U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

19–010

" SENATE ! 108TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2003

108–130

Calendar No. 254

THE ENHANCED 911 EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 2003

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION

ON

S. 1250

AUGUST 26, 2003.—Ordered to be printed

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of July 29 (legislative 

day, July 21), 2003


congress.#13
(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

JEANNE BUMPUS, Staff Director and General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Deputy Staff Director 

ROBERT W. CHAMBERLIN, Chief Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

GREGG ELIAS, Democratic General Counsel 

Calendar No. 254

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " SENATE ! 1st Session 108–130

THE ENHANCED 911 EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ACT 

OF 2003

AUGUST 26, 2003.—Ordered to be printed

Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of July 29 (legislative day, July 

21), 2003

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

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1250]

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 1250) to improve, enhance, and promote the Nation’s homeland security, public safety, and citizen activated emergency response capabilities through the use of enhanced 911 services, to further upgrade Public Safety Answering 

Point capabilities and related functions in receiving enhanced calls, 

and to support in the construction and operation of a ubiquitous 

and reliable citizen activated system and for other purposes, having 

considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment 

and recommends that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purposes of this legislation are to: (i) require the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce to establish an 

Emergency Communications Task Force to facilitate coordination 

between Federal, State, and local emergency communications systems, emergency personnel, and public safety organizations; (ii) authorize up to $500 million per year for Federal matching grants to 

State and local governments and to tribal organizations for enhancing emergency communications services through planning, infrastructure improvements, equipment purchases, and personnel 

training and acquisition; and (iii) require the Federal CommunicaVerDate jul 14 2003 01:39 Aug 29, 2003 Jkt ?????? PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR130.XXX SR130
2

tions Commission (FCC) to review at least twice per year the imposition of, and the use of revenues derived from, taxes, fees, or other 

charges by State or local governments on telecommunications services customers’ bills that are designated for improving emergency 

communications services, including 911 services or enhanced 911 

services. 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Today, there are approximately 140 million wireless telephones 

in use in the United States. Several studies over the last decade 

have shown that most consumers cite safety and security (including 

the ability to communicate in an emergency) as their main reason 

for purchasing a cell phone. Even if their own lives are not affected, many Americans have indicated they are willing to be ‘‘Good 

Samaritans’’ and use their wireless phones to report emergencies 

to local public safety authorities when they see them occurring. Of 

the approximately 200 million calls placed to 911 each year, more 

than 56 million, or 28 percent, of the calls are made from wireless 

phones. Some metropolitan areas show even higher percentages of 

wireless 911 calls than the nationwide average, with several receiving a majority of their 911 calls from wireless phones. 

Unlike calls to 911 from land-based wireline telephones, most 

public safety operators answering wireless 911 calls do not have information regarding the name, telephone number, and location of 

the caller—referred to as enhanced 911 (E–911) services. Without 

this information, emergency response times may be delayed while 

the operators attempt to determine the location of the emergency. 

In many instances, wireless 911 callers do not know their exact location (particularly in rural areas), and some who are injured or 

disoriented cannot respond to operators’ questions regarding their 

location. Medical emergency and public safety responders speak of 

a ‘‘golden hour’’—the first hour after serious injury when there is 

the greatest chance of saving life. As time elapses, chances of survival diminish and the severity of injuries increase. Prompt and accurate location information—especially from the increasing numbers of wireless 911 calls—is therefore critical to delivering emergency assistance to victims within the first hour. 

IMPLEMENTATION PROBLEMS

Successful wireless E–911 implementation requires the cooperation of three discrete groups: wireless carriers, wireline telephone 

companies (also known as local exchange carriers), and Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs). A PSAP is the emergency operator 

dispatch point that receives 911 calls for a community. There are 

approximately 6,100 PSAPs nationwide. In short, the wireless carrier must be able to determine the location of the caller, the local 

exchange carrier must carry that location information from the carrier to the PSAP, and the PSAP must be capable of receiving such 

information. In many ways, the initiation of wireless E–911 implementation begins with the PSAP, because no other obligations are 

imposed on any other party until the PSAP submits a request for 

E–911 service. 

