U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

59–010 

" ! SENATE 110TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2007

110–142 

Calendar No. 327 

IP-ENABLED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS AND 

PUBLIC SAFETY ACT OF 2007 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 428 

AUGUST 3, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARINGcongress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice-Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HELMS, Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

JEAN TOAL EISEN, Senior Professional Staff 

CHRISTINE KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

KENNETH NAHIGIAN, Republican Deputy Staff Director and Chief Counsel 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
59–010 

Calendar No. 327 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 110–142 

IP-ENABLED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC 

SAFETY ACT OF 2007 

AUGUST 3, 2007.—Ordered to be printed 

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

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 428] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 428) to amend the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, and for other purposes, 

having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 

amendment (in the nature of a substitute) and recommends that 

the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 428 is to provide authority and guidance to the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure that 911 

and enhanced 911 (E–911) services are made available to consumers of IP-enabled voice services. The bill does not reverse the 

FCC’s actions to date. To ensure the deployment of 911 and E–911 

capability, the bill grants IP-enabled voice service providers access 

to necessary components of the 911 and E–911 network and directs 

the FCC to issue any new rules as may be necessary to comply 

with this requirement within 120 days of the date of enactment of 

the Act. The bill provides IP-enabled 911 and E–911 calls with the 

same level of liability protection provided to local exchange carriers. The bill also clarifies State authority with respect to fees imposed for the support of 911 or E–911 on IP-enabled voice services. 

To improve future 911 and E–911 services, a national plan is required for migrating the 911 and E–911 network to an IP-enabled 

emergency network that would be able to offer additional capabilities. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
2 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

Dialing 911 is the most effective, efficient, and familiar means 

for American citizens to call for emergency service. 911 service was 

first introduced in 1968. Nearly 40 years later, it has been estimated that there are on average over 200 million 911 calls a year. 

Calls to 911 are typically routed by wireline local exchange carriers 

(LECs) to public safety answering points (PSAPs) staffed by professionally-trained individuals who assist callers and direct calls to 

police, fire, and health emergency response providers. There are 

over 6,000 PSAPs in the United States. 

Over the last decade, many PSAPs and 911 systems have been 

upgraded to facilitate the transmission of E–911 data. E–911 calls 

provide the PSAP dispatcher with the callback number of the caller 

as well as the caller’s geographic location, even if the caller is unable to speak. As new communications technologies and services 

have developed, new challenges have arisen in the context of providing 911 and E–911 service, and most recently, have manifested 

themselves with respect to IP-enabled voice services. 

In May 2005, the FCC adopted a Report and Order requiring IPenabled voice service providers to register a subscriber’s location 

and offer 911 and E–911 service and to provide the appropriate 

PSAP with location information based on that registered location. 

IP-enabled voice service providers expressed concern that the FCC 

had not required access to certain critical components of the E–911 

network controlled by incumbent phone companies that are needed 

to complete 911 and E–911 calls. Additionally, the Order did not 

extend the liability protections afforded to wireline and wireless for 

the provision of 911 and E–911 capability to IP-enabled voice service providers in light of the FCC’s conclusion that it lacked the authority to provide such equivalent protections. This conclusion 

raised concerns in both the public safety community and industry 

and led to calls for legislative action. 

At the Executive Session for S. 428, Chairman Inouye and Vice 

Chairman Stevens offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute making a number of changes including provisions clarifying 

the FCC’s authority to require communications providers to offer 

911 services, providing liability protections to IP-enabled voice 

service providers and providers of emergency communications service, and providing access to the key components of the 911 and E–

911 system. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

S. 428, the IP-enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety 

Act of 2007, aims to improve 911 communications by codifying the 

obligation of IP-enabled voice service providers to provide 911 and 

E–911 services and by extending the liability protections enjoyed 

by wireless carriers and local exchange companies to IP-enabled 

voice service providers. 

The bill would not alter existing obligations imposed by the FCC 

on IP-enabled voice service providers. The bill would establish an 

explicit statutory duty obligating IP-enabled voice service providers 

to offer 911 and E–911 services in accordance with Commission 

rules, provide such entities with liability protections equivalent to 

those enjoyed by wireless and local exchange carriers, reaffirm the 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
3 

authority of States and localities to impose 911 fees on providers 

of IP-enabled voice service, and advance work currently being done 

by the E–911 Implementation Coordination Office to develop a national plan for migrating to a national IP-enabled emergency network. 

