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           |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: April 17, 2002 Released: April 29, 2002**

By the Commission: Commissioner Copps issuing a statement.

# Introduction

1.  In this *Report and Order*, we take further steps to improve the
    ability of public safety answering points (PSAPs) to respond quickly
    and efficiently to calls for emergency assistance made from a
    wireless mobile telephone. Specifically, we address issues
    associated with the inability of a PSAP to call back a 911 caller
    who is disconnected when that caller is using a
    non-service-initialized wireless telephone.[^1]

2.  On the basis of the record before us, we require that
    non-service-initialized handsets donated through carrier-sponsored
    programs and newly manufactured "911-only" phones be programmed with
    the code 123-456-7890 as the "telephone number,"[^2] to alert a PSAP
    that the 911 call is being made from a wireless phone that lacks
    call-back capability. We also require carriers to complete any
    network programming necessary to deliver the 123-456-7890 telephone
    number from a non-initialized or "911-only" phone to PSAPs. In
    addition, we require that these phones be labeled to alert the user
    to the lack of call-back capability. Finally, we require that public
    education programs be instituted to more fully inform users of the
    limitations of non-initialized phones. These important steps will
    alert the parties involved in a wireless 911 call of the need for
    quick information as to the caller's exact location, thus increasing
    the likelihood that emergency services can be dispatched quickly to
    save lives, while imposing limited burdens on wireless carriers and
    manufacturers of "911-only" telephones.[^3]

# II. BACKGROUND {#ii.-background .unnumbered}

3.  On December 23, 1997, the Commission issued the *E911 First
    Memorandum Opinion and Order* in the above-referenced proceeding, in
    which it reviewed, on reconsideration, decisions made in the *E911
    First Report and Order* requiring covered CMRS carriers to forward
    all 911 calls to PSAPs regardless of their service-subscription
    status.[^4] In response to requests for clarification concerning
    these carriers' obligations to provide call-back capability for
    wireless 911 calls, the Commission acknowledged that call-back
    capability may not be available for handsets not presently served by
    a wireless carrier, such as those that have never been
    service-initialized, or those for which the subscription to wireless
    service has lapsed. Therefore, the Commission determined in the
    *E911 First Memorandum Opinion and Order* that the carriers'
    obligation in such cases is limited to delivering 911 calls to
    PSAPs, but stated that it would revisit the issue at a later
    stage.[^5]

4.  Two new developments have occurred since the Commission's mandate
    set forth in the *E911 First Memorandum Opinion and Order*. The
    first is the institution of several laudable donation programs,
    where older, unused, and unsubscribed[^6] cellular phones are
    collected by various groups (both carrier and non-carrier) and
    distributed to at-need individuals, such as victims of domestic
    violence and other crimes, the elderly, and the infirm.[^7] The
    second is the development and sale of a new type of cellular phone,
    "911-only" phones, which are manufactured with only the capability
    of dialing 911, and which cannot receive calls. Thus, two types of
    non-service-initialized wireless phones will be discussed in this
    Report and Order: (1) 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 phones that can only make 911 calls and are
    technically incapable of receiving any incoming calls.

5.  On April 28, 2000, several public safety entities (the Public Safety
    Entities) requested that the Commission "take additional comment and
    revisit the call back number issues to determine if any further
    Commission action is necessary or appropriate." [^8] While not
    disputing the benefits that non-initialized phones provide to
    individuals who may not otherwise have access to 911 services, the
    Public Safety Entities were "concerned with seeking solutions for
    situations where these wireless telephones may not provide valid
    call back number information even when wireless 911 Phase I service
    has been implemented in an area."[^9]

6.  The Public Safety Entities' concern arose because under Phase I,
    wireless carriers receiving a 911 call "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 systems to the designated Public Safety Answering
    Point through the use of ANI and Pseudo-ANI."[^10] However,
    "\[w\]hen the directory number of the handset used to originate a
    911 call is not available to the serving carrier, such carrier's
    obligations under paragraph (d)(1) extend only to delivering 911
    calls and available calling party information to the designated
    Public Safety Answering Point."[^11] Therefore, when a call from a
    non-initialized phone is received by a Phase I-capable PSAP, either
    no dialable telephone number, or an incorrect number, may be
    received. The nondialable Mobile Identification Number (MIN)
    programmed into the phone may be sent as opposed to the Mobile
    Directory Number, which is the number used to receive calls.
    Alternatively, it may be the phone's previously dialable number,
    which may have since been reassigned to a different,
    service-initialized handset, causing a possible return call, if
    needed, to the wrong handset. In any event, the PSAP operator will
    not be able to return the call if it ends prematurely, and may not
    be automatically notified that the call is from a non-initialized
    phone.

7.  On May 18, 2000, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued a
    *Public Notice* soliciting public comment on the issue of call-back
    for non-initialized phones.[^12] Thirteen parties filed comments,
    and seven parties filed reply comments in response to the *Public
    Notice*.[^13] The lack of information regarding the scope of the
    problem, along with conflicting assertions regarding technological
    constraints on providing call-back capability, led us to seek
    additional information in a *Further Notice* *of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, which was issued on May 25, 2001.[^14] In the *Further
    Notice*, we sought information indicating the actual percentage of
    wireless 911 calls from non-initialized phones that have required
    call-back from PSAPs, as well as additional comment on possible
    technical solutions to the call-back issue. We also sought comment
    on several, more narrowly focused options, including requirements
    that all carrier-donated handsets be labeled and initialized on a
    limited basis to enable call-backs from PSAPs, and that all newly
    manufactured 911-only handsets be labeled appropriately and provide
    for return calls from PSAPs. Sixteen parties filed comments and
    eleven parties filed reply comments in response to the *Further
    Notice*.[^15]

