This bill requires the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the National Park Service) to assess existing emergency communications centers in National Park System units for Next Generation 9‑1‑1 (NG9‑1‑1) readiness, report the findings to Congress, and develop a plan to install NG9‑1‑1 systems where needed. The assessment must inventory current implementation status and estimate purchase, maintenance, and operating costs; the plan must follow that assessment and include consultation with state, local, and federal stakeholders.
The measure matters for anyone responsible for park safety, search-and-rescue coordination, or PSAP interoperability because it creates a formal, department-led process to move park emergency centers toward NG9‑1‑1 — while leaving open key questions about funding, cross-jurisdictional agreements, and technical feasibility in remote park environments.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill directs the Secretary to (1) complete a one‑year assessment of National Park emergency communications centers’ NG9‑1‑1 status and costs, publish a report to specified congressional committees and online, and (2) within one year after that report, develop a plan to install NG9‑1‑1 systems at identified centers. The plan must be based on the assessment and include consultation requirements.
Who It Affects
The National Park Service and its superintendents, park-based emergency communications centers and public safety answering points (PSAPs), state and local emergency operations officials and PSAPs that interoperate with park centers, and federal agencies that support emergency communications (DOC, DOT, FCC). Vendors and integrators who sell NG9‑1‑1 solutions would be drawn into procurement and modernization work.
Why It Matters
NG9‑1‑1 upgrades change how location, multimedia, and call data flow between callers, PSAPs, and responders. The bill creates a roadmap for NPS modernization rather than ad hoc upgrades — a step that could improve response in parks but also surfaces funding, legal-agreement, and technical interoperability challenges that the NPS and partner PSAPs must resolve.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by defining terms and then lays out two linked deliverables for the National Park Service. First, within one year of enactment the Department must complete an assessment of all emergency communications centers located in National Park units.
That assessment is not a high-level checklist: the statute requires the Department to determine the current NG9‑1‑1 implementation status, estimate costs to purchase NG9‑1‑1-capable systems where none exist, and estimate ongoing maintenance and operating costs across park centers.
When the assessment is done, the Secretary must submit a written report to the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and also post the report on the Department’s website. The report must identify barriers the Department expects to encounter — the statute explicitly lists jurisdictional, technological, authority-related, and legal-agreement issues as topics the Department should surface.Within one year after submitting that report, the Secretary must prepare a plan, grounded in the assessment results, to install NG9‑1‑1 systems at the identified park emergency communications centers.
The statute mandates consultation with state and local emergency operations officials, local stakeholders designated by superintendents, and specified federal agencies (Department of Commerce, Department of Transportation, and the Federal Communications Commission) to promote interoperability. However, the bill also allows a superintendent to certify that a park’s center already has sufficient NG9‑1‑1 capability, in which case the plan need not address that center.Notably, the bill directs assessment and planning activity but does not appropriate money or create a grant program; it establishes duties and reporting obligations for the Secretary but leaves financing, procurement vehicles, and operational responsibility to the Department and partner jurisdictions.
That gap — duties without an express funding authorization — will be a central practical issue during implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines an “emergency communications center” to include any facility designated to receive 9‑1‑1 requests or any public safety answering point and explicitly lists functions such centers perform (processing/analyzing 9‑1‑1 requests, dispatching responders, transferring/exchanging requests, analyzing responder communications, and supporting incident command).
The statutory definition ties “Next Generation 9‑1‑1 system” to the regulatory meaning of “Next Generation 911” in 47 C.F.R. §9.28 (or a successor regulation), anchoring the technical baseline to FCC rulemaking.
Section 3 requires the Department to finish the NG9‑1‑1 implementation assessment within one year of enactment and to estimate both capital costs (to purchase NG9‑1‑1 systems where not yet implemented) and recurring costs (maintenance and operations) for park centers.
Section 4 requires the Secretary to develop an installation plan within one year after delivering the assessment report and to consult with state/local emergency operations officials, superintendent‑identified local stakeholders, and the Departments of Commerce, Transportation, and the FCC.
Superintendents may exempt centers from the plan: if a superintendent determines that a unit’s emergency communications center already has, or is installing, sufficient NG9‑1‑1 systems, that center need not be addressed in the Department’s plan.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title: Making National Parks Safer Act
This short title frames the bill’s purpose but carries no operational text. Practically, it signals the legislative intent to treat emergency communications in parks as a discrete public‑safety modernization priority rather than a routine IT upgrade.
