Oklahoma enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) assessment and strategic plan

              STATE OF OKLAHOMA
ENHANCED 9-1-1 (E9-1-1)
ASSESSMENT
AND
STRATEGIC PLAN
Oklahoma Enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) Assessment
and
Strategic Plan
Volume 1
prepared for
Oklahoma Statewide Nine-One-One Advisory Board
Grand Gateway Economic Development Association (GGEDA)
Oklahoma Association of Regional Councils (OARC)
November 29, 2007
Copyright and Trademark Notice
© 2007 Intrado Inc., Longmont, Colorado, USA - All rights reserved. Intrado, triangle beacon design, Intelligent
Emergency Network, and the logo forms of the foregoing, are trademarks and/or service marks of Intrado Inc. in the
United States, other countries, or both and may be registered therein.
Trademark Ownership
All trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
Corporate Ownership
Intrado is a wholly owned subsidiary of West Corporation.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page i
CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................1
2. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................5
3. RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THIS REPORT .................................................................................................8
3.1 E9-1-1 LEGISLATION AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................8
3.2 E9-1-1 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................8
3.3 E9-1-1 TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................9
3.4 PROPOSED E9-1-1 STRATEGIC PLAN PRINCIPLES...............................................................................................9
3.4.1 Potential Impediments to Achieving This Plan.................................................................................10
3.4.2 Rural Wireless Service Providers and E9-1-1 .................................................................................11
3.4.3 Oklahoma Locations With Weak or No Wireless Service ................................................................11
3.5 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING REGIONAL PSAPS.............................................................................12
3.5.1 Criteria for Determining Proposed Regional PSAPs in Oklahoma...................................................12
3.5.2 PSAP Regionalization Example: South West Oklahoma Regional 9-1-1 Association.....................13
3.5.3 Proposed Regional PSAPs..............................................................................................................16
3.5.4 Regional PSAPs Map......................................................................................................................20
3.5.5 Oklahoma E9-1-1 Implementation/Upgrade Summary....................................................................21
3.5.6 High-Level Tasks for Regionalizing and Implementing E9-1-1........................................................29
4. OTHER E9-1-1 ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................31
4.1 E9-1-1 AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA)..............................................................................31
4.2 E9-1-1 AND MULTI-LINE TELEPHONE SYSTEMS (MLTS)....................................................................................31
4.3 E9-1-1 AND THE OKLAHOMA HIGHWAY PATROL FIELD TROOP COMMUNICATION CENTERS.................................33
4.4 E9-1-1 IN RELATION TO DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAMS.....................................................34
4.4.1 Radio Interoperability......................................................................................................................34
4.4.2 Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1)....................................................................................................34
4.4.3 Evolution to a Next Generation 9-1-1 System .................................................................................35
4.4.4 Next Generation 9-1-1 Benefits .......................................................................................................35
4.4.5 Leveraging Existing Oklahoma Assets for NG9-1-1: Oklahoma OneNet........................................36
4.5 E9-1-1 IN RELATION TO THE RURAL FIRE DEFENSE FUND.................................................................................38
5. OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 POLICY ASSESSMENT.....................................................................................................40
5.1 CURRENT E9-1-1 FUNDING LEGISLATION SUMMARY .........................................................................................40
5.1.1 Prepaid Wireless Fee Remittance ...................................................................................................41
5.2 OTHER POTENTIAL FUNDING MECHANISMS.......................................................................................................41
5.2.1 Department of Homeland Security and the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004.........................................42
5.2.2 Public Safety Foundation of America ..............................................................................................42
6. CURRENT OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 SURCHARGES................................................................................................43
6.1 CURRENT OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 WIRELINE SURCHARGES.....................................................................................43
6.1.1 Summary of Oklahoma Counties with Wireline E9-1-1 Surcharges ................................................48
6.1.2 Oklahoma Wireline E9-1-1 Surcharges Map ...................................................................................49
6.2 CURRENT OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 WIRELESS SURCHARGES....................................................................................50
6.2.1 Summary of Oklahoma Counties with Wireless E9-1-1 Surcharges................................................52
6.2.2 Oklahoma Wireless E9-1-1 Surcharges Map ..................................................................................53
6.3 CURRENT OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 VOIP SURCHARGES............................................................................................54
6.3.1 Oklahoma VoIP E9-1-1 Surcharges Map ........................................................................................58
6.4 OVERVIEW OF E9-1-1 SURCHARGES IN OTHER STATES ....................................................................................59
6.4.1 E9-1-1 Surcharges Nationally..........................................................................................................59
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page ii
6.4.2 Wireline E9-1-1 Surcharges Nationally............................................................................................61
6.4.3 Wireless E9-1-1 Surcharges Nationally...........................................................................................62
6.4.4 VoIP E9-1-1 Surcharges Nationally.................................................................................................63
6.5 STATES THAT HAVE E9-1-1 ADMINISTRATORS..................................................................................................64
TABLE OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: THE SOUTHWEST OKLAHOMA REGIONAL 9-1-1 ASSOCIATION..........................................................................14
FIGURE 2: PROPOSED E9-1-1 REGIONAL PSAPS MAP....................................................................................................20
FIGURE 3: OKLAHOMA ONENET NETWORK .....................................................................................................................37
FIGURE 4: E9-1-1 WIRELINE SURCHARGES MAP.............................................................................................................49
FIGURE 5: E9-1-1 WIRELESS SURCHARGES MAP............................................................................................................53
FIGURE 6: VOIP E9-1-1 SURCHARGES MAP....................................................................................................................58
FIGURE 7: WIRELINE E9-1-1 SURCHARGES.....................................................................................................................61
FIGURE 8: WIRELESS E9-1-1 SURCHARGES....................................................................................................................62
FIGURE 9: VOIP E9-1-1 SURCHARGES ...........................................................................................................................63
FIGURE 10: STATES WITH E9-1-1 ADMINISTRATORS........................................................................................................64
TABLE OF TABLES
TABLE 1: PROPOSED REGIONAL ALIGNMENT OF JURISDICTIONS ......................................................................................17
TABLE 2: COUNTIES WITH NO PROPOSED CHANGES .......................................................................................................18
TABLE 3: COUNTIES WITH PROPOSED EXPANSION...........................................................................................................19
TABLE 4: E9-1-1 IMPLEMENTATION/UPGRADE SUMMARY.................................................................................................28
TABLE 5: OKLAHOMA HIGHWAY PATROL FIELD TROOP COMMUNICATION CENTERS ..........................................................33
TABLE 6: THE RURAL FIRE DEFENSE FUND.....................................................................................................................39
TABLE 7: OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 WIRELINE SURCHARGES ....................................................................................................48
TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF OKLAHOMA COUNTIES WITH WIRELINE E9-1-1 SURCHARGES ENACTED .......................................48
TABLE 9: OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 WIRELESS SURCHARGES....................................................................................................52
TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF OKLAHOMA COUNTIES WITH WIRELESS E9-1-1 SURCHARGES ENACTED.....................................52
TABLE 11: OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 VOIP SURCHARGES .........................................................................................................57
TABLE 12: STATE E9-1-1 SURCHARGES SUMMARY .........................................................................................................60
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Today, Oklahomans are not afforded access to life-saving Enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) services throughout
the entire state, and legislative action is required to address the critical need to upgrade basic 9-1-1
systems to E9-1-1. According to survey findings regarding wireline 9-1-1 services , 17 of Oklahoma’s 77
counties do not have any E9-1-1 service at all; 14 counties have E9-1-1 wireline service in some cities but
not countywide; and 46 have the advanced Enhanced 9-1-1 wireline service for the entire county.
According to survey findings regarding the deployment of Enhanced wireless 9-1-1 services, 55 counties
have not yet deployed the most precise wireless E9-1-1 services that are available today and that provide
life-saving information. Furthermore, both urban and rural demographic segments of Oklahoma should
have and receive the same consideration when deploying emergency communication E9-1-1 services. To
ignore these life-saving services not only directly affects Oklahomans, but also affects first responders in
their ability to provide efficient emergency response.
Both 9-1-1 technology and the telecommunications industry have evolved since 9-1-1 was created 40 years
ago, and a patchwork approach to statewide deployment is not effective. Today a more centralized
planning and implementation approach is required in order to achieve effective statewide emergency call
delivery and services. To facilitate the delivery of these critical services in Oklahoma, significant changes
need to occur in the following areas:
• State Level Coordination and Oversight
• Requirement for Consistent Service Levels
• Dedicated and Permanent Funding Structures
• Systematic Planning and Completion of Statewide Addressing
• Development of a Statewide E9-1-1 Base Map to provide high-quality digital mapping of the entire
state to allow Emergency Response teams to react more quickly to any type of emergency
• Implementation of an Advanced and Integrated Network
• Automatic Location Information (ALI) Accuracy Program
To illustrate the critical situation that exists within Oklahoma today, the following scenarios demonstrate
why the State should act immediately to change its approach to E9-1-1 services.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 2
Wireline E9-1-1
As indicated above, Oklahoma has 17 counties with no wireline Enhanced 9-1-1 (E9-1-1) services.
“Enhanced” refers to the ability to have 9-1-1 calls routed to the proper Public Safety Answering Point
(PSAP) along with the Automatic Number Identification (ANI) and the Automatic Location Information (ALI).
This information is vital in an emergency call situation when a PSAP needs to either call the caller back due
to call disconnection or have the ability to identify the caller’s location when the individual, such as a lost
child or victim of violence, does not know his or her address or is unable to communicate.
The ANI feature is delivered automatically with the call; however, in order to deploy the ALI feature, a
database must be built based on a community’s street location and addressing information. Many areas of
the state have existed with rural route and box number. This system of addressing must be converted to
actual street names and numbers, and physical addresses must be assigned to homes and businesses.
Typically, a rural route conversion benchmark is to have 95% or greater completion of rural route systems
in order to have an effective ALI system. Based on the findings in this report, only 75% of public safety
agencies answering 9-1-1 calls currently report having completed this critical addressing function. In
addition, there exists no validation of the reported information, no verification against industry accepted
standards, and no assurances that quality data has been included into the ALI system. So, while this
percentage with location information may appear to be high, the reality is that Oklahoma has no consistent
statewide methodology to test and ensure the accuracy of the addressing. The lack of accurate location
information directly affects the quality of emergency services and the ability to respond to citizens in times
of need.
Wireless E9-1-1
Citizens and visitors traveling Oklahoma’s major thoroughfares for business or pleasure routinely cross
through many of the 55 counties that do not have wireless E9-1-1 service. Consider the plight of a family
that traverses the nearly 400-mile length of Oklahoma’s historic and popular Route 66, from the Missouri
state line to Texas. On the trip, the family would pass through 14 Oklahoma counties, of which only six
have wireless E9-1-1 service. Similar to enhanced wireline features, a fully developed wireless E9-1-1
system routes an emergency call to the appropriate PSAP, displays the call-back number of the caller
(ANI), and provides the location information (ALI) through x,y coordinates of the caller. In the event of an
accident, medical emergency, or crime, the odds are against members of that family being able to be
automatically and accurately located when they dial 9-1-1 for emergency assistance.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 3
Today, fewer than 50% of Oklahoma emergency answering centers have full E9-1-1 wireless services. The
continued growth in 2006 of Oklahoma wireless subscribers to 2.3 million—a net increase of nearly
600,000 additional subscribers from 2005—demands attention. In order for public safety to effectively
serve this growing telecommunications base, attention must be paid to deploying enhanced wireless E9-1-1
features.
This growth is not a new problem just for Oklahoma. Consistently across the United States, the mix of E9-
1-1 call volumes has shifted so that wireless call volumes are now at least 50% of the total emergency call
volume into an E9-1-1 center. This type of shift in phone users in both rural and urban areas requires
serious consideration and attention to the needs of the public. The public expects public safety entities to
respond to calls for assistance, and Oklahoma must be able to meet that expectation. Without serious
attention to the lack of consistent E9-1-1 wireless implementation and without consideration of the
continued growth of wireless telephone subscribers, Oklahomans and visitors to the state will remain at
tremendous risk when they need access to emergency communication services in many areas of the state.
Summary
The Oklahoma Statewide Nine-One-One Advisory Board entered into an agreement with one of the
country’s leading E9-1-1 experts to assist in assessing the status of E9-1-1 in Oklahoma and develop a
strategic plan that can be used as the basis for achieving statewide fully enhanced 9-1-1 services for
wireline, wireless, and VoIP telecommunication services. Based on extensive research, the above
examples are just a summary and high-level overview of the issues that exist today within Oklahoma when
someone needs access to E9-1-1.