It is estimated that only 10 percent of the PSAPs nationwide 

have made requests to receive wireless E–911 location information 

3

1 NENA Fact Sheet: Enhanced Wireless Emergency Communications: Implementation Process 

and Status, National Emergency Number Association (NENA), October 2001. 

(known as ‘‘Phase II’’ requests). One major reason for the delay in 

PSAP requests is that PSAPs are not ready to receive the E–911 

information that will be sent to them by wireless carriers. In order 

to receive this information, PSAPs must first make software and 

hardware upgrades in their operations centers, as well as make appropriate trunking arrangements with local wireline telephone 

companies to enable wireless E–911 data to pass from the wireless 

carrier to the PSAP. As required by the FCC, however, PSAPs also 

must have the means of covering their costs in order to make a 

valid request to the wireless carrier for E–911 service. Absent a 

valid PSAP request, a wireless carrier is under no obligation to deploy E–911 services. 

STATE FUNDING PROBLEMS

The FCC’s rules do not mandate any specific State action nor 

specify any particular mechanism for funding the technology and 

service capabilities necessary to enable the PSAP to make a valid 

service request. Some PSAPs are able to fund upgrades from existing State budgets, but most PSAPs must rely on funds collected 

pursuant to State authority for public safety services. Currently, 

over 40 States have established some type of wireless fee or surcharge on consumers’ mobile phone bills to fund, either in whole or 

in part, PSAP upgrades for wireless E–911 service. In the States 

relying on monthly surcharges, subscribers’ fees range from 20 cents to $2 per month, with the average about 60 cents per month.1

In many States, however, State laws do not specifically limit the 

use of wireless E–911 surcharges to wireless E–911 upgrades. 

These States’ surcharges can be used for other public safety purposes if not spent on wireless E–911. 

Recently, State lawmakers and administrators have begun investigating the use of E–911 funds, and have discovered instances in 

which E–911 funds have been used for purposes other than the 

provision of E–911 service. Observers claim as many as 11 States 

have been ‘‘raiding’’ their collected E–911 funds to satisfy other 

State obligations. In New York, for example, nearly $200 million 

collected as E–911 surcharges have been diverted for other public 

safety purposes, while the State’s PSAPs have remained underfunded and unready to request E–911 service from carriers. Although State administrators supporting these diversions argue that 

their decisions are justified given more pressing State funding 

needs, investigators also have found some egregious examples of 

such funds being used to cover expenses for dry cleaning and lawn 

mowing services for State police (e.g., New York). 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

Senator Burns, the chairman of the Communications Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, introduced S. 1250 on June 12, 2003, with Senator Clinton 

as an original cosponsor. The bill is also cosponsored by Senator 

Lautenberg. 

On March 5, 2003, the Communications Subcommittee held a 

hearing on the implementation of E–911 services for wireless 

4

phones. Three members of Congress appeared before the Committee, in addition to a State assemblyman, and a diverse group of 

companies, associations, and private parties interested in E–911 

services. 

On June 26, 2003, the Committee met in open executive session 

and by voice vote ordered the bill reported without amendment.

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:

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, August 26, 2003. 

Hon. JOHN MCCAIN, 

Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1250, the Enhanced 911 

Emergency Communications Act of 2003. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Melissa Zimmerman. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1250—Enhanced 911 Emergency Communications Act of 2003

Summary: S. 1250 would authorize the appropriation of $500 

million a year to the National Telecommunications and Information 

Agency (NTIA) for grants to State and local governments and tribal 

organizations for improving emergency communications services. It 

also would establish the Emergency Communications Task Force to 

improve coordination between Federal, State, and local emergency 

communications systems and would direct the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to monitor the collection and spending of 

fees levied by States for the purposes of supporting those systems. 

