**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | CC Docket No. 94-102         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Revision of the Commission's     | ** | RM-8143                      |
| Rules                            |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| To Ensure Compatibility with     | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Enhanced 911 Emergency           |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
| Calling Systems                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Non-Initialized Phones           |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: October 21, 2003 Released: November 3, 2003**

By the Commission:

# Introduction

1.  In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (Order), we grant the *Petition
    for Reconsideration* (*Reconsideration Petition*) filed by the
    Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) on behalf
    of the Emergency Services Interconnection Forum (ESIF).[^1] The
    Commission's *Report and Order*[^2] under reconsideration here
    required the programming of carrier-donated non-service-initialized
    phones and newly manufactured non-initialized "911-only" wireless
    handsets with the number 123-456-7890 as the "telephone number"
    transmitted to the Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) receiving
    the call in order to address the problems created by the lack of
    call-back capability when 911 calls are dialed from these devices.
    We now conclude, in light of the new information presented by the
    ESIF, that the voluntary technical standard developed by the ESIF,
    which was recently adopted as part of the "Enhanced Wireless 9-1-1
    Phase 2" industry consensus standard, provides a more far-reaching
    and technically superior solution to that contained in the
    Commission's April 29, 2002, *Report and Order* and therefore better
    serves the public interest.

2.  Accordingly, we lift the Stay[^3] currently in effect and modify the
    Commission's rules by striking the requirement to program the
    123-456-7890 sequential number into carrier-donated non-initialized
    and "911-only" phones. We also relieve carriers of any attendant
    obligations to complete any network programming necessary to deliver
    the 123-456-7890 "telephone number" from these devices to PSAPs.[^4]
    We replace those rules with the requirement to program
    carrier-donated non-service initialized phones and new "911-only"
    handsets covered in our original *Report and Order* with a
    sequential number beginning with "911," plus seven digits selected
    in a manner analogous to the way a "telephone number" is generated
    by Annex C compliant network software, as explained in more detail
    below. We further require that carriers complete any network
    programming necessary to deliver this "telephone number" from
    carrier-donated non-service initialized phones and "911-only"
    handsets to PSAPs.

**II. BACKGROUND**

3.  The *Report and Order* amended section 20.18 of the Commission's
    rules to address the problems associated with two classes of
    non-initialized wireless devices[^5] that lack call-back
    capability: (1) carrier-donated phones that have the capability of
    being service-initialized, but are either no longer, or never have
    been, service-initialized by a wireless carrier; and (2) recently
    manufactured 911-only handsets that can only make 911 calls and are
    technically incapable of receiving any incoming calls. Specifically,
    the portions of the rule subject to reconsideration here are
    subsections 20.18(l)(1)(i) and (l)(2)(i), which provided a
    handset-based solution to enable PSAPs to recognize calls from these
    types of phones. Subsection (l)(1)(i) required that licensees that
    donate non-initialized handsets for the purpose of providing access
    to 911 services must program 123-456-7890 as the "telephone
    number"[^6] or Mobile Directory Number (MDN)[^7] of each handset to
    alert a PSAP that the 911 call is being made from a wireless phone
    that lacks call-back capability. Subsection (l)(2)(i) required
    manufacturers of 911-only handsets that lack call-back capacity to
    program those handsets with the same number. The *Report and Order*
    also required carriers to complete any network programming necessary
    to deliver the 123-456-7890 "telephone number" to PSAPs from a
    non-initialized carrier-donated handset or "911-only" phone. The
    effective date of these rules was to be October 1, 2002.[^8]

4.  On May 17, 2002, after the *Report and Order* was released, the
    Chair of the newly formed ESIF[^9] filed an *Ex* *Parte* letter
    describing problems with the sequential numbering requirements that
    Forum participants in the inaugural meeting of the ESIF had
    identified.[^10] The letter also described a potential alternative
    network solution that was, at that time, an informative annex (Annex
    C)[^11] of J-STD-036-A, the industry-adopted consensus standard for
    implementation of Phase II E911, published jointly by the
    Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and ATIS, on behalf of
    its sponsored Committee T1.

5.  On June 12, 2002, the ESIF filed its *Reconsideration Petition*,
    seeking reconsideration of that portion of the Commission's *Report
    and Order* adopting sections 20.18(l)(1)(i) and (l)(2)(i) of the
    Commission's rules.[^12] Also, on June 12, 2002, the ESIF filed a
    separate *Stay Request*[^13] of the effective date of October 1,
    2002 for implementation of sections 20.18(l)(1)(i) and (l)(2)(i) of
    these rules, until the Commission disposed of the ESIF's
    *Reconsideration Petition*. On September 30, 2002, the Commission's
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted the ESIF's Request for
    Stay, and ordered the effective date of sections 20.18(l)(1)(i) and
    (l)(2)(i) to be suspended until the Commission had disposed of the
    ESIF's *Reconsideration Petition.*[^14] On July 3, 2002, the
    Commission's Wireless Telecommunications Bureau released a Public
    Notice seeking comment on the *Reconsideration Petition* and the
    *Stay Request*. [^15] Five comments and five Reply Comments were
    received. [^16] A number of *Ex* *Parte* filings were also made in
    this proceeding.