The attached study describes in detail the many challenges facing Oklahoma and the need for an effective
and consistent E9-1-1 emergency communication system. For the un-served and under-served areas of
the state, the report highlights deficiencies and inconsistencies in 9-1-1 coordination, planning, and
deployment that require State leadership and involvement. In order to meet these challenges, it is
requested that the Oklahoma Legislature identify funding that would support the implementation of a
statewide E9-1-1 office and its staffing. This office would be charged with ensuring State oversight and
statewide implementation of E9-1-1 services. With this accomplished, the attached study can be used as
the foundation for improving Oklahoma E9-1-1 services.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 4
Through implementing this report’s recommendations and developing a comprehensive E9-1-1 strategic
plan, the State of Oklahoma will ensure that its citizens, as well as visitors to the state, will have access to
high-quality E9-1-1 comparable to the E9-1-1 service levels that are available to the majority of the country
today.
Terms used in the Executive Summary and Introduction:
9-1-1 or Basic 9-1-1: When the three-digit number is dialed, a call taker/dispatcher in the local call center answers
the call. The emergency and its location are communicated by voice between the caller and the call taker.
E9-1-1: Enhanced 9-1-1. An emergency telephone system that includes network switching, database, and CPE
elements capable of providing Selective Routing, Selective Transfer, Fixed Transfer, ANI, and ALI.
ALI: Automatic Location Identification. A feature of E9-1-1 service that displays the name and address associated
with the number of the phone used to dial 9-1-1. A database managed by a database provider.
ANI: Automatic Number Identification. A feature that displays, at the Public Safety Answering Point, the number of
the phone from which the 9-1-1 call was placed.
CPE: Customer Premise Equipment. Phone or terminal equipment located on the customer’s premises. This
equipment may be owned or provided by the customer or the phone company.
PSAP: Public Safety Answering Point. A facility equipped and staffed to receive 9-1-1 calls. In the context of this
document, PSAPs are defined as those answering points that are equipped to receive E9-1-1 calls.
TTY/TTD: Teletypewriter/Telecommunications Device for the Deaf. Text Telephony Devices to assist deaf callers
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 5
2. INTRODUCTION
The E9-1-1 services currently available to many Oklahomans do not yet cover all of Oklahoma’s citizens or its land
mass. The findings contained in this report, based on surveys and interviews conducted in February through April
2007, identify the need for Oklahoma to upgrade areas that lack the Enhanced or E9-1-1 service. This report also
contains recommendations that would standardize operating procedures and establish an E9-1-1 Program Office,
which can ensure consistent statewide E9-1-1 service for all of Oklahoma.
Today, not all Oklahomans are covered by “Enhanced 9-1-1” service (E9-1-1). E9-1-1 is a service in which calls are
automatically routed to the appropriate location and the emergency call taker is automatically provided the caller’s
name, call-back telephone number, and location. This critical information means that callers can expect help even in
cases where the caller cannot speak or hear due to age, circumstances, or disability. Based on surveys conducted in
March and April 2007, statewide, only 46 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties are completely covered by wireline E9-1-1
service, and 58% of Oklahoma’s population is not covered by wireless E9-1-1 service. This report focuses on un-served
and under-served jurisdictions where Oklahoma can improve its emergency communication system by
continuing to extend E9-1-1 throughout the state.
Un-served and under-served jurisdictions of Oklahoma tend to be located in rural and sparsely populated areas,
where residents may lack physical addresses used to locate callers, and where public safety agencies are often not
equipped to provide or deploy the E9-1-1 services. In these areas, basic 9-1-1 calls are often delivered to a local
police department or sheriff’s office without the caller’s name, number, and location. Because of this, emergency call
takers may not be able to identify the location of a child who dials 9-1-1, a person who is confused, or someone who
is incapacitated or being purposefully kept from using the telephone. In addition, emergency call takers in this type of
jurisdiction are more likely not to have TDD/TTY to communicate with citizens who have hearing or speech
disabilities. According to the findings of this report, approximately 82% of Oklahoma’s population is covered by
TDD/TTY service; 7% of the population is not covered by TDD/TTY service; and for 11% of the population, it could
not be confirmed whether there is TDD/TTY service (for more information, see section 4.1 E9-1-1 and the Americans
with Disabilities Act).
In the un-served and under-served areas, conditions as described above have been shown to delay or block the
delivery of help to citizens in need. Without the ease of access to E9-1-1 and the deployment of efficient life-saving
information technology, a call for assistance can be delayed, directly increasing emergency response times and
potentially resulting in the loss of lives and property. Oklahomans living in areas not covered by E9-1-1 services,
where call takers do no have the additional life-saving data available, are more likely to suffer such losses.
A primary cause for the lack of E9-1-1 service in many of these locations is directly related to the lack of adequate
funding. In Oklahoma, E9-1-1 services are paid for via a local E9-1-1 surcharge placed on wireline, wireless, and
VoIP telephone customers. In order to receive such funds, local jurisdictions must have enacted the E9-1-1
surcharges on each of these communication services; however survey findings indicate a variety of situations that
are impacting the ability to consistently fund E9-1-1 throughout Oklahoma as identified below:
• A number of counties lack the population and the associated telephone subscriber base necessary to fund
the implementation and operation of E9-1-1 services. As such, those counties have not enacted an E9-1-1
surcharge on telecommunication services since it would not raise sufficient monies to fund the system.
• Additionally, in some Oklahoma counties, the ability for a local jurisdiction to fund the ongoing operation of
the system is eroding as subscribers substitute wireless service in place of their wireline telephones. In
these areas the wireless E9-1-1 surcharges are not adequate, leaving the community financially vulnerable
to consumers’ shift from wireline to wireless telecommunication services.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 6
• In other areas the growth of wireless customers in Oklahoma places increased demands on the E9-1-1
system, and the current $0.50 wireless E9-1-1 surcharge may be less than the corresponding wireline fee in
some locations.
• In other jurisdictions, the counties may not have any wireless surcharge, causing the overall E9-1-1 funding
to decrease as consumers switch to wireless service from landline service.
Consumer research indicates that the general public will continue to switch services from traditional wireline, to
wireless or to new services such as Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP). In order to properly fund E9-1-1 for all of
Oklahoma, a comprehensive funding model should be established that ensures a consistent surcharge is assessed
to all current and future telecommunication services with the ability to access the public switched telephone network
and place an emergency call for assistance.
It is also important to point out that, aside from the basic issues of E9-1-1 deployment, the survey also identified the
need for basic operational procedures to be implemented to ensure high-quality, consistent E9-1-1 operations in
Oklahoma. Some examples, as described below, are the lack of addressing standards for an effective ALI system,
contingency planning for emergency situations, records retention on E9-1-1 calls, call taker training, and
interconnection of private branch exchange (PBX) or multi-line telephone systems (MLTS) into E9-1-1.
Many public safety agencies do not have emergency contingency plans that could aid them if their communications
center became incapacitated due to a natural disaster or a telecommunications outage. The implementation of a
statewide E9-1-1 planning authority can not only guide the systematic deployment of E9-1-1, but can also ensure that
all communities have contingency plans in place to accommodate and recover from a service-impacting major event,
whether man-made or a natural disaster.
Statewide planning can also address the need for consistencies in critical E9-1-1 operating practices, such as the
consistent application of recognized addressing standards supported by organizations such as the United States
Postal Service and the National Emergency Number Association (NENA). Inconsistent application of addressing
standards directly impacts the quality of the automatic location identification data on the E9-1-1 call. There is also no
current uniform or consistent policy requiring the recording and retention of E9-1-1 calls. Records retention is a
critical aspect of an emergency communications center and should be required as part of standard operating
procedures.
There is also no requirement specifying the amount of training a new call taker should receive. Proper training is
imperative in order to manage the daily demands of an E9-1-1 emergency communications center. The State should
assist the local areas with telecommunicator training programs that ensure emergency number professionals are
assisting E9-1-1 callers and meeting the requirements of federal mandates.
In addition, there is no state requirement for the deployment of E9-1-1 service within an institution, campus, or
enterprise that is operating telephone services through the use of a Multi-Line Telephone System (MLTS), sometimes
referred to as a Private Branch Exchange (PBX). While technology exists today to accommodate and transmit fully
enhanced 9-1-1 location information to a public safety agency, many companies and residential facilities have not
moved forward with the enhancements to this type of telephone system. In those environments, if an employee or
resident needed to dial 9-1-1, the precise call-back number and location information would not be delivered to the
public safety agency. Today, there are examples throughout the US where this type of telecommunications service or
business operating remote office locations off of an MLTS/PBX system, has provided inaccurate information to 9-1-1,
ultimately causing delays in the response times in critical situations. Legislation exists throughout the country to
address this limitation, and Oklahomans would be better served to require MLTS and PBX systems to provide
adequate E9-1-1. (See section 4.2: E9-1-1 and Multi-Line Telephone Systems for state list and sample legislation.)
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 7
Finally, there is no statewide single point of responsibility for addressing the above situations and leading the effort to
achieve a statewide E9-1-1 system. The creation, funding, and adequate staffing of an Oklahoma Statewide E9-1-1
Program Office are critical to the success of a statewide goal. The Program Office should assume responsibility for
planning, implementing, and establishing E9-1-1 standards and best practices, which will help Oklahoma achieve
comprehensive deployment and common operating procedures. Currently, there are 39 states that have established
such programs and that have created, staffed, and funded an office for the statewide deployment of E9-1-1. These
programs include the establishment of State E9-1-1 Administrators, and this leadership has been instrumental in
helping these states to deploy successful statewide E9-1-1 programs. Oklahoma should consider duplicating this
model as some of its neighboring states, including Texas and New Mexico, have established State Administrators
and have achieved successful E9-1-1 deployment programs.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 8
3. RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN THIS REPORT
Based on the findings in this assessment, the State of Oklahoma is encouraged to implement the following
legislative, policy, funding, and technical changes to the existing 9-1-1 emergency communications system.
3.1 E9-1-1 Legislation and Policy Recommendations
The State of Oklahoma will need to modify current statutes and create new polices to provide all Oklahomans with
E9-1-1 service. It is recommended that the State of Oklahoma take the following actions:
• Designate a state E9-1-1 Program Manager and Office.
• Encourage un-served and under-served jurisdictions to form regional alliances of county and municipal
governments in order to fund the operation of E9-1-1 systems.
• Empower county commissioners and municipal governing bodies to impose an E9-1-1 surcharge by
resolution or ordinance rather than a popular vote.
• Assist local jurisdictions to comply with all federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements and
all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) orders and service standards in the delivery of E9-1-1
service.
• Define the telecommunication services addressed in future 9-1-1 legislation (as appropriate) to include
wireline, wireless, VoIP, and “future telecommunication technologies capable of contacting a 9-1-1 call
center” so that the laws keep pace with changes in telecommunication technology.
• Continue the Oklahoma Statewide Nine-One-One Advisory Board.
• Pass legislation requiring Multi-Line Telephone Systems (MLTS) to be E9-1-1 compliant.
3.2 E9-1-1 Funding Recommendations
It is recommended that the State of Oklahoma take the following actions:
• Replenish the "Oklahoma E911 Emergency Service Fund" to provide grants to un-served and under-served
jurisdictions so they can fully implement E9-1-1 service.
• Create, fund, and adequately staff a state E9-1-1 Program Manager and Office with the mission to
implement and maintain state-of-the-industry” E9-1-1 services for all Oklahomans. The duties of the E9-1-1
Program Manager and Office should be:
- To create and maintain a statewide E9-1-1 plan to implement and upgrade E9-1-1 services. The
plan should encourage regional cooperation in order to reduce costs and provide high-quality
service.
- To assist local jurisdictions in generating regional funding and providing regional administration of
E9-1-1 systems
- To encourage statewide utilization of national addressing standards for use by local jurisdictions
- To seek out and administer funds, gifts, and grants
- To provide or facilitate E9-1-1 call-taker training
- To establish and adopt call-taker standards and minimum training levels
- To create standards for minimal levels of E9-1-1 Automatic Location and Identification Service
- To staff the Statewide 9-1-1 Advisory Board
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 9
- To communicate service standards, prioritize improvements, and establish minimum PSAP
reporting requirements for the program office to assess service levels.