In addition, S. 428 would direct the FCC to compile a list of critical information related to the provisioning of 911 services, including a list of PSAP and selective router contact information. Where 

appropriate, the FCC would be authorized to make such information available to the public if such availability would improve public safety. S. 428 also would encourage the FCC to work cooperatively with public safety organizations, industry participants, and 

the E–911 Implementation Coordination Office to develop best 

practices that promote greater consistency among PSAPs with respect to 911 systems. 

Finally, the bill would extend the FCC’s general enforcement 

powers to violations of the Wireless Communications and Public 

Safety Act of 1999 and order the FCC to remit amounts promised 

for services by Dale N. Hatfield to complete an update to Mr. Hatfield’s 2002 Report on Technical and Operational Issues Impacting 

the Provision of Wireless Enhanced 911 Services. Mr. Hatfield 

would be required to submit the update to his report within 60 

days of receiving payment. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 

2007 (S. 428) was introduced by Senator Bill Nelson on January 

30, 2007, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation. The bill is cosponsored by Senators 

Clinton, Snowe, and Lautenberg. On April 10, 2007, the Committee 

held a hearing on ‘‘Voice over Internet Protocol and the Future of 

911 Services.’’ On April 25, 2007, the Committee considered the bill 

in an open Executive Session. Chairman Inouye offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute to clarify the FCC’s authority, 

provide liability protection, and provide access to the key components of the 911 and E–911 system. Chairman Inouye, with Senators Nelson and Snowe, also offered a managers’ package to the 

substitute. The substitute and managers’ package were both adopted by voice vote. The Committee, without objection, ordered that S. 

428 be reported. 

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: 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
4 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, May 25, 2007. 

Hon. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

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. 428, the IP-Enabled Voice 

Communications and Public Safety Act of 2007. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susan Willie. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, 

Director. 

Enclosure. 

S. 428—IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 

2007 

Summary: S. 428 would amend current law to require companies 

offering Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) services to provide 

emergency 911 telephone service. The bill would direct the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) to develop regulations granting VoIP providers access to the network and systems needed to 

complete 911 or enhanced-911 calls. Enhanced-911 (E–911) service 

automatically associates a physical address with the calling party’s 

telephone number. The bill also would direct the federal E–911 Implementation Coordination Office to create a plan for a transition 

to an Internet-based emergency network. 

Based on information from the FCC, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would cost about $1 million over the 2008–2012 

period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. CBO expects that enacting the bill would not have a significant effect on 

revenues and would not affect direct spending. 

S. 428 contains several intergovernmental mandates as defined 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), including limitations on the imposition and use of certain fees that state and local 

governments can charge VoIP providers. CBO estimates that the 

costs of those provisions to state, local, and tribal governments 

would be small; while they would grow over time, they would not 

exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($66 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation) in any of the first five years that the 

mandates are in effect. 

S. 428 would impose private-sector mandates, as defined in 

UMRA, on certain entities in the telecommunications industry. The 

bill would require entities that own 911 components necessary to 

transmit VoIP emergency 911 services over their networks. CBO 

estimates that the direct cost of complying with this mandate 

would be small and fall below the annual threshold for private-sector mandates established by UMRA ($131 million in 2007, adjusted 

annually for inflation). The bill also would impose a mandate on 

certain consumers and third-party users of VoIP services by providing VoIP service providers, users, and PSAPs liability protection 

against improperly distributed 911 calls. Due to the lack of information about both the value of awards in such cases and the numVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:04 Aug 08, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR142.XXX SR142

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
5 

ber of claims that would be filed in the absence of this legislation, 

CBO cannot predict the level of potential damage awards, if any. 

Thus, CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate cost of all the 

mandates in the bill would exceed the annual threshold for privatesector mandates. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Under FCC rules, 

VoIP providers were required to connect their customers to emergency 911 services by November 28, 2005. S. 428 would codify this 

regulation. The bill also would require the E–911 Implementation 

Coordination Office to create a plan to create a national 911 communications system that is Internet-based. 

Based on information provided by the FCC, CBO estimates that 

administrative costs for various rulemakings called for in the bill 

would cost about $1 million in 2008. We estimate that planning for 

an Internet-based 911 system would cost less than $500,000 over 

the 2008–2012 period. 

Enacting S. 428 could increase federal revenues as the result of 

the collection of additional civil and forfeiture penalties assessed 

for violations of FCC laws and regulations. Collections of such penalties are recorded in the budget as revenues. CBO estimates that 

any additional revenues that would result from enacting S. 428 

would not be significant because of the relatively small number of 

cases likely to be involved. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: S. 428 

contains several intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA, 

including limitations on certain fees that state and local governments impose on providers of VoIP, and a preemption of state liability laws. CBO estimates that the costs of those provisions to 

state, local, and tribal governments would be small; while they 

would grow over time, they would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($66 million in 2007, adjusted annually for inflation) in any of the first five years that the mandates are in effect. 

