstances at the time, 
it is appropriate to suspend, in whole or in part, receipt of text-to-911 messages [including] notifying 
incoming text messengers that the PSAP is temporarily suspending, in whole or in part, text-to-911 
communications by returning a courtesy message.”
106
  Sprint Nextel believes requiring carriers to 
intermittently block texts to 911 and provide automatic bounce-back messages “would be rife with the 
potential for negative consequences, such as delays between the request by the PSAP and when the carrier 
and/or vendor receives the request and acts on it, both to turn ‘off’ delivery of emergency message to 9-1-
1 and to turn it back ‘on.’”
107
  According to Sprint, the only acceptable method in such a case would be 
for a PSAP itself to return an automated message directly to the subscriber indicating that the PSAP is not 
currently accepting text messages and asking the subscriber to call 911 in the event of an emergency.
108
46. CTIA also contends that including the phrase “or otherwise” in the proposed rule creates 
uncertainty about when providers would be required to transmit an automated bounce-back message.
109
  
Sprint Nextel similarly opposes this language as inconsistent with the Carrier-NENA-APCO 
Agreement
110
and urges the Commission to revise the rule language to make clear that “the automatic 
notification requirement would only apply to situations where the provider (or the provider’s text-to-911 
vendor) has direct control over the transmission of the text message and text-to-911 is unavailable.”
111
  
BRETSA, on the other hand, argues that the originating text provider should provide a bounce-back 
message if a text message is “dropped or deemed undeliverable at any point in the transmission chain, so 
that confirmation of delivery is not received by the originating service provider or application within a 
specified period.”
112
  
47. BRETSA also proposes that service providers provide a bounce-back message whenever 
a text message to 911 is attempted “but the location of the device cannot be determined for purposes of 
call routing.”
113
  Blooston believes that carriers should be exempt from providing bounce-back messages 
in areas where PSAPs have not yet requested E-911 Phase I or Phase II voice service from the carrier.
114
48. With respect to interconnected text application providers, VON Coalition urges the 
Commission to “limit [bounce-back requirements] to a message generated by the application notifying 
                                                     
105
Id.  See also Verizon Feb. 20, 2013 Ex Parte at 1-2.
106
AT&T Comments at 4.
107
Sprint Nextel Comments at 6-7.
108
Id.
109
CTIA Comments at 7.
110
Sprint Nextel Comments at 3-4. Sprint notes that in the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement, the four carriers “did 
not agree to provide an auto-reply message [as stated in draft rule 20.18(h)(1)] ‘in other instances where the text 
cannot be transmitted to the PSAP.’”
111
Id. at 5-6 (arguing that all message handling scenarios beyond a PSAP not provisioned to handle texts would 
require carriers and [Gateway Service Providers] to specify and develop standards and guidelines, and doing so 
would require carriers to go beyond the best efforts service outlined in the Voluntary Commitment [Carrier-NENA-
APCO Agreement]”).
112
BRETSA Comments at 9.
113
Id.
114
Blooston Comments at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
18
users that 911 is inaccessible from the application and that they should use alternative means to contact 
their local [PSAP].”  VON Coalition argues that, “Providing this kind of message, generated within the 
two-way interconnected text application, would be the only feasible way to implement the requirement 
since considerable development remains before these applications could deliver a text to 911; the 
development costs may be substantial; and even if all this can be overcome, the service still would not be 
as certain a means of summoning help as a real-time voice call.  For deaf users, CMRS texting would be 
available as an alternative to a voice call.”
115
49. Discussion.  We adopt our proposal with certain modifications to address concerns raised 
by commenters.  In general, we require all covered text providers (i.e., both CMRS providers and 
interconnected text providers) to provide a bounce-back message when a consumer attempts to send a text 
message to a PSAP by means of the three-digit short code “911” and the covered text provider cannot 
deliver the text because (1) the consumer is located in an area where text-to-911 is not available, or (2) the 
covered text provider either does not support text-to-911 generally or does not support it in the particular 
area at the time of the consumer’s attempted text.
116
  
50. The first scenario addresses the situation where the PSAP serving the consumer’s 
geographic area has not yet implemented text-to-911 capability.  We include the second scenario to 
address instances where a covered text provider does not support text-to-911, even in areas where the 
PSAP has implemented text-to-911 capability.  This is necessary because implementation of text-to-911 
by covered text providers will not be uniform across the nation or within any given area.  For example, 
most of the text-to-911 trials and deployments to date have involved PSAPs only receiving texts from a 
single carrier.  In those situations, consumers of other carriers that are not yet supporting the PSAP’s trial 
or deployment will be unable to send text messages to 911 for some period of time.  Therefore, we require 
these carriers to provide a bounce-back message to consumers – even though the PSAP is making text-to-
911 “available” in the area.    
51. We also note that the rule we adopt today requires all covered text providers to 
implement bounce-back capability even though some providers contend that they cannot and should not 
be required to support text-to-911.  We have not yet decided the issue of whether all covered text 
providers should be required to support text-to-911 as proposed in the Further Notice.  That issue remains 
pending in this proceeding, and we do not prejudge it here.  However, regardless of whether all covered 
text providers are eventually required to support text-to-911, the fact that they provide the ability to text to 
telephone numbers generally is likely to lead some consumers to assume that they also have text-to-911 
capability.
117
  This could further lead consumers to put themselves at risk by attempting to send 
emergency text messages over such applications.  We therefore conclude that to prevent consumer 
confusion and protect life and safety in such situations, the bounce-back requirement should apply to all 
covered text providers that do not support text-to-911 services.  
52. As proposed in the Further Notice and supported by commenters, we require covered text 
providers to provide bounce-back messages only in those cases where the provider (or the provider’s text-
to-911 vendor) has direct control over the transmission of the text message.
118
  We decline to adopt 
                                                     
115
VON Coalition Reply Comments at 1-2.  See also textPlus Comments at 2 (“[textPlus] is currently unable to 
deliver text messages to 911 and very significant hurdles would need to be overcome before doing so would even be 
technically feasible”).
116
See Appendix A, 47 CFR 20.18(n)(2).
117
See, e.g., supra ¶ 30 (discussing relevant record evidence).
118
In the case of a preinstalled or downloadable interconnected text application, we define the application provider 
as having “control” for purposes of the bounce-back requirement.  However, if the user or a third party modifies or 
manipulates the application after it is installed or downloaded so that it no longer supports bounce-back, the provider  
will be presumed not to have control.     
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
19
BRETSA’s proposal that a bounce-back be provided in every instance where a confirmation of delivery is 
not received by the text provider, because this may include circumstances outside the text provider’s 
control.  However, we agree with BRETSA that a bounce-back message should be provided when the text 
provider cannot determine the PSAP to which the text should be routed.
53. We further clarify that the obligation of an interconnected text provider with respect to 
providing an automatic bounce-back message may differ depending on whether the application uses an 
IP-based network or a CMRS provider’s underlying SMS network to deliver text messages to text-
capable telephone numbers.  Some interconnected text applications use IP-based transmissions to route 
text messages to a server, which then converts the message to SMS if necessary for delivery to the 
destination number.
119
  In such cases, the interconnected text service provider is responsible for delivering 
an application-based automatic bounce-back message to consumers if and when text-to-911 is 
unavailable.  Other interconnected text applications are configured to transmit text messages in SMS 
format directly over the SMS network of the consumer’s underlying CMRS provider, which will result in 
the application user receiving a bounce-back message from the CMRS provider when text-to-911 is not 
available.
120
  In these cases, where the text message defaults to the underlying CMRS provider’s network, 
the interconnected text provider satisfies its consumer notification obligation so long as it does not 
prevent or inhibit the CMRS provider’s automatic bounce-back message from being delivered to the 
application user.
54. We also require covered text providers that are delivering texts to PSAPs that are 
supporting text-to-911 to provide a mechanism for the PSAP to request temporary suspension of text for 
any reason, including but not limited to network congestion, call-taker overload, PSAP failure, or security 
breach.
121
  In those circumstances, the covered text provider must provide a bounce-back message to any 
consumer attempting to send a text to 911 in the area covered by the temporary suspension.  Covered text 
providers must also provide a mechanism to allow PSAPs to resume text-to-911 service after such 
temporary suspension.  As suggested by NENA, we encourage carriers, interconnected text messaging 
providers and PSAPs to establish standard protocols and interfaces for triggering these mechanisms.  
While some providers have argued that requiring bounce-back messages during temporary shutdowns 
would lead to potential delays and otherwise would be difficult to implement,
122
we believe it is important 
that providers provide bounce-back messages when a PSAP requests temporary suspension of text-to-911.  
Moreover, based on the record, we find that providing bounce-back messages in such circumstances is 
currently technically feasible.
123
   Given the potentially grave public safety implications of failing to 
                                                     
119
For example, TextMe (go-text.me/) and Heywire (www.heywire.com).
120
For example, Apple Messages (www.apple.com/ios/messages/).
121
See, e.g., Further Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 15670 ¶ 32 & n.70 (proposing and seeking comment on whether an 
automatic bounce-back notification should be provided when, inter alia, a PSAP is unable to accept texts to 911, 
including circumstances where the PSAP may not be able to handle all incoming text messages, and discussing the 
temporary blocking of messages and sending of return bounce-back messages).
122
See Letter from Joseph P. Marx, Assistant Vice President, AT&T Services Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission (May 2, 2013); Letter from Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, 
Regulatory Affairs, CTIA-The Wireless Association, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission (May 3, 2013).
123
For example, Verizon already provides a solution that allows PSAPs to stop and reinstate bounce-back messages.  
Verizon states that it “presents a PSAP with three different text-to-911 options: a web browser interface; a direct IP 
connection; and SMS-to-TTY conversion. For all three options, the bounceback message is sent if the PSAP has 
reached a pre-established limit it has designated for the number of concurrent 911 text sessions.  In addition, the 
PSAP can re-initiate the bounceback message for all 911 texts by ‘closing the PSAP’ from its own premises through 
an administrator tool or by instructing designated personnel at the vendor’s Text Control Center to initiate the
bounceback on the PSAP’s behalf.  In the web browser option, the PSAP can also reinitiate the bounceback message 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
20
provide bounce-back notifications when text-to-911 service is temporarily unavailable, we believe it 
serves the public interest to mandate bounce-back notifications in such circumstances.  We also 
emphasize that the bounce-back requirement will only apply where the PSAP requests the temporary 
shutdown using a notification mechanism established by the provider or the provider’s vendor for this 
purpose.  We encourage PSAPs and covered text providers to work together when establishing temporary 
shutdown mechanisms, so that both PSAPs and providers are clearly apprised of their respective roles and 
have established procedures in place for establishing such temporary shutdowns.
124
D. Implementation Deadline
55. Background.  We sought comment in the Further Notice on whether it is feasible for all 
CMRS providers and third-party providers to provide their customers with an automatic notification by 
June 30, 2013,
125
the same date by which the four major carriers agreed to implement bounce-back 
messaging in the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement.
126
  We also sought comment regarding any 
significant technical issues that would bear on the achievability of an automatic message within that time 
frame by small, regional, or rural CMRS providers.
127
56. Public safety entities generally support the Commission’s proposal to require that 
bounce-back messaging begin on June 30, 2013.  APCO argues that “[p]ublicity regarding text-to-9-1-1 is 
increasingly creating a false public impression that text-to-9-1-1 capability exists today across the nation 
when, in fact, it is only available in a handful of test areas.  Thus, the bounce-back message requirement 
must become effective as soon as possible, certainly by the June 30, 2013, date set forth in the Carrier-
NENA-APCO Agreement and proposed in the FNPRM.”
128
  Texas 911 Entities believes implementing 
automatic notification by June 30 is necessary to meet growing consumer expectations and use of text 
during emergencies.
129
  Similarly, TCS believes that “all CMRS providers can comply with a June 30, 
2013 bounce-back message (indicating the carrier / application is not offering the service at this time) 
implementation compliance date [and] many if not most text/messaging applications [providers] should 
be able to meet this date as well.”
130
  NENA argues that “the large benefits and small additional costs of 
implementing bounce-back messaging sooner rather than later militate in favor of imposing a requirement 
that providers of integrated or interconnected text messaging service begin offering bounce-back 
messaging service to consumers on reasonable and appropriate timeframes.”
131
  NENA, however, believes 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
by completely logging out of the application.”  Letter of Nneka Chiazor, Executive Director, Federal Regulatory 
Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (May 1, 2013) at 1.
124
We note that the current ATIS standard provides that, “If an SMS to 9-1-1 message cannot be routed to a text-
capable PSAP from a given location, the [Text Control Center] shall generate a bounce-back message indicating that 
SMS to 9-1-1 is not available in their location and the subscriber should place a voice call to 9-1-1.”  ATIS and TIA, 
Joint ATIS/TIA Native SMS to 9-1-1 Requirements and Architecture Specification, March 2013 at 10.   
125
Further Notice at ¶¶ 28, 31.  
126
Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement at 3.  
127
Further Notice at ¶ 28.
128
APCO Comments at 2.  See alsoMaine PUC Comments at 1-2 (stating that the proposed June 30, 2013 deadline 
for implementing the error message requirement is reasonable and that an expansion of that proposed deadline 
would be contrary to the public interest); Texas 911 Entities Comments at 2; Wireless RERC Reply Comments at 3. 
129
Texas 911 Entities Comments at 2.  See also BRETSA Comments at 2-3 (“The June 30, 2013 deadline proposed 
by the Commission for service providers to provide automated error messages appears reasonable, given that several 
service providers have already agreed to the deadline”).
130
TCS Comments at 2-3.
131
NENA Comments at 2-3.  See also TCS Comments at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
21
“the Commission should adopt a bounce-back messaging requirement for integrated and interconnected 
text messaging services with a primary implementation deadline of June 30th, 2013, and a small-or-rural-
carrier deadline of August 31st, 2013.” 
132
57. While carriers generally support the June 30, 2013 deadline,
133
there is some concern that 
smaller or rural providers may need additional time.  Blooston argues that rural carriers may have 
difficulty acquiring the necessary equipment to enable text-to-911 bounce-back messaging by the June 30 
deadline,
134
and requests that “Tier III carriers be accorded adequate time to acquire and install the 
necessary equipment and software to provide bounce-back messages specifically, and text-to-911 service 
in general.”
135
  Blooston argues that if the signatories to the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement do not 
make bounce-back software available, Tier III carriers should be given one year to implement the bounce-
back message feature.
136
  CCA, however, indicates that most of its carrier members will be able to 
implement the bounce-back message by the June 30, 2013 date.
137
  Furthermore, the Rural 
Telecommunications Group (RTG) states that “it is unaware of any of its members to date who anticipate 
difficulty in complying with the proposed bounceback requirement.”
138
  Likewise, Proximiti, which 
serves an “extremely rural” licensed area, “believes it can comply with the automatic notification . . . if 
the rules and architecture remain flexible in nature.”
139
  
58. With respect to interconnected text applications, the VON Coalition states that the time 
necessary to implement an application-generated bounce-back message “would vary, depending on the 
number and complexity of an application provider’s user interfaces,” but “likely could be completed 
within six months of a Commission order.”
140
  textPlus notes that it already provides bounce-back 
messages to its users regarding connectivity.
141
59. Discussion.  We require all covered text providers to provide an automatic bounce-back 
message to any wireless consumer or user of an interconnected text messaging program or application 
who attempts to send a text to 911 where text-to-911 is not available by September 30, 2013.  In adopting 
                                                     
132
Id. at 11.
133
AT&T Comments at 6.  AT&T believes the Commission should move “aggressively to have all providers of text 
messaging services . . .[follow the same schedule as the signatories to the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement] 
because the primary aim of the bounceback message is to dispel confusion among end users of text messaging 
services about whether text-to-911 is available and whether the provider was unable to deliver any particular text-to-
911 message due to transmission issues in the provider’s network.”
134
Blooston Rural Carriers Comments at 5 (“[E]quipment manufacturers satisfy the needs of large carriers (Tier I 
and Tier II) before making equipment available to smaller carriers. . . . [T]here is no reason to believe that the 
signatories to the Agreement consider the text-to-911 and associated bounce-back software to be anything other than 
strictly proprietary, and that they have absolutely no intention of making it available to smaller carriers – carriers 
who compete with them.”) (internal citation omitted).
135
Id.  Tier III carriers are non-nationwide wireless radio service providers with 500,000 or fewer subscribers as of 
the end of 2001.  See Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency 
Calling Systems, Phase II Compliance Deadlines for Non-Nationwide CMRS Carriers, Order to Stay, 17 FCC Rcd 
14841, 14847-48 ¶¶ 22-23 (2002).
136
Blooston Rural Carriers Comments at 5.
137
See CCA Ex Parte at 1. 
138
RTG Comments at 1-2.
139
Proximiti Comments at 1.
140
VON Coalition Comments at 3-4.
141
textPlus Comments at 1-2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
22
this timeframe, we balance the need to implement a bounce-back message requirement as soon as 
possible, in order to prevent confusion and ensure that consumers can successfully and swiftly connect 
with first responders in an emergency, against the need to afford providers a reasonable period of time to 
obtain the necessary equipment and software to implement such a requirement.  
60. We agree with commenters who assert that an automatic bounce-back message 
requirement should be implemented as soon as possible.  There is widespread adoption and use of texting 
by wireless consumers, and as APCO and other parties point out, many consumers may already harbor a 
belief that text-to-911 is available.
142
  Bounce-back messaging will provide critical information regarding 
the availability of requesting emergency services via texting.  As a matter of public safety, it is critical 
that wireless consumers and users of interconnected text messaging programs and applications understand 
the features and potential limitations of such services in reaching 911.  In addition, in light of the major 
CMRS providers’ commitment to uniformly provide automatic bounce-back messages to their subscribers 
by June 30, 2013, it is important that all CMRS providers and interconnected text messaging providers 
offer automatic bounce-back messages as soon after this date as possible, in order to ensure industry-wide 
consistency in messaging to wireless consumers.  Once the largest providers implement automatic 
bounce-back messaging by June 30, 2013, consumers will increasingly expect to receive automatic 
bounce-back messages if their texts do not reach 911.  Consumers who do not receive automatic bounce-
back messages might mistakenly believe their texts have reached 911 when, in fact, the particular text 
application or PSAP does not support text-to-911.  Further, the automatic bounce-back requirement will 
be important as text-to-911 capability is rolled out on an incremental basis across the nation’s PSAPs, 
some of which may not request delivery of emergency texts.  
61. While public safety considerations dictate that we adopt the shortest practicable 
timeframe for implementing a bounce-back message requirement, we also seek to avoid imposing undue 
costs on covered text providers, particularly smaller and rural providers.  Based on the record, we think it 
is technically feasible for covered text providers to provide automatic bounce-back messaging by 
September 30, 2013.  This timeframe affords providers with additional time beyond the original June 30, 
2013 deadline discussed in the Further Notice, in order to accommodate concerns by smaller and rural 
providers that they might need more time to acquire the necessary equipment and software.
143
  While the 
Further Notice observed that carriers generally require six months to implement a bounce-back 
notification,
144
we note that several covered providers have already implemented, or begun 
implementation of, bounce-back notifications.
145
  Additionally, we note that many small and rural carriers 
have stated that they can implement bounce-back notifications by the original June 30, 2013 deadline 
established in the Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement.
146
  While we are not according a full six months 
from the release of this item to implement bounce-back messaging, we do not believe that the September 
30, 2013 deadline established in this Report and Order will pose an undue burden on carriers and we 
believe that the public safety benefits far outweigh the burden that the September 30, 2013 deadline 
would entail.
147
    
