State Actions To Achieve Effective Deployment of E911 Capabilities for Multi-Line Telephone Systems (MLTSs), 2405-2406 [05-652]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2005 / Notices
Type of Review: Extension of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities.
Number of Respondents: 450.
Estimated Time Per Response: 0.5–3
hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion
reporting requirement.
Total Annual Burden: 1,100 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $132,500.
Privacy Impact Assessment: No
impact(s).
Needs and Uses: Section 307(b) of the
Communications Act, as amended,
requires that the Commission effect a
fair, efficient and equitable distribution
of radio stations throughout the United
States. In the context of competitive
bidding application processing, Section
307(b) is relevant when a mutually
exclusive AM application group
consists of applications to serve
different communities, or when a nonmutually exclusive AM application
proposes a community of license
change. Such applications must submit
supplemental information addressing
Section 307(b) criteria. The data
submitted will be used to determine the
community having the greater need for
an AM radio service.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05–653 Filed 1–12–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–10–M
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)
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice; solicitation of
comments.
AGENCY:
Status of State Action
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.
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:46 Jan 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 multiline 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.
ADDRESSES:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
2405
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
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
2406
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 9 / Thursday, January 13, 2005 / Notices
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 callback 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:46 Jan 12, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 §§ 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 https://
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
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 https://
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 § 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
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Sunshine Act Notices
*
*
*
*
*
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED DATE AND TIME:
Thursday, January 13, 2005, 10 a.m.
meeting open to the public. This
meeting has been cancelled.
*
*
*
*
*
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert Biersack, Press Officer,
Telephone: (202) 694–1220.
Mary W. Dove,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05–812 Filed 1–11–05; 11:21 am]
BILLING CODE 6715–01–M
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
Notice of Proposals to Engage in
Permissible Nonbanking Activities or
to Acquire Companies that are
Engaged in Permissible Nonbanking
Activities
The companies listed in this notice
have given notice under section 4 of the
Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C.
1843) (BHC Act) and Regulation Y (12
CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to
acquire or control voting securities or
assets of a company, including the
companies listed below, that engages
either directly or through a subsidiary or
other company, in a nonbanking activity
that is listed in § 225.28 of Regulation Y
E:\FR\FM\13JAN1.SGM
13JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2405-2406]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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, 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 https://
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 https://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
