U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–010 

" ! SENATE 115TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2017

115–124 

Calendar No. 164 

KARI’S LAW ACT OF 2017 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 123 

JULY 10, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MIKE LEE, Utah GARY C. PETERS, Michigan 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado MARGARET WOOD HASSAN, New Hampshire 

TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

NICK ROSSI, Staff Director 

ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director 

JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel 

KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director 

CHRISTOPHER DAY, Democratic Deputy Staff Director 

Calendar No. 164 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 115–124 

KARI’S LAW ACT OF 2017 

JULY 10, 2017.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. THUNE, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 123] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 123) to amend the Communications 

Act of 1934 to require multi-line telephone systems to have a default configuration that permits users to directly initiate a call to 

9–1–1 without dialing any additional digit, code, prefix, or post-fix, 

and for other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do 

pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

S. 123, the Kari’s Law Act of 2017, seeks to improve the ability 

to contact emergency services when calling from multi-line telephone systems. The bill would require that most new multi-line 

phone systems, such as those commonly found in hotels, schools, 

and hospitals, support a configuration that permits users to directly dial 9–1–1 without dialing 1 or any other prefix, post-fix, or 

other code. The bill also would require that installers of those systems configure them to provide notification to a central location at 

the facility, or to a person or organization with responsibility for 

safety or security for the location as designated by the manager or 

operator of the system. Finally, the bill also would grant the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the bill. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

The Kari’s Law Act of 2017 is named in honor of Kari Hunt, a 

31-year-old woman who was murdered in a hotel room in Marshall, 

2 

1 Remarks of FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, ‘‘911 Goes to Washington Conference,’’ March 24, 

2014, at http://apps.fcc.gov/edocs—public/attachmatch/DOC-326214A1.pdf. 

Texas by her estranged husband. Ms. Hunt’s 9-year-old daughter 

tried to call 9–1–1 during the attack on her mother, but could not 

get through because the hotel phone required her to dial ‘‘9’’ to 

reach an outside line. 

This inability to directly dial 9–1–1 is not an isolated problem; 

multi-line telephone systems commonly are configured to require 

callers to dial ‘‘9’’ or another access code to reach an outside number. As of March 2014, consumers could not directly dial 9–1–1 in 

44.5 percent of hotel franchises and 32 percent of independent hotels.1 FCC Chairman (then Commissioner) Ajit Pai informed a 

June 2015 workshop held by the Nebraska Public Service Commission that nearly all multi-line telephone systems could be configured or re-configured at little-to-no cost to allow direct dial 9–1–1, 

that many hotels had begun implementing direct dial 9–1–1 for 

their guests, and that half of all vendors surveyed shipped their 

multi-line telephone system products with a default setting of direct dial 9–1–1. But there is no Federal mandate in place today to 

require that multi-line telephone systems be configured to allow direct access to 9–1–1. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

The Kari’s Law Act of 2017 would amend the Communications 

Act of 1934 to require that multi-line telephone systems, such as 

those commonly found in hotels, hospitals, and offices, be designed 

and configured in a way that permits users to directly initiate a 

call to 9–1–1 without dialing any additional digits (for example, 

without having to dial ‘‘9’’ to access an outside line). 

The bill would not prohibit other 9–1–1 emergency dialing patterns (for example, 9–9–1–1) from also initiating a call to a public 

safety answering point, provided the dialing pattern 9–1–1 remained available to users. 

The Act’s requirements would apply to manufacturers, importers, 

sellers, lessors, and those engaged in the business of installing 

multi-line telephone systems, beginning 2 years after enactment. 

Those engaged in the business of installing multi-line telephone 

systems would be required to configure a multi-line telephone system to notify a central location at the facility or a person or organization with responsibility for safety at the location if the installer 

can do so without any improvement to the system. 

The FCC would have authority to prescribe regulations to carry 

out the section, provided that such regulations, to the extent practicable, were technologically neutral. The bill, or regulations prescribed under the bill, would not prevent any State from enforcing 

any State law that is not inconsistent with the bill. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The Committee ordered S. 123, by voice vote, to be reported favorably without amendment on January 24, 2017. Senator Klobuchar introduced the bill on January 12, 2017. Senators Fischer, 

Thune, Schatz, Cornyn, and Cruz are cosponsors. 

The House of Representatives passed a substantially similar 

version of the Act, H.R. 582, by voice vote on a motion to suspend 

3 

the rules on January 12, 2017. Representative Gohmert introduced 

the House of Representative’s version of the Act on January 17, 

2017. That measure has bipartisan support with 29 cosponsors. 

The Act is substantially similar to legislation previously reported 

favorably by the Committee in 2016. In the 114th Congress, Senator Klobuchar introduced S. 2553 on February 11, 2016. S. 2553 

was cosponsored by Senators Fischer, Schatz, Cornyn, Cruz, and 

Thune. On April 27, 2016, the Committee included a version of 

S. 2553 in a substitute amendment to S. 2644, the FCC Reauthorization Act, which the Committee approved as amended by voice 

vote. 

