```

[Senate Report 110-142]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

110th Congress 
 1st Session                     SENATE                          Report
                                                                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. H.R. deg. 428

DATE deg.August 3, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
       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         JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
    Virginia                         TRENT LOTT, Mississippi
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts         KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota        OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
BARBARA BOXER, California            GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BILL NELSON, Florida                 JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                 DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS CARPER, Delaware              JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
          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

                                                       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 joint resolution deg. (S. 
H.R. deg. 428) TITLE deg. 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 joint resolution deg. (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.

                          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 IP-
enabled 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 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:
                                     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 number 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 private-sector 
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 
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 
private-sector mandates, as defined in UMRA, on certain 
entities in the telecommunications industry. The bill also 
would impose a private-sector 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 regulations 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 
IP-enabled 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.

                      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.

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.).

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):
  In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that, in its 
opinion, it is necessary to dispense with the requirements of 
that paragraph in order to expedite the business of the 
Senate. deg.

         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.

Sec. 615A. PARITY OF PROTECTION FOR PROVISION OR USE OF WIRELESS 
                    SERVICE

  (a) Provider Parity.--A wireless [carrier,] carrier, IP-
enabled voice service provider, or alternative emergency 
communications service provider, and [its] 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 [emergency calls 
or emergency services.] emergency calls, emergency services, or 
alternative emergency communications services.
  (b) User Parity.--A person using wireless 9-1-1 [service 
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 [wireless.] wireless, IP-enabled, or alternative emergency 
communications.
  (c) PSAP Parity.--In matters related to wireless 9-1-1 
[communications,] 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 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 [wireless.] 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, Sec. 5] and the power of the 
Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the 
several States, and with Indian tribes.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS.

Sec. 615B. DEFINITIONS APPLICABLE TO 47 USCS Sec. Sec. 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 Commission 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.
  (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.

Sec. 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.
          (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 
        [services.] 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 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;
                  (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 IP-
                enabled 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.
  [(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.
  [(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.
          (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.

                                  

```