Compatibility of Wireless Services With Enhanced 911

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 22

[CC Docket No. 94-102; FCC 99-96]

Compatibility of Wireless Services With Enhanced 911

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document creates rules that will improve the ability of

cellular phone users to complete wireless 911 calls. The action is

taken to improve the security and safety of analog cellular users,

especially in rural and suburban areas. The primary goal of this action

is to ensure that reliable, effective 911 and E911 service is available

to wireless users by approving three mechanisms any of which will

result in more wireless 911 calls being completed than occurs today.

This document contains new information collections subject to the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). It has been submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an emergency review under

PRA. The general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to

comment on the proposed information collections contained in this

proceeding.

DATES: Effective July 28, 1999. This document contains new information

collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), which

are pending OMB approval. A notice will be placed in the Federal

Register when OMB approval for these information collections is

received. Written comments by the public and by other Government

agencies on the information collections are due August 27, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments on the information collections should be submitted

to Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1A-804, 445 12th

Street, S.W., Washington DC 20554, or via the Internet at

[email protected] and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-

17th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to

[email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Won Kim or Dan Grosh, Policy Division,

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 428-1310. For additional

information concerning the information collection aspects contained in

the document, contact Les Smith, Federal Communications Commission,

Room 1A-804, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington DC 20554, or via the

Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Second Report and

Order (Second R&O) in CC Docket NO. 94-102, FCC 99-96, adopted May 13,

1999, and released June 9, 1999. The complete text of this Second R&O

is available for the inspection and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Courtyard Level, 445

12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20054, and also may be purchased

from the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription

Services (ITS, Inc.), (202) 857-3800. CY-B400, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20054.

Synopsis of the Second Report and Order

1. In this Second R&O, the Commission approves three approaches to

facilitate the completion of more wireless 911 calls. The Commission

believes that the action taken in the Second R&O will have a

significant positive impact on the security and safety of analog

cellular subscribers, especially in rural and suburban areas, and

result in the successful completion of significantly more wireless

calls to 911 than occurs today. Thus the Commission is responding to a

public need for confidence that wireless calls to 911 will in fact go

through.

2. Specifically, the Second R&O requires that analog cellular

phones include a separate capability for processing 911 calls that

permits those calls to be handled, where necessary, by either cellular

carrier in the area. This separate capability is intended to improve

911 reliability, increase the probability that 911 calls will be

efficiently and successfully transmitted to public safety agencies, and

help ensure that wireless service will be maintained for the duration

of the 911 calls. The rule applies to new handsets manufactured more

than nine months after the adoption date of the Second R&O. The Second

R&O also sets out guidelines for 911 call completion methods that

satisfy the Commission's rule, approving three methods that have been

proposed in this proceeding, (1) Automatic A/B Roaming-Intelligent

Retry (IR), (2) Adequate/Strongest Signal, and (3) Selective Retry.

3. While the actions taken in the Second R&O should represent an

important improvement in completing 911 calls, especially in areas

where cellular coverage is less complete, it is also important to

recognize the problems and limits that remain in completing 911 calls.

The full text of the Second R&O thus addresses the comparative

advantages and disadvantages of the three approved methods and notes

that the present limits of technology deprive the Commission of the

opportunity to craft perfect solutions. Each of the approved methods,

while improving the current situation regarding 911 call completion, is

subject to some disadvantages in certain situations. Moreover, the new

rule only applies to new analog cellular handsets, not to existing

handsets or to digital services such as Personal Communications Service

(PCS) or Enhanced Specialized Radio (ESMR).

4. The origin of the Second R&O may be found in the Second Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (Second NPRM) in this proceeding (61 FR 40374,

August 2, 1996) which sought ways to enable mobile users to complete

911 calls without regard to the availability of the system or

technology used by their wireless service in the area in which they

seek to place the call. The Second NPRM sought comment on one proposal

in this area and also sought comment on any other ways to enable

wireless telephone users to complete 911 calls wherever a mobile system

providing 911 service is present.

5. One reason access to emergency 911 systems is not always

available for wireless handsets is that there are gaps in the signal

coverage provided by wireless carriers. A wireless telephone user who

happens to be located in a coverage gap or ``blank spot'' where his or

her carrier's signal is inadequate may find that it is not possible to

establish and maintain adequate communications over the wireless system

accessed by the handset. Moreover, if the preferred carrier provides a

weak or inadequate signal in response to analog cellular 911 calls, the

handset may nonetheless lock onto that carrier even if sustained voice

communications between the handset and the preferred carrier's system

is not possible.