CBO estimates that implementing S. 1250 would cost $213 million in 2004 and about $2.2 billion over the 2004–2008 period. CBO 

estimates that enacting this bill would have no effect on direct 

spending or revenues. 

S. 1250 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

It would benefit State, local, and tribal governments by authorizing 

grants to enhance emergency communication services. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1250 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 370 (commerce and 

housing credit).

5

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

NTIA: 

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 510 510 510 511 511

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 208 410 510 511 511

FCC: 

Estimated authorization level .............................................................. 5 5 5 5 5

Estimated outlays ................................................................................ 5 5 5 5 5

Total: 

Estimated authorization level ..................................................... 515 515 515 516 516

Estimated outlays ....................................................................... 213 415 515 516 516

Basis of estimate: Section 5 would authorize the appropriation of 

$500 million a year to NTIA for grants to state and local governments and tribal organizations for improving emergency communications systems. Based on information from that agency, CBO estimates that administering these grants would cost about $5 million a year. Section 4 would establish an Emergency Communications Task Force, which would be charged with improving coordination between Federal, state, and local emergency communications 

services. The bill specifies that representatives from the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Department of the Interior, the Department 

of Transportation, the FCC, and other state, local, and industry organizations would serve on the task force. Administrative and travel costs for federal employees on the task force would be paid by 

the NTIA. Based on information from NTIA, we estimate the task 

force would cost about $5 million over a year over the 2004–2008 

period. 

Assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts for the grants 

and administrative costs, and the cost of operating the task force, 

CBO estimates that implementing section 5 would cost $208 million in 2004 and about $2.2 billion over the 2004–2008 period. 

Section 6 would direct the FCC to review the level of fees 

charged to consumers by state and local governments to support 

the operations of emergency communications services. Based on information provided by the FCC, CBO estimates that implementing 

section 6 would cost about $5 million in 2004 and $25 million over 

the 2004–2008 period. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: This bill contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA. It would benefit State, local, and tribal governments by authorizing grants to enhance emergency communications services. 

Any costs incurred by State, local, and tribal governments as a result of this legislation would be voluntary conditions of receiving 

Federal assistance. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Melissa E. Zimmerman. 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro. Impact on the Private Sector: Paige Piper/Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

6

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

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

S. 1250 would provide matching grants for, and better coordination of, the implementation of E–911 services by PSAPs in all 

States. Therefore, S. 1250 would cover all subscribers to wireless 

phone service (approximately 140 million Americans), as well as all 

members of the public that may, in the future, benefit in emergency situations from the availability of E–911 services on wireless 

phones. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

The legislation would authorize additional sources of funding for 

the implementation of E–911 services by PSAPs, thereby reducing 

the economic burden on such entities and those States, political 

subdivisions of States, and tribal organizations that currently provide for their funding. As a result, the bill would likely reduce 

delays in PSAP requests for E–911 services, and thus facilitate deployment of E–911 services by telecommunications service providers on a national scale and in a more organized, reliable, and 

cost-efficient manner. 

PRIVACY

S. 1250 would not alter or affect the personal privacy protections 

already afforded consumers using wireless phones when calling 911 

for emergency services. 

PAPERWORK

S. 1250 would require the NTIA’s newly formed Emergency Communications Task Force to submit annual reports to Congress. Additionally, S. 1250 would require the NTIA to administer a matching grant program and would require the FCC to notify Congress 

of any State that diverts E–911 funds. The legislation should generate similar amounts of administrative paperwork as other legislation requiring multiple agency coordination and reports to Congress. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

This section would provide that the legislation may be cited as 

the ‘‘Enhanced 911 Emergency Communications Act of 2003.’’

Section 2. Findings 

This section would set forth the following findings of Congress: 

E–911 services with the most modern and state-of-the-art capabilities should be available to all Americans in every region of the 

United States; enhanced emergency communications requires Federal, State, and local government resources and coordination; any 

funds collected for E–911 services should be used only for E–911 

purposes; and E–911 is a high national priority, requiring Federal 

7

leadership working in cooperation with State and local governments, and with other emergency communications services organizations. 