- To communicate the need for every PSAP to have and periodically test a contingency plan that
includes the ability to re-route E9-1-1 calls and relocate PSAP operations in the event of an
emergency that impedes service.
- To continue ongoing work with the Oklahoma Statewide Nine-One-One Advisory Board.
• Encourage local enactment of wireline, wireless, and VoIP E9-1-1 surcharges in counties where subscribers
do not currently pay such surcharges, and include “future public communication technologies” in the base
against which the surcharge will be paid.
• Consider alternate or supplemental E9-1-1 funding mechanisms as have been enacted in other states. (i.e.,
California, Texas)
• Adopt funding mechanisms that minimize the effects when subscribers substitute one telecommunication
technology (such as wireless or VoIP service) for another technology (such as traditional wireline service)
on total E9-1-1 surcharge remittances.
• Adopt an E9-1-1 funding formula that will keep pace over time with the cost to provide E9-1-1 services.
• Provide resources necessary for the 13 Oklahoma Highway Patrol Field Troop communication centers to be
equipped and trained to receive and handle E9-1-1 calls including voice and all associated data
(ANI/ALI/notes) that may be transferred from Oklahoma PSAPs.
3.3 E9-1-1 Technical Recommendations
It is recommended that the E9-1-1 Program Office work with local jurisdictions to accomplish the following technical
improvements to the system:
• Implement/upgrade E9-1-1 service in Oklahoma to cover every wireline, wireless, VoIP, and future
telecommunication technology subscriber/user in the state.
• Implement TDD/TTY service for the deaf and hard of hearing in every PSAP so as to fully comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
• Create a reporting process and implement tools for PSAPs to easily provide service level information to the
E9-1-1 Program Office.
􀂃 Develop a statewide E9-1-1 base map to provide high-quality digital mapping of the entire state and assign
a standard city-style address to every identifiable structure. Such mapping and correlated geographic
information can serve as critical components in support of emergency response, crisis planning, disaster
recovery, and risk analysis.
• Assess the potential use of the Oklahoma OneNet IP network to enable next-generation E9-1-1 services as
described in this report.
3.4 Proposed E9-1-1 Strategic Plan Principles
In order to develop and execute an E9-1-1 strategic plan, it is important to understand the principles that will guide
the plan and the constraints within which project stakeholders agree to operate.
Principles are high-level beliefs or tenets that form the cornerstones for any large-scale plan. Once principles are
adopted, all subsequent tasks can be measured by their advancement and support of the agreed-upon principles.
Principles are not subject to change, until or unless there is an overwhelming reason to do so, such as the discovery
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 10
of new information, or if the principle is no longer applicable. At that time, it would be necessary for the project’s
stakeholders to agree upon new principles.
It is recommended that the Oklahoma Statewide Nine-One-One Advisory Board determine and document the
principles they intend to uphold and the constraints they agree to respect in fulfilling their charter. In order to have a
starting point to develop this plan, the following general principles and constraints are proposed, and it is
recommended that the Statewide Nine-One-One Advisory Board explicitly affirm a set of principles to give direction to
a statewide E9-1-1 coordinator and to facilitate measurement of progress towards its overall goals.
• All Oklahomans should be covered by E9-1-1 services for any device capable of dialing 9-1-1 and
connecting to a network from any location in the state.
• Funding for initially implementing the E9-1-1 system in areas that are un-served or under-served may be
supplied, in whole or in part, from a statewide fund such as the previously established but now depleted
“Oklahoma E911 Emergency Service Fund.”
• Any agreement to jointly fund or consolidate E9-1-1 operations on a regional basis, and the terms and
conditions under which to do so, must be self-determined by representatives of the local jurisdictions
involved.
• No jurisdiction will be asked to contribute funds from existing E9-1-1 surcharge revenues to operate the
E9-1-1 system outside of their agreed (or newly agreed) regional footprint.
• In recognition of the time, effort, and commitment that have been invested in creating some existing E9-1-1
alliances—such as those that operate for the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG), the
South West Oklahoma Regional 9-1-1 Association, etc.—those alliances will remain “regionalized” as part of
any proposed plan (although representatives of these alliances may be asked to consider expansion).
• The State of Oklahoma does not intend to take over the E9-1-1 system as part of a proposed statewide
plan.
• Oklahoma’s E9-1-1 system should adhere to all applicable federal laws and regulations.
The Oklahoma Statewide Nine-One-One Advisory Board should determine what, if any, other principles should guide
E9-1-1 initiatives in the state. If any one of the stated principles is not supported by the Board, it should be removed
and replaced with a corresponding statement representing the Board’s belief. Any proposed plan should align with a
set of principles that the Board fully endorses.
3.4.1 Potential Impediments to Achieving This Plan
In a survey of 54 Oklahoma county commissioners conducted in March and April of 2007, the consultant determined
that there is support for upgrading E9-1-1 service in the state. In fact, 92.5% of county commissioners surveyed said
that having the best E9-1-1 service in their counties is “one of [their] top priorities” or “important.” When asked, no
county commissioner indicated that E9-1-1 service “is not a high priority.”
However, while it is important for leaders to support high-quality E9-1-1 service, it is equally important for leaders to
recognize potential obstacles to achieving a comprehensive E9-1-1 plan. The survey of county commissioners
revealed the following potential impediments to implementing E9-1-1:
• “No money or concern.”
• “Lack of interest by officials.”
• “Hard to choose the right systems.”
• “A building for the equipment.”
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 11
• “Difficult to deal with the phone company issues.”
• “Addressing and cell towers”
• “No impartial consultation - vendor dominated.”
In addition, the following general potential obstacles were identified during the course of the assessment:
• Lack of resources
• Lack of support from the public, public safety, telecommunications providers, state regulatory agencies,
legislators, and other elected officials
• Lack of standards (technical and operational)
• Funding constraints
• Territorial concerns, cross-jurisdictional issues, and the unwillingness of independent public safety agencies
to relinquish control
• Lack of coordination
• Existing basic 9-1-1 technology – it is possible that some systems may not be able to be upgraded to
support E9-1-1 services
• Lack of education on the issues and importance of E9-1-1
3.4.2 Rural Wireless Service Providers and E9-1-1
When some Oklahoma counties or regions enact E9-1-1 wireless surcharges and then request that all cellular
companies provide E9-1-1 wireless service, some small or rural wireless service providers are disproportionately
financially impacted based on the particular technology they employ to identify the location of a wireless 9-1-1 caller.
There are two predominant technologies for providing wireless location information for E9-1-1: a handset-based
solution (global positioning system) and a cell tower/network-based solution (triangulation). For rural cellular
companies that utilize the cell tower triangulation method, deploying that technology to all sites in a large county or
region represents a significant capital cost as each cell tower must be upgraded. For some of those rural cellular
service providers, their sole customer base may be spread throughout that particular region and their cell
tower/network infrastructure is extensive in order to cover the entire, albeit sparsely populated, footprint. Conversely,
some national wireless service providers may have handset-based (GPS) technology or fewer cell towers to upgrade
as they are primarily focused on serving their out-of-region mobile customers who may be traversing an interstate
highway through the region. Hence, on a company-by-company basis, a small rural wireless service provider can
incur a significantly greater cost per customer (spread over a smaller base) to provide E9-1-1 wireless service
throughout the county.
There is no simple solution to this situation that is fair to both small rural wireless service providers and large national
providers, and that promotes the timely implementation of high-quality E9-1-1 services to cover all cellular customers.
A state E9-1-1 administrator needs to understand the factors that affect all telecommunication service providers’
abilities to provide E9-1-1 services in a timely manner when requested and in accordance with state law, and should
work with all parties to achieve the best outcome for Oklahoma’s citizens.
3.4.3 Oklahoma Locations With Weak or No Wireless Service
Some areas of Oklahoma do not have adequate wireless service coverage, and this lack of coverage inhibits cellular
phone use in the event of an emergency. Anyone who has traveled extensively through the state knows there are
pockets where one’s wireless calls repeatedly drop or one cannot connect to the network at all. If one cannot
connect to the network, one cannot call 9-1-1. In order for the state to have comprehensive wireless E9-1-1
coverage, it will be necessary to encourage carriers’ expansion of wireless service in parts of the state that do not
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 12
currently have adequate cellular phone coverage. To a lesser extent, this same lack or weakness in wireless
coverage can extend to individuals in buildings as well.
A state E9-1-1 administrator should work with service providers and contractors to understand the scope and location
of areas where coverage is so weak that emergency 9-1-1 calls cannot be made successfully. Although there is no
simple solution, the state E9-1-1 administrator should encourage service providers to strengthen signals in areas
deemed most important—transportation routes, parks and recreational areas, locations prone to severe weather,
hazardous material conduits, etc. The benefit to the community would be to improve the service of first responders to
emergencies by providing cellular phone communication and allowing the public safety answering points to identify
the physical location of all 9-1-1 callers. This functionality would, at a minimum, aid in the location of lost hikers,
campers, and snowmobilers, as well as remotely located automobile accident victims.
3.5 Recommendations for Implementing Regional PSAPs
This report qualifies and quantifies the current level of E9-1-1 service available throughout Oklahoma, compares
approaches taken by other states, and recommends a plan for achieving comprehensive E9-1-1 deployment by
creating regional PSAPs to serve un-served areas of Oklahoma.
3.5.1 Criteria for Determining Proposed Regional PSAPs in Oklahoma
This section describes the criteria that were applied for designating regional PSAPs to serve Oklahoma’s un-served
or under-served areas.
3.5.1.1 Council of Government (COG) E9-1-1 Regions
The first criterion for regionalizing PSAPs leverages and builds upon the role of the applicable Oklahoma Councils of
Government (COGs) in order to utilize their expertise and infrastructure to help coordinate activities in their
constituent counties and municipalities, as well as collect and administer E9-1-1 funds. Because of geographic
proximity, shared regional public safety issues, and experience working together in support of other COG tasks, it is
logical to initially adhere to the existing COG footprint when determining potential regional alignments for E9-1-1.
The COG will likely require a small staff to perform tasks common to the multiple PSAPs that serve the COG’s
population. E9-1-1 staff functions at the COG level would include overseeing the addressing and mapping of
counties, purchasing and project management for the implementation or upgrade of CPE, data management, quality
management, etc.
The following criteria were then applied for each COG that has un-served or under-served areas within their footprint.
3.5.1.2 Existing E9-1-1 PSAPs within the COG
The second criterion for regionalizing PSAPs (within the COG) leverages and builds upon existing E9-1-1 capable
PSAPs. If a county has one or more existing E9-1-1 PSAPs, they are candidates to become a regional PSAP, either
for the county or for a multi-county region within the COG.
3.5.1.3 Existing E9-1-1 PSAPs within the COG with Spare Capacity
The third criterion for regionalizing PSAPs (within the COG) identifies opportunities to provide E9-1-1 service to the
consolidated region with little or no upgrade necessary to the PSAP. These are instances where the existing trunks,
positions, and staffing level in the PSAP are deemed sufficient to handle the predicted level of additional 9-1-1 calls
for the region. Where all other factors are equal, this is an opportunity to expand service and leverage the existing
call takers, CPE, and selective routing trunks to the PSAP. The regional PSAP would still incur the added costs for
trunks from the end office to the selective router, if applicable.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 13
3.5.1.4 Radio Interoperability for Consolidated Dispatch
The final criterion to consider is the tradeoff between two operating models for the regional PSAP:
1) If the newly proposed regional PSAP has radio interoperability with its agencies (or intends to implement a
solution for radio interoperability), there is an opportunity to consolidate the dispatch function with the call
taker function in the designated regional PSAP. The advantage to this configuration is that all E9-1-1
capabilities would be available to both the call taker and the dispatch functions. In addition, personnel
would be able to perform both functions, if that is the PSAP’s mode of operation.
2) If the newly proposed region does not have radio interoperability with its agencies, the dispatch function
would remain located at the existing dispatch point for the agency. In this configuration, 9-1-1 calls would
be answered at the regional PSAP. The dispatch-able 9-1-1 calls, along with the ANI/ALI information and
notes, would then be transferred to the remote dispatch center or secondary PSAP.
3.5.2 PSAP Regionalization Example: South West Oklahoma Regional 9-1-1 Association
The Southwest Oklahoma Regional 9-1-1 Association represents an example of how Oklahoma county and
municipal governments can form an alliance to administer improved 9-1-1 services.