6. One option for improving 911 call completion is to initially

program handsets to a calling mode termed A over B, B over A (A/B, B/A)

default

[[Page 34565]]

approach. The A/B, B/A approach would switch all analog cellular

calls--including 911 calls--to the customer's preferred carrier if a

usable channel is available. If a channel is not available, the handset

would automatically switch to a usable channel on the other cellular

carrier's system. As an initial measure to improve accessibility to all

services by wireless users, the Commission supports this A/B, B/A

default setting as a voluntary industry practice. Setting the default

in this way does, however, permit the handset to place calls with non-

preferred carriers, and in the case of ordinary calls, this could

result in unexpected and unwanted roaming charges. The industry program

to educate users should inform customers of the possibility of a

roaming charge so that they can decide whether to make such calls. This

program might include information in the handset manuals and in

materials provided to the customer at the time of activation that will

help users understand the operation of the handset and the charges that

will apply, including possible roaming charges. Customers will have the

option of setting a different default if they prefer.

7. While useful, the A/B, B/A default approach, standing alone, is

of limited value because all calls, including regular calls, will be

switched to the other carrier. Non-emergency calls make up the vast

majority of calls, so consumers will face substantial incentives to

reprogram their handsets back to A only, B only, or some other mode

that best meets their needs for non-emergency calls. To the extent that

they do so, the benefits of the A/B approach 911 calls will vanish.

This operational mode is also subject to lock-in problems. These

limitations could reduce the availability of the A/B, B/A mode

substantially.

8. The Second R&O, in order to address some of these problems,

concludes that 911 call completion for cellular phones operating in the

analog mode should be further enhanced by requiring that handset

include separate programming for 911 calls. By providing cellular phone

users with a program for 911 calls separate from that used for their

other calls, the Commission will equip each user with an operational

mode, or possibly a choice of modes, that will best enhance 911 calls.

This will enable users to select both the calling mode that is likely

to be most reliable and effective for them in emergencies and a

different mode, if they prefer, for ordinary calls.

9. Three 911-only call processing modes have been proposed in this

proceeding. Two of these, Automatic A/B Roaming--IR and Adequate/

Strongest Signal, are based on earlier proposals, but have been

modified significantly to address concerns raised in the record.

Selective Retry was proposed as another method to address such

concerns. Although the Commission recognizes that each approach has

certain limitations that are pertinent to our objective of maximizing

911 call completions, it also believes that each of three proposals

represents a substantial improvement toward meeting this objective. The

Commission has also concluded, moreover, that each approach offers

benefits under certain circumstances, as compared to the status quo,

and may also suit different user preferences. Finally, the Commission

believes that each of the three call processing modes may also provide

a foundation for future improvements in 911 call Completion, reflecting

actual operating experience, innovation, or adaptation to technologies

other than analog cellular.

10. The Commission, based on analysis of the record, believes that

any reasonable analog cellular 911 call processing mode should satisfy

certain basic principles. First, the most basic goal is to improve the

911 call completion rate so far as practicable, including in

circumstances where the caller's preferred carrier is unable to

complete a call that can be completed by another carrier. Second, it is

often desirable to complete 911 calls, where possible, via the

preferred cellular carrier. This routing minimizes delay in setting up

the call and encourages competition among carriers in the most

effective provision of 911 service, including E911 features.

11. Third, a 911 call processing mode should not disrupt overall

operation of 911 service, including the networks of both wireless

carriers and public safety organization. Fourth, the 911 call

processing mode should address the lock-in problem in a reasonable and

effective way that substantially reduces or eliminates the likelihood

that a 911 call might be locked in on the system of a cellular carrier

that is unable to provide a usable voice communications channel. And,

fifth, the benefits of the calling mode to public safety should

outweigh any additional costs. These principles represent general

criteria for evaluating 911 call processing modes. In this Second R&O,

the Commission applies them to evaluate the three 911-only modes that

have been presented in the record. In doing so, the Commission notes

that it is not our intent to limit the development and improvement of

911 call completion modes, so long as they meet the criteria

established. The Commission wishes to encourage the development of new

and improved methods of making wireless technology enhance public

safety.

12. The first approved method for 911-only call processing is

Automatic A/B Roaming-IR. With this mode, when a consumer dials 911 the

handset would seek to complete the call with the consumer's preferred

carrier, if possible. If the handset fails to receive a signal, the

handset would attempt to complete the call to the non-preferred carrier

and would continue to rescan and reattempt the call until it is

completed, the user terminates the call, or the handset loses power.

