HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

* * * * * * * * * *

House B U l 911

* * * * * * * * * *

Tuesday, July 15, 1997 - 9:00 a.m.

- - O 0 O -

BEFORE:

Honorable Allan .golf, Acting Majority Chairman

II i i= - -

/ff7-/#4

ALSO PRESENT:

Honorable Mario Civera

Honorable Timothy Pescl

Honorable Terry Van Home

Honorable Jeffrey Habay

Rick 0'Leary

Majority Research Analyst

Shelly Todd, Esquire Minority Counsel

JodyMinor"y Executive Director

DeniM!nS"?y Administrative Assistant

Len ?orhM!nority Chairman

Jeannie Whiteporter Representing Representative Curt Thomas

C O N T E N T S

WITNESSES PAGE

Opening remarks by Representative Habay 7

Tim Rogers, Shaler Township Manager 9

Charles " ^ J ^ ^ 0 1 ^ ^ Agency 11

Representative Mario Civera 29

Representative Terry Van Home 46

Representative Timothy Fesci 53

Dr. Separtmenthof Emergency Medicine "

Mr. A^egnenylcounty 911 Coordinator "

Mr.Departmen?'1orpublic Safety " 4

Bell Atlantic

SfrectorkorUGovernment Relations " 2

Ms. Debra Palmieri 138 911 Service Manager

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Good morning.

we'd like to get started. The hearing's - we

have several people didn't come yet; but we're

going to go ahead and start it since the hour of

9:00 has arrived.

I'd like to thank everybody for

attending this morning. My name's Allan Egolf.

I represent parts of Perry, Franklin, and

Cumberland Counties.

I'm the Majority Vice Chairman of the

Veterans Affairs and Emergency Preparedness

Committee; and today I'll be chairing the

hearings in the absence of Representative

Hershey, who is the Majority Chairman, who could

not be with us, unfortunately, today.

We do expect the Minority Chairman to be

here at any time, Representative Tom Michlovic.

And we also have with us Representative Ralph

Kaiser, Jeff Habay, Terry Van Home, Tim Pesci,

Pete Zug, and Tom Tigue. I don't think I missed

anybody.

We also have - representing

Representative Curt Thomas, we have Jeannie

Whiteporter. The purpose of the public hearing

is to examine House Bill 911, which is sponsored

by Representative Mario Civera; and he will be

here with us.

He's on the way here now to talk about

his legislation. And this legislation, House

Bill 911, amends Act 78, which is normally

referred to as the Commonwealth Emergency

Telephone Act.

And, of course, due to the importance of

this issue and the effect it has on each of the

communities across our state, I believe that the

testimony today will be of great benefit to this

Committee as well as to the citizens of

Pennsylvania; and so we look forward to a very

informative hearing this morning.

And I will just briefly mention

the - as far as testifying, each person has

been allotted 20 minutes; and we would ask that

you allow time within that 20-minute period for

question and answers to keep the hearing moving.

And also if you would bring - if you

haven't done so already, bring your allotted

number of copies of testimony with you as you

come up here and give them to Rick 0'Leary here,

the Committee staff person.

To start off, I would like to first of

all have each of us identify ourselves and what

districts or who we represent. Go around the

table starting over at the right.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: State

Representative Pesci representing the 60th

District. That would be Armstrong and Indiana

Counts.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN HORNE: Terry Van

Home, Rep for the 54th District, Westmoreland

and Allegheny, Minority Chairman of the Local

Government Committee.

MR. BUCHTA: Len Buchta, Minority Staff.

REPRESENTATIVE O'LEARY: Rick O'Leary,

and I'm Majority Staff.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: Peter Zug, and I

represent part of Lebanon and part of Dauphin

Counties.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Jeff Habay, State

Representative here in the 30th District.

REPRESENTATIVE KAISER: Ralph Kaiser,

41st District, South - Allegheny County.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Tom Tigue, I

represent parts of Luzerne and Monroe Counties.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Okay. Thank

you. And to start off, I would like to turn it

over to Representative Habay, whose district

we're in right now.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Thank you very

much, Representative Egolf, Members of the

Committee, and everyone who's gathered here

today. I wanted to sincerely thank the Members

of the Committee for coming to tour our NewCom

facility, which is located right behind the

hearing room right below us.

They will be looking next year to expand

their 911 facility into the new building which

was built for a dual purpose of the police,

right behind this wall and right behind Ralph

and myself, to move in to expand the services of

911.

Currently, NewCom represents an area of

about 107,000 people. They're looking to

expansion to roughly about 117,000, according to

the director during our tour yesterday.

During our tour, we got to meet several

of the dispatchers, took a good look at the

center. They do have good equipment, but we

need to upgrade it even further. There's a

definite need for upgrades, and we're looking

for consolidation.

As many of you know here in Allegheny

County with legislation that was passed

previously within the House and Senate, we had

over forty dispatch centers.

We're looking to consolidate those

dispatch centers and also looking - and I

notice we have representatives from Bell

Atlantic that just came in, Frank Buzydlowski.

We went over yesterday uth

representatives from Bell Atlantic on ways to

improve the numeric coding system when you would

call from an individual township, borough, or

municipality - not only here in Allegheny

County, but anywhere in the state - how to

improve getting the people out there.

For example, if you live in the northern

part of our district in an area of Hampton

Township, many people believe that they live in

Gibsonia. Of course, Gibsoma, as anybody that

would live around here would know, is a mail

postal code; and that creates a problem

sometimes when they call in. So we're looking

for Enhanced 911.

Again, I'd like to thank the Members of

the Committee. The Chairman, when he arrives,

will be going over the exact purpose of the

bill. And I'd like to, once again, thank all

the Members of the Committee and all of you for

being here today.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you,

Representative Habay. I guess we had on our

schedule remarks by Representative Civera and

we'll skip over that at this point.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: We'd like to have

at this time Tim Rogers, our township manager

who's done a excellent job here representing

Shaler Township, to make some opening remarks,

to welcome the Committee and all of you here

today.

MR. ROGERS: Thank you, Jeff. Good

morning, gentlemen. And on behalf of the Shaler

Township Board of Commissioners and the

residents of Shaler, we'd like to welcome you to

Shaler Township.

Thank you very much for bringing your

Committee here. We're particularly pleased that

Representative Habay brings a number of

important committees here to Shaler Township.

We're very proud of the work that he does in

Harrisburg. Congratulations on your $600

million surplus. My hand's out.

Very briefly, I would like to speak on

911 and just say congratulations to the State

Representatives and the State Senate and the

Governor for the leadership that they have

provided.

In Allegheny County, we still do not

have Enhanced 911 throughout the county; and

we're rather embarrassed about that. But

because of state legislation that's been in

place and because of the efforts by a number

you, we were able to form the largest dispatch

center in Allegheny County, which is NewCom.

We were consolidated before consolidated

became a buzzword. So we followed the state

guidelines as best we could. And there's been

some political arguments in Allegheny County,

but we're sticking to the direction we get from

the State; and we thank you for that leadership

and welcome you here today. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Thank you very

much, Tim.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much, Mr. Rogers. I appreciate those remarks.

So we'll have the first - we'll skip to

Mr. Wynne, who's here right now. We will be on

9:20, correct? We're almost on that time.

So if you'll come up to the right -- in

fact, if all the testifiers will come in over

here on our right, your left, and watch the

cords as you come by there.

We welcome you, Mr. Wynne. Mr. Wynne is

Director of the Pennsylvania Emergency

Management Agency, and I'll let you then start

and introduce others there with you. Thank you

for being here.

MR. WYNNE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman,

Members of the Committee. And on behalf of

Governor Ridge and Lieutenant Governor

Schweiker, I welcome this opportunity to discuss

our statewide 911 system and an opportunity to

improve this important program through

amendments of Act 78 of 1990 as proposed in

House Bill 911.

' With me today are John Comey (phonetic),

the Executive Assistant for Pennsylvania

Emergency Management Agency and Frank Wegis

(phonetic), who is the Chief of the Technical

Services Bureau for the Agency.

In view of the developments today with

Representative Civera, I'd like to submit our

written testimony and then that might assist the

Committee in managing its time a little better

later on today.

So if we could go then to questions,

that might be better for the Committee and

also assist the Committee in time management.

Thank you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Okay. So we'll

submit the testimony for the record and at this

point open up for questions for Mr. Wynne. We

start - okay. I have a couple questions here I

would like to ask you first, and then we'll go

around the panel here.

According to Act 78 regulation, the

county has to or is supposed to submit an annual

report on the plan's current calendar year.

What's done with these reports by your agency?

MR. WYNNE: Well, currently, we've just

been recovering from the six disasters; but

previous to the six-disaster year of 1996, we

had been using the reports as part of our

business to the counties.

In the year previous, we had visited 25

counties and we'd used the audit reports

to - as a basis of taking a look at the actual

centers and then asking questions that might

assist the 9-1-1 centers in the performance of

their duties.

On Thursday of this week, we have

scheduled a meeting with the PUC and the Office

of Budget to develop a format for these audits

for two reasons:

1), We needed additional information to

make our assistance better to the counties; and

2), The counties - since we have taken over the

responsibility from DCED in the legislative

change, the counties were looking for a little

bit of guidance.

What we're looking for in our

guidance - in our format for the audits is a

simple reporting form. We don't want to

increase the amount of work the counties already

do. I think there's probably too many reports

that go unread.

And so what we're looking for in this

type of format is a minimal effort by the part

of the counties and sufficient information to

assist us in evaluating how the program is

actually working and assist us in our visits

then to the counties.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Have you been

getting reports from a11 the counties?

MR. WYNNE: Generally, the counties have

been reporting; some of them have not. And in

a recent hearing with the General Assembly, it

indicated that all of the counties had not

submitted; some of the counties didn't know what

to submit.

We intend to rectify this with a

simplified format. We're not in - we're not

trying to reinvent audit standards, et cetera;

but we are trying to develop a format that would

assist not only ourselves but the counties.

We intend to develop that format in

conjunction with the counties. This isn't going

to be something that we dream up in a room and

then just ask the counties to comply. We will

be airing that format to the counties to

determine what their view is and how it might be

better - made better or less burdensome.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Is that - for

my clarification, the report and the audit are

the same thing? Or are they two different

things, the audit report and the -

MR. WYNNE: Well, there's an audit that

is required; but there was some discrepancy on

the part of the counties as to what they should

actually submit. And some felt that the Single

Audit Act might be sufficient.

But if you look at the Single Audit Act,

in many cases, particular functions may just be

a single line item across the page,

money in/money out, and it may not be tested in

the Single Audit Act.

What we're looking at is a format that

we can develop that will give us not only

financial information, but operational

information in a concise, compact report.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI : Representative,

if I may add to that, just for clarification,

there are two separate reporting requirements in

Act 78. There's a triennial audit submitted by

the county and there is an annual report

submitted to the agency on a performance

evaluation.

Now, we are looking at both of those

reporting requirements so that we can streamline

and mimmize the impact upon the county for

those reports.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you. ''ll

turn to other members for questions.

Representative Zug.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: Thank you. Chairman

Egolf. I have two questions. First deals with

the funds, the tab, the surcharges.

Currently - I guess, previously DCA audited.

DCA doesn't exist. The bill calls for the

Auditor General now to audit the funds that are

generated. Do you want to comment on that? Is

that a good idea? a bad idea?

MR. WYNNE: Well, I think the audit

function can be accomplished by PEMA. I admit

that in the last sixteen, eighteen months we've

been busy with disasters.

However, I think that if we work out

this format which will assist not only the

counties but also assist ourselves in what's

being looked at we would be in a much better

position to provide the Legislature with the

type of reporting that you require plus assist

the counties « the performance of their duties

on 9-1-1.

So we would recommend that the audit

function remain with PEMA, not be assigned to

the Auditor General. If there is going to be a

more formal audit requirement, then we would be

interested in either contracting out that audit

requirement and maybe possibly allowing the

Auditor General to compete, as well as others, in

the audit function process.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: Thank you. The

second question deals with licensure. This bill

doesn't deal with licensing a dispatcher. The

previous bill last session had dealt with

licensure.

My county MA director had a great deal

of problem with a statewide licensure. Are you

for a statewide licensing of these dispatchers

or are you more excited about letting the locals

do the training and figure out who's qualified

to do the dispatching?

HR. WYNNE: I think there are two basic

national organizations which have promoted

standards in the area. We think the standards

are adequate and we think that, however, that

local jurisdictions have the best ability to

determine what their needs are in terms of

training, et cetera; and we would, therefore, be

in favor of letting the counties determine their

training and licensure type requirements.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: Thank you,

Mr. Wynne. Mr. Chairman.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you.

Representative Habay?

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. No questions.

REPRESENTATIVE KAISER: No questions.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Representative

Tigue?

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: No questions.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Mr. Wynne, I

believe you appeared in front of the Legislative

Budget and Finance Committee, which I serve on;

and this report that was released on June the

30th had brought out some specifics and I was

the one to bring up the idea of a single audit

concept to the former county comptroller.

I think that the reporting period has to

be changed. I think that we should ask the

centers to go on an accrual basis under Gaffer

(phonetic), instead of a cash basis, which a lot

of counts do report, meaning that they're not

showing expenses that have accumulated that are

going to be payable in the next fiscal year. !

Under the single audit concept, I think

that your people also could possibly put

together what you would want audited and request

that from the county under the single audit

concept because each county - each of the 67

counties are required to go onto the single

audit concept.

And I think once your requirements are

shown that they can develop that package and

format it for the eentir estat iinstea oo making

it very irregular for aal lhe eountties

I think also that the report showed that

there's got to be more responsibility or

something defined between PEMA and the PUC, I

believe it was, that those things should be set.

And when we develop this new

legislation, I think the recommendations from

PEMA and the PUC should come from you to us to

integrate, whether it's in Mario's bill or

Terry's or mine or Joey's bill.

MR. WYNNE: I agree, Representative,

particularly with the first several points of

your presentation. That's what we intend to do

on Thursday is define all those things.

Itss very difficult to ask people to

report when we don't ask them - we don't tell

them what we'd like to see and then get upset

when people don't comply.

So, In other words, we're looking for

that simplified, single-audit-based kind of

thing. But the single audit in itself, in many

cases, doesn't show much. But if we

asked - you know, if we asked the auditors to

look at particular things that could be

reported -

REPRESENTATIVE PESO: I think also it's

imperative that each county show their

contribution rate under this formula that you'll

be developing and also their indirect cost rate,

which means that any paper flow or any decisions

made by county government, that those costs also

show through that report to give you a true and

accurate picture of what that center is

operating under.

MR. WYNNE: Yes, I agree because in many

cases most of the centers are incurring costs

beyond the contribution rate.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Correct.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Is that -

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: That's it.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Representative

Tigue.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Tim's remarks

just brought something to mind. When you talk

about the costs, one of the costs associated

with especially enhancement and even just

start-up costs regard local EMS people, fire

fighters, police; in other words, municipalities

in many cases.

Currently, they are very limited in what

they can receive from the surcharges. Has there

been any discussion from your end on broadening

what the monies can be used for?

MR. WYNNE: Yes, sir. Recently we had

an issue in which some of the counties expressed

interest in buying mobile digital display

equipment.

We had to, under the current law, write

back to them and say our legal counsel indicates

that this type of purchase, albeit good for the

system, was not authorized under the present

law.

What we would advocate is that outside

of the purchase of real estate and high-end

items like vehicles we would be in favor of

allowing the counties maximum discretion as to

what they could purchase in support of their

system.

You know, I'm not in favor of them

having to ask whether •»• is allowable. I think

the counties have demonstrated responsibility

and should be able to determine their own needs

the best way they can.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: So you would

support allowing the counties - or to give

ni.icipaliti.. money to make communications and

that compatible? Because that's the problem.

MR. WYNNE: Well, in terms of the

county, you know, the discretion would be with

the county in terms of the money collected under

the contribution rate. If the county chose to

buy mobile digital display equipment to assist

in the response, et cetera, that would be their

decision.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: And kind of a

similar thing as far as the - I guess the

decision making. Right now I understand

basically under the act it rrest with the

county where there's no board or commission or

anything, where there's representatives from

some of the emergency services or

municipalities who can sit down and have input

in how the county decisions are made.

And that's creating problems because we

can't have a system which is effective if a

municipality says, well, we don't have any say

in it. We're not going to update our equipment

because we have to spend money, so you're on

your own.

Is there any looking at that so that

there is a way that emergency service personnel

or groups and municipalities have a say in what

goes on in the county?

MR. WYNNE: Well, we would be in - I

know it's come up as an issue, upgrading an

advisory panel. We would not be in favor of

creating an additional advisory panel.

At present, there is the Pennsylvania

Emergency Management Council which has

representatives from a broad range of

organizations, including local governments and

the general public; and we would see the council

as the advisory method.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: But how - I

guess I was more interested in on a county level

rather than on your level, on the state level.

MR. WYNNE: Well, I think a local

council might be a way to engender an exchange

of information. Certainly, we've also met with

the two principal organizations, APCO and NENA;

and we will continue to do that as well.

We are really embarking on our county

visits as well. And I personally visited a

number of the 9-1-1 centers across the

Commonwealth, and there is a lot of information

exchange.

I know we've met with the County

Commissioners Association to discuss various

issues and we will continue to do that, but I

think the more appropriate way might be to do

the local councils and to use the PEMA Council

at the state level.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Thank you. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much. I would like to mention we have our

Minority Chairman, Representative Tom Michlovic,

is here with us; and if you have some questions

and remarks -

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: In your

oversight of the various centers, how much do

you encourage them to adopt the same kinds of

procedures in one center so that when a

catastrophe occurred in one area and they're

short of personnel and they're running - you

know, they're running eighteen- and twenty-hour

shifts that we can move personnel from across a

county or from a neighboring county in and they

could still operate within that system?

Is there any oversight? Is there any

encouragement to adopt a similar kind of

procedure, possibly even similar kinds of

technology so that we can develop a seamless web

here so that people in one area could work in

another?

MR. WYNNE: In terms of encouragement,

there definitely is encouragement. We have been

strong components of Mutual Aid in an era in

which we're cutting budgets and still requiring

high levels of service.

Mutual Aid is the concept that will not

only assist us in 9-1-1, but in other areas of

emergency management. So when I visit any 9-1-1

Emergency Management Center, that is what I

encourage.

Obviously, we're pushing as well to

implement the Incident Command System. This

interchangeabiey that you talk about is what

we really do need to foster. On the other hand,

I'm not going to attempt under the charter that

I have to mandate what the local jurisdiction

has decided to do that which is best for them.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: I didn't use

the word mandate. You diid

MR. WYNNE: That is my term.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: I'm wondering

whether you even suggest when you go to onn

county, okay, What's your neighboring county

doing? How are you - have you met with them?

How are you working with them? Have you asked

those kinds of questions to encourage that they

do that?

MR. WYNNE: Yes, is the answer.

Mutual - again, Mutual Aid is the wave of thh

future because independently we may not be eabl

to, particularly in a large disaster, be able to

meet the needs out of existing resources.

And the basic concept of Mutual Aid also

is that if Community "X" is having a major

disaster and Community "Y" is next door and

they're having a similar event, you're not going

to be able to get Mutual Aid from -TV

You have to look out to all sides to

enable you to get that. And if •»" cannot send

it, then you have to have a secondary fallback

position to take care of your own needs until

help does arrive.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: One more

question, Mr. Wynne. When we discussed this in

Harrisburg, I believe that we talked about trunk

lines were the responsibility of counties.