Limitations on fees 

Section 4 would prohibit state, local, and tribal governments 

from imposing fees on VoIP providers that exceed those imposed on 

other telecommunications providers. The bill also would require 

that intergovernmental entities spend 911 fees collected from VoIP 

providers only for support of emergency communications. 

Thirteen states currently levy 911 fees on VoIP providers. Nine 

of those states impose fees that are lower than or equal to the lowest fee charged to wireless and wireline providers; CBO expects 

that fees in those states would not be affected by the bill’s limitation. One state currently charges a VoIP 911 fee that is higher 

than the residential wireline fee but lower than the business 

wireline fee, and presumably that state’s fee also would be allowed 

under this provision. The remaining three states allow local governments to set fees; CBO cannot estimate the extent to which the 

bill would result in lost fees in those three states because information on the level of local fees is not readily available. CBO believes 

however, that the costs to state and local governments from the 

bill’s limitation on fees would likely be small because the number 

of VoIP users in those three states is not likely to be large, and 

local governments are not likely to levy fees on VoIP users that are 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
6 

significantly different from those levied on users of other telecommunications services. 

It also is possible that some state and local governments would 

choose in the future to impose such fees at a rate higher than those 

charged on other telephone services, but CBO has no information 

upon which to make such an assumption at this time. Most states 

impose 911 fees on wireline and wireless services that are similar, 

implying the likelihood that such fees on VoIP also would be similar. In total, CBO estimates that the costs to state and local governments from the bill’s limitation on fees, while they might grow 

over time, would likely be small over the next five years. 

In 2005, four states used 911 fees, including wireless and 

wireline fees, for purposes other than 911 or emergency communications services. Two of those states currently levy 911 fees on 

VoIP and would be prevented by S. 428 from using those fees for 

nonemergency communications purposes. One additional state that 

currently has a 911 fee on VoIP allows counties and local governments to collect and use revenue from 911 fees. CBO cannot estimate the extent to which counties and local governments use that 

revenue for nonemergency communications purposes because that 

information is not maintained by the states. CBO believes, however, that the costs to state and local governments from the bill’s 

limitation on the use of fees, while they might grow over time, 

would likely be small over the next five years. 

Preemption of state liability laws and requirements on public safety 

access points (PSAPs) 

Section 3 would preempt state liability laws covering PSAPs and 

other governmental entities that answer 911 calls connected using 

VoIP. This provision would give PSAPs, a provider, or a user of 

VoIP, the same protection from liability claims granted to wireless 

and wireline entities, and ultimately would benefit intergovernmental entities by protecting them from such claims. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 428 contains privatesector mandates, as defined in UMRA, on certain entities in the 

telecommunications industry. The bill also would impose a privatesector mandate on certain consumers and third-party users of VoIP 

services filing claims for injury. The bill would provide VoIP service 

providers, users, and PSAPs the same liability protection against 

improperly distributed 911 calls that wireline and wireless providers, users, and PSAPs currently possess. Because the bill would 

eliminate existing rights to seek compensation for injury caused by 

negligent acts, it would impose a private-sector mandate. The direct cost of the mandate would be the forgone net value of the 

awards and settlements in such claims. CBO has found no pending 

lawsuit with a claim that would be barred if the bill were enacted 

and has no basis for estimating the number of claims that would 

be filed in the future in the absence of this legislation. Furthermore, CBO cannot predict the level of potential damage awards in 

such cases, if any. Thus, CBO cannot estimate the cost of this mandate or whether the cost would exceed the annual threshold established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, 

adjusted annually for inflation). 

The bill also would direct FCC to issue new regulations relating 

to VoIP access to 911 and E–911 infrastructure. The new regulaVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:04 Aug 08, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR142.XXX SR142

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
7 

tions would impose a new mandate on all private entities that own 

911 components necessary to transmit VoIP emergency 911 services over their networks by requiring them to allow VoIP providers 

to have full access to the necessary 911 components. Although the 

details of such regulations are not specified in the bill, CBO expects 

that owners of 911 components would be able to charge VoIP providers a fee for using their network components, but would be mandated to enter into such agreements with those providers. Large 

private entities that own 911 components have most of the infrastructure in place to comply with the mandate. Some smaller owners of 911 components may not have such capacity and would incur 

costs to comply with the mandate. Based on information provided 

by industry sources, CBO expects that the direct costs of complying 

with this mandate would be minimal. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Susan Willie; Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elizabeth Cove; Impact on 

the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata. 