The Commission believes that, in most respects, it should improve 911

call completion and satisfy the criteria as detailed in the Second R&O.

13. The Second R&O does, however, express concerns regarding

Automatic A/B Roaming-IR. One significant disadvantage involves the

length of set-up times. For most 911 calls, which would be completed

via the preferred carrier, the call set-up time should be no longer

than for any other call. However, the IR approach could lengthen set-up

for calls not completed via the preferred carrier, in some cases by

many seconds. The Commission is concerned that long delays in set-up

time may induce callers in an emergency situation to sign off before

the process has had adequate time to run, even if the call could have

been completed with the non-preferred carrier. Because the same call

completion algorithm would be implemented for each new call attempt,

callers might be repeatedly frustrated if they mistakenly interpreted

the long set-up time as an indication that the call had failed. Even if

the caller persevered, any lengthy delay in completing emergency calls

would also delay the dispatch of help.

14. Based on the record, the Second R&O requires that Automatic A/B

Roaming-IR meet two conditions to address delays in set-up times.

First, the handset must provide effective feedback to inform the user

when 911 call processing is underway and has not finished. This could

take the form of an audible tone or message in addition to a visual

status report on the handset's screen. Second, the IR algorithm should

be such that, in any case, the handset would not spend more than a

reasonable amount of time seeking to complete the call with the

preferred carrier before reattempting the call with the other cellular

carrier. The Second R&O, to minimize the possibility that delays in

processing 911 calls will lead callers to terminate 911 calls that

eventually would have been completed, placed a time limit of 17 seconds

from the time the call is sent for the handset to either

[[Page 34566]]

complete the call to the preferred carrier or seek to complete the call

to the non-preferred carrier. The feedback information should reassure

callers that they should continue waiting for this amount of time, so

that abandonment of 911 calls that could have been completed should

very infrequent or nonexistent. Handset manufacturers may elect to set

an even briefer period to further minimize 911 call set-up delays.

15. The Second R&O notes that Automatic A/B Roaming-IR is currently

under review by an industry standards body, Telecommunications Industry

Association (TIA). The Second R&O asks that TIA, as part of this

review, consider whether and to what extent the 17 second time limit

might be further reduced in order to further minimize call set-up

delays and lock-in. The Commission also encourages wireless carriers

and mobile phone manufacturers to be active in addressing this request

so that future revisions to industry cellular standards and generations

of mobile phones provide for further reductions in call set-up delays

for 911 calls where feasible. The Commission looks forward to receiving

the results of TIA's review and will continue monitoring TIA's progress

with respect to these issues. In the meantime, the Second R&O finds

that Automatic A/B Roaming-IR, as conditioned in the Second R&O meets

the Commission's basic objectives and will serve to improve the status

quo regarding 911 call completion, and thus improves this method as one

means of complying with the Commission's 911 call completion rules.

16. The second approved approach is the Adequate/Strongest signal.

The initial proposal provided that the handset would scan for all

available lines and select the carrier with the strongest control

channel signal. Further, strongest signal capability would be required

for all new analog cellular phones and would be enabled as the default

setting, but could easily be disabled by consumers choosing to do so.

In response to the initial proposal, the public safety community and

the wireless industry raised concerns that strongest signal would have

unintended and adverse consequences. In response to these concerns, a

revised Adequate/Strongest Signal proposal was submitted stating that

analog 911 calls would be routed to the preferred carrier if that

carrier provides an ``adequate'' channel of communication as measured

in the handset by its forward control channel signal strength. The

Second R&O adopts a definition of adequate control channel signal as

one with a strength of at least -85 dBm. If the preferred carrier does

not have an adequate signal, then the call would be routed to whichever

analog carrier had the strongest forwarding control channel signal.