And since we have the deregulation of

telephone companies, I'd just like to make a

point that this Committee should consider since

the deregulation has occurred:

That any new phone company or any

competing phone company coming into a

district - for example, let's say a subsidiary

out of New York comes into the Pittsburgh region

and they're only interested in picking up, like,

a Allegheny/Lebanon Steel, whether it be in a

Natrona Heights, Tarentum, or Vandergrift that

employees -«" number of people - that the

company that does pick them up, meaning

Allegheny/Lebanon Steel or any big businesses

like that, I think they should be responsible

for furnishing the trunk line to the counties

because I think that the county should not have

to bear that expense.

The telephone companies that are out

there now that are already on-line that are in

my region, the county's already put those trunk

lines in.

So since there's been deregulation, I

think a lot of thought has to go into why should

the county bore the cost whenever a new phone

company tries to take on an Allegheny/Lebanon

Steel or an Alcoa or an Noburg (phonetic)

Manufacturing or a JVC and they're only after

the business portion and not the residents.

And I think that a lot of consideration

has to be given that those new companies that

are after those businesses should bear the

expense of those trunk lines.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you. And

if no more questions, thank you, Mr. Wynne, very

much for your testimony. It looks like we're

right about 20 minutes, right on schedule there.

And I see that Representative Civera has

arrived, if you would like to come up and talk

about your bill.

And again, Representative Civera is the

Prime Sponsor of House Bill 911. And before he

gets started, I'll just mention that we were

just told that we can have a break here later.

I know the stenographer's going to need

a break probably; but individuals, there is

coffee and there are coffee and donuts out in

the kitchen. Okay. Good morning.

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues. Members

of the Committee. I thank you for giving me

this opportunity to talk about House Bill 9-1-1,

which I introduced back in the last session in

1995.

I'd like to thank Chairman Hershey and

Members of the House Committee of Veteran

Affairs Emergency Preparedness for conducting

these important hearings. I would like to give

you some background on what I have learned about

the 9-1-1 Emergency Response System and how I

came to draft House Bill 9-1-1.

The 9-1-1 system, in general, came under

fire in November of 1994 when several teenagers

beat Eddie Polec to death with a baseball bat in

front of a church in Philadelphia. Over twenty

calls were placed to 9-1-1, and the questionable

response by some of the call takers made

national news.

As Chairman of the Legislative

fire fighters and Emergency Service Caucus, I

introduced last session House Bill 9-111 on

March the 22nd of 1995 in response to the Eddie

Polec tragedy.

That bill would have imposed

professional standards on all call takers and

dispatchers. As the Chairman of the

Professional Licensure Committee, I was able to

chair public hearings on the issue.

I learned two important things from

those hearings: 1), Licensure for dispatchers

on a statewide basis is not the answer; and 2),

There are a lot of other issues in 9-111 that

need to be addressed.

One of the problems in the Polec case

was that dispatchers were not given adequate

training. Several dispatchers were disciplined

and then reinstated. It was brought to light

that no two dispatchers involved in that matter

were given the same training.

Last session we learned that most

counties provide excellent training for their

dispatchers and call takers. Unfortunately,

Act 78 prohibits counties from using telephone

surcharge money for training. This must

change.

My legislation will make training an

eligible cost so that the counties can provide

proper training. Most counties provide way

more than forty hours required by the

Commonwealth.

I encourage more training, and I hope

that we can pass legislation to allow the

counties to pay for this important expenditure

from the surcharge revenues. I believe that

the consumers who pay these surcharges will be

better served and fully supportive of this use

of funds.

Dispatcher training is not the only

issue we found in the 9-1-1 system. In the

summer of 1995, another tragedy occurred in

Western Pennsylvania when a woman named Betty

Narduzzi called 9-1-1 seeking medical

assistance and the call went to a different

county.

When the emergency response team finally

arrived at her home over an hour an a half

later, she was dead. This tragedy occurred

because the two counties were both approved to

handle a local telephone exchange which crossed

county lines.

I believe that this could have been

avoided if the state and the counties took

simple precautions to ensure that cross-county

exchanges are identified and proper steps are

taken to ensure correct routing of such calls.

My legislation will require counties and

telephone companies to work together in

identifying these cross-county exchanges to

prevent this tragedy in the future.

When Act 78 was passed several years

ago, the State set up p aystem which aallwed

counties to collect a surcharge on telephone

lines throughout the Commonwealth. The

revenues from these surcharge funds exceeded

$80 million annually on a statewide basis.

Unfortunately, the Commonwealth did not

provide a proper mechanism for auditing these

funds. Initially, these funds were to be

audited by the Department of Community Affairs

on a triennial basis; however, no regulations

were ever promulgated to inform counties of how

to comply with this requirement.

Additionally, the Department of

Community Affairs was eliminated by the

legislation passed last session. Now PEMA has

the responsibility for overseeing these audits;

however, we still have not told the counties

how they are to provide documentation of

collections and expenditures of the surcharge

funds.

On June the 30th of 1997, the

Legislative Budget and Finance Committee issued

a report regarding the collection and

expenditures of the 9-1-1 surcharge money

throughout the Commonwealth.

This report indicated that we as a state

have been inadequate in providing

accountability for these revenues to our

citizens. My legislation seeks to address the

deficiency. I have drafted an amendment to Act

78 which will require auditing by the Office of

the Auditor General.

I believe that the citizens of our

Commonwealth deserve accountability and

assurances that their money, agam - and I

would like to stress that over $80 million

annually - is being utilized for the purpose

for which it was collected.

The State has also been inadequate in

overseeing the 9-1-1 system and the

coordination of the 9-1-1 system throughout the

Commonwealth.

The most tragic example of this

inadequacy came when the Commonwealth approved

one county to handle all the calls for a

specify local telephone exchange and then

several years later approved a different county

to handle that same exchange.

This lack of coordination and the lack

of oversight resulted in the tragedy which I

alluded to earner when a caller from one

county had her emergency request for a medical

assistant routed to another county.

As I stated earner, the emergency

response team did not arrive at her home for

over an hour and a half, which was too late;

and she had died waiting for their arrival.

i

My legislation will require counties to

resubmit their county plan every three years.

I believe this is a proper and necessary step

to assure the public that the 9-1-1 systems are

in compliance with the regulations which

articulate what a 9-1-1 system must establish

in order to be entitled to collect the

surcharge revenues from our citizens.

My legislation also gives PEMA the

authority to promulgate regulations regarding

the establishment of minimum training standards

for emergency dispatchers and call takers and

to establish standards for the Performance

Review and Quality Assurance Program.

I believe that the professionals at PEMA

who work with the emergency response providers

on a daily basis will be best suited to

promulgate such regulation.

Additionally, I've drafted into the

legislation a requirement that any and all such

regulations be processed through the

Independent Regulatory Review Commission.

The IRRC process will allow concerned

citizens and 9-1-1 providers to provide

important input to PEMA as regulations are

proposed and promulgated.

Finally, I would like to mention that my

legislation adds a provision that all 9-1-1

systems run by county and local governments

shall be considered local agencies for the

purpose of Title 42 the Judicial Code.

This provision will eliminate all

questions as whether or not 9-1-1 systems are

entitled to the same tort immunity that other

local government agencies enjoy.

My legal counsel has advised me that the

county and the local 9-1-1 systems are

currently covered under this immunity;

moreover, we are unaware of any state level

lawsuit which has been successful against a

9-1-1 system.

However, this language will clarify any

and all doubt which may exist regarding this

issue. Again, I thank you for allowing me to

testify; and I'll be glad to answer some

questions if the Committee has some.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Well, thank you

very much. We'll start with Representative

Michlovic.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. You've alluded to several tragic

incidents with regard to the persons who did not

get assistance immediately for one reason or

another and the implication being that that

system failed them because it was not properly

designed.

Last night, we had the opportunity in

this Committee to visit Bell Telephone

interfacing with the 911 system, if you will.

And they raised a number of very serious

questions about how we design that program. And

let me give you an example:

We allow people who are making the calls

to basically give us the address. When I say

us, the 911 system the address. And you would

think that's kind of an easy process.

But what we've found is in the millions

of people across the Commonwealth, that

sometimes those addresses refer to

historic kinds of settings in a little community

and do not really give an accurate description

of the location.

And as we merge and consolidate the

units to a county-wide level, that person sitting

in the dispatch area doesn't know those

historical or traditional kinds of names or

recognition and they're just giving what they

have in front of them, what comes up on a

computer screen, what's - what they have to the

units out in the field.

So I think it's not always the case, and

I think that all of us taking a look at this 911

system have to keep that in mind.

Representative Tigue at that meeting yesterday

raised the question of whether we ought to

establish those addresses by some more strict

standards.

Because by allowing people to go with,

well, I want my address to be on this street or

I want to enter at the back of my house and

that's not the address of the house, you send a

unit out and they're on the wrong street,

there's a one-way street, they have to maneuver

around to get there; that's a loss of time and

perhaps a loss of life.

There are other factors that I'm

pointing out that have to do with these

tragedies, and I think we need to take a serious

look at all of them.

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: If I may comment

on that, Bell Telephone has access to a lot more

addresses than - I mean, accurate lists,

computer lists, than what the counties do. And

I think what they do is they go according to the

billing address, and that's where we run

sometimes into a problem.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: No, they

don't. They go to a service address.

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: Well, the

service address. But there's been a problem

with some of the 9-1-1 centers that they have

complained that the phone companies are not

sharing some of these updated computer lists

that they have.

The other situation is when we adopted

9-1-1 in the Legislature - and I was

there - and we went into an enhanced

system - I'm not so sure, but it's a costly

situation to throw this out - is that the

counties rather than the townships can do the

adequate job.

Because if you take it - if you talk to

most of our police chiefs throughout the

Commonwealth and they would rather have it in

their borough and their municipality rather than

going to a county dispatch and that

county - that can goes in and they dispatch it

back, they're not familiar with the streets,

they're not familiar with the houses, they're

not - it's not a small town situation.

But to implement that type of a

situation, that would be the best scenario that

we ever could do. And if we gave it back to the

municipalities and took it away from the

counties, that would be the best; but the cost

of it - because the counties are fighting for

the money now.

They want to even - some of these 9-1-1

people - and I'm not criticizing them - but

they want to go on to tax another situation with

the cell phones and to bring that in - more

money into the counties because of updated

systems.

The counties complained that they're not

making enough on it; they're not getting enough

in return for this. And at the same time, the

federal government turns around, the FCC, and

they put a mandate on us that with the cell

phones and the way they're - with the 9-1-1

dispatch is that when you call from your cell

phone, I think in the next couple months - If

any of us have any experience with boats, they

have what they call a GPS mechanism.

And that GPS mechanism is what works

from a satellite. So when you call from that

cell phone, there's, like, three towers, okay,

that will come out of this satellite and they'll

pinpoint where that car is to dispatch back.

And in this FCC mandate that they're

sending down to the states and to the counties

is that the - it ssys ii triht ii nther the

cellular phone people are going to be able to

recover the costs to implement this type of a

system. And here now we go into something else.

But to get back to my original thing to

answer you as far aa ssme oo fhe eheee tragediie

that I've mentioned - but if you ever wanted to

really - and the Legislature was really serious

about it, but where does the money come from?

You can't take it aawy ffom the

municipalities. That would be the safest and

the best scenario going, but the cost of itt

When we were involved with 9-1-1 before, we

tried to do that. We couldn't do that.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Mario, I'm

not talking about the cost. I'm talking about

implementing at the time that takes into

consideration all of the factors involved here.

And some of those factors concern individuals

who for one reason or another want to use

information that is not -

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: I understand

what you're saying.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: ~ that is

not handled in the system very well.

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: It isn't.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: And we've got

to enact some arrangement. And one of the

possibilities is a GPS system or something like

that where you get precise, exact

longitudinal/latitudinal lines and say, this is

the spot where that call is emanating from.

And perhaps when we're redesigning this

system we ought to look at that.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much. A question over here?

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Yeah, I have one

question. On your second page, third - "I have

drafted an amendment to Act 78 which will

require triennial auditing by the Office of

Auditor General."

Mario, that's just asking them to do

that. That's not requiring them in any specific

form what to report. It's just telling the

Auditor General will audit them?

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Okay. That's

what I needed.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you. Over

here, Representative Habay.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Mario, the same

exact question - thank you for coming today,

Representative Civera. I hope directions were

all right for you. In terms of the amendments

to Act 78, that was going to be my exact

question.

I know that there are over $80 million

out there to be looked at. Have you had a

chance to talk with the Auditor General's Office

and gotten any response from them on this?

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: No, I have not.

I have not. To be honest with you, I haven't

made contact with them whatsoever. I just

thought that that would be the proper place to

have the audit performed. They're responsible.

and they have to answer to us in some form.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: I think it's a

good idea. Thank you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: First of alll

you've done a great job with this bill; and I

know you've been interested in these issues for

years. I support your bill and the provisions

within it.

One question I have: Everyone talks

about training. Has anyone ever looked at

training - and maybe I should have asked

Charlie Wynne this - that may be required of

PEMA personnel?

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: You mean we

would require training for tth eEMA people? Is

that what you mean?

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Yeah, so that

they would have some type of -

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: I think that's

not a bad idea. I think that, you know, in the

direction that this bill goes and now that we

put PEMA in responsible for tth e9-11 ssysem, I

think that the more training that we can have,

whether it would be with PEMA or whether it

would be with the counties, is adequate.

Not to criticize PEMA. PEMA, you know,

with Charlie Wynne - and I've worked along very

good with him with the Emergency Service

Caucus - but we've had problems with PEMA in

the past and, you know, there were certain

things that we had to straighten out that I'm

aware of.

And fire companies and all different

type of emergency services were not - PEMA was

not in their highest regard. That's come around

a lot, and thanks to Charlie Wynne.

And I hope it continues after Charlie

leaves, you know, whenever that ever happens;

but we have to be cautious of that and we have

to be careful because they're going to be the

people that are going to be involved with that.

And I agree with you, Representative,

that we should - that should be in there. I

didn't even think about that, to be honest with

you.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Thank you. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much. Representative Civera. I appreciate your

testimony and your bill.

REPRESENTATIVE CIVERA: Thank you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Moving right

along to keep us on time, we have next on the

schedule Representative Tim Pesci and

Representative Terry Van Home. They're

scheduled to testify.

And they're not on our Committee; but

since we're in their area and we've had several

incidents here, I guess, because of the 9-1-1

system, they had asked to testify. So they'll

be up next.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN HORNE: Good morning.

I'm Terry Van Home. I represent the 54th

Distnct in the Kiskimineta Valley. I want to

welcome the Members from outside of Southwestern

Pennsylvania here to Western Pennsylvania today.

I come to you as Democratic Chairman of

the Local Government Committee; but also along

with my colleague, Representative Pesci, who

will have some other remarks and Representative

Joe Petrarca, who came down here to represent

the Kiskimineta Valley.

I just want to tell you a few things of

interest on House Bill 9-1-1 and also House Bill

1152, which I have introduced. This issue's

been a top priority of mine for a few years now;

and it was heightened within the last couple of

years when we had not one, but we had two deaths

in the Allegheny/Kiskimineta Valley:

One that Representative Civera just

alluded to, a lady in Representative Fesci's

District, but the folks were dispatched to a

community in my district; and the second one was

Mr. Saladay, a resident of Allegheny Township.

There was a Melwood Road and a Melwood

Drive, and that created confusion; and, sadly,

Mr. Saladay also died before help had come. So

as a result of that, as Chapman of the

Southwest Democratic Caucus, I convened a public

hearing in Allegheny Township on January 10th,

1996.

And, in fact, some of the same people

you'll hear today were at that hearing. And it

resulted in over 160 pages of testimony. The

result of that hearing was House Bill 2944,

which I introduced in October of '96.

And Representative Pesci and

Representative Petrarca also introduced bills as

part of the three-bill package that we had. And

we introduced that package of bills, although

late in that session; we did it to give an

opportunity of all affected groups to provide

input, to provide recommendations, advice, tell

us what we liked, what we didn't like.

In fact, I see Brad Magill and others

here today who were very helpful through that

process. So this session, I reintroduced my

proposal, House BUl 1152; and I'm extremely

pleased that Representative Civera has

incorporated nearly all of my proposal in hii

House Bill 911.

And I'm pleased that Representative

Civera has attacked this issue in a nonpartisan

fashion in an effort to fix a system which needs

adjusted. And I've gladly signed on as a

cosponsor to House Bill 911.

But at this time, I'd like to provide a

little bit of analysis to show how House Bill

911 and House Bill 1152 both are similar and

both are different. And some of the

similarities between my proposal and

Representative dvera's are regarding training.

For instance, dispatchers are now

required to be trained for forty hours, but both

of our proposals recognize the need for studying

the possibility of requiring additional

training.

Secondly, both of our proposals

establish standards for data-based systems.

Currently, there is no standard for how data is

stored. And both proposals also require quality

assurance programs at all 9-1-1 centers.

Additionally, in communication in

another vein came up earlier today, but both

proposals also recognize the need to improve

communication among all officials involved in

the 911 system. Counties may, in fact, be able

to reduce expenses by sharing information with

state officials in other counties.

And in addition, both proposals

recognize the need to allow money collected by

9-1-1 to be used for developing a Master Street

Address Guide, MSAG. Currently, a county must

pay those expenses from other funds.

Some of the differences between

Representative Civera's proposal and mine

include that although both proposals recognize

communications needs between counties and the

state, my plan would specifically create the

position of 9-1-1 Director in the Pennsylvania

Emergency Management Agency.

This person will serve as an advocate

for all county 9-1-1 directors and would assist

in the sharing of information. Secondly, my

proposal would also reduce the amount of money

which telephone companies can retain for

adnunistrative costs.

This is subject to an analysis of actual

costs incurred by those telephone companies.

It's not our intention nor my mtention to deny

them a fair reimbursement.

My proposal would also eliminate the 60

percent cap which the county 9-1-1 directors may

use for salaries and benefits. Originally, this

was a great idea because the intent of this was

to make sure the counties would use that 40

percent of the other monies on equipment and

related costs.

Now that we are now, in fact, into

enhanced programs in some counties and other

counties have come on board, they are certainly

equipped; but they need more money now for

personnel.

According to testimony that our caucus

received, some counties, amazingly, are

purposely purchasing unnecessary equipment just

to spend the money. That money certainly would

be better used on personnel.

In addition, my money would allow 9-1-1

funds to be used for aa neducaton pprogrm

targeted to the general public. I was - I

think the whole group was not only shocked but

amazed at how uninformed, naive the general

public was about the 9-1-1 system.

We'd even had some folks testify they

weren't even sure which municipality they really

lived in. Was it a aowwnship LLne, were kkin

of indistinct, and that created a real problem.

Allegheny County has 130 municipalities.

When you get up into other portions of all oo

Pennsylvania, there are - I don't know how many

Washington Townships there are in Pennsylvania

or how many indistinct lines; but there are

certainly several of them. I think the public

needs to be better informed of the 9-1-1 system

and how it works.

Also - and the next two came

specifically from Westmoreland County and the

county commissioners I represent; and, in fact,

Dick Hunger will probably be testifying later.

But my proposal would also provide

immunity to those Good Samaritans who assist the

victim on the advice of a 9-1-1 dispatcher. And

secondly, Westmoreland County also is very

interested in the proposal that it would exempt

all 9-1-1 records and recordings, especially,

from the Right-to-Know Law.

They're a target of a couple of lawsuits

right now in Westmoreland County. And the

intent of my provision here is, frankly, to deny

access to tabloid type news agencies who use

this information to exploit victims for

financial gain.

Lastly, my proposal would also require

each municipality to notify the 9-1-1 center of

its preferred emergency response agencies. In

conclusion, I'd like to tell you that this

proposal certamly has come a long way in the

last couple of years.