6.  In its filings, the ESIF provided detailed information about the
    Annex C solution for mobile phones that do not have a valid
    call-back number. The Annex C solution specifies using 911 followed
    by the seven least significant digits of the decimal representation
    of a wireless handset's Electronic Serial Number (ESN) or
    International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI)[^17] to
    enable network software to create a pseudo ten-digit telephone
    number/MDN when a non-initialized wireless phone or other similarly
    programmed wireless device makes a 911 call. When a switch that has
    been programmed with software that complies with Annex C receives a
    handset's ESN or IMEI and there is no valid call-back number, it
    will transmit "911" followed by the decimal representation of the
    seven least significant digits of the ESN or IMEI as the caller
    identification number (Caller ID) to equipment used by the
    PSAP.[^18] According to the ESIF, using this pseudo number will
    thereby provide the PSAP with a distinctive number, likely to be
    associated only with the specific device used to place the 911 call.

7.  The ESIF explained in its filings with the Commission that this
    solution has a number of advantages over the transmission of the
    identical 123-456-7890 numerical sequence for donated
    non-initialized phones and 911-only handsets. First, because the
    Annex C solution can more accurately identify the particular device
    making the call, the pseudo number could allow a PSAP to (1) work
    more effectively with law enforcement agencies to prevent misuse of
    the 911 system due to repeated harassing calls made on
    non-initialized phones, and (2) identify legitimate emergency
    callers making multiple calls because of exigent circumstances.[^19]

8.  Second, the ESIF forum had identified a potential problem with the
    use of the sequential number solution that was not addressed in the
    record on which the *Report and Order* was based. According to the
    ESIF, the number 123-456-7890 also serves as a valid International
    Roaming Mobile Identification Number (IRM).[^20] Because IRMs are a
    finite numbering resource where the first number must be a zero (0)
    or a one (1), the numerical sequence beginning with 1234 might have
    to be removed from the IRM pool in order to avoid confusion between
    the number transmitted by non-initialized and 911 only phones
    pursuant to the Commission's *Report and* *Order* and an IRM
    assigned by the International Forum on ANSI-41 Standards Technology
    (IFAST).[^21] As a result, the required use of the 123-456-7890
    number sequence has the potential to cause the removal of one
    million numbers from the IRM assignment pool.

9.  The ESIF also asserted that further study of the technical issues
    was warranted to determine the best way to solve the problems raised
    by the lack of call-back number availability in donated
    non-initialized phones and 911-only handsets. The ESIF proposed to
    form a working group to undertake such a study and to report the
    ESIF's findings to the Commission by March 2003. The working group
    would consider the merits of Annex C, along with other possible
    solutions, for adoption as part of the voluntary technical standard
    for Phase II E911 implementation. The ESIF proposed that, after its
    membership reached consensus and made its report to the Commission,
    the Commission could then seek public comments on the ESIF's report,
    and decide, based on that record, what solution should be
    implemented. In the interim, the ESIF requested that the Commission
    maintain the *Stay* in force.

10. Commenters who responded to the ESIF's *Reconsideration Petition*
    and *Stay Request* supported the ESIF's position and favored
    withdrawal of the solution that the Commission had adopted in the
    *Report and Order*.[^22] All commenters agreed with the ESIF on the
    need for additional technical review to determine the precise
    details of the methodology to ensure that the best overall solution
    would be deployed. However, while agreeing that further study was
    warranted, the overwhelming majority of commenters showed a strong
    preference for the Annex C solution, pointing out a number of its
    advantages over programming the sequential number 123-456-7890 into
    non-initialized and 911-only phones to serve as the "telephone
    number." Commenters also saw a need to have as distinctive an
    identifier as possible for each handset to facilitate its
    identification in order to prevent repeated harassing calls and to
    identify legitimate repeat calls from a person experiencing a real
    emergency.[^23] A number of commenters also agreed with the ESIF
    that there are real disadvantages in using the 123-456-7890 code for
    programming donated non-initialized phones and 911-only handsets.

11. NENA, speaking on behalf of several public safety trade
    associations, was in general agreement with the rest of the
    commenters. As co-convenor of the ESIF, NENA had actively
    participated on behalf of public safety in developing the Annex C
    solution, in its adoption as the industry consensus Phase II
    standard, and in the formulation of the ESIF's recommendations to
    the Commission with regard to Annex C implementation and other
    issues. On April 28, 2003, NENA's Operations Issues Director, Rick
    Jones, met with Commission staff to reiterate NENA's general support
    for the ESIF's position, as set forth in the letter filed on behalf
    of the ESIF by ATIS on February 24, 2003, recommending voluntary
    adoption of the solution found in Annex C of the J-STD-036-A Phase
    II standard.[^24] NENA also made clear the importance to the public
    safety community of a point made in that February 24^th^ letter,
    namely, that "\[n\]etwork providers should be able to provide, on a
    timely basis \[within minutes\], the necessary subscriber
    information" to PSAPs.[^25] NENA took the further position that the
    FCC should only mandate the use of Annex C if there is sufficient
    database support to provide the PSAP quickly with "the ESN/IMEI
    associated with the surrogate 10-digit number," so that, in cases of
    threats, harassment, and false reports using 9-1-1, the PSAP has the
    critical ability to associate the name and address of a present or
    former user of the phone.[^26]

**III. DISCUSSION**

12. The primary goal of the rule that the Commission adopted is to
    provide a methodology that will alert the PSAP that a caller is
    using a phone without call-back capability so that the PSAP can
    obtain location information in the first crucial seconds of the
    call. In addition, because some commenters report an increasing
    number of harassing calls from non-initialized devices, which can
    divert a PSAP's scarce resources from responding to real
    emergencies, it is also important to select a methodology that will
    enable the PSAP to identify a phone without a call-back number that
    is making repeated harassing calls. In order to achieve this latter
    goal, the number transmitted to alert the PSAP must be as nearly
    unique as possible. This will also enable a PSAP to identify
    repeated emergency calls from a person who is having difficulty
    maintaining a connection on a non-initialized wireless device.