In the House of Representatives, Representative Gohmert introduced H.R. 4167 in the 114th Congress. The bill, which had four 

original cosponsors, was substantially similar to S. 2553. On May 

23, 2016, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4167 on suspension by voice vote, and the bill was subsequently received by 

the Senate. 

ESTIMATED COSTS

In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the Congressional Budget 

Act of 1974, the Committee provides the following cost estimate, 

prepared by the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 123—Kari’s Law Act of 2017 

S. 123 would require new telephone systems that have multiple 

lines to allow callers to access 9–1–1 services directly, without 

needing to dial any other numbers or codes. This requirement 

would apply to entities that manufacture, import, sell, lease, or install multi-line telephone systems, beginning two years after the 

date of enactment. Phones installed before that effective date would 

not have to be changed if the upgrade would require any improvement to the telephone system. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 123 would have no significant effect on federal spending for telecommunications services or 

regulatory activities. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because the 

bill could affect direct spending by the Postal Service, federal power 

agencies, and federal financial regulators, as well as revenues remitted by the Federal Reserve; however, CBO estimates that any 

such costs would be negligible. CBO estimates that enacting S. 123 

would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any 

of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

According to a 2016 report by the General Services Administration, federal phone systems serve about 4 million employees. Based 

on information from telecommunications service providers and federal agencies, CBO estimates that most of the government’s multiline phones (excluding those with national security protections) already are capable of dialing 9–1–1 services directly. Because upgrading the remaining phones would involve improvements that 

qualify for the exemption in S. 123, CBO expects that any costs to 

upgrade federal telephone systems would not be significant. 

On the basis of an analysis of information from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), CBO estimates that implementing 

S. 123 would increase the costs of the FCC’s regulatory and enforcement programs by less than $500,000. However, under current 

4 

law, the FCC is authorized to collect fees sufficient to offset the 

costs of its regulatory activities each year; therefore, CBO estimates that the net effect on discretionary spending for the FCC 

would be negligible, assuming appropriation actions consistent with 

that authority. 

S. 123 contains intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, 

as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). Based 

on information about current industry practices and about the existing scope of similar state requirements, CBO estimates that the 

aggregate cost of the mandates would fall below the annual threshold established in UMRA for private-sector mandates ($156 million 

in 2017, adjusted annually for inflation). CBO estimates that the 

intergovernmental mandate would impose no costs on state, local, 

or tribal governments. 

The bill would impose private-sector mandates by requiring private entities responsible for manufacturing, importing, selling, 

leasing, or installing a multi-line telephone system (MLTS) to ensure that the system allows users to dial 9–1–1 directly without 

first dialing any additional digit such as ‘‘9.’’ In addition, entities 

that install such systems would have to ensure that MLTS systems 

provide an additional notification to a central location, either at the 

facility or otherwise, when a 9–1–1 call is placed if the system can 

be configured to do so without technical upgrades. Based on information from industry sources, most MLTS systems already are configured to meet these requirements. In addition, several states and 

some local governments already have laws that require direct dialing for 9–1–1 from MLTS systems. Therefore, the incremental costs 

associated with updating systems to meet the bill’s requirements 

would be small. 

The bill would preempt state laws that govern the default configurations of a multi-line telephone system for 9–1–1 phone calls. 

Although the preemption would limit the application of state laws 

and regulations, CBO estimates that the mandate would impose no 

duty on state, local, or tribal governments that would result in additional spending or a loss of revenues. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Stephen Rabent (for 

federal costs), Rachel Austin (for intergovernmental mandates), 

and Logan Smith (for the private-sector mandates). The estimate 

was approved by Theresa Gullo, Assistant Director for Budget 

Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT

In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the legislation, as reported: 

NUMBER OF PERSONS COVERED

Persons engaged in manufacturing, importing, selling, leasing, or 

installing multi-line telephone systems would be covered by the 

bill’s requirements and subject to FCC enforcement for failing to 

comply with the Act. 

5 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 123 was crafted to minimize undue burden on affected parties, 

and the cost of the bill’s requirements to manufacturers, importers, 

sellers, lessors, and installers of multi-line telephone systems 

would be modest. Such costs are outweighed by the positive economic benefit derived from improved emergency communications, 

which would lead to more efficient public safety efforts and better 

protection of life and property. 

PRIVACY

The reported bill is not expected to have an adverse effect on the 

personal privacy of any individuals. 

PAPERWORK

The Committee does not anticipate an increased paperwork burden on regulated entities as a result of this legislation. 

CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING

In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no provisions 

contained in the bill, as reported, meet the definition of congressionally directed spending items under the rule. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title. 

This section would establish the bill’s short title as the ‘‘Kari’s 

Law Act of 2017.’’ 

Section 2. Default configuration of multi-line telephone systems for 

direct dialing of 9–1–1. 

This section would prohibit a person engaged in the business of 

manufacturing, importing, selling, or leasing multi-line telephone 

systems from manufacturing or importing for use in the United 

States or from selling or leasing or offering to sell or lease in the 

United States a multi-line telephone system unless the system’s 

technology provides the specified capabilities for direct access to 9– 

1–1 and local or designated notification. 