I'm certainly pleased that your

Committee is holding the hearings on this issue.

I hope you act swiftly to address these

problems.

On a persons note, I'd like to commend

Frank Buzydlowski of Bell Atlantic for aal lhe

assistance he's provided to me, to

Representative Pesci, Representative Petrarca,

and for my staff on this issue and for aal lo

the help he's given us to come up with some of

proposals and provide a lot of information to

our staff.

At this time, I'd like to turn

everything over to Representative Tim Pesci.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Thank you, Terry.

What I'm about to give you in testimony is an

excerpt from the Legislative Budget and Finance

Report that was released on June 30th and

accepted by the Committee I do sit on.

The legislation that I have drafted

deals with, of course, the cellular aspect of

it. It's House Bill 1248. And I know there's a

lot of people out there that are not very

interested in putting a surcharge on cellular or

wireless communications.

But I think from the concept and the

idea that when we started back with that hearing

in Allegheny Township, that we did it, we had to

look to see where other funds could come from

and what kind of an effect does cellular and

wireless communications to 9-1-1 dispatch

centers cost?

As I go through this, I think that this

report proves and shows that, in effect, that we

should take some type of action. That's why

when Terry and I and Joey put the bills out last

year it gave everyone in the Legislature an idea

of where we were coming from.

And when we reintroduced, we were just

hoping that, in effect, that if you don't like the

way the legislation reads, I think in

conjunction with where we're coming from here

and PEMA and the PUC, that we would be able to

work together whether my bill is introduced as

a total bill or introduced as an amendment to

Mario's.

But just to go through this testimony

for the folks at hand, in 1996, the Federal

Communications Commission reported that 95

million 9-1-1 calls are made each year, or

260,000 every day, and that the cellular phone

users are placing an increasing number of these

calls.

The PUC, however, does not regulate

wireless communications carriers, and cellular

phone users do not pay a 9-1-1 surcharge.

According the Cellular Telleommunications

Industry Association, virtually all 9-1-1

cellular carriers provide the connections

necessary for basic 9-1-1 service.

The CTIA also reports that in '94 almost

eighteen million wireless calls were made to

9-1-1 and other public service numbers. The

number of such calls is growing rapidly, spurred

by the rapid growth in cellular subscribers.

As of the end of 1996, Pennsylvania had

an estimated 1.5 lllion wireless subscribers.

The number of cellular phones is expected to

continue to ri pecially with the continued

increase of the broadband personal communication

system and in part because of the availability

of 9-1-1 service.

A survey by one wireless communication

company found that 62 percent of cellular users

cited safety and security as their main reason

for purchasing a mobile phone; however, wireless

carriers currently provide access only to the

basic 9-1-1 service, not the advanced features

of the Enhanced 9-1-1.

The FCC notes that the mobile nature of

wireless technology creates complexities for

providing even basic 9-1-1 service. For

example, a wireless 9-1-1 caller may not be a

subscriber of a wireless provider with coverage

in the area and, therefore, 9-1-1 calls may be

blocked.

Also there may be technical reasons such

as the use of different protocols that may lead

to blocked 9-1-1 calls. The comments we

received from several county 9-1-1 service

coordinators indicate that cellular phones users

are causing significant problems for local 9-1-1

systems.

Concerns expressed by these coordinators

include: One county reported that cellular

phones, which are responsible for 20 to 25

percent of their 9-1-1 calls, take more time to

process and cause additional cost to the county

in large part because of difficulty in

determining the caller's location.

Federal regulations require that

cellular phones have the capability to allow

9-1-1 systems to be able to automatically

identify the phone number and location of the

9-111 caller.

This Is a difficult technical problem

for cellular calls, and there is no provision

regarding who is to pay for such system

enhancements. Cellular phone users do not pay a

9-111 charge even though they generate

significant additional costs.

One accident on a major traffic artery

can generate over 100 cellular calls to 9-1-1.

This results in an increased need for 991-1

staff and trunk lines to handle the increased

number of calls.

In late May of 1997, the Legislative

Budget and Finance Committee staff attended a

meeting of 9-111 coordinators designed to

identify and prioritize 9-111 issues and

concerns, especially those warranting

legislative attention.

The No. 1 and No. 2 priority out of the

sixteen identified related to wireless

communications. Specifically, the two important

concerns were the need to impose 991-1

communications surcharge on wireless services

and the difficulties in providing 9-111 service

to wireless communications subscribers.

The PUC, however, does not have the

authority to regulate wireless communication

carriers and therefore cannot require that such

carriers or their customers pay the 991-1

surcharge.

In the early 1980s, the PUC did regulate

two cellular communication carriers; however,

Act 1984-241 specifically excluded the PUC from

regulation of providers of domestic cellular

mobile radio telecommunications service.

Regulation of cellular companies, therefore, was

effectively left to the FCC.

Act 1990-78 does not, I repeat, does not

require the cellular mobile radio

telecommunications industry to support 991-1

services in Pennsylvania. Consequently,

wireless communications companies do not collect

9-111 surcharges from their customers.

House Bill 1248, introduced in the 1997

legislative session, would require wireless

telephone users to pay a fee similar to wire

phone lines to help subsidize their local 991-1

system.

The bill also requires wireless

communication companies to provide access to the

County 9-1-1 System. Attached you'll see

Appendix D, which is taken out of the 911

Coordinators' Conference and Fact Sheet that was

released on June 30th, 1997, and adopted by the

Legislative Budget and Finance Committee. Thank

you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Representative

Zug.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: Actually, I have

one question for Representative Pesci. I have a

car phone. It's a Harrisburg phone number. The

service area is fifteen counties. Most of my

calls are in Lebanon County. How would you

assess a service fee? 74 cents, $1.50 a month,

whatever the fee would be, where would it go?

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: The example I

gave was - I do have a phone in my truck. I am

billed out of Cellular One out of Butler County,

but my bill comes to my home address.

So if your home address is in Armstrong

County, which I live, that's where the money

would go. So, therefore, wherever your home

address is as a State Representative, for

example, or the individual himself, that's where

that money should go.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: So if it was a

business, it would go - if I worked for US

Steel in downtown Pittsburgh -

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: And you lived

where?

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: - and I lived in

Butler County and US Steel has 100,000 cellular

phones, would that be the billing address, you

know, going to the company? Would Pittsburgh

then get it or would it go to -

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: It would be the

residence m which the person lives.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: So if I had a

company phone, it would still go to my - to the

employee's residence?

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: Interesting.

Mr. Van Home, some of the problems you said

were caused out here by one street being in two

counties and not knowing where the emergency

funds go, that happens in my area. I have a

Bethel Township, Lebanon County; Bethel

Township, Berks County. They're together. They

have one phone exchange.

The bill that Mario had introduced

talked about updating the records frequently to

solve the problem of where somebody goes, the

emergency responder. Do you think that solves

the problems that have happened out here, the

unfortunate deaths?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN HORNE: I think it

helps solve the problem and I think

Representative Civera's provisions plus our

provisions also with the Master Street Address

Guide complement and also supplement each other

and that goes an awful long way to clearing up

that problem.

I think, in fact, now in RReresentative

Pesci's home county of Armstrong the

commissioners themselves undertook an

implementation of an MSAG or are doing it right

now.

Very, very expensive; very, very

onerous; very, very time consuming. I mean, it

involves aerial views of the entire county and

things like that. There are provisions in

there, I think, to free up some dollars to make

it a little easier for some of our counties to

do that.

But, in fact, Representative Zug, both

of those put together could help. The specific

incident - Tim represents Leechburg in

Armstrong County; I represent West Leechburg in

Westmoreland County.

Both communities have a 5th Avenue. And,

unfortunately, sharing the telephone exchange,

the State Police and dispatchers or emergency

folks were dispatched to 5th Avenue in West

Leechburg when, in fact, they should have been

in the Leechburg Borough in Armstrong County.

And the other incident was Melwood Road;

Melwood Drive in Allegheny Township. And what

they've done now, the township supervisors have

changed the name of one of the streets. And so

they've done some simple things; but in the

broad context, we need to do it on a much more

sophisticated level.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Okay. Thank

you. Any questions?

REPRESENTATIVE KAISER: Just a couple

comments. I think it's really good that you're

exempting all the audio recordings and related

records of 9-111 because I really believe there

are certain people out in the media that would

try to make money on someone's hardship.

But I did want to just comment, the

first job I had when I graduated from college in

the early '70's was the City of Pittsburgh; and

I worked at their communications system. And at

that time - I must have taken thousands and

thousands of calls.

And at that time, you would get the call

and you would put it on a little card and there

would be an address and underneath there, a

description of the emergency; and they had two

different cards.

A green card was a red ball, which means

the police or ambulance get there right away;

and the white card was something that wasn't

that major. But one of the things that I found

about the training was - I started with a young

man there. I'll never forget this.

He was a real nice man; but the city

hired him, and he couldn't read. I have never

saw anything like that. He could not spell.

And the training aspect of this is very, very

important.

Also what I found out is people could

not spell the name of their home where they

lived at. If they lived on a simple street,

they could tell you, you know, the name; but

they couldn't spell it.

Many times you have people that are

visiting someone and you asked them their

address - you know, they might be visiting a

friend's or relative, the relative gets sick,

they'd call for help, and they couldn't tell you

where they were at, the street number.

It was - I saw some real tragic

incidents that really - as a young man, really

made me pay attention. And just what

Representative Zug said, I have one major

highway that starts in the city - the

Liberty - actually, I'd say it starts at the

Liberty Tubes; but it actually extends beyond

that and goes all the ways out to Westmoreland

County.

And when I grew up in the city, that was

called Saw mill Run Boulevard. No one m the

city referred to it as Route 51. When you went

out to the suburbs, it was called Clairton

Boulevard. And then when you went out to

Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, everyone there called

it Route 51.

So that's - I know exactly what you're

talking about because it's the same road, all

the people travel on it, but there's an

automobile accident, people didn't know what,

you know, they said Saw Mill Run. And if thh

accident happened out in the suburbs, the

dispatcher didn't know where it was at.

So this legislation is something that we

really need, and I hope we can get it passed

before the session ends.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN HORNE: Thank you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much. Representative Michlovic has some

remarks.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Thank you,

Mr. Chairman. Terry, you indicate that your

bill will provide for latitudinal and

longitudinal fixation of locations?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN HORNE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Okay. I

think that's an important part of this thing.

And now with the technological capability to do

it through satellite through, you know, advanced

monitoring systems, we can tell where we are on

some little location on Mars, we can certainly

do it on tins planet. Perhaps we ought to

incorporate that.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN HORNE: One of the

things we found - and Tim can speak for the

cellular both on this and as well as - by the

way, Representative Petrarka's bill is House

Bill 1127.

He went - he's been trying to work with

the local telephone exchange companies to

provide the customer's service address on the

bill rather than the billing address. And Joe's

not here to address that; but at some point, he

could probably give you some information.

One of the problems we've all found is

what you just talked about is that technology's

exploding every day. You don't know what even

to call one of these things. You put something

into black and white and something new comes on

board and it just goes crazy here. So we're

very sensitive to what you've said.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Tim, I'm a

little confused. You mentioned in your

testimony about there may technical or different

protocols that may need to block 9-1-1 calls.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: That's in a

Legislative Budget Finance Report that gives you

a real clarification. To jump back to Pete's

suggestion on where the money should go, there

has been talk about all that money from cellular

go to the state; And you know what happens when

we get a hold of it. It just doesn't get back

to the proper areas that I think it should get

back into those areas where that person is

physically located.

But what I can do is talk to Derjan

(phonetic) to make sure that this entire

Committee has this report. I think you should

really read it and take a good look at it

because they've already gone through a lot oo

different sessions with different people to get

this information and -

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: You're not

addressing the point of my question. I'm trying

to get at the blocked 9-1-1 calls. If I hit

star 9-1-1 or whatever feature on my cellular

number, there's a possibility that I may not be

able -

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Absolutely.

That's already happened to me. Tried outside my

cellular district.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Well, in

making a 9-1-1 call?

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: No. Making a

regular call, but it would be the same as trying

to explain your star 9-1-1.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: So you're

saying that in that instance that the technology

just - I mean, you're out of the service area

or something like that?

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Correct.

Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Well, I

understand that; but there's no protocol or

function in the 9-1-1 - in the cellular

systems that are blocking these, are there?

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Not that I know

of.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: All right.

Thank you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Just one

question on the cost: You said the technology's

there for triangulation to get the Enhanced

9-1-1 for the cellular at this point. Do you

have any idea what the cost would be? Would

that fall in under the surcharge that's now put

on the regular phones?

If that same amount were put on the cell

phones, would that cover the Implementation of

the -

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: I don't know that

for a fact. I understand, according to the

testimony that I heard on June the 30th in

Harrisburg, was that the FCC will practically

demand on cellular users to have some sort of a

guidance system that they will be able to be

located by the year 2000 wherever they're at.

So therefore if a person's on a back

road, that that person, they'll be able to find

that person, like, tracking.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: But right now,

we don't know what -

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Have no idea.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Too much in the

future, I guess. Thank you very much. I

appreciate your -

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: One point,

Mr. Chairman. The Act 241, I remember when we

were voting on it I was thmkmg it was a bad

idea exempting the cell phone from deregulation.

We could go back and limit that and just take

out the 9-1-1 and allow the PUC to regulate the

9-1-1 of that, could we not, in your judgment?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN HORNE: I think so.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI : I would check

with legal staff. I wouldn't see why you

couldn't.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: So we could

go back and review that act and perhaps -

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Amend that act.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Yeah,

accommodate some of these problems -

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: - because, I

mean, the 9-1-1 - the cellular phones help a

lot in an emergency because they're on the spot

and they can pinpoint problems and details and

whatnot. But on the other hand, they do, as you

pointed out, generate a lot of volume and they

ought to be incorporated in the pricing system.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: As I indicated to

yo,, Tom, my bill, whether it goes by itself or

whether it's an amendment or such as your idea

of using an alternative to go back and amend the

PUC block exemption, then maybe we can go that

route and not worry about trying to get a bill

through two houses - through the House and the

Senate.

And people are going to be a little

upset with what I proposed. I know that, but I

think it's necessary. I think that the

counties - if you look at the counties and look

at the costs that they're incurring

currently plus putting in their own -- being

responsible for trunk lines and handling the

calls and the staffing.

But just like, for example, on 28 if you

had a major accident up there or on the

turnpike, you automatically have maybe fifty

calls going into 9-1-1.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Tim, I don't

think you ought to be defensive about this.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: No, I know. I

know.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: The other

side of the coin is somebody's paying for that

service. And it's the other residential phone

users and business phones that are paying for

that 9-1-1 call to come from a cell phone.

Why shouldn't the cell phone user pay

that cost? The rest of us are picking it up.

So don't feel as though that's a controversial

issue. To me, it's controversial that we

exclude them. It's the other way around.

REPRESENTATIVE PESCI: I'm in the House

too.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: All right.

Thank you very much. We have - Mr. Doug Hill

is next, Executive Director of the County

Commissioner's Association. Is he here? I

guess not.

Also, I remind everyone here there is

coffee and donuts out here in the kitchen. And

also I think that they're trying to get the air

conditioner a little bit cranked up here a

little bit.

We'll skip on to Dr. Ronald Roth,

Department of Emergency Medicine. And while

he's getting ready to testify, I'll just remind

our Members we are a little bit behind; so try

to keep it moving along here and keep your

questions as brief as possible.

DR. ROTH: Good morning. My name is Ron

Roth. I'm an Assistant Professor of Emergency

Medicine at the University of Pittsburgh Medical

Center. I also serve as Medical Director for

the Pittsburgh 9-111 Center, and I also work

with several emergency operation centers

throughout Allegheny County and in surrounding

counties.

This morning, I would like to address a

few issues that are contained in House Bill

911 and several that should be considered. Over

the past twenty years, the nation has worked to

educate the public to call 9-1-1 in an

emergency.

In addition, considerable time, money,

and energy has been put into educating people

about 9-1-1. Sadly, today there are forces at

work attempting to reverse twenty years of

progress. A generation of Americans has been

taught to call 9-1-1 in an emergency, but not

anymore.

The role of 9-1-1 is to provide a

universal number to quickly access help in an

emergency. In many medical emergencies, time

saved directly relates to lives saved.

The American Heart Association

identifies early recognition and access as the

first link in the chain of survival; however,

several managed care providers in this state

have created road blocks to public access to

9-1-1.

In fact, their literature instructs

subscribers not to call 9-1-1 in an emergency,

even in life-threatening emergencies. For

example, in literature sent to subscribers of

one local HMO provider, parents are instructed

to call their physician if their child turns

blue, if their child cannot be awoken after a

head injury, is unconscious, or is having

trouble breathing.

Precious life-saving minutes go by as a

hysterical parent in crisis attempts to find

the proper seven-digit number to call their

family physician. At best, the physician will

be reached in several minutes and he or she

will tell the family member to call 9-1-1. At

worst, there is a delay of hours and the child

suffers.

In an emergency, every managed care

subscriber must have the right to call 9-1-1

without the threat of being denied

reimbursement when his or her case is

retrospectively reviewed.

Several states have drafted legislation

protecting citizens' rights to call 9-1-1 when

they feel they have a medical emergency. The

Pennsylvania Legislature should consider

similar action.

Across the state, one managed care

organization supplied pamphlets with an

alternative seven-digit number for ambulance

service. The goal of this organization was to

purposely bypass 9-1-1 centers and EMS

providers.

These pamphlets included refrigerator

magnets and phone stickers. This was a poor

and dangerous message to send to their

subscribers. As managed care providers attempt

to manipulate the system, citizens' access to

9-1-1 will be at risk.

Switching locally, Allegheny County has

the dubious honor of being one of the last

major populated areas to be without 9-1-1.

Driving across Allegheny County, a citizen

witnessing an accident would have to first

identify what jurisdiction they were in and

then dial the correct seven-digit number.

Umversal 9-1-1 is just so much easier

and so much more efficient. The 9-1-1 service

in Pennsylvania must be seamless. And we heard

this brought up before; that is, anyone in

Pennsylvania, anywhere, must be able to dial

9-1-1 in an emergency and interact with a

skilled call taker and ultimately receive the

appropriate emergency response in a timely

fashion.

The 9-1-1 center is an important

component of an EMS system. Emergency medical

care begins when someone dials 9-1-1, not when

the EMT or paramedics arrive. All call

answering points handling medical calls to the

state must provide emergency medical

dispatching instructions.

The call takers and dispatchers

responsible for handling EMS calls must be

trained in an approved emergency medical

dispatch training program. This training

should be required by the state.

In addition, legislation should be

provided to provide immunity to centers who

provide emergency medical dispatch instructions

in good faith.

Emergency medical dispatching includes

prioritization of calls and prearrival

instructions. Prioritization of calls assures

that the right people with the right equipment

are sent at the right time.

Life saving prearrival instructions

allow the call taker to provide life saving

instructions on procedures such as CPR,

bleeding, choking, and childbirth.

Prearrival instructions are safe and

effective and are the standard of care across

the nation. Failing to provide prearrival

instructions, m my opinion, is malpractice.

Just as you would not go to a physician

who did not go to medical school, you should

not allow an untrained person to answer the

phone at a 9-1-1 center.

The role of the telecommunications

officer has changed over the past ten years.

Telecommunications is a science with a defined

knowledge base. Call takers and dispatchers

must be properly trained and credential.

Although not perfect, the Department of

Transportation National Standard Emergency

Medical Dispatch Curriculum exists and provides

a good framework for organization and training.

Finally, each center must have a

credible quality improvement process. This

process must be responsive to the needs and

requests of the local citizens and of emergency

care providers.

