[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2405-2406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-652]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, [email protected]; or Cathy 
Zima, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7380, [email protected]. 
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 [email protected], and should include 
the following words in the body of the message, ``get form 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