                                                     
142
See also Tarrant County at 3.
143
See, e.g., Blooston Rural Carriers Comments at 5.
144
Further Notice at ¶ 28 n.67.
145
See, e.g., Verizon Wireless 2011 Notice Comments at 18; CTIA Comments at 5; SouthernLINC Text-to-911 
Reply Comments at 3-4; CCA Ex Parte at 1; textPlus Nov. 14 Ex Parte at 1.
146
See, e.g., CCA Ex Parte at 1; Proximiti Comments at 1; RTG Comments at 1-2.
147
While we establish a September 30, 2013 implementation deadline, we urge covered providers to implement this 
requirement as soon as possible, particularly where parties suggest an earlier deadline is technically feasible.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
23
62. For the reasons of public safety and public awareness cited above, we do not find it 
appropriate to adopt any form of blanket exemption of the September 30, 2013 requirement for CMRS 
providers and interconnected text messaging providers that believe they will not be able to meet the 
deadline.  Any covered providers who are unable to implement the bounce-back requirement by 
September 30, 2013 should file a request for waiver.  Waivers or exemptions from these requirements are 
best suited to a case-by-case analysis under the waiver standard, where the facts and circumstances of 
each individual case can be determined on its own merits.
148
  Notwithstanding the availability of the 
waiver process, we emphasize the important public safety purpose of this requirement and our expectation 
that providers will implement bounce-back messaging by the deadline.
149
E. Bounce-back Message Content
63. Background. The Further Notice sought comment on the content of the proposed 
automatic bounce-back message to consumers.
150
  The Further Notice clarified that the Commission does 
not propose to require the exact same wording for automatic messages to consumers, but rather that 
providers would meet the requirement so long as the bounce-back message includes information on how 
to contact the PSAP.
151
  However, the Commission encouraged carriers to work with public safety 
organizations and disability organizations to develop a common bounce-back message text to simplify 
consumer education.
152
  As discussed below, the record is divided regarding whether the Commission 
should require specific wording for bounce-back messages.  
64. The majority of disabilities groups and public safety organizations commenting on this 
issue believe that the Commission should mandate wording for the automatic bounce-back message.  For 
example, APCO argues that the absence of such a requirement “would only create confusion by 
consumers and service providers alike” and therefore urges the adoption of a common message.
153
  
Similarly, TCS states that “a single uniform bounce-back message is preferable to unique messages,” and 
“would avoid confusion and simplify public education efforts.”
154
  NENA believes that a single standard 
                                                     
148
The Commission may, on its own motion, waive its rules for good cause shown.  47 C.F.R. § 1.3.  See also 
Northeast Cellular Telephone Co., L.P. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164, 1166 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (“FCC has authority to waive 
its rules if there is ‘good cause’ to do so.”).  The Commission may also exercise its discretion to waive a rule where 
particular facts would make strict compliance inconsistent with the public interest, and grant of a waiver would not 
undermine the policy served by the rule.  See WAIT Radio v. FCC, 418 F.2d 1153, 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1969), aff’d, 459 
F.2d 1203 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972). 
149
We note that several public safety entities supporting a June 30, 2013 deadline acknowledge that a waiver may 
be appropriate in limited instances.  Given the additional time we are affording covered providers to implement the 
automatic bounce-back message requirement, we anticipate that few, if any, will require a waiver.  See BRETSA 
Comments at 2-3 (“[t]he Commission should grant any such waivers for limited periods to assure that service 
providers continue to work diligently” toward implementation); NENA Reply Comments at 2, 5 (supporting a June 
30, 2013 deadline, “coupled with a tough but fair waiver regime,” and recommending that the Commission 
“establish a process for requesting and receiving no more than a 60-day extension”); see also Texas 911 Entities 
Reply Comments at 3 (“limited, temporary waivers” may be appropriate in “very special circumstances”).  
150
Further Notice at ¶ 32.
151
Id.
152
Id.
153
APCO Comments at 2.
154
TCS Comments at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
24
notice will ease the conduct of training and public education campaigns related to text-to-911 
deployment.
155
65. A number of parties submit specific language for a standard automatic bounce-back 
message.  For example, based on its work with consumer groups and disability rights advocates, NENA 
advocates that automatic bounce-back messages read:  “Please make a voice or relay call to 9-1-1.  Text-
to-9-1-1 service is not available at this time.”
156
  NENA states that its model language satisfies four key 
“key criteria” necessary for successful automatic bounce-back messaging.  Specifically, NENA argues 
that automatic bounce-back messages should: (1) provide consumers with an unambiguous message that 
text messaging is not available; (2) instruct consumers to place a voice call to 9-1-1; (3) remind 
consumers who may be unable to conduct a voice call of alternative means of accessing 9-1-1; and (4) 
allow space for carrier-specific text, “such as carrier identification or an indication that the bounce-back 
message was provided at no cost to the consumer.”
157
  Other providers offering specific language include 
Consumer Groups and TAP,
158
COM 390,
159
ATIS and TIA.
160
  
66. On the other hand, industry commenters addressing this issue generally support the 
Commission’s proposal to allow parties the flexibility to develop their own wording to comply with the 
automatic bounce-back message requirement.  CTIA states that “[p]ermitting flexibility in the wording of 
automated messages is beneficial because it avoids requiring carriers to revise the work that has already 
been done to implement bounce-back notification systems.  The proposal also will allow wireless carriers 
to continue to research and develop wording that is most appropriate to include in the automatic 
messages.”
161
  AT&T agrees, stating that “a ‘one size fits all’ regime on the bounce-back messages will 
potentially make compliance more difficult and costly,” and that providers “will need to develop 
messages appropriate to the services they offer.”
162
  Similarly, CCA argues that rural and regional 
providers should be allowed to develop the most effective message for their unique customer base.
163
  
With regard to interconnected text applications, the VON Coalition supports “safe harbor language and 
guidance on the minimum criteria for the text of the alert.”
164
  In light of the fact that OTT application 
providers generally are unable to connect users to 911, and to limit the potential for customer confusion, 
the VON Coalition argues that the Commission “should limit the obligation to a message generated by the 
                                                     
155
NENA Comments at 6-7.  NENA also recommends that further development work be performed by a 
subcommittee of the EACC.  Id.  
156
Id.  
157
Id.  NENA proposes that if the Commission does not prescribe a standard bounce-back message, then it should 
require that any bounce-back message used by a carrier or interconnected text message service provider meet these
four key criteria.
158
Consumer Groups and TAP Comments at 8 (recommending the message state, “YOUR TEXT TO 9-1-1 WAS 
NOT RECEIVED BECAUSE TEXT SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA.  DIAL 9-1-1 BY VOICE 
OR USE RELAY”). 
159
COM 390 Comments at 2 (COM 390 suggests “Text-to-911 service not available. Call 9-1-1 for emergency.”).
160
ATIS and TIA Reply Comments at 5 (ATIS and TIA report that ATIS has developed a draft standard for bounce-
back messages, and that the draft standard “recommends that service providers consider utilizing a straight-forward, 
clear bounce-back message similar to the following:  ‘Make a voice call to 911 for help; text to 911 is not 
available.’”).  Id.
161
CTIA Comments at 8.
162
AT&T Comments at 5.
163
CCA Reply Comments at 5-6.
164
VON Coalition Comments at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
25
application notifying users that 911 is inaccessible from the application and that they should use 
alternative means to contact their local PSAP.”
165
  For purposes of a safe harbor, the VON Coalition 
suggests, “This application is not capable of connecting to 911.  Please make a voice or relay call to 
contact 911.’”
166
  
67. Parties also suggest the type of information that should be included in the automatic 
bounce-back message.  BRETSA states that automatic bounce-back messages should “always encourage 
users to call 9-1-1 if they can safely do so.”
167
  Some commenters believe the bounce-back message 
should contain specific information explaining why the text cannot be routed to the nearest PSAP.  For 
example, Consumer Groups and TAP explain that “consumers should know whether the bounce-back 
message is the result of the inability of the most appropriate PSAP to receive messages, or if the 
application by design or by circumstance was not able to transmit (such as due to network congestion or 
due to roaming), regardless if the PSAP is accepting text messages or not.”
168
  Similarly, the Wireless 
RERC believes that “providing [specific] information within the bounce-back message will enable people 
to more rapidly assess the situation and take appropriate alternative actions.”
169
  On a related note, 
MobileTREC asks that bounce-back messages be provided to acknowledge receipt of a text to 911, stating 
that “the acknowledgment of a request for help during an emergency could substantially aid a citizen in 
need [and suggests] that the scope of the bounce-back be expanded to include an acknowledgment of 
receipt: a message indicating that the text has arrived and is being routed to a 911 dispatcher for 
handling.”
170
  
68. Regardless of whether they support specific wording for the content of automatic bounce-
back messages, parties generally support close coordination between industry and disability and consumer 
groups in developing an automatic bounce-back message.  AT&T states that “providers should be 
encouraged to work with the public safety community as part of their message development process 
[because] a bounce-back message that includes input from the public safety community, but which meets 
the specifications of each individual text messaging service, will further the goal of reducing, if not 
eliminating, public confusion over the availability of text-to-911.”
171
  Fairfax County states that the 
automatic bounce-back message should be “a consistently worded and standardized message, and 
encourages the Commission to work with the appropriate standards and industry associations to develop 
the specific wording of a concise, accurate, and meaningful ‘bounce-back’ error message.”
172
  TCS 
indicates that “a message developed in consultation with disability organizations, via coordination by the 
Commission, would yield the simplest effective message for all user communities.”
173
Wireless RERC 
believes it is imperative that the language used in the bounce-back error message be vetted amongst 
                                                     
165
Id. at 8.  The VON Coalition that language that indicates test-to-911 is not available “at this time,” arguing that 
such language “may inaccurately convey that the user should try again after a few minutes.” VON Coalition Reply 
Comments at 2.
166
VON Coalition Comments at 2-3.
167
BRETSA Comments at 3-4 (suggesting that a message read, “Help will arrive sooner if you CALL 9-1-1”); see 
also Consumer Groups and TAP Comments at 8 (stating the bounce-back message should include “brief instructions 
on calling the most appropriate 9-1-1 center”).
168
Consumer Groups and TAP Comments at 8.  
169
Wireless RERC Reply Comments at 4.
170
Mobile TREC Comments at 2.
171
AT&T Comments at 5.
172
Fairfax County Comments at 1-2.
173
TCS Comments at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
26
people whose primary language is American Sign Language (ASL).
174
  Similarly, TCS states that “a 
message that directed the texter to make a ‘voice call’ may be inappropriate for deaf/hearing impaired 
users, one of the important user populations for text-to-91 1, and alternative language should be used in 
the notification message.”
175
69. Discussion. We require all covered text providers to provide an automatic bounce-back 
message that includes, at a minimum, two essential points of information: (1) that text-to-911 is not 
available; and (2) that the consumer should try to contact 911 using another means.  As an example, a 
sufficient bounce-back message that satisfies our criteria could say: There is no text-to-911 service 
available. Make a voice call to 911 or use another means to contact emergency services. We decline to 
require covered text providers to use specific wording, as recommended by some commenters.
176
  We 
believe our approach affords covered text providers with the necessary guidance and flexibility to create 
bounce-back messages that are understood by their particular consumer base.  In addition, the approach 
we adopt today enables covered text providers to continue to use the messages they presently have in 
operation, to the extent that they conform to our criteria.
177
  This approach also provides sufficient 
uniformity in automatic bounce-back messages to allow for consistent training and public education 
materials.    
F. Other Technical Issues
1. Roaming
70. Background.  In the Further Notice, we agreed with commenters that it is critical for 
consumers who are roaming to have the ability to text to 911during an emergency.
178
  We noted that the 
Carrier-NENA-APCO Voluntary Commitment does not provide for text-to-911 service while a subscriber 
is roaming.
179
  We sought comment, therefore, on whether both the home and visited network operators 
must cooperate to support the delivery of the text to the appropriate PSAP serving the sender’s location 
when a consumer sends a text message to 911 while roaming.  We also sought comment on any technical 
limitations SMS roaming poses regarding collecting location information on a roaming subscriber.
180
71. APCO states “the bounceback messaging should be transparent to subscribers, regardless 
[of] whether they are on the home network or roaming.  In all cases, an individual seeking assistance via a 
text message to 9-1-1 needs to know whether or not the text is delivered to a PSAP.”
181
  However, Texas 
                                                     
174
Wireless RERC Comments at 4 (noting that “ASL is the fourth most common language used in the U.S. so the 
accommodation would benefit a significant population,” and that, in focus groups conducted to explore the usability 
of ASL video formats for wireless emergency alerts, “participants emphasized the fact that some phrases and 
expressions do not translate well into ASL [and] abbreviations and technical terms that may be used in the bounce-
back error messages may essentially get lost in translation”).    
175
TCS Comments at 5.
176
We note that our action today does not preclude the voluntary adoption of a common automatic bounce-back 
message by covered text providers, developed by industry in coordination with public safety, consumer groups, 
disability rights advocates, and other interested parties.  We encourage close and continued coordination among all 
relevant parties to ensure the successful implementation of the automatic bounce-back message requirement.
177
Examples of current bounce-back messages that would satisfy our criteria include those offered by Heywire 
(“Heywire does not support Enhanced 911.  If you are in need of emergency services, please dial 911 on your 
landline or mobile phone”) and Verizon (“Please make a voice call to 911.  There is no text service to 911 available 
at this time”).
178
Further Notice at ¶ 126.
179
See Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement at 3.
180
Further Notice at ¶ 126.
181
APCO Reply Comments at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
27
911 Entities points out that “[b]ecause the voice network and the SMS network treat ‘roaming’ 
differently, it appears that the home carrier of a SMS subscriber may currently need to be responsible for 
generating the required bounce back message [thus] consistent with the further  investigation suggested 
during the January 11, 2013 EAAC meeting, the Commission should further consider the issue of 
‘roaming’ in the context of SMS provider responsibilities for bounce back messages.”  MobileTREC 
states that “the concept of roaming has never been considered to be a barrier to reaching a 911 operator 
[and] [c]itizens are used to a 911 system that simply works everywhere and without consideration or 
exception.”  MobileTREC argues further that “lack of roaming support in text-to-911 introduces an 
unacceptable level of uncertainty [and] could substantially increase the risk of a failed implementation, 
since very few citizens know when and where or if they are roaming.”
182
  Blooston states that “the 
proposal contained in the FNPRM does not contemplate that text-to-911 will be offered outside a carrier's 
home market, and that carriers would be under no duty to provide the service to roamers.  This means that 
the proposed requirement has limited scope.”
183
72. Discussion.  We require all CMRS providers to provide an automatic bounce-back 
message when a consumer roaming on a network initiates a text-to-911 in an area where text-to-911 
service is not available.  We agree with commenters that consumers should have access to critical 
information about whether text-to-911 service is available, regardless of whether the consumer is 
roaming.  As MobileTREC points out, consumers roaming on other carriers’ networks have an 
expectation that they can access 911 services in an emergency.
184
  Given the important safety of life 
implications, carriers should make automatic bounce-back messages available to consumers roaming on 
their network to the same extent they provide such messages to their own subscribers.
2. Limited Exception for Certain Devices
73. Legacy Mobile Devices.  Motorola Mobility reports that “it has released well in excess of 
100 mobile device and software combinations in the U.S. market within the past four years, none of 
which has been tested for support of 911 as an SMS short code, as this was not a carrier or Commission 
requirement at the time of development.”  According to Motorola Mobility, “[t]he the multiplicity of 
hardware/software combinations, coupled with the ability of customers to customize their devices, make[] 
it virtually impossible for manufacturers to determine which of their legacy devices are capable of 
sending texts via three digit short codes.”
185
74. Discussion.  We recognize that certain legacy devices are not capable of sending text 
messages to a three-digit short code.  For those devices that are not capable of generating messages to 911 
and whose text messaging software cannot be upgraded over the air (e.g., through a push software 
upgrade), the CMRS provider will never receive a message and thus cannot generate a bounce-back 
message.
186
  We clarify that legacy devices that are incapable of sending texts via three digit short codes 
are not subject to the bounce-back message requirement, provided the software for these devices cannot 
be upgraded over the air to allow text-to-911.  In such cases, the messaging application or interface on the 
mobile device will likely provide an error message indicating an invalid destination number, reducing 
user confusion somewhat even if the message is less specific than the bounce-back message.  If the text 
                                                     
182
MobileTREC Comments at 3.
183
Blooston Comments at 4.
184
See MobileTREC Comments at 3.
185
Motorola Mobility Comments at 2-3.  See also CTIA Comments at 7; CCA Reply Comments at 3
186
See Motorola Mobility Comments at 2-3 (arguing that the proposed bounce-back message requirement would not 
help customers who may be located in an area where text-to-911 is supported but who are using a device that is not 
technically capable of sending a three digit short code).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
28
messaging software can be upgraded, however, we treat such devices in the same manner as the software 
offered by interconnected text providers.
187
75. Non-Service Initialized Devices.  Several commenters request that we clarify the 
automatic bounce-back message requirement does not extend to non-service initialized (NSI) handsets.  
For example, Texas 911 Entities states that “the Commission should avoid any erroneous inferences that 
the Commission intends to require ‘non-service initiated’ (‘NSI’) text-to-911.”
188
  Similarly, APCO 
“agrees with comments suggesting that the Commission modify its definitions to clarify that non-service 
initialized (NSI) handsets are not subject to text-to-9-1-1 requirements.”
189
  