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

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. 428 is intended to extend 911 and E–911 requirements to IPenabled voice service providers. The bill would affect IP-enabled 

voice service providers and other entities already subject to 911 

and E–911 regulations. Most IP-enabled voice service subscribers 

either transition from existing voice services for which 911 and E–

911 requirements already apply or use IP-enabled voice services in 

addition to other voice services. While the bill also would extend liability protections in certain circumstances for a new class of service providers known as a alternative emergency communications 

providers, such protections would not apply until after the FCC requires or the appropriate state or local PSAP authorizes such entity to provide alternative emergency communications services. As 

such, there would not be a significant increase in the number of 

persons subject to 911 or E–911 regulations. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 428 would not have an adverse economic impact on the Nation’s economy. 

PRIVACY

The reported bill would have no impact on the personal privacy 

of U.S. citizens. 

PAPERWORK

The reported bill should not significantly increase paperwork requirements for individuals and businesses. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
8 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

The short title is the ‘‘IP-Enabled Voice Communications and 

Public Safety Act of 2007’’. 

Sec. 2. Duty to provide 911 and E–911 service 

Subsection (a) would add a new section 7 to the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999. New section 7(a) would 

impose a statutory duty on IP-enabled voice service providers to 

provide 911 and E–911 service to their subscribers in accordance 

with the orders of the FCC in effect on the date of enactment of 

this Act as such orders may be amended from time to time. 

New section 7(b) would provide IP-enabled voice service providers with rights of access to necessary 911 components that are 

comparable to those enjoyed by wireless carriers. In providing such 

rights of access, the Commission would take into account any technical network security or privacy issues specific to IP-enabled voice 

services. The Commission would be required to have IP-enabled 

voice service providers register and establish a point of contact for 

public safety and government officials for 911 purposes. The FCC 

also would have the authority to delegate the enforcement of this 

subsection to State commissions or other State agencies with jurisdiction over emergency communications. 

New section 7(c) would clarify that the Act does not alter existing 

FCC regulations obligating IP-enabled voice service providers to 

provide 911 or E–911 service. 

New section 7(d) would clarify that the section does not permit 

the FCC to issue regulations that require or impose a specific technology or technological standard. This section would not limit or 

otherwise preclude action by the Commission in adopting performance-based standards or requirements. 

New section 7(e) would reiterate the FCC’s authority to require 

other providers of communications services to provide 911 and E–

911 service. The Committee believes that this specific authority is 

consistent with the Commission’s general authority under section 

1 of the Communications Act to promote ‘‘safety of life and property’’ through the use of wire and radio communication. 

Subsection (b) defines a number of new terms contained in the 

bill. The term ‘‘IP-Enabled Voice Service’’ would be given the meaning provided by the Commission under 47 C.F.R. 9.3, as that regulation may be amended from time to time. The term ‘‘IP-enabled 

911 service’’ would be defined to mean any 911 service provided by 

an IP-enabled voice service provider, including Enhanced IP-enabled 911 service. The term ‘‘Enhanced IP-enabled 911 service’’

would be defined to mean the enhanced 911 service designated by 

the Commission in the Report and Order issued in its Wireline 

Competition Docket Nos. 04–36 and 05–96, or any successor proceeding. The section also includes a definition of ‘‘911 component’’

identifying a descriptive list of elements that, as determined by the 

Commission, would be necessary to provide 911 services. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
9 

Sec. 3. Parity of protection for provision or use of IP-enabled voice 

service 

Subsection (a) would amend section 4 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 to extend the liability protections related to the provision of 911 service that currently apply 

to local exchange companies, wireless carriers, PSAPs, and users of 

wireless services, to similarly cover IP-enabled voice service providers, alternative communications providers, PSAPs, and users of 

IP-enabled voice services and alternative emergency communications services. 

Subsection (b) would amend section 6 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 by adding additional definitions of terms used in amended section 4. 

Section 4. State authority of fees 

Section 4 would clarify that nothing prevents States, localities, or 

Indian tribes from imposing or collecting 911 or E–911 fees if the 

fee is obligated for the support of 911 or E–911 services, enhancements to such services or other emergency communications services 

as specified in the relevant State or local law and, with respect to 

IP-enabled voice services, does not exceed the amount imposed on 

or collected by a provider of telecommunications services. The Committee strongly encourages States and localities to equitably apply 

911 fees among communications providers, to the extent possible. 

In particular, the Committee urges States and localities to study 

fee structures that accommodate pre-paid telecommunications services. 

Section 5. Migration to IP-enabled emergency network 

Subsection (a) would amend Section 158 of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act 

(47 U.S.C. 942). 