13. Based on the record now before us, we agree with the ESIF and with
    the commenters that the newly adopted Annex C solution provides
    greater potential benefits[^27] and fewer potential downsides[^28]
    than the solution adopted in the *Report and Order*. A call from a
    non-initialized phone over an Annex C compliant network is
    recognizable immediately, because the "telephone number" that is
    sent to a PSAP's caller ID has 911 as its prefix, which is not used
    as either an area code (Numbering Plan Area Code or NPA) or an
    exchange prefix (NXX) in the North American Numbering Plan (NANP),
    and consequently can only be a pseudo-telephone number. The Annex C
    network solution, because it appends the seven least significant
    digits of the unique ESN or IMEI to the 911 prefix, generates a
    phone number that is likely to be duplicative in only one in ten
    million cases. It therefore is highly probable that a PSAP receiving
    harassing calls will be able to recognize that these calls are
    coming from a phone that cannot be called back, to identify that
    phone, and to work with the appropriate carrier and law enforcement
    personnel to trace it and block further harassing calls from the
    device. Moreover, the PSAP can identify calls that are being
    repeatedly made by a legitimate caller who is experiencing problems
    staying connected in an emergency. Finally, because these digits are
    not used as the initial part of any IRM range, there is no potential
    for confusion with any IRM that could be assigned.[^29]

14. Although the Commission remains technology-neutral with respect to a
    carrier\'s Phase II E911 solution (either handset-based or
    network-based), we recognize that both network and handset
    components may be necessary to achieve a successful solution to the
    problem of identifying emergency calls from different wireless
    devices that lack call-back capability.[^30] A network-based
    solution is needed to deal with any handsets without call-back
    capacity that predate the date on which any handset-based solution
    is implemented. We will term this the retrospective problem. As one
    commenter points out, any handset solution, alone, has limited
    application because a handset solution does not reach phones already
    in the public domain and beyond a carrier's reach, *e.g.*, older,
    unused non-initialized phones.[^31] Those prior generations of
    non-initialized phones could still be used to make emergency calls
    and such calls will not be able to be detected without a network
    solution. Only a network solution can reach any such devices already
    in circulation. A network solution is also needed to identify
    distinctly phones already programmed with 123-456-7890 as the
    telephone number, and to alert PSAPs that such phones cannot be
    called back. Annex C software is intended to recognize when a phone
    does not have a valid call-back number (such as 123-456-7890) and to
    substitute 911 plus the seven least significant digits of the
    handset's ESN or IMEI as the caller ID for the phone, thereby
    allowing a PSAP to quickly recognize that the call is coming from a
    phone that cannot be called back, and to identify distinctly the
    phone being used to call 911. Moreover, for various reasons,
    service-initialized phones can fail to deliver their MDN.[^32] The
    Annex C solution provides a ready network solution for existing
    handsets that lack call-back capability because these handsets have
    an ESN, as was required under the Commission's rules until the most
    recent Biennial Review relaxed that requirement.[^33]

15. However, because subscribers will continue to replace their wireless
    handsets as technology develops, there could be what we will term a
    prospective problem with the Annex C network solution if it is
    dependent upon continuing use of an ESN. We suggest that an ESN
    continue to be programmed into the handset, as long as it is
    necessary to fulfill our public safety objectives. If the ESN is not
    voluntarily programmed into the handset or if an alternative handset
    identifier does not evolve to replace it, the Annex C network
    solution would have to be supported by requiring the use of an ESN
    or other identifier unique to a particular handset.[^34] Thus, the
    Annex C network solution, to be truly effective, requires some
    handset identifier that can be used compatibly with this network
    solution to generate the nearly unique pseudo number transmitted to
    the PSAP. The handset identifier may change as the technology
    changes; however, as long as the handset identifier is uniquely
    associated with a specific handset, in a manner similar to the way
    that an ESN or IMEI functions today, it should be possible for Annex
    C compliant software to generate a distinctive pseudo number. That
    pseudo number will instantly alert the PSAP that the caller is using
    a device that lacks call-back capacity; provide an effective way of
    differentiating between repeated hoax calls and true emergencies;
    and create a means of determining which particular device made the
    call. However, because it appears that the best number to use as an
    identifier is evolving as the technology evolves, and that we are in
    a period of transition in which ESNs may be being replaced in
    certain handset systems with other solutions, we do not wish to
    impose a requirement that may constrain the development of these new
    technologies, unless it becomes necessary to preserve public safety.

16. We therefore decline to codify any strict technical requirements
    with regard to what identifier should be used in handsets at this
    juncture. We believe that it is in the public interest, now that the
    Annex C solution has been adopted by consensus as part of the
    J-STD-036-A industry standard for Phase II E911 and is being
    implemented voluntarily, to allow that voluntary implementation
    process to develop as vendors bring the Annex C solution to market
    in their next generation software. Carriers who are not already
    Annex C compliant, will, it appears, adopt that solution as they
    update their software to prepare for Phase II E911 implementation.
    Moreover, we note that a number of vendors have already implemented
    Annex C compliant solutions in Phase I E911 software to deal with
    other technical issues.[^35] Thus, certain carriers are already
    offering Annex C nationally, while others are providing it in
    switches from certain vendors, but will not phase it into general
    service until they implement Phase II E911. [^36] We believe that it
    will be most effective to allow carriers to follow the Phase II E911
    implementation process, while the Annex C solution evolves to
    reflect the identifiers used by handset manufacturers offering
    different technologies and while the diverse types of equipment
    employed by PSAPS are adjusted to be compatible with the Annex C
    standard.

