When most people head off to work, emergency response issues are probably not top of their mind. The businesses where they will toil for the day or night, on the other hand, have an absolute obligation to be sure they have given plenty of thought to emergency response, specifically their implementation of enhanced 911 (or E911) service capabilities, on behalf of all of their employees, vendors and visitors.

Recently, RedSky, which has been in the enhanced 911 business since 1999 when it developed and patented the first automated solution to manage 911 location data and has continually updated its solutions to keep pace with emerging technology to meet the requirements of modern enterprises, held a webinar featuring Martha Buyer, founder of Martha Buyer Telecommunications Law, PLLC, a practice focused on telecom law with specific emphasis on both regulatory matters and contract negotiation, who shared her knowledge of the legal issues surrounding enterprise responsibilities for E911. Buyer, a frequent author, speaker, legal columnist and commentator on telecom issues, told the audience that although E911 has gotten the attention of the federal government, currently there is no federal law governing E911.

There are, however, 17 states that do have laws on the books concerning E911, four more that are in the planning stages of such laws and one (Massachusetts) is in the process of revising its E911 legislation. The states that have E911 laws that corporations must become familiar with are: Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, Vermont, Virginia and Washington. They have all adopted legislation to regulate 911 service as it applies to MLTS (multi-line telephone service) and PBXs (private branch exchanges). Some of the states, Buyer explained, require enterprise and/or residential MLTS operators to ensure that when a user calls 911 on their system, ANI (automatic number identification) and ALI (automatic location identification) are provided to the PSAP (public safety answering point).  

Regardless of whether or not a state has laws in place to govern E911, Buyer strongly warned participants that enterprises have an obligation, not only to employees who work within the confines of their workplaces, but also to vendors, visitors, contractors and remote workers, to provide and maintain a safe workplace with access to E911. Having a safe workplace includes having protective devices and procedures in place, which includes E911 systems implementation. Buyer said this falls under OSHA (Occupational Health and Safety Administration) laws, which issues fines for disregard of its rules and regulations (i.e., failure to provide such protections) that can range from a minimum of $7,000 up to $70,000 daily. E911 would be affected by OSHA laws if a workplace injury is enhanced or exacerbated by not sufficiently providing detailed E911 information (ANI or ALI) to first responders. 

OSHA is not the only entity enterprises could be held accountable to if they neglect their obligations in regard to E911. Buyer explained how corporations could be the focus of the tort laws of negligence, negligence per se and gross negligence if individuals are harmed as a result of the business not performing in a way that is considered “reasonable conduct” where E911 is concerned and those individuals subsequently file suit.

Given these ominous consequences for not taking responsibility for proper E911 system implementation, the question arises of who is responsible for making sure everything is in place. Buyer said Human Resources, Risk Management, Legal, Public Safety, Facilities and Telecom/IT are responsible for E911 compliance, with Telecom/IT playing only a supporting role. 

Among the suggestions Buyer provided for enterprises to take to be sure their employees and others are adequately protected if the need arises to seek emergency help via 911 is to be extra diligent when purchasing their servers. She said that while most servers have E911 functionality built into them, it usually costs extra to turn the capabilities on, and this cost can be hidden as a line item. She suggested that when putting out RFPs for a phone system, hosted or otherwise, enterprises specifically include the cost of enabling E911.

Another crucial decision is whether or not to block direct access to 911 for all phones. The reason to disable 911 access from some phones is to avoid misdials that result in unnecessary emergency response. A plan, however, needs to be in place to compensate for this.

Finally, it is imperative, Buyer stressed, that enterprises regularly test their E911 system with local law enforcement to be sure it is always working – before it is needed. The bottom line, she said is to have connected, functioning E911 capabilities. By doing so, enterprises can save lives and mitigate damages.                               

Want to learn more about the latest in communications and technology? Then be sure to attend ITEXPO West 2011, taking place Sept. 13-15, 2011, in Austin, Texas. ITEXPO (News - Alert) offers an educational program to help corporate decision makers select the right IP-based voice, video, fax and unified communications solutions to improve their operations. It's also where service providers learn how to profitably roll out the services their subscribers are clamoring for – and where resellers can learn about new growth opportunities. To register, click here.

Linda Dobel is a TMCnet Contributor. She has been an editor in the contact center space for more than 25 years, and has the distinction of being the founding editor of Customer Inter@ction Solutions (CIS) magazine. To read more of her articles, please visit her columnist page.

Edited by John Lahtinen