76. Discussion.  We clarify that CMRS providers are not required to provide an automatic 
bounce-back message when a consumer attempts to text 911 on a non-service initialized phone. 
Deliberations of the EAAC have affirmed that the text capability of non-service initialized handsets is 
neither technically nor economically feasible.
190
  The EAAC Subcommittee #1 Report states that “under 
existing wireless network architectures and standards for SMS, wireless carrier SMS text message 
services are subscription-based and only service-initialized SMS-capable mobile devices have SMS text 
message functionality.”
191
  The EAAC Subcommittee #1 Report further notes that supporting SMS text 
messages to 911 is not feasible on non-service initialized phones because it “would require new standards 
and significant modifications to handsets already available to end users and the wireless originator 
network radio and core infrastructure.”
192
  At the same time, we note that some providers may provide 
text messaging solutions that allow users to send text messages even on NSI phones (e.g.,Wi-Fi-enabled 
text applications).  We clarify that those text providers must still provide bounce-back messaging 
consistent with the rules we adopt today.
G. Consumer Education
1. Responsibility for Consumer Education
77. Background.  In the Further Notice, we found that educating the public is critical to the 
successful roll-out of text-to-911 and preventing consumer confusion.
193
  We also emphasized in the 
Further Notice that education is imperative to inform the public about the capabilities and limitations of 
text-to-911 where it is available, and the circumstances under which texting 911 is or is not preferable to 
making a 911 voice call.  In the Further Notice, we sought comment on what degree current 911 
educational programs could be adapted to help consumers understand the availability, capability, and 
appropriate use of text-to-911, how the Commission can ensure that education and outreach efforts on 
text-to-911 are fully accessible to people with disabilities, and on what lessons we can draw from prior 
educational efforts and educational programs in other countries.
194
  We also sought comment on whether 
covered providers should provide educational information to consumers about the availability and use of 
text-to-911 and on the text-to-911 capabilities of specific wireless devices on their network.
195
  Finally, 
                                                     
187
See supra III.B.2.
188
Texas 911 Entities Reply Comments at 2.
189
APCO Reply Comments at 1 (citing CTIA Comments at 10).
190
See, e.g., Report of Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) Subcommittee 1 on Interim Text Messaging 
to 9-1-1, March 1, 2013 at 9.  
191
Id. 
192
Id. 
193
Further Notice at ¶ 36.
194
Further Notice at ¶ 38.
195
Id. at ¶ 39.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
29
we sought comment on who should bear primary responsibility for educating consumers on the limits of 
text-to-911 and whether the ability to send test text messages to PSAPs could facilitate consumer 
education.
196
78. Commenters generally agree that a public education campaign on both the availability of 
and limitations to text-to-911 is critical during the transition to full text-to-911 implementation.
197
  As 
noted earlier in this proceeding,
198
text messages (especially SMS texts) have considerable limitations for 
emergency response as compared to 911 voice calls, and many commenters stress that consumers must be 
educated to use text messaging to 911 only in certain situations.
199
  Moreover, advocates for the disability 
community stress the importance of extending consumer education efforts to everyone.
200
  To that end, 
the Consumer Groups and TAP add that “education and outreach efforts to consumers [should] emphasize 
the importance of including specific location in text messages when it is available.  Callers should be 
aware to type information to guide the responders: ‘I am in apartment B’; ‘I am under the kitchen 
table.’”
201
79. Numerous commenters assert that educating the public on text-to-911 capabilities is the 
joint responsibility of all 911 stakeholders, including state and local 911 authorities, service providers, 
CMRS providers, and the Commission.
202
  At the same time, some commenters highlight the increasingly 
tight budgets of state and local 911 authorities, giving them limited ability to educate the public 
sufficiently on text-to-911.
203
  Several commenters suggest that the Commission is the best suited for the 
lead role in text-to-911 consumer education efforts.
204
                                                     
196
Id. at ¶¶ 40-41.
197
See, e.g., APCO Comments at 3; CTIA Comments at 11; MobileTrec Comments at 4; BRETSA Comments at 11;  
Maine PUC Comments at 2; NENA Comments at 8; TCS Comments at 6; Consumer Groups and TAP Comments at 
10; Tarrant County Comments at 4; Shaun Ford of NE, Oregon at 1.
198
Further Notice at ¶ 37 (“[a]side from educating the public about the availability or unavailability of text-to-911, 
education is also imperative to inform the public about the capabilities and limitations of text-to-911 where it is 
available, and the circumstances under which texting 911 is or is not preferable to making a 911 voice call”).
199
See, e.g., BRETSA Comments at 11-12; APCO Comments at 3; Sprint Nextel Comments at 8; TCS Comments at 
6.
200
Consumer Groups and TAP Comments at 10; Maine PUC Comments at 2 (Because text-to-911 will be especially 
valuable to those with hearing or speech difficulties in emergencies, it is obviously essential that the materials be 
accessible to those with disabilities); COM390 Comments at 4 (“[E]ducation and outreach information must be 
accessible to people with disabilities, including people who are deaf, hard of hearing, deaf-blind, visually impaired, 
blind, have a speech disability, and others. The same information also should be available in multiple languages, 
including ASL and Spanish.”); Wireless RERC Reply Comments at 4-5 (“Materials should be available in 
alternative formats (i.e., braille, large print, electronic, accessible PDF etc.) and televised PSAs or other promotional 
videos should always have captions and ASL interpretations. Any awareness campaign should include radio, 
television, and web content specifically aimed at reaching people with disabilities by not only making the content 
accessible, but by including persons with disabilities as actors in the PSAs.”).
201
Consumer Groups and TAP Comments at 10.
202
BRETSA Comments at 11-12; Texas 911 Entities Comments at 2-3; NENA Comments at 7; AT&T Comments at 
7; Sprint Nextel Comments at 7; CTIA Comments at 11; TCS Comments at 6-7; NENA Comments at 7.
203
BRETSA Comments at 12; Fairfax, VA Comments at 3. 
204
See, e.g., NENA Comments at 8-9; CTIA Comments at 12; AT&T Comments at 7; Sprint Nextel Comments at 7-
8; Wireless RERC Reply Comments at 5-6.  Some commenters suggest that Commission-led education campaigns 
can utilize existing 911 education tools for cost-effective education programs in the future.  See, e.g., NENA 
Comments at 8; BRETSA Comments at 13; AT&T Comments at 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
30
80. Some commenters favor an industry-led information campaign.  BRETSA suggests that 
service providers are uniquely positioned to best educate consumers about text-to-911: “Service providers 
have the ability to educate their customers through device packaging, multimedia tutorials pre-loaded on 
devices they sell for use on their networks, and through service-provider ‘free text messages,’ e-mails, bill 
inserts or prepaid card packaging, and web site content; as well as customer-initiated phone, internet chat, 
and retail location contacts.”
205
  Fairfax County, Virginia suggests that “[o]ne element of such public 
education could emulate the ‘push messages’ that telecommunication providers send their customers via 
email, text message, and the like to alert them that their ‘monthly allocated usage minutes have reached 
50% of their agreed plan for the month.’  Using ‘push messages’ to provide targeted and appropriately 
timed text-to-911 capability reminders and "helpful hints" would be a simple and effective method of 
educating the public in a meaningful and repeatable fashion.”
206
  Furthermore, Wireless RERC says that 
“the bounce-back message in itself can act as a consumer education tool; alerting users to the limitations 
of text-to-911 and reinforcing the message that when possible, voice or relay calls to 911 are the preferred 
method.”
207
  AT&T, however, cautions that consumer education information from service providers could 
come across as self-serving.
208
81. With regard to funding education efforts, Consumer Groups and TAP suggest that the 
Commission “contract with independent consumer based organizations, and/or regional coalitions to 
provide direct training for consumers” on the advantages and disadvantages of text-to-911.
209
  They also 
advocate that “the Commission to set aside one million dollars from the Interstate [Telecommunications 
Relay Service (TRS)] Fund to provide funding for each of the first two years.”
210
82. Discussion.  The record confirms that wide scale and substantive consumer education 
will be a critical factor in ensuring that consumers fully understand the uses and limitations of text-to-911.  
The Commission has already committed the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (PSHSB) and 
the Consumer and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB) to implement a comprehensive 
consumer education program concerning text-to-911, and to coordinate their efforts with state and local 
911 authorities, other federal and state agencies, public safety organizations, industry, disability 
organizations, and consumer groups, consistent with those voluntary measures taken under the Carrier-
NENA-APCO Agreement.  Based on the record, we agree with commenters that the Commission’s public 
website can serve as a centralized information portal for all consumers and we direct PSHSB and CGB to 
put in place a consumer information website that provides the public with information and instructions on 
how and when to use text-to-911 no later than June 30, 2013.  We also direct the Bureaus to ensure that 
all content is accessible to individuals with hearing and speech disabilities.  We direct both Bureaus to 
work with representatives of the ASL community to include materials and videos providing instructional 
material.
211
                                                     
205
BRETSA Comments at 12-13.  See also TCS Comments at 6-7; NENA Comments at 9.
206
Fairfax, VA Comments at 3.
207
Wireless RERC Reply Comments at 3-4.
208
AT&T Comments at 8.  NENA echoes this sentiment, noting that “information about wireless devices that are 
compatible with text-to-9-1-1 will be made available to consumers on a widespread basis due to natural competitive 
forces and voluntary commitments,” and that the Commission should “stand ready to require the identification of 
compatible devices offered for sale by a carrier if such information is not made accessible within a reasonable time 
for at least a subset of popular subscriber equipment offered for sale by the carrier.”  NENA Comments at 9.
209
Consumer Groups and TAP Comments at 10.
210
Id.
211
We note, however, that the Interstate TRS Fund is not an appropriate vehicle for funding outreach and public 
education about text-to-911, because the TRS Fund is solely intended to compensate TRS providers for their 
reasonable costs of providing interstate and IP-based TRS, and state and local certified programs that distribute 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
31
83. The Carrier-NENA-APCO Agreement includes an outreach effort to “set and manage 
consumer expectations” regarding text-to-911.  We encourage all carriers to follow that model and work 
with NENA, APCO and the FCC to provide information regarding the text-to-911 capabilities of specific 
wireless devices operate on their networks.  We decline at this time to require carriers and interconnected 
text messaging providers to prepare specific informational materials to be provided to their customers or 
revise their terms of service agreements to describe the limitations associated with text-to-911.  We 
believe carriers and interconnected text message providers will provide this information on their own and 
in the manner that works best to educate their subscribers.
2. Consumer Testing
84. Background.  The Further Notice sought comment on the feasibility of providing 
consumers with the ability to test text-to-911 functionality on their devices.
212
  The Further Notice 
suggested that allowing customers to send simulated or test 911 messages could benefit consumers by 
enabling them to verify the availability of text-to-911 and familiarize themselves with its use.
213
  
However, the Commission cautioned that any test mechanism would need to be configured to avoid 
burdening PSAPs with unnecessary text messages, for example, by having the carrier or 911 text services 
provider reply to test messages with an automated response.
214
  The Further Notice also sought comment 
on both technical and cost issues associated with developing such a test capability.
215
85. Most commenters oppose allowing consumer testing of text-to-911 functionality.
216
  
NENA expresses concern that “requiring or allowing the handling of test messages could inundate PSAPs 
or service providers if mal-formed test messages are not effectively screened out, and could expose 
service providers or PSAPs to liability if non-test messages accidently are screened out.”
217
  APCO states  
that “[s]ending a ‘test text’ would run counter to long-standing public education messages that ‘9-1-1’ 
should only be used when there is a genuine emergency.”
218
AT&T states that testing will not verify the 
availability of text-to-911 “because among other things, in many cases the real emergency text will be 
sent while the subscriber is mobile and not necessarily in his or her ‘home PSAP area.”
219
  In addition, 
AT&T states that consumers are already familiar with using text messaging services and therefore do not 
need text-to-911 testing.
220
86. Some commenters believe that consumer testing of text-to-911 could be worthwhile, but 
stress that any form of testing must avoid adversely impacting PSAP operations.
221
  Motorola Mobility 
and TCS suggest using a short code other than 9-1-1 as an alternative test code that would generate an 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
equipment to people who are deaf-blind for their distributed equipment and associated services.  See 64.604 
(c)(5)((iii); 47 CFR §64.610, et. seq.
212
Further Notice at ¶ 41.
213
Id. at ¶ 41.
214
Id. at ¶ 41.
215
Id. at ¶ 41.
216
See Texas 911 Entities Reply Comments at 3-4; APCO Reply Comments at 1-2, 3; County of Fairfax, VA at 3-4; 
NENA at 9-10; BRETSA at 16.  
217
NENA Reply Comments at 9-10.
218
APCO Reply Comments at 3.
219
AT&T Reply Comments at 9-10.
220
Id. 
221
See T-Mobile Reply Comments at 4; TCS Reply Comments at 7-8; Motorola Mobility Reply Comments at 3-4. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
32
automatic return message from the carrier.
222
Maine PUC states that testing must be kept outside of the 
live 911 environment, while APCO calls for any testing to be confined to a “controlled closed-loop”
223
  
Public safety commenters also suggest alternatives to testing such as providing the public with maps 
containing information about the geographic availability of text-to-9-1-1 service.
224
  NENA suggests that 
the testing issue be referred to the EAAC for further study.
225
  
87. Discussion.  We decline to require covered text providers to provide consumers with text-
to-911 testing capability at this time. Although there are potential benefits to text-to-911 testing, we 
believe that without further exploration of how a testing mechanism would be configured, these benefits 
are likely to be outweighed by the potential for disruption and drain on PSAP resources.  Moreover, even 
if a testing mechanism could be developed in which test messages stay within the provider’s network and 
are not delivered to the PSAP or are handled automatically by software at the PSAP, it is not clear that 
such testing would educate or inform consumers or that it would diminish the risk of consumers sending 
actual texts to 911 for test purposes. Further, we believe that the bounce-back messaging requirements we 
adopt in this Report and Order will inform the consumers of the actual text-to-911 capability in specific 
and varying locations as people travel and encounter emergencies.  Therefore, until operational 
experience indicates otherwise, we believe that consumer education efforts should discourage the sending 
of texts to 911 except in actual emergencies.
H. Legal Authority
88. In the Further Notice, we sought comment on the Commission’s authority to apply the 
bounce-back requirement to both CMRS providers and other entities that offer interconnected text 
messaging services (including third-party providers of “over-the- top” or “OTT” text messaging 
applications).
226
  We noted that, in response to the 2011 Notice, numerous parties addressed the 
Commission’s authority to adopt text-to-911 rules under Title III, the CVAA, and our ancillary 
authority.
227
  We then asked parties to refresh the record on the legal authority issues and to address their 
comments to the particular rules proposed in the Further Notice.
228
  We now conclude that Title III, the 
CVAA, and our ancillary authority grant the Commission authority to adopt the rules imposed by this 
Order.
229
1. Title III
89. We begin with the Commission’s legal authority under Title III of the Communications 
Act.
230
  We find that numerous Title III provisions provide the Commission with direct authority to 
                                                     
222
Motorola Mobility Reply Comments at 3-4; TCS Reply Comments at 7-8.
223
Maine PUC Reply Comments at 2; APCO Reply Comments at 1-2.
224
APCO Reply Comments at 10-11; Texas 911 Entities at 3-4.
225
NENA Reply Comments at 9-10.
226
Further Notice, ¶¶ 168-72.  
227
Further Notice, ¶ 168.
228
Further Notice, ¶¶ 168-69.
229
In this Order, we are only deciding the scope of the Commission’s authority to adopt a bounce-back requirement, 
which we proposed in Part III.A of the Further Notice.  See Further Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 15667-73 (¶¶ 21-41).  
The Commission sought separate comment on all other sections of the Further Notice, including the proposal to 
require CMRS providers and other providers of interconnected text messaging services to support the ability of 
consumers to send text messages to 911.  The Commission will address those issues and the scope of our legal 
authority to adopt those proposals in a subsequent decision.
230
See 47 U.S.C. § 301 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
33
impose the bounce-back requirement on CMRS providers.  Indeed, the Supreme Court has long 
recognized that Title III grants the FCC “expansive powers” and a “comprehensive mandate” to regulate 
the use of spectrum in the public interest.
231
  In Cellco, one of the most recent decisions of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) regarding the scope of our Title III authority, the court 
recognized these long-standing principles and explained that Title III confers on the FCC “broad authority 
to manage spectrum . . . in the public interest.”
232
90. We conclude that Sections 301,
233
303,
234
307,
235
309,
236
and 316,
237
taken together or 
individually, provide the FCC with authority to apply the bounce-back requirement to CMRS providers.  
For example, Section 303(b) authorizes the FCC to “[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by 
each class of licensed stations and each station within any class.”
238
  Addressing the scope of this 
provision in Cellco,
239
the D.C. Circuit recognized that Section 303(b) authorizes the FCC to “lay[] down 
a rule about ‘the nature of the service to be rendered’ by entities licensed” by the Commission.
240
  The 
court further explained that, while a provider may choose not to offer a wireless service, Section 303(b) 
authorizes the Commission to “define[] the form” that the “service must take for those who seek a license 
to offer it.”
241
91. We conclude that Section 303(b) provides the Commission with authority to apply the 
bounce-back requirement to CMRS providers because the rule prescribes the nature of the service to be 
                                                     
231
Nat’l Broad. Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 219 (1943) (recognizing the FCC’s “expansive powers” and 
“comprehensive mandate”); see also Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio Service 
Providers and Other Providers of Mobile Data Services, Second Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 5411, 5439-5443 
(¶¶ 61-64) (2011) (discussing the scope of the FCC’s Title III authority) (“Data Roaming Order”), petition for 
review denied Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 700 F.3d 534 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (upholding the FCC’s authority to rely on 
Title III provisions to impose the data roaming rule).  
232
Cellco, 700 F.3d at 541(quotation marks omitted).  
233
47 U.S.C. § 301 (“It is the purpose of this [Act], among other things, to maintain the control of the United States 
over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership 
thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority.”).
234
47 U.S.C. § 303(b) (authorizing the FCC to “[p]rescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class of 
licensed stations and each station within any class”); 47 U.S.C. § 303(g) (the Commission shall “encourage the 
larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest”); 47 U.S.C. § 303(r) (the Commission may “prescribe 
such restrictions and conditions, not inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this 
[Act]”).
235
47 U.S.C. § 307 (authorizing the FCC to grant station licenses “if public convenience, interest, or necessity will 
be served thereby”).
236
47 U.S.C. § 309(a) (authorizing the Commission, in acting on certain license applications, to determine “whether 
the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by granting such application”).
237
47 U.S.C. § 316(a) (authorizing the FCC to modify existing licenses to impose new license conditions if, in the 
judgment of the Commission, such action will promote the public interest, convenience and necessity).
238
47 U.S.C. § 303(b); see also Schurz Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 982 F.2d 1043, 1048 (7th Cir. 1992) (stating 
that the Communications Act invests Commission with “enormous discretion” in promulgating licensee obligations 
that the agency determines will serve the public interest).
239
Cellco, 700 F.3d at 541-44.
240
Id. (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 303(b)).  In reaching this conclusion, the court referenced the definition of the word 
“prescribe,” which the court stated means, among other things, “‘to lay down a rule.’”  Cellco, 700 F.3d at 542 
(quoting Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1792 (1993)).
241
Cellco, 700 F.3d at 543.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
34
rendered by CMRS providers in their use of spectrum.  Specifically, the rule requires that, in furtherance 
of the public interest purposes noted herein, CMRS providers that seek to use spectrum for the provision 
of covered text messaging services offer a service that includes the provision of certain text messaging 
functions—namely, the bounce-back notification, which ensures that consumers using the service do not 
get the false impression that their text to 911 was received by emergency services.  As such, promulgation 
of the bounce-back rule falls within the scope of our authority under Section 303 and applicable 
precedents.
242
92. Moreover, Section 316 authorizes the Commission to impose new conditions on existing 
licenses if it determines that such action “will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”
243
  