17. The Second R&O recognizes that Adequate/Strongest Signal is not

a perfect or ultimate solution to 911 call completion

problems,1 but finds that overall, it will substantially

improve 911 call completion and otherwise satisfies the Commission's

criteria for an acceptable 911 call completion mode. In particular, the

Second R&O concludes that Adequate/Strongest Signal is likely to

improve 911 call completion in rural and suburban areas for portable

phones. Accordingly, the Second R&O approves its use by handset

manufacturers as one method of complying with the Commission's Rules.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Several commenters suggested various disadvantages they

found in an Adequate/Strongest Signal approach to 911 call

completion problems. These disadvantages and the Commission's

decision to approve Adequate/Strongest Signal as a mode of complying

with the 911 call completion rules are discussed in the full text of

the Second R&O in paragraphs 43-68.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. The final approach approved by the Second R&O is Selective

Retry, which employs a separate 911 button on the handset to route 911

calls. This is an option that could also be adopted with other 911

calling modes. This method initially uses the A/B, B/A program, which

routes calls to the preferred carrier unless that carrier provides no

signal, in which case the call would be routed to the other cellular

carrier. What Selective Retry adds is the ability for a caller to route

a call to the other carrier by pressing the 911 button if and when the

caller judges this to be necessary. Use of Selective Retry could occur

both during call set-up and after a caller is in conversation. At a

minimum, the Commission believes that it should be made available as a

third 911 call set-up procedure manufacturers can incorporate in

handsets.

19. The Second R&O recognizes that handsets with 911 buttons may

seem vulnerable to accidental, false alarm calls. The Commission

believes that, once alerted to this problem, handset manufacturers will

be able to design 911 buttons that are much less vulnerable to

accidental dialing. To the extent that effective designs are put in

service, users will no longer need to program a speed dial button to

911, which should help reduce accidental dialing of 911. While the

Second R&O does not adopt specific requirements for 911 buttons, the

Commission encourages manufacturers to consider and address this issue

in their designs. If necessary, the Commission is prepared to adopt

specific rules to reduce accidental 911 calls, in order to assist the

public safety organizations which must process such calls.

20. The Commission finds no reason why dual-mode and multi-mode

handsets when operating in the analog mode cannot and should not be

subject to the same 911 call completion principles and rules as analog-

only handsets. The analog functions of these handsets are subject to

the same standards and rules and the Commission believes that should

continue to be the case in this critical public safety area. The Second

R&O thus adopts the same rule and schedule for all handsets that

operate in the analog cellular modes, including dual-mode and multi-

mode handsets when they are operating in the analog cellular mode. Dual

and multi-mode handsets may operate in a digital mode in routing 911

calls, but when the handset operates in analog mode, it should do so in

compliance with the rules the Commission adopted in the Second R&O.

21. The Second R&O, to allow a reasonable time for cellular handset

manufacturers to comply with these requirements to implement a separate

911 call menu that includes an approved 911 call completion mode,

establishes a deadline nine months from the adoption date of this

Second R&O. The Commission believes that this nine month period will

allow carriers and PSAPs sufficient time to plan for changes in 911

calling patterns and make any other needed adjustments.

22. The Commission will implement this rule through an equipment

manufacturing requirement and through the Commission's equipment

authorization process. As of the date nine months from the adoption

date of this Second R&O, any mobile unit manufactured with analog

cellular capability will be expected to incorporate at least one of the

three approved 911 call processing mode. Any application for equipment

authorization of an analog cellular telephone submitted six months

after the adoption date of this Second R&O must include a statement and

a description of the approved 911 call processing method used by the

device. The Commission will consider the incorporation of modifications

to existing authorized equipment to Class I permissive changes that do

not require a filing with the Commission.

[[Page 34567]]

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

(RFA),2 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this

proceeding. The Commission sought written public comments on the

proposals in the Second NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. The

Commission's Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this

Second Report and Order (Second R&0) conforms to the RFA.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq., has

been amended by the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996,

Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847(1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the

CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996 (SBREFA).

\3\ See 5 U.S.C. 604.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Need for and Objectives of Action

24. The Second NPRM in this proceeding raised several issues of

importance to improving E911 service. One issue in the Second NPRM

considered proposals to help improve the transmission of 911 calls,

particularly in geographic areas where a wireless 911 call could be

delayed by ``blank spots'' where the system's radio signal is very weak

or non-existent. A petition filed by the Ad Hoc Alliance for Public

Access, proposing that the Commission require that all 911 calls be

sent to the cellular system with the strongest control channel signal,

was put out for comment at that time. The Commission sought comment on

the Alliance's proposal and, more broadly, on ways to enable mobile

users to complete 911 calls without regard to the geographic

availability of the system or technology used by their wireless

service. The Second R&O is needed to resolve these issues raised in the

Second NPRM and is intended as an additional step toward improving both

basic and enhance 911 wireless services and to ensure that critical 911

wireless service is offered in the most efficient, dependable way

technologically feasible.