# III. DISCUSSION {#iii.-discussion .unnumbered}

## A. Possible Technical Solutions {#a.-possible-technical-solutions .unnumbered}

8.  [Background.]{.underline} The Further Notice sought comment, first,
    on the possibility that we require carriers and manufacturers of
    911-only phones to develop and implement technical solutions that
    would provide PSAPs with a call-back number for calls from these
    phones. Responses to the *Further Notice* were consistent with those
    to the *Public Notice*. Commenters maintained their conflicting
    positions regarding the technical ability of developing and
    implementing a solution which would allow return calls from PSAPs to
    non-initialized phones. Comments filed by public safety interests
    generally assert that a technical means either exists or can be
    easily devised,[^16] while comments filed by wireless service
    providers assert that no viable technical solution exists or is
    feasible to develop.[^17] Comments filed by a manufacturer of
    911-only phones assert that the costs of manufacturing call-back
    capability into its phones (notwithstanding the lack of a current
    network-based solution to provide call-back) would be prohibitively
    high, effectively eliminating the market for 911-only phones.[^18]

# All parties generally agree that the ability of a PSAP to return a wireless 911 call if the call is dropped or the caller hangs up before the PSAP operator can ascertain the caller's exact location is important in ensuring a prompt emergency response. No data, however, have been provided in this proceeding, either in parties' comments or in *ex parte* communications, to show the volume of 911 traffic which is generated by non-initialized phones, nor the percentage of non-initialized calls that requires a call-back to effectuate an adequate emergency response.[^19] We therefore have no evidence of the scope of this potential problem.

9.  We also lack detailed information regarding how call-back to
    non-initialized phones can be achieved, and if so, if it can be done
    in a cost-efficient manner. The most widely discussed approaches
    involve using either temporary local directory numbers (TLDNs),
    which are currently used to deliver calls to roamers, or
    pseudo-mobile identification numbers (pseudo-MINs). In the former,
    it is suggested that TLDNs could be temporarily assigned, via a
    network mechanism, to non-initialized phones so that a PSAP would
    have a number to call back if prematurely disconnected. The latter
    would require the use of pseudo-MINs (a string of numbers and/or
    symbols), unique to each handset, which would be programmed into
    each non-initialized phone and used by the PSAP to effectuate a
    call-back.

10. [Discussion.]{.underline} Based on the record, we cannot require
    carriers to develop and implement a call-back solution at this
    stage. This conclusion reflects both the dearth of information
    received regarding the scope of the problem as well as record
    evidence that the development and implementation of any technical
    solution would likely require extensive changes to the networks at
    significant cost.

11. We agree with APCO, NENA, and NASNA that contemporaneously receiving
    a 911 caller's dialable directory number is very important for a
    PSAP. In response to the *Further Notice*, APCO, NENA, and NASNA
    argue that "\[c\]all-back numbers are essential to reconnect with
    calls that are dropped, or because the caller may 'hang up' before
    providing enough information regarding the nature and location of
    the emergency. Call-backs are also important to verify suspicious
    911 calls and to weed out prank calls before dispatching scarce
    emergency personnel."[^20] The importance we place on this issue is
    reflected in our mandate for its inclusion for E911 Phase I
    compliance. However, we conclude that the scope of the
    non-initialized phones issue should first be determined before
    requiring a solution to solve it. No concrete data was submitted in
    comments and reply comments in this proceeding,[^21] nor has the
    record been supplemented with any such data since the close of the
    pleading cycles.[^22]

12. In their comments, carriers assert that in order to process and
    forward 911 calls from non-initialized handsets, carriers must
    bypass call validation, authentication, and registration, the
    features which are used to permit a PSAP to call back a wireless
    subscriber who places a 911 call. In addition, while PSAPs receive
    911 calls on dedicated network facilities, call-backs from PSAPs are
    routed over the public switched telephone network. Since, by its
    very nature, a non-subscribed handset is not associated with any
    carrier, calls to such handsets cannot be delivered.[^23]
    Additionally, Sprint states in its comments that after reviewing the
    call-back issue, its two major switch vendors, Lucent and Nortel,
    both concluded that no technically feasible network solution to
    support call-back to non-initialized phones exists or can be
    developed in the near future.[^24]

13. We will continue to monitor this issue and any data or information
    that comes to our attention regarding the number of non-initialized
    911 calls received by PSAPs which require call-back. We also will
    monitor the technical aspects of the issue. If a technically
    feasible approach that enables call-back to non-initialized phones
    becomes available, we may revisit the issue of whether to impose a
    call-back requirement on carriers and manufacturers of 911-only
    phones.

    **1. Temporary Local Directory Number Approach**

14. Based on the record, we find that a TLDN approach is not a viable
    means of providing PSAPs with call-back capability to
    non-initialized phones. In its current use, a TLDN is assigned to a
    roamer by the local wireless carrier to facilitate delivery of a
    call outside the roamer's service area. When the roamer's phone
    number is dialed, the call is initially routed to the roamer's home
    carrier for verification. In response to notification by the
    roamer's home carrier of an attempt to reach the roaming customer,
    the local carrier assigns a TLDN from a pool of such temporary
    numbers used to deliver calls to roamers in its service area. After
    the call is delivered, the TLDN is returned to the local carrier's
    pool of numbers reserved for such use.

15. In considering a possible TLDN approach, CTIA and Sprint assert that
    TLDNs are used for call delivery for roamers, not call-back after a
    disconnect, and are only valid for several seconds.[^25] Sprint
    further argues that TLDNs are effective only because the TLDN is
    linked with a roaming handset which is validated as having service
    with a carrier and which has a valid MIN and Electronic Serial
    Number (ESN) pair.[^26] Non-initialized phones do not have a service
    contract with a carrier or a valid MIN/ESN pair. Sprint states that
    when a customer is roaming, a call to the customer is first
    delivered to the customer's home mobile switch. That switch
    ascertains the customer's current location by querying the home
    location register, which identifies the switch currently serving the
    roaming customer. The home switch forwards an IS-41 message to the
    visited switch to advise it of an incoming call. The visited switch
    then returns a TLDN to the home switch so that the call can be
    completed. Sprint asserts that even if there was a way to transmit a
    TLDN from the non-initialized phone to the PSAP, there is no
    mechanism where the same TLDN could be used to call the
    non-initialized handset back in the event of a premature
    disconnect.[^27] Sprint further asserts that even if TLDN
    capabilities could be modified to support call-back to
    non-initialized phones, the solution would take years to implement
    because of the need to develop network interoperability, the costs
    of developing and implementing the solution would be substantial,
    and any solution would require carriers to validate 911 call
    attempts in order to differentiate non-initialized calls from
    initialized calls.[^28]