17. We therefore urge all parties to ensure that the voluntary standard
    is compatible with the broadest range of equipment possible and that
    all carriers perform the network programming and any other work
    necessary to implement the industry consensus standard as quickly as
    possible. This standard, we are persuaded, will provide a powerful
    solution that can, once Phase II E911 is fully implemented, handle
    the majority of the problems addressed in the *Report and Order*, as
    well as help to solve broader, related issues, not addressed in that
    proceeding*.* We believe that these steps will also further the goal
    of implementing our E911 rules within the time frame set forth in
    the Commission's orders.

18. However, permitting voluntary implementation of the Annex C solution
    as part of the natural process of upgrading equipment and as Phase
    II E911 is deployed, does not warrant inaction with regard to
    resolving potentially urgent problems related to emergency calls
    from non-initialized phones in the interim. Congress has directed
    the Commission to take all appropriate steps to further the creation
    of a seamless emergency network of which wireless E911 will play an
    increasingly significant part.[^37] We must continue to move forward
    to implement E911 service as rapidly as possible. In this context,
    we note that many of the callers who depend upon the non-initialized
    devices covered in the Commission's *Report and Order* are of
    limited economic means and are at high risk, such as victims of
    domestic violence, residents of high-crime neighborhoods, the
    elderly, or the infirm. In such a situation, when an individual may
    be relying on a wireless phone in an emergency, the lack of
    call-back capacity could pose a very serious risk. We therefore
    believe that this problem must be addressed immediately by the best
    means technically available at this time.

19. For these reasons, we remove the Commission's previous handset
    programming requirements and replace that solution with the
    requirement that carriers who provide non-initialized phones to
    donation programs and all manufacturers of 911-only phones program
    those devices with "911" plus the decimal representation of the
    seven least significant digits of a unique identifier, such as the
    ESN or IMEI. This will create a transmissible pseudo "telephone
    number" analogous to the number that Annex C compliant software will
    generate in the network. We also require carriers to complete any
    network programming necessary to transmit this pseudo "telephone
    number" to PSAPs when 911 calls are made from covered devices. We
    thus continue to follow the "targeted approach" we adopted in the
    *Report and Order*[^38] by addressing regulatory requirements first
    to those classes of non-initialized phones where it is most likely
    that emergency calls will be made and by adopting the solution most
    likely to lead to rapid identification by PSAP personnel that the
    call is being placed from a phone that lacks call back capacity. As
    noted above, using the initial code "911" will provide the PSAP with
    immediate recognition, while the use of the distinctive identifier
    will aid in preventing the growing number of harassing calls and
    identifying repeat calls from a handset that is having difficulty
    maintaining the connection. In addition, as pointed out by one
    commenter, PSAPs are trained to recognize 911 as a signal that the
    phone lacks call-back capacity.[^39] Moreover, use of this handset
    solution, which is analogous to the Annex C network solution, will
    create a consistent system for both handset and network solutions to
    alert PSAPs that the emergency call comes from a non-initialized
    handset. The use of this handset solution will also remove whatever
    potential there may be for confusion with an IRM that uses the 1234
    range and thus allow assignment of IRMs using this range, which will
    help to preserve that limited resource.

20. We recognize that no current approach can solve all problems
    associated with emergency calls from phones that lack call back
    capacity and that there may also be situations in which a call-back
    number is not transmitted due to network error. However, it is in
    the public interest to minimize this problem, as far as possible, so
    that all emergency callers can be identified and called back, if
    necessary. We therefore continue to urge carriers participating in
    donation programs to provide service activation that will furnish
    call-back capability for emergency calls. We commend the growing
    number of carriers who are already providing donated phones with
    such call-back capacity, rather than non-initialized devices.[^40]
    By doing so, they are further reducing the problem of
    non-initialized phones through voluntary efforts which may, in fact,
    be less costly than an imposed regulatory solution. We also suggest
    that manufacturers of "911-only" devices should continue to explore
    whether there are any technical options that would incorporate
    limited call-back capacity into these devices without sacrificing
    battery life.

21. We also commend the work of the ESIF in creating a successful
    voluntary standards setting process that quickly adopted the
    informative Annex C solution by consensus as part of the J-STD-036-A
    standard. We also commend those vendors who are already providing
    equipment utilizing Annex C and those carriers who are employing it,
    and recommend that all consider it as a potential means to solve the
    non-initialized phone and E911 problem to be deployed as early as
    possible. We also suggest that the ESIF examine how to adapt the
    standard to the requirements of Phase I E911. We believe that it is
    important, as we achieve full compliance with the identification
    requirements in Phase I, that PSAPs have a ready means of
    identifying those callers who may be most in need of their
    assistance, among whom there may be those who are using
    non-initialized phones or 911-only devices. Equally, it is important
    to weed out those callers who are using non-initialized phones or
    911-only devices to make harassing calls to PSAPs, which cannot
    afford to waste their precious time and resources.

22. In addition to requiring that carriers who are donating
    non-initialized phones and manufacturers of "911-only" wireless
    devices shift from programming the 123-456-7890 sequential number to
    programming these devices with 911 plus the seven least significant
    digits of the decimal representation of the ESN, IMEI, or other
    unique identifier programmed into the handset, we further recommend
    that all stakeholders move swiftly to develop the capability of
    utilizing an Annex C compliant solution. If a carrier's switch
    already has the Annex C functionality, then that the carrier should
    employ the Annex C solution with PSAPs that can receive and
    accommodate caller ID delivered in such a manner. We encourage
    vendors and carriers to work together to implement the Annex C
    solution in carriers' networks as early as feasible. Certainly, this
    process should be completed as part of the upgrade for Phase II E911
    service. Equally, we urge PSAPs to make any adjustments needed in
    order to receive the pseudo caller ID number and, if necessary, to
    train their personnel to recognize and respond appropriately to such
    a call delivered by Annex C compliant software in the network or
    programmed into non-initialized handsets.