The quality improvement program should

be flexible and adaptable for each center's

needs. There will be some common issues to all

centers, however. The quality improvement

process must be fair and based on improving the

overall system.

The process should be proactive and

ongoing and not just a mechanism for responding

to complaints. All parties must be comfortable

using the quality improvement system and

confident that the system will bring about

change where change is required.

In summary, House Bill 9-1-1 is the

first step in recognizing the importance of our

9-1-1 centers and the dedicated individuals who

process calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,

365 days a year. I thank you for allowing me

to present to this Committee.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much. Let me just remind all the Members again,

please keep your remarks and questions as brief

as possible so we can get back on time. But

we'll start over here, any questions?

Representative Michlovic.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Yeah.

Dr. Roth, I appreciate your concern and I share

your concern about the HMO's practices. I think

they certainly are questionable. There have

been lawsuits generated.

I mean, they put this practice in

writing; and it really goes counter to, you

know, standard operating procedures in

emergencies. It seems to me they're very

vulnerable legally. Has that been tested?

DR. ROTH: There have been some

lawsuits. I think we're just on the tip of the

iceberg and that this will be a popular area for

lawsuits.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: Not that that

ought to be the remedy, but it is a part of the

remedy. My second point is, last night we had

the opportunity to talk to the dispatchers here

at the NewCom Center; and they talked of their

experiences in emergencies and expressed

concerns about the lack of public participation

in resisting temptation to call 9-1-1 for

everything.

As an example, when there's a windstorm,

when the lights go out, when the electricity

goes down, their calls are - jump enormously.

And the number one question they get is, When's

my electricity coming back on? And that is noo

an emergency.

As one of the Members on the Committee

pointed out, they ought to be told, you know,

there ought to be a button hit and a little

recording, We know who you are and we're going

to charge you for ttha call because yoo know

it's not an emergency and you are interfering

with the emergency system that may threaten

somebody else's life.

Those kinds of calls interfere with real

medical problems, and that's a problem too. I

think we need to be careful not to be so broad

in our protection of a citizen's right to call

9-1-1 that we hurt other citizens who are trying

to get medical help in an emergency.

And so I think we have to be careful in

our protection of them. You see what I'm

getting at?

DR. ROTH: Right. I think across the

country in federal legislation - somebody

called It the Prudent Layperson Law. And I

think if legislation's based on that, if a

prudent layperson believes that they have an

emergency, that's an appropriate reason to call

9-1-1.

I think your example's pretty clear-cut.

I think you need to be careful if a little old

lady calls up and says, I've fallen out of bed;

to some people, that may not be a emergency and

they push the button.

On the other hand, the little old lady

may be having a heart attack and/or stroke.

There are certainly black and white, but -

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: I understand

this is full of gray areas. I appreciate it.

Thank you for your testimony.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Questions?

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Just one quick

question: Doctor, in your testimony you mention

several states that have drafted legislation.

Do you know if any have adopted it?

DR. ROTH: That I don't know. I know

Georgia and New Jersey have - I've seen

legislation on paper; but I'm not sure how far

it's gone.

J

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: If you would, if

there are other states other than Georgia and

New Jersey, would you see if you can get to the

Committee the information regarding those other

states?

DR. ROTH: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Thank you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Okay. Any other

remarks?

(No audible response.)

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much.

(At which time, a brief break was

taken.)

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: All right.

We'll get underway. I'd just like to ask if

Doug Hill - has Doug Hill arrived? If not,

skip down to Richard Hunger. Is he not here

either?

Then we'll skip on down to 11:00. We'll

be a little bit ahead. Brad Magill, Allegheny

County 9-1-1 Coordinator here?

MR. MAGILL: Good morning.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Good morning.

Okay, Mr. Magill, we have several members who

are still on break. You can go ahead and get

started, if you like.

MR. MAGILL: I'd just like to state for

the record that I agree with everything that

Dr. Roth said prior to me. We have some real

concerns in that arena.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman

and Members of the Committee on Veteran's

Affairs and Emergency Preparedness, for giving

me this opportunity to speak on House Bill

9-1-1. My name is Brad Magill. I am currently

the 9-1-1 Coordinator for Allegheny County, a

position which I have held for the past ten

months.

Prior to accepting the Allegheny County

position, I was the Butler County 9-1-1

Coordinator for over sixteen years. I hold an

Associate Degree in Fire Science from the

Community College of Allegheny County and a

Bachelor's Degree in Human Resource Management

from Geneva College.

I am certified as an Emergency Number

Professional, one of five in Pennsylvania and

one of only 98 nationwide. I am a past

Pennsylvania Chapter President of APCO and a

past Pennsylvania Vice President of the National

Emergency Number Association.

I currently serve on the National

Resource Committee for the National Emergency

Number Association nationwide. I also hold an

advanced EMA Coordinator Certification from the

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency.

Let me start off by saying I

wholeheartedly support the changes that House

Bill 9-1-1 currently offers. Standards must be

set for database issues, quality assurance, and

training. I applaud the change that allows

training costs to be supported by the surcharge,

but more legislation is needed.

I have spent my entire adult life

working in emergency services. Over those

years, I could relate many calls where 9-1-1 has

made a difference. Lives have been saved and

criminals have been arrested that would not have

been otherwise had 9-1-1 not been in existence.

Keep in mind I come from a county who's

had 9-1-1 since 1969; however, I would like to

say here publicly that 9-1-1 will not save all

lives, prevent all disastrous fires, or catch

all criminals.

9-111 is not a magic cure-all for

emergencies. Unfortunately, as a society that

likes to place blame, it seems it is always

9-1-1's fault when somebody dies. Everyone must

understand that 9-111 service is one piece of

the public safety system.

Other pieces of that system include

fire, police, and EMS responders; the

municipalities that issue addresses and street

names; the telephone companies that provide the

computer data; and yes, even the legislature

that passes the regulations to assure proper

emergency care.

All of these agencies must work together

to assure a proper public safety system. If any

of these agencies are uncooperative or try to

put their own best interests above those of the

public, the system will fail.

Unfortunately, it seems that the only

calls that ever get our attention are the calls

that go wrong. Yes, even 9-111 PSAP employees

make mistakes. All 9-111 employees strive for

100 percent error-free dispatching.

Do we accomplish that? Obviously, not.

Is it humanly possible to be 100 percent

fail-safe all of the time? Unfortunately, it ii

not. Any honest person will admit that 99

percent accuracy is a great goal but is rarely

achieved in any industry.

As we are just beginning to implement

9-1-1 in Allegheny County, I would like to use

some statistics from my former employer, Butler

County. Call takers there answer over 4500

9-1-1 calls each month.

If they achieved 99.5 percent accuracy,

they would still make over 23 mistakes per

month. The best any 9-1-1 manager can hope to

do is try to make sure those 23 mistakes are not

life threatening.

If I as a 9-1-1 coordinator only had to

worry about my piece of the system and could be

satisfied that the other pieces of the system

would be cooperative and well run, my job would

be easy.

Unfortunately, that is not the case.

Time limitations here prevent me from

reiterating all of my concerns about

participating agencies, but one group I would

like to focus on today is the telephone

companies.

As a 9-1-1 coordinator, I must depend

heavily on their database and networks; however,

I have no authority over these systems. Most of

the Allegheny County municipalities reviewed

their street addresses and made necessary

changes to eliminate rural delivery addr

duplicates, et cetera; but the telephone company

records still have many inaccuracies.

As you may know, the telephone companies

have three address databases for each customer.

They have the billing address, which is often a

post office box and/or a fictional postal

community; they have a directory address, which

the customer can invent on his own; and then

they have the service address, which is supposed

to be the physical location of the telephone,

including house number, street name, and

township or borough name.

The service address record is the one

that is supposed to display when a customer

dials 9-1-1. The Allegheny County database

still has over 20,000 errors; unfortunately, the

customer never sees what address the telephone

companies show as the service address.

Customers see their billing address on

the monthly bill; the customer sees the listed

address in the telephone directory, if they have

a listed number; but nowhere is the service

address prated so the customer can verify that

that is their correct address.

To improve this situation, the 9-1-1

coordinators have asked the telephone companies

to print the service address on the customer

bills. Virtually every utility bill I get for

my residence - and I get them all - has a

service address printed somewhere on the bill,

except the telephone bill.

If the service address were printed on

the bill, the customer might notice any errors

and notify the telephone company to correct it.

I know this would not fix every error; but it

would fix some, thereby improving the accuracy

of the 9-1-1 database.

If 10 percent of the customers in

Allegheny County noticed an error, 2000 records

would be corrected. The telephone industry has

refused to cooperate with this suggestion.

And I know Buzz is here somewhere. I'm

not poking on Buzz personally, but he wrote the

article. In a response to this proposal, Frank

P. Buzydlowski, Director of Legislative Matters

for Bell Atlantic states, "Adding the service

address to the monthly telephone bill does not

speak to the heart of the problem, that some

addresses are incorrect in the 9-1-1 database."

My response to him is, "What is his

solution to improvmg the telephone company

records"? m a later paragraph, he further

states, "Addressing is a county function."

My reply, "This is absolutely not true.

It is a municipal function over which the county

has no say." Furthermore, the municipalities'

address records have been sent to the telephone

companies. Only the telephone company can match

the telephone numbers to the address.

To put it another way, if you pointed to

a building anywhere in Allegheny County, I can

give you the proper address for that building;

however, if you give me a telephone number and

ask me where that telephone is installed, I

cannot tell you.

Only the telephone company knows to

which building that telephone line goes. But if

someone dials 9-1-1 and the wrong address

displays on the computer, 9-1-1 gets blamed.

There is no way 9-1-1 should be held responsible

in that situation.

If the wrong address was assigned to

that property, it would be the municipality's

fault. If the telephone number was assigned to

the wrong address, the telephone company would

be at fault.

Buzz further states, "If the extract

process or the error correction process is not

working properly, Bell Atlantic needs to correct

the database reconciliation process."

My response, It's not working, and Bell

has offered no alternative solution. My

solution is to print the service address on the

customer bills. If Bell has a better idea, I

would like to hear it.

Under Act 78 of 1990, the telephone

companies have no liability for errors in the

9-1-1 database. When an erroneous address

causes the ambulance to be sent to the wrong

address, it will be 9-1-1, not the telephone

company, that gets the blame.

I would ask that the Legislature do

whatever it can to pressure the telephone

companies to improve its customer database. I

think requiring the service address on the

customer bills will help.

I am, however, open to other

suggestions. Let's talk about wireless 9-1-1

calls. In all Pennsylvania counties, the 9-1-1

surcharge never fully funds the cost of

operating 9-1-1.

In every case, at least some county or

city general fund dollars rounds off thh

financial support. This is true for those

counties that assess the maximum fee as well as

those counties that have chosen to assess a fee

lower than the maximum allowed.

To the best of my knowledge, those

counties that are not charging the full amount

have chosen to do so not because they couldn't

justify the use of the funds, but because they

chose not to burden the telephone subscribers

with higher rates.

Up until now, the funds collected have

served their intended purpose. Almost all

counties in Pennsylvania now have 9-1-1 or are

in the process of implementing it.

Unfortunately, changes in technology

have put a burden on 9-1-1 systems that was not

anticipated in the enabling legislation. In

1990, less than 3 percent of 9-1-1 calls were

placed from cellular phones. Today, that number

is reaching 20 percent in some areas and is

expected to surpass 50 percent over the next ten

years.

Cellular or wireless 9-1-1 calls are

much more difficult for PSAPs to handle simply

because, unlike hard wired telephones, the

caller's address does not display at the PSAP.

In addition, wireless callers are less

likely to know their location and are less

willing to provide the necessary information.

For example, when wireless users come upon a

traffic accident, they all want to dial 9-1-1.

Then when the 9-1-1 call taker asks,

Are there any injuries? The callers often say,

Oh, I don't know. I didn't stop. Now the call

taker does not know whether to send an ambulance

or not.

In the meantime, on a busy highway,

dozens of wireless users overload the PSAP to

report the same accident often giving the call

taker the same poor information.

This overload alone is dangerous to the

PSAP, to say nothing of poor information

received. I would just like to mention there

was talk here about public education. We need

to tell cell phone owners - and I'm sure there

are many of them in this room - that if you

don't know where you're at and you're not

willing to stop and see if anybody's hurt, don't

bother to call because somebody who is willing

to help will.

The good news is that the FCC has ruled

that wireless telephone providers must provide

the location of the wireless caller to the PSAP

by the year 2002. The bad news is that the

technology needed to provide the location is

very expensive. This is a cost most counties

cannot afford.

In addition, it seems ridiculous

that the telephones that cause the additional

workload and, in the future, the need for

additional equipment, are not assessed the

surcharge fee.

Today, the wireless telephones are used

in addition to the hard wired telephones.

However, the telephone industry advises me that

in the future wireless telephones will begin

replacing the current hard wired telephones,

further reducing the amount of money collected

by the counties.

I urge the Legislature to authorize the

surcharge be assessed on the wireless bills and

to have the money sent directly to each county

as the hard wired telephone companies are

required to do today.

It is my understanding that many of the

wireless providers are agreeable to having the

fee a d to their customers; however, they

want the funds to be sent to the Commonwealth

for distribution.

Without going into all the reasons why

the counties would not be in favor of having the

Commonwealth distribute the funds, one main fear

I have is that the wireless companies may want

to use these funds to pay for the equipment they

will need to comply with the FCC ruling.

If it is setting in one fund in

Harrisburg, they may find a political way of

using it for their own costs. As you know, the

original act was very careful to prohibit the

funds from being used to purchase equipment

needed by the telephone companies.

I hope the Legislature will see to it

that the wireless companies have the same

restrictions. The equipment required by the FCC

is simply the cost of their doing business.

They must find a way to fund this equipment

without tapping the 9-111 surcharge fund.

Time does not permit me to discuss all

the issues that face 9-111 PSAPs in the

Commonwealth today. Obviously, we need to take

small steps toward solving the problems

associated with 9-1-1.

The proposed House Bill 9-111 covers a

few of the issues, but I would encourage the

Members to consider one or more of the issues I

have discussed today to further improve 991-1

service in Pennsylvania. Thank you for your

consideration. I'll be glad to answer

questions.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much, and we'll start this side this time.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN HORNE: Thanks for

coming.

MR. MAGILL: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: You

mentioned in your testimony that the Allegheny

County database still has over 20,000 errors.

How do you know that?

MR. MA6ILL: We know that because the

phone company takes our MSAG, as discussed

earlier by Representative Van Home, the Master

Street Address Guide, they take a list of all

the roads and streets in Allegheny County and

they run that against all of their customer

records.

All of the ones that do not fit into

a - into the MSAG fall out. There are

currently 20,000 of those. Now I admit that

some of those are still the municipalitys

and/or the county's responsibility, and we're

working with Bell Telephone to correct that.

The problem is that I know that there

are addresses in that database that have fallen

out as having matched but they're assigned to

the wrong telephone number. I know that because

I witnessed it in my previous employment and

I've witnessed it here in Allegheny County.

The phone company has the wrong

addresses assigned to some phone numbers, and

matching the MSAG against their customer records

will never fix that problem. Ann dhat number is

higher than either you or I want to admit.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: What do you

match it against to find that?

MR. MAGILL: The only way they're going

to know that is to either have somebody sit down

and physically attempt to visit every one of

500,000 phone lines in Allegheny County or wait

until they dial 9-1-1 and realize that the

number is processing the wrong address.

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: You don't

need 500,000; you need 20,000.

MR. MAGILL: No. My point is that we

don't know - we know that there are 20,000

errors that don't match the MSAG. I'm telling

you that there may be as high as another 5 or 8

percent that are matching the MSAG but are

assigned to the wrong phone number.

And that's why - it won't solve all our

problems; but if it was on the customer bill,

somebody might look at their bill and say, hey,

I don't live in Edgewood Borough. I live in

Wilkinsburg.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: The cellular phone,

the fee, we talked about it earlier with

Representative Pesci. You don't want the

Commonwealth to collect it and distribute it;

you want the counties to get it directly. How

do you, again, do you think that we ought to

assign where the money goes?

MR. MAGILL: That needs some more

discussion; there's no doubt about that.

Obviously, it would be great if we could send

the money to each county where the carrier of

that telephone lives.

I'm not sure that's possible. And for

that reason, I know that the City of Pittsburgh

and the City of Philadelphia may get a higher

percentage of these funds, but I don't see any

other way to do it.

And, you know, again, one of the

representatives here stated what happens to the

money when Harrisburg gets a hold of it. We're a

little concerned about that; although, I would

rather that happen than not have it collected at

all. Have it go to one pot as long as there was

a way to make sure that it was divided up

properly.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: But you're saying

that it probably should go to the billing

address

MR. MAGILL: Yes. I think that's

probably the only way that the cell phone

companies could provide it. If there's a

different way. obviously, it would be better

to - first, let's collect it.

Secondly, let's try to send it to the

counties. If that won't work, let's send it to

the Commonwealth and see that it's distribuute

properly; but please don't let them get their

hands back on it to put in their infrastructure.

REPRESENTATIVE ZUG: Thank you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Anything?

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Thank you very

much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for coming out

today. I appreciate you taking time out of your

schedule.

I just wanted to say that in speaking to

the director, who's in the back, Brian

Melbee - if Brian could please stand, I wanted

to recognize you here, Director of NewCom here;

and also Lorraine Kelly. I believe she was

standing in the doorway. She may have - she's

back to work. She's earning her pay here today.

But one of the facts that they brought

up are the automatic dialing alarms, a

phenomenon that's been happening in our

district.

Let's say if you have a storm, a major

storm and they keep calling here in droves; for

example, if somebody goes on vacation, they

could call for two weeks over and over and over

again.

Has that been a real problem for you as

it has been for Shaler NewCom? What sort of

ideas do you think might be able to help us from

blocking the lines?

MR. MAGILL: I sat in the back of the

room for the last hour and a half, and I've

heard you all ask many good questions; and I

could speak for fifteen minutes on each one of

those questions. And this one I could also

speak on for fifteen minutes.

I do not believe that the public should

be providing a service; that is, the government

should be providing a service that you can pick

up the telephone book and open up the yellow

pages and find it in the back of the book.

And today, you can open the yellow pages

up in Allegheny County and find dozens of

private providers that provide alarm taking

answering points.

The alarm taking answering points can

verify that the alarm is actual, exists, et

cetera, and then notify the PSAP to respond to *

the appropriate responders.

Now as you know, in Allegheny County

we're trying to take a hands-off approach from

the county and help the six regional PSAPs do

their own thing. So we're not going to tell

them that they can't have those calls come

directly to the 9-1-1 center.

I would recommend that they don't; but

if they prefer to do that, that's fine. At

least they can generate some income to them.

But I believe that those calls should first go

to some agency, private enterprise, that can

verify the alarm, call Grandma back, and make

sure she's fallen out of bed or whatever those

kinds of problems are, and then have the

alarm dispatched.

We're all looking for more ways to tax

our residents without calling it a tax. In

California, one local PSAP out there put a 900

number in; and every time the alarm called

900 number, they get charged $25. Well, you

know, that's creative thinking. Maybe that's

another solution.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Thank you very

much. That's all my questions, Mr. Chairman.

ACTING CHAIRMAN E60LF: Thank you.

Representative Tigue.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Mr. Magill, thank

you for coming this morning. I agree with you

on a lot of things you said about correcting the

addresses and that, but let me ask you

something:

Putting the telephone companies aside,

what is the county or municipalities doing to

correct the errors that they know?

MR. MAGILL: Well, we are working with

the telephone companies to correct the errors

that we know exist; but again, the county has no

authority to name streets and change addresses.