16. Cingular also argues that TLDNs are not a viable solution because
    they are only assigned to a handset after a call to that handset
    enters the switch. The only way for a call to enter the mobile
    switch from the PSAP, however, is for the PSAP to dial an actual
    telephone number. For roamers, their telephone number allows the
    call to enter the switch, then a TLDN is assigned to deliver the
    call wherever the customer is roaming. However, a TLDN is neither an
    actual telephone number, nor is it assigned to a specific switch. As
    a result, if the TLDN were dialed from a landline telephone, the
    system would not know where to route the call. Thus, for any handset
    that does not have a valid dialable number, the assignment of a TLDN
    is not possible without deactivating the registration and
    authentication processes, which are used to route calls and to
    prevent fraud.[^29]

    **2. Pseudo-Mobile Identification Number Approach**

17. Similarly, based on the record, we find that a pseudo-MIN approach
    is not a viable means of providing PSAPs with call-back capability
    to non-initialized phones. This approach would require numbers, and
    possibly letters, to be assigned and programmed into each
    non-initialized handset. Upon placing a 911 call, the PSAP would
    receive this pseudo-MIN, and use it to re-connect with the caller in
    the event of a premature disconnect.

18. CTIA argues that attempting to provide unique pseudo-MINs to each
    non-initialized phone would be unworkable. A mechanism for assigning
    and programming such numbers into wireless handsets would have to be
    developed. Then, the pseudo-MINs would have to be included in
    network databases, but the costs of loading and maintaining these
    numbers would not be recoverable from the users, because they do not
    subscribe to any service. Additionally, once assigned, the
    pseudo-MINs could not be reassigned, since there is no way to track
    whether the handsets associated with these numbers have been
    reprogrammed or retired.[^30] Further, in order to use
    pseudo-numbers to facilitate call-back, comprehensive network
    changes would have to be completed in order to adapt call-routing
    processes to recognize and transmit them. The wireless and wireline
    telecommunications industries would have to accept pseudo-numbers
    and develop standards and specifications for their use.[^31]

19. We also find that there is not enough information in the record to
    justify a requirement that carriers implement the pseudo-MIN
    approach proposed by Richard Levine of Beta Scientific Laboratory,
    Inc. Mr. Levine's proposal involves programming unique
    "letter-number strings" into each non-initialized handset and using
    a new database and switch as an "orphanage" mobile switching
    center/home location register (MSC/HLR) for all the "orphan"
    non-initialized phones that do not have a normal HLR in a working
    cellular system. We are not persuaded, however, that Levine's
    proposal is a workable solution. It would require unknown
    modifications to mobile switching centers (MSCs), upgrades to PSAP
    customer premises equipment (CPE), including SS7 signaling
    capabilities, and also assumes that various, undescribed conditions
    would have to be met for implementation of this system.

    **3. Other Concerns Regarding Technical Solutions**

20. There are other industry concerns regarding developing a solution to
    provide call-back to non-initialized phones. AT&T states that
    allowing non-initialized phones to receive calls presents a
    significant fraud risk.[^32] Further, the network costs for
    designing and building a call-back system "could reach millions of
    dollars and would most likely exceed the network costs of
    implementing Phase I and Phase II E-911 combined and approach the
    network costs associated with implementing CALEA."[^33] AT&T also
    asserts that mandating alternative delivery mechanisms would impose
    a "staggering and disproportionate financial burden on carriers,
    given the relatively few non-initialized phones in the marketplace.
    It would also discourage parties from making emergency wireless
    phones available for distribution by civic and charitable
    organizations."[^34]

21. In its comments, Cingular addresses the possibility of providing
    call-back to non-initialized wireless phones which use GSM
    technology. It states that future modifications to handsets and the
    network may allow call-back capability to SIM-less[^35] handsets by
    using the International Mobile Equipment Identity (IMEI) for
    identification, instead of the International Mobile Subscriber
    Identity (IMSI). The IMEI would then be used for paging the handset
    during the call-back. The elements of this solution, however, have
    not been assembled in a manner to support this capability. Cingular
    further argues that even if they were, because there is presently no
    way to secure the IMEI from cloning, the operator's network would be
    at risk of being deluged by calls from cloned handsets receiving the
    same call-back page, which could effectively take down the entire
    network, or a portion thereof. Since there would be no way for an
    operator to prevent calls from being placed by a handset, "the
    network operators and their systems could be placed at a substantial
    risk of fraud and/or the risk of criminal or terrorist activities -
    that is, the risk that someone would take advantage of the inability
    of the operator to identify the handset and control its access to
    system resources."[^36]

22. The comments from North American GSM Alliance mirror those of
    Cingular. However, North American states that in the future, with
    appropriate modifications to the network and handsets, call-back may
    be allowed by assigning a temporary dialable number to an IMSI
    specifically to accommodate a call-back from a PSAP.[^37] North
    American "will commit to work in the 3^rd^ Generation Partnership
    Project (3GPP) to standardize the capability to assign a temporary
    MSISDN \[Mobile Station ISDN Number\] to an emergency call made from
    a handset with a non-initiated SIM."[^38] North American would also
    "consider developing a program to make non-service initialized SIMs
    available at reasonable cost to anyone with a 911-only handset that
    can make use of the capability."[^39] We encourage this type of
    industry participation to address the concerns of the public safety
    community, and further encourage all parties to work together to
    find solutions to the various challenges facing the
    telecommunications industry.