The D.C. Circuit has recognized it as “undisputed that the Commission always retain[s] the power to alter 
the term of existing licenses by rulemaking.”
244
  We believe that the text-to-911 requirements fall within 
the Commission’s Section 316 authority to modify the licenses held by CMRS providers,
245
and we 
exercise that authority in a manner that furthers the Communications Act’s public safety and public 
interest purposes.
246
  Simply put, as discussed above,
247
putting the bounce-back rules in place will avoid 
consumer confusion on a crucially important public safety matter: whether they have successfully reached 
911 services.  The rule will thus potentially save lives, as it will prevent consumers from mistakenly 
concluding that emergency services are sending help.  Having this information will hopefully enable 
consumers to take the important steps necessary to protect their safety and health.  We find as well that, as 
to CMRS providers, our decision to adopt these text-to-911 requirements is a proper exercise of our 
licensing authority under Sections 307 and 309 of the Act.
248
  Both of these provisions require the 
Commission, in acting on applications for licenses, to determine whether providing for the requested 
authorizations will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.
249
  For the reasons explained 
herein, we have determined, as an exercise of our licensing authority under these provisions, that the 
                                                     
242
See, e.g., id. at 541-44; see also NBC, 319 U.S. at 214-26 (discussing the FCC’s Section 303 authority).
243
47 U.S.C. § 316; see also Cellco, 700 F.3d at 543-44 (identifying Section 316 as another Title III provision that 
supported the FCC’s exercise of authority); see also Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. v. FCC, 272 F.3d 585 (D.C. Cir. 
2001).
244
Celtronix, 272 F.3d at 589 (citing, e.g., United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U.S. 192, 205 (1956)).
245
We note that our detailed discussion of Title III provisions in this section of the Order is not intended to suggest 
that other Title III provisions identified elsewhere in this decision do not provide independent bases for our 
authority.  For example, we note that Section 301 supports the Commission’s authority to impose the bounce-back
requirement on CMRS providers.  Section 301 states that “[i]t is the purpose of this [Act], among other things, to 
maintain the control of the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of 
such channels, but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by 
Federal authority.”  47 U.S.C. § 301.  In requiring CMRS providers, in their use of radio transmission channels 
controlled by the United States, to comply with certain text-to-911 requirements, we are effectuating the mandate of 
the Act by exercising control over the use of radio transmission channels and specifying the parameters of their use, 
in a manner that we have determined will further substantial public interest goals.
246
See, e.g., 47 U.S.C § 151 (establishing the FCC for the purpose of “promoting safety of life and property through 
the use of wire and radio communication”).   
247
See discussion supra Section III.A.  
248
See 47 U.S.C. § 307; see also 47 U.S.C. § 309.
249
47 U.S.C. § 307 (requiring the FCC to grant station licenses “if public convenience, interest, or necessity will be 
served thereby”); see also 47 U.S.C. § 309(a) (requiring the Commission, in acting on certain license applications, to 
determine “whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served by granting such application”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
35
public interest, convenience, and necessity is best served by conditioning licenses issued to CMRS 
providers on compliance with the bounce-back notification requirement.
250
93. In response to the Further Notice’s bounce-back proposal, CTIA stated that it “does not 
agree that the agency has the legal authority to mandate that wireless providers implement automatic error 
messages.”
251
  By way of explanation, however, CTIA’s bounce-back comments merely “incorporate[] by 
reference its past comments on the agency’s legal authority,”
252
which, we note, responded to somewhat 
different sets of proposed rules from our earlier 2011 Notice and to our 2010 NOI on NG911 issues.
253
  
We also note that those earlier comments pre-date Cellco, and that CTIA’s current comments do not 
reference that decision.
254
94. To the extent CTIA’s cross-referenced legal authority arguments are relevant to the 
bounce-back rules proposed by the 2012 Further Notice, we find such arguments unpersuasive.  CTIA’s 
earlier comments argued that the Commission cannot rely on Title III because, in its view, the CVAA is a 
more “specific and delimited grant of authority” and “must control over more general grants of authority, 
such as Title III.”
255
  We do not agree with this contention.  Congress may, as we find that it did here, 
choose to confer authority on the FCC pursuant to several statutory provisions.  When it does so, the 
agency has several independent jurisdictional bases for acting.  Because we find no conflict between Title 
III and the CVAA with respect to the rules adopted herein, we do not agree that the “specific” CVAA 
provisions somehow displace what CTIA’s views as our more “general” Title III authority.  We see 
nothing in the text of the CVAA that would preclude the Commission from relying on our Title III 
authority, nor have we found any suggestion in the legislative history that Congress intended such a 
limitation.  Rather, we believe Congress intended the CVAA to supplement—not displace—the 
Commission’s existing sources of authority.
256
95. CTIA’s earlier comments also contended that “the Commission does not tie its assertion 
of Title III authority to any specific substantive grant of power.”
257
  We disagree.  Sections 303 and 316, 
for example, are substantive grants of authority to protect and advance the public interest.
258
  As we 
tentatively indicated in the 2012 Further Notice, and as we demonstrated above, imposing the bounce-
back rule is a lawful exercise of our authority under these and other Title III provisions.
259
                                                     
250
See, e.g., Schurz, 982 F.2d at 1048 (discussing the Commission’s discretion and authority to promulgate license 
obligations that the agency determines will serve the public interest).
251
CTIA Comments at 4 (citing Reply Comments of CTIA – The Wireless Association®, PS Docket No. 11-153, 
PS Docket No. 10-255, at 9-16 (Feb. 9, 2012) (“CTIA February 2012 Reply Comments”); Comments of CTIA –
The Wireless Association®, PS Docket No. 11-153, PS Docket No. 10-255, at 19-21 (Dec. 12, 2011) (“CTIA 
December 2011 Comments”); Comments of CTIA – The Wireless Association®, PS Docket No. 10-255, at 7-10 
(Feb. 28, 2011) (“CTIA February 2011 Comments”)) .
252
CTIA Comments at 4.
253
See CTIA February 2011 Comments, which respond to In The Matter Of Framework For Next Generation 911 
Deployment, Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 17869 (2010) (2010 NOI).
254
Our Further Notice specifically asked commenters to address the scope of our Title III authority in light of 
Cellco.  See Further Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 15722  ¶ 170.
255
CTIA February 2012 Reply Comments at 11.
256
See S. Rep. 111-386 (11th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2011), 2010 WL 5186403.
257
CTIA December 2011 Comments at 20.
258
See Cellco, 700 F.3d at 541-43 (relying, inter alia, on Sections 303(b) and 316).
259
We note that CTIA’s earlier comments also claimed that it could not assess whether the Commission’s rules 
would be a lawful exercise of the Commission’s authority unless the FCC first “advances concrete proposals.”  
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
36
96. We also disagree with CTIA’s earlier suggestion that, to the extent we have Title III 
authority over a service, the Commission’s authority to impose text-to-911 rules would be diminished if 
that service were an unclassified offering or an information service.
260
  The Commission previously 
explained that the classification of an offering “as an information service does not affect the general 
applicability of the spectrum allocation and licensing provisions of Title III . . . [and that t]hese 
provisions . . . continue to apply because the service is using radio spectrum.”
261
  Indeed, the D.C. Circuit 
recently confirmed this point in Cellco, where it upheld the Commission’s reliance on our Title III 
authority to impose rules on an offering that was not classified as a telecommunications service.
262
97. Moreover, we note that our exercise of Title III authority to impose the bounce-back 
requirement on CMRS providers is supported by clear Commission precedent.  Since 1996, the 
Commission has exercised authority under Title III of the Communications Act to require CMRS 
providers, as spectrum licensees, to implement basic 911 and E911 services.
263
  These decisions relied 
upon Sections 301 and 303(r) to require that CMRS providers be capable of transmitting 911 calls to 
PSAPs.
264
  We find that the rules we adopt herein are consistent with the Commission’s earlier exercise 
of Title III authority in the context of 911/E911 regulation.
98. Furthermore, on multiple occasions, Congress has expanded the Commission’s 
obligations to implement 911 and E911 requirements,
265
thereby recognizing and ratifying our prior 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
CTIA December 2011 Comments at 20.  While an agency is not required to give notice of all the specifics of a rule 
that it ultimately promulgates, we observe that there is no question here that the level of detail provided in the FCC’s 
2012 Further Notice was more than sufficient.  See, e.g., Further Notice at Appendix B (containing the text of 
proposed rules). 
260
CTIA February 2012 Reply Comments at14-16.
261
Appropriate Regulatory Treatment for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireless Networks, 22 FCC Rcd 
5901, 5914-15 ¶ 36 (2007); see also Data Roaming Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5440 n.166 (“Application of the Title III 
provisions is not affected by whether the service using the spectrum is a telecommunications service or information 
service under the Act.”); Interconnection and Resale Obligations Pertaining to Commercial Mobile Radio Services, 
11 FCC Rcd 18455, 18471-72 (¶ 31) (1996) (requiring CMRS carriers to make bundled packages that include non-
Title II components available for resale pursuant to Title III).  
262
See Cellco, 700 F.3d at 537-38.
263
See, e.g., Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling 
Systems, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18679 ¶¶ 5, 10 (1996) 
(E911 First Report and Order) (relying on Sections 301 and 303(r) to impose E911 rules on CMRS providers); see 
also Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, 
Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 17442, 17445 ¶ 6 (2000) (relying on Sections 301, 303(r), 
and 151 to promulgate E911 rule revisions); see also Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility 
with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 20850 
(1999) (resolving petitions to help accelerate the deployment of E911), aff’d U.S. Cellular Corp. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 
78 (D.C. Cir. 2001).
264
47 C.F.R. § 20.18(c); see also E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18682-83 (¶ 10).
265
See New and Emerging Technologies Improvement Act of 2008, P.L. 110-283, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008) (“NET 911 
Act”) (codifying the Commission’s E911 requirements for interconnected VoIP services and authorizing the 
Commission to amend those requirements); see also Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, P.L. 
106-81, 113 Stat. 1286 (1999) (“911 Act”) (establishing 911 as the national emergency number and requiring the 
Commission to provide for appropriate transition periods for areas in which 911 was not in use); Ensuring Needed 
Help Arrives Near Callers Employing (ENHANCE) 911 Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-494, §§ 104, 158 (b)(1); 118 Stat. 
3987-3988; 47 U.S.C. §§ 901, 942 (2004) (“ENHANCE 911 Act”) (addressing 911 deployment).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
37
exercise of Title III authority to impose 911 and E911 regulations on CMRS providers.
266
  These 
congressional enactments were specifically designed to “encourage and facilitate the prompt deployment 
throughout the United States of a seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end infrastructure for 
communications, including wireless communications, to meet the Nation’s public safety and other 
communications needs”
267
  Under well-accepted principles of statutory construction, such congressional 
ratification of administrative interpretations of statutory provisions, including those granting substantive 
jurisdiction, is itself evidence of the agency’s authority to regulate.
268
  We find that these 911 statutes 
provide additional support for our finding of jurisdiction to apply the bounce-back requirement to CMRS 
providers.
269
99. In sum, we conclude that the Commission has ample Title III authority to apply the 
bounce-back requirement to CMRS providers.  We consider this requirement to be a key step in the 
FCC’s ongoing efforts to further the important public safety purposes of the Communications Act, 
including “the purpose of promoting safety of life and property.”
270
2. The CVAA
100. Apart from our Title III authority over licensees, we conclude that the CVAA vests the 
Commission with direct authority to impose the bounce-back requirement on both CMRS providers and 
other covered providers of interconnected text messaging services, including OTT providers.
271
  We reach 
this conclusion for two reasons.  First, our decision is a proper exercise of our CVAA authority to 
promulgate regulations that implement one or more of EAAC’s recommendations.
272
  Second, and 
alternatively, our decision is a lawful exercise of our CVAA authority to promulgate specified “other 
regulations.”
273
101. Background.  Congress enacted the CVAA in 2010 to increase the access of persons with 
disabilities to modern communications, including their access to emergency services through those 
                                                     
266
See 2011 Notice, 26 FCC Rcd at 13661 n.213 (¶ 117).
267
See 911 Act § 2(b) (emphasis added).
268
See, e.g., Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280, 300-06 (1981) (long-standing interpretation by the Secretary of State of its 
power under Passport Act of 1926 as encompassing the power to revoke passports to prevent damage to national 
security or foreign policy was ratified by congressional acquiescence, even though Secretary exercised power 
infrequently); Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 580-85 (1978) (Congress is presumed to be aware of administrative 
and judicial interpretations of a statute and to adopt and ratify those interpretations when it re-enacts a statute 
without change or incorporates in a new law sections of a prior law that have a settled interpretation); Zemel v. Rusk, 
381 U.S. 1, 9-13 (1965) (Secretary of State’s interpretation of Passport Act of 1926 as authorizing him to impose 
area restrictions was ratified by Congress when it left untouched the Secretary’s broad rulemaking authority when it 
later enacted legislation relating to passports); Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. U.S., 288 U.S. 294, 313-15 
(1933) (“administrative practice, consistent and generally unchallenged, will not be overturned except for very 
cogent reasons if the scope of the command is indefinite and doubtful”).
269
See discussion infra (detailing the scope of the Commission’s authority under various 911 statutes).
270
See 47 U.S.C. § 151.
271
See Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-260, 124 Stat. 
2751 (CVAA).
272
See 47 U.S.C. § 615c(g) (“The Commission shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to implement the 
recommendations proposed by the Advisory Committee[.]”).
273
47 U.S.C. § 615c(g) (“The Commission shall have the authority to promulgate . . . other regulations, technical 
standards, protocols, and procedures as are necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures 
access by individuals with disabilities to an Internet protocol-enabled emergency network, where achievable and 
technically feasible[.]”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
38
communications, among other purposes.
274
  In Section 106 of the CVAA, which is now codified at 47 
U.S.C. § 615c, Congress required the FCC to establish an advisory committee—the EAAC—for the 
purpose of “achieving equal access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities, as a part of the 
migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency network.”
275
  The CVAA directed the EAAC 
to conduct a national survey of individuals with disabilities “to determine the most effective and efficient 
technologies and methods by which to enable access to emergency services by individuals with 
disabilities.”
276
102. The CVAA further directed the EAAC to develop and submit to the Commission 
recommendations to implement such technologies and methods, including recommendations “for 
protocols, technical capabilities, and technical requirements to ensure the reliability and interoperability 
necessary to ensure access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities.”
277
103. Pursuant to the CVAA, the EAAC was established in 2010, and it is composed of state 
and local government representatives responsible for emergency management and response, national 
organizations representing people with disabilities and senior citizens, communications equipment 
manufacturers, service providers, and other subject matter experts.
278
  In 2011, the EAAC conducted the 
required national survey, and in July 2011 it submitted its report on the completed survey to the 
Commission.
279
  The EAAC survey confirmed the need for new forms of accessible communications to 
reach 911 services—including text and video—by persons who have hearing or speech disabilities, and 
thus for whom voice access to emergency services is ineffective.
280
104. In December 2011, the EAAC submitted its report to the Commission.
281
  The EAAC 
Report included a number of recommendations that are relevant to the regulations being promulgated 
today.
282
  
105. Discussion.  As noted above, we now find that two provisions of the CVAA, codified at 
47 U.S.C. § 615c(g), authorize the Commission to apply the bounce-back rules to both CMRS and other 
providers of interconnected text messaging services.  We discuss those two sources of CVAA authority 
below.
106. We first conclude that our decision to adopt the bounce-back requirement is a proper 
exercise of the Commission’s Section 615c(g) “authority to promulgate regulations to implement the 
                                                     
274
47 U.S.C. § 615c(a).
275
CVAA § 106(a) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 615c(c)).
276
47 U.S.C. § 615c(b).
277
47 U.S.C. § 615c(c)(2).
278
See Emergency Access Advisory Committee Announcement of Members, Public Notice, DA 10-2318, 25 FCC 
Rcd 17084 (CGB Dec. 7, 2010) (EAAC Members Announcement PN).
279
EAAC, Report on Emergency Calling for Persons with Disabilities Survey Review and Analysis 2011, July 21, 
2011, at 3, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/dro/EAAC/EAAC-REPORT.pdf  (EAAC Survey Report).
280
See EAAC Survey Report at 15, Question 8; see also id. at 22-29 Questions 15-22.
281
Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) Report and Recommendations (Dec. 6, 2011), available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-312161A1.doc (EAAC Report).
282
See, e.g., EAAC Report and Recommendations at 26 (Recommendation P4.1: Interim Text Access); id. at 28 
(Recommendation T1.2: Interim Mobile Text Solution); id. at 21-22 (Recommendation P2.1: Minimum Common 
Standards) ; id. at 22-23 (Recommendation P2.2: Types of Direct Access).  We discuss these recommendations in 
more detail below.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
39
recommendations proposed by the” EAAC.
283
  Specifically, the bounce-back rules implement EAAC 
recommendations T1.2,
284
P4.1,
285
  P2.1,
286
and/or P2.2.
287
  
107. EAAC Recommendation T1.2 advises that the Commission, as part of the “[a]ctions 
needed for the migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled network” develop an interim, mobile 
text solution that can be rapidly deployed to provide nationwide access to 9-1-1 services.
288
  Similarly, 
EAAC Recommendation P4.1 states that, until certain consumer requirements could be implemented and 
fully deployed in an NG911environment, “mobile device manufacturers, carriers and networks should 
implement an achievable interim method for text-based messaging to 9-1-1.”
289
  
108. By adopting the bounce-back requirements today, we are adopting regulations that 
implement one or more of these EAAC recommendations.  Until the nation completes the transition to a 
fully IP-based, NG911 environment—that is, an environment where consumers nationwide can 
successfully send and receive all forms of IP-based multi-media messages to emergency services—it is 
critical, as both EAAC and Congress recognized, that persons with disabilities have interim solutions 
that give them access to emergency services.  We thus implement EAAC’s interim text-to-911 
recommendations by promulgating regulations that will give persons with disabilities a notification when 
they have not been successful in reaching 911 with a text message.
290
  We find that this is a critically 
important part of an interim text-to-911 solution.  As the record above shows, persons with disabilities 
are currently texting 911, but this service is not available in all areas (either because it is not provisioned 
or enabled by the text provider or because the local PSAP is not yet capable of processing texts to 
911).
291
  We thus find that, in acting on EAAC’s interim text-to-911 recommendations, we ensure that 
                                                     
