The FCC is seeking comment by Aug. 15 on a joint petition by publ...

to 911 calls. The petition was filed last month by the National Emergency Number Assn., the Assn. of Public Safety Communications Officials and the National Assn. of State Nine One One Administrators. The groups asked for public comment on the “legal preconditions” related to release of customer information to PSAPs under the Communications Act and the criminal code as updated by the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts. For example, Sec. 222 of the Communications Act generally protects the confidentiality of customer proprietary network information on factors such as location and destination. It makes an exception for location data that normally would be treated confidentially for emergency calls from wireless subscribers, which could be released to a PSAP or similar emergency responder answering a 911 call. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 updated certain exceptions for disclosure of communications such as to a govt. entity if a provider “reasonably believes” an emergency involving danger of death or serious physical harm to any person “requires disclosure without delay of communications relating to the emergency.” The Patriot Act has similar language on customer records. The public safety petition said such provisions didn’t exist when the Justice Dept. advised the FCC on wireless caller location in 1996 in an opinion that said a govt. entity “may” require an electronic communication service provider to disclose a record or other information relating to a subscriber only when the govt. entity had the subscriber’s consent to such disclosure. That sets up a conflict between language in newer legislation allowing the govt. to require disclosure and the earlier opinion that a service provider “may” divulge the information, the public safety petition said. The groups said wireless carriers had varying written policies on that subject, creating a dilemma on “the frequency with which emergency calls relate to endangered property rather than endangered lives.” The petition asked how to best reconcile differences in civil and criminal statutes and whether Congress meant that disclosures under certain parts of the Communications Act should be discretionary while others were mandatory. Reply comments are due Sept. 15.