23. In this proceeding, we also received comments from Intrado,
    advocating the elimination of non-service-initialized handsets.[^40]
    Because the Commission did not raise this possibility in its
    *Further Notice*, we decline to address the issue on the merits. We
    note, however, that abolishing the current requirement that carriers
    transmit all 911 calls to PSAPs without respect to their call
    validation process[^41] would allow PSAPs with E911 Phase I
    capability to return all 911 calls, since all calls would
    necessarily come from service-initialized handsets. In addition,
    this approach could potentially reduce the number of fraudulent 911
    calls made from wireless phones, or at least reduce the costs of
    having to dispatch emergency services to respond to bogus calls.
    Abolishing the requirement at this stage would restrict basic 911
    service and result in the inability of many non-initialized wireless
    phone users to reach help in the event of an emergency. Furthermore,
    as stated by the Public Safety Entities, the purpose of their Letter
    of April 28, 2000, "was not to have further debate on the FCC's
    decision to forward all 911 calls."[^42]

    **B. Other Possible Measures for Carrier-Sponsored Donation Programs
    and 911-Only Phones**

24. [Background.]{.underline} In the *Further Notice*, we asked for
    comment on the possibility of a requirement that all
    carrier-sponsored wireless phone donation programs be
    service-initialized[^43] so that call-back from the PSAPs will be
    available if needed. The record contains comments from several
    carriers which sponsor donation programs of wireless phones to
    at-need individuals. The programs are available throughout the
    country and involve the use of non-initialized, as well as
    service-initialized, phones. In the *Further Notice*, we also
    requested comment on the possibility of mandating labeling and
    public education requirements on carriers which donate
    non-initialized phones and on manufacturers of 911-only phones.

25. [Discussion.]{.underline} We hereby place two requirements on
    carrier-sponsored programs where non-initialized phones are donated
    and on manufacturers of 911-only phones. We require that each
    non-initialized phone donated through a carrier-sponsored program
    and each newly-manufactured 911-only phone have 123-456-7890
    programmed as its telephone number/mobile identification number. In
    order to deliver 123-456-7890 to PSAPs, carriers must complete any
    necessary network programming. This requirement will benefit PSAPs
    by automatically alerting the 911 operator that the call is being
    made from a non-initialized phone and that call-back is therefore
    unavailable. We further require that labels be affixed to each
    non-initialized/911-only handset and that carriers and manufacturers
    institute public education programs. These requirements will give
    notice to the users of non-initialized/911-only handsets that
    call-back is unavailable and will alert them to the importance of
    conveying exact location information to the 911 operator as soon as
    possible. We find that providing more information to both parties
    involved in a non-initialized call to 911 will be beneficial and can
    be accomplished with minimum regulatory intrusion and minimal
    financial outlays by the carriers and manufacturers.[^44]

26. In addition, we find it necessary to require a labeling requirement
    on one type of program, where a carrier participates in a
    service-initialized donor program, assigns a dialable number to each
    phone, but blocks all call-backs to the phone.[^45] Since the user
    cannot be called back by emergency services in the event of a
    premature disconnect, we find that in this type of program, the
    carrier must affix a prominently displayed and clearly worded label
    onto each handset. The label must be designed and affixed to
    withstand the length of service expected for the phone. The label
    must notify the user that the called party will not be able to call
    the user back, and that in the event of an emergency, the user
    should convey the exact location of the emergency to the called
    party as soon as possible.

27. We adopt these requirements in an environment where many carriers
    are already participating in service-initialized donation programs,
    where a dialable telephone number is delivered to the PSAP and
    call-back capability is provided.[^46] We also note that these
    various service-initialized programs are often tailored by the
    carriers to provide users with access to the best available
    emergency service, while minimizing potential abuse of their
    programs. For instance, CTIA sponsors "the Wireless Foundation," and
    has instituted guidelines for the distribution of donated wireless
    phones through its programs. These guidelines specifically call for
    each phone to be activated on a wireless network and be given a
    unique dialable telephone number. As a result, there are no
    technical impediments for PSAPs to call back a wireless phone
    donated through any of the Wireless Foundation's programs, which
    include "CALL to PROTECT," "ClassLink" and "Communities on Phone
    Patrol."[^47] The Wireless Foundation states that it has provided
    more than 44,000 handsets[^48] through the sixty-three carriers
    participating[^49] in its programs.

28. SBC's[^50] program provides service-initialized phones to women's
    shelters, police sponsored citizen patrol units, school athletic
    programs, and similar organizations. Because the phones are
    service-initialized, a call-back number is provided.[^51] Sprint
    states that it provides service-initialized handsets in the donor
    programs which it supports, and believes that the majority of
    donation programs throughout the country are providing initialized
    handsets with call-back capability. Sprint participates in three
    national programs which provide service-initialized handsets: "Call
    to Protect," "Education Connection," and "Phone Call for
    Safety."[^52]

29. In addition, two large carriers have converted their donor programs
    from providing non-initialized phones to providing
    service-initialized phones. In response to the *Public Notice*, both
    Verizon and VoiceStream stated that their donor programs involved
    strictly non-initialized phones. In its most recent reply comments
    to the *Further Notice*, Verizon states that it now "donates
    initialized phones that are preprogrammed to dial at least one
    non-emergency number and one emergency number. Verizon Wireless
    places some restrictions on outgoing calls from donated phones, but
    provides many donated phones which do allow incoming calls, in order
    to facilitate call-back from emergency services."[^53] We understand
    that VoiceStream's donor program also now provides
    service-initialized phones with a maximum number of minutes per
    month, but without calling or call-back restrictions.

30. We encourage carriers to continue to serve the public in this
    regard. We further encourage non-participating carriers to
    investigate the many benefits of sponsoring a wireless phone donor
    program for at-need individuals, especially programs where the
    phones are service-initialized and call-back capability is provided.

31. As summarized above, we adopt two requirements for carrier donation
    programs involving non-initialized phones and for manufacturers of
    911-only phones. We first require the programming of 123-456-7890
    into each non-initialized handset as its telephone number/MIN.[^54]
    In order to deliver 123-456-7890 to PSAPs, carriers must complete
    any necessary network programming. This requirement will have
    significant public safety benefits. This uniform rule will allow the
    PSAPs to receive identical and uniform information when being called
    from a non-initialized phone, thereby making it clear that location
    information is required immediately.[^55] This requirement will also
    make it easier for PSAPs to train their operators to recognize calls
    from non-initialized phones, and to communicate immediately with the
    caller the importance of staying on the line and to direct the
    caller to re-dial 911 in the event of a premature disconnection.