23. As this process develops, the Commission's labeling rules[^41] which
    cover all non-initialized carrier-donated devices and all 911-only
    phones without call-back capacity, will remain in effect. Our
    educational outreach programs will continue to make clear to
    consumers that non-initialized phones have limitations in an
    emergency. Any person using these devices in an emergency should be
    prepared to provide the PSAP with his or her location information
    immediately upon connection and to redial if the call is
    disconnected. We also commend the voluntary efforts of consumer
    groups to educate the public about E911 service in their particular
    service area and to help the consumer make an informed choice of
    wireless provider, given the consumer's particular priorities for
    wireless service, his or her economic means, and the available
    choices.

24. We intend to continue to monitor this issue closely. If the
    voluntary implementation process is not functioning effectively, we
    stand ready to consider whether further specific requirements are in
    the public interest. We commend the ESIF participants for their
    initiative in resolving this issue in a timely manner and reporting
    to us on the adoption of the Annex C solution as a voluntary
    industry standard. We are ready to respond to further hard data on
    the nature and extent of the problems and the burdens on the public
    safety community and the industry in resolving them. We will then
    determine if further action is required.

# Conclusion

25. In view of the potential importance to public safety to provide
    PSAPs with a means of identifying emergency calls made by recipients
    of non-initialized wireless phones donated to provide them with
    emergency assistance and by purchasers of non-initialized "911-only"
    phones, we require that, within six months of the issuance of this
    Order, carriers donating such phones and handset manufacturers of
    "911-only" phones that were covered under the requirements in our
    *Report and Order* begin to program 911 plus a seven digit number
    that is derived by a methodology analogous to that described in
    Annex C. By striking our earlier programming requirement and
    replacing it with a requirement that is consistent with the emerging
    industry standard for network deployment of Phase II E911, we are
    targeting our regulations to accomplish the greatest benefit with
    the least burden. If the network solution becomes ubiquitous in the
    future and is able to provide a means of identifying emergency calls
    from these handsets, as well, we will revisit the imposition of this
    limited requirement. However, it provides a necessary bridge at this
    time to the full implementation of the Annex C solution.

26. In light of the record, the limited scope of our original *Report
    and Order*, and the need for flexibility in the face of rapidly
    changing technology, we will give the ESIF consensus standards
    process time to achieve full implementation voluntarily. However, we
    expect to see the Annex C solution substantially implemented
    voluntarily within 18 months of the issuance of this Order. As we
    have previously stated in the context of the *First Report and
    Order*, if a need for further action is demonstrated, "especially
    once E911 Phase I is fully operational and ubiquitous, we will
    revisit this issue, weigh the evidence presented, and look at the
    possibility of requiring a technical or other solution at that
    time."[^42] If, within one year from the date this Order issues,
    considerable progress towards the goal of voluntary implementation
    of the Annex C solution has not been made, we will consider whether
    it is in the public interest to impose further specific
    implementation requirements.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES

A.  **Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
27. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended,[^43]
    requires that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for
    notice-and-comment rule making proceedings, unless the agency
    certifies that "the rule will not, if promulgated, have significant
    economic impact on a substantial number of small entities."[^44] The
    RFA generally defines \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as
    the terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
    governmental jurisdiction.\"[^45] In addition, the term \"small
    business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business
    concern\" under the Small Business Act.[^46] 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).[^47] We continue to use these definitions and to consider the
    impact of this Order on the entities discussed in the initial
    *Report and Order*.[^48]

28. The RFA analysis adopted in the initial *Report and Order* remains
    correct because there is no greater burden on carriers who are
    donating non-initialized phones and manufacturers of "911-only"
    wireless devices to program these devices with 911 plus the seven
    least significant digits of the decimal representation of the ESN,
    IMEI, or other unique identifier programmed into the handset, than
    to program these devices with the 123-456-7890 sequential number.
    Also, there is no greater burden on carriers to program their
    networks to deliver these "telephone numbers" from carrier-donated
    non-service initialized phones and "911-only" handsets to PSAPs than
    programming their networks to deliver the 123-456-7890 sequential
    number from these devices.

**B. Paperwork Reduction Analysis**

29. The actions ordered in this Memorandum Opinion and Order do not
    affect the labeling requirement imposed by our previous *Report and
    Order* and do not create any new information collection requirements
    within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public
    Law No. 104-13.

**C. Authority**

30. 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.

**D. Further Information**

31. For further information, contact Eugenie Barton in the Policy
    Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202)
    418-1310.

**E. Ordering Clauses**

32. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Stay currently in effect with
    respect to sections 20.18(l)(1)(i) and (l)(2)(i) of the Commission's
    rules IS LIFTED and the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the
    Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions on behalf of the
    Emergency Services Interconnection Forum, filed June 12, 2002, is
    GRANTED AS PROVIDED HEREIN.

33. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Part 20 of the Commission's Rules is
    AMENDED by striking the requirements to program non-initialized and
    911-only phones with the sequential number 123-456-7890, contained
    in sections 20.18(l)(1)(i) and (l)(2)(i), respectively. Sections
    20.18(l)(1)(i) and (l)(2)(i), respectively, are amended to require
    carriers that donate non-initialized wireless phones and
    manufacturers that produce 911-only wireless phones program these
    phones with 911 plus the decimal representation of the seven least
    significant digits of the ESN, IMEI, or any other identifier unique
    to that handset, as required by the action taken by this Memorandum
    Opinion and Order. This action SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE six months
    after the date on which this Order issues.