The following is excerpted from The South West Oklahoma Regional 9-1-1 Association web site
(http://www.swor911.org/):
The mission of the South West Oklahoma Regional 9-1-1 Association is to establish all phases of 9-1-1
services to the six counties in which we serve. Our goal is to assist the counties, and their cities and towns,
in acquiring the monies, equipment, technology and training needed to implement an Enhanced 9-1-1
telephone system which can accommodate the different phases associated with landline, wireless and IP
telecommunications….
Each county appointed five members from its community, ranging from commissioners to business owners,
to represent their perspective counties on the Southwest Oklahoma Regional 9-1-1 Association's Board of
Directors. The Board of Directors determines policy for the Association. With each county working together
sharing resources and ideas, a more efficient and unified 9-1-1 system can be established.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 14
Figure 1: The Southwest Oklahoma Regional 9-1-1 Association
The following is the most recent resolution passed by The South West Oklahoma Regional 9-1-1 Association to fund
the operation of the 9-1-1 system for its members.
Landline
Resolution 2006-09-21
SOUTHWEST OKLAHOMA REGIONAL 911 ASSOCIATION
A resolution of the board of directors of the Southwest Oklahoma Regional 911 Association establishing the nine-one-
one emergency telephone fee rate for the calendar year 2007.
WHEREAS, the voters of Beckham, Custer, Harmon, Kiowa, Roger Mills and Washita counties have approved the
acquisition and operation of an emergency telephone service, together with the levy or imposition of user fee for such
service; and
WHEREAS, said approving authority, service and fee are authorized pursuant to the Nine-One-One Emergency Act,
63 O.S. Supp., 1987, Section 2811 et seq., amended.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Southwest Oklahoma Regional 911
Association that is does hereby establish the rate for Nine-One-One Emergency Telephone Service fee for the
calendar year 2007 at fifteen percent (15%) of the recurring charges as designated by the tariff for exchange
telephone service or its equivalent within said counties in accordance with said Act beginning January 1, 2007.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 15
ADOPTED and APPROVED by the Directors of the Southwest Oklahoma Regional 911 Association this 21st day of
September, 2006.
Wireless
Users of cellular telephones in Beckham, Custer, Greer, Harmon, Jackson, Kiowa, Roger Mills and Washita Counties
should be assessed a nine-one-one emergency wireless telephone fee not to exceed the maximum amount required
by law (currently 50 cents per month per wireless connection) for wireless connection; providing for the assessment
and levying of such a fee subject to the approval of the voters of said counties.
Each county held an election regarding above mentioned resolution and all counties voted in favor of the fee.
Fees are collected, disbursed and accounted for in accordance with Oklahoma Statutes, specifically the Oklahoma
Emergency Telephone Act, Title 63 § 2801-2821 and the Wireless 911 Act, Title 63 § 2841-2846.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 16
3.5.3 Proposed Regional PSAPs
The table below lists proposed regional PSAPs for Oklahoma’s un-served or under-served areas. It is proposed that
the following jurisdictions create new regional PSAPs or extend coverage of existing E9-1-1 PSAPs to provide E9-1-1
service throughout the region.
Region County Existing
E9-1-1 PSAP
(if applicable)
Comment
Texas Guyman Guyman should be able to support the calls of all 3 counties
with its current capacity or the OHP could become the
regional PSAP.
Cimarron
E9-1-1 Region # 1
Beaver
Woods Alva Alva (E9-1-1) should be able to support both counties with
existing capacity.
Harper
Alfalfa Alfalfa County (except for Cherokee City) to regionalize
E9-1-1 Region # 2
Grant Grant has regionalized with Woods.
Woodward City of Woodward
(newly upgraded)
City of Woodward should be able to support all 4 counties
with 2 trunks and 2 positions or the Major County Sheriff’s
Office could be upgraded.
Dewey
Ellis
E9-1-1 Region # 3
Major
Caddo Anadarko Anadarko Police Department or Caddo County Sheriff
Department
Blaine
E9-1-1 Region # 4
Kingfisher
Craig Vinita Bartlesville Police Department and Vinita Police Department
could use the combined telephone subscriber base of the
three counties base to create an E9-1-1 region that would
encompass Nowata
Nowata
E9-1-1 Region # 5
Washington Bartlesville Bartlesville Police Department and Vinita Police Department
could use the combined telephone subscriber base of the
three counties base to create an E9-1-1 region that would
encompass Nowata
Cotton No current E9-1-1 PSAPs
Love
E9-1-1 Region # 6
Jefferson
E9-1-1 Region # 7 Garvin Pauls Valley Pauls Valley Police Department could support the two
counties with one additional position
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 17
Region County Existing
E9-1-1 PSAP
(if applicable)
Comment
Murray
E9-1-1 Region # 8 Atoka Atoka
Choctaw Hugo Hugo Police Department could cover Choctaw County or the
county could join with Atoka County’s existing countywide
system
E9-1-1 Region # 9 Coal
Pittsburg McAlester McAlester Police Department could support a countywide
system plus Coal County with one additional seat
Latimer Wilburton
McCurtain Idabel City of Idabel 911 Communications Center would be able to
cover the portions of Latimer and Pushmataha currently
without E9-1-1 service
E9-1-1 Region # 10
Pushmataha Antlers
Table 1: Proposed Regional Alignment of Jurisdictions
There are no proposed E9-1-1 administrative changes for PSAPs serving the following counties.
No Change to Current
E9-1-1 Administration/Region
.Adair County
.Beckham County
.Bryan County
.Canadian County
.Carter County
.Cherokee County
.Cleveland County
.Comanche County
.Custer County
.Delaware County
.Garfield County
.Grady County
.Greer County
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 18
No Change to Current
E9-1-1 Administration/Region
.Harmon County
.Haskell County
.Hughes County
.Jackson County
.Johnston County
.Kay County
.Kiowa County
.Le Flore County
.Logan County
.McClain County
.Mayes County
.Okfuskee County
.Oklahoma County
.Osage County
.Ottawa County
.Pawnee County
.Pontotoc County
.Pottawatomie County
.Roger Mills County
.Rogers County
.Seminole County
.Tillman County
.Tulsa County
.Wagoner County
Table 2: Counties with No Proposed Changes
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 19
It is proposed that the following counties extend their existing E9-1-1 coverage from one or more cities to cover the
entire county.
Expand E9-1-1 Coverage Countywide
.Creek County
.Lincoln County
.McIntosh County
.Marshall County
.Muskogee County
.Noble County
.Okmulgee County
.Payne County
.Sequoyah County
.Stephens County
.Washita County
Table 3: Counties with Proposed Expansion
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 20
3.5.4 Regional PSAPs Map
Figure 2: Proposed E9-1-1 Regional PSAPs Map
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 21
3.5.5 Oklahoma E9-1-1 Implementation/Upgrade Summary
The following table summarizes the proposed E9-1-1 implementations and upgrades for counties throughout the state of Oklahoma.
COG County Agency/PSAP Location Wireline E911
Requirement
E9-1-1 Address
Requirement
Wireless E911 Requirement
Alfalfa County Cherokee Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Cherokee City Police Department Cherokee No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Blaine Blaine County Sheriff’s Department Watonga Upgrade to E9-1-1 in process Implement Phase I/II
Geary Police Department Geary Upgrade to E9-1-1 in process Implement Phase I/II
Garfield Enid Police Department Enid No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Grant Covered by Woods County PSAP Alva No Change In process In process with Woods
Kay County Sheriff’s Office Newkirk No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Ponca City Police Department Ponca City No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Blackwell Police Department Blackwell No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Kay
Tonkawa Police Department Tonkawa No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Kingfisher County Sheriff
Department
Kingfisher Kingfisher Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Hennessey Police Department Hennessey Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Major Major County Sheriff’s Office Fairview Upgrade to E9-1-1 No Change Implement Phase I/II
Noble County Sheriff Perry Upgrade to E9-1-1 No Change Implement Phase I/II
Northern Oklahoma
Development
Association (NODA)
Noble
Perry Police Department
Perry
No Change
No Change
Implement Phase I/II
Beckham Elk City Police Department Elk City No Change In Progress No Change
Sayre Police Department Sayre No Change In Progress No Change
South Western
Oklahoma
Development
Authority (SWODA) Custer Clinton Police Department Clinton No Change No Change No Change
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 22
COG County Agency/PSAP Location Wireline E911
Requirement
E9-1-1 Address
Requirement
Wireless E911 Requirement
Weatherford Police Department Weatherford No Change No Change No Change
Harmon Hollis Police Department Hollis No Change No Change No Change
Kiowa Hobart Police Department Hobart No Change In Progress No Change
Roger Mills Covered by Elk City PSAP No Change In Progress No Change
Washita Cordell Police Department Cordell No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Greer Greer County Sheriff’s Department Mangum No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Jackson Altus Police Department Altus No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Beaver Beaver County Sheriff’s Department Beaver Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Cimarron Cimarron County Sheriff’s Office Boise City Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Texas Guymon Police Department Guymon No Change County Implement Phase I/II
Dewey Dewey County Sheriff’s Office Taloga Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Ellis Ellis County Sheriff’s Department Arnett Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Woodward Woodward County Sheriff’s Office Woodward In process Add Address Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Woodward Police Department Woodward Upgrade to E9-1-1 No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Harper Harper County Sheriff’s Office Buffalo Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Laverne Police Department Laverne No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Oklahoma Economic
Development
Association (OEDA)
Woods
Woods County 911 Alva No Change No Change No Change
El Reno Police Department El Reno No Change No Change No Change
Yukon Police Department Yukon No Change No Change No Change
Association of
Central Oklahoma
Governments
(ACOG)
Canadian
Mustang Police Department Mustang No Change No Change No Change
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 23
COG County Agency/PSAP Location Wireline E911
Requirement
E9-1-1 Address
Requirement
Wireless E911 Requirement
Cleveland County Sheriff’s Office Norman No Change No Change No Change
Norman Police Department Norman No Change No Change No Change
Moore Emergency Operations
Center
Moore No Change No Change No Change
Cleveland
Noble Police Department Noble No Change No Change No Change
Grady Tuttle Police Department Tuttle No Change No Change No Change
Logan Guthrie Police Department Guthrie No Change No Change No Change
McClain Newcastle Police Department Newcastle No Change No Change No Change
Oklahoma County Sheriff’s Office Oklahoma City No Change No Change No Change
Midwest City Emergency Operations
Center
Midwest City No Change No Change No Change
Del City Police Department Del City No Change No Change No Change
Tinker AFB Fire Department Tinker AFB No Change No Change No Change
The Village Police Department The Village No Change No Change No Change
Nichols Hills Police Department Nichols Hills No Change No Change No Change
Edmond Central Communications Edmond No Change No Change No Change
Bethany Police Department Bethany No Change No Change No Change
Warr Acres Police Department Warr Acres No Change No Change No Change
City of Choctaw Police Department Choctaw No Change No Change No Change
EMSA – Secondary No Change No Change No Change
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City Police Department Oklahoma City No Change No Change No Change
Indian Nations
Council of
Governments
(INCOG)
Creek Sapulpa Police Department Sapulpa No Change No Change Phase I
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 24
COG County Agency/PSAP Location Wireline E911
Requirement
E9-1-1 Address
Requirement
Wireless E911 Requirement
Mannford Police Department Mannford No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Bristow Police Department Bristow Upgrade to E9-1-1 No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Osage Osage County Sheriff’s Office Pawhuska No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Tulsa PSRC-City and County Tulsa No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Skiatook Police Department Tulsa No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Collinsville Police Department Tulsa
No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Owasso Police Department
No Change
No Change
No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Broken Arrow Police Department Tulsa No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Bixby Police Department Tulsa
No Change
No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Sand Springs Police Department Tulsa No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Jenks Police Department Tulsa
No Change
No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Tulsa
Glenpool Police Department Tulsa No Change
No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Caddo County Sheriff’s Office Anadarko Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Anadarko Police Department Anadarko No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Caddo
Carnegie Police Department Carnegie Upgrade to E9-1-1 N/R Implement Phase I/II
Comanche Comanche County E 911 Lawton No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Lawton Police Department Lawton No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Cotton Cotton County Sheriff’s Office Walters Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Association of South
Central Oklahoma
Governments
(ASCOG)
Grady Grady County Sheriff’s Department Chickasha No Change No Change No Change
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 25
COG County Agency/PSAP Location Wireline E911
Requirement
E9-1-1 Address
Requirement
Wireless E911 Requirement
Chickasha Police Department Chickasha No Change No Change No Change
Jefferson Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office Waurika Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
McClain McClain County Communications
Center
Purcell No Change No Change No Change
Stephens County Communications
Center
Duncan Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Duncan City Police Department Duncan No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Marlow Police Marlow No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Stephens
Department Comanche Fire and