32. This solution found significant record support. For instance, in its
    comments to the *Further Notice*, TX-CSEC states that not only is
    the requirement of the transmission of 123-456-7890 the best
    solution to the call-back problem, if the Commission could not
    implement this requirement, TX-CSEC requests that the Commission
    "eliminate ... \[its\] requirement that wireless carriers must
    forward 9-1-1 calls from ... \[non-initialized\] handsets."[^56]
    Because of the exigency of an emergency situation, all callers using
    non-initialized phones cannot be expected to remember that they must
    first notify the PSAP operator that they are using a non-initialized
    phone and that they must give exact location information.[^57]
    TX-CSEC further argues that if the non-initialized call is
    prematurely disconnected without the operator having notification
    that the call came from a non-initialized phone, the operator will
    attempt a call-back to the number sent by the non-initialized phone,
    which may have been reassigned to a new subscriber, misdirecting the
    operator's call.[^58] Because PSAP operators will be unable to
    reconnect with the non-initialized user, they may contact the
    carrier to request a trace and/or subscriber information for the
    number provided. This exercise will result in wasted time and
    resources to ascertain what could have been provided with the
    initial call - that the caller is not a subscriber and cannot be
    called back.[^59]

33. SecureAlert, which develops, distributes, and markets the Magnavox
    "Mobile911" phone, is likewise in favor of this requirement of
    automatic PSAP notification of a non-initialized 911 call through
    the transmission of 123-456-7890. In its comments, SecureAlert
    states that the approximately 40,000 911-only phones which it has
    manufactured and sold under the "Magnavox Mobile911" brand have
    already been programmed with 123-456-7890 as their telephone
    numbers/MINs.[^60] SecureAlert has also argued that requiring the
    installation of call-back capability into its handsets would double
    the manufacturing costs of the phone, thereby resulting in a retail
    price which would be prohibitively high for its market.

34. In addition, in its earlier comments, SBC also suggested that the
    Commission require 911-only phones to use 123-456-7890 as a
    "standard non-initialized number" so that the PSAP operator will "be
    able to recognize the inability to call back."[^61] Finally, we note
    that the original position of the Public Safety Entities, in their
    comments and reply comments to the *Public Notice*, was a suggestion
    that "a series of numbers or letters could be transmitted so the
    call takers could immediately know that the 911 calls are being
    received from devices that may not have the ability to be called
    back and that identifying the location of the caller is of immediate
    importance."

35. We recognize that, in contrast to their earlier pleadings, APCO,
    NENA, and NASNA currently regard this option as "unacceptable and
    ultimately of limited value."[^62] For the reasons already
    discussed, however, we find that this step, along with our labeling
    and education requirements, will best further the public interest at
    this point. In order to afford sufficient time for carriers to
    comply with these requirements, and to provide consistency with the
    implementation of our rules governing 911-only phones, these
    requirements will become effective on October 1, 2002.

36. These requirements, of course, do not restrict those carriers
    participating in programs which donate service-initialized phones
    from continuing to do so.[^63] In fact, we encourage all carriers to
    investigate the benefits of sponsoring service-initialized donation
    programs, and to take advantage of them. Along with their ability to
    prevent misuse by blocking many of the potential unnecessary
    outgoing and incoming calls, carriers may see many more benefits
    with participating in service-initialized donor programs, as opposed
    to non-service-initialized donor programs.

37. [Labeling and Education.]{.underline} In this Report and Order, we
    are also requiring that carriers which participate in donor programs
    of non-initialized phones and manufacturers of 911-only phones label
    each handset and institute education programs to better inform
    potential users of the limitations of non-initialized phones. The
    Public Safety Entities favored labels for non-initialized phones and
    the institution of educational programs to alert consumers of the
    disadvantages to using non-initialized phones.[^64] At least one
    commenter, CTIA, has argued against mandating a labeling
    requirement.[^65] However, we are not persuaded by CTIA's argument
    that "\[t\]he nature of mobile handsets makes regulating a uniform
    label highly impracticable."[^66] CTIA argues that the wide variety
    of shapes and sizes of wireless telephones, along with attempting to
    design a uniformly sized and worded label will be a highly
    contentious process.

38. We find that it is not necessary to micromanage how carriers and
    manufacturers choose to label their products, and we leave the
    language and placement of these labels in the first instance up to
    their discretion.[^67] We determine that carriers and manufacturers
    must design a prominently displayed and clearly worded label and
    affix it to each donated or manufactured non-initialized handset.
    The label should be designed and affixed to withstand the length of
    service expected for a non-initialized phone. The label should
    effectively alert the caller that the phone can only be used to dial
    911, that the 911 operator will not be able to call the user back,
    and that the user should convey the exact location of the emergency
    as soon as possible.

39. CTIA also claims that if the labeled, non-initialized handset is
    thereafter subscribed for service with a carrier, "there is a very
    real risk that consumers will be more confused than informed about
    their level of 911 service ..."[^68] With the variety of incentives
    on new phones being offered by carriers for new subscribers, we find
    potential instances of this occurring to be rather small. However,
    it should be clear to any carrier that receives a labeled
    non-initialized phone from a customer who wishes to have service
    subscribed on that phone to instruct its employees to remove the
    label at the time that the phone is initialized by the carrier.

40. While CTIA is against a labeling requirement, CTIA is in favor of
    "working with the public safety community and the wireless industry
    to address this issue through education and training."[^69] In fact,
    the majority of the commenters stated that education programs are
    important in notifying potential users of the draw-backs to using
    non-initialized phones, and also of the importance of conveying
    their exact location to the PSAP operator as soon as practicable, as
    the PSAP operator will not be able to call the user back. Throughout
    the record, we find that requirements regarding labeling of the
    handsets and instituting public education programs are generally
    favored. We further find that these requirements should not lead
    carriers currently participating in donation programs to eliminate
    or curtail them on this basis.[^70]

41. In addition to the labeling requirement, carriers donating
    non-initialized phones and manufacturers of 911-only phones also
    must institute education programs to further inform users of the
    limitations of non-initialized phones. Part of their programs must
    include a written notice, in addition to the label affixed to the
    phone, that is provided at the time the phone is transferred to the
    user. The notice should give a more detailed explanation than the
    label affixed to the phone of the limitations of non-initialized
    handsets, including distinctions between service-initialized phones
    and non-service-initialized phones. Education programs also may
    include training for carrier employees so that those employees can
    orally advise the users of donated non-initialized phones of the
    phone's limitations. Manufacturers of 911-only phones may set up
    consumer information "hotlines," where trained employees can respond
    to any consumer questions. Information regarding non-initialized
    phones also should be posted on corporate websites.