II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments in

Response to Initial Regulatory Flexibility Statement

25. No comments were submitted in direct response to the Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Act. However, the Commission made every effort

to gather as much data as possible on the issues considered in the

Second R&O, and general comments received in response to the Second

NPRM established an extensive record on which the decisions reached in

the Second R&O were based. The Commission does not believe that a large

number of manufacturers affected by the actions adopted in the Second

R&O would be considered small businesses as defined by the Small

Business Administration.

III. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Subject to the

Rules

26. To estimate the number of small entities that may be affected

by the possible significant economic impact of our present action, we

first consider the definition of ``small entity'' under the RFA. The

RFA generally defines ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as

the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small

governmental jurisdiction.'' 4 In addition, the term ``small

business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''

under the Small Business Act.5 A small business concern is

one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant

in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria

established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).6

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Id. 601(6).

\5\ Id. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of

``small business concern'' in 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.''

\6\ Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. Cellular Equipment Manufacturers. The actions taken in the

Second R&O will chiefly apply to manufacturers of cellular equipment

offering analog services or digital equipment also offering analog

services. The Commission does not know how many cellular equipment

manufacturers are in the current market, or how many equipment

manufacturers are developing dual-mode handsets that can operate as an

analog as well as a digital set. The 1994 County Business Patterns

Report of the Bureau of the Census estimates that there are 920

companies that make communications subscriber equipment. This category

includes not only cellular equipment manufacturers, but television and

AM/FM radio manufacturers as well. Thus the number of cellular

equipment manufacturers is considerably lower than 920, and the number

of cellular manufacturers producing equipment that can be used in

analog mode is lower than that. Under SBA regulations, a

``communications equipment manufacturer,'' which includes not only U.S.

cellular equipment manufacturers but also firms that manufacture radio

and television broadcasting and other communications equipment, must

have a total of 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small

business concern. Census Bureau data from 1992 indicate that at that

time there were an estimated 858 such U.S. manufacturers and that 778

(91%) of these firms had 750 or fewer employees and would therefore be

classified as small entities.7 Using our current estimate of

cellular equipment manufacturers and the previous percentage estimate

of small entities, we estimate that our current action may affect

approximately 837 small cellular equipment manufacturers.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,

Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995), SIC code 3663

(estimate created by the Census Bureau under contract to the Office

of Advocacy, SBA).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. Cellular Carriers. Cellular carriers are also impacted by the

Commission's decision in this proceeding. The Commission has also not

developed a definition of small entities applicable to cellular

licensees. Again, the definition of small entity is the definition

under the SBA rules this time applicable to radiotelephone companies.

This definition provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone

company employing no more than 1,500 persons.8

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ 13 CFR 121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

Code 4812.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. The most reliable source of information regarding the total

numbers of certain common carrier and related providers nationwide

appears to be data the Commission publishes annually in its Carrier

Locator report, derived from filings made in connection with the

Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS). According to our most recent

data, 804 companies reported that they are engaged in the provision of

cellular services . Although it seems certain that some of these

carriers are not independently owned and operated, or have more than

1,500 employees, we are unable at this time to estimate with greater

precision the number of Cellular Service Carriers that would qualify as

small business concerns under SBA's definition. Consequently, we

estimate that there are fewer than 804 small entity Cellular Service

Carriers that might be affected by the actions taken in this Second

R&O.

IV. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other

Compliance Requirements

30. The Second R&O adopts a rule requiring that analog cellular

phone, manufactured more than nine months after the adoption date of

the Order, include a separate capability for

[[Page 34568]]

processing 911 calls that permits those calls to be handled, where

necessary, by either cellular carrier in the area. The Second R&O also

sets out guidelines for 911 call completion methods that satisfy our

rule, approving three methods that have been proposed in the record,

Automatic A/B Roaming-Intelligent Retry, Adequate/Strongest Signal, and

Selective Retry. Any one of the three may be used. Alternative methods

may be used to satisfy the Commission's Rules, provided that Commission

approval is received for the alternative method. In this way, the

Commission hopes to keep abreast of changing technology and alter its

911 rules whenever necessary to optimize the benefits of technology.

Implementation of the rule will be achieved through an equipment

manufacturing requirement and the Commission's equipment authorization

process. The Second R&O also requires that any application for

equipment authorization of an analog cellular telephone submitted six

months after the adoption date of the Second R&O must include a

statement and a description of the approved 911 call processing method

used by the device.