The section also would prohibit a person engaged in the business 

of installing multi-line telephone systems from installing such a 

system unless upon installation the system allows a call that is initiated when a user dials 9–1–1 from any station equipped with dialing facilities to be transmitted to the appropriate public safety 

answering point without requiring the user to dial any additional 

digit, code, prefix, or post-fix, including any trunk-access code (such 

as the digit ‘‘9’’); and regardless of whether the user is required to 

dial such a digit, code, prefix, or post-fix for other calls. The section, though, would not prohibit the configuration of a multi-line 

telephone system to allow access to 9–1–1 through other emergency 

dialing patterns, provided that the dialing pattern 9–1–1 remains 

available to users. 

6 

1This amendment would apply with respect to a multi-line telephone system that is manufactured, imported, offered for first sale or lease, first sold or leased, or installed after the date that 

is 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

The section also would require a person engaged in the business 

of installing multi-line telephone systems to configure the systems 

so that when a person at the facility where the system is installed 

initiates a call to 9–1–1 using the system, the system provides a 

notification to a central location at the facility or to a person or organization with responsibility for safety or security for the location 

as designated by the manager or operator of the system. This requirement would apply when the system is able to be configured 

to provide such notification without an improvement. 

The section would give the FCC authority to prescribe regulations to carry out the Act, and would require that such regulations, 

to the extent practicable, promote the purposes of the Act in a technologically neutral manner. 

The section provides that the Act would be enforced under title 

V of the Communications Act of 1934, except that section 501 

would apply only to the extent that section 501 provides for the imposition of a fine. 

Neither the Act nor any regulations prescribed under the Act 

would prevent any State from enforcing any State law that is not 

inconsistent with the Act. 

The Act would apply with respect to a multi-line telephone system that is manufactured, imported, offered for first sale or lease, 

first sold or leased, or installed after the date that is 2 years after 

the date of the enactment of this Act. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new material is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TITLE VII OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934 

[47 U.S.C. 601 et seq.] 

SEC. 721. DEFAULT CONFIGURATION OF MULTI-LINE TELEPHONE SYSTEMS FOR DIRECT DIALING OF 9–1–1.1

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section— 

(1) the term ‘‘multi-line telephone system’’ has the meaning 

given the term in section 6502 of the Middle Class Tax Relief 

and Job Creation Act of 2012 (47 U.S.C. 1471); and 

(2) the term ‘‘public safety answering point’’ has the meaning 

given the term in section 222(h). 

(b) MULTI-LINE TELEPHONE SYSTEM FUNCTIONALITY.—A person 

engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, selling, or 

leasing multi-line telephone systems may not manufacture or import 

for use in the United States or sell or lease or offer to sell or lease 

in the United States a multi-line telephone system unless the technology of the system has the capabilities described in subsections (c) 

and (e). 

(c) MULTI-LINE TELEPHONE SYSTEM INSTALLATION.—A person engaged in the business of installing multi-line telephone systems servVerDate Sep 11 2014 04:10 Jul 11, 2017 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR124.XXX SR124
7 

ing locations in the United States may not install such a system in 

the United States unless, upon installation, the system allows a call 

that is initiated when a user dials 9–1–1 from any station equipped 

with dialing facilities to be transmitted to the appropriate public 

safety answering point— 

(1) without requiring the user to dial any additional digit, 

code, prefix, or post-fix, including any trunk-access code (such 

as the digit 9); and 

(2) regardless of whether the user is required to dial a digit, 

code, prefix, or post-fix described in paragraph (1) for other 

calls. 

(d) OTHER 9–1–1 EMERGENCY DIALING PATTERNS.—Nothing in 

this section shall prohibit the configuration of a multi-line telephone 

system so that other 9–1–1 emergency dialing patterns will also initiate a call to a public safety answering point, provided that the dialing pattern 9–1–1 remains available to users. 

(e) ON-SITE NOTIFICATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—A person engaged in the business of installing multi-line telephone systems serving locations in the United 

States, in installing a system described in paragraph (2) in the 

United States, shall configure the system so that when a person 

at the facility where the system is installed initiates a call to 

9–1–1 using the system, the system provides a notification to— 

(A) a central location at the facility; or 

(B) a person or organization with responsibility for safety 

or security for the location as designated by the manager 

or operator of the system. 

(2) APPLICATION.—A system described in this paragraph is a 

multi-line telephone system that is able to be configured to provide the notification described in paragraph (1) without any improvement to the system. 

(f) REGULATIONS.— 

(1) AUTHORITY.—The Commission may prescribe regulations 

to carry out this section. 

(2) TECHNOLOGICALLY NEUTRAL.—Regulations prescribed 

under paragraph (1) shall, to the extent practicable, promote 

the purposes of this section in a technologically neutral manner. 

(g) ENFORCEMENT.—This section shall be enforced under title V, 

except that section 501 applies only to the extent that the section 

provides for the imposition of a fine. 

(h) EFFECT ON STATE LAW.—Nothing in this section or in regulations prescribed under this section shall be construed to prevent any 

State from enforcing any State law that is not inconsistent with this 

section. 

Æ