[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
lesmith@fcc.gov and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725-
17th Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20503, or via the Internet to
fain__t@al.eop.gov.
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 lesmith@fcc.gov.
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