34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Order, including the Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch,
>
> Secretary

**Appendix A**

**[Public Notice issued July 3, 2002]{.underline}**
**[Abbreviation]{.underline}**

[Comments]{.underline}:

Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association CTIA

Intrado, Inc. Intrado

Remote MDx Remote MDx

Sprint Corporation Sprint

Texas Commission on State Emergency Communications and Texas 9-1-1
Agencies

Texas Emergency Communication Districts

[Reply Comments]{.underline}:

Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions (ATIS) ESIF

on behalf of ESIF

Lucent Technologies Lucent

Sprint Corporation Sprint

Verizon Wireless Verizon

VoiceStream Wireless Corporation VSW[^49]

**Appendix B**

**FINAL RULES**

Part 20 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

1\. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 251-254, 303, and 332 unless otherwise
noted.

2\. Sections 20.18(l)(1)(i) and 20.18(l)(2)(i) are amended to read as
follows:

**§ 20.18 911 Service.**

\*\*\*\*\*

\(l\) [Non-Service-Initialized Handsets]{.underline}.

\(1\) Licensees subject to this section that donate a
non-service-initialized handset for purposes of providing access to 911
services are required to:

\(i\) program each handset with 911 plus the decimal representation of
the seven least significant digits of the Electronic Serial Number,
International Mobile Equipment Identifier, or any other identifier
unique to that handset;

\(2\) Manufacturers of 911-only handsets that are manufactured on or
after \[six months after the order is released\], are required to:

\(i\) program each handset with 911 plus the decimal representation of
the seven least significant digits of the Electronic Serial Number,
International Mobile Equipment Identifier, or any other identifier
unique to that handset;

[^1]: *See* In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to
    Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,
    Non-Initialized Phones, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, ESIF
    *Petition for Reconsideration* (filed June 12, 2002)
    (*Reconsideration Petition*). This Memorandum Opinion and Order
    (Order) will refer to the Petitioner as the ESIF, rather than ATIS,
    to maintain consistency with earlier documents pertaining to this
    matter.

[^2]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Non-initialized Phones,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, FCC 02-120, *Report and Order*, 17
    FCC Rcd 8481, 8481, 8489-93, 8499 (*Report and Order*); 67 Fed. Reg.
    36112 (2002) (to be codified at 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.18(l)(1)(i),
    (l)(2)(i)).

[^3]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Non-initialized Phones,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, DA 02-2423, *Order* (rel. Sept. 30,
    2002) (staying §§ 20.18(l)(1)(i) and (l)(2)(i) of the Commission's
    rules until Commission resolves the *Reconsideration Petition*)
    (*Stay Order*).

[^4]: However, as discussed in more detail below, we urge all carriers
    to implement an Annex C compliant solution as soon as possible and
    encourage PSAPs to make any equipment changes necessary to enable
    them to recognize, in the first few critical seconds of a 911 call,
    that a phone lacks call-back capacity.

[^5]: Non-service-initialized wireless mobile telephones
    (non-initialized phones) are phones that are not registered for
    service with any CMRS carrier. Because carriers generally assign a
    dialable number to a handset only when a customer enters into a
    service contract, a non-initialized phone lacks a dialable number.
    We continue to use the term "non-initialized" interchangeably with
    "unsubscribed" to refer to phones that cannot be called back by a
    PSAP because they have no dialable number, whether or not the phone
    may have previously been initialized by a service provider by
    programming the handset to transmit a mobile identification number
    (MIN). *See* *Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 8481, 8482 n.6.

[^6]: "Telephone number" refers to the language in 47 C.F.R. §
    20.18(d)(1), regarding Phase I of enhanced 911 (E911) services,
    which requires that licensees "must provide the *telephone number*
    of the originator of a 911 call and the location of the cell site or
    base station receiving a 911 call from any mobile handset accessing
    their system to the designated Public Safety Answering Point through
    the use of ANI and Pseudo-ANI" (emphasis added).

[^7]: We have changed the nomenclature from the previously used
    \"telephone number/MIN\" to \"telephone number/MDN\" to reflect the
    fact that, with the advent of wireless thousands-block number
    pooling and wireless local number portability, the Mobile
    Identification Number (MIN) and the Mobile Directory Number (MDN),
    which previously were the same number, now may be different numbers.
    *See* Telephone Number Portability, CC Docket No. 95-116, 13 FCC Rcd
    16315, 16319 (1998); *see also* Cellular Telecommunications Industry
    Association\'s *Petition for Forbearance from Commercial Mobile
    Radio Services Number Portability Obligations and Telephone Number
    Portability*, WT Docket No. 98-229, CC Docket No. 95-116, 14 FCC Rcd
    3092, 3105 (1999).

[^8]: *See Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 8481, 8493-94. The requirements
    now in effect include (1) the labeling of carrier-donated
    non-initialized phones and 911-only handsets to alert the user to
    the lack of call-back capability and (2) the creation of public
    education outreach programs to inform users of the limitations of
    these non-initialized phones, in particular their lack of call-back
    capacity and the consequent need for the caller to provide the PSAP
    with his or her location information immediately upon connection and
    to redial if the call is disconnected.

[^9]: The ESIF is a sponsored committee of ATIS and is jointly convened
    by ATIS and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) to
    facilitate the identification and resolution of technical issues
    related to the interconnection of telephony and emergency service
    networks. The ESIF is an open, technical forum that includes
    Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) carriers, wireless handset
    vendors, and public safety representatives among its voluntary
    participants.