Section 3. Purposes 

This section would set forth that the purposes of the Act are the 

following: to coordinate emergency communications systems, including 911 services and E–911 services, at the Federal, State, and 

local levels; to provide stability and resources to State and local 

PSAPs in order to facilitate ubiquitous and reliable deployment of 

E–911 services throughout the United States; and to ensure that 

funds collected on consumers’ telecommunications bills for E–911 

services are used only for such purposes. 

Section 4. Emergency communications coordination 

This section would amend part C of title I of the NTIA Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) by adding a new section requiring 

the NTIA Administrator to establish an Emergency Communications Task Force to facilitate coordination between Federal, State, 

and local emergency communications systems, emergency personnel, and public safety organizations. 

This section would require the Task Force to include representatives from the following government agencies and private entities: 

the U.S. Department of Justice; the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security; the U.S. Department of Defense; the U.S. Department of 

Interior; the U.S. Department of Transportation; the FCC; State 

and local first responder agencies; national 911 and emergency 

communications leadership organizations; and the telecommunications industry. The NTIA Administrator also would be free to 

designate additional Task Force representatives. 

Section 4 would require the NTIA Administrator to make annual 

reports to Congress with the Task Force’s recommendations on how 

Federal, State, and local government and emergency communications organizations can improve their coordination and communications with one another. Section 4 also would prohibit members of 

the Task Force from receiving special compensation for their participation. 

Section 5. Grants for E–911 enhancement 

This section would amend part C of title I of the NTIA Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) by adding a new section authorizing 

up to $500 million per year for grants to State and local governments, and to tribal organizations, for enhancing emergency communications services through planning, infrastructure improvements, equipment purchases, and personnel training and acquisition. The grant program would be administered by the NTIA in 

consultation with the United States Department of Homeland Security. 

Section 5 would require the grant program to have a matching 

requirement so that the Federal share of any project eligible to receive a grant would not exceed 50 percent of the total funding. This 

section also would require preference in grants to go to applicants 

that coordinated their applications with the needs of PSAPs, as 

well as those that have integrated public and commercial commuVerDate jul 14 2003 01:39 Aug 29, 2003 Jkt ?????? PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR130.XXX SR130
8

nications services involved in the construction, delivery, and improvement of emergency communications, including 911 services. 

Section 5 would require the NTIA Administrator to issue regulations regarding the criteria for the selection of grants made pursuant to this section within 180 days after the enactment of the Act, 

following a 60-day period of public comment. 

Section 6. State and local 911 practices 

This section would amend part IV of title VI of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) by adding a new section 

requiring the FCC to review at least twice per year the imposition 

of, and the use of revenues derived from, taxes, fees, or other 

charges by State or local governments on telecommunications services customers’ bills that are designated for improving emergency 

communications services, including 911 services or E–911 services. 

Under this section, States also would be required to certify annually to the FCC that no portion of the revenues received for such 

purposes have been used for any other purposes. The FCC, in turn, 

would be required to notify Congress of States that fail to provide 

certification as well as the amount of revenues used by such States 

for purposes other than that for which they were collected. 

Additionally, section 6 would require the NTIA Administrator to 

withhold grant funds to States that have failed to provide proper 

certification to the FCC. 

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): 

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION 

ADMINISTRATION ORGANIZATION ACT 

TITLE I—NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION

ADMINISTRATION

PART C—SPECIAL AND TEMPORARY PROVISIONS

SEC. 158. COORDINATION OF EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF TASK FORCE.—The Assistant Secretary 

shall establish an Emergency Communications Task Force to facilitate coordination between Federal, State, and local emergency communications systems, emergency personnel, and public safety organizations. The task force shall include the following: 

(1) Representatives from Federal agencies, including—

(A) the Department of Justice; 

(B) the Department of Homeland Security; 

(C) the Department of Defense; 

(D) the Department of the Interior; 

(E) the Department of Transportation; and 

(F) the Federal Communications Commission; 

(2) State and local first responder agencies; 

9

(3) national 911 and emergency communications leadership 

organizations; 

(4) telecommunications industry representatives; and 

(5) other individuals designated by the Assistant Secretary. 

