U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

49–010 

" ! SENATE 109TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2005

109–211 

Calendar No. 353 

IP-ENABLED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS AND 

PUBLIC SAFETY ACT OF 2005 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND 

TRANSPORTATION 

ON

S. 1063 

DECEMBER 20, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Co-Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, SOUTH CAROLINA

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

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 LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

LISA SUTHERLAND, Staff Director 

CHRISTINE DRAGER KURTH, Deputy Staff Director 

DAVID RUSSELL, Chief Counsel 

MARGARET CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SAMUEL WHITEHORN, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
Calendar No. 353 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 1st Session 109–211 

IP-ENABLED VOICE COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC 

SAFETY ACT OF 2005 

DECEMBER 20, 2005.—Ordered to be printed 

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

Transportation, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1063] 

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 

which was referred the bill (S. 1063) to promote and enhance public 

safety and to encourage the rapid deployment of IP-enabled voice 

services, 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. 1063 is to provide authority and guidance to the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ensure that 911 

and E–911 services are made available to consumers of IP-enabled 

voice services. The bill does not reverse the FCC’s actions to date. 

It directs the FCC to review its current rules and to issue any new 

rules as may be necessary to comply with this legislation within 

120 days of enactment. The bill provides IP-enabled 911 and E–911 

calls with the same level of liability protection as applies in the 

wireless and wireline context. To further ensure the deployment of 

911 and E–911 capability, the bill mandates that access to necessary components of the 911 and E–911 network be made available to IP-enabled voice service providers. To improve 911 and E–

911 services going forward, 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
2 

BACKGROUND AND NEEDS

A functional 911 and E–911 system ensures that Americans can 

dial three digits in the case of an emergency and be connected to 

a dispatcher at the designated public safety answering point 

(PSAP) for the caller’s location so that the emergency can be identified and emergency personnel can be deployed. An enhanced 911 

(E–911) call provides 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. 911 and E–911 are essential public 

safety services that consumers have come to expect and rely upon. 

As new communications technologies and services develop, new 

challenges arise in the context of providing 911 and E–911 service. 

IP-enabled voice services do not operate in the same manner as the 

wireline switched network so there are additional hurdles that 

must be overcome to make 911 and E–911 calls through the E–911 

system. By acting now, Congress takes the necessary steps to ensure that 911 and E–911 are top priorities and are integrated into 

IP-enabled voice services. 

On September 22, 2005, the Committee held a hearing on Communications in a Disaster. The importance of 911 and E–911 was 

highlighted, as was the utility of IP-enabled voice services in the 

event of mass emergencies. In general, the ability to leverage IP capabilities to quickly reroute calls around system failures was discussed. The Chairman of the FCC also spoke of the importance of 

updating PSAPs to easily allow 911 and E–911 calls to be rerouted 

from a PSAP where service has been disrupted to a functioning 

PSAP. In December, 2004, the Senate passed the ENHANCE 911 

Act of 2004, which focuses on upgrading PSAPs to be able to offer 

full E–911 capability. On November 3, 2005, the Senate passed S. 

1932, which would provide $250,000,000 for the ENHANCE 911 

Act of 2004. 

In June 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 using that registered location. IPenabled 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, which raised liability concerns for the public safety 

community and industry. The FCC noted that it did not have authority to address the liability issue. 

At the Executive Session for S.1063, Chairman Stevens and CoChairman Inouye along with the sponsor and primary cosponsor, 

Senators Nelson and Burns, respectively, offered an amendment in 

the form of a substitute to clarify the FCC’s authority, provide liability protection and to provide access to the key components of 

the 911 and E–911 system. 

SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS

S. 1063, the IP-enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety 

Act of 2005, provides authority and guidance to the FCC to ensure 

that IP-enabled voice service providers offer 911 and E–911 servVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:04 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR211.XXX SR211

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
3 

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

same level of liability protection as applies in the wireless and 

wireline context. The bill further mandates that access to necessary 

components of the E–911 network be made available to IP-enabled 

voice service providers. To improve 911 and E–911 services going 

forward, 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 public safety capabilities to all Americans. 

Section 1 contains the short title of the bill, the ‘‘IP-Enabled 

Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005.’’ Section 2 requires the FCC to review the rules established in its 

June 2005 Report and Order and revise or issue new rules as may 

be necessary and provides direction to the FCC to establish rules 

that are technologically and operationally feasible. It provides to 

IP-enabled voice service providers access to components of the 911 

and E–911 network, preserves State authority to impose and collect 

911 and E–911 fees and ensures that such fees are used to support 

911 and E–911 services, and provides liability protection. It also 

grandfathers existing IP-enabled voice service subscribers and allows waivers where a provider can demonstrate that it is not technically or operationally feasible to offer 911 or E–911 service, and 

sunsets this waiver authority four years after the date of enactment. It makes clear that nothing in this Act impedes or interferes 

with the existing FCC Order. 