Definitions that set the project scope
Section 2 draws the boundaries for the statute. It defines “emergency communications center” expansively to include PSAPs and any facility designated to receive 9‑1‑1 requests that performs a set of five functional roles (call processing, dispatch, transfer/exchange, responder communications analysis, and incident command support). It also anchors “Next Generation 9‑1‑1 system” to the FCC regulation at 47 C.F.R. §9.28, which matters because technical obligations and interoperability features will flow from that regulatory standard. Finally, the Secretary is defined specifically as the Interior Secretary acting through the NPS Director, which concentrates responsibility inside DOI/NPS rather than spreading it across multiple bureaus.
One‑year assessment and a public report
Section 3 requires a deadline‑driven audit: within one year the Department must map implementation status for NG9‑1‑1 across park centers, estimate capital costs to acquire NG9‑1‑1 systems where absent, and estimate maintenance/operational costs for NG9‑1‑1 across all centers. The Department must submit results to the House Natural Resources Committee and the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and post the report publicly. The statute also directs the report to identify likely impediments — jurisdictional arrangements, technical limitations, authorities, and outstanding legal agreements — which frames the subsequent planning and negotiation work that DOI/NPS will need to do with states, counties, and tribal authorities.
Plan to install NG9‑1‑1 and required consultations
Section 4 requires the Secretary to prepare an installation plan within one year after delivering the assessment report. The plan must be based on the assessment and developed in consultation with state and local emergency operations officials, superintendent‑selected local stakeholders, and the Departments of Commerce and Transportation and the FCC — a consultative list intended to cover technical, spectrum/backhaul, and regulatory considerations. The section includes a practical limitation: a superintendent can exclude a unit from the plan if sufficient NG9‑1‑1 capability already exists or is being installed there, which lets the Department avoid duplicating active local modernization efforts.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Park visitors and backcountry users: Improved NG9‑1‑1 capability increases the likelihood that location data, multimedia, and callback information reach the correct PSAP and responders, reducing response times in remote incidents.
- Park rangers and NPS emergency managers: More robust, interoperable communications simplify incident coordination and incident command, particularly for multi‑jurisdictional rescues and wildfire responses.
- Local and regional emergency responders and PSAPs: Where NPS centers implement NG9‑1‑1 that interoperates with nearby PSAPs, mutual aid and transfers become smoother, reducing handoff errors in cross‑jurisdictional incidents.
- Vendors and systems integrators specializing in NG9‑1‑1 technology: The required assessments and subsequent procurements create potential contracting opportunities for equipment, software, and integration services.
Who Bears the Cost
- Department of the Interior/National Park Service: The Department must conduct the assessment, write the report and plan, and oversee installations — tasks that consume staff time and operational resources; absent an appropriation, NPS must reallocate internal funds or seek new funding.
- Congressional appropriations process: Because the bill imposes duties without authorizing funds, Congress (through appropriations) faces pressure to budget for capital and recurring NG9‑1‑1 costs once the assessments identify price tags.
- State and local PSAPs and emergency operations centers: To realize interoperability, local jurisdictions may need to upgrade systems, negotiate data‑sharing and call‑transfer agreements, and absorb integration and training costs.
- Park superintendents and on‑site administrators: Superintendents must identify local stakeholders and determine whether a center is sufficiently upgraded — adding administrative burden and potential political friction with local partners.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between improving public safety in often remote, high‑risk National Park environments by mandating modernization and the practical realities of funding, jurisdictional coordination, and technical feasibility — the bill obligates assessment and planning but does not resolve who will pay for or operate the NG9‑1‑1 systems once identified, creating a classic safety‑versus‑cost and control dilemma.
The bill creates a clear process — assessment, public reporting, and planning — but it does not address the single largest implementation question: who pays. The statute requires cost estimates but contains no appropriation language or explicit authority for grants, reimbursements, or cost‑sharing.
That means the NPS will either need to identify internal funds, seek line items in future appropriations, or rely on partner jurisdictions and emergency communications grants administered elsewhere (e.g., DHS, state programs). Procurement strategies, eligible funding streams, and timing will determine whether the plan is realistic or aspirational.
Interoperability promises are straightforward on paper but messy in practice. The bill requires consultation with federal agencies and state/local officials, but actual interoperability requires negotiated technical standards, shared data formats, MOUs for call transfers, and often upgrades on both sides of jurisdictional boundaries.
Remote park locations pose additional technical constraints — limited cellular coverage, scarce fiber backhaul, intermittent power, and higher per‑site costs — which could drive up the capital and recurring estimates the assessment must produce. Finally, anchoring the definition to 47 C.F.R. §9.28 connects the project to evolving FCC rulemaking; changes in the regulatory baseline could alter technical requirements and cost estimates mid‑implementation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.