42. We will implement these rules for manufacturers of 911-only phones
    that are not capable of receiving incoming calls, through an
    equipment manufacturing requirement and our equipment authorization
    process. As of October 1, 2002, any mobile unit manufactured as a
    911-only phone must install 123-456-7890 into each handset as its
    telephone number/mobile identification number, as we have described
    herein. Manufacturers also must have affixed a prominently displayed
    and legible label that will alert the user that the phone can only
    be used to dial 911, that the 911 operator will not be able to call
    the user back, and that the user should convey the exact location of
    the emergency as soon as possible. We find that more than five
    months' notice of the effective date of these requirements
    constitutes sufficient time to enable manufacturers of 911-only
    phones to implement those design and production modifications that
    will be necessary to comply with our rules. We will consider the
    incorporation of modifications to existing authorized equipment to
    be Class I permissive changes that do not require a filing with the
    Commission.[^71]

# Conclusion

43. [Conclusion.]{.underline} We find that the requirements, as
    expressed herein, strike a fair balance among the interests of all
    parties involved. As noted, we have no evidence showing the scope of
    the call-back issue. If the problem is more fully delineated, and
    proves to be much larger than it presently appears, 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.[^72]

44. In addition to the requirements we place on carriers who donate
    non-initialized phones and manufacturers of 911-only phones, the
    Commission also will produce materials to educate the public about
    the limitations of non-service-initialized phones.[^73]

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES

A.  **Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
45. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^74] the
    Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities
    by the policies and rules set out in this Report and Order. *See*
    Appendix C, *infra*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
B.  **Paperwork Reduction Analysis**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
46. The actions ordered in this Report and Order include a labeling
    requirement. As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork
    burdens, we invite the general public and the Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB) to take this opportunity to comment on the
    infor­mation collections contained in this Order, as required by the
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-13. Public and
    agency comments are due 60 days from publication of the summary of
    this Order in the *Federal Register*, and OMB comments are due 60
    days from that date. Comments should address:

> (1)Whether labeling is necessary for the proper performance of the
> functions of the Commission, including whether the information will
> have practi­cal utility;
>
> (2)The accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates;
>
> (3)Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the labels;
> and
>
> (4)Ways to minimize the burden of the labeling on the respondents.

In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
comments on the labeling contained herein should be submitted to Judith
B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C804, 445 Twelfth
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to
[JBoley@fcc.gov]{.underline}, and to Jeanette Thornton, OMB Desk
Officer, Room 10236 New Executive Office Building, 725 Seventeenth
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or via the Internet to
<jthornto@omb.eop.gov>.

**C. Authority**

47. 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**

48. For further information, contact Patrick Webre in the Policy
    Division of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202)
    418-7953.

**E. Ordering Clauses**

Accordingly,

49. IT IS ORDERED that the Public Safety Entities' Petition is GRANTED
    as provided herein and that Part 20 of the Commission's Rules is
    AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B;

50. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules promulgated in this Order SHALL
    BECOME EFFECTIVE on October 1, 2002, dependent on OMB approval of
    the PRA burdens;

51. 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 May 18, 2000]{.underline}**
**[Abbreviation]{.underline}**

[Comments]{.underline}:

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials,

National Emergency Number Association, National APCO, NENA,

Association of State Nine One One Administrators and NASNA and the Texas
Commission on State Emergency Communications TX-CSEC

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. AT&T

ALLTEL Corporation ALLTEL

Bellsouth Corporation Bellsouth

Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association CTIA

Independent Cellular Services Association, MT Communications

and E911CELLULAR.COM MT

Knoxville Police Department Knoxville

SBC Wireless, Inc. SBC

SCC Communications Corp. SCC

SecureAlert, L.L.C. SecureAlert

Verizon Wireless Verizon

VoiceStream Wireless Corporation VoiceStream

Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. WCA

[Reply Comments]{.underline}:

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials,

National Emergency Number Association, National APCO, NENA,

Association of State Nine One One Administrators and NASNA and the Texas
Commission on State Emergency Communications TX-CSEC

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. AT&T

Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association CTIA

Independent Cellular Services Association, MT Communications

and E911CELLULAR.COM MT

SBC Wireless, Inc. SBC

SecureAlert, L.L.C. SecureAlert

Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. WCA

**[*Further Notice* of Proposed Rulemaking issued May 25,
2001]{.underline}**

[Comments]{.underline}:

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials,

National Emergency Number Association and National APCO, NENA

Association of State Nine One One Administrators and NASNA

AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. AT&T

Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association CTIA

Cingular Wireless Cingular

Independent Cellular Services Association and MT Communications MT

Intrado, Inc. Intrado

Richard Levine (Beta Scientific Laboratory, Inc.) Levine

Mid-Missouri Cellular Mid-Missouri

North American GSM Alliance, LLC. North American

North Carolina Wireless 911 Board NC 911

Rural Cellular Association RCA

SecureAlert, Inc. SecureAlert

Sprint PCS Sprint

The Texas 911 Agencies TX-CSEC

Washington State Enhanced 911 Program Washington 911

Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. WCA

[Reply Comments]{.underline}:

Association of Public Safety Communications Officials,

National Emergency Number Association and National APCO, NENA

Association of State Nine One One Administrators and NASNA

Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association CTIA

CenturyTel Wireless, Inc. CenturyTel

Cingular Wireless Cingular

Ericsson, Inc. Ericsson

Secure Alert, Inc. Secure Alert

Sprint PCS Sprint

Telecommunications Industry Association TIA

The Texas 911 Agencies TX-CSEC

Verizon Wireless Verizon

Wireless Consumers Alliance, Inc. WCA

[^1]: Non-service-initialized wireless mobile telephones
    (non-initialized phones) are phones that are not registered for
    service with any Commercial Mobile Radio Service (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.

[^2]: "Telephone number" refers to the language in 47 CFR. §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."