Only the municipalities have that authority.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: That's not what

I'm asking. I mean, if I know that

there's - if I look at your bill and I know

that the phone company has a problem and even if

they put it on, as you said, maybe 10, 20

percent will correct that, why can't you just

correct that?

MR. MAGILL: We tried. We have to call

the telephone company to get it corrected.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Okay. But that's

not what your response was. No, I'm not talking

about calling the phone company. I'm talking

about why can't you just make the correction

yourself or a municipality or something so that

you know - it doesn't matter what you

have - it goes into your database and you

can - can't you provide them with information

for your database?

MR. MAGILL: Sure, we do.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: On one hand,

you're saymg you don't; the other hand, you're

saying you do. You're saying -

MR. MAGILL: Now I'm confused.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: They run the

MASG, right?

MR. MAGILL: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: And they get a

mismatch?

MR. MAGILL: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: So now let's say

there's 20,000 of them -

MR. MAGILL: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: - and we do what

you want. So now we put the service address on

the bills. And out of the 20,000 mistakes,

let's say 5,000 respond and they correct them.

Now you know that there's 15,000 mistakes.

MR. MAGILL: That's right. And we still

have to work diligently to try to correct those.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: What are you

doing to correct that?

MR. MAGILL: Send it back to the

municipalities. Sometimes they go knock on the

door.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: But is that being

done now?

MR. MAGILL: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: But then I don't

understand why there's still 20,000 if ii's

being done.

MR. MAGILL: Because - well, for a

couple reasons: First of all, Allegheny County

was starting from scratch. They originally had

over a 70 percent error rate. Now it's down to

about 5 or 10 percent. So we've made progress

and we are making progress.

The database will never be 100 percent,

however. And the one reason it will not be is

because oftentin.es when we send a correction to

the telephone company for them to correct their

database, they don't do it or they do it ii

error.

My colleague John Roundtree is sitting

in the back. He's the Director of the

Pittsburgh City 9-1-1 Center, and he has sent

them the address correction for two or three

months at a time and it never gets corrected.

Or - the other issue that's important

to understand is that I know that telephone

companies, like 9-1-1 people, make mistakes.

Every day in Allegheny County it's estimated

that about 400 telephones move.

So every day there are 400 opportunities

for somebody to make a mistake in the database

again, and so this is not just a one-time

process but a continuing process.

One example that the City of Pittsburgh

had: A lady has lived in the City of Pittsburgh

all her life. She has dialed 9-1-1 numerous

times over the past several years because her

husband was an invalid and sick.

Every time she dialed 9-1-1, her call

went to the Pittsburgh City 9-1-1 Center as

it was supposed to. Then one day she dialed

9-1-1 again and her call was routed out of the

city to a local PSAP out in the county.

When the phone company was asked to look

into that, which they did do, they came back and

said, oh, she changed her phone number. She

didn't change her address. She didn't move.

She just changed her phone number.

And her address got changed in the

database and was sent to the wrong PSAP. Now,

again, mistakes happen; I understand that. But

give us some chance here to have the citizen

look at it and say, hey, they've screwed this

up.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Oh, I agree with

that. I mean, that's not the question. The

question is, What are you doing? I understand

what we want them to do.

MR. MAGILL: We are sending that data

back to the municipalities and they are going up

and knocking on the door. We're not allowed to

call the residents. Even though we have their

phone number, the phone company doesn't allow us

to call a resident because that's a violation of

the Privacy Act.

So people have to go door to door, knock

on doors, find people at home, et cetera,- and

it's a very laborious process.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Two other

comments: One is, In your testimony on page 4,

you start by - you talk about the wireless

calls. In every case, at least some county or

city general fund dollars rounds out the

financial support. The surcharge never fully

funds the cost of operating 9-1-1.

I don't know where you received that

information, but that's in contradiction to what

the Legislative Budget and Finance Report says.

The Legislative Budget and Finance

Report that Representative Pesci provided with

us today says 22 of the 47 systems showed a

deficit. But then it says only 9 provide other

funds. And of the 38 systems reporting, there

was a year-end surplus; four had deficits and

five had zero balances.

So out of 47, four had deficits. The

rest of them had surpluses. And six systems had

year-end fund balances that were more than twice

the reported expenditures.

MR. MAGILL: Yeah. Here today, I

couldn't answer those specifically not seeing

those numbers. But you have to understand that

if a county put into the plan - like Allegheny

County, for example, in their original plan,

they only put in that they were only going to

buy telephone equipment.

That's all they put in was to buy

telephone equipment, not pay dispatchers, not do

anything else that they could do under the fund.

So if all they were going to do was buy a

telephone system, they would have been fat with

money.

So the plan that's submitted to

Harrisburg, the so-called 9-1-1 plan, may or may

not actually have all of the expenses that are

incurred by a county to operate a 9-1-1 system.

So if they've only narrowly, you know,

submitted a plan to spend that money, then that

money may be, in fact, a surplus; but, in fact, the

county general funds are paying the dispatchers

and doing all those other things.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: And they don't

have to?

MR. MAGILL: They don't have to. Well,

In some ways they do. You know, not everything

is allowed to be spent for out of that fund.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: I understand

that. But most of it, especially on the county

level, i.. On the municipality level is where

the problems are as far as expending money for

equipment. And that's for -

MR. MAGILL: To some extent that's true

if they have to change radio frequencies, et

cetera.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: But I mean, I

think the Legislative Budget and Finance and

maybe this Committee, they have to take a closer

look at what's going on with the surcharges.

There are counties that have been

receiving maximum surcharges for more than a

couple of years who are not even up yet. You

can't dial 9-1-1 although you've been paying for

it, so I think there has to be more looked into

that.

MR. MAGILL: I don't disagree with that

at all. I believe that there's probably some

figures out there that need to be reviewed.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: One other

question - or one other comment. What you said

about informing cellular phone users, Don't

call. I vehemently disagree with that. That is

the worst thing to do.

The second worst thing is for them not

to stop. What's even worse than not stopping is

to leave someone there and not notify anybody.

So I would ask not to do that. Don't tell

people don't call if you're not going to stop.

Even if they're not going to stop, you

know, there's no - I don't have any sympathy

for anybody who doesn't do that; but at least if

they call, we know that someone's not abandoned.

MR. MAGILL: Then you're going to have

to help us get more money because they're

overloading the 9-1-1 system.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Well, I'm not

sure that they're overloading the system. I'm

not sure how often that happens when somebody

calls from 9-1-1 and leaves someone stranded.

But - that's bad enough to do; but the only

worst thing is to have them stranded and not

notify anybody.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: I have a

question for you. On the - right now as the

law is, Act 78, you cannot use any of the

surcharge for training?

MR. MAGILL: That's right.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Under the terms

of the proposed bill, you could?

MR. MAGILL: That's right.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: And we also

increased it from 60 percent to 70 percent to

use for all personnel.

MR. MAGILL: That's not in this draft

though, is it?

MR. 0'LEARY: Yes, it Iss

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: You know, do you

know approximately what the costs are now just

for training? And is it adequate - well, go

ahead.

MR. MAGILL: That varies significantly,

but it could be as high as several thousand

dollars per employee. It depends on whether

they do the minimum required under the law, the

40 hours, or do what most counties and cities

do, far greater than that.

1 have a little different view on that,

however. I think training is very important and

is very necessary. But as private industry has

determined, you can train people for one month

out of every twelve-month period; but unless you

do a quality assurance program, you don't know

whether or not they're doing what you trained

them to do.

So while I agree that training is

important, this legislation and that offered by

Representative Van Home talks about a quality

assurance program. And I think using the money

to assure that the dispatchers are doing what

they've been taught is equally important.

But to answer your question, I would

say - and maybe Mr. Roundtree here in the

room can be more specific here - but I'd say

several thousand dollars per dispatcher.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Do you know that

or do you have a feel for whether this new

proposal then would allow you to go up to 70

percent personnel costs, would that cover your

dispatcher training?

MR. MAGILL: It may. In some counties,

it will. Again, most counties that are using

the money only for specific portions of it, ii

may very well. Those counties that are using as

much of the funds as they can collect to operate

every facet of it, it probably won't make much

difference. Without the influx of the cellular

money, they're going to be pretty strapped.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: That brings

another question. If you had the cellular money

coming in and you want it to go to the counties,

how would you do that?

MR. MAGILL: Again, that would be up to,

I don't know - you know, it could be used

several ways. It could be left just the way the

law is written now to be able to be used for

everything that the wired pots are eligible for.

You could specifically gear it toward

improving the equipment that is needed to

receive the location of the cell phone caller.

I mean, there are several avenues you could do.

Obviously, I prefer less regulation. I

would say just put it in and let the county

determine within the current guidelines how they

want to do it.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: So it would fall

under the current or the guidelines as the rest

of the surcharge is?

MR. MAGILL: Yes. Yes, sir. That's

probably the easiest way because you'll

have - you know, there are 67 counties and

you'll have 67 different ways, answers, as to

how the money should be spent, I'm sure.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you. I

guess there are no other questions.

MR. MAGILL: Thank you very much.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Mr. Hunger has

not arrived. All right. We have - Rick Flinn

was scheduled next, who is not here; but we

understand Mr. Roundtree from the City of

Pittsburgh 9-1-1 Center is here, if you would

care to come forth. Do you have copies of your

testimony?

MR. ROUNDTREE: No, I don't. I'm sorry.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity to

speak to you today. My name is John Roundtree,

and I'm the Chief of Communications for the City

of Pittsburgh Department of Public Safety.

One of my primary responsibilities is

the management of the City's 9-1-1 Center. As

an aside, we're not a county. We are the

largest consolidated 9-111 Center in the

Commonwealth, however, answering about a half a

million calls a year.

As a11 of you are aware, the budgetary

constraints under which cities and counties must

operate do not - should not compromise the

9-1-1 operations; however, since 1992, the

City's been collecting monies as a result of Act

78.

To date, this amounts to about $12

million. None of this money has come from

persons with cellular, now termed wireless,

telephones. The wireless industry has, to date,

about 49 million subscribers in the United

States - one for every five people.

At present at the city center, we

receive about 6 percent of our one-half million

9-1-1 calls from wireless providers or about

30,000 calls annually.

Keeping in mind that at present we

cannot identify the telephone number nor the

location of the caller, many times these calls

are more labor intensive, time consuming, more

false calls than those from wire line providers.

As the wireless towers cannot accurately

route the call to the appropriate 9-1-1 Center,

many times we have to extensively interview the

caller, determining their exact location, then

forward the call to the proper center.

Obviously, this is time consuming and is

hazardous in many instances.

All of the above costs the City money.

As the budget for the 9-1-1 center in the city

is approximately $3.5 million per year, the cost

to manage cellular calls is well over $200,000

per year and rising annually.

We estimate that by the year 2000 we

will be receiving a minimum of 15 to 20 percent

of all our calls from wireless callers. The

CTIA has promulgated a position paper which,

among other items, requires that the monies

generated from any wireless user fee be used

only for enhancements at their facilities and

for items at the PSAPs directly related to

handling wireless calls.

This excludes many other costs such as

salary, computer-aided dispatch, radio

infrastructure, et cetera, that are instrumental

in maintaining the state-of-the-art operations.

There is no doubt that the wireless

industry will use the upgrades in technology

that this money will bring for other uses such

as automatic vehicle location for fleet

management, system status management for courier

businesses, et cetera.

As it stands, public safety would be

underwriting the cost of these innovations if

this were an industry growing at $5 billion per

year. In addition to the limitations on the use

of the monies, CTIA's insisting that the monies

be centralized in one pool with a board deciding

the distribution of the funds.

This again is not within the original

intent of the Act, which provides the money

directly to the county. When this matter was

discussed, a lobbyist for the wireless industry

indicated that this was necessary as the only

items that 9-1-1 directors spend monies on are,

I quote, T-shirts, beer mugs, and ambulances.

I would like to think that we are

somewhat more responsible than that in managing

our monies. I would ask that the Legislature

move as expediently as possible to enact the

application of the 9-1-1 user fee on the access

lines associated with each wireless user in the

same fashion as those for wire line.

The wireless industry has used the

matter of personal safety in selling cellular

telephones since their infancy. It is time that

they participate in supporting the

infrastructure of the public safely realm.

Should no monies forthcoming from

wireless subscribers, I cannot envision how

9-111 centers can find themselves to be in a

financial position to commit to the installation

of hardware and ALL These phones with have to

remain outside the NES environment. Thank you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN E60LF: Thank you.

Questions?

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Thank you very

much, Mr. Roundtree, for coming out today. This

is something that Representative Tigue had

actually brought up to me, and I think this

might be the appropriate place to ask.

In case somebody calls the Pittsburgh

Poison Control Center - and all of us were

trained since little children in our area to

look at the Mr. Yuck sticker that's on the

bottle here when you drink something dangerous.

What would happen, let's say, if

somebody called the Pittsburgh Poison Control

Center? Would that slow down the response time?

Would that be - you probably deal with that a

little bit more than we do in the suburbs here.

MR. ROUNDTREE: We do. And we have an

excellent relationship with Poison Control and

Dr. Roth and the Director of the Poison Center.

And our people meet on a regular basis; and we

develop a protocol whereas if an individual

initially calls Poison Control, they will

conference that individual with our 9-1-1

people.

And in the inverse, if they call us at

9-1-1 and our personnel there believe it's a

scenario that warrants intervention by Poison

Control, we will actually conference that person

to Poison Control. And at that time, the

decision is made whether or not EMS will

respond.

If there's any question, then we

immediately dispatch the paramedic unit while

we're conferring with the Poison Control Center.

That does not happen with great frequency.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Thank you very

much.

MR. ROUNDTREE: If I may add one other

thing that Brad had made mention of with the

MSAG, one thing I think it's important to keep

in mind when we're talking about this

information that's carried by the MSAG, realize

that it is continuously changing.

And even though there may be good

information one day, as Brad indicated, it

could - it could change. So as those 400 or so

addresses are changing every day, what we're

fighting is almost a losing battle where if we

make it to 98 or 99 percent accuracy, the

telephone company receiving information from the

new subscribers constantly, although

inadvertently, corrupts that information.

So it's almost a losing battle. And

unless we can do everything we possibly can,

adding the location to the phone bill and

anything else we can possibly do, including

public education, we are going to have

situations where calls are misrouted.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Questions?

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: On the changes,

Mr. Magill I think mentioned earlier that you

would submit - you submit a list of changes or

corrections if you will, to Bell, right?

MR. ROUNDTREE: But realize that occurs

after the fact. That occurs when someone calls

9-1-1.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: I understand

that. But what happens - he had mentioned

that - and I'll let you answer rather than

him - but you submit a correction list to Bell?

MR. ROUNDTREE: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: How do you know

that they update it?

MR. ROUNDTREE: They have a process by

which we complete a form; we send that to Bell.

And now what they have done is when that

correction is made throughout their system, they

return that same form to us indicating that it

is corrected.

Within the last six months, we've had

the ability to actually access Bell's database

directly and verify that. Up until that time,

we could not; so we did not know whether or not

that had occurred.

The problem is there are so many

variables that can change that information.

It's a very difficult process to get through.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Have they been

making the changes which you have submitted?

MR. ROUNDTREE: Since that's been done.

yes. Prior to that, we know there ..s instances

where that has not happened.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Can you make

changes to their database?

MR. ROUNDTREE: No, we cannot.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Thank you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much. Next testifier - I guess nobody else has

arrived that was scheduled earlier. Brings us

up to our last one, Frank Buzydlowski, who we've

heard his name mentioned a number of times here.

Good morning.

MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: Good morning,

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My

name is Frank Buzydlowski. I'm Director of

Government Relations for Bell Atlantic.

My background has been I'm with Bell

Atlantic for nineteen years, and the last four

of which, Director of State Government

Relations.

I have Debra Palmier!, who is our 9-1-1

Sendce Manager for Western Pennsylvania. And

we do not have written testimony, but rather I

would like to thank you for the opportunity to

speak on behalf of Bell Atlantic and to answer

some of the questions and comments that have

come up previously.

It's not the first time that we have

heard some of it. The fundamental situation, as

Mr. lugill stated pretty accurately, is that in

the telephone situation there are three

addresses in our databases.

But even more fundamental than that is

that none of the three addresses when they were

formulated, when the billing address, the listed

address and the service address came to be,

contemplated the existence of 9-1-1.

9-1-1 is a system, and it's a tremendous

system that came into being. And it utilizes to

the best that we can and the best that the

emergency service providers and the 9-1-1

directors such as Mr. Magill and Mr. Roundtree

can utilize those databases in which to

determine how to route calls.

And so that the call made by the

subscriber dialog 9-1-1 goes to the right

place and so that the information when a

customer has - when the customer, the county in

this case, has Enhanced 9-1-1 will provide the

address information so that in the event that a

person cannot speak or cannot accurately convey

his or her location, that information comes up

on the screen before the emergency call taker.

Unfortunately, these addresses, as I

said, did not contemplate a 9-1-1 environment.

So what we're working with in working with the

counties with our other customers to make the

databases as accurate as possible so that we can

utilize to - with the objective of 100 percent

accuracy to properly read calls and properly

dispatch.

Very briefly, when one looks at an

account and we look at a telephone number, Frank

Buzydlowski, 215-677-0607, I have a listed

address that's in the telephone book: 1025

Bingham Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; I

have a billing address, and that's how the

telephone company sends me by bill, 1025 Bingham

Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and I have

a service address: 1025 Bingham Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

It works. There's no problem. The call

routes to the right place, it's not complicated,

and we don't have a situation that some of which

we've heard about.

But If a customer lives outside -- and

that is the only place in Pennsylvania, the City

of Philadelphia - lives outside the City of

Philadelphia, every place else we have no

relationship whatsoever between the exchange

boundary and municipal boundaries.

Just as House districts, Senate

districts, Congressional districts, zip codes

and exchanges don't match one another, telephone

exchanges don't match any political boundaries.

So we are dependent upon a customer when

we negotiate an order with that person to give

us a proper address. So if a person - and

these are real examples but without using the

names - moves into a location -- in this case,

it's Bucks County, Pennsylvania - and they have

a 9-1-1 system and they call the 800 number to

Bell Atlantic and we say, What is your address,

and a person said, 6542 Logan Square in New

Hope; we take that as the address.

Well, as it so happens, New Hope,

Pennsylvania, is a township; but it is also a

post office. This person thought that he or she

lived in New Hope because New Hope was the

address that they have that people mail a letter

to them, that we would send our bill to and It

would get there. That's the address they wanted

listed in the telephone directory.

But for the purposes of 9-1-1, we need a

township; and that person didn't know that he or

she lived in Solebury Township. And it just so

happens that that's another municipality that

has a different police force and it has a

different volunteer fire company and has to be

indicated differently in our database.

And we had no way of knowing that until,

as Mr. Magill described the process, it fell

out, so to speak, when we did the reconciliation

of our database with the County of Bucks'

database. And then we corrected it, and then

the call would be properly dispatched.

We go through this statewide. And in

Allegheny County is no different, although,

somewhat more complicated because of more

municipalities. But we do it every day. And

there is an awful lot oo work that we dd owit

the counties to try to make sure that the

database is accurate.

When we talk about accuracies, it'' a

rather dramatic picture we're given of 20,000

errors in Allegheny County. The number of

20,000 errors was mentioned earlier, and it's a

rather dramatic figure.

But we must admit that although these

come out as errors in the database, so many of

them are errors that are format; in other words,

they are not substantive. It's not like the

example - and I have one here - where the

person is living in Vandergrift and the dispatch

goes to the next town in the next county.

