[Senate Report 109-211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress
1st Session SENATE Report
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
DATE deg.December 20, 2005.--Ordered to be printed
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 JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West
CONRAD BURNS, Montana 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
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina MARK PRYOR, Arkansas
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
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
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.
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
IP-enabled voice service providers to register a subscriber's
location and offer 911 and E-911 service using 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, 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 Co-
Chairman 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 services. 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-enabledvoice 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 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
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).
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.
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
IP-enabled 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.
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 before 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
identifyand 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 IP-enabled 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 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'', ``IP-enabled 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\
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.
(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, 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 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;
(E) provide recommendations on any
legislative changes, including updating
definitions, to facilitate a national IP-
enabled 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.
[(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, 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.