[^3]: The Commission is aware of a third type of wireless mobile
    telephone that may lack call-back capability, "disposable phones."
    These devices, which may be offered for sale in the near future,
    will be service-initialized, but may lack call-back capability, at
    least initially. Providing service via a wireless mobile phone that
    lacks call-back capability raises questions regarding compliance
    with the Commission's E911 Phase I rules. The Commission will
    monitor the development of disposable phones and address this
    question in a separate proceeding in the future. Carriers should
    note, however, that disposable phones that are service-initialized
    on their networks (*i.e.*, using a carrier's network as its "home"
    network), are subject to existing Commission rules regarding E911
    location compliance.

[^4]: *See* Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility
    with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102,
    RM-8143, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 11 FCC Rcd 18676, 18692-97 (paras. 29-42) (1996) (*E911
    First Report and Order). See also* Revision of the Commission's
    Rules To Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling
    Systems, CC Docket No. 94-102, RM-8143, *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 22665, 22717-19 (paras. 108-110) (1997) (*E911
    First Memorandum Opinion and Order)*

[^5]: *E911 First Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 12 FCC Rcd at 22717-19,
    paras. 108-110*.* *See also* 47 CFR §20.18(d)(2).

[^6]: One commenter, CTIA, states that the terms "non-initialized" and
    "non-service-initialized" are misnomers, as the majority of these
    phones have actually been initialized by a service provider at some
    point, by programming the handset to transmit a mobile
    identification number (MIN). CTIA further states that the term
    "unsubscribed" more accurately describes these phones, since the
    phones either never have had, or no longer have, service contracts
    with a carrier. *See* CTIA comments to *Further Notice* at 2.
    However, in the interests of consistency with prior Notices and
    Rulings in this matter, we maintain the use of "non-initialized,"
    with the understanding that the term is interchangeable with
    "unsubscribed," and is used to refer to wireless phones having no
    valid service contract with a carrier, and which cannot be called
    back by a PSAP.

[^7]: It should also be noted that there are many carrier-sponsored
    donor programs where the donated handsets are actually initialized
    by the carriers, meaning that the majority of these phones can be
    called back by the PSAPs. These programs are much more beneficial
    from a public safety standpoint, as well as to all of the parties
    involved. Users of these phones can be called back, PSAPs receiving
    their calls will be provided more useful E911 information regarding
    the caller, and the carriers can exercise more control over the use
    of the phones, reducing the likelihood of fraudulent 911 calls and
    potential abuses of the system.

[^8]: *See* Letter to Magalie Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission, dated April 28, 2000, filed by
    the following public safety entities: the Texas Commission on State
    Emergency Communications and 16 local Texas Emergency Communications
    Districts (TX-CSEC), the Association of Public-Safety Communications
    Officials (APCO), the National Emergency Number Association (NENA),
    and the National Association of State Nine One One Administrators
    (NASNA) (Letter of April 28, 2000).

[^9]: Letter of April 28, 2000, at 2.

[^10]: 47 CFR §20.18(d)(1).

[^11]: 47 CFR §20.18(d)(2).

[^12]: *See* "Comment Sought on Request for Further Consideration of
    Call Back Number Issues Associated With Non-Service Initialized
    Wireless 911 Calls," CC Docket No. 94-102, *Public Notice*, DA
    00-1098 (rel. May 18, 2000), 65 Fed. Reg. 35601 (June 5, 2000).

[^13]: *See* List of Parties in Appendix A.

[^14]: *See* In the Matter of Revision of the Commission's Rules to
    Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems,"
    CC Docket No. 94-102, *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*,
    RM-8143 (rel. May 25, 2001) (*Further Notice*).

[^15]: *See* List of Parties in Appendix A.

[^16]: *See* ISCA comments to *Further Notice* at 3; Levine comments to
    *Further Notice* generally; and WCA comments to *Further Notice* at
    2.

[^17]: *See* AT&T comments to *Further Notice* at 2-3; CTIA comments to
    *Further Notice* at 4-7; Cingular comments to *Further Notice* at
    2-7; North American comments to *Further Notice* at 3-6; Sprint
    comments to *Further Notice* at 8-13; Ericsson reply comments to
    *Further Notice* at 3-7; and Verizon reply comments to *Further
    Notice* at 3-6.

[^18]: *See* SecureAlert comments and reply comments to *Further
    Notice*.

[^19]: In the *Further Notice*, we requested "information concerning the
    scope of the problem as it exists today, as well as its anticipated
    scope going forward. How often are such calls occurring, and what
    are their anticipated growth rates?" *Further Notice* at 4.

[^20]: APCO, NENA, and NASNA comments to *Further Notice* at 1-2. In
    their comments, APCO, NENA, and NASNA also argue that call-back
    numbers are important in cases of unintentional 911 calls, where a
    caller inadvertently presses a pre-programmed 911 key and is
    unknowingly connected with a 911 operator. They argue that the
    operator must break the connection and call the caller back to
    determine if the call is intentional. Unintentional wireless 911
    calls, while also very important, present an issue distinct from
    this proceeding. The vast majority of unintentional 911 calls are
    made by service-subscribed customers. The Commission is actively
    working with public safety groups and the wireless industry to
    gather information on the scope of the unintentional wireless 911
    calls problem and to examine possible solutions.

[^21]: Outside of this record, we received a March 31, 1999,
    "Preliminary Draft Project Report" on a Los Angeles County E911
    trial conducted by the State of California. In October of 1998, a
    weekly sample from one of the two participating carriers showed that
    "1 out of 380 calls (or .26%) came from an uninitialized phone
    (non-subscriber)." *Los Angeles County Wireless E911 Trial
    Preliminary Draft Report* at 40. We believe that it is generally
    accepted that the number of non-initialized 911 calls which require
    call-backs are substantially less than the number of non-initialized
    911 calls received by PSAPs. This sample, while very limited in size
    and duration, supports the view that the percentage of 911 calls to
    PSAPs from non-initialized phones which require a call-back may be
    small.

[^22]: The issue of call-back from non-initialized phones was also not
    mentioned in NENA's recently released Report Card to the Nation.
    While many PSAPs may not yet have E911 Phase I capability, making
    calls from service-initialized phones and calls from non-initialized
    phones indistinguishable, there are PSAPs which have this
    capability, and from which data could be collected.

[^23]: CTIA comments to *Further Notice* at 3.

[^24]: Sprint comments to *Further Notice* at 8-9. *See also*, letters
    from Lucent and Nortel, attached to Sprint comments to *Further
    Notice* as Exhibits 1 and 2.