283
47 U.S.C. § 615c(g).
284
See EAAC Report and Recommendations at 28 (Recommendation T1.2: Interim Mobile Text Solution) 
(recommending that “the FCC work with Department of Justice, industry, academia, consumer groups and public 
safety entities to develop an interim solution that can be rapidly deployed to provide nationwide access to 9-1-1 
services through industry standards-based mobile text communications solution(s) to provide critical coverage for 
this important constituency during the transition to NG9-1-1”).
285
See EAAC Report and Recommendations at 26 (Recommendation P4.1: Interim Text Access) (recommending 
that, until certain consumer requirements could be implemented and fully deployed as part of the NG911 transition, 
“mobile device manufacturers, carriers and networks should implement an achievable interim method for text-based 
messaging to 9-1-1”).
286
EAAC Report and Recommendations at 21-22 (Recommendation P2.1: Minimum Common Standards) (“The 
EAAC recommends that the FCC, in consultation with stakeholders including industry, public safety, consumer 
groups and the DOJ as required, identify and develop, if necessary, standards to ensure direct, reliable and 
interoperable accessible emergency services to NG9-1-1 and take the appropriate steps to promote the adoption of 
minimum standards.”).
287
See EAAC Report and Recommendations at 22-23 (Recommendation P2.2: Types of Direct Access) (“Based on 
the results of the survey, Consumers identified the following types of equipment and communication needs for direct 
access to NG9-1-1. As with all NG9-1-1 communications, this communication needs to be reliable and 
interoperable. Further, in order for NG9-1-1 and to the extent that the solution is usable without causing confusion 
during an emergency call and for NG9-1-1 emergency services to be accessible, the EAAC recommends that 
‘standards and functional requirements be adopted that are technically and economically feasible’ to achieve the 
following . . . Consumers can:  . . . 11. Have the option to speak and listen, and receive back real-time text, IM, SMS 
or email back from NG9-1-1.”) (citation omitted).
288
See EAAC Report and Recommendations at 28.
289
EAAC Report and Recommendations at 26.
290
See discussion supra Part III.A (discussing the importance of bounce-back notifications).
291
See discussion supra Part III.A.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
40
consumers with disabilities do not receive the false impression that their text for help was received.  We 
find it self-evidently important that these consumers, which may be in life threatening situations, know 
when their text for help was not received and thus can take the steps necessary to reach emergency 
services.  
109. We also note that EAAC Recommendations P2.1 and P2.2 emphasize and recommend 
that the FCC identify and develop standards that ensure “direct [and] reliable” access to NG911 
emergency services.
292
  As part of the direct access that EAAC endorses under Recommendation P2.2, 
EAAC includes options for consumers with disabilities to “receive back real-time text, IM, SMS or email 
back from NG9-1-1.”
293
  We find that our decision today furthers these recommendations because 
ensuring that persons with disabilities receive a notification when they have failed to successfully reach 
911 is part of putting a reliable text-based solution in place.  In addition to the points made above, 
consumers may not trust or rely on text-to-911 services if they have no basis for knowing whether their 
plea for help has been received by emergency services.
110. We also emphasize, as EAAC did in its Report, the importance of applying the bounce-
back requirement to all providers of covered interconnected text messaging services, not just the subset of 
CMRS providers.  EAAC made clear that its recommendations, particularly Recommendation T1.2, 
should not be limited to CMRS-specific technology, which historically relied on SMS, since, inter alia, 
“phones . . . have applications people use for daily text communication that do not use SMS as their 
transport protocol but use . . . other protocols (e.g., BlackBerry Messenger, iMessage) to communicate 
with similar phones and with the SMS features on other people’s phones.”
294
  We thus view EAAC 
recommendation T1.2 as including interconnected text messaging applications services by non-CMRS 
providers within the scope of the recommendation, and conclude that we have authority under Section 
615c(g) to implement that recommendation by adopting the bounce-back rule.
111. Moreover, in addition to serving the interests of the disability community during the 
migration to a fully IP-enabled NG911 environment, the bounce-back rule furthers the CVAA’s long-term 
interest in ensuring that members of the disability community have reliable access to IP-enabled 
emergency services once the transition is complete.
295
  As discussed in more detail below, members of the 
disability community that do not receive a bounce notification during the transition period, and thus 
erroneously conclude that their text for help was received, may come to distrust text-based methods of 
reaching 911.
296
  This distrust would likely undermine the effectiveness and use of IP-based NG911 
systems in contravention of the CVAA’s long-term goal of putting reliable text-based protocols in    
place.
297
   
112. The record here shows that numerous commenters, including public safety entities, 
members of the disability community, and telecommunications carriers, agree with the Commission’s 
                                                     
292
See EAAC Report and Recommendations at 21-23.
293
EAAC Report and Recommendations at 22-23.
294
Id. at 29.  While this portion of the EAAC Report discussed BlackBerry messenger and other protocols 
(including e-mail), we emphasize that, at this time, we are not applying the bounce-back rule to all forms of text 
applications that may be used on phones.  For instance, we are limiting the rule, as discussed above, to SMS, MMS, 
and applications that use IP-based protocols to deliver text messages through service providers to destinations 
identified by telephone numbers.  This Order does not intend to include IP-based messaging applications that 
support communication with a defined set of users of compatible applications but that does not support general 
communication with text-capable telephone numbers.  See discussion supra Part III.B.2.
295
See discussion infra. 
296
See discussion infra; see also Part III.A.1 supra.
297
See also Part III.A.1 supra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
41
view that applying the bounce-back requirement to both CMRS providers and other providers of 
interconnected text messaging services is an appropriate exercise of our CVAA authority to implement 
EAAC recommendations.
298
   For example, AT&T emphasizes that the Commission’s CVAA authority 
empowers the FCC to adopt EAAC’s interim text-to-911 recommendation by imposing the bounce-back 
rules at issue here.
299
  Only two commenters (CTIA and VON Coalition) expressed disagreement with 
this view of our authority in their bounce-back comments,
300
with CTIA contending that we lack authority 
to apply the rules to CMRS providers, and VON Coalition maintaining that we lack authority to apply 
them to other providers of interconnected text messaging applications, including OTT providers.  We find 
the CTIA and VON Coalition arguments unpersuasive. 
113. First, CTIA argued in its earlier comments that the Commission could not promulgate 
regulations implementing any EAAC recommendation because the Commission had not sought formal 
comment on those recommendations.
301
  However, in the Further Notice, we specifically asked for 
comment on those recommendations, including the ones that we rely on in this Order.
302
114. Second, both CTIA and VON Coalition argue that the recommendations exceed the scope 
of EAAC’s mandate under the CVAA, and the Commission’s jurisdiction, because the recommendations 
are not limited to IP-based technologies.
303
  They contend that Section 615c confers only limited authority 
on the EAAC to consider, and on the FCC to implement, methods of accessing next generation, IP-based 
emergency services and that any rules that would apply to SMS or enable connection to non-IP-based 
emergency services technologies would exceed the CVAA’s scope.
304
115. We disagree.  The CVAA did not limit the EAAC to making these types of IP-based 
recommendations.  Rather, it empowered the EAAC to make (and authorized the Commission to 
implement) recommendations regarding the nation’s “migration” to an IP-based emergency services 
network.
305
  Thus, the statutory text evinces Congress’s recognition that the transition is not complete and 
its intent that EAAC and its recommendations play a role before the nation completes the transition to a 
fully IP-based NG911 environment.  This necessarily means that EAAC’s mandate cannot be read as 
preventing it from making recommendations that affect existing, non-IP-based systems during the 
pendency of the transition.  Indeed, numerous portions of EAAC’s statutory mandate expressly show that 
it is not limited to IP-based recommendations.
306
                                                     
298
See, e.g., Comments of Texas 911 Entities; see also Comments of Wireless RERC.
299
See AT&T March 2013 Comments at 23-26.
300
See CTIA Comments at 4 (purporting to incorporate its earlier legal authority arguments by reference); see also 
VON Coalition Comments at 6-7; VON Coalition Reply Comments at 1.  
301
CTIA December 2011 Comments at 21.
302
Further Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 1572-22 (¶ 169).
303
CTIA December 2011 Comments at 21; see also CTIA February 2012 Reply Comments at 10.  VON Coalition 
Comments at 6-7.
304
CTIA December 2011 Comments at 21; see also CTIA February 2012 Reply Comments at 9-10.  VON Coalition 
Comments at 6-7.
305
See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 615c(c)(1) (tasking the EAAC to “submit to the Commission recommendations to 
implement such technologies and methods, including recommendations . . . with respect to what actions are 
necessary as a part of the migration to a national Internet protocol-enabled network to achieve reliable, interoperable 
communication transmitted over such network that will ensure access to emergency services by individuals with 
disabilities”). 
306
See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 615c(c)(2) (directing the EAAC to make recommendations “for protocols, technical 
capabilities, and technical requirements to ensure the reliability and interoperability necessary to ensure access to 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
42
116. Our reading of the CVAA is amply supported and confirmed by its legislative history and 
purposes.  Congress acted “to ensure that individuals with disabilities are able to utilize fully the 
essential advanced technologies that have developed since the passing of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act and subsequent statutes addressing communications accessibility.”
307
  Congress wanted EAAC to 
“submit recommendations to the Commission regarding the effect of the migration to an Internet-
protocol network on access to emergency services by persons with disabilities.”
308
  Congress thus 
acknowledged that EAAC would be operating during the transition and did not express an intent to limit 
EAAC to future, IP-based technologies.  Any interpretation of the CVAA that would limit or preclude 
EAAC from making recommendations, or the Commission from taking action, regarding the use of non-
IP technology during the transition to NG911 could force persons with disabilities to wait years to 
receive the accessibility benefits of text-to-911.  Such a reading would be entirely inconsistent with the 
text and purposes of the CVAA.
117. Fourth, VON Coalition similarly asserts in a footnote that the relevant CVAA 
requirements “are limited to providers of interconnected and non-interconnected VoIP services,” and thus 
cannot apply to “providers of interconnected text messaging applications.”
309
  We disagree.  As the 
discussion above makes clear, Section 615c is not narrowly focused on ensuring that members of the 
disability community can use one type of technology (VoIP) to access emergency services.  Rather, the 
CVAA empowered the EAAC to make recommendations regarding, and the FCC to adopt regulations 
concerning, a broader array of “technologies and methods . . . to enable access to emergency services by 
individuals with disabilities.”
310
  As explained above, those technologies include the applications that 
covered providers (including OTT providers) offer or enable consumers to use as part of the providers’ 
provisioning of an interconnected text messaging service.  Moreover, this is not the first time the FCC has 
recognized that the CVAA’s requirements extend to the components of an OTT provider’s service, 
including their applications.  Even outside of Section 615c, Congress evinced its intent—and the 
Commission made clear when it adopted earlier accessibility regulations—that the CVAA imposes 
obligations on certain OTT service providers and that those obligations extend to the applications 
downloaded and run by users over other service providers’ networks.
311
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
emergency services by individuals with disabilities”); 47 U.S.C. § 615c(c)(4) (directing the EAAC to make 
recommendations “for relevant technical standards and requirements for communication devices and equipment and 
technologies to enable the use of reliable emergency access”). 
307
S. Rep. 111-386 (11th Cong., 2nd Sess. 2011), 2010 WL 5186403.
308
H.R. Rep. 111-563 at 27.
309
See VON Coalition Comments at 6 n.2 (citing, without substantial elaboration, 47 U.S.C. § 615c(c)).
310
47 U.S.C. § 615c(c).
311
See CVAA § 104 (adding Sections 716, 717, and 718 to the Communications Act); see also Implementation of 
Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Enacted by the Twenty-First Century Communications 
and Video Accessibility Act of 2010, 26 FCC Rcd 14557 (2011) (“ACS Report and Order”) (implementing Section 
104 of the CVAA, Sections 716 and 717 of the Communications Act, by recognizing that the CVAA imposes 
certain accessibility obligations on third-party OTT providers); id. at 14565 (¶ 14) (describing the entities covered 
by certain CVAA accessibility requirements as “includ[ing] entities that provide advanced communications services 
over their own networks, as well as providers of applications or services accessed (i.e., downloaded and run) by 
users over other service providers’ networks”); see also id. at 14590092 (¶¶ 84, 87).  In this regard, we note our 
disagreement with VON Coalition’s broad contention that no “portion of the Communications Act . . . gives the 
FCC authority to regulate Over The Top (‘OTT’) applications that are not licensed services.”  See VON Coalition 
Comments at 6.  Among the other points discussed herein, the CVAA added, inter alia, Sections 716 and 717 to the 
Communications Act, and our 2011 ACS Report and Order recognized that those provisions apply to certain OTT 
providers without drawing a distinction between licensed and unlicensed services.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
43
118. Fifth, CTIA argued that we could not adopt text-to-911 rules because the CVAA limited 
the Commission to adopting requirements that are “‘achievable and technically feasible.’”
312
  As applied 
to the bounce-back requirements adopted herein, we find CTIA’s argument unavailing because, as 
discussed above, we determine that the bounce-back rules are achievable and technically feasible.
313
119. Finally, we disagree with any argument that the FCC must somehow limit its exercise of 
authority under the CVAA and apply it only to instances where a member of the disability community is 
texting.  We recognize that the purpose of Section 615c is to “achiev[e] equal access to emergency 
services by individuals with disabilities,”
314
but we do not read the CVAA as requiring the FCC to ensure 
that any rules we adopt confer zero benefits on consumers outside the disability community or impose no 
costs or requirements on providers outside of a specific relationship they may have with a particular 
consumer.  Nor, based on our experience and review of the record, do we believe it is possible for the 
Commission to limit the bounce-back requirement in that manner.  Rather, imposing a rule that required 
text messaging provider to determine the disability status of its consumer and then, based on that 
information, decide whether to provide a bounce-back notification would impose greater burdens on the 
providers and likely prove unworkable in practice.  Indeed, the EAAC noted that “if the text message to 
9-1-1 solution is not available to all people, with and without disabilities, . . . it would be too complicated 
for carriers and others to qualify some people as eligible and others as ineligible to make an SMS/text 
message call to 9-1-1 during emergency situations.”
315
  We agree and conclude, to the extent it is 
necessary, that the FCC has authority under the CVAA to require action that is not limited to the 
disability community.  
120. We note too that, in order to achieve the CVAA’s mandate, it is important that we do not 
limit the rules to text messaging services that happen to be on phones owned by persons with disabilities.  
In emergency situations, persons with disabilities may need to access emergency services quickly and this 
may require them to use mobile devices owned by others.  For example, their phone may not be as 
accessible as another device or, in some cases, attempting to reach their phone might place them in 
greater danger.  In these potentially life threatening situations, our rules would be ineffective if they did 
not extend the important benefits of our interim text-to-911 solution to persons with disabilities regardless 
of the mobile device they are using.
121. As noted above, the CVAA not only authorizes the Commission to promulgate 
regulations that implement EAAC’s recommendations,
316
which we find that our decision today does, but 
also grants the Commission authority to adopt “any other regulations, technical standards, protocols, and 
procedures as are necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures access by 
individuals with disabilities to an Internet protocol-enabled emergency network, where achievable and 
technically feasible.”
317
  We find that this provision provides an additional and independent basis for our 
conclusion that the CVAA vests the Commission with authority to apply the bounce-back rules to both 
CMRS providers and other covered providers of interconnected text messaging services.  
122. The CVAA’s “other regulations” provision expressly grants the Commission authority to 
adopt regulations as are necessary to achieve reliable, interoperable communication that ensures access 
by persons with disabilities to an IP-enabled emergency services network.
318
  As discussed above, 
                                                     
312
CTIA February 2012 Reply Comments at 10.
313
See discussion supra Part III.
314
47 U.S.C. § 615c(a).
315
EAAC Report and Recommendations at 29 (Note 5).  
316
See 47 U.S.C. § 615c(g).
317
47 U.S.C. § 615c(g).
318
47 U.S.C. § 615c(g).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
44
PSAPs are currently rolling out IP-enabled emergency services networks that consumers can use to send 
texts to 911.
319
  The bounce-back requirement will help ensure that persons with disabilities have reliable 
access to those networks because it will prevent them from receiving the false impression that their text 
to 911 was received by emergency services.  In turn, this will enable them to use a different text or other 
method of successfully reaching emergency services.  Part of making sure that consumers have reliable 
access to emergency services networks is ensuring that consumers know when their text for help has not 
been received.  Uncertainty regarding whether or not emergency services received your text for help 
would undermine the reliability of the system.  
123. Moreover, in the context of the specific language of this provision, and the overall 
structure, goals, and purposes of the CVAA, we do not read this portion of Section 615c(g) or its use of 
the word “necessary” in an unduly narrow sense.  That is, we do not interpret the language as requiring 
the Commission to show, as a condition to the exercise of our “other regulation” authority, that our 
regulations are indispensable, essential, or absolutely required to ensure that individuals with disabilities 
can reach IP-enabled emergency services.
320
  Rather, in light of the CVAA and Section 615c purposes of 
increasing access and ensuring that individuals with disabilities can reach emergency services during the 
interim period before full implementation of an IP-based network,
321
we read the statutory language as 
authorizing (but also limiting) the Commission to taking those actions that are conducive to and plainly 
crafted for ensuring that persons with disabilities can reach emergency services.
322
  A contrary view 
“would give an unwarranted rigidity to the application of the word ‘necessary,’ which has always been 
recognized as a word to be harmonized with its context.”
323
124. At the same time, we do not interpret this portion of the CVAA as granting the 
Commission unbounded authority to adopt regulations.
324
  We find that the CVAA appropriately cabins 
the Commission’s authority to adopting reasonable regulations focused on ensuring that consumers with 
disabilities can reach emergency services.  This limited but important context is one where Congress has 
consistently acted and directed the Commission to ensure that consumers using advanced services, 
including those provided by entities that the Commission has not classified as telecommunications 
carriers, can reach emergency services.
325
  Indeed, one of the principal purposes of the Commission, as 
set forth by Congress in Section 1 of the Communications Act, is to ensure that we exercise our 
substantive grants of authority in a manner that “promot[es] safety of life of property.”
326
  We thus find 
                                                     