Section 3 makes clear that the FCC’s enforcement authority 

under the Communications Act of 1934 also applies to the provisions of S. 1063. 

Section 4 outlines the parameters for the National Plan required 

under the bill migrating the 911 network to an IP-enabled emergency network that would be able to offer additional public safety 

capabilities to Americans and calls on the FCC to compile lists of 

all PSAPs and selective routers. 

Section 5 provides definitions for key terms used in the bill including the definition of an IP-enabled voice service. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

The IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 

2005 (S. 1063) was introduced by Senator Bill Nelson on May 18, 

2005 and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, 

and Transportation. There are four cosponsors of S. 1063, including 

Senator Burns and Senator Clinton as original cosponsors. Senators Snowe and Kerry are also cosponsors. On September 1, 2005 

the Committee held a field hearing on 911 and VoIP in Great Falls, 

Montana. On November 2, 2005 the Committee considered the bill 

in an open Executive Session. Chairman Stevens and Co-Chairman 

Inouye offered an amendment in the nature of a substitute with 

Senators Bill Nelson and Burns. The substitute updated the bill in 

light of the FCC’s action subsequent to the bill being introduced. 

Chairman Stevens, with Senators Bill Nelson and Burns, also offered a manager’s package to the substitute. The substitute and 

manager’s package were both adopted by voice vote. Amendments 

offered by both Co-Chairman Inouye and Senator Sununu were 

also adopted. Co-Chairman Inouye’s amendment sunsets the FCC’s 

waiver authority under the bill after four years, and was adopted 

by voice vote. Senator Sununu’s amendment was adopted by a vote 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
4 

of 13 to 9 and clarified that the FCC cannot impose technology 

mandates in adopting its 911 and E–911 regulations. The Committee, without objection, ordered that S. 1063 be reported with the 

amendments. 

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: 

NOVEMBER 16, 2005. 

Hon. TED STEVENS, 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. 1063, the IP-Enabled Voice 

Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005. 

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

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Melissa Z. Petersen 

(for federal costs), Sarah Puro (for the state and local impact), and 

Craig Cammarata (for the private-sector impact). 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure. 

S. 1063—IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act 

of 2005 

Summary: S. 1063 would amend current law and regulations regarding emergency 911 telephone service and the Internet-based 

telephone service known as Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VOIP). 

The bill would direct the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) to consider temporary waivers to the current requirement 

that VOIP providers connect users to emergency 911 service by November 28, 2005. The bill also would require the federal E–911 Implementation Coordination Office to create a plan for a transition 

to an Internet-based emergency network. Assuming appropriation 

of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that implementing the 

bill would cost about $1 million over the 2006–2010 period. Enacting the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

S. 1063 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 providers of a VOIP service. CBO estimates that the costs of these provisions to state, local, and tribal 

governments would grow over time but would not exceed the 

threshold established in UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation) in any of the first five years that the mandates 

are in effect. 

S. 1063 would impose a private-sector mandate as defined in 

UMRA on all private entities that own 911 components necessary 

to transmit VOIP emergency services over their networks. Based 

on information provided by industry and government sources, CBO 

expects that the aggregate direct costs of complying with the manVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:04 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR211.XXX SR211

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
5 

date would be minimal and would fall below the annual threshold 

established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($123 million in 

2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Under current law, 

VOIP providers must connect their users to emergency 911 services 

by November 28, 2005. S. 1063 would require the FCC to consider 

waivers for VOIP providers who may have technical difficulties 

complying with this requirement by the deadline. The bill also 

would require the E–911 Implementation Coordination Office to 

create a plan to transition national 911 communications from telephone service to the Internet. 

Based on information provided by the FCC, CBO estimates that 

administrative costs for processing waivers applications from VOIP 

providers would cost about $1 million in 2006. Costs could be higher depending on the number of applications. We estimate that 

issuing regulations and planning for an Internet-based 911 system 

would cost less than $500,000 over the 2006–2010 period. Enacting 

the bill would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: S. 1063 

contains several intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act including limitations on certain fees 

that state and local governments impose on providers of VOIP, a 

preemption of state liability laws, and a requirement on public 

safety answering points (PSAPs) to comply with requests for information from the FCC. CBO estimates that the costs of these provisions to state, local, and tribal governments would grow over time 

but would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted annually for inflation) in any of the first five 

years that the mandate is in effect. 

Limitations on fees 

Section 2(c) 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. 

VOIP is a relatively new technology and few states are currently 

imposing 911 fees on this service. It is possible that some state and 

local governments would choose 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. 

Furthermore, most states impose 911 fees on wire line and wireless 

services that are similar, implying the likelihood that such fees on 

VOIP also would be similar. Therefore, 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. 