New section (d) would direct the E–911 Implementation Coordination Office to develop and report to Congress on a national plan 

for migrating to an IP-enabled emergency network within 270 days 

of the date of enactment of the Act. It would set forth specific requirements as to items that must be included in the migration plan 

and require the Office to consult with members of the public safety 

community, groups representing those with disabilities, technology 

and telecommunications providers, and others as appropriate. 

Subsection (b) would authorize the FCC to compile a list of PSAP 

contact information, testing procedures, classes and types of services supported, or other information concerning necessary 911 components and make that information available to the public if such 

availability would improve public safety. 

Subsection (c) would require the FCC to work cooperatively with 

public safety organizations, industry participants and the Office to 

develop best practices that promote consistency, where appropriate, 

for PSAP procedures. 

Sec. 6. Enforcement 

Section 6 would direct the FCC to enforce the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 as if it were part of the 

Communications Act (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.). 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
10 

Sec. 7. Completion of the Hatfield Report 

Subsection (a) would direct the FCC to remit the amounts promised for services by Dale N. Hatfield in connection with the completion of an update to the Report on Technical and Operational 

Issues Impacting the Provision of Wireless Enhanced 911 Services 

filed at the Commission on October 15, 2002, in WT Docket No. 02–

46 within 30 days of enactment of the Act. 

Subsection (b) would require Mr. Hatfield to submit his written 

findings as of May 1, 2006, to the FCC within 60 days of receiving 

the payment described in subsection (a). 

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): 

WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACT OF 1999 

[47 U.S.C. 615 et seq.] 

SEC. 4. PARITY OF PROTECTION FOR PROVISION OF USE OF WIRELESS SERVICE. 

§ 615a. Parity of protection for provision or use of wireless service 

(a) PROVIDER PARITY.—A wireless øcarrier,¿ carrier, IP-enabled 

voice service provider, or alternative emergency communications 

service provider, and øits¿ their officers, directors, employees, vendors, and agents, shall have immunity or other protection from liability in a State of a scope and extent that is not less than the 

scope and extent of immunity or other protection from liability that 

any local exchange company, and its officers, directors, employees, 

vendors, or agents, have under Federal and State law (whether 

through statute, judicial decision, tariffs filed by such local exchange company, or otherwise) applicable in such State, including 

in connection with an act or omission involving the release to a 

PSAP, emergency medical service provider or emergency dispatch 

provider, public safety, fire service or law enforcement official, or 

hospital emergency or trauma care facility of subscriber information related to øemergency calls or emergency services.¿ emergency 

calls, emergency services, or alternative emergency communications 

services. 

(b) USER PARITY.—A person using wireless 9–1–1 øservice shall¿ 

service, or IP-enabled voice service, shall have immunity or other 

protection from liability of a scope and extent that is not less than 

the scope and extent of immunity or other protection from liability 

under applicable law in similar circumstances of a person using 9–

1–1 service that is not øwireless.¿ wireless, IP-enabled, or alternative emergency communications. 

(c) PSAP PARITY.—In matters related to wireless 9–1–1 øcommunications,¿ communications, IP-enabled voice service communications, or alternative emergency communications, a PSAP, and its 

employees, vendors, agents, and authorizing government entity (if 

any) shall have immunity or other protection from liability of a 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
11 

scope and extent that is not less than the scope and extent of immunity or other protection from liability under applicable law accorded to such PSAP, employees, vendors, agents, and authorizing 

government entity, respectively, in matters related to 9–1–1 communications that are not øwireless.¿ wireless, IP-enabled, or alternative emergency communications. 

(d) BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.—This section is enacted as an exercise of the enforcement power of the Congress under section 5 of 

the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution [USCS Constitution, Amendment 14, § 5] and the power of the Congress to regulate 

commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with 

Indian tribes. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS. 

§ 615b. Definitions applicable to 47 USCS § § 615, 615 note, 615a, and 615b 

As used in this Act: 

(1) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary 

of Transportation. 

(2) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means any of the several 

States, the District of Columbia, or any territory or possession 

of the United States. 

(3) PUBLIC SAFETY ANSWERING POINT; PSAP.—The term 

‘‘public safety answering point’’ or ‘‘PSAP’’ means a facility that 

has been designated to receive 9–1–1 calls and route them to 

emergency service personnel. 

(4) WIRELESS CARRIER.—The term ‘‘wireless carrier’’ means a 

provider of commercial mobile services or any other radio communications service that the Federal Communications Commission requires to provide wireless 9–1–1 service. 