(b) PURPOSE OF TASK FORCE.—The task force shall provide advice 

and recommendations with respect to methods to improve coordination and communications between agencies and organizations involved in emergency communications, including 911 services to enhance homeland security and public safety. 

(c) REPORTS.—The Assistant Secretary shall provide an annual 

report to Congress by the first day of October of each year on the 

task force activities and make recommendations on how Federal, 

State, and local governments and emergency communications organizations can improve coordination and communications. 

(d) MISCELLEANOUS PROVISIONS.—Members of the task force shall 

serve without special compensation with respect to their activities on 

behalf of the task force. 

SEC. 159. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANTS. 

(a) MATCHING GRANTS.—The Assistant Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall provide grants 

to State and local governments and tribal organizations (as defined 

in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l))) for the purposes of enhancing emergency communications services through planning, infrastructure improvements, equipment purchases, and personnel training and acquisition. 

(b) MATCHING REQUIREMENT.—The Federal share of the cost of a 

project eligible for a grant under this section shall not exceed 50 

percent. The non-Federal share of the cost shall be provided from 

non-Federal sources. 

(c) PREFERENCE.—In providing grants under subsection (a), the 

Assistant Secretary shall give preference to applicants who— (1) coordinate their applications with the needs of their public 

safety answering points; and 

(2) integrate public and commercial communications services 

involved in the construction, delivery, and improvement of 

emergency communications, including 911 services. 

(d) CRITERIA.—The Assistant Secretary shall issue regulations 

within 180 days of the enactment of the Enhanced E–911 Emergency Communications Act of 2003, after a public comment period 

of not less than 60 days, prescribing the criteria for selection for 

grants under this section and shall update such regulations as necessary. 

(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized to 

be appropriated to the Assistant Secretary not more than 

$500,000,000 for each fiscal year for grants under this section.

COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934

TITLE VI—CABLE COMMUNICATIONS

PART IV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SECTION 6. STATE AND LOCAL 911 PRACTICES. 

SEC. 642. DIVERSION OF 911 FUNDS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—

10

(1) ASSESSMENT AND AUDIT.—The Commission shall review, 

no less frequently than twice a year— (A) the imposition of taxes, fees, or other charges imposed 

by States or political subdivisions of States that— (i) appear on telecommunications services customers’ bills; and 

(ii) are designated or presented as dedicated to improve emergency communications services, including 

911 services or enhanced 911 services, or related to 

emergency communications services operations or improvements; and 

(B) the use of revenues derived from such taxes, fees, or 

charges. 

(2) CERTIFICATION.—Each State shall certify annually to the 

Commission that no portion of the revenues derived from such 

taxes, fees, or charges have been obligated or expended for any 

purpose other than the purposes for which such taxes, fees, or 

charges are designated or presented. 

(b) NOTIFICATION OF CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC.—If the Commission fails to receive the certification described in subsection 

(a)(2), then, within 30 days after the date on which such certification was due, the Commission shall cause to be published in the 

Federal Register, and notify the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce of— (1) the identity of each State or political subdivision that 

failed to make the certification; and 

(2) the amount of revenues obligated or expended by that 

State or political subdivision for any purpose other than the 

purposes for which such taxes, fees, or charges were designated 

or presented. 

(c) WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Assistant Secretary shall withhold any Federal 

grant funds that would otherwise be made available under section 

159 of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act to a State or political subdivision identified by the Commission under subsection (b)(1) in an amount not 

to exceed twice the amount described in subsection (b)(2). In lieu of 

withholding grant funds under this subsection, the Secretary may 

require a State or political subdivision to repay to the Secretary the 

appropriate amount of funds already disbursed to that State or political subdivision.

Æ