319
See discussion supra Part III.A.
320
See, e.g., Cellco Partnership v. FCC, 357 F.3d 88, 97 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“courts have long recognized that the 
term ‘necessary’ does not always mean ‘indispensable’ or ‘essential.’”); see also CTIA v. FCC, 330 F.3d 502, 509 
(D.C. Cir. 2003) (rejecting the argument that “the word ‘necessary’ . . . always mean[s] absolutely required or 
indispensable”).
321
See CVAA, Pub. L. 111-260 (describing the CVAA as “An Act To increase the access of persons with 
disabilities to modern communications, and for other purposes.”); see also CVAA § 106, 47 U.S.C. § 615c(a).
322
Accord CTIA, 330 F.3d at 509; see also, e.g., Indep. Ins. Agents of Am., Inc. v. Hawke, 211 F.3d 638 (D.C. Cir. 
2000) (term “necessary” in the National Bank Act means “convenient” or “useful”); Armour& Co. v. Wantouk, 323 
U.S. 126, 129-30 (1944) (term “necessary” in the Fair Labor Standards Act, in context, means reasonably necessary 
to production, and not “indispensable,” “essential,” or “vital”).
323
Armour, 323 U.S. at 129-30.
324
In this regard, we disagree with CTIA’s argument that our reading of this portion of the CVAA is one that gives 
us an unlawful amount of “sweeping authority.”  CTIA December 2011 Comments at 10.
325
See discussion infra ¶¶ 134-137 (discussing the 911 Act, the NET 911 Act, and the ENHANCE 911 Act).
326
47 U.S.C. § 151.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
45
that the exercise of our CVAA authority in this case is appropriate in light of the text and purposes of the 
CVAA as well as our more general authority to ensure access to emergency services.
125. Furthermore, as discussed above, we do not read the CVAA as only authorizing the 
Commission to impose purely IP-based solutions, that is, solutions that only apply where the consumer is 
accessing an IP-enabled emergency services network.  We explained that the CVAA recognizes that the 
nation is making a “migration” to an IP-enabled emergency network, and we view our bounce-back 
requirement as consistent with Congress’ intent for the Commission to act in this interim period before 
fully IP-enabled NG911 systems are in place.  We also find that this will further our long-term CVAA 
interest in ensuring that consumers have reliable access to text-based means of reaching emergency 
services via IP-enabled networks because an interim system that provides reliable information about 
text-to-911 communications will engender trust and familiarity with the use of texting modes of 
interaction within 911 systems and make it more likely that consumers will rely on and use such text 
offerings in an NG911 environment.  
126. We have also established above that we do not view the CVAA as requiring the 
Commission to ensure that the CVAA rules we adopt be crafted to avoid conferring any benefits on 
consumers outside the disability community, or that they impose no costs or requirements on providers 
outside of a specific relationship they may have with a particular consumer.
327
  In fact, the record here 
demonstrates that it would not be possible or practicable for the Commission or providers to limit the 
bounce-back requirement in that manner. 
127. We thus conclude that the Commission’s decision to apply the bounce-back requirements 
to both CMRS and other providers interconnected text messaging is a proper exercise of our direct 
authority under the CVAA.
3. Ancillary Authority
128. We conclude that the FCC’s ancillary authority also empowers the Commission to apply 
the bounce-back notification requirement to providers of interconnected text messaging services, 
including OTT providers.
328
  The Commission may act pursuant to its ancillary authority when “‘(1) the 
Commission’s general jurisdictional grant under Title I [of the Communications Act] covers the regulated 
subject and (2) the regulations are reasonably ancillary to the Commission’s effective performance of its 
statutorily mandated responsibilities.’”
329
  
129. First, our regulation of these other providers falls within the scope of our general grant of 
jurisdiction under Title I.  Our general Title I jurisdiction extends to “all interstate and foreign 
                                                     
327
See discussion supra; see also EAAC Report and Recommendations at 29 (Note 5) (“if the text message to 9-1-1 
solution is not available to all people, with and without disabilities, . . . it would be too complicated for carriers and 
others to qualify some people as eligible and others as ineligible to make an SMS/text message call to 9-1-1 during 
emergency situations”).
328
While we believe the Commission has ancillary authority to apply these rules to CMRS providers, we limit our 
discussion here to the other providers of interconnected text messaging covered by our bounce-back rules, including 
OTT providers.
329
Comcast Corp. v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642, 646 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Am. Lib. Ass’n v. FCC, 406 F.3d 689, 691-
92 (D.C. Cir. 2005)); see also United States v. Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 178 (1968) (recognizing that 
the Commission may exercise authority that is “reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of [its] various 
responsibilities”); United States v. Midwest Video Corp., 406 U.S. 649 (1972) (upholding the Commission’s 
regulation of cable television under the agency’s ancillary jurisdictional authority, where regulations promoted long-
established statutory goals of broadcast regulation); Computer and Commc’ns Indust. Ass’n v. FCC, 693 F.2d 198 
(D.C. Cir. 1982) (upholding the Commission’s regulation of enhanced services and customer premises equipment 
pursuant to ancillary authority, where regulations were deemed necessary to assure reasonable rates for wire 
communications services).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
46
communication by wire or radio.”
330
  The Communications Act broadly defines the terms “radio 
communication” and “communication by radio” as “the transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, 
pictures, and sounds of all kinds,”
331
and it further “include[es] all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, 
and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to 
such transmission” within those definitions.
332
  Given this definition, we find that interconnected text 
messaging applications, including those provided by OTT providers, fall within the FCC’s general subject 
matter jurisdiction to the extent they are enabling consumers to transmit text messages via radio 
communication:  in other words, they are, at least, “incidental to” the transmission of, inter alia, “signals” 
“by radio.”
130. Second, we find that applying our bounce-back rules to these providers is reasonably 
ancillary to the Commission’s effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities and thus 
“necessary in the execution of its functions.”
333
  We reach this conclusion for several reasons.
131. To start, Title III’s direct grant of authority gives the Commission a mandate to prescribe 
requirements for the use of spectrum.
334
  We explained above that this mandate includes prescribing rules 
that prevent the transmission of potentially misleading text messages over spectrum authorized for use
under Title III—that is, text messages that lack a bounce-back notification and thus have the potential to 
mislead consumers into thinking that their text for help was received by emergency services.  We found 
that Title III gives us direct authority to carry out this mandate by requiring licensed CMRS providers, in 
their transmission of text messages over spectrum, to provide consumers with a bounce-back notification.  
However, if the bounce-back rules were limited to CMRS providers, we would not be able to fully carry 
out our statutory mandate to ensure that licensed spectrum is not used to transmit potentially misleading 
text messages.  This is so because CMRS providers are not the only providers of interconnected text 
messages that offer consumers a service that initiates or enables a consumer to send potentially 
misleading text messages via spectrum.  Other entities, including OTT providers, initiate or enable 
consumers to send these messages.  We thus impose the bounce-back requirement on other providers of 
text messaging services, including OTT providers, under our ancillary authority because doing so is 
reasonably necessary to carry out our statutory mandate regarding the use of spectrum. 
132. In this regard, we note that the Further Notice sought comment on whether the 
Commission could use its direct authority over CMRS providers to require that these licensed providers 
prevent the use of third-party applications that do not have certain text-to-911 functions.
335
  At this time, 
however, the record does not show that, as a practical matter, CMRS providers could ensure that every 
third-party interconnected text messaging application includes a bounce-back notification function.
336
  We 
find that this provides further support for the conclusion that our decision to apply the bounce-back rule to 
                                                     
330
47 U.S.C. § 152(a); see also Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. at 168, 172 (discussing the FCC’s general 
jurisdictional grant over communications by wire or radio).
331
47 U.S.C. § 153(40).
332
Id.
333
See 47 U.S.C. § 154(i); see also 47 U.S.C. § 303(r).
334
See discussion supra (discussing the Commission’s authority under Sections 303 and 316, as well Sections 303, 
307, and 309).
335
Further Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 15723 (¶ 171).
336
See, e.g., VON Coalition March 2013 Comments (arguing that the Commission would lack authority to require 
CMRS providers to take steps to prevent the use of third-party apps that do not include text-to-911 functions).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
47
non-CMRS providers of covered interconnected text messaging services is a proper exercise of our 
ancillary authority.
337
   
133. We also find that imposing the bounce-back rule on these providers is ancillary to our 
direct authority for other reasons.  As discussed above, the nation is in the process of migrating to a fully 
IP-based, NG911 system in which consumers will be able to transmit text messages and other media to 
emergency services.  We found above that both our Title III and CVAA mandates gave us direct authority  
to impose bounce-back requirements on the provision of text messages by, inter alia, CMRS providers as 
a reliable means of imposing an interim text-to-911 solution pending the nation’s complete transition to 
fully NG911-capable systems.  We now find that extending the bounce-back requirement to other 
providers of interconnected text messaging services is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance 
of those mandates because of certain, specific risks posed by consumer confusion.  
134. More specifically, the record here shows that, from the consumer’s perspective, text 
messaging applications provided by CMRS providers are often indistinguishable from the messaging 
applications provided by OTT and other providers.
338
  Indeed, some text messaging applications have the 
capacity to switch protocols from one text to the next without the consumer even noticing the change.  
This could lead to significant consumer confusion if our bounce-back rule only applied to CMRS-
provided text messaging services because, inter alia, a consumer might send a text to 911 via their 
CMRS-provided service in an area where text to 911 is not available, receive a bounce-back error 
message, and then send a text for help from their OTT-provided application.  In the absence of a bounce-
back error message from their OTT-provided messaging service, the consumer may mistakenly conclude 
that their plea for help was received by emergency services.  This could quite possibly prevent them from 
taking steps necessary to receive life-saving help.   
135. In addition to the obvious harms that would result in this instance, the confusion would 
undermine the Commission’s ability to fully carry out its Title III and CVAA authority to require CMRS 
providers to give consumers (in particular, individuals with disabilities) a reliable, interim text-to-911 
solution—that is, a bounce-back notification.  This confusion could undermine the trust that consumers 
have in all text-to-911 services, including those offered by CMRS providers, which could both 
discourage the use of CMRS-provided text messaging in contravention of our Title III- and CVAA-
based mandate of putting an interim solution in place, and it could undermine consumer confidence in 
and use of CMRS-provided text-based methods of reaching 911 once the transition to NG911 systems is 
complete.  Averting the type of confusion that could undermine trust and use of text-to-911 is 
particularly important to our CVAA mandate because, as the EAAC Report stated, “if individuals cannot 
use voice reliably or at all to communicate their emergency they have no means of effectively 
communicating with 9-1-1” other than a text solution.
339
  It is thus critical to our CVAA mandate that 
our text-to-911 rules do not undermine the ability of persons with disabilities to rely on text messages for 
help.  For these reasons, we find that extending the bounce-back rule to other providers of interconnected 
text messaging, including OTT providers, is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of our 
statutorily mandated responsibilities.
340
  
                                                     
337
Accord Corporate Ownership Reporting and Disclosure by Broadcast Licensees. 97 F.C.C.2d 997, 1033 (¶ 77) 
(1984) (Attribution Decision) (asserting ancillary authority over non-licensees in order to ensure effective 
enforcement of multiple ownership rules applicable to broadcast licensees); see also Pinelands, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 
6058, 6067 (¶ 30) (1992) (applying the Attribution Decision).
338
See discussion supra Part III.A.1.  Moreover, the record shows that members of the disability community are 
increasingly relying on various text messaging applications, including third-party applications, for their 
communications needs.  See discussion supra Part III.A.
339
EAAC Report and Recommendations at 30.
340
We note too that EAAC itself recognized the importance of not limiting an interim text-based solution to CMRS-
provided messaging services (which traditionally relied on the SMS protocol) because “phones . . . have applications 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
48
136. We also find that imposing the bounce-back requirement on other providers of 
interconnected text messaging is reasonably ancillary to the Commission’s statutory authority to impose 
911 regulations that ensure consumers can reach emergency services.  As discussed above, the 
Commission has, since 1996, exercised our long-standing statutory authority and required providers of 
new technologies to implement basic 911 and E911 capabilities.
341
  Since then, Congress has recognized 
and added to the Commission’s authority to ensure connectivity to 911,
342
including our authority to 
impose 911 rules on entities that have not been classified as telecommunications carriers (e.g., 
interconnected VoIP providers).
343
  
137. In 2005, for example, prior to enactment of the NET 911 Act and its requirements for 
imposing 911 rules on entities beyond telecommunications carriers, the Commission relied in part on our 
ancillary authority to impose E911 requirements on interconnected VoIP providers.
344
  The Commission 
found that “regardless of the regulatory classification, the Commission has ancillary jurisdiction to 
promote public safety by adopting E911 rules for interconnected VoIP services.”
345
  The Commission 
then explained that the rules it was adopting satisfied the second prong of the ancillary authority test, and 
we included within that analysis a discussion of various 911-specific statutes enacted by Congress.
346
  
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit upheld our Interconnected VoIP E911 Order against claims that it was 
arbitrary and capricious.
347
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
people use for daily text communication that do not use SMS as their transport protocol but use email or other 
protocols (e.g., BlackBerry Messenger, iMessage) to communicate with similar phones and with the SMS features 
on other people’s phones.”   See EAAC Report and Recommendations at 29.  However, we emphasize again that we 
are not applying the bounce back rule to all forms of text applications that may be used on phones. See Appendix A 
47 CFR 20.18(n)(1).
341
See, e.g., E911 First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 18682-83 ¶10, 18701 ¶ 50 (relying on Sections 301 and 
303(r) to require that certain CMRS providers process and transmit 911 calls to PSAPs and “be capable of 
transmitting calls by individuals with speech or hearing disabilities through devices used in conjunction with or as a 
substitute for traditional wireless mobile handsets, e.g., through the use of Text Telephone Devices (TTY) to local 
911 services”); see also In the Matter of Revision of the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility With 
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, 18 FCC Rcd 25340 (2003) (revising the scope of our E911 rules).
342
See New and Emerging Technologies Improvement Act of 2008, P.L. 110-283, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008) (“NET 911 
Act”) (codifying the Commission’s E911 requirements for interconnected VoIP services and authorizing the 
Commission to amend those requirements); see also Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, P.L. 
106-81, 113 Stat. 1286 (1999) (“911 Act”) (establishing 911 as the national emergency number and requiring the 
Commission to provide for appropriate transition periods for areas in which 911 was not in use); Ensuring Needed 
Help Arrives Near Callers Employing (ENHANCE) 911 Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-494, §§ 104, 158 (b)(1); 118 Stat. 
3987-3988; 47 U.S.C. §§ 901, 942 (2004) (“ENHANCE 911 Act”) (addressing 911 deployment).
343
See NET 911 Act; see also discussion supra.
344
See In the Matters of IP-Enabled Services, E911 Requirements for IP-Enabled Services Providers, 20 FCC Rcd 
10245, 10261-66 (¶¶ 26-35) (2005) (“Interconnected VoIP E911 Order”).
345
See Interconnected VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10261 (¶ 26).  While the Commission relied in part on 
Title I to satisfy both portions of the ancillary authority test in the Interconnected VoIP E911 Order, we explain here 
how our decision to impose the bounce requirement is reasonably ancillary to statutory provisions outside of Title I.
346
See Interconnected VoIP E911 Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 10264-64 (¶ 30) 10264-65 (¶ 32) (discussing the 911 Act 
and ENHANCE 911 Act).  While the Commission relied in part on Title I to satisfy both portions of the ancillary 
authority test in the Interconnected VoIP E911 Order, we explain here how our decision to impose the bounce 
requirement is reasonably ancillary to statutory provisions outside of Title I.
347
Nuvio, 473 F.3d at 302.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
49
138. Congress subsequently passed the NET 911 Act, which codified and confirmed the 
Commission’s earlier exercise of authority to regulate the provision of 911 by interconnected VoIP 
providers.
348
  The NET 911 Act built on prior Congressional actions designed to ensure that consumers 
have access to 911.  For instance, under the earlier 911 Act of 1999, which amended Section 251 of the 
Communications Act,
349
Congress established 911 as the official national emergency telephone number 
and acted “to encourage and facilitate the prompt deployment throughout the United States of a 
seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end infrastructure for communications,”
350
and found that 
“emerging technologies can be a critical component of the end-to-end communications infrastructure 
connecting the public with emergency medical service providers.”
351
  Similarly, in the 2004 ENHANCE 
911 Act, Congress found that “for the sake of our Nation’s homeland security and public safety, a 
universal emergency telephone number (911) that is enhanced with the most modern and state-of-the-art 
telecommunications capabilities possible should be available to all citizens in all regions of the 
Nation.”
352
139. We interpret these 911 statutes together as recognizing and adding to the Commission’s 
long-standing authority under the Communications Act to ensure that consumers using advanced 
communications technologies have the ability to reach 911 and, as part of that authority, to ensure that 
consumers sending these transmissions receive a notification that their attempt to reach 911 did not 
succeed.  Even if these statutes do not directly authorize the FCC to impose 911 requirements on 
providers of interconnected text messaging, we find that in this limited context—that is, where a text 
messaging provider offers consumers the ability to send and receive messages from all or substantially 
all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers and enables those consumers, as part of the functionality being 
provided, to rely on spectrum for the transmission of those messages—our decision to require the 
provision of a bounce-back message is reasonably ancillary to the effective performance of our 
statutorily mandated responsibilities.  Due in part to the types of specific forms of consumer confusion 
discussed above, we find that we could not fully realize our statutory 911 responsibilities to ensure that 
consumers using advanced services can reach 911 if consumers do not view a text to 911 as a reliable 
means of either reaching 911 or finding out that their text was not received, which will then allow them 
to use appropriate means for reaching help. 
140. We emphasize again the important limits and context in which we exercise our statutory 
authority today.  The above-discussed exercise of our substantive grants of authority is conditioned and 
limited by the Communications Act’s “purpose of promoting safety of life and property.”
353
  This is a 
situation in which a narrow set of rules help to save lives.  In a similar context, Judge Kavanaugh 
emphasized in his concurrence in Nuvio, which upheld our interconnected VoIP E911 rules, that “the 
FCC possesses the statutory authority, which the Commission may reasonably choose to exercise, to 
address the public safety threat” posed by a lack of access to 911 by “ensur[ing] adequate 911 
connections” for consumers using interconnected VoIP,
354
which is an offering not classified as a 
telecommunications service.  Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion relied on Congress’s instructions to the FCC, 
under the 911 Act of 1999, ENHANCE 911 Act, and other statutory provisions.
355
  We thus conclude that 
                                                     