Police
Comanche Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Tillman Frederick Police Department Frederick No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Choctaw Choctaw County Hugo Upgrade to E9-1-1 No Change Implement Phase I/II
Hugo Police Department (City) Hugo No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Haskell Stigler Police Department Stigler No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Latimer Latimer County Sheriff Wilburton Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Wilburton Wilburton No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Le Flore County E911 Poteau No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Pocola Police Department Pocola No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
LeFlore
Poteau Police Department Poteau No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
City of Idabel 911 Communications
Center
McCurtain Idabel No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Broken Bow Police Department Broken Bow Upgrade to E9-1-1 N/R Implement Phase I/II
Pittsburg Sheriff’s Office McAlester Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Kiamichi Economic
Development District
of Oklahoma
(KEDDO)
Pittsburg
McAlester Police Department McAlester No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 26
COG County Agency/PSAP Location Wireline E911
Requirement
E9-1-1 Address
Requirement
Wireless E911 Requirement
Pushmataha Pushmataha County Antlers partial partial Implement Phase I/II
Antlers Police Department Antlers No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Atoka Atoka County Sheriff’s Office Atoka No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Bryan Durant Police Department Durant No Change partial Implement Phase I/II
Carter Ardmore/Carter County 911Center Ardmore No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Healdton Police Department Healdton No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Coal Coal County Sheriff’s Department Coalgate Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Garvin Garvin County Sheriff’s Office Pauls Valley Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Pauls Valley Police Department Pauls Valley No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Johnston Johnston County Sheriff’s
Department
Tishomingo No Change No Change No Change
Love Love County Sheriff Department Marietta Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Marshall Marshall County Sheriff’s Office Madill No Change N/R Implement Phase I/II
Murray Sulphur Police Department Sulphur Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Davis Police Department Davis Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Southern Oklahoma
Development
Association (SODA)
Pontotoc Pontotoc County Ada 911 Ok Ada No Change No Change No Change
Adair Adair County E9-1-1 Stilwell No Change* Add Address No Change
Cherokee Cherokee County 9-1-1 Tahlequah No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
McIntosh Eufaula Police Department Eufaula No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Muskogee County Jail Muskogee Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Eastern Oklahoma
Development District
(EODD)
Muskogee
Muskogee Police Department Muskogee No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 27
COG County Agency/PSAP Location Wireline E911
Requirement
E9-1-1 Address
Requirement
Wireless E911 Requirement
Okmulgee Okmulgee County 911 Okmulgee No Change No Change No Change
Henryetta Police Department Henryetta No Change No Change No Change
Sequoyah Sequoyah County 911 Sallisaw No Change 50% Implement Phase I/II
Muldrow Police Department Muldrow No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Coweta Police Department Coweta No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Wagoner
Wagoner Police Department Wagoner No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Creek
Hughes Holdenville Police Department Holdenville No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Lincoln Lincoln County Sheriff Chandler Upgrade to E9-1-1 N/R Implement Phase I/II
Chandler Police Department Chandler No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Okfuskee Okemah Police Department Okemah No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Pawnee Pawnee County Sheriff’s Office Pawnee Partial Add Address Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Cleveland Police Department Cleveland No Change No Change
Payne County Sheriff’s Department Stillwater No Change No Change No Change
Stillwater Police Department Stillwater No Change No Change No Change
Cushing Police Department Cushing No Change No Change No Change
Perkins Police Department - Iowa
Tribe
Perkins No Change No Change No Change
Payne
Yale Police Department Yale No Change No Change No Change
Pottawatomie Pottawatomie County E911 Tecumseh No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Shawnee Police Department Shawnee No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Central Oklahoma
Economic
Development District
(COEDD)
Seminole Seminole County 911 Agency Seminole No Change No Change No Change
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 28
COG County Agency/PSAP Location Wireline E911
Requirement
E9-1-1 Address
Requirement
Wireless E911 Requirement
Craig Vinita Police Department Vinita No Change No Change Upgrade Phase I to Phase II
Delaware Delaware County Sheriff’s Office Jay No Change No Change No Change
Grove Police Department Grove No Change No Change No Change
Mayes Mayes Emergency Services Trust
Authority
Pryor No Change No Change No Change
Nowata Nowata County Sheriff’s Department Nowata Upgrade to E9-1-1 Add Address Implement Phase I/II
Ottawa Ottawa County 911 Miami No Change No Change No Change
Rogers County Sheriff’s Office Claremore No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Inola Police Department Inola N/R N/R
Rogers
Claremore Police Department Claremore No Change No Change
Grand Gateway
Economic
Development
Association
(GGEDA)
Washington Bartlesville Police Department Bartlesville No Change No Change Implement Phase I/II
Table 4: E9-1-1 Implementation/Upgrade Summary
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 29
3.5.6 High-Level Tasks for Regionalizing and Implementing E9-1-1
The following are high-level project plan tasks for regionalizing and implementing E9-1-1 throughout the state of
Oklahoma. A more detailed plan is included in section 14: E9-1-1 Implementation Guide.
3.5.6.1 PSAP Regionalization Tasks
1. Form a combined administering board by entering into an agreement between the governing bodies of each
entity in accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act. Administering board tasks and financial
responsibilities include:
a. Funding Mechanisms (i.e., Bonds, Grants)
b. Agency Fees and Contributions
c. Cities and County Contributions
d. Determine location for fallback center
e. Determine regional PSAP accounting, employee benefits, and legal council
f. Executive Board Development, Member nominations and appointments
g. Development of all bi-laws and agreements
h. Development of Inter-local Cooperative Agreement
2. Create a specific plan for regionalization using the generic plan in this report
3. Propose, enact, and initiate collection of E9-1-1 surcharges to fund operations
4. Apply for applicable grants from the Emergency Service Fund to implement E9-1-1
5. Locate new PSAP or determine consolidating service in an existing PSAP
6. Recruit director for regional PSAP(s)
a. External search and internal assessment process
7. Develop user agency agreements
a. Secure signature agreements from each user agency
8. Facility purchase and development
a. Secure land, secure architect (RFPs as required)
b. Develop facility designs and implementation of equipment into plans (RFPs as required)
c. Construction of facility and perimeter (RFPs as required)
9. Physically address all structures in the Service Area
10. Solution Integration and Infrastructure Design
a. Hire/contract IT Manager
b. Analyze/procure network, call handling and CAD
c. If appropriate, develop RFP’s for new CAD/RMS and other systems
11. Data collection and verification:
a. Collect and compile data for mapping, phone logs, recordings, SOPs, Rules and Regulations
12. Determine cutover logistics with telephone, radio vendor, logging recorder vendors, etc.
a. Develop comprehensive “cutover plans and project timelines” with all vendors
b. Place all network orders, installation and connectivity testing
c. Verify connectivity from all points to the consolidation center
d. Installation of all new equipment, phone lines, cables, network, etc.
13. Operations/Administration
a. Advertise for Administrative position and hire
b. Selection of medical/benefits providers
c. Establish all protocols for employment once hired
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 30
d. Cross train all call-takers and dispatchers on new standard operating procedures and training
materials
e. Conduct full assessment for all supervisory positions and promote accordingly
f. Letter of intent to all new and existing employees who plan to transition
g. Development and standardization of standard operating procedures
h. Development of standardization of all training materials and program
i. Development and standardization for all field units to the dispatching protocols
j. Conduct training for all field personnel
14. Testing of all Equipment
a. Establish connectivity and test for radios, phones, logging recorder, Information Systems, etc.
b. Begin integration of all CAD/RMS information into new CAD/RMS systems
c. Complete mapping integration
d. Delivery and installation of console and office furniture
e. Begin “staggered” cutover: smallest agency first; the largest agency last
3.5.6.2 Regional Wireline E9-1-1 Implementation Tasks (see E9-1-1 Implementation Guide for detail)
1. Establish Detailed Deployment and Communications Plan
2. Establish a Master Deployment Schedule
3. Communication with Vested Parties
4. Addressing
5. Mapping
6. CPE
7. Network
8. Database Services
9. Testing and Launch
10. Maintenance and Ongoing Support
3.5.6.3 Regional Wireless Implementation Tasks (see E9-1-1 Implementation Guide for detail)
1. Implement Required PSAP Updates
2. Develop a Project Budget
3. Issue Request for Service
4. Establish Contracts and Agreements
5. Support PSAP Data Collection
6. Wireless Solution Selection
7. Carriers Establish Connectivity
8. Call Routing
9. Data Provisioning
10. Testing and Launch
11. Maintenance and Ongoing Support
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 31
4. OTHER E9-1-1 ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 E9-1-1 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The Department of Justice (DOJ) Title II, Chapter 4 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), requires that all
PSAPs provide direct and equal access to their services for people with disabilities who use TDD or TTY. TDD is a
telecommunications device for the deaf, an electronic device for text communication via a telephone line, used when
a party has hearing or speech difficulties. Other names for TDD include TTY (telephone typewriter or teletypewriter).
“Direct access” means that PSAPs must directly receive TTY calls without relying on an outside relay service or third-party
services. “Equal access” means that the telephone emergency services provided for TTY users are as effective
as those provided for people who make voice calls. Access must be equal in terms of response time, response
quality, hours of operation, and all other features offered (such as automatic number identification, automatic location
identification, and automatic call distribution).
In order to provide equal access to TTY users, every call-taking position within the PSAP must have its own TTY or
TTY-compatible equipment. PSAPs must have systems that enable call takers to handle TTY calls as properly,
promptly, and reliably as voice calls. In addition, the ADA requires that TTY equipment must be maintained and
tested at least as often as voice telephone equipment, to ensure that the equipment is operating properly.
According to the findings of this report, approximately 82% of Oklahoma’s population is covered by TDD/TTY service;
7% of the population is not covered by TDD/TTY service; and for 11% of the population, it could not be confirmed
whether there is TDD/TTY service.
The DOJ provides a checklist designed to identify common problems with the accessibility of a state or local
government’s E9-1-1 and emergency communications services. Further information regarding the ADA and
associated E9-1-1 requirements can be found at on the following government sites:
􀂃 ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments:
http://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap4toolkit.htm#Anchor-47857
􀂃 Title II Checklist: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/pcatoolkit/chap4chklist.htm
4.2 E9-1-1 and Multi-Line Telephone Systems (MLTS)
Multi-Line Telephone Systems (MLTS), which include Private Branch Exchange (PBX) and Computerized Branch
Exchange (CBX) telephone systems, usually provide only the phone number and location of the billing address to
9-1-1 centers. At many large businesses and corporations, one MLTS system provides phone service for several
different buildings at different addresses, some perhaps miles away. Multi-story structures with several thousand
square feet of office space on each floor with multiple suites, rooms, and cubicles also make it difficult to locate a
particular telephone initiating a call. Technical solutions, including databases linking internal phone numbers
(extensions) to more precise locations such as suite/apartment number and/or floor level, are available. While these
solutions can provide correct addresses and locations within buildings or campus-type settings, they are not
mandated or being used on a widespread basis. Therefore, a gap in the public safety delivery system exists for
those individuals who dial 9-1-1 in an emergency from private businesses, government entities, and certain multi-tenant
residences that utilize MLTS or PBX phone systems. Most of the populous at large which use a MLTS system
are unaware of the problem associated with the use of telephone systems that do not provide totally accurate
ANI/ALI information to the local PSAP for E9-1-1 assistance.
The State of Oklahoma is encouraged to align itself with the position the National Emergency Number Association
(NENA) has taken in support of proposed state and federal legislation regarding MLTS. Today, there is no state
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 32
requirement for the deployment of E9-1-1 service within a company that is operating telephone services through the
use of a Multi-Line Telephone System (MLTS). While technology exists today to accommodate and transmit fully
enhanced 9-1-1 location information to a public safety agency, many companies and residential facilities have not
moved forward with the enhancements to this type of telephone system. In those environments, if an employee or
resident needed to dial 9-1-1, the precise call-back number and location information would not be delivered to the
public safety agency.
The excerpt below is from the NENA publication Legislative Agenda for the 110th Congress (January 29, 2007):
One of the most over-looked areas where E9-1-1 is not generally available is MLTS, including PBX systems.
