[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 123 (Monday, June 28, 1999)]
[Unknown Section]
[Pages 34564-34569]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-16484]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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