[^25]: CTIA comments to *Public Notice* at 5; Sprint comments to
    *Further Notice* at 11.

[^26]: Sprint comments to *Further Notice* at 11-12.

[^27]: Sprint comments to *Further Notice* at 11.

[^28]: Sprint comments to *Further Notice* at 11-12.

[^29]: Cingular comments to *Further Notice* at 4.

[^30]: CTIA comments to *Further Notice* at 7-8.

[^31]: Ericsson reply comments to *Further Notice* at 6.

[^32]: AT&T comments to *Public Notice* at 4.

[^33]: AT&T comments to *Public Notice* at 4.

[^34]: AT&T comments to *Public Notice* at 4.

[^35]: A SIM is a subscriber identity module which is physically located
    inside all subscribed GSM phones and holds subscriber account
    information and the phone's IMSI (international mobile subscriber
    identity).

[^36]: Cingular comments to *Further Notice* at 5-6.

[^37]: *See*, however, Ericsson reply comments to *Further Notice* at
    4-5, where North American's assertion about possible future
    call-back capability is disputed.

[^38]: North American comments to *Further Notice* at 6.

[^39]: North American comments to *Further Notice* at 6-7.

[^40]: Intrado comments at 1.

[^41]: *See* 47 CFR §20.18(b).

[^42]: Public Safety Entities reply comments to *Public Notice* at 5.

[^43]: In the *Further Notice*, we referred to the phones being
    "service-initialized on a limited basis." As noted by the
    commenters, phones are either service-initialized or
    non-initialized. If they are service-initialized by a carrier, the
    carrier can prevent misuse of the handsets by blocking all non-911
    calls from the handset except for a few pre-programmed numbers
    (*i.e.*, sheriff's office, hospital, ambulance service, women's
    shelter, etc.). The carriers can also block all return calls except
    for those from certain numbers (*i.e*., 911, sheriff's office,
    hospital, etc.).

[^44]: One commenter, MT Communications, which refurbishes
    non-initialized phones and installs them in school buses for use in
    emergencies, states that it programs each handset with "a unique
    number using an unused area code." MT comments to *Further Notice*
    at 5. While this Report and Order only addresses carriers and
    manufacturers of 911-only phones, we suggest that MT, and others
    similarly situated, program each handset with 123-456-7890 as its
    telephone number/MIN, so as to be uniform with our requirements for
    carrier donated non-initialized handsets and 911-only phones.

[^45]: Mid-Missouri programs its service-initialized donor phones "with
    several commonly called emergency numbers -- *e.g*., local sheriff
    and police departments, community hospital, ambulance, and women's
    shelter." However, while the donated handsets are each assigned a
    dialable number, "Mid-Missouri blocks call-backs to the donated
    handsets to prevent misuse and abuse of its program." Mid-Missouri
    comments to *Further Notice* at 3.

[^46]: *See* CTIA comments to *Further Notice* at 10-11; Sprint comments
    to *Further Notice* at 6.

[^47]: CTIA comments to *Further Notice* at 11.

[^48]: CTIA comments to *Further Notice* at 10.

[^49]: CTIA comments to *Public Notice* at 9.

[^50]: These comments were made to the *Public Notice* before SBC became
    Cingular. In its comments and reply comments to the *Further
    Notice*, Cingular refrained from discussing any current donation
    programs in which it may participate.

[^51]: SBC comments to *Public Notice* at 3.

[^52]: Sprint comments to *Public Notice* at 6.

[^53]: Verizon reply comments to *Further Notice* at 7.

[^54]: If carriers are presented with a situation where a customer wants
    to upgrade a presently service-initialized phone with a new phone,
    rendering the older phone unsubscribed, the carrier may want to
    re-program that customer handset with 123-456-7890 at the time of
    the new initialization, to prevent that handset from being used in
    the future to dial 911, and having the old telephone number sent to
    the PSAP. The same can be done if a customer discontinues service
    with a carrier and does not plan to re-subscribe the phone with
    another carrier.

[^55]: Because this Report and Order cannot reach those non-initialized
    phones which have been transferred among individuals or are being
    kept by their original owners as a back-up phone for emergency
    purposes, the phones to which we refer will necessarily come from
    carrier-sponsored non-initialized phone donation programs or
    911-only phone manufacturers.

[^56]: TX-CSEC reply comments to *Further Notice* at 3.

[^57]: TX-CSEC reply comments to *Further Notice* at 2.

[^58]: TX-CSEC reply comments to *Further Notice* at 2.

[^59]: TX-CSEC comments to *Further Notice* at 2-3.

[^60]: SecureAlert comments to *Further Notice* at 7.

[^61]: SBC comments to *Public Notice* at 4-5.

[^62]: APCO, NENA and NASNA comments to *Further Notice* at 3.

[^63]: There is, of course, the exception to this rule discussed in
    para. 27, supra. As stated, the labeling requirement only applies if
    the carrier initializes its donor phones, but prevents the phones
    from being called back by emergency services.

[^64]: Public Safety Entities, comments to *Public Notice* at 2-3. See
    also reply comments to *Public Notice* at 4.

[^65]: *But see* Cingular comments to *Further Notice* at 8: "The
    appropriate resolution of this issue is the clear labeling of donor
    phones that are not service-initialized specifying their
    limitations, combined with the continued education of users."

[^66]: CTIA comments to *Further Notice* at 12.

[^67]: This should be a simple process for the Magnavox Mobile911. Each
    handset produced is identical in size and function.

[^68]: CTIA comments to *Further Notice* at 12.

[^69]: CTIA comments to *Further Notice* at 12.

[^70]: *See*, among others, RCA comments to *Further Notice* at 4.

[^71]: *See* Section 2.1043(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    2.1043(b).

[^72]: In addition to the possibility of developing a viable
    network-based solution in the future, carriers may also be able to
    provide a network-based "lack of call-back" notification to the
    PSAPs without the individual handsets having to send 123-456-7890 to
    the PSAPs.

[^73]: *See e.g.* www.fcc.gov/cib/information_directory.html#cellphones.

[^74]: *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) (CWAA). Title II of
    the CWAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
    of 1996 (SBREFA).