But most of the errors are as follows:

Blair Heights, we abbreviate heights, HTS; and

the information comes back spelled out

H-E-I-G-H-T-S. So we have hundreds and hundreds

of, quote, errors where we just have to correct

the format. And it sounds like a simple thing,

but that's all it iss

Saint Clair, do we spell out saint or is

it abbreviated ST? These are error sheets that

come from our people who do this every day who

recti.fy our databases - or in the case of

Allegheny are building our database.

Van Kirk Street. Is there a space

between Van and Kirk? And these are real

errors, hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of

errors, pages and pages that come out that it's

just a matter of changing the format and making

sure that we and the county are both on the same

wave length, so to speak, or using the same

format.

And that even goes to areas where a

street, everybody knows it's West Sunflower

Street; but the "W" is not in there. These are

the types of things that happen, and they go to

giving a dramatic sounding number of 20,000.

The substantive things that we come out

with - and, again, it's an error - a listed

address with no service address at Fox Chapel

Estates. That doesn't help us a lot. That

comes out as an error that needs to be

addressed.

And we have to address this a group of

people. And there's actually 60 full-time Bell

Atlantic employees in this process, 43 of whom

are in Greensburg. And their full-time job is

to make sure that the database is error free and

the database gets - improves every day.

And, yes, it's true that there are those

substantive errors that need to be fixed that

come from a process by which a person calls

9-1-1 and gets to the wrong place; and then,

yes, our customer, the county, will then fill out

a form, fax it to us in Greensburg, and they

will fix iit

And unfortunately, there are times where

this actually has resulted in a substantive and

serious situation. And this is another - this

a real story, which is more recent than the

Westmoreland/Armstrong incident that we've heard

about previously.

A 9-1-1 call is made from a telephone.

I won't give the telephone number, but 215-679

exchange. 215-679 serves the following parts of

the following counties: Berks, Montgomery,

Lehigh, and Bucks.

So we already have four counties in the

same exchange; and I don't know how many

municipalities, but, obviously, municipalities in

each of the counties.

The call was routed, according to our

database, to Berks County. 9:35 a.m. - it was

a couple months ago - an ambulance was en route

in 5 minutes and arrived in 7 minutes.

They went to an address that came up in

the database of 965 Gravel Pike, East

Greenville, Pennsylvania, which is in Berks

County; and no one at that address was having a

heart attack.

The listed address was 965 Gravel Pike,

East Greenville. The service address was 965

Gravel Pike. The billing address was 965 Gravel

Pike. And that is a legitimate address in Berks

County.

Unfortunately, the restaurant at which

location the person was having a heart attack

was in Montgomery County at 747 Gravel Pike,

Upper Hanover Township.

We didn't get this information out of

thin air. We got it from the customer. And the

people in Berks County didn't know and couldn't

have had any way of knowing that this was an

incident occurring in Montgomery county.

And it was several minutes later before

they realized that they were in the wrong PSAP,

Public Safety Answering Point, and it was

redispatched.

The information such as that in that

instance will come back to us from the county on

a form that says, This is wrong. It's coded

wrong.

We also have proactive Information where

we go through every day. The 60 people that I

mentioned - well, 43 in Greensburg - will go

through the information and try to ascertain

what is the proper location, whafs the proper

address, whafs the proper township.

And to the credit of the counties, and

especially Allegheny working with its

municipalities, they are numbering in areas.

And as my counterpart from - Tom Tigue pointed

out, there were so many areas with just RDs and

there wasn't any service address; so there was

nothing there that existed to put on the bill.

It had to be created.

And so we had information where a place

in Hempfield, Westmoreland County, they

renumbered No. 79 Wendell Hermeny Road; and it''

now No. 349. That was done in order to make it

accurate and logical for the system, and we make

the change.

And these are things that we do on an

everyday basis. And not to say that we are

perfect, because we're not. We've worked with

the counties, and there's a great deal of

frustration at times because it's ss

complicated.

Which just brings me back to my first

statement which is my conclusion, is that we are

trying to reconcile databases that were not

really meant for the purpose of a 9-111 system;

but we're doing that to the best that we can,

working with the counties to the best that we

can so that we can utilize that information.

And the only way to do it is the hard

way, which is what we're doing right now:

Account by account, street by street until we

get it right.

And quite frankly, I think the answer is

that it'll never be 100 percent because there

will always be churn in the system. Those 400

moves, that's just Allegheny County. That

happens constantly. Every day we're out and

we're making changes, and there's always going

to be things that have to be adjusted in the

system.

We do our best to do that, and we have a

lot of people doing that. I'd be happy to

answer any questions as would Deb Palmier!.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you.

You've said that you have a lot of people

working on making these changes. I'm sure

there's a pretty big expense to it.

You know the earlier suggestion from

Mr. Magill, I think, you put that service

location, service address on the bill, or maybe

even better, maybe call it service address or

something and emergency address which

would - that would trigger me as a customer

looking at it, and I'd look at that if it had on

there, I think I would see that it was wrong.

It would probably get me to - knowing

when it said emergency, I would know then that

that means if I ever need help, that's where

they're going to go. I'd be more apt to look at

it. What kind of cost would that be to you? Is

it prohibitive to put that on the bill?

FRANK BUZYDLOWSKI: I couldn't give you

a number, Mr. Chairman, off the top of my head.

It is prohibitive in that we have to add

something to what's already commonly complained

about as a too long, complicated bill.

But actually, our concern is really not

even so much the costs as it is that - and as I

was quoted accurately by Brad Magill - it

doesn't go to the heart of the issue.

Our concerns are that, first of all, so

many people just don't read the information in

the bill. It's ^formation overload. What do I

owe, they pay it, and that's the end of it.

People certainly don't distinguish between a

listed address, a billing address, or their

service -

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: That's why I

wondered about putting this emergency -

HR. BUZYDLOWSKI: We try to explain what

that is in writing in a bill, and I don't think

it would tick. But another part of the problem

is that we get the information from the customer

to begin with.

Now granted, there are cases where

through working with the counties we fix it; but

the initial contact, the Egolf family moves into

a location, you call our 800 number and, Where

are you moving, and you give us an address; and

that's the contact and that's the information we

get.

And if you gave us a wrong service

address and now it appears on your bill as a

wrong township, to use an easy example.

My further fear is that it serves to

validate wrong information because now you have

a document that says, oh, I live in Salisbury

Township, and you don't. You can go for years

and years just ignoring that and it's wrong

until you make a 9-1-1 call and it goes to the

wrong dispatcher.

ACTING CHAIRMAN E60LF: I think I

brought this up to you the other day that we had

this move about a year ago, only a quarter mile

outside of a small town but we kept the same

mailbox number.

We would just go by the post office to

pick up our mail. So our bill goes there, the

same. It didn't change, but our location

changed.

And when you were talking and

giving - telling us some of the problems with

the addresses and so on, I realized that I don't

think it would be a problem for us because in

our small town everybody does know where people

live.

In fact, the UPS people come around and

they know - they've always asked for a specific

address and they won't deliver if you don't put

it on there. But yet the local driver knows

were the people live, so he would deliver.

But at the other end, you know, you have

to give them a specific address. And so we even

made up one because we don't have house numbers.

We have a post office box.

So we made up - we just counted the

number of houses and we said 10 East Main Street

and they - we get delivered; but it's not an

accurate because there's no numbers on the

house.

And what I'm thinking is though, we're

still listed - even though we've moved out of

town and still have the same PO Box

number, we're listed in the phone book as 10

East Main Street. And I never thought about it

for emergencies.

And it probably wouldn't hurt if the

local fire company, ambulance, whatever, they

know where we would be; but it ccoud hurr

because it's not - you don't have it down as

your service - I don't know if you have it down

as your service location or not.

So if I have - if I had seen that on

the bill though that says my emergency number,

that would have gotten my attention probably.

And I said, hey, they still have us listed at

the last address.

So I might have wanted to change the

address on that. That's what I'm asking is, How

much of a burden or a cost that might

actually - would that actually maybe help you

because you'd save a lot of people working on

changing addresses and everything, making it

correct?

Maybe this would actually even help cut

down all this running around, all this back and

forth paperwork and everything to get it

changed. And if you just put on there, put a

signal that this is an emergency, it would have

gotten my attention.

MR. ROUNDTREE: Representative, I think

that if - well, there actually has been

experience. One of the other telephone

companies did something. I don't know if it was

a trial, but it was in a limited area. And the

response rate they had was between 10 and 12

percent of people actually replied and

responded.

I think, again, it's not the cost as

much as it is the efficiency or lack of

efficiency but also the danger that people may

not know that - that people were worried about

it may not know it. Somebody who knows that they

gave it to us improperly the first time.

The people we would worry about are the

people say, well, if somebody who just came in

from out of state and they moved and they say, I

live in Pittsburgh because Pittsburgh's their

mailing address, Pittsburgh, PA, 15111, but they

don't; they live in a suburb.

And it just so happens that exchange

goes from Pittsburgh out in the suburbs and

they're in a township. It isn't Pittsburgh.

It's a whole different 9-1-1 system, and they

don't know that and they gave us wrong

information.

MS. PALMIERI: Just to add to that, many

people acquaint the address on a mailing

envelope to their house as their address. And

if they saw service address or emergency address

on their bill, they might look at the house No.

10 and then the name of the street.

But then the locality, they might say,

well, yeah, I live there. That's what I tell

everybody. That's where I get my mail. They

may not understand that emergency service

providers require the municipality to know where

exactly to dispatch that fire or ambulance. So

that's one thing.

And one other point that I think Frank

and I have talked about in the past is we have a

lot of businesses that have maybe a hundred

different locations and they prefer to have

billings sent to one office.

So in that situation, you may have a

situation - you may have one individual that

reviews a hundred different addresses at a time

and may not even look at that piece of the bill

or maybe that person who's not familiar because

they're in one area and the hundred other

locations are 50 and 80 miles away may not

realize that it's anything other than a postal

address on the mailing envelope. So that's

something else.

And one final thing on this issue I

think it's important to mention, we have a job

task, a responsibility to the county and to the

residents for publli sservic and dor rafety of

those individuals.

To go through the entire database, no

matter if a service address is on the bill or

not - that's a decision that needs to be

made - but we will still go through that same

process of fixing every error that falls out

that does not match the MSAG.

So that would be in addition to our

responsibility, which we will continue to

process all those records on the reconciliation.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: I understand

it's a problem, probably a lot more complicated

than we realize, and I know you are working on

that; but I just threw that out as a

possibility. Anymore questions?

REPRESENTATIVE MICHLOVIC: We heard

earlier testimony, Buzz, that they're going to

require cell phone companies to triangulate

longitudinal/latitudinal locations in the

not-too-distant future, turn of the century, I

guess.

And it seems to me that ultimately

that's going to be the solution on this that

when your customers come on board or change

their address you're going to have to assign

that and set up some mechanism for checking

that either by you sending somebody out there,

sending a signal to the satellite that, yeah,

phone's here, it's at this location, and I guess

you're done.

But to that point, until we have arrived

at that point, I think we still have to ask your

cooperation on it. But ultimately, I think

that's what we should be doing.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Frank, is Bell

Atlantic taking any sort of public position on

the surcharge issue from 9-1-1 callers on cell

phones?

MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: No, Bell Atlantic has

not. But there is a association of cellular

carriers that they're working together and they

have their own representation; and the

representative is in the audience; and I think

she could speak better to that issue.

REPRESENTATIVE HABAY: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: I guess my first

question is, Are there any other states or any

other phone companies that are doing anything

different than you are or that the counties are?

MR. ROUNDTREE: I'll defer to Debra.

MS. PALMIERI: There is a national

organization called NENA, National Emergency

Number Association, that I'm personally a member

of and almost all the 9-1-1 directors that I

know „ the State of Pennsylvania are also

members.

That is the organization that we look

towards for direction. And they listen; they

work with us; and they work with not only the

9-1-1 Center and PSAP Directors and Assistant

Directors, but also a11 the telephone companies,

wireless, competitive access carriers, and so

forth.

We look towards following their

guidelines. If not immediately, we look to

implement all of our systems towards those

guidelines in the very near future as those

guidelines change and improve.

So we're trying to keep up with the

Joneses, in other words, and make sure that 9-1-1

service is provided consistently across the

nation.

So in answer to your question, we look

towards reconciliation of MSAGs; look towards

the counties or the municipalities, depending on

if it's Commonwealth or whatever to work in

concert with the phone companies to end up with

a good address in 99.9 percent of all the cases

that we can possibly get as close to a hundred

But I think that's what you're looking

for is everybody working with MSAGs and

addressing, and the answer to that is yees

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: I'm sure you

have. But can you explain a backup system? Is

it possible that the system, that your database

somehow gets inaccessible, not say lost. Let's

say the city or the county can't access your

database. Is that possible? Is there a backup

system for that?

MS. PALMIERI: We are currently

implementing a new database, which will be a

dual database system for the State of

Pennsylvania under Bell Atlantic. What I mean

by that is we will have a duplicate database.

Every record in the one will be

duplicated in the other and they will be in two

different cities. Currently, we have one

database in Philadelphia, as was mentioned

before; and that database has - is redundant

and has, you know, the records and systems to

back it up.

But occasionally, we do have some

problems where, you know, we need to help a

PSAP, help a 9-111 center that may lose alley

services, the name and address. Let's say a

tractor trailer hits a telephone pole and knocks

out the cable that carries the alley links.

So in that case, we have an 800 number

for repair that also can be used for lookups of

name and addresses whenever a 9-111 center is

unable to receive the information from the phone

company.

So we do try to backup. We are

implementing that system to ensure that we have

two databases in two different cities to

guarantee service for them.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: I don't think

there's any question that the most important

address needed is the service address from where

the call is commg from, where that phone is

located.

This seems to me like an enhanced caller

ID system. But based on that, two things: One

is, Why can't we - or you eliminate the listing

address so - it's just superfluous information

which, to me, doesn't seem to be necessary for

anyone other than the person that wants to have

an address different or make one up.

Why can't the listing address in the

book or the listing address be the same as the

service address?

MR. ROUNDTREE: Excellent question. And

the reason is basically people want to be listed

where they want to be listed. And there are

cases, places, I should say, in Pennsylvania

and plenty of them where whether it's a vanity

address or whether it's just a question of

whether you use the front entrance or the side

entrance to the house or whether they want to be

listed at Fox Chapel Estates or at 123 Jones

Street, which happens to be, we would have

customers who would not take kindly to us

forcing - in fact, we wouldn't have the power

to force them. That would be a FCC issue.

But I don't see a way out of having a

separate listed and service address. And again,

Representative, back to the original premise of

our databases, the database for listings is ffo

the telephone directory and for dialing

directory assistance; and it's for a different

purpose and a different system than billing and

different than service.

And in some cases, service addresses

where they didn't exist, we dispatch to a pole

number, cable run and pair number; and that's

how our installer finally found the house.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: But I think if we

want to have a system that is accurate or as

accurate as possible, whether that's 99.9 or

whatever it is, then we have to forget what

people, individuals, want and we have to say, We

have to know where you are.

I think it's a great idea that

Allan - and he's the first one I heard say

it - using the emergency thing. And I think

that can be done, by the way. I think that if

the counties, the municipalities, and even the

state and PEMA would notify and work in

conjunction with the phone companies and say,

Beginning next - pick a date - June, we're

going to send out information in your bill.

You have to fill out emergency data.

You must fill it oot. we can nnotiy ppepll to

look for that and day, ,on't give us snly yyor

service address as you want to list it,

list - I don't believe that people don't know

where they live.

I think they may say, well, in my area

they'll use Pittston rather than Hughestown; but

if you ask them what borough or township they

live in or county, they'll tell you. And I

think we can do that.

The other thing is, My understanding is

if I move into an area, a new home, I call Bell

for service, don't you send a representative ouu

with a repair or service record? Why can't they

verify the service address when they do that -

MS. PALMIERI: It's done -

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: - after they

install the phone and then they submit it back

to the office to show the work that was done?

MR. ROUNDTREE: We are now doing that

ahead of time. But traditionally if the

installer found the place - and remember, we're

talking about the service address - it's noo

that people don't know that they live at 109

West Pettybone (phonetic) Street; they may not

know that they're in Wyoming Borough. They may

think they're in Pittston, PA.

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: I don't

necessarily buy that, but I understand what

you're saying. But we can require them to do

that.

MR. ROUNDTREE: Maybe a better example

is people think they live in King of Prussia,

Pennsylvania, but they're in Lower Merion

Township. And that's the nook. And our

installer, it is -

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: Ask them where

they pay taxes. They'll tell you.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Well, I would

agree they don't know sometimes because you have

a lot of RDs. And maybe Landisburg RD 2, RD 1,

RD 3, and you ask them where they live; they'll

say Landisburg. But actually they're in Tyrone

Township, Spring Township.

But again, going back to the other

thing, maybe if you had - had that on there,

the township, and you put on, you know,

you said emergency and you put Landisburg

Borough, they said, Oh, well, I don't actually

live in the borough. I live out - you know, my

address is -

REPRESENTATIVE TIGUE: And there's - by

the way, and not to get 9-1-1, there's a problem

now with PennDOT. And PennDOT is now giving

people's address on their licenses which are not

where they live.

And I gave you the example the other day

in using Luzerne County as an example, the city

of Pittston as a post office, there are a number

of small boroughs and townships surrounding it;

and they use the Pittston address.

So when I apply for my license, I put

down Hughestown Borough; it comes back and it

says Pittston. PennDOT does that because it

goes to a postal address. They shouldn't be

doing that if we're trying to get uniformity in

determining where people live.

So that's something else that maybe on

the sideline we have to look at. There's no

hundred percent cure; but I think if everybody

gets together and stops saying, well, they have

to be-responsible for this, I think we can solve

a lot of these problems. Thank you for your

testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ACTING CHAIRMAN EGOLF: Thank you very

much. And I would like to - well, first of

all, before - we're at the end, I think. One

last call, are any of the testifiers who were

not here earlier have arrived?

If not, I want to thank everybody for

participating and being part of the hearing, all

the testifiers as well as the Members here. I

think it was a good hearing. And I would like

to mention that there will be another hearing in

the Philadelphia area.

We're looking probably early part of

September. And the date has not been set yett

but there will be a hearing down there on this

subject. And, again, I thank everyone for being

here; and we're adjourning the hearing.

(At or about 12:50 p.m., the hearing was

adjourned.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

I, Deirdre J. Meyer, Reporter, Notary

Public, duly commissioned and qualified in and for

the County of Lancaster, Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, hereby certify that the foregoing is a

true and accurate transcript of my stenotype notes

taken by me and subsequently reduced to computer

printout under my supervision, and that this copy is

a correct record of the same.

This certification does not apply to any

reproduction of the same by any means unless under

my direct control and/or supervision.

Dgfrtlre J. Mey^% Reported Notary Public, fffy commission expires August 10, 1998.