348
See Net 911 Act.
349
See 47 U.S.C. § 251(e).
350
NET 911 Act § 2(b).
351
NET 911 Act § 2(a)(3).
352
ENHANCE 911 Act § 102.
353
See 47 U.S.C. § 151.
354
Nuvio, 473 F.3d at 310-11 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).
355
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
50
our decision to apply the bounce-back rules to providers of interconnected text messaging is a narrow one 
that is consistent with our earlier, limited use of ancillary authority to ensure reasonable access to 911.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Accessible Formats
141. 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).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
142. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, see 5 U.S.C. § 604, the 
Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules addressed in this document.  The FRFA is set 
forth in Appendix B.
C. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
143. The Report and Order does not contain new information collection requirements subject 
to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law No. 104-13.  Therefore, it does not contain 
any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 
employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198.
D. Congressional Review Act
144. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to 
Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), 
see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A)
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
145. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 301, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 
309, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 615a, 615a-1, and 615b of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 
47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 301, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, and
47 U.S.C. § 615c that the Report and Order in PS Docket No. 11-153 and PS Docket No. 10-255 IS 
ADOPTED and that Part 20 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 20, is amended as set forth in 
Appendix A.  The Report and Order shall become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal 
Register. 
146. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including 
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
51
APPENDIX A
Final Rules
Part 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 20 – COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
1. The authority for Part 20 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 301, 303, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 319, 
324, 332, 333, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, and 615c unless otherwise noted. Section 20.12 is also issued under 
47 U.S.C. 1302.
2. Section 20.18 is amended to add a new paragraph 20.18(n): 
* * * * * 
(n) Text-to-911 Requirements.
(1) Covered Text Provider:  Notwithstanding any other provisions in this section, for purposes of this 
subsection (n), a "covered text provider" includes all CMRS providers as well as all providers of 
interconnected text messaging services that enable consumers to send text messages to and receive text 
messages from all or substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers, including through the use of 
applications downloaded or otherwise installed on mobile phones.
(2) Automatic Bounce-back Message:  an automatic text message delivered to a consumer by a covered 
text provider in response to the consumer’s attempt to send a text message to 911 when the consumer is 
located in an area where text-to-911 service is unavailable or the covered text provider does not support 
text-to-911 service generally or in the area where the consumer is located at the time.
(3) No later than September 30, 2013, all covered text providers shall provide an automatic bounce-back 
message under the following circumstances: 
(a) a consumer attempts to send a text message to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) by 
means of the three-digit short code “911”; and  
(b) the covered text provider cannot deliver the text because the consumer is located in an area 
where:
(i) text-to-911 service is unavailable; or 
(ii) the covered text provider does not support text-to-911 service at the time.
(4) (a) A covered text provider is not required to provide an automatic bounce-back message when:
(i) transmission of the text message is not controlled by the provider;
(ii) a consumer is attempting to text 911, through a text messaging application that requires 
CMRS service, from a non-service initialized handset; 
(iii) when the text-to-911 message cannot be delivered to a PSAP due to failure in the PSAP 
network that has not been reported to the provider; or
(iv) a consumer is attempting to text 911 through a device that is incapable of sending texts via 
three digit short codes, provided the software for the device cannot be upgraded over the air to 
allow text-to-911.
(b) The provider of a preinstalled or downloadable interconnected text application is considered 
to have “control” over transmission of text messages for purposes of section (a)(i) of this section.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
52
However, if a user or a third party modifies or manipulates the application after it is installed or 
downloaded so that it no longer supports bounce-back messaging, the application provider will be 
presumed not to have control.
(5) The automatic bounce-back message shall, at a minimum, inform the consumer that text-to-911 
service is not available and advise the consumer or texting program user to use another means to contact 
emergency services.
(6) Covered text providers that support text-to-911 must provide a mechanism to allow PSAPs that accept 
text-to-911 to request temporary suspension of text-to-911 service for any reason, including, but not 
limited to, network congestion, call taker overload, PSAP failure, or security breach, and to request 
resumption of text-to-911 service after such temporary suspension.  During any period of suspension of 
text-to-911 service, the covered text provider must provide an automatic bounce-back message to any 
consumer attempting to text to 911 in the area subject to the temporary suspension.  
(7) A CMRS provider subject to § 20.12 shall provide an automatic bounce-back message to any 
consumer roaming on its network who sends a text message to 911 when (a) the consumer is located in an 
area where text-to-911 service is unavailable or (b) the CMRS provider does not support text-to-911 
service at the time.
(8) A software application provider that transmits text messages directly into the SMS network of the 
consumer’s underlying CMRS provider satisfies the obligations of paragraph 20.18(n)(3) of this section 
provided it does not prevent or inhibit delivery of the CMRS provider’s automatic bounce-back message 
to the consumer.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
53
APPENDIX B
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
the 
Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM).   No comments were filed addressing the IRFA regarding the issues 
raised in the Report and Order.  Because the Commission amends the rules in this Report and Order, the 
Commission has included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA).  This present FRFA 
conforms to the RFA.
2
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. In this Report and Order, the Commission requires all CMRS providers and providers of 
interconnected text messaging services (i.e., all providers of software applications that enable a consumer 
to send text messages to all or substantially all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers and receive text 
messages from the same) to provide an automatic “bounce-back” text message in situations where a 
consumer attempts to send a text message to 911 in a location where text-to-911 is not available.  The 
rules the Commission adopts in this Report and Order will substantially reduce the risk of a person 
sending a text message to 911 in an emergency and mistakenly believing that 911 authorities have 
received it.  Instead, the text sender will receive an immediate response that text-to-911 is not supported 
along with direction to use another means to contact emergency services.
3. Requiring all CMRS providers and interconnected text providers to implement a bounce-
back mechanism is particularly important because while deployment of text-to-911 has begun, the 
transition is still in the very early stages and will not be uniform.  During the transition, text-to-911 will 
be available in certain geographic areas sooner than it is available in others and may be supported by 
certain service providers but not by others.  At the same time, as text-to-911 becomes more widely 
available, it is likely to generate increased consumer expectations as to its availability, which makes it 
increasingly important for consumers to be made aware when it is not available in an emergency.  
4. The record in this proceeding indicates that some service providers already send an 
automatic bounce-back message to their subscribers when a subscriber attempts to send a text to 911.  In 
addition, the four largest CMRS providers – AT&T, Sprint Nextel, T-Mobile, and Verizon – have 
voluntarily committed to provide bounce-back messaging capability throughout their networks by June 
30, 2013.  In this Report and Order, the Commission builds on this voluntary commitment and concludes 
that all CMRS providers and interconnected text providers (collectively, “covered text providers”) should 
be required to provide this capability.  The Commission further specifies the circumstances under which a 
bounce-back message must be provided and the information that the message must contain.  Finally, 
while the Commission finds it is technically and economically feasible for all covered text providers to 
implement this capability quickly, the Commission recognizes that not all providers may be able to do so 
by the June 30, 2013 date to which the four major carriers are committed.  Therefore, the Commission 
establishes September 30, 2013 as the deadline for all covered text providers to implement the bounce-
back capability required by this Report and Order.  However, the Commission encourages covered text 
providers to implement bounce-back message capabilities as soon as possible in order to deal 
expeditiously with the existing consumer confusion about the availability of text-to-911.  Although this 
new requirement will impose additional costs on some of the covered text providers, the Commission has 
determined that these costs likely will be far exceeded by the public benefits of substantially reducing the 
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
2
See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
54
risk of persons sending a text message to 911 in an emergency and mistakenly believing that 911 
authorities have received it.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
5. No commenter raised issues in response to the bounce-back portion of the IRFA included 
in the Further Notice.
3
  The Commission concludes that the proposed mandates here provide covered text 
providers and Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs) with a sufficient measure of flexibility to account 
for technical and cost-related concerns.  In the event that small entities face unique circumstances that 
restrict their ability to comply with the Commission’s rules, the Commission can address them through 
the waiver process.  The Commission has determined that implementing bounce-back messages is 
technically feasible and the cost of implementation is small.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed 
Rules Would Apply
6. 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 rules adopted, herein.
4
  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
5
  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
6
  A “small business 
concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
7
  Below, we describe and 
estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the adopted rules.  
7. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  As of 
2009, small businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according 
to the SBA.
8
  Additionally, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
9
  Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.
10
  Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is 
defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”
11
  Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate 
that there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
12
  We estimate that, of this total, as 
                                                     
3
Some comments were received in response to the IRFA regarding other proposed rules in the Further Notice; 
however no commenter raised concerns regarding the proposed bounce-back rules.
4
5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
5
5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
6
5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
7
15 U.S.C. § 632.
8
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at
http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24 (last visited Dec. 11, 2012).
9
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
10
INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC &DESK REFERENCE (2010).
11
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
12
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
55
many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”
13
  Thus, we estimate that most 
governmental jurisdictions are small.  
a. Wireless Telecommunications Service Providers
8. 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.
9. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, 
and wireless video services.
14
  The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.
15
  Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that 
there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 3,144 had 
employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.  Thus under this 
category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our 
actions.
16
10. Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (Incumbent LECs).  Neither the Commission nor the 
SBA has developed a size standard for small businesses specifically applicable to incumbent local 
exchange services.  The closest applicable size standard under SBA rules is for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers.  Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.
17
  According to Commission data, 1,307 carriers reported that they were incumbent local 
exchange service providers.
18
  Of these 1,307 carriers, an estimated 1,006 have 1,500 or fewer employees 
                                                     
13
The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the 
population in each such organization. There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume 
that county, municipal, township, and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental 
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,095. If we make the same 
population assumption about special districts, specifically that they are likely to have a population of 50,000 or less, 
and also assume that special districts are different from county, municipal, township, and school districts, in 2007 
there were 37,381 such special districts.  Therefore, there are a total of 89,476 local government organizations.  As a 
basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government organizations were small, in 2011, we note that 
there were a total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor civil divisions) with populations over 
50,000.  CITY AND TOWNS TOTALS: VINTAGE 2011 – U.S. Census Bureau, available at 
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html.  If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that meet 
or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small.  U.S. CENSUS 
BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Tables 427, 426 (Data cited therein are 
from 2007).
14
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search
15
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
16
See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en
17
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
18
See Federal Communications Commission, Trends in Telephone Service (Sep. 2010) at Table 5.3, available at 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf (last accessed Apr. 25, 2013).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
56
and 301 have more than 1,500 employees.
19
  Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers 
of incumbent local exchange service are small businesses that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant 
to the NPRM.  
11. We have included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis.  As noted above, 
a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small business size standard 
(e.g., a telephone communications business having 1,500 or fewer employees), and “is not dominant in its 
field of operation.”
20
  The SBA’s Office of Advocacy contends that, for RFA purposes, small incumbent 
LECs are not dominant in their field of operation because any such dominance is not “national” in 
scope.
21
  We have therefore included small incumbent LECs in this RFA analysis, although we emphasize 
that this RFA action has no effect on Commission analyses and determinations in other, non-RFA 
contexts.
12. Competitive Local Exchange Carriers (Competitive LECs), Competitive Access Providers 
(CAPs), Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers.  Neither the Commission 
nor the SBA has developed a small business size standard specifically for these service providers.  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired Telecommunications Carriers.  Under 
that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
22
  According to 
Commission data, 1,442 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of either competitive 
local exchange services or competitive access provider services.
23
  Of these 1,442 carriers, an estimated 
1,256 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 186 have more than 1,500 employees.
24
  In addition, 17 carriers 
have reported that they are Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and all 17 are estimated to have 1,500 or 
fewer employees.
25
  In addition, 72 carriers have reported that they are Other Local Service Providers.
26
  
Of the 72, seventy have 1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.
27
  
Consequently, the Commission estimates that most providers of competitive local exchange service, 
competitive access providers, Shared-Tenant Service Providers, and Other Local Service Providers are 
small entities that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the NPRM.
13. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband personal communications 
services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F, and the 
Commission has held auctions for each block.  The Commission initially defined a “small business” for 
C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three 
previous calendar years.
28
  For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size standard for “very 
                                                     
19
See id.
20
5 U.S.C. § 601(3). 
21
See Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, SBA, to William E. Kennard, Chairman, FCC (May 
27, 1999).  The Small Business Act contains a definition of “small business concern,” which the RFA incorporates 
into its own definition of “small business.”  See 15 U.S.C. § 632(a); see also 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).  SBA regulations 
interpret “small business concern” to include the concept of dominance on a national basis.  See 13 C.F.R. § 
121.102(b).
22
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
23
See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.
24
See id.
25
See id.
26
See id.
27
See id.
28
See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission’s Rules – Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the 
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap; Amendment of the Commission’s Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
57
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.
29
  These small business size 
standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.
30
  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 claimed small business status in the first two C-Block 
auctions.  A total of 93 bidders that claimed small business status won approximately 40 percent of the 
1,479 licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks.
31
  On April 15, 1999, the Commission 
completed the reauction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22.
32
  Of the 57 winning 
bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 licenses.   
14. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block 
Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35.  Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small 
business status.
33
  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.  On February 
15, 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 
58.  Of the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses.
34
  
On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in 
Auction No. 71.35  Of the 12 winning bidders in that auction, five claimed small business status and won 
18 licenses.36  On August 20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block 
Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 78.
37
  Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses 
in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.
38
15. 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 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Rule; WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850–52,¶¶ 57–60 
(1996) (“PCS Report and Order”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).
29
See PCS Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 7852,¶ 60.
30
See Alvarez Letter 1998.
31
See Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Public Notice, Doc. No. 89838 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997).
32
See C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999).  Before 
Auction No. 22, the Commission established a very small standard for the C Block to match the standard used for F 
Block.  Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal 
Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15743, 
15768, ¶ 46 (1998).
33
See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 
2339 (2001).
34
See Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58, Public Notice, 20 
FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
35
See Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71, 
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9247 (2007).
36
Id.
37
See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Public 
Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12749 (WTB 2008).
38
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
58
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.
39
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.
40
16. 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.
41
  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.
17. Wireless Communications Services.  This service can be used for fixed, mobile, 
radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz 
bands.  The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless communications services (WCS) 
auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding years, and 
a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of $15 million for each of the three 
preceding years.
42
  The SBA has approved these definitions.
43
  The Commission auctioned geographic 
area licenses in the WCS service.  In the auction, which commenced on April 15, 1997 and closed on 
April 25, 1997, there were seven bidders that won 31 licenses that qualified as very small business 
entities, and one bidder that won one license that qualified as a small business entity.
18. 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 small business size standard for 
small entities specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees.  To estimate the 
number of such licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the small business size 
standard under the SBA rules applicable. The SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees.
44
  For this service, the SBA uses the category of Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers (except Satellite). Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, 
show that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.
45
  Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 
                                                     
39
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS, 
GEN Docket No. 90-314, ET Docket No. 92-100, PP Docket No. 93-253, Second Report and Order and Second 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 10456 (2000).
40
See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, FCC, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Dec. 2, 1998).
41
NAICS Code 51210.
42
Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (WCS), 
Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10879 ¶ 194 (1997).
43
See Letter to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, 
dated December 2, 1998.
44
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS).  The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
45
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009), 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
59
employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees.  Thus under this category and the associated 
small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.
19. 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.
46
  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.
47
  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 million for the preceding three years.
48
  The SBA has approved these small size 
standards.
49
  Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on and closed in 1998.
50
  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.
51
  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.
52
  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.
53
  In 2007, the Commission conducted a fourth auction of the 220 MHz licenses.
54
  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.
55
  In this auction, five winning bidders won a total of 76 licenses.  Two winning bidders 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
46
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide For the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the 
Private Land Mobile Radio Service, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70 ¶¶ 291-295 (1997).
47
Id. at 11068 ¶ 291.
48
Id.
49
See Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications 
Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated January 6, 1998 (Alvarez to 
Phythyon Letter 1998).
50
See generally “220 MHz Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (WTB 1998).
51
See “FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made,” 
Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 1085 (WTB 1999). 
52
See “Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (WTB 1999). 
53
See “Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
54
See “Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Scheduled for June 20, 2007, Notice and Filing 
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction 72, Public Notice, 22 
FCC Rcd 3404 (2007).
55
See “Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 
72, Down Payments due July 18, 2007, FCC Forms 601 and 602 due July 18, 2007, Final Payments due August 1, 
2007, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 11573 (2007).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
60
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.
20. Wireless Telephony.  Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications 
services, and specialized mobile radio telephony carriers.  As noted, the SBA has developed a small 
business size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
56
  Under the SBA 
small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
57
  According to 
Trends in Telephone Service data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony.
58
  
Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.
59
  
Therefore, more than half of these entities can be considered small.
21. Satellite Telecommunications Providers.  Two economic census categories address the 
satellite industry.  The first category has a small business size standard of $15 million or less in average 
annual receipts, under SBA rules.
60
  The second has a size standard of $25 million or less in annual 
receipts.
61
22. 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.”
62
  Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512 Satellite 
Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire year.
63
  Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts 
of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
64
  Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that 
might be affected by our action.
23. The second category, i.e., “All Other Telecommunications,” comprises “establishments 
primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, 
communications telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments 
primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or 
more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving 
telecommunications from, satellite systems.  Establishments providing Internet services or Voice over 
Internet Protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in 
this industry.”
65
  For this category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 
firms that operated for the entire year.
66
  Of this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 
                                                     
56
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
57
Id.
58
Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3.   
59
Id.
60
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
61
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
62
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications.”..
63
See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en. 
64
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en.
65
  http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
66
U.S. Censhttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-_lang=en.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
61
million and 37 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.
67
  Consequently, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that 
might be affected by our action.
b. Equipment Manufacturers
24. Radio and Television Broadcasting and 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.”
68
  The SBA has 
developed a small business size standard for firms in this category, which is:  all such firms having 750 or 
fewer employees.
69
  According to Census Bureau data for 2010, there were a total of 810 establishments 
in this category that operated for the entire year.
70
  Of this total, 787 had employment of fewer than 500, 
and an additional 23 had employment of 500 to 999.
71
  Thus, under this size standard, the majority of 
firms can be considered small. 
25. 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 storage and retrieval of data from 
a phase change, magnetic, optical, or magnetic/optical media.”
72
  According to data from the 2007 U.S. 
Census, in 2007, there were 954 establishments engaged in this business.  Of these, 545 had from 1 to 19 
employees; 219 had from 20 to 99 employees; and 190 had 100 or more employees.
73
Based on this data, 
the Commission concludes that the majority of the businesses engaged in this industry are small.
c. Information Service and Software Providers
26. Software Publishers. Since 2007 these services have been defined within the broad 
economic census category of Custom Computer Programming Services; that category is defined as 
establishments primarily engaged in writing, modifying, testing, and supporting software to meet the 
needs of a particular customer.
74
  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category, 
                                                     