(5) ENHANCED WIRELESS 9–1–1 SERVICE.—The term ‘‘enhanced wireless 9–1–1 service’’ means any enhanced 9–1–1 

service so designated by the Federal Communications Commission in the proceeding entitled ‘‘Revision of the Commission’s 

Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 9–1–1 Emergency Calling Systems’’ (CC Docket No. 94–102; RM–8143), or 

any successor proceeding. 

(6) WIRELESS 9–1–1 SERVICE.—The term ‘‘wireless 9–1–1 service’’ means any 9–1–1 service provided by a wireless carrier, including enhanced wireless 9–1–1 service. 

(7) EMERGENCY DISPATCH PROVIDERS.—The term ‘‘emergency 

dispatch providers’’ shall include governmental and nongovernmental providers of emergency dispatch services. 

(8) IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE.—The term ‘‘IP-enabled voice 

service’’ has the meaning given that term by section 9.3 of the 

Commission’s regulations (47 C.F.R. 9.3), as those regulations 

may be amended by the Commission from time to time. 

(9) IP-ENABLED 9–1–1 SERVICE.—The term ‘‘IP-enabled 9–1– 1 service’’ means any 9–1–1 service provided by an IP-enabled 

voice service provider, including enhanced IP-enabled 9–1–1 

service. 

(10) ENHANCED IP-ENABLED 9–1–1 SERVICE.—The term ‘‘enhanced IP-enabled 9–1–1 service’’ means any enhanced 9–1–1 

service so designated by the Federal Communications CommisVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:04 Aug 08, 2007 Jkt 059010 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR142.XXX SR142

cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
12 

sion in its Report and Order in WC Docket Nos. 04–36 and 05– 196, or any successor proceeding. 

(11) 911 COMPONENT.—The term ‘‘911 component’’ means any 

equipment, network, databases (including automatic location 

information databases and master street address guides), 

interface, selective router, trunkline, non-dialable p-ANI’s, or 

other related facility necessary for the delivery and completion 

of 911 or E–911 calls and information related to such calls, as 

determined by the Commission. 

(12) ALTERNATIVE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE.— The term ‘‘alternative emergency communications service’’ means the provision of emergency information to a public safety answering point via wire or radio communications, and may 

include 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–1–1 Services. 

(13) ALTERNATIVE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE

PROVIDER.—The term ‘‘alternative emergency communications 

service provider’’ means an entity other than a local exchange 

carrier, wireless carrier, or an IP-enabled voice service provider 

that is required by the Commission or, in the absence of any 

such requirement, is specifically authorized by the appropriate 

local or State 9–1–1 governing authority, to provide alternative 

emergency communications services. 

SEC. 7. IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE PROVIDERS. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—It shall be the duty of every IP-enabled voice 

service provider engaged in interstate or foreign communication to 

provide 9–1–1 service, including enhanced 9–1–1 service, to its subscribers in accordance with orders of the Commission in effect on 

the date of enactment of the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and 

Public Safety Act of 2007, as such orders may be modified by the 

Commission from time to time. 

(b) ACCESS TO 911 COMPONENTS.— (1) REGULATIONS.—Within 90 days after the date of enactment of the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2007, the Commission shall issue regulations granting 

IP-enabled voice service providers right of access to 911 components that are necessary to provide 911 service, on the same 

rates, terms, and conditions that are provided to commercial 

mobile service providers. In promulgating the regulations, the 

Commission shall take into account any technical, network security, or information privacy issues that are specific to IP-enabled voice services, including the security of 9–1–1 networks. 

The Commission shall require IP-enabled voice service providers to which the regulations apply to register with the Commission and to establish a point of contact for public safety and 

government officials relative to 9–1–1 service and access. 

(2) DELEGATION OF ENFORCEMENT TO STATE COMMISSIONS.—

The Commission may delegate authority to enforce the regulations issued under paragraph (1) to State commissions or other 

State agencies or programs with jurisdiction over emergency 

communications. 

(c) SAVINGS CLAUSE.—Nothing in the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2007 shall be construed as repealing or otherwise altering, modifying, affecting, or superseding 

Federal regulations obligating an IP-enabled voice service provider 

to provide 9–1–1 service or enhanced 9–1–1 service. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
13 

(d) LIMITATION ON COMMISSION.—Nothing in this section shall be 

construed to permit the Commission to issue regulations that require or impose a specific technology or technological standard. 

(e) FCC AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE 911 SERVICE.—The Federal Communications Commission is authorized to require other providers of 

communications services using wire or radio communication in 

interstate or foreign commerce to provide 911 service, including enhanced 911 service, to users for the purpose of promoting safety of 

life and property.’’. 