Many people who work for large organizations that have their phone systems set up on PBX systems do not
have E9-1-1 capability. The federal government is no exception, and many federal agencies do not have
E9-1-1 available to their employees.
As recently as 2003 the FCC examined establishing a federal requirement concerning E9-1-1 for MLTS, but
declined to implement the requirement, which left the issue to the states. A prime reason for the refusal to
act was a concern that such a federal requirement was cost prohibitive to many businesses. Unfortunately,
to date only a handful of states have taken action, and many of the state laws are limited at best. Just as
lives were lost due to a lack of E9-1-1 for VoIP services—prompting the FCC to act—lives have been lost
due to a lack of E9-1-1 for MLTS, and the FCC should reconsider promulgating E9-1-1 requirements for
MLTS as well. This is particularly true today given the advancement of technology that has made MLTS
E9-1-1 solutions increasingly affordable.
First, Congress and the federal government should lead by example, and every federal agency should
ensure that E9-1-1 is available in every federal office. The General Services Administration (GSA) should
consider requiring all federal agencies to provide E9-1-1 in their facilities. Second, Congress should work
with public safety, industry, and the federal government (including the FCC and the ICO1) to advance MLTS
E9-1-1 solutions and regulations where necessary and appropriate. (National Emergency Number
Association, 2007)
There are 11 states listed on the NENA website that have passed some form of legislation in reference to MLTS.
There is also an example of proposed legislation local governments may utilize for possible increased funding for
E9-1-1 services. The cost for upgrading end-customers’ equipment and services necessary to comply with the
recommended MLTS 9-1-1 regulation would be the responsibility of the enterprise, not the Oklahoma public safety
agency or jurisdiction.
MLTS Reference Information and State Status of MLTS/PBX legislation:
http://www.nena.org/pages/Content.asp?CID=156&CTID=41
Technical Information Document on Model Legislation, Enhanced 9-1-1 for Multi-Line Telephone Systems:
http://www.nena.org/media/files/MLTS_ModLeg_Nov2000.pdf
1 ICO is defined by NENA as the 9-1-1 Implementation and Coordination Office (ICO), a joint program office of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), within the Department of Transportation, and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), within the Department of Commerce.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 33
4.3 E9-1-1 and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Field Troop Communication Centers
Often, Oklahoma PSAPs must transfer emergency calls to an Oklahoma Highway Patrol Field Troop Communication
Center. Currently, although the 13 Oklahoma Highway Patrol Field Troop Communication Centers can receive
transferred calls, they are not equipped to receive the data (ANI / ALI / call taker notes) associated with the call. This
means that they do not have access to information the E9-1-1 call-taker collected regarding the emergency, nor do
they automatically receive the location of the caller or the call-back number in the event the call drops or they need to
re-contact the caller. Valuable time is lost and potential errors can occur when the Oklahoma Highway Patrol must
collect the caller’s information all over again.
The solution is to provide the 13 Oklahoma Highway Patrol Field Troop Communication Centers with the equipment,
network connectivity, and training necessary to receive and handle transferred E9-1-1 calls along with the associated
call data. An additional benefit would be that, if appropriately engineered, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Field Troop
Communication Centers would be able to serve in a backup role in the event of a large-scale emergency or
incapacitated PSAP.
Oklahoma Highway Patrol
Field Troop
Location
Troop A Oklahoma City
Troop B Tulsa
Troop C Muskogee
Troop D McAlester
Troop E Durant
Troop F Ardmore
Troop G Lawton
Troop H Clinton
Troop I Guymon
Troop J Enid
Troop K Pawnee
Troop L Vinita
Troop M Altus
Table 5: Oklahoma Highway Patrol Field Troop Communication Centers
Oklahoma currently has a network in place that might provide a potential foundation for a next generation system:
OneNet. Since OneNet already links the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Field Troop Communication Centers, it could
possibly enable the transferring of calls and data from PSAPs to the Field Troop Communication Centers as well as
serve as the network backbone in a “Next Generation 9-1-1” implementation.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 34
4.4 E9-1-1 in Relation to Department of Homeland Security Programs
Many of the goals of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programs have a direct or indirect relationship to the
current effort to provide comprehensive E9-1-1 coverage throughout Oklahoma. In some cases, DHS programs
enable improved E9-1-1. Radio interoperability is such a case. In other cases, improved E9-1-1 can contribute
directly to better DHS response to emergencies. In fact, the E9-1-1 system has sometimes been referred to as the
“first, first responders,” as the initial report of an emergency often comes in the form of a 9-1-1 call. Recognizing this
relationship, DHS funded the creation of this Oklahoma E9-1-1 Assessment and Strategic Plan through a grant to the
Grand Gateway Economic Development Association.
4.4.1 Radio Interoperability
DHS has been instrumental in funding the re-banding and interoperability of radio traffic in the state, providing the
State of Oklahoma some $35,000,000 to date. The regionalization of PSAPs to provide E9-1-1 services to un-served
areas of Oklahoma can leverage that investment in radio interoperability by providing improved dispatch capabilities
and greater flexibility in the positioning and configuration of dispatch equipment and personnel. Currently,
emergency call information must be conveyed from some PSAPs to the agency and location with the required radio
dispatch capability. The positioning and configuration of dispatch resources can be constrained by the radio
capabilities. This increases the time it takes to respond to emergencies and adds cost to the system. In the future,
with radio interoperability, the E9-1-1 call taker could perform the dispatch function or be co-located with dispatchers.
Radio interoperability is an important enabler of improved E9-1-1 service, enough so to consider prioritizing and
scheduling E9-1-1 system upgrades in accordance with agencies’ plans to implement new radio solutions.
4.4.2 Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1)
The dependence of DHS initiatives upon the capabilities of the E9-1-1 system is a primary driver for development of
a Next Generation 9-1-1 (NG9-1-1) system. In its 2005 report, Next Generation 9-1-1: Responding to an Urgent
Need for Change, NENA’s “9-1-1 Future Path Plan” positions the E9-1-1 system as a key enabler of local, state, and
federal responses to large-scale emergencies:
In addition to improving response for daily emergencies, such a model would also improve homeland
security by providing a nationally coordinated emergency response system. The needs of the new system of
emergency communications include:
• Improved natural disaster management, including the prevention of and response to potential
terrorist actions.
• Full support of new communications and information technology for emergency services.
• Reduce the danger of viruses capable of generating automated 9-1-1 calls and overwhelming the
network.
• Use and enhance increasingly available sources of information that are only readily available with a
flexible, wide access, high bandwidth network.
• Improved accessibility and increased compatibility to ensure all Americans have access to the
emergency response system, including those with disabilities.
As “local” emergency services Internet Protocol (IP) networks supporting NG 9-1-1 applications become
interconnected to each other as well as federal functions/networks such as homeland security, the overall
benefit to emergency communications becomes a reality. An opportunity enabled by this capability is to
“leapfrog” wireless and other services to full E9-1-1/NG 9-1-1 in areas where the traditional network does
not exist, at lower cost. For example, IP mesh networks can supply transport where no phone and/or
traditional 9-1-1 access exists (e.g., remote rural areas and Indian tribal lands). (National Emergency
Number Association, 2005)
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 35
4.4.3 Evolution to a Next Generation 9-1-1 System
This report focuses on an approach to providing all Oklahomans with the current generation of circuit-based and
wireless E9-1-1 technology. However, a new generation of Internet Protocol (IP) 9-1-1 solutions is now beginning to
be utilized in PSAPs throughout the United States, including some implementations in Oklahoma. As part of its
consideration of future 9-1-1 services in Oklahoma, Intrado recommends that the Statewide Nine-One-One Advisory
Board consider the role a Next Generation IP-based network could play in expanding and enhancing 9-1-1 services
throughout the state. Just as some parts of the world “leap-frogged” circuit-based telephony and moved directly to
wireless telecommunications services, some areas of Oklahoma may be able to take advantage of the next
generation in 9-1-1 services without first implementing the current-generation technology. A robust NG9-1-1 system
would link the public with emergency responders in any crisis situation. This can be accomplished via an
appropriately planned migration to a network and systems based on IP having the inherent flexibility to cost
effectively bring new technologies into the 9-1-1 system.
A well planned and integrated NG9-1-1 foundation can exponentially improve emergency response and foster more
effective collaboration among a greater number of authorized users throughout the duration of a 9-1-1 response
event by improving the overall functionality and interoperability of public safety and 9-1-1 communications.
NG9-1-1 can greatly enhance the capacity and flexibility of emergency call center operations. For example, a
specific E9-1-1 communications center may find itself flooded with multiple inbound wireless calls concerning the
same traffic accident, with the call volume spike having the net effect of inundating the 9-1-1 lines. Or the connection
between an E9-1-1 selective router and a specific PSAP may be accidentally cut due to routine construction activity,
effectively rendering the PSAP inoperable. Finally, a call-taker in a two-position PSAP may call in sick, and no other
call takers may be available to handle even routine call volumes. All of this may occur while a call taker at a
neighboring PSAP sits idle and underutilized due to consistently low call volumes. Such examples illustrate the need
for emergency communication systems to not only be prepared to handle large-scale disasters, but also be equipped
with the capability, flexibility, and scalability to handle routine emergencies, such as transferring 9-1-1 calls along with
all data that is associated with the call.
An NG9-1-1 network would enable solutions capable of addressing the needs of large-scale emergencies, but also
be designed to handle the entire spectrum of daily routine events as well as regional mid-scale emergencies. By so
doing, when a catastrophic event occurs, the same standard operating procedures—employing the same systems
and technologies that are utilized on a daily basis—can dictate the manner in which emergency continuity activities
occur for disasters of all sizes.
4.4.4 Next Generation 9-1-1 Benefits
As the current E9-1-1 system strains to meet the demands of new technologies, the NG9-1-1 will evolve, allowing
emergency calls from new IP devices, enabling access to new public safety information sources, and permitting
customization to meet the needs of individual PSAPs and agencies. NG9-1-1 public safety systems will have the
ability to support enhanced 9-1-1 routing, managed automatic location identification services, call handling, dispatch,
expanded information, and notification services that can coexist with other IP applications on a secure and resilient
network. Fully managed for all aspects of operation, administration, maintenance, and provisioning, an NG9-1-1
would enable state-wide secure communications, collaboration, data sharing, and interoperability between public
safety jurisdictions and agencies. The modularity and flexibility of an NG9-1-1 would allow next generation
emergency services, information access, and delivery to be integrated with other applications such as 800 MHz radio
and mesh networks.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 36
A successful NG9-1-1 network would be based on the following principles:
􀂃 Built on a secure, redundant, and diverse network infrastructure for voice, data, and radio
􀂃 Capable of expanding call management and delivery of all types of emergency calls such as wireline,
wireless, VoIP, and future emergency messaging platforms
􀂃 Support for a broader set of scalable and replicable data sources such as the criminal justice data network,
GIS data distribution, and other emergency information services available to the PSAP and other authorized
agencies
􀂃 Provide an integrated network for emergency services, recognizing separation of core infrastructure, PSAP,
and other applications
􀂃 Highly flexible and scalable design with the capability to add new emergency service providers quickly and
easily without major changes
The fundamental public safety functions enabled by a NG9-1-1 network include the following:
􀂃 Configurable 9-1-1 Call Routing
􀂃 Extensible Automatic Number Identification (ANI) and Automatic Location Identification (ALI)
􀂃 Emergency caller location validation
􀂃 Intra- and inter-agency Call Handling and Dispatch information sharing and collaboration
􀂃 Call center and remote access for backup and disaster recovery situations
􀂃 Geographic information system (GIS) and mapping enabled
􀂃 Data distribution flexibility for emergency data management such as MSAG, mapping, and emergency
service number boundaries
􀂃 Trunked radio interoperability
4.4.5 Leveraging Existing Oklahoma Assets for NG9-1-1: Oklahoma OneNet
Demonstrated by the list of benefits, transitioning to a Next Generation Network remedies many shortfalls in the
current 9-1-1 system architecture. Implementation of an NG 9-1-1 network can be accomplished as one project or
through a series of implementation stages. Oklahoma currently has a network in place that might provide a potential
foundation for a next generation system: OneNet. Since OneNet already links the Oklahoma Highway Patrol Field
Troop Communication Centers, it could possibly enable both the transferring of calls and data from PSAPs to the
OHP Field Troop Communication Centers as well as serve as the network backbone in an NG9-1-1 implementation.