67
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en.
68
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless 
Communications Equipment Manufacturing”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND334220.HTM#N334220.
69
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
70
U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2010 Economic Census, Industry Series, Industry Statistics by 
Employment Size, NAICS code 334220 (released June 26, 2012); http://factfinder.census.gov.  The number of 
“establishments” is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than would be the number of 
“firms” or “companies,” because the latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control.  Any 
single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be owned by a different 
establishment.  Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including the 
numbers of small businesses.  
71
Id.  Eighteen establishments had employment of 1,000 or more.
72
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Industry Series:  Manufacturing, “Semiconductor and Related 
Device Manufacturing ,” NAICS code 334413.
73
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_name=EC0731I1&-_lang=en.
74
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
62
which is annual gross receipts of $25 million or less.
75
  According to data from the 2007 U.S. Census, 
there were 41,571 establishments engaged in this business in 2007.  Of these, 40,149 had annual gross 
receipts of less than $10,000,000.  Another 1,422 establishments had gross receipts of $10,000,000 or 
more.
76
  Based on this data, the Commission concludes that the majority of the businesses engaged in this 
industry are small.
27. Internet Service Providers.  Since 2007, these services have been defined within the 
broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that category is defined as 
follows:  “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access 
to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, 
text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.  Transmission facilities may be based 
on a single technology or a combination of technologies.”
77
  The SBA has developed a small business size 
standard for this category, which is: all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.
78
  According to 
Census Bureau data for 2007, there were 3,188 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire 
year.
79
  Of this total, 3,144 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 44 firms had 
employment of 1000 employees or more.
80
  Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be 
considered small.  In addition, according to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 396 firms 
in the category Internet Service Providers (broadband) that operated for the entire year.
81
  Of this total, 
394 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and two firms had employment of 1000 
employees or more.
82
  Consequently, we estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that 
may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Report and Order.  
28. Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search Portals.  The Commission’s 
action may pertain to interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services, which could be 
provided by entities that provide other services such as email, online gaming, web browsing, video 
conferencing, instant messaging, and other, similar IP-enabled services.  The Commission has not 
adopted a size standard for entities that create or provide these types of services or applications.  
However, the Census Bureau has identified firms that “primarily engaged in (1) publishing and/or 
broadcasting content on the Internet exclusively or (2) operating Web sites that use a search engine to 
generate and maintain extensive databases of Internet addresses and content in an easily searchable format 
(and known as Web search portals).”
83
  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this 
                                                     
75
13 C.F.R. Section 121.201
76
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_54SSSZ1&prod
Type=table
77
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” (partial definition), 
available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517110&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search 
(lastvisited Mar. 27, 2013). 
78
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
79
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Table 5, 
“Employment Size of Firms for the United States:  2007, NAICS Code 517110” (issued Nov. 2010).
80
See id.  
81
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Table 5, 
“Employment Size of Firms for the United States:  2007, NAICS Code 5171103” (issued Nov. 2010).
82
See id.  
83
U.S. Census Bureau, “2007 NAICS Definitions: 519130 Internet Publishing and Broadcasting and Web Search 
Portals,” available at http://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=519130&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search (last visited Mar. 27, 2013).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
63
category, which is:  all such firms having 500 or fewer employees.
84
  According to Census Bureau data 
for 2007, there were 2,705 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.
85
  Of this total, 2,682 
firms had employment of 499 or fewer employees, and 23 firms had employment of 500 employees or 
more.
86
  Consequently, the Commission estimate that the majority of these firms are small entities that 
may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Report and Order.  
29. All Other Information Services.  The Census Bureau defines this industry as including 
“establishments primarily engaged in providing other information services (except news syndicates, 
libraries, archives, Internet publishing and broadcasting, and Web search portals).”
87
  The Commission’s 
action pertains to interconnected VoIP services, which could be provided by entities that provide other 
services such as email, online gaming, web browsing, video conferencing, instant messaging, and other, 
similar IP-enabled services.  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that 
size standard is $7.0 million or less in average annual receipts.
88
  According to Census Bureau data for 
2007, there were 367 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.
89
  Of these, 334 had annual 
receipts of under $5.0 million, and an additional 11 firms had receipts of between $5 million and 
$9,999,999.
90
  Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small entities 
that may be affected by our action.  
30. All Other Telecommunications.  The Census Bureau defines this industry as including 
“establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite 
tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation.  This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and 
receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.  Establishments providing Internet services or 
Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also 
included in this industry.”
91
  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for this category; that 
size standard is $30.0 million or less in average annual receipts.
92
  According to Census Bureau data for 
2007, there were 2,383 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.
93
  Of these, 2,305 
establishments had annual receipts of under $10 million and 84 establishments had annual receipts of $10 
                                                     
84
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519130.
85
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Table 5, 
“Employment Size of Firms for the United States:  2007, NAICS Code 519130” (issued Nov. 2010).
86
Id.
87
U.S. Census Bureau, “2007 NAICS Definitions:  519190 All Other Information Services”, available at 
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=519190&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search (last visited 
Mar. 27, 2013).
88
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 519190.
89
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Table 5, 
“Employment Size of Firms for the United States:  2007, NAICS Code 519190” (issued Nov. 2010).
90
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Table 4, 
“Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:  2007, NAICS Code 519190” (issued Nov. 2010).
91
U.S. Census Bureau, “2007 NAICS Definitions:  517919 All Other Telecommunications,” available at
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search (last visited 
Mar. 27, 2013).
92
See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
93
U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Information:  Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Table 4, 
“Receipts Size of Firms for the United States:  2007, NAICS Code 517919” (issued Nov. 2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
64
million or more.
94
  Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of these firms are small 
entities that may be affected by our action.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities 
31. In the Report and Order, the Commission amends its Part 20 rules to require CMRS 
providers and certain interconnected text providers to implement “bounce-back” messages when a 
consumer attempts to text 911 in an area where text-to-911 is unavailable.  Specifically, the rules apply to 
all CMRS providers as well as all providers of interconnected text messaging services that enable 
consumers to send text messages to and receive text messages from all or substantially all text-capable 
U.S. telephone numbers, including through the use of applications downloaded or otherwise installed on 
mobile phones. The rules also require covered text providers that are delivering texts to PSAPs that are 
supporting text-to-911 to provide a mechanism for the PSAP to request temporary suspension of text for 
any reason, including but not limited to network congestion, call-taker overload, PSAP failure, or security 
breach.  In those circumstances, the covered text provider must provide a bounce-back message to any 
consumer attempting to send a text to 911 in the area covered by the temporary suspension.  Covered text 
providers must also provide a mechanism to allow PSAPs to resume text-to-911 service after such 
temporary suspension.  
32. The projected compliance requirements resulting from the Report and Order will apply to 
all entities in the same manner.  The Commission believes that applying the same rules equally to all 
entities in this context is necessary to alleviate potential consumer confusion from adopting different rules 
for different providers.  As the nation transitions to full text-to-911, it is critical that all consumers, 
including consumers of services offered by small entities, be made aware of the limitations of text-to-911 
in their area.  The Commission believes, and the record in this proceeding confirms, that the costs and/or 
administrative burdens associated with the rules will not unduly burden small entities.
33. Compliance costs for the new rule will be small, requiring only minor coding and/or 
server changes.  Based on the record, CMRS providers and interconnected text providers have agreed that 
these changes are technically and financially feasible, with small costs to the covered provider.  
Additionally, the Commission provides an example of language that covered providers may use to satisfy 
the bounce-back requirement, further reducing potential administrative, legal and technical costs of 
compliance.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered 
34. 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) an exemption from 
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.”
95
35. Based on the Commission’s review of the record, the Commission finds that it is 
practicable for all CMRS providers, including small providers, to implement a bounce-back notification 
without incurring unduly burdensome costs.  The record also reflects that it would not be unduly 
                                                     
94
See id.
95
5 U.S.C. §§ 603(c)(1)-(c)(4). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
65
burdensome for covered text providers to implement bounce-back capability.
96
  The record in this 
proceeding indicates that some service providers, including small or rural providers,
97
as well as covered 
text providers,
98
already send an automatic bounce-back message to their subscribers when a subscriber 
attempts to send a text to 911.  The Report and Order recognizes the technical and operational issues that 
must be addressed before imposing a specific notification requirement, and allows time for 
implementation of a standardized message.  
36. In considering the record received in response to the Further Notice, the Commission 
examined alternatives to ease the burden on small and rural covered text providers.  These alternatives 
included extending the implementation deadline, or exempting small and rural covered text providers.  
However, the record in this proceeding indicates that the technical and financial costs for implementing 
bounce-back messages are small.  Many small carriers have argued that they can meet the requirements 
imposed in this Report and Order on a faster timeline than the one established in the rules.  For example, 
the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA), which represents many small and rural CMRS providers, 
states that, “…based on recent business developments cultivated by CCA and its members, most CCA 
carrier members will now be able to implement a bounce-back message by June 30, 2013.”
99
  
Nonetheless, in order to further ease the burden on small and rural covered providers, the rules we adopt 
in the Report and Order extend the deadline proposed in the Further Notice from June 30, 2013 to 
September 30, 2013.  Additionally, the rules adopted in the Report and Order allow for certain limited 
exemptions in cases where it is technologically infeasible to implement a bounce-back message (e.g., for 
certain handsets that are incapable of doing so).
37. Further, the Report and Order contains a detailed Cost-Benefit Analysis which finds that 
the life-saving public safety benefits of imposing a bounce-back requirement on covered text providers far 
outweigh the costs of such a rule.
38. Finally, in the event that small entities face unique circumstances with respect to these 
rules, such entities may request waiver relief from the Commission.  Accordingly, the Commission finds 
that it has discharged its duty to consider the burdens imposed on small entities.
F. Legal Basis
39. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this Report and Order is 
contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 301, 303(b), 303(r), 307, 309, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 615a, 615a-1, and 
615b of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 301, 303(b), 303(r), 
307, 309, 316, 319, 324, 332, 333, 615a, 615a-1, 615b, and 47 U.S.C. § 615c.
                                                     
96
See, e.g., Letter from Rebecca Murphy Thompson, General Counsel, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, in PS Docket No. 11-153 and PS Docket No. 10-255, March 25, 2013 (CCA Ex 
Parte); Proximiti Comments at 1. 
97
For example, SouthernLINC.
98
For example, textPlus and Heywire.
99
CCA Ex Parte at 1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
66
APPENDIX C
List of Commenters
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials
AT&T
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions 
Blooston Rural Carriers
Boulder Regional Emergency Telephone Service Authority
COM 390
Competitive Carrier Association
Consumer Groups and TAP
County of Fairfax, VA
CTIA – The Wireless Association
Maine PUC
MobileTREC
Motorola Mobility
National Emergency Number Association
OnStar
Proximiti
Rural Telecommunications Group
Sprint Nextel
Telecommunications Industry Association
Telecommunications Systems, Inc.
Texas 911 Entities
textPlus
T-Mobile
TracFone
VON Coalition
Wireless RERC
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
67
STATEMENT OF 
CHAIRMAN JULIUS GENACHOWSKI
RE:  Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications, PS Docket 
No. 11-153; Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No. 10-255.
When faced with an emergency, one of the first things people do is reach out to seek help for themselves 
or others. We communicate by whatever means we can, and more than ever a go-to means of 
communications is text messaging.   This is why one of the Commission’s top priorities has been 
promoting the rapid deployment of NG 911.  NG 911 will revolutionize the way consumers and first 
responders interact, providing enhanced tools like text-to-9-1-1 to improve public safety and save lives.
Until text-to-911 is widely available, and especially during the transition, it is imperative that consumers 
do not mistakenly believe that an undelivered text has been received by emergency authorities.
The automatic “bounce back” requirement now adopted by the Commission will quickly inform 
consumers that text-to-911 service is not available and to contact emergency services by another means, 
such as a voice call or, for individuals with disabilities, using telecommunications relay services to access 
911.
Importantly, today's action ensures that all consumers--whether using traditional SMS or interconnected 
text services, such as messaging apps that can text any phone number--will get bounce-back messages 
when 911 is unreachable by text. This is vital: As technology transitions continue the Commission must 
continue to protect consumers and public safety.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
68
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
RE:  Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications, PS Docket 
No. 11-153; Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No. 10-255.
Some reports estimate as many as six billion text messages are exchanged each day in the U. S., and over 
the past 20 years, this form of communications has become the most preferred means of telephonic 
engagement for those aged 30 and under.  Today’s mobile phone users probably take for granted, that 
their nearest Public Safety Access Point (PSAP), just like their friends and family, are equipped to 
support this type of dialogue.  With most emergency centers, not only is this not the case, but today, a 
sender has no way of knowing whether or not that distress message was ever received.
So I am pleased to commend Chairman Genachowski, for making a bounce back message requirement, an 
important policy priority.  The agency issued a Further Notice on this proposal in December 2012, and in 
less than five months, we are adopting an Order and setting a date certain – September 30, 2013 – by 
which all CMRS providers and interconnected text providers, must provide this capability.  Specifically, a 
bounce-back message will be required where text-to-911 is not supported either because the PSAP has not 
yet implemented a text-to-911 capability, or because a covered text provider does not support this service.  
This message will also be required when a PSAP has a temporary inability to accept text messages, for 
example, due to a mass calling event.
This mechanism is particularly important, because while deployment of text-to-911 has already begun, 
the migration to this service will not be uniform.  It will be available in some geographic areas sooner 
than in others, and as text-to-911 becomes more widely available, it is likely to generate increased 
consumer expectations.  Therefore, it is critical that consumers know when that service is not available 
and a bounce back message will immediately alert a person in need of assistance to employ an alternative 
means of notification.  
Adopting the bounce back message requirement also fulfills Congressional intent in several statutes.  
Section 106 of the Communications Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) requires the FCC to establish an 
advisory committee -- the Emergency Access Advisory Committee (EAAC) -- for the purpose of 
“achieving equal access to emergency services by individuals with disabilities, as a part of the migration 
to a national Internet protocol-enabled emergency network.”  The plain language of the CVAA authorizes 
the Commission “to promulgate regulations to implement the recommendations” proposed by the EAAC.  
The EAAC recommended the bounce back message requirement because to give people with hearing or 
speech disabilities, equal access to emergency communications during the migration to IP enabled 
emergency networks.  It will notify them when text to 9-1-1 does not work, making them aware that they 
need to try TTY or relay services, in order to get help.  For these reasons, the bounce back message is 
well within the Commission’s authority under the CVAA.  I also support the Order’s conclusion that this 
requirement is consistent with the directives in Titles I and III of the Communications Act.    
The four nationwide wireless carriers -- AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile – are to be commended for 
voluntarily committing to providing this bounce back capability by June 30, 2013.  This agreement will 
accelerate deployment of this critical public safety communications to more than 90 percent of the 
nation’s wireless consumers.  
I also wish to thank David Turetsky, Sean Lev, and the talented staff in the Public Safety Homeland 
Security Bureau and Office of General Counsel, for carefully examining the implementation issues and 
providing us with an excellent Order.      
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
69
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
RE:  Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications, PS Docket 
No. 11-153; Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No. 10-255.
The digital age has multiplied the ways we communicate.  With our mobile devices almost always in 
hand, we stay connected like never before.  But reaching out today means more than talk.  It means 
texting, too.  We text to contact friends and family, to confirm plans, to vote in contests, and to donate to 
charities and campaigns.  In light of this, last year the Commission took steps to make it possible to text 
in times of emergency—to text 911.  
Today we build on this earlier effort.  Specifically, we address consumer confusion regarding the 
availability of texting to 911.  This is important.  Because texting to 911 is not yet uniformly available, it 
is hard for consumers to know where this feature works and when it can be used.  Yet when it comes to 
matters of public safety, our policies have no room for confusion.  Simply put, it can be a matter of life 
and death.
To reduce this possibility, I believe the Commission needs to focus on three essential things.
First, consumers should have the confidence that comes from a firm date by which everyone can text to 
911 nationwide.  Last year the four nationwide wireless carriers agreed to provide this certainty by 
committing to offer the service by May 15 of next year.  So far, so good.
Second, we need an extensive consumer outreach program, involving the Commission, public safety 
organizations, carriers, and the deaf and hard-of-hearing community all working together.  Although we 
are only at the beginning stages of this effort, we are making progress.
Third and finally, consumers should receive an immediate notification—a bounce back message—any 
time their text to 911 does not go through.  
It is this final point the Commission addresses today.  It is absolutely critical.  For too long, when a call 
for help went out as a text message, the only response was painful silence.  But no one should be left 
wondering in an emergency if they have been heard.  
Accordingly, in this decision we ensure that by September 30 of this year, consumers will have the 
confidence of knowing whether or not their text to 911 has gone through.  Even better, this critical 
capability will not be limited to wireless carriers.  IP-based texting applications that are increasingly 
substituting for traditional SMS text services will also begin providing bounce-back messages.
But as good as this is, the job is not done.  I think more work is needed to clean up the bounce back 
messages so that are provided.  
Here’s why.  I have visited half of the active text to 911 trials that are ongoing across the country.  I have 
seen text to 911 in action in Vermont, Maryland, and Virginia.  What I learned is that while the numbers 
of texts received today is low, the potential is great.  But I also learned about the bounce back messages in 
place today.  They run the gamut—from helpful to confusing, from reliable to simply unavailable.  
Some, consistent with today’s decision, provide two critical pieces of information—that text to 911 is not 
available and that the consumer should try to contact 911 using another means.  For instance, from one 
carrier: “Call 911 for emergency.  Text to 911 service not available.”
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
70
But others are a mix.  From one carrier: “You have entered an invalid address.”  
From another:  “Message failed would you like to retry?”  
From yet another, even worse: no response.  
We can do better.  So it is both my hope and expectation that before September 30, the carriers and 
providers of IP-based texting applications that are covered by this decision will develop a more consistent 
and more meaningful bounce-back message.  They should.  Because this is not just about reaching out, it 
is about communicating when the unthinkable occurs—and making sure that every call for help gets 
answered.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-64
71
CONCURRING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER PAI
RE:  Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 Applications, PS Docket 
No. 11-153; Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, PS Docket No. 10-255.
People in need of emergency assistance should not be left with the false impression that first responders 
are on the way, when in fact they are not.  That is why I support the automatic “bounce-back” text 
message requirement set forth in this Report and Order.  If Americans send an emergency text to 911 in a 
location where text-to-911 capability is not yet available, they should be notified immediately that they 
must contact public safety personnel in another way, such as by calling 911.  This “bounce-back” 
requirement that we adopt today is of particular importance to deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans, who 
disproportionately rely on texting as a means of communication.    
I also believe that the Commission possesses the legal authority to issue these rules.  But I cannot support 
the lengthy legal analysis contained in this item, which offers a grab bag of theories, some far-reaching 
and questionable.  For example, the Commission today claims sweeping authority to prescribe “rules that 
prevent the transmission of potentially misleading text messages.”
1
  This remarkable assertion of power 
raises serious First Amendment questions and should give pause to anyone who has ever sent a 
“potentially misleading” text message.  Similarly, the reliance on a statutory provision that empowers the 
Commission to implement policy recommendations made by non-governmental actors
2
evokes 
constitutional doubts dating back to the Great Depression.
3
  Law and prudence suggest we go no further 
than necessary in justifying otherwise worthwhile policy choices.
                                                     
1
Report and Order, para. 129.  
2
Id., para. 97 (citing 47 U.S.C. § 615c(g) (“The Commission shall have the authority to promulgate regulations to 
implement the recommendations proposed by the [Emergency Access] Advisory Committee[.]”)).  
3
See, e.g., A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495, 541–42 (1935) (striking down as an 
unconstitutional delegation of authority provision of National Industrial Recovery Act giving President power to 
approve “codes of fair competition” as recommended by trade or industrial associations or groups); Carter v. Carter 
Coal Co., 298 U.S. 238, 310–11 (1936) (holding unconstitutional statutory provision granting private entities the 
authority to set certain labor conditions).