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION

ADMINISTRATION ORGANIZATION ACT

[47 U.S.C. 942] 

SEC. 158. COORDINATION OF E–911 IMPLEMENTATION. 

§ 942. Coordination of E–911 implementation 

(a) E–911 IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION OFFICE.— (1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Assistant Secretary and the Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration shall— (A) establish a joint program to facilitate coordination 

and communication between Federal, State, and local 

emergency communications systems, emergency personnel, 

public safety organizations, telecommunications carriers, 

and telecommunications equipment manufacturers and 

vendors involved in the implementation of E–911 services; 

and 

(B) create an E–911 Implementation Coordination Office 

to implement the provisions of this section. 

(2) MANAGEMENT PLAN.—The Assistant Secretary and the 

Administrator shall jointly develop a management plan for the 

program established under this section. Such plan shall include the organizational structure and funding profiles for the 

5-year duration of the program. The Assistant Secretary and 

the Administrator shall, within 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act [enacted Dec. 23, 2004], submit the management plan to the Committees on Energy and Commerce and 

Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and Appropriations of the Senate. 

(3) PURPOSE OF OFFICE.—The Office shall—

(A) take actions, in concert with coordinators designated 

in accordance with subsection (b)(3)(A)(ii), to improve such 

coordination and communication; 

(B) develop, collect, and disseminate information concerning practices, procedures, and technology used in the 

implementation of E–911 services; 

(C) advise and assist eligible entities in the preparation 

of implementation plans required under subsection 

(b)(3)(A)(iii); 

(D) receive, review, and recommend the approval or disapproval of applications for grants under subsection (b); 

and 

(E) oversee the use of funds provided by such grants in 

fulfilling such implementation plans. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
14 

(4) REPORTS.—The Assistant Secretary and the Administrator shall provide a joint annual report to Congress by the 

first day of October of each year on the activities of the Office 

to improve coordination and communication with respect to the 

implementation of E–911 services. 

(b) PHASE II E–911 IMPLEMENTATION GRANTS.— (1) MATCHING GRANTS.—The Assistant Secretary and the Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of Homeland 

Security and the Chairman of the Federal Communications 

Commission, and acting through the Office, shall provide 

grants to eligible entities for the implementation and operation 

of Phase II E–911 øservices.¿ services, and for migration to an 

IP-enabled emergency network. 

(2) 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. 

(3) COORDINATION REQUIRED.—In providing grants under 

paragraph (1), the Assistant Secretary and the Administrator 

shall require an eligible entity to certify in its application 

that—(A) in the case of an eligible entity that is a State government, the entity— (i) has coordinated its application with the public 

safety answering points (as such term is defined in 

section 222(h)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934) 

located within the jurisdiction of such entity; 

(ii) has designated a single officer or governmental 

body of the entity to serve as the coordinator of implementation of E–911 services, except that such designation need not vest such coordinator with direct legal 

authority to implement E–911 services or manage 

emergency communications operations; 

(iii) has established a plan for the coordination and 

implementation of E–911 services; and 

(iv) has integrated telecommunications services involved in the implementation and delivery of phase II 

E–911 services; or 

(B) in the case of an eligible entity that is not a State, 

the entity has complied with clauses (i), (iii), and (iv) of 

subparagraph (A), and the State in which it is located has 

complied with clause (ii) of such subparagraph. 

(4) CRITERIA.—The Assistant Secretary and the Administrator shall jointly issue regulations within 180 days after the 

date of enactment of the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 [enacted 

Dec. 23, 2004], 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. 

The criteria shall include performance requirements and a 

timeline for completion of any project to be financed by a grant 

under this section. 

(c) DIVERSION OF E–911 CHARGES.— (1) DESIGNATED E–911 CHARGES.—For the purposes of this 

subsection, the term ‘‘designated E–911 charges’’ means any 

taxes, fees, or other charges imposed by a State or other taxing 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
15 

jurisdiction that are designated or presented as dedicated to 

deliver or improve E–911 services. 

(2) CERTIFICATION.—Each applicant for a matching grant 

under this section shall certify to the Assistant Secretary and 

the Administrator at the time of application, and each applicant that receives such a grant shall certify to the Assistant 

Secretary and the Administrator annually thereafter during 

any period of time during which the funds from the grant are 

available to the applicant, that no portion of any designated E– 911 charges imposed by a State or other taxing jurisdiction 

within which the applicant is located are being obligated or expended for any purpose other than the purposes for which such 

charges are designated or presented during the period beginning 180 days immediately preceding the date of the application and continuing through the period of time during which 

the funds from the grant are available to the applicant. 