31. Finally, the Second R&O suggests a voluntary program to educate

users of analog phones with regard to capabilities of the A/B, B/A

logic for 911 calls. The voluntary industry education program should

also inform the users of the possibility that setting A/B, B/A as the

default for analog handset could produce roaming charges.

V. Significant Alternatives to Proposed Rules Which Minimize

Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Accomplish Stated

Objectives

32. Three 911-only call processing modes were proposed in this

proceeding. Two of these, Automatic A/B Roaming-Intelligent Retry (IR)

and Adequate/Strongest Signal have been modified significantly to

address concerns raised in the record. For example, to avoid critical

delays in transmission time under the Automatic A/B Roaming-IR

proposal, the Second R&O establishes time limits for providing customer

feedback that 911 call processing is underway but not completed. The

handset should seek to complete the call with the non-preferred

cellular carrier if the preferred cellular carrier has not successfully

deliver the call to the landline carrier within 17 seconds after the

call is placed. To reduce the possibility of consumers abandoning their

911 calls, the Second R&O indicates that the feedback information

should advise callers to continue waiting for this amount of time. The

Commission could have adopted a mandatory program to educate users of

analog phones with regard to capabilities of the A/B, B/A logic for 911

calls, but instead made this provision voluntary.

33. Also, the Commission considered specific requirements for 911

buttons to avoid accidental dialing of 911, but declined to take

regulatory action and encouraged manufacturers to consider and address

this issue in their designs.

34. One commenter proposed that if the Commission adopted both

Adequate/Signal and Automatic A/B Roaming-IR, that handset

manufacturers be required to offer both choices in each handset. The

Commission denied this proposal, finding such a requirement unwarranted

and costly. The Second R&O, while not barring manufacturers from

electing to incorporate more than one calling mode, or some combination

of modes, indicates that implementation of any one of the approved 911

calling modes would improve 911 call completion.

35. Another commenter proposed a six month deadline for compliance

with these regulations to implement a separate 911 call menu that

includes an approved 911 call completion mode. The Second R&O adopted a

nine month deadline to provide enough time for product and standards

development or for thorough testing.

36. Finally, while approving the three 911 call completion modes,

A/B Roaming-Intelligent Retry, Adequate Strongest Signal, and Selective

Retry, the Second R&O also provided that carriers may incorporate a new

or modified 911 call processing mode provided that they submit such

requests to the Commission for approval.

Authority

37. This action is taken pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201, 303,

309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the

Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 303, 309,

332.

Ordering Clauses

38. Accordingly, it is ordered that part 22 of the Commission's

Rules is amended as set forth in this Second R&O.

39. It is further ordered that the rule amendments made by this

Second R&O shall become effective July 28, 1999.

40. It is further ordered that authority is delegated to the

Wireless Telecom-munications Bureau to consider and approve, deny, or

approve with modifications new or revised 911 call processing modes.

41. It is further ordered that, the Commission's Office of Public

Affairs, Reference Operations Division, shall send a copy of this

Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Act

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration in accordance with section 603(a) of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980, Public Law 96-354, 94 Stat., 5 U.S.C. 601-612

(1980).

Paperwork Reduction Act

The Second R&O contains a new or modified information collection.

The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork

burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the

information collections contained in the NPRM, as required by the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and Agency

comments are due on or before August 27, 1999. Comments should address:

(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the

proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including

whether the information shall have practical utility; (2) the accuracy

of the Commission's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality,

utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) ways to

minimize the burden of the collection of information on the

respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or

other forms of information technology.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 22

Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

Shirley S. Suggs,

Chief, Publications Branch.

Rule Changes

Part 22 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended

as follows:

PART 22--PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES

1. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 222, 303, 309, and 332.

2. New Sec. 22.921 is added to read as follows:

Sec. 22.921 911 Call Processing Procedures; 911-Only Calling Mode.

All mobile phones manufactured after February 13, 2000, and capable

of operating in an analog mode, i.e., in compliance with ``Cellular

System Mobile Station--Land Station Compatibility Specification''

(April 1981 Ed.) Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin No. 53,

referenced in Sec. 22.933 must incorporate a special

[[Page 34569]]

procedure for processing ``9-1-1'' calls. Such procedure must recognize

when a ``9-1-1'' call is made and, at such time, must override any

programming in the mobile unit that determines the handling of a non-

911 call and permit the call to be handled by other analog carriers.

This special procedure must incorporate any one or more of the 9-1-1

call system selection processes endorsed or approved by the Commission.

[FR Doc. 99-16484 Filed 6-25-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-P