[^10]: *See* Letter from Megan L. Campbell, General Counsel, ATIS, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission (May 20, 2002) (incl. Letter from James
    Nixon, ESIF Chair, to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (May
    17, 2002)).

[^11]: The ESIF refers to the solution as the "Annex C" solution because
    it was originally published as Annex C to J-STD-036-A, "Enhanced
    Wireless 9-1-1 Phase 2" (June 2002). *See* *Stay Request* at 4-5.

[^12]: *See* 67 Fed. Reg. 36112 (2002) (to be codified at 47 C.F.R. §§
    20.18 (1)(1)(i), (1)(2)(i)).

[^13]: *See* Letter from Megan L. Campbell, General Counsel, ATIS, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission (June 12, 2002) (incl. In the Matter of
    Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility with
    Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    RM-8143, Request for Stay of Effective Date (rel. June 12, 2002)
    (*Stay Request*)).

[^14]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules to Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, Non-initialized Phones,
    CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, DA 02-2423 (rel. Sept. 30, 2002)
    (*Stay Order*).

[^15]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    Petition for Reconsideration on Non-Initialized Phones and Filing of
    Request for Stay, *Public Notice*, CC Docket No. 94-102, DA 02-1575
    (rel. July 3, 2002), 67 Fed. Reg. 46909 (2002).

[^16]: *See* Appendix A for list of Commenters and abbreviations used to
    designate them herein.

[^17]: The IMEI is generally associated with GSM phones. *See*
    *Reconsideration Petition* at 5.

[^18]: *See* *Reconsideration Petition* at 4-5 and n.9. *E.g.*, if a
    mobile phone with the ESN 029880405 (comprised of a Manufacturer's
    Code of 029 and a Serial Number of 880405), but without a valid
    call-back number, is used to call 911, the Annex C solution would
    program 911, plus the least significant seven digits of the ESN (in
    decimal form). This would result in 911 988-0405 being sent to the
    PSAP as the identifier for that phone.

[^19]: *See id*. at 5.

[^20]: *See id*. at 5-6. IRMs are MINs with the following format:
    0-XXX+6D or 1-XXX+6D, where X can be any digit 0-9, and the last six
    digits (6D) of the IRM are assigned by the carrier. The 4 digit
    prefix of an IRM is allocated by the IFAST (International Forum on
    ANSI-41 Standards Technology). The IFAST is a voluntary organization
    that attempts to facilitate international roaming by minimizing
    conflicts with North American MINs (which are generally based on
    their ten-digit directory number). *See* Letter from Toni Haddix,
    Staff Attorney, ATIS, to Marlene H. Dortch, Office of the Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission (November 15, 2002). *See also
    International Forum on ANSI-41 Standards Technology* (visited June
    27, 2003) \<http://www.ifast.org\>.

[^21]: *See Reconsideration Petition* at 5-6.

[^22]: In its Comments, the Texas 9-1-1 Agencies, who had originally
    petitioned the Commission to institute the proceeding that
    culminated in the *Report and Order*, reserved the right to oppose
    the *Reconsideration Petition* in Reply Comments. *See* Texas 9-1-1
    Agencies Comments at 1. However, no such opposition was received by
    the Commission. Even Remote MDx, a manufacturer of E-911-only
    wireless phones, offered "conditional support" for the ESIF's
    filings, *see* MDx Comments at 1, and promised full support for the
    Annex C solution if the ESIF technical review underway at the time
    of MDx's comments resulted in recommending the use of Annex C, *see
    id*. at 2.

[^23]: *See, e.g.*, Lucent Comments at 2-3; Intrado Comments at 3.

[^24]: *See* *Ex Parte* Letter from James Nixon, ESIF Chair, to John
    Muleta, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission (Feb. 24, 2003) at 2 (ESIF *Ex Parte* of
    Feb. 24, 2003).

[^25]: *See* *Ex Parte* Letter from James R. Hobson, Counsel for NENA,
    to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission (May 5, 2003) (describing substance
    discussed at Rick Jones' meeting with Wireless Bureau Staff on April
    28, 2003, and quoting the ESIF's *Ex Parte* of Feb. 24, 2003).

[^26]: *See Ex Parte* Letter from James R. Hobson, Counsel for NENA, to
    Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission (May 5, 2003) at 1-2.

[^27]: *See, e.g.*, Intrado Comments at 2-4 (pointing out the potential
    benefits of the Annex C solution include 1) capacity to identify the
    broadest range of phones that lack call back capacity including
    non-initialized telephone sets, phones whose subscriptions have
    expired or that lack a subscriber identity module; as well as
    certain international mobiles or mobile phones from a service
    provider that does not have a roaming agreement with the current
    service provider; 2) leveraging the current PSAP knowledge base
    because PSAPs are already trained to recognize that any call
    delivered with 911 as either the Numbering Plan Area Code (NPA or
    area code) or the exchange prefix (NXX) cannot be called back and
    therefore will require special handling; and 3) fewer problems in
    maintaining 911 system integrity because the system will not receive
    a host of identical sequential numbers that it cannot easily query.
    *Id*. In addition, the Annex C solution accommodates important
    functionalities such as MIN/MDN separation, which is required for
    wireless local number portability.)