(3) CONDITION OF GRANT.—Each applicant for a grant under 

this section shall agree, as a condition of receipt of the grant, 

that if the State or other taxing jurisdiction within which the 

applicant is located, during any period of time during which 

the funds from the grant are available to the applicant, obligates or expends designated E–911 charges for any purpose 

other than the purposes for which such charges are designated 

or presented, all of the funds from such grant shall be returned 

to the Office. 

(4) PENALTY FOR PROVIDING FALSE INFORMATION.—Any applicant that provides a certification under paragraph (1) knowing 

that the information provided in the certification was false 

shall—

(A) not be eligible to receive the grant under subsection 

(b); 

(B) return any grant awarded under subsection (b) during the time that the certification was not valid; and 

(C) not be eligible to receive any subsequent grants 

under subsection (b). 

(d) MIGRATION PLAN REQUIRED.— (1) NATIONAL PLAN REQUIRED.—No more than 270 days after 

the date of the enactment of the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2007, the Office shall develop 

and report to Congress on a national plan for migrating to a 

national IP-enabled emergency network capable of receiving 

and responding to all citizen activated emergency communications and improving information sharing among all emergency 

response entities. 

(2) CONTENTS OF PLAN.—The plan required by paragraph (1) 

shall—

(A) outline the potential benefits of such a migration; 

(B) identify barriers that must be overcome and funding 

mechanisms to address those barriers; 

(C) provide specific mechanisms for ensuring the IP-enabled emergency network is available in every community 

and is coordinated on a local, regional, and Statewide 

basis; 

(D) identify location technology for nomadic devices and 

for office buildings and multi-dwelling units; 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
16 

(E) include a proposed timetable, an outline of costs and 

potential savings; 

(F) provide specific legislative language, if necessary, for 

achieving the plan; 

(G) provide recommendations on any legislative changes, 

including updating definitions, to facilitate a national IPenabled emergency network; 

(H) assess, collect, and analyze the experiences of the 

PSAPs and related public safety authorities who are conducting trial deployments of IP-enabled emergency networks as of the date of enactment of the IP-Enabled Voice 

Communications and Public Safety Act of 2007; 

(I) document solutions that a national IP-enabled emergency network will provide for 9–1–1 access to those with 

disabilities and needed steps to implement such solutions, 

including a recommended timeline for such implementation; and 

(J) analyze technologies and efforts to provide automatic 

location capabilities and provide recommendations on needed regulatory or legislative changes necessary to implement 

automatic location solutions for 911 purposes. 

(3) CONSULTATION.—In developing the plan required by paragraph (1), the Office shall consult with representatives of the 

public safety community, groups representing those with disabilities, technology and telecommunications providers, and 

others it deems appropriate. 

ø(d)¿ (e) AUTHORIZATION; TERMINATION.— (1) AUTHORIZATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Department of Transportation, for the purposes 

of grants under the joint program operated under this section 

with the Department of Commerce, not more than $ 

250,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009, not 

more than 5 percent of which for any fiscal year may be obligated or expended for administrative costs. 

(2) TERMINATION.—The provisions of this section shall cease 

to be effective on October 1, 2009. 

ø(e)¿ (f) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section: 

(1) OFFICE.—The term ‘‘Office’’ means the E–911 Implementation Coordination Office. 

(2) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the 

Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

(3) ELIGIBLE ENTITY.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘eligible entity’’ means a 

State or local government or a tribal organization (as defined in section 4(l) of the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b(l))). 

(B) INSTRUMENTALITIES.—Such term includes public authorities, boards, commissions, and similar bodies created 

by one or more eligible entities described in subparagraph 

(A) to provide E–911 services. 

(C) EXCEPTION.—Such term does not include any entity 

that has failed to submit the most recently required certification under subsection (c) within 30 days after the date 

on which such certification is due. 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING
17 

(4) E–911 SERVICES.—The term ‘‘E–911 services’’ means both 

phase I and phase II enhanced 911 services, as described in 

section 20.18 of the Commission’s regulations (47 C.F.R. 20.18), 

as in effect on the date of enactment of the ENHANCE 911 Act 

of 2004 [enacted Dec. 23, 2004], or as subsequently revised by 

the Federal Communications Commission. 

(5) PHASE II E–911 SERVICES.—The term ‘‘phase II E–911 

services’’ means only phase II enhanced 911 services, as described in such section 20.18 (47 C.F.R. 20.18), as in effect on 

such date, or as subsequently revised by the Federal Communications Commission. 

(6) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means any State of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and any territory or possession of the United 

States. 

Æ 


cnoel on PRODPC60 with HEARING