Preemption of state liability laws and requirements on PSAPs 

Section 2(f) would preempt state liability laws covering PSAPs 

and other governmental entities that answer VOIP-connected 911 

calls. This provision would provide PSAPs, providers, or users of 

VOIP the same protection granted to wireless and wireline entities 

and would benefit intergovernmental entities by protecting them 

from liability claims. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
6 

Section 4 would require PSAPs to comply with certain nominal 

information requests from the FCC and would not be costly. 

Estimated impact on the private sector: S. 1063 would impose a 

private-sector mandate as defined in UMRA on all private entities 

that own 911 components necessary to transmit VOIP emergency 

services over their networks. Section 2 of the bill would require all 

VOIP service providers to have full access to the necessary 911 

components. Owners of 911 components would be able to charge 

VOIP service 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 and government sources, CBO expects that the aggregate direct costs of complying with the mandate would be minimal and would fall below the annual threshold 

established by UMRA for private-sector mandates ($123 million in 

2005, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Melissa Z. Petersen. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Sarah Puro. 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. 1063 is intended to extend 911 and E–911 requirements to IPenabled voice service providers. The bill affects 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. As such, there is not a significant increase to the number of persons subject to 911 or E–911 regulations. 

ECONOMIC IMPACT

S. 1063 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
7 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

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

Public Safety Act of 2005’’. 

Section 2. Emergency service 

Subsection (a).—911 and E–911 services 

Subsection (a) would give the FCC authority and direction to revise or adopt new regulations as may be necessary to ensure 911 

and E–911 services are available to IP-enabled voice service subscribers taking into consideration the technological and operational 

feasibility of providing such service. The FCC is charged with setting a reasonable time frame for companies to come into compliance with the regulations. This subsection also would permit the 

FCC to delegate to appropriate State entities the authority to enforce the FCC’s 911 and E–911 rules. 

It makes clear that the bill does not reverse the FCC Report and 

Order released in June 2005, but instead supplements that action. 

Subsection (b).—Non-discriminatory access to capabilities 

Subsection (b) would require the FCC to establish regulations to 

provide IP-enabled voice service providers with the same access to 

the components of the public safety network for 911 and E–911 

services as is enjoyed by commercial mobile service providers (i.e., 

wireless carriers), while allowing the FCC to consider any technical 

or security issues that might apply with respect to IP-enabled voice 

services that would not apply with respect to commercial mobile 

service providers. 

This approach would ensure certainty and expediency of regulations based on an already established model rather than creating 

a new regime. Certainty is important given the pressing need to 

make 911 and E–911 services available as quickly as possible. 

Subsection (c).—State authority over fees 

Subsection (c) would permit States to charge IP-enabled voice 

service providers a 911 or E–911 fee to support E–911 services so 

long as the fee does not exceed what is charged or imposed on providers of telecommunications service and so long as the fee is used 

to support 911 and E–911 services or enhancements to such services. 

Subsection (d).—Grandfathering of current IP-enabled voice 

service subscribers 

Subsection (d) would allow IP-enabled voice service providers 

who are not able to meet the FCC’s requirements to grandfather 

their existing customer base as of December 31, 2005 so long as 

they provide notice to their subscribers of the lack of 911 and E–

911 services. After December 31, 2005, those providers will not be 

permitted to sign up new subscribers unless they are in compliance 

with the FCC’s regulations or if they obtain a waiver. This provision will prevent termination of service for existing IP-enabled 

voice subscribers, as these providers would otherwise be required 

to shut off service to existing subscribers under the FCC’s rules beVerDate Aug 31 2005 05:04 Jan 06, 2006 Jkt 049010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR211.XXX SR211

ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
8 

fore they are able to come into compliance with the FCC’s rules. 

A provider of IP-enabled voice service would be required to file a 

report with the FCC to explain its efforts to comply with the 911 

and E–911 rules. 

Subsection (e).—Technical and operational feasibility 

Subsection (e) would provide a waiver process by which IP-enabled voice service providers may continue to add subscribers after 

December 31, 2005. A waiver requires a provider to demonstrate to 

the FCC that it is technically or operationally infeasible to comply 

with its rules and then permits the FCC to grant waivers of limited 

duration (not more than a year) that may also be limited in geographic area (for instance, limited to where E–911 service is not 

supported by the PSAP). In addition, a provider of IP-enabled voice 

service is required to provide separate, clear and conspicuous notice 

and obtain subscriber acknowledgement of the lack of 911 and/or 

E–911 services. These limits and the high standard are aimed at 

striking the right balance of ensuring that service providers identify and implement solutions to offer 911 and E–911 service while 

still being able to offer service to new subscribers where they cannot offer 911 and E–911 service for reasons beyond their control. 