The following excerpt from the OneNet web site, http://www.onenet.net/, provides more information:
[Note: OneNet represents a particular implementation of IP technology procured under a specific program and terms.
The information in this report should not be construed as an endorsement of OneNet to the exclusion of other
technologies potentially available from a wide variety of suppliers and potentially offering other capabilities and terms.
This report does not include a thorough assessment of OneNet for Next Generation 9-1-1 or a comparison to other
solutions, but recommends that such a study be performed in the future.]
• OneNet, Oklahoma's telecommunications and information network for education and government,
is a Division of the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education operated in cooperation with the
Oklahoma Office of State Finance.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 37
• This comprehensive network is unlike any other in the country - utilizing fiber optics and wireless
technologies to transmit video, voice and data throughout Oklahoma, the nation and the world.
OneNet is not a state-owned utility, but rather a state lead partnership among telecommunications
companies, equipment manufacturers and service providers.
• OneNet's origin began in 1992. It was at this time that voters in Oklahoma approved a statewide
capital bond issue that provided $14 million for the implementation of a statewide
telecommunications network. In late 1995, the State Regents approved the OneNet business plan
and began implementation in 1996.
• Upon its implementation, OneNet focused on establishing the necessary hub sites throughout
Oklahoma to provide the infrastructure necessary to support the high-speed telecommunications
network. In addition, it moved aggressively to establish an equitable rate structure and enroll
customers.
• OneNet's state-of-the-art technology and dedicated staff currently provide high-speed
communications to a variety of Oklahoma entities such as: public and vocational-technical schools;
colleges and universities; public libraries; local, tribal, state and federal governments; court
systems; rural health care delivery systems; and programs engaged in research.
• This electronic linkage is made possible through a partnership between the State of Oklahoma and
private telecommunications companies - enabling OneNet to negotiate reduced rates and utilize
established, private communications networks. The result of this partnership is millions of dollars in
savings to Oklahoma taxpayers as well as the rapid development of a telecommunications
infrastructure that is one of the most comprehensive in the nation.
Figure 3: Oklahoma OneNet Network
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 38
Although the current network exists, other factors will need to be considered and evaluated in planning the
implementation of a next generation network solution. These factors include the following:
􀂃 Assessment of current IP network resources and configuration
􀂃 Assessment of commonly use IP public safety applications owned and used by state and federal
government entities
􀂃 Assessment of CPE hardware and software to determine compatibility with IP-based network
􀂃 Assessment of ALI database resources and connectivity to determine compatibility with an IP-based
network
􀂃 Assessment of selective router facility resources and compatibility with an IP-based network
􀂃 Assessment of radio resources and necessary upgrades to accommodate integration with IP-based network
Once current operations are assessed and defined, a network design would be developed based on the elements
needed to gradually transition Oklahoma PSAPs to a next-generation architecture.
4.5 E9-1-1 in Relation to The Rural Fire Defense Fund
The Rural Fire Defense program represents an example of an effective statewide program that is analogous to the
proposed Statewide E9-1-1 Program Office in respect to its being a partnership between state and local government
entities designed to promote the protection of life and property in rural areas of Oklahoma.
Title 35 - Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food, and Forestry; Chapter 20 – Forestry; Subchapter 3 - Rural Fire
Protection Program Fund Act provides the state contribution used to fund the Rural Fire Defense Program, a
state/local/federal partnership for fire protection. The act created three programs of financial assistance, matching
grants, and equipment revolving funds to improve fire protection provided by Oklahoma's rural fire departments.
http://www.oar.state.ok.us/oar/codedoc02.nsf/All/405D97099BB1E2D58625731800127A6C?OpenDocument
The Rural Fire Defense program allocates state funds, provides matching grants, and secures and directs Federal
resources to rural areas of the state to make it possible for those communities to have adequate fire protection. The
Rural Fire Defense program works with the Forestry Division to administer the following programs:
Source: ODAFF
Program Description Total Funding for
FY 1994 – 2004
50/50 (federal/local matching grant)
Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA)
There are 870 certified volunteer fire
departments in Oklahoma. The 50/50
(federal/local) VFA grants provide
funding to local associations for
purchasing fire-related equipment or
training.
$1,042,682.
Operational Grants for Local Fire
Departments
The operational grants, first funded in
FY-1990, provide funds for expenses
of local fire-fighting associations. The
grants help cities, towns, fire districts
and rural fire departments pay for
insurance, protective clothing, and
equipment. The grants are 100%
state funded.
$17,400,000
80/20 (state/local matching grant)
Capital Grants
First funded in FY-1992, the 80/20
grants (state/local funding) provide
equipment and building needs for
$22,097,984
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 39
Program Description Total Funding for
FY 1994 – 2004
rural fire departments. Approximately
80 fire departments received grants
this fiscal year.
Operational Funding for Rural-fire
Coordinators (substate planning
districts)
Rural-fire coordinators in 11
substate-planning districts assist rural
fire departments. Coordinators:
• provide technical assistance;
• place the federal excess property;
• ensure audit compliance;
• evaluate grant applications;
• monitor progress of grant projects;
• assist with training and testing
equipment; and
• administer the hydrant program.
$7,721,000
Federal Excess Equipment Program The forestry division secures federal
excess property from military bases
in a 20-state area for the state’s
wildfire firefighters and the rural fire
departments. The United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Forest Service loans the used
equipment to rural fire departments.
The forestry division funds 100% of
the FY-2005 Executive Budget
administration and operational costs
of the program.
$69,004,316
Equipment Funding for Local Fire
Departments
Since FY-1990, Forestry Services
purchases items in bulk for resale, at
cost, to local fire departments. This
revolving fund was created with
$100,000 in FY-1990.
$1,380,000
Total $118,645,982.00
Table 6: The Rural Fire Defense Fund
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 40
5. OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 POLICY ASSESSMENT
5.1 Current E9-1-1 Funding Legislation Summary
In 1979, Title 63, Section 2801, known as the Oklahoma Emergency Telephone Act, became law. This law enabled
every public agency or public safety agency to establish a “basic or sophisticated system” using the number 9-1-1. In
1986 the law was amended to add Section 2812, which was known as the Nine-One-One Emergency Number Act,
which established 9-1-1 as the primary emergency telephone number in the state and encouraged local governments
to develop and improve emergency communications procedures and facilities in order to expedite the responses of
public safety agencies.
The law was subsequently amended and terms were further defined in Sections 2813 – 2815 with important
ramifications for the current effort to fully implement E9-1-1 throughout the state. Those sections first allowed for a
governing body, through city ordinance or county resolution, to impose an emergency telephone fee to provide for the
operation of an emergency telephone service. The law also codified means for creating an alliance of governments
to administer a regional 9-1-1 system. It defined “governing body” as “the board of county commissioners of a
county, the city council or other governing body of a municipality, or a combination of such boards, councils or other
municipal governing bodies, which shall have an administering board as provided in subsection G of Section 2815 of
this title. Any such combined administering board shall be formed and shall enter into an agreement between the
governing body of each entity in accordance with the Interlocal Cooperation Act.” The law goes on to require the
ordinance or resolution to be submitted to the voters within one year of its passage, and allows for the imposition of a
fee in the amount of 5% of the tariff in the first year and no greater than 15% of the tariff rate in the second year and
for each year thereafter.
The Nine-One-One Wireless Emergency Number Act was enacted November 1, 2000. It allowed for county
commissioners to submit a resolution to the voters of their county asking to impose a $0.50 service fee per wireless
connection based on a subscriber’s place of primary use, to be used for the operation of emergency wireless
telephone service.
The surcharges are deposited into a special wireless E9-1-1 account established by the sub-state planning district.
The sub-state planning district is directed to distribute the monies to each county that has approved the surcharge,
has established wireless E9-1-1 service, or has sent a written request for the installation, maintenance, and operation
of wireless E9-1-1 service to a wireless service provider.
The sub-state planning districts are:
• Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG)
• Association of South Central Oklahoma Governments (ASCOG)
• Central Oklahoma Economic Development District (COEDD)
• Eastern Oklahoma Development District (EODD)
• Grand Gateway Economic Development Association (GGEDA)
• Indian Nations Council of Governments (INCOG)
• Kiamichi Economic Development District of Oklahoma (KEDDO)
• Northern Oklahoma Development Association (NODA)
• Oklahoma Economic Development Association (OEDA)
• Southern Oklahoma Development Association (SODA)
• South Western Oklahoma Development Authority (SWODA)
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 41
In 2005 the law was amended again to create a Statewide Nine-One-One Advisory Board, established to oversee the
development and operation of emergency 9-1-1 systems throughout the state. In 2005 the legislature was unable to
fund the critical duties of this Board and its statutory obligation, thereby limiting its ability to effect significant change
in the state of Oklahoma. The recommendation contained in this report, once adopted, will enable the Board to
sufficiently serve the citizens of Oklahoma and ensure that they have full E9-1-1 service.
In 2006, added to Title 63 were sections 2851, 2852, and 2853, titled the Nine-One-One Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) Emergency Services Act. This section allows for a governing body to establish a resolution or ordinance to
impose an emergency service fee in the amount of $0.50 per month for each VoIP service user. “Governing body” in
this case refers to the board of county commissioners of a county, the city council or other governing body of a
municipality, or a combination of such boards, councils, or other municipal governing bodies. This fee is to be used
for the operation of E9-1-1 services for calls received from VoIP service users.
5.1.1 Prepaid Wireless Fee Remittance
Prepaid mobile telecommunications service is paid for in advance, which enables the origination of calls using an
access number, authorization code, or both (whether manually or electronically dialed) if the remaining amount of
units of the prepaid mobile telecommunications service is known by the service provider on a continuous basis. The
(prepaid) term does not include the advance purchase of mobile telecommunications service if the purchase is based
on a service contract between the service provider and customer, or if the service arrangement requires the customer
to make periodic payments to maintain the mobile telecommunications service for a predetermined period of time.
The Oklahoma State Legislature enrolled H.B. 806 on June 4, 2007, an act relating to revenue and taxation that
amends SECTION 3. AMENDATORY 63 O.S. 2001, Section 2843.1, as last amended by Section 2, Chapter 303,
O.S.L. 2005 (63 O.S. Supp. 2006, Section 2843.1). This bill requires that prepaid wireless services collect the
wireless surcharge from subscribers and remit the established $0.50 Oklahoma wireless surcharge. Specifically, the
act states:
Every billed service user shall be liable for any emergency wireless telephone fee imposed pursuant to this
section until it has been paid to the wireless service provider. As of the effective date of this section, each
prepaid wireless service provider shall remit the emergency wireless telephone fee for its prepaid wireless
customers in accordance with either of the following methods:
1. For each active prepaid wireless customer whose account balance is equal to or greater than the amount
of the fee, the provider shall deduct and remit the fee; and
2. If it is not technically feasible for the prepaid wireless service provider to deduct the emergency wireless
telephone fee from an active account, the prepaid wireless service provider shall pay the fee for each active
prepaid account and seek reimbursement using whatever means are available to the provider.
Oklahoma has successfully resolved this issue ensuring that all Oklahoma wireless telephone users with the ability to
access E9-1-1 emergency services also contribute to the support of E9-1-1 services and solutions. As of June 2007,
Oklahoma is among approximately 26 states that have the authority to collect E9-1-1 surcharges on prepaid wireless
services.
5.2 Other Potential Funding Mechanisms
In addition to the current surcharge structure that pays for the deployment and operations of E9-1-1 services, the
following sources may assist in funding E9-1-1 improvements in Oklahoma. In order for the State of Oklahoma to
accept federal 9-1-1 program funds, a State E9-1-1 Program Office will need to be established, as recommended in
this report, and will need to have the authority to accept gifts and grants.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 42
5.2.1 Department of Homeland Security and the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004
There are several areas of Homeland Security funding where multiple public safety agencies can jointly request
appropriated funds. These funds potentially may be used for the upgrade of PSAP capabilities in the area of E9-1-1
services, as well as for data management and sharing.
