[Federal Register: January 13, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 9)]
[Notices]
[Page 2405-2406]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13ja05-67]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[CC Docket No. 94-102; DA 04-3874]
State Actions To Achieve Effective Deployment of E911
Capabilities for Multi-Line Telephone Systems (MLTSs)
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice; solicitation of comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document solicits comments about the progress made by the
states in implementing E911 solutions for multi-line telephone systems
(MLTSs). The Commission committed to releasing a public notice on this
issue in its previous documents that revised the scope of the enhanced
911 rules to clarify which technologies and services will be required
to be capable of transmitting enhanced 911 information to Public Safety
Answering Points (PSAPs).
DATES: Comments are due on or before February 28, 2005. Reply comments
are due on or before March 29, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington DC 20554. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further filing
instructions.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Michael Goldstein, Wireline
Competition Bureau, (202) 418-0806, michael.goldstein@fcc.gov; or Cathy
Zima, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7380, cathy.zima@fcc.gov.
Users of TTY equipment, call (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This public notice solicits comment about
the progress made by the states in implementing E911 solutions for
multi-line telephone systems (MLTSs). When an emergency (i.e., 911)
call is placed from a station served by an MLTS, the Public Safety
Answering Point (PSAP) receiving the call will not always be able to
identify the office, dormitory room or other detailed location of the
caller. This problem is well known and has been a subject of several
Commission proceedings. In its Report and Order and Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Final rule; 69 FR 6578, February 11,
2004, and Proposed rule; 69 FR 6595, February 11, 2004, the Commission
was concerned that ``the lack of effective implementation of MLTS E911
could be an unacceptable gap in the emergency call system'' but
declined to adopt federal rules to address this issue, because the
record demonstrated that state and local governments are in a better
position to devise such rules for their jurisdictions. Expecting the
``states to act expeditiously in this area,'' the Commission committed
to releasing a public notice in a year to examine states' progress and
announced its intention to re-visit the E911-MLTS/caller location issue
depending on the results of its evaluation of state action.
Status of State Action
Public sources indicate that approximately twelve states have
adopted legislation addressing E911 requirements for MLTSs. These same
sources indicate that some state regulatory commissions have
promulgated regulations addressing these requirements. We seek public
comment about state-adopted statutes and regulations, as well as about
proposals for action in this area that may be currently under
consideration and the anticipated time frames for conclusion of such
proposals. We specifically ask commenters to identify and discuss state
actions that may be based on model legislation such as that proposed by
the National Emergency Number Association (NENA) and the Association of
Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO).
More specifically, we ask commenters to identify and discuss
relevant state activity by: (1) Specific identification (citation) to a
particular statute or regulation, or proposed statute or regulation, in
each case; (2) identification of any corresponding state Web page where
these activities are presented or discussed; (3) identification of the
date any final legislative or regulatory action became effective or is
expected to become effective; (4) discussion of any requirements placed
on carriers, MLTS equipment manufacturers, MLTS operators, or any other
persons; and (5) discussion of how the statute and/or regulation is
enforced.
With regard to (4), commenters should note whether any entities are
specifically exempted from adopted requirements imposed by the
legislation or regulations and explain the criteria for exemption. To
the extent legislation or regulation was proposed but not ultimately
adopted, we invite parties to explain why such action was not taken,
such as cost concerns, technical complexity, and the perceived lack of
demand or need for the proposed requirements.
Use of Model Legislation
The Commission's Report and Order and Second Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking states: ``we believe that the Model Legislation
submitted by NENA and APCO offers the states a valuable blueprint for
their own laws,'' and ``we strongly support the approach taken by the
model legislation.'' With this view of the model legislation, we
request information regarding how it has affected efforts by the states
to produce their own statutes. In particular, please describe how this
model legislation has been used in determining states' approaches, how
extensively this model legislation has been and is being used, and its
perceived shortcomings.
In addition to use of this particular model legislation, we invite
comment as to whether there are any other models that states have found
useful in developing legislation, e.g., laws passed in any other state.
We ask commenters to identify such examples and analyze their possible
utility for widespread use.
Carrier Services Provided Under State Tariff
Although our primary focus is evaluating state action addressing
E911/MLTS issues, we also seek comment on the extent to which carriers
and others offer E911 solutions for MLTSs. It
[[Page 2406]]
appears that at least one carrier is providing E911 service for MLTSs
under tariff in at least one state, and that carrier works with
individual MLTS operators elsewhere within its footprint to implement
customer-specific solutions if such are economically and technically
feasible. We seek comment regarding the availability of E911/MLTS
services offered under tariff or otherwise both in states that have
passed E911/MLTS legislation or adopted E911/MLTS regulations and in
states that have not. In particular, where these services are offered
absent state legislative or regulatory action, we seek comment
regarding the reasons the services were developed.
Specifically, commenters should (1) identify the carrier and the
state or states in which that carrier offers or plans to offer E911
service for MLTSs; (2) provide links to the carrier's published
tariffs, and identify the effective dates of those tariffs, where
applicable; (3) identify the salient technical features of each service
offered under tariff, including but not limited to which MLTS
technologies are supported (e.g., Centrex, analog PBX, ISDN PBX, non-
ISDN digital PBX, IP-PBX, or key system), which E911 MLTS-to-network
technical interface standards or other specifications are supported
(e.g., CAMA or Primary Rate Access (PRA) ISDN), and any special
requirements regarding trunking arrangements or the use of Direct
Inward Dial (DID) numbers; (4) identify salient operational
characteristics of the service; (5) identify the Automatic Location
Identification (ALI) database interface options and costs for MLTS
operators, the procedural impacts on MLTS operators, and the ALI
database interface standards or specifications supported; (6) indicate
whether PSAPs generally have been able to receive and utilize the ALI
and call-back information provided and, if not, why not; (7) estimate
the degree to which the offerings satisfy or cover the MLTS market; and
(8) identify real or perceived technical, economic, operational and
other impediments to full E911 coverage for MLTSs.
Where specific technical features are required by state legislation
or regulation, we ask that commenters identify those features. For
those states where E911/MLTS service is provided under customer-
specific arrangements, such as individual case basis (ICB)
arrangements, we ask that commenters present and discuss all relevant
information to allow us to characterize the available technical
features. In each case, commenters should be sufficiently complete and
specific in their descriptions of requirements and references to
standards to enable us to develop a comprehensive picture of
commonalities and differences in E911/MLTS implementation across the
states.
Comment Filing Procedures
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
interested parties may file comments on or before February 28, 2005.
Reply comments are due on or before March 29, 2005. Comments may be
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or
by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. When filing comments,
please reference CC Docket No. 94-102. Comments may be filed
electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
and following the instructions provided on the
Web site. Generally, only one copy of an electronic submission must be
filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include
their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment
by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
commenters should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include
the following words in the body of the message, ``get form < your email
address.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in reply.
Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four
copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger
delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). The Commission's
contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-
delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building. Commercial overnight mail
(other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be
sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743. U.S. Postal
Service first-class mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. All filings
must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. One copy of each filing
must be sent to Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-
3160, or online at http://www.bcpiweb.com.
Parties who choose to file by paper must also send three paper
copies of their filing to the attention of Michael Goldstein, Industry
Analysis and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 5-A422,
Washington, DC 20554.
Pursuant to Sec. 1.1206 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1206,
this proceeding will continue to be conducted as a permit-but-disclose
proceeding in which ex parte communications are permitted subject to
disclosure.
Federal Communications Commission.
Cathy H. Zima,
Acting Deputy Chief, Industry Analysis and Technology Division.
[FR Doc. 05-652 Filed 1-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P