The waiver authority provided under this subsection would sunset 

48 months after the date of enactment. The FCC’s general regulatory authority to waive its regulations for good cause shown 

would remain after that time. After the special waiver authority established in this Act sunsets, all voice communications providers 

will be treated similarly when seeking waivers of the FCC’s applicable 911 and E–911 regulations. The Committee notes that special 

waiver provisions have been adopted elsewhere in the Communications Act. 

Subsection (f).—Parity of protection for provision or use of IPenabled voice service 

Subsection (f) would extend the liability protection afforded to 

other voice services, such as wireline and wireless voice services, 

to IP-enabled voice services, including protection for good Samaritans, PSAPs, and providers of IP-enabled voice service, as well as 

their employees and their agents. 

The intent is to provide IP-enabled voice service providers with 

the same liability protections under Federal and State law as are 

provided to wireless and wireline voice providers by explicitly referencing Public Law 106–81, the Wireless Communications and 

Public Safety Act of 1999, for wireless carriers. The certainty is important for both the public safety community as well as industry. 

Subsection (g).—Limitation on commission 

Subsection (g) would clarify that the FCC in promulgating its 

regulations shall not specify a particular technology or develop a 

standard that would favor a particular technology. This subsection 

does not prevent the FCC from adopting open standards or performance standards of general applicability. 

Section 3. Enforcement 

Section 3 would provide the FCC with the same enforcement authority for violations of the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
9 

Public Safety Act of 2005 as the FCC has under the Communications Act of 1934. 

Section 4. Migration to IP-enabled emergency network 

Subsection (a) would require the E–911 Implementation Coordination Office to develop a national plan for migrating the 911 network to an IP-enabled emergency network that would be able to 

transmit additional public safety information beyond the location of 

the call and outlines some of the components of the plan. 

Subsection (b) would require the FCC to compile a list of all 

known PSAPs and make certain information available to the public 

and subsection (c) would require the FCC to compile a list of selective routers and make such list available to IP-enabled voice service providers and other telecommunications service providers. 

Section 5. Definitions 

Section 5 defines ‘‘911’’, ‘‘911 Component’’, ‘‘E–911 service’’, ‘‘IPenabled voice service’’, and ‘‘PSAP’’. IP-enabled voice service is defined as a voice service provided for a fee using Internet Protocol 

that can make calls to and receive calls from the public switched 

telephone network. The definition is designed to identify the elements that are most critical for an IP-enabled voice service to act 

as a substitute to traditional wireline phone service. The definition 

of IP-enabled voice service is not intended to cover services that are 

connected to the public switched telephone network in only one direction. If a user combines two one-way services, that user-created 

service is not intended to fall under the definition of an IP-enabled 

voice service, so long as the entity providing the one-way services 

is not marketing those services together, or the combination of 

those services, as a replacement service for traditional wireline 

telephone service. The definition of IP-enabled voice service is also 

not intended to cover services commonly referred to as conference 

calling services regardless of whether users call into or are called 

through the conference calling service and regardless of the numbering system used to access such service. One critical respect in 

which the definition differs from the FCC definition is that it does 

not require a broadband service. Because broadband service is defined by speed and can change over time, it is not included to ensure that any IP-enabled voice services that do not require a 

broadband connection are still covered by this Act. 

ROLLCALL VOTES IN COMMITTEE

Senator Sununu offered an amendment clarifying that the FCC 

cannot impose technology mandates in adopting its regulations. On 

a rollcall vote of 13 yeas and 9 nays as follows, the amendment was 

adopted: 

YEAS—13 NAYS—9 

Mr. McCain 1 Mr. Inouye 

Mr. Burns Mr. Rockefeller 1

Mr. Lott 1 Mr. Kerry 1

Mrs. Hutchison Mr. Dorgan 1

Ms. Snowe Mrs. Boxer 1

Mr. Smith 1 Mr. Nelson of Florida 

Mr. Ensign 1 Mr. Lautenberg 1


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
10 

Mr. Allen Mr. Nelson of Nebraska 

Mr. Sununu Mr. Pryor 

Mr. DeMint 

Mr. Vitter 1

Ms. Cantwell 

Mr. Stevens 1 By proxy 

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): 

SEC. 158. COORDINATION OF E–911 IMPLEMENTATION. 

[47 U.S.C. 942] 

(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, 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. 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
11 

(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, upon completion of 

development of the national plan for migrating to a national 

IP-enabled emergency network under subsection (d), 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, 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
12 

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 18 months 

after the date of the enactment of the IP-Enabled Voice Communications and Public Safety Act of 2005, 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. 

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

potential savings; 

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

achieving the plan; 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
13 

(E) provide recommendations on any legislative changes, 

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

(F) 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 2005. 

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

public safety community, 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. 

(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, 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 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS
14 

Mariana Islands, and any territory or possession of the United 

States. 

Æ 


ycherry on PROD1PC64 with REPORTS