The US Congress legislated the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004, also titled Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers
Employing 911 Act of 2004, and appropriated $250,000,000 per year. After several years during which no monies
were appropriated, the President signed into law the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of
2007 (HR 1) on August 3, 2007. This important legislation advances 9-1-1 and emergency communications in several
ways:
• Makes $43.5 million available for PSAP grants authorized by the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004 after 180-day
rulemaking to determine criteria to receive grants (Title XXIII, page 278)
• Authorizes $950 million per year for fiscal years 2008 – 2012 for a State Homeland Security Grant Program
(Title I, Sec. 2004, pages 13 – 14 ) and makes clear that such funds can be utilized for “supporting Public
Safety Answering Points” (Title I, Sec. 2008, page 18)
• Authorizes nearly $3.5 billion in Emergency Management Performance Grants, which can be used for the
construction of Emergency Operations Centers (Title II, pages 29 – 30)
• Establishes an Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program and authorizes $1.6 billion in
grant funding for fiscal years 2009 – 2012 (Title III, pages 31 – 34)
The text of the entire act can be found at:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h1enr.txt.pdf
5.2.2 Public Safety Foundation of America
The mission of the Public Safety Foundation of America (PSFA), as stated on its web site, is “to engender
cooperation among public and private groups to provide financial and technical support to the public safety
communications community.” The PSFA, a 501(c)(3) charitable organization established in January 2002 by the
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International (APCO), provides funding and technical support
to PSAPs and local emergency response officials.
The PSFA is funded by a variety of sources, including donations from corporations, APCO members and staff, and
the Wireless E-911: PSAP Readiness Fund, a non-profit organization established by Nextel Communications to
support the timely implementation of wireless enhanced 9-1-1.
The PSFA Advisory Committee that has administered the grants includes the following member organizations:
• Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International
• International Association of Chiefs of Police
• International Association of Fire Chiefs
• National Association of Counties
• National Association of State EMS Directors
• National Emergency Number Association
• National Governors’ Association
• National League of Cities
Please see http://www.psfa.us for deadlines as well as the PSFA grant application process.
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 43
6. CURRENT OKLAHOMA E9-1-1 SURCHARGES
6.1 Current Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireline Surcharges
The following table summarizes the wireline E9-1-1 surcharge fees in effect throughout Oklahoma as of April 2007.
The wireline surcharge is applied against the monthly tariff base rate for basic telephone service.
N/R indicates “no survey response” or “no record” (a blank entry on the survey).
Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireline Surcharges
County Jurisdiction E9-1-1 Wireline Monthly
Surcharge per Access Line
Wireline Pass
/ Fail
Wireline Initiative
Date
Adair County 5% Pass 3/25/1996
Alfalfa County None -- --
City of Cherokee 5% Pass N/R
Atoka County 5% Pass --
Beaver County None -- --
Beckham County 15% Pass 2001
Blaine County None -- --
Bryan County 5% Pass 1/2/2000
Caddo County 5% Pass N/R
City of Anadarko 3% Pass N/R
County 3 - 5% Pass 3/14/2000
City of Calumet 5% Pass N/R
City of El Reno 5% Pass N/R
City of Geary 5% Pass N/R
City of Mustang 3% Pass N/R
City of Okarche 5% Pass N/R
City of Piedmont 3% Pass N/R
Union City 5% Pass
Canadian
City of Yukon 3% Pass N/R
Carter County 10% Pass 8/7/2000
City of Ardmore 5% Pass 6/1998
Cherokee County 5% Pass 11/8/1994
Choctaw County 5% Pass 1/1/2000
Cimarron County None -- --
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 44
Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireline Surcharges
County Jurisdiction E9-1-1 Wireline Monthly
Surcharge per Access Line
Wireline Pass
/ Fail
Wireline Initiative
Date
County 3% Pass 5/1/1998
Etowah 3% Pass 5/1/1998
Lexington 3% Pass 5/1/1998
Moore 3% Pass 5/1/1998
Noble 3% Pass 5/1/1998
Norman 3% Pass 5/1/1998
Cleveland
Slaughterville 3% Pass 5/1/1998
Coal County None -- --
Comanche County 5% Pass 8/23/1994
Cotton County None -- --
Craig County 8 - 9% Pass 12/13/2005
Creek County 5% Pass 1992
Custer County 15% Pass 2001
Delaware County 8% Pass 8/25/1998
Dewey County None -- --
Ellis County None -- --
Garfield County 10% Pass 2001
Garvin County 15% Pass 2/13/2007
Grady County 10% Pass 9/14/1999
City of Tuttle 3% Pass N/R
Grant County 15% Pass 11/7/2006
County 15% Pass 2/10/1998
Granite 15% Pass 2/10/1998
Greer
Mangum 15% Pass 4/2004
Harmon County 15% Pass 2001
Harper County 15% Pass N/R
Haskell County 12.50% Pass 11/3/1998
Hughes County 5% Pass 8/23/1994
Jackson County 7% Pass 1996
Jefferson County None -- --
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 45
Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireline Surcharges
County Jurisdiction E9-1-1 Wireline Monthly
Surcharge per Access Line
Wireline Pass
/ Fail
Wireline Initiative
Date
Johnston County 15% Pass 11/7/2006
County 15% Pass 5/13/2003
Ponca City 10% Pass 2003
City of Tonkawa 10% Pass 2003
Kay
City of Blackwell 10% Pass 2003
Kingfisher County 15% Pass 11/2006
Kiowa County 15% Pass 2001
Latimer County 15% Pass 2005
Wilburton 15% Pass 2004
County 15% Pass 1999
City of Poteau 5% Pass 1988
LeFlore
City of Pocola 3% Pass 1989
Lincoln County 12% Pass N/R
City of Chandler 3% Pass 3/2005
County 3 - 5% Pass 12/13/2005
Cashion 5% Pass N/R
Cedar Valley 3% Pass N/R
Cimarron City 5% Pass N/R
Coyle 5% Pass N/R
Crescent 5% Pass N/R
Guthrie 3% Pass N/R
Langston 5% Pass N/R
Lovell 5% Pass N/R
Marshall 5% Pass N/R
Meridian 5% Pass N/R
Mulhall 5% Pass N/R
Logan
Orlando 5% Pass N/R
Love County None -- --
Major County None -- --
Marshall County 3% Pass N/R
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 46
Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireline Surcharges
County Jurisdiction E9-1-1 Wireline Monthly
Surcharge per Access Line
Wireline Pass
/ Fail
Wireline Initiative
Date
Cities of Madill +
Kingston 3% Pass 8/1990
Mayes County 8% Pass 2005
City of Pryor 5% Pass 2005
McClain County 5% Pass 5/9/2000
City of Newcastle 3% Pass N/R
McCurtain County None Fail 2004
City of Idabel 3% Pass N/R
McIntosh County None Fail 9/13/2005
City of Eufaula 5% Pass N/R
Murray County 12% Pass N/R
Muskogee County None -- --
City & Ft Gibson 5% Pass 1989
Noble County None -- --
City of Perry 5% Pass 1991
Nowata County None -- --
Okfuskee County 8% Pass 8/1/2000
County 3% Pass N/R
Arcadia 3% Pass N/R
Bethany 3% Pass N/R
Choctaw 3% Pass N/R
Del City 3% Pass N/R
Edmond 3% Pass N/R
Forest Park 3% Pass N/R
Harrah 3% Pass N/R
Jones City 3% Pass N/R
Lake Aluma 3% Pass N/R
Luther 3% Pass N/R
Midwest City 3% Pass N/R
Nichols Hills 3% Pass N/R
Oklahoma
Nicoma Park 3% Pass N/R
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 47
Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireline Surcharges
County Jurisdiction E9-1-1 Wireline Monthly
Surcharge per Access Line
Wireline Pass
/ Fail
Wireline Initiative
Date
Oklahoma City 3% Pass 1988
Smith Village 3% Pass N/R
Spencer 3% Pass N/R
Tinker AFB 3% Pass N/R
The Village 3% Pass N/R
Valley Brook 3% Pass N/R
Warr Acres 3% Pass N/R
Woodlawn Park 3% Pass N/R
Okmulgee County 10% Pass 9/1998
City of Henryetta 5% Pass N/R
Osage County 5% Pass 10/2005
Ottawa County 5% Pass 11/6/1990
Pawnee County 10% Pass 2006
Payne County 7% Pass 4/2/2002
Pittsburg County 15% Pass 11/2006
Pontotoc County 15% Pass 8/1/2000
County 10% Pass 11/2006
City of Tecumseh 10% Pass 1997
Pottawatomie
City of Shawnee 3% Pass 1985
Pushmataha County 3% Pass 4/1991
City of Antlers 5% Pass N/R
Roger Mills County 15% Pass 2001
Rogers County 15% Pass 1989
Seminole County 15% Pass 11/4/2004
Sequoyah County 15% Pass 6/27/2005
Stephens County None -- --
City of Duncan 5% Pass 11/8/1994
Texas County 5% Pass 3/10/1992
Tillman County 15% Pass 11/1/2005
Tulsa County 5% Pass 1988
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 48
Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireline Surcharges
County Jurisdiction E9-1-1 Wireline Monthly
Surcharge per Access Line
Wireline Pass
/ Fail
Wireline Initiative
Date
Wagoner County 5% Pass N/R
Washington County 5% Pass 1/1/1997
Washita County 15% Pass 2004
Woods County 15% Pass 11/1/2003
Woodward County 15% Pass 4/1/2006
Table 7: Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireline Surcharges
6.1.1 Summary of Oklahoma Counties with Wireline E9-1-1 Surcharges
Counties with
Wireline E9-1-1
Surcharges Enacted
Countywide
Counties Without
Wireline E9-1-1
Surcharges Enacted
Countywide
Counties 59 18
Percentage 77% 23%
Table 8: Summary of Oklahoma Counties with Wireline E9-1-1 Surcharges Enacted
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 49
6.1.2 Oklahoma Wireline E9-1-1 Surcharges Map
Figure 4: E9-1-1 Wireline Surcharges Map
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 50
6.2 Current Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireless Surcharges
The following table summarizes the wireless E9-1-1 surcharge fees in effect throughout Oklahoma as of April 2007.
The wireless surcharge is a flat fee of $0.50 per month per wireless phone number and is remitted based on the
customer’s primary location of use.
Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireless Surcharges
County Jurisdiction
E9-1-1 Wireless Monthly
Surcharge Status
Wireless Pass /
Fail
Wireless Initiative
date
Adair County No -- --
Alfalfa County No -- --
Atoka County No -- --
Beaver County No -- --
Beckham County Yes Pass 2005
Blaine County No -- --
Bryan County No -- --
Caddo County No -- --
Canadian County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Carter County Yes Pass 4/2007
Cherokee County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Choctaw County Yes Pass 11/7/2006
Cimarron County No -- --
Cleveland County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Coal County No -- --
Comanche County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Cotton County No -- --
Craig County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Creek County Yes Pass 4/3/2007
Custer County Yes Pass 2005
Delaware County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Dewey County No -- --
Ellis County No -- --
Garfield County Yes Pass 12/1/2006
Garvin County Yes Pass 2/13/2007
Grady County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 51
Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireless Surcharges
County Jurisdiction
E9-1-1 Wireless Monthly
Surcharge Status
Wireless Pass /
Fail
Wireless Initiative
date
Grant County Yes Pass 11/7/2006
Greer County Yes Pass 7/25/2006
Harmon County Yes Pass 2005
Harper County No -- --
Haskell County No -- --
Hughes County No -- --
Jackson County Yes Pass 11/2006
Jefferson County No -- --
Johnston County Yes Pass 8/27/2002
Kay County Yes Pass 5/13/2003
Kingfisher County Yes Pass 11/2006
Kiowa County Yes Pass 2005
Latimer County Yes Pass 2004
LeFlore County No Failed Twice --
Lincoln County Yes Pass N/R
Logan County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Love County No -- --
Major County No -- --
Marshall County No -- --
Mayes County Yes Pass 11/1/2006
McClain County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
McCurtain County No -- --
McIntosh County No Fail 2005
Murray County Yes Pass 2007
Muskogee County No -- --
Noble County No -- --
Nowata County No -- --
Okfuskee County No -- --
Oklahoma County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Okmulgee County Yes Pass 9/1998
E 9 - 1 - 1 A S S E S S M E N T A N D S T R A T E G I C P L A N F O R T H E S T A T E O F O K L A H O MA
© 2007 Intrado Inc. All rights reserved. Page 52
Oklahoma E9-1-1 Wireless Surcharges
County Jurisdiction
E9-1-1 Wireless Monthly
Surcharge Status
Wireless Pass /
Fail
Wireless Initiative
date
Osage County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Ottawa County Yes Pass 3/7/2006
Pawnee County Yes Pass 2006
Payne County Yes Pass 4/2/2002
Pittsburg County Yes Pass 11/2006
Pontotoc County Yes Pass 12/13/2005
Pottawatomie County