[^28]: For example, the Commission's methodology allegedly conflicts
    with the Annex C solution, which some vendors began to incorporate
    into products developed for compliance with various regulatory
    requirements, while Annex C was still only an informative annex to
    the Phase II implementation standard. *See* VSW Reply Comments at 4.
    VSW sees other ways in which the proposed sequential 123-456-7890
    handset solution would produce serious impediments for some
    carriers. *See* VSW Reply Comments at 1, 2-4 (claiming that by
    treating all non-initialized mobiles alike, the 123-456-7890
    requirement would prevent GSM carriers from using x, y coordinates
    in routing calls originated from non-initialized mobile terminals to
    the correct PSAP and could render GSM carriers unable to support the
    "refresh" capability, *i.e*., the ability to resend location
    information).

[^29]: Many commenters believe that the use of the 123-456-7890 code as
    a MIN could remove resources from the international roaming MIN
    ("IRM") assignment pool, as the ESIF suggested. *See, e.g.*, VSW
    Reply Comments at 4. Intrado points out that 123 is a particularly
    useful "area code" for an IRM because it allows the wireless network
    to process international roaming calls by utilizing numbers that are
    not used in the North American Numbering Plan (NANP), in that 123 is
    not a valid NANP area code. Intrado Comments at 4.

[^30]: The problem is the same with regard to identifying the caller
    making harassing calls to a PSAP from one of these devices. Further,
    as one commenter notes, the wireless devices without call-back
    capacity that are covered in our *Report and Order* are only a
    subset of the non-initialized phones that are currently in use.
    *See* CTIA Comments at 2 and n.6. We note that this problem will
    continue into the future as subscribers replace their current
    handsets with new models and pass on their old phones that no longer
    have a valid service contract, and as new types of wireless devices
    that could lack call back capacity come into use.

[^31]: VSW Reply Comments at 4.

[^32]: *See* Feb. 24, 2003, ESIF *Ex Parte* at 2 (noting that a valid
    call-back number may not be available for delivery to a PSAP in
    various situations, such as when the phone's subscription has
    lapsed, the service identity module is missing, or when
    international or domestic roamers place calls from areas where their
    carrier has no local service agreement).

[^33]: *See* In the Matter of Year 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review -
    Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission\'s Rules to Modify or
    Eliminate Outdated Rules Affecting the Cellular Radiotelephone
    Service and Other Commercial Radio Services, *Report and Order*, WT
    Docket No. 01-108, FCC 02-229, *Report and Order* (Released
    September 24, 2002) at para. 36. However, we specifically noted
    there that "we do not intend our treatment here to be dispositive of
    pending consideration of possible application of ESNs for public
    safety purposes." *Id*. at n.120.

[^34]: While we cannot predict whether and how such an identifier would
    be developed, we understand that there continues to be a perceived
    need to have some such identifier and that the industry is
    continuing to program an ESN into handsets while the issue is being
    explored.

[^35]: *See*, *e.g.*, ESIF *Ex Parte* of Feb. 24, 2003 (recommending
    voluntary implementation as part of the Phase II E911 upgrade
    process); Letter from James Nixon, ESIF Chair, to John Muleta,
    Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission (March 5, 2003) (noting that Annex C is part of the Phase
    II implementation standard and therefore may not be available in all
    Phase I systems).

[^36]: *Compare, e.g.,* Verizon Reply Comments at 1-2 (stating that
    Verizon chose to have its vendors incorporate the Annex C
    functionality as part of the switch software package it received for
    implementation of Thousands-Block Number Pooling and Local Number
    Portability) *with* Letter from Louisa L. Lancetti, Vice President,
    PCS Regulatory Affairs, Sprint, to John Muleta, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (May
    30, 2003) at 4 (noting that Sprint has Annex C functionality in its
    E911 Phase II switches, which is available to PSAPs which upgrade to
    Phase II, but that Sprint only provides Annex C functionality in
    Phase I in markets where Sprint uses Lucent equipment and the PSAP
    uses non-call associated signaling (NCAS)).

[^37]: "It is estimated that of the 150 million calls that were made to
    911 in 2000, 45 million of them were made by wireless telephone
    users---that's 30 percent. This is a ten-fold increase from nearly
    4.3 million wireless 911 calls just 10 years ago, and the number
    will more than double to 100 million calls in the next five years.
    It is anticipated that by 2005, the majority of 911 calls will be
    from wireless callers." *See* *Wireless 9-1-1 Overview* (visited
    June 26, 2003) \<http://www.nena.org/Wireless911/Overview.htm\>.

[^38]: *See* Letter from Sprint to John Muleta, Chief, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (May
    30, 2003) at 2 (agreeing with Commission's regulatory focus on these
    two types of non-initialized phones: "\[b\]ased on the record, the
    Commission properly determined in its *Non-Initialized Phone Order*
    that a targeted response to the public safety concern was
    warranted").

[^39]: Intrado comments at 4.

[^40]: We note that our *Report and Order* pointed out that CTIA has
    issued guidelines for the carrier donation programs that it
    sponsors. which specifically call for each phone to be activated on
    a wireless network and be given a unique dialable telephone number.
    *See Report and Order* at 8490. We urge all carriers and all
    sponsors of donation programs to follow these guidelines.

[^41]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.18 (l)(ii)-(iii), (l)(2)(ii)-(iii).

[^42]: *Report and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 8481, 8495.

[^43]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. *See* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 *et. seq.*, amended
    by the Contract with America Advancement Act (CWAA) of 1996, Pub. L.
    No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996). Title II of the CWAA is the Small
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996.

[^44]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^45]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^46]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. S §
    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.\"

[^47]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^48]: *See Report and Order*, Appendix C (providing analysis of
    entities qualifying as "small" under applicable standards)*.*

[^49]: We retain VoiceStream Wireless Corporation (VSW) as the Commenter
    was then named, and note that it is now known as T-Mobile USA.