215-or7-uou7124 14 7 7«.^, , v « B90-i4 69 14 17 72 5 78 22 215-67912912,13 70104 24,1119,112 19 9 20112 81 1 ^ 82(4), 95 19,97 23, 2210719 70's63 3 9 35129 21 9913:102 6,110 25, 22nd 3010 745914 1115,8,14,11217, , , « £ , , , , 74713011 A 113 5,22,114 5,8, 247^19 78 5 5,1118,1115, 11810,120 19,122 7,

15 1 ft 1 fi 32 1ft W 24 13* « 1 148 o, 135 7, 2 4 1 6 9 21 4224 4315 90 17 a m 129 21 140 9 ,1418 ,148 11,

7 251224,5617 11121156 abandoned 11014 14922 ~ ~ 26,,000 54 22 79131 17 abbreviate 11712 action n5 4,75 3

287 ! 10 abbreviated 127 19 actual 13 1,50 10,101 4 — 294447 22 ft ability 17 22,,21 16 actually 13 25,15 4,

° able 10 12,22 7,26 20, 59 9,64 14,15,108 18, - . 21,27 2 ,3015 ,4112 , 118 15,11913,12116, 3 8 97 15 4914,54 14,56 24, 128 18,129 6,133 22,

, , 8013916 67 21,69 9,12,76 2, 137(5), ,4815,21 822 3922 14814 800125 17,134 18,144 8 10011111312 adaptable 77 8

30 000115 16 above 8517,116 4 add 1156,119 23, 30,h6l9,18l6,33l4, 9 5 T ? f ^ , , .o 10 2 . 1 9 > 1 « , 1 7 ^ , < 5314,594,696 CpTtJ^S a^dZl9i7 5l6 349 131 18 9 720 20 Jccejt.ng8315 73 lO,™ 19,92 11, ' 365 78 20 9-1-1 13.3,16.23s 24 9, a c c e s s 3 9 l f 5 2 13> 93 17,23,117 6,140 6 38107 21 ^ , / o ^ t ^ ^ 55 23,58 25,73 18,22, additional 13 9,2317,

—x— Hi'll - A - 1 , 1 2 1 1 6 , - - — -43?23:44*2440461214;47 1, !?* ™ **3>£ A*«,onaMy 33 66,5 19,

4107 8 49 9,19,50 2,5,15,511, J i ^ Z L ^ ™ ™ 2 * L . M , , , , , , , 4050^8 11122 11,22,525,8,17,542, ~ ~ ™ ^ ! ^ 1 0 f J t f S 16 £ 5 8 10 i L i i r l c , i , . , « , « 21,55(7), 56(8), 57(8), a«;°™P ShW.24 Jo | ? 52 2 4 » 19 20 40010517,18,120 6, 58(4), 59 1,62 23,66 23, accomplished 16 13 24,60 8,61 9,63 9,'64 5, IlLfi%1 70 » 7 f l 3 22 72 25 ^ " S ' T V s * 6 9 V 5 « * 1 0^ " .73 4,87(8), ! , 7 < Y 73(4) 74(5) 75(5) 76 3 129 20 " ^ 89(5>' 9 0 ® » 9 1 1•

i 12819 131 3 ™ l4>is 16' i8' « - * 124 »• 132 11, g,1 fjftf SSJu 4WB86 8 79 24 ,8019 ,815 ,82 22, n ^ ( i , 12415, ^ ,20 ' 4710719,24 S c S S ^ S ? ^ ! , ajcountab.lrty 33 21, 7 2 5 ( g 126 2 , W l M 3 ,

4 9 1 1 5 1 1 J S f l 9 2191fi292f4) accruall821 12,'133 5,6,7,134(4), ~ 9 ^ 9 7 M 0 l < ? 2 f a C f . accumu.atedl8 24 J S * } * * * * "

* Sif!**1"*3-* Mcurac 'e*12624 ESS23,

• i u / 1 5 , mo 1 /, ly, sccurscy 86 3i 10» 14A ? S 147 10 20 ! 2 597 15,104 25,129 23 1 S S 5 ! ° 2 M H 4 . 1 S . a c c ' u ^ O l ^ l ^ " 9 2,8,12

S f S l ^ J o 2 * f ? ^ 6 ! ? ^ 1 7 , ! 5 ^ ! ' , 39 2,120 8,12603, ' ^ ^ S 1 9 i f l l ^ 500 000 122 21123(5) 124 5 ™ 1 9 ' 1 3 6 *' U* * 9 39 2 8 5 9 87 5 6 89 5

iS 5i6^2o92747'6 ig57i3f5

4iir14;i1' ^ T S J I S M sjj'a1"^'

54th69,46l5 U i 11,142 3,9,19,' achieved 86 4,10 135 18,137 8,'l39 12, 119, 5th 62 5,8 144 5,10,148 25 acquaint 13818 144 10,146 3

9-1-1*85 4 across 5 10,15 8,24 9, addressing 67 37,12 , ,

— ^ 90010124,1025 g z M ^ O 5 4 ' 1 9 ' 7 7 9 , ^ 3 6 3

^ l O ^ n i e i J , Act5'5,7,1118,12 15, adequate 17 21,30 23, 6H514 295,379,15,387,4813, J X g 23!23,31 6,32 18, 39 21,45 2, 111 16 60 50 14,1119,128 18, 18,21,4914,59 2,73 6 *3 2 J 4 2 J 4 ; f . l 5 ! , adjourned 15014 B 1 2 94 55 7 1ll k '17^2 adjourning 15012 60th 6 5 95 54 20 1 0 7 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 5 5 adjusted 4 8 1 7 , 1 3 2 1 9

2 62 55 20 96 47 23 117 11 administrative 50 9 6542125 19 965129 25,130 4,5,6 ACTING 12,6 24,9 5, admit 1613,86 2,9612,

• 67195,1142,3 988324,1209 10 23,1G 9,14 2,229161, 971,1274 :—77 771 7 7 ( 7 1 7 ) 7 6 4 - 7 8 0 1 Min-U-Script® (1 ) $ 1 . 5 0 - a d m i t

106 24,109 4 approach , 0 1 8 89 2,9010,122 16,18, baal 63 c2 allowmg 17 4,22 1,10, appropriate 24 15 76 5 25'12518'128 19' base 77 18 3619,3813,78 20

814,1016,115 23, ,", 14110,13,143 18 baseball 30 2

£^"9,37 M78 proved326,34 12, SSSljO3,10 " 7 ^ ^ ? S ? T l " l 4 « 7 9 9 1 2 1 , a P p » x L e . y l 1 1 1 5 , S ^ V ^ 51.97 7 2 a s e l y 22 2323,34, alone 92 25 116 6 attempting 7313 145 8 a long 45 4,46 5,20, aptl33l4 attempts 74 12 basis 13 1,18 21,22, 7219 area 7 16,8 17,17 20, attended 57 14 3019,32 23,33 3,35351 already 5 21113 18,28 88 25 44,4,37 25,4 ,10, attendmg47 1195,13122 9,67 13,23,12916, 56 6,5912,60 21,68 7, attention,5718,64,1 bat3°2

*3 9115,181 19,377 20, D £ W iiti^c I I T . E ' battle 120 8,13 alternative7022,75 6, 139 15,147 3,9,150 7 J ^ , * * 1 5 7 " bear 28 6,20

areas 25 22,67 6,7, beat 30 2 2X££5S£- 7518,81 15,924,1286, « * " • • • l « " became 1015 77 20,9819,109 20, 1319,11 audio62 22 . , , . . i . , . 2iilf6«'r4 arena836 srss^i4!?'^ £«?* S E 5 S K S E i V i a o n i S l f t & k . beg,n9325,l34l4 amazed5no STlSRo*"* 7 ^ « V ? „ „ ST?,**"4" amazingly 51 2 around 6 2 8 20 1a 14 audited 16 7,19 3,33 2 begins 76 9 ambulance63 13,75 6, 3819,40 22,4512,72 2, auditing32 25,33 24, J * * 9 1 6 1 6 1 13> 90 20,92 19,,29 222 115 222,37 11 42 25 1 2 2 2 5

B 1 1 V 3 9 3 < arrangement 42 13 Auditor 16 99,7 115, beh.nciT 8 13 131T2 18 ambulances 117 16 arrested84 19 33 25,43 1,5,19 bel»ve5 10 8 18 18 13, Amend708,22 arrival34 25 uudrtor.208 JJ \\™*£™29' ! 5 ^ ST??73n,2i3' a r r w e ^ 7-34 23,76 1 0 aud,t8 1 3 7 l , 6 ' 33 9 99 k 100 19,101 16, ™ H 1 1 i , f ,a «"'ved 4 5529 2232 4, authority 35 10,58 2, ^ 2 4 , 1 1 9 11,147 1 amendments 11 18, 82 17, „ 4 9,122 9, 873,10219,20 believes813 amends 5 5 129 2 3 ,14- * 0 1 ° x authorize 94 4 B e | | 8 3 ?, 3 7 8 3 9 x

A»».»7iii arrives 8 25 authorized 2121 53 2,89 2,90 10,12,15, American 73 21 artery 57 8 automatic 100 15116 25 9615,120 23,1215,10, Amrricans 73 14 article 88 25 automatically 56 24, 122 16,17,25,125 18, among 4913,11613 articulate 35 6 7112 12818,1419,13,14318, amount 13 18,50 7, ascertain m 4 automobile 65 3 147 9 691,91 15,94 2 J availability 7517 Bell'1 121 16 amountsll57 aspect 5317 63 21 Avenue625,8 below79

analysis 48 20,,010 A^iy 1 4 ' / avenues 113 17 benefrtSll and/or 81 12,8712, a s s e s s 59 14,91 12,12 avoided 32 10 benefits 50 16 atua.i2,6,5,9 assessed93 20,94 5 , l l aware459,,15 1 Berks 60 23,*29 94,21, a n Z l v 3 2 2 ^ \ u \ 9ssign985,14023 away409,41 20663 13, ^ J " , - „ « 11516,1168 ' ass.gnedl625,903,5, 1 3 9 1 6 „ ^ , ^ 3 5 ^ 0 7 , 1 0 ' answering 76 11,101 2 96l8.23.9717 awh.16l 11,12622 41 14,85 17, 3,11424,13020 assist 12 2,7,13 3,24, awoken748 8612,9114,1231511,1 anticipated 92 1 £," £ , 1 6 17> 18» 2V « 132 6,7,21 anybody 21,819, 22 17,25 22,50 5,52 4 B Bethel 60 ,2 ,22 1108,13,24 " S ' ^ n ~ I 3 1 ° ' 3 2 1 , better 12 3,6,1310, anybody's 93 7 ^ 3 ; * ? : " " ' „ Baceelor's 83 20 J? " i ? 1 ^ ^ 1 . 1 9 ,

anymore73 16,14013 ^ 142" ' 3 ' back2119,29 16,3815, \U&?X5'u* 2 anyone 44 12,761, Associate 83 18 40 3- «•418'15'53 2 3 ' BSty'si 24

anywhere8 14,76 2, J " 0 ^ 2 1 5'95 » ' S T ^ S ^ I M S beyond2022,64 !1 APC0245.8325 tZZTJl1*,5''' K ^ ' S ^ B1! f25, 9'2.11 19, appeared 18 13 iliu uif * ' )ll J?' J!5 ?\%*£ l 6 8 > 1 7 8 l 1 0 , 1 9 1 9 > 20>

m o * 14114,1422 137 11,144 1,145 22, 29(4), 30 9,12,44 7,9, A o ^ n d « S t ? ^ n r a , n ^ 3 , 5 1 4 , 4 " ' " 7 15,148 17,14910 23,46 2,471,1,22, Appendix 59 2 84 11,112 4,10 background 29 22, 48(5), 53 18,54 15,16, applaud 84 12 I assuraance 34 4 1 112 17 5581,24,5911,60 25, Min-U-Script® K e y Reporters ( 7 1 7 ) 7 6 4 - 7 8 0 1

30 25,76 1,99 25, i4i i i cell40 16,23,25,41 6, cnangeso4y9o/o, 11815,135 8 calling 100 5,10123, 691,23,7122,23,93 4, 9124,120 20,22,12124,

3 BUCHTA612,12 103 7 99 3.11316,140 16, 112 4,132 18,1331 Bucks 125 16,126 14, calll s6 8830 4432 13, 11411 changing 120 337, 12915 34 13,37 13,54 21,24, cellular 41 12,5317,20, 128 2,137 8

10 Budget 13 7,18 14, 55 8,10,56 6 ,10 ,18, 54 1,22,55((),56 12,16, Chapel 128 13,145 45 10* 33 15,5313,57 14,59 5, 57 3 ,9,12,5913,63 6, 23,57 3,5,9,58(4), Chapter 83 25 ' 66 25,107 16,17,109144 66 63,67 18,719,13, 5918,60 7,66 4,67 3,19, charge 57 6,8011

1165 76(4),78 19,80 3,15, 24,68 13,22,69 8,70 13, c n a r a e d 102 1 budgetary 115l 8 1 8 , 8 4 17,85 20,20, 92 3,7,97 24,110 3, c h w m 9115 h u H f i a t e Oft 1Q 86 * 7 ' » , 113 3,0, 115 7, 116 / , 9 9

buiWi^7 118917 18 n ^ S l l ' s T n ^ l l 1 1 7 2 5 ' 1 4 1 1 4 Charhe44 14,45 4,13, I 23,127 22 ' ' ' !7,118'!7,5l(19 7 ,126l8 , %?£ £££££' charter26 5

built712 25,123 19,124 10, -,%' ' , . _ / _ _ « , ' ' _i.__i,,fta 20 burdens 18,25,137 5 128 25

101 12,105 10,106 3, checking 140 24 j , burdensome 14 21 carne 8 8 29 24,25, 11412,21,23,115 13,3,, ccief 11 23,114 18

= • » - * • S,JKSiu"',-K S H F ^ 1 0 -«""« businesses 28 2,20, ^ V u ^ ^ centers8 4,6,13 22,3 « c * • » * h7 7 117,,1397 2 5 7 1 3 2 9 7 3 1 1 0 W 18 21,20 21,24 9,25 11 children 11819 busyl6l5,9221 ^Q20 44 2S S0 8 579' 3911,49 9,54 3,73 1, chokmg776 Butler 59 18,607,83 16, 65 ft£K« 3 ^ ™ 8 76 20,787,18, chose 22 16,91 18

i a 867 7015,23,78 25,82 3, 1 1 86 chosen 91 12,16 " button809,8110 831,8612,87 14,884, centralized 117 8 church303 12 buy 22 17,108 9,10,13, SS/JJJ^1"", c e n t S 5 9 1 4 churn 132 15

1481 24,1013, 5,17,103^ 2, century 14018 Ccted55 21

,23 » U y " ? 2 1 1 k 6a f t „ , S u f t l ^ l W £ E £ " f * 0rt.es 111 22,115 2,

» « . Buzydlowski 8 8,53 2, 122 3,123 15,18,124 8, Certainly 24 4,50 23, 1 4 3 2 2 , 144 15 89 1,122 10,13,15, 1 3 2 6 ,,8,135 3 1 4 3 3 51 4,21 52 20,22,65 24, ^

15 4 2 t ; j 1 3 3 1 7 ' 1 3 4 1 0 ' 4,9,1449,14616,23, ™££™6 Crtizen's 8018 ' Buzz8823,24.9088 c a p * " " certified 83 22 tfTSlSnS

1 4 0 1 5 capability 56 23,65 21 cetera 14 12,17 24, % 4*78 2 & 1 9 * buzzwordl015 c a r 4 1 8 , 5 9 1 1 SRflKS Si? * Crty 63 3,18,64 13,18,

bypass75 8 card638,12,14 ^ 12;"620 , 1 1 7 2 20,919,9812,13, ~ cards 6311 chain 73 23 105 10,22,23, ,06 3,66

call 812,22,30 5413, carmaiwz 20,22,27 9 ,28 22,2913, 42 7,11,43 6,13,21, 315,32 1,3512,40 2,25, carr,er989 ^ 30714,3622 37 1, 44 16 ,21 .46 i , i 477 ,

20 413,5,42 17,63 7,64 7, carriers 551,5,23,58 33 42 20,43 9,44 4,45 24, 4811,15 S S S t V ^ 7 3 * ,^7 H4 15,141 11 « 4 6 4,19 47 15^59 7, Civera's 48 24,49 234 15,74(6),76 4,10,14, carries 144 7 62 18,6511,15,6819, 6, 8

» . 77 4,18,79 24,8011,18, case30 22,38 6,,4 22, 6914,1721,72 5,78 22, C a ° r l 2 7 1 8 814,868,92 16,18,23, 86 20 9 1 8 10710 81 17,82(4), 83 7,9519, „ ' ' "

83 1 93 8,100 7 ,10118 , 11817 12324 12515 97 23,9913.15,102 5,6, Cla.lton64 21

ISSiufiKwi072, i i72 i : i448> ' ISgllJJKms. m?6?rH23, , , l l 6 l ! 119 10,123 20, ST^wi7*2^! '? 1 , 8,11810,12019! 122 7! clarify 36 17 " 124 3,22,12517,12616, i45Y0T463 14,132 24,133 18,134 8, ctear-CUt8l6

1 1 2 12911,2, ,133 6,134 18, ' * ' _ 135 57140 9,1418, . u . . . . . . n 135 5,144 20,14V 9, cash 18 22 148 11,149 21,22 ^ "!* 1 149 25 catastrophe 25 4 chance 4319,10615 , ,3 3

called,, 25,6411,221 catch8424 changel3 C*™™1*

23,811,10125,118 23, Caucus 30 8,45 6, 78^15,15^12,10^191 ^ J * * 6

caller 34 19,56 4,57 1, cause 5619,93 11 121 2l! 131 20^35 14, codes 125 8

(717) 764-7801 Min-U-Scrint® (3) billed-codes

• w —• -—?--'» consioiiQated I D 14 14 —•—.—.. ~_, * ^ f — — » — * ^-3 0^,,13 1.1 S J ' S E a W i J i J "423 16 creates821,562 g n « » « ! i » i m M consolidation 7 25 councils 24 16 creatiig 23 4,17 ?S34 7?055?W7 ' cosstattly 12011 , counsel 2119,36 11 creafvel022 107,,12010 124 18 «217 contted 136 6 credentialed 7 7 1 9 126 9; S S14412 constraints 115 2 counter799 cred.ble7725 compatible 22 12 consumers 3118 counterpart 93110 credlt 1 3 1 7

compete 17 5 consuming 6119, Counties 4 9,6 7,17,23, criminals 84 19,22 compet ing 27 19 HS 201116 2 « f££%>£% crisis 74 12 competitive 142 11 contact43 23,,34 11,22 « M J ^ J JJ J J5, cr i t lCBe453 complained 39 12, contained 73 5 22 1,6,10,2713,28 4, criticizing 40 14 40 19,133 20 contemplate 114 5 m5\ 32(4) ) 3 3 3> 10, crossKJOunty 32 11,16 complaints 78 12 contemplated 123 12 35 1,39 3,20,40(4), crossed 32 7 complement 61 10 context 62 16 4110,45 2,49 14,16,25, CT | A 5 5 7 ,11 , 2 con^letemiO continue 24 6,14,55 115 5018,2223512,5912 ™ s U 7 7 complexi t ies 56 2 14°7 ^ g g£ J £/ * Cumberland4 9 compliance 35 5 Con | ' n u e d 5 5 15 98 3,99 8 ,10917, ' cure 1 4 9 1 1 complicated 124 23, continues4514 i n ,2,112 22,23,25, cure-all851 12619,132 1,133 21, continuing 105 21 113 7,1142,1152, current 12 17,21 18, 140 10 continuously 120 3 124 7,126 22,12914,16, S ? 7 m 20 M comply 14 18,20 3,33 5, contracting 17 3 19,1317,24 ,132 7, Cu 7 1 6 12 19 94 19 contradiction 107 15 ]% # »« » , 4 2 244 ^ 2^36 13 7, component 76 8 contribution 2013,22, 14 617 20,55 23,717,8311, components 2518 22 16 cou1try 80 25 84 3,10,9612,14315,22 compromise 115 3 Control 118 18,23, County 6 21,8 2,14, Curriculum 77 22 c o m p t r l l l e r 1 8 i s 119© 1 * 8 2 w i l l * Curt423 conputer384,393,13, controversial7, 25, 20 1J16 22(? 23 3,13, — ^ " f t computerised 116 39 convened 47 16 g £ £ £ £ %%2 2, 9719 123 23 23,125 1, concept 18 18,19 1,5,7, convey 124 1 8,34(4), 35 2,36 4,12, [J. 1 2 | 2,130 14,133 85 25 21,26 23,53 22 conperate 88 22 401,2,49 20,50 5,15, la* is concern 42 4 79 4 5 cooperation 1416 5116,25,52 1,6,11, 1ust1mer's 66 9 13322 ' • cooSen*ve86l8 * », * JJ « g f * J — J J e r - 6 1 - . concerned 35 23,9819 coordination 34 9,17

10 64 17 72 7 73 2 124 7' 140 22 145 17 Concerns 56 15,57 17, Coordinator 82 22, 75'l6,1*82 22,83(4), cut 137 10 « » « « « « « 83 ! i l 7 7«« ,8615 . j j j g j j ^ a . £ £ „ , , concu«l coord,i»tor, 5(512,15, ««.*lj,2W7, ' ~ concise 1514 57 15,59 3,88 7 98 9,100 25,1017,9, U conclusion 52 19,132 3 copies 5 52,114 13 102 14,18,104 22, conditioner7213 cords"6 _ io1(SiW J i S S D 5 9 9 conducting 29 20 corrected 88 21 103 4, „ / 2 J , » £ ^ daily 35 17 Conference 59 3,119 8, 105 12,,21 114126 61 125 l 6 1 2 6 u 18 1 2 7 j d a n g e r 1 3 8 x 13 correcting 10210 10,128 3,129 2,21, dangerous 7712,,9 25, conferring 119 l y correction yu y, ii»5 8, 130(0), i s i 10, 1S^ 10, 118 21 confident 7814 105 4,11,1215,12 119 222143 12,147 6, data 49 7 ,8581,106 02, confused 66 21,10318 corrections 120 23 149 5 1 4 6 2 2 confusion 47 13 corrupts 120 12 county's 28 9,96 11 data-based 49 6 Congratulations 9 25, cosponsor 48 18 county-wide 37 22

database 84 11,87 2,21, 10 3 COSt 20 14,28 13,31 10, couple 12 12,41 1,47 4, 88 18,89 5,9011,19,25, Congressional 125 8 4010,4122,,2 1,55 3, 52 10,21,62 20,104 22, 961,17,10311,13, comunttion 1416 5619,68 20,23,7124, 10919,129 22 105 2,6 ,19,10613, 5413 14619 ' 916,9315,95 4,107 13, courier 117 1 12116,122 4,126(4), connect ions55 5 1" J 2 J74,133 15, course58,8 19,53 17 1J%£»*£*> _ _ _ 1 3 / 5 , ^ 4 rmwrlSO 9 119 7l\ l£y £1, £3,137 *3, Consequently 5816 costly3918 ™veraae56 5 143CD.145 23 consider 27 16,75 2, c o s t 8 2 6 16 „ S coverage565 d a t a b a s e s 87 10,123 74 95 14 7.4113,509,11,20, ^ " " J f * 3 18,124 8,127 21,732 4, considerable 73 10 57 7 71 6 84 13 94 22 covers 95 12 144 15,145 23 consideration 28 18, 111 i5,112 20,111 4, i s , CCR777 date 115 7,70,141 20, 42 3,9517 13323 cranked 72 13 1509

Min-U-Scriot KevReoorters (717)764-7801

MMMS0 M.J -X, ±\J £•£• B l l l B l l a t l l l U **.£* JL /

developing20 14,49 19 30(4X3]11 |> ,512 embaric,ng247 developments 1125 48 25,62 717614,77 18, » " d».7522,762,92 15, J ^ H 1 ^ I W U * ^9^7319

d»wTo5°24,106 2,4 J ^ * " , = ? * * / ? ^ i l ' ^ m'"i ^ ^ 2, d » h n g 100 1,123 21, * g * » * ™ . SSSaS?i69L Agency 4 11,56, dials 41? 0 87 91 BO 74 dlSDlflVS89 25 ^^ 100 lo, 11 o,zz, Zo 1,11,19,

17 M B f ' d,17u«hl345 ^ J T l J ^ 1 . SSSJffiSSS died 34 25,47 14 distribute 94 16,98 2 96 5,97 25,120 21, ' 45 5,11,50 3,52 18, dies 85 4 distributed 99 9 122 9,127 2,133 3, 60 20 ,613 ,62 7,63 10, difference 84 18,113 3 distribution 94 13,117 7 140 15,150 1 70 14,72 16,22,73(4), differences 49 22 District 6(4), 7 1,8 17, early 58 6,63 3,73 22, 74 3,19,75 1,76(7),

4 different 14 24 32 1 27 20,4616,47 9,10, 150 8 77 21,78 2,80(4), 814 ,9 , 34 15,4510,48 22,56 9, 67 24,100 3 earning 99 24 83 9,22,84(4), 85 13, 63 11 66 22 67 14 144 districts6 2,125 758,, easier61 23,7, 25 323 l 6 '1 24 3«133 7 124

3 d^ren^f^ l 'o 1 4 6 1 , 2 d o c " ! ^ 2 11 J * ] ™ * 1 5 , I j g S i a " difficult 19 25,57 2,928, Jjl n n i ^ « i e Eddie316 86 employees 27 25,85 21, I 2 ! 2 2 * domest«l89 Edge™od9721 ^ J 8 1 '

J J , ; , , / 1 1 „ 447,6213,15,10416, educating 73 11 cue->i-7-re Q T<« 0 B e J ? LK n,o 2 ° ' 1 2 1 U ' 2 5 1 3 1 18' educate517,933, f J ? n V i s ' ' ' diligently 104 9 141 3,14616,147 13,16 12oi7 85 8 ,11915 direction 10 18,44 23, donuis29 10,72 11 ^ 9 , 5 4 1,5,11 ^ ^ 142 7 oor2 26 25 104 44 . , . . . -i* = -»-»8 e n *^9 22 directions 4313 106 24,107,4,4 ' 2 . X J 2 S ^J 6 2 7 4

directly73 20,94 6,99 3, doors 107 5 M „...„,.„ 1 2-7 •« 1 *« 1 enabling 92 1 ™„„7l2, r S* , =£?«» director 719,11 8, l l 6 2t

e n o r l 13 ZA 48 16 26 16,31 14,95 13 17 12,50 2,72 7,24,891, D o U a 72 6 82 17 17 effort1 10 11 encouragement 25 11, 9919 2,105 9 119 4 """S '* °>°^ 1 /, 1 / EGOLF 4 1 7 6 24 7 4 1/: 1-7 12215.19 , , S T 8 f 3 J J S f 2 3 , 9 5,10 23,12 9,14 2,22, n d i 2 , 1 2 , 5 5 1 2 , 1 N 4 ,

716 SJSKttSs.* E i S * StaSSSSU ^,T'"924 1 0 JJbiJ 42 20,43 9,44 4 ,45 25, ?£***.. directory 8713,88 2, A l l l l l ) M 1 B < n i 46 4>59 7,62 88,65 11, energy 7511 126^145 24 25 downtown 60 3 68 19,6914,17,72 5, eegender 24 3 d i sagree 109 23,11n 4 d M e n s 92 22' , 0 ° 25 78 22'8117' 82<4>' 9 ' 19> Enhanced 8 23,10 8, d isas te r26 21 25 Dr 72 15,21-79 4> 13, 97 2 3 , " 1 3 , 1 0 2 6 ' 3 9 17,50 2 2 ' 5 5 2 5 >

* ! ! ! Z - , ^ 1 < 1 * 80 24,81 22,82 6'83 5, 1 1 0 2 5 . " 1 5,8,14, 68 21,123 24,144 22 disasters 12 20,1615 1194 112 17,113 5,22,114 5, enhancement 216 disastrous 84 24 draft 29 24, 111 11 * "®, 1 0 , , l*? ^ ! « Z' enhancementn 57 5, disciplined 30 24 drafted 33 23 3519 * 11615

17f discrepancy 15 2 42 24,5316,74 2 4 , 8 1 2 0 J 4 0 4 * 1 4 1 8 ' ' 4 8 "• enjoy 36 10 discretion 22 1,11 dramatii 126 65,127 3, e , n h t e e n , < 14 7= fi enormously 80 3 discuss 11 15,24 13, 12810 « 9 J t e e n 16 14,25 6, ^ ^

310 *scussed27 11,95 15, STiwJI f ^ 7 3 ' 8 2 19,9? *1 snsure 32 ,13,14144 14 ? 4 , 1 1 7 1 3 , 1 1 , o « . Drrve4713,62l2 ^ ^ 8 0 2,5 enter3815 SSST/iioS ?'Ver13525 e . ,g,b.e3i 10,11313 enterpriie 11017

5 *7 25 40 1 2 25 41 a' D r i v m 9 7519 eliminate 36 7,50 14, entire 1910,6120, 54 2 7 6 1 7 2177 22 droves 100 5 87 6,144 24 67 10,84 15,139 25

23, 11619 119 18124 11 dual 7 12,143 17 eliminated 33 d entitled 35 7,36 9 19 1Sil£Vl464 dub.ous7517 El«abeth6423 entrance 14513,14

dispatched 47 9,62 8, due 5 8 e l se e414, ,00 12, envelope 138 19,139 18 10121,12616 duplicate 143 19 12016,122 8,125 4, environment 118 9,

(717)764-7801 Mfn-U-Scrint® (5) Dauohin - environment

lAAAiAQA* fBCI ll 4,47 « » , « 8 7 , , „ - , « , , a * . . — •—» - ~ — , *-«• »-/

148 4,149 4 5 4914,50 21,521,59 33 107 5,118 6 free 61 22,128 21 exampe's816 6113,25,62 9969 5574 ,2 I * . 101 14 frequences 109 11 examples 125 14 108 22,22,120 25, fire 217,30 4, 8,45 50, frequency 119 20 exceeded 32 22 135 22,14518 8318,85 8,126 9, f rI,u-ntlufii i excellent9ll,3l4, factors 38 21,42 3,4 13618,1393 3^646 119 3,145 7 facts 99 25 fires 84 24 except8812 !Xi8 first 5 25,10 25,12 13, f r o n t s 13,30 3,38 3, excerpt 53 13 fail-safe 86 1 g Wfi*4* « £ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ f?0^8?!*«-,?' l i ' l 2 ?' fa,led37 5 101 16>104 22-123 3, full 81 15,91 15 34 141loMC>U24,o2o, Failing 77 9 1322 1341 1384 AIL.* lomaon 66 8 125 5 17Q 1 * 17 . _ . , . „ , , ? , ^ '.. z «;« -.- TUii-time 128 18, 20 ^^ * *—' iji *' , fair 50 1 ^ 78 8 141 20 14o 14 149 23 •• .#»

exchanges3222,16, S ^ f ^ i , , , , , , flfS'io*25 function 1613,25,17 6, 1259,1» WI6B 24,9611,113 22 flt96l0 6813,899,11 excited 17 i s fallback27 5 five83 23,107 723 functions 15 7 Z S L ™ S r S r 6 1 7 , 1 0 1 1 9 f«

5482l6 88l6l7 *und919,9420,955,6, excluded588 falls 1404 S M M4 1M16 10711,1081,12,109 4 excudesil6i8 false 115 21 i ^ L J ^ i7 fundamental 123 4,8 E t a M l l 21 727 f a m l , l a r 4 0 3 ' 4 ' 1 3 9 1 4 S12824 f u n d s l 6 6 ' 9 ' 3 1 2 0 ' executive 11 21,72 7 family 74 14,16,134 14 ™edl2a24 32 22,33 1,1,13,49 21, exempt 52 7 far 5 16,22 21,41 16, fixing 140 4 517,53 25,60 21,9162 exempting 62 2,769 73 8124,109 8,11123 fleet 116 25 17,20,94(4), 98 14, exemption 70 23 fashion 4816,76 63 flexible 78 5 107 13,21,108 23,113 16 exist 16 8,36 18,102 28, 117 23 Flinn 114 9 117 9 146 4 ' fat 108 14 flow 20 15 furnishing 28 4 existed 131 11 fault 85 4,90 5,7 focus 86 24 further 7 23,89 8,90 8,

^"g^f12312 ST6r,941552525,244, S ? 4 7 9 ' 5 1 1 2 ' 5 4 1 9 ' £££££2 exists 77 222101 4 fax 129 3 followed 10 15 future 26 20,32 17, expand 7 10,14 FCC 40 22,41 9,56 1, following 129 13,14, 69 18,93 19,25,140 188 expansion 71 8 5812,69 7,93 10,94 19, 142 13 1« 16 expect 4 11 99 5,14519 follows 127 11 , expected 55 14,92 5 fear 94 16,134 25 force 126 8,145 19 fj expediently 117 20 feature 6719 forces 73 12 expending 109 8 features 55 24 forcing 145 18 Gaffer 18 22 expenditure 3116 federal 40 22,54 119 forget 63 17,14610 gam 52 15 expenditures 33 12,17, . 2 2 2 8 0 25 f°"n 10 12,13 17,43 40 gathered 1 5 108 2 fee 58 21,59 14,15, 44 1,121 10,13,129 3, * 40 8,54 8559 17,

911112 93 219411 13024 vj« i?,7ie i1oi expense 28 6,21,133 2 • jj u • • 134 22,138 4,15,149 4 expenses 18 24,4915, . , ' „ ' „,,_ Tormal 17 2 gear 11314 -»i ina ia teel 71 25,75 1,112 18 format 1 * 7 16 22 «« i , . , , - , , - « , - , ,

zi , iuH i» i«imoi 13 /, io, **., General 14 6,16 9,17 11 expense6l 18,93 15 ™12612 14(4), 1511,16 17,19 10, 5 , 2 3 22,29 25,33 25, experience 412,13718 J 1 1 1 5 4 } 2 7 6' l 6 , „ 1 2 ? * 5 , 431,5,518,10,919, experiences 79 22 ^ 46 25,47 3,73 5, ^ J * « " J f " . ^ * explain 68 4,13410, :~/ ,„.,, . , rormuiazu8s Generals 4319 U J 9 irt,onal8712 formulated 12310 Generally 14 4 explod.ng6615 f",d385 , forth 114 13,137 112 generate576,6,7017, exploit 52 14 fifteen 59 12,,00 166,1 142 12 io i 15 expressed"1 15'5615' 2£.2 E™,™ SET'160,797, 7922 S „Ln?',?,o« E2^,,«?I ^ ^ 7 , 1 4 extends 64 15 fighting 40 11 ,1208 forwards 13,116 1 generation 73 14 extensively 115 24 figure 17 16,,27 3 foster 26 4 Geneva 83 21 extent 109 10 figures 109 25 found 31 22,37 17, gentlemen 916 extract908 f.1.129 2,146 22,23 55 20,6315 23,66 3,333 Georgia 8123,82 2 extremely48lo fmall3920 i ^ i f , M 122,« gff ,^?/^, 2 5 ,

f.nalry32 3,36 2,77 24, »ur 10722,24,122 18, 90 22 98 18 105 12 F i. Fo9 16813 145 15 128 22,1291,14311, x Finance 18 14,33 15, Fox 12813,145 15 149 18 5313,5714,595,6625, framework 77 23 Gibsoma 8 19,19 face958 107 16,,7,10914 Frank88,11 12,53 2, given28 19830 23,31 2, Min-U-Scri,*® Key Reporters (717)764-7801

high-end 2124 " * " " • » ' " ..««,,«.. 0 7 ^ Hampton 81/ IQ 44 23 increase 1318 5516 S^lM^Sl 1 !970 1 6 , n S e s f l s T 1 , 9 8 1 3 " S ^ i S ' g g '1

n1

c17 s e d 5 7 1 ,°-1, '

hand's 10 1 highway64133,2 22 548!6823,6916,23! increasing 54 23

23, handied4210 h^Vl^ .'defied 3 12,57 20 .nSepende^ 2 2 ' handhng 71 8,7611,15, historic 37 20 identrf.es 73 22 independently 26 20

912 I t 6 " , historical! identrfy6l.56 2555716, Ind.ana66 '15 f ^ L hit6718,809 7H521 .i1518 « md.cate5512,,655 "• hands-offl018 htt»U4d identifying 3216 indicated 14 7,3319,

Hanover 13012 uun ignoring 135 4 7019,11744,120 55

'• s sr , '? ,614 '655 , h°" S7598317845' ™ ™ " « " " " » * ' - j 1 ! - : " " 2 : 1 3

5,13, 67 23,122 2 9818 76 20 indirect 2014 happening 100 2 holding 52 23 impact 15 24 indistinct 5115,20 happens4515,6021, home 32 4,34 23,59 19, »mperrtive20 12 individuals 12,59 242 67 4,9817,110 20, 20,22,6114463 24, implement 26 2,40 66 1196,8,13911

5,19 1213,125 21,,267, 107 5,147 9 4113,86 5,142 15 individuals 29 9,42 4, , na217,13328221,14516 h o " « « « 22,45 21'86 2 jmp.en«nta.,on 6116 , £^HU66

4,14 h l ^ T » 23.94 l.7. ^ 3 ^ 3 1 3 4514 SjTSSlS U ^"SS^iVi ha 2Ih,.6225 5224658,862,,9511 l m p h c a t l o n 37 4 241 ' hardware 118 8 importance 5 8778 17 infancy 118 1 Harrisbura 9 25 27 19 hoping 5411 important 9 23,11 17, influx 113 3

) 59n,697 g94 21,.981l28, J ^ ^ S l o , SSSSSS l £ ^ 13 9,23. h a w i n l s 21 4* 22 18[«2,70 2,95 21,96 5, 65 20^76 7,105 13! 1513,14,24 4 ,10,426,

,*i S a ^ o u s m f » 2 9 1112511128,12,11955, 491* 506, H U . * 7,' ' nST 913318 hour44.,324,3424 JJS.1^ " S M S S * * ! ?

hear 47 20,90 16 * ° ° l 4 imDosed30 12 120(4), 121 21,123 22, '

, SSBPA, -"n.^91'74' iai'-/,,,, t l ^ 3 ^ 124 25,129 9,140 14, House 4 25,5 448 3, 'mP r oY^ * "• "• " J J 134(4), 135 1,138 16, 14614 11 19,29(4),309,38 15, f j l4j»b,X>n>*> 15, U4 11,25,146 21 hearing 4 24,5 14,19, 16,47 1,1,22,48(5), , „ » " „ « „ • 77 , s informative 5 14 7 9,14 6,47 17,20,22, 5318,58 19,66 5,70 25, ™P™emem77 25, l n f o r m e d 5 1 22 5323,150(6) 72 3,73 5,78 16,83 10, ™±£12822 informing 110 3 hearing's42 84 9 87179512 125 7. , ^ 7 8 8 8 8 1 7 infrastructure9999,

, hearings413,29 21, 136 4,10,13819,21, Ho , , , » ? « 11620,1183 H°eirt73'25l281 12 894 noises"^7025 3 ^ 1 5 9 '"•to8' 1 3 4 1 7

tt W M O , 2 ! 1 ^ 1 2 , 8 9 4 ' J"™ 6 8 4 0 4 ' 7 0 2 5 ' inaccessible 1431q J J E * * ^ " 9 7 J heavily 87 2 HTS12712 S E L T J 7 , ! S T " ' H e S t S " ^ 7 ^ ^ ^f^™1474, made^ua^33 20 34 7 ""novations 117 4

T6 -8313,901 ' - ™ 5 = s ! « " ~ T 2 5 , 4 8 „ help 27 7 47 14 53 6 humanly 85 25 129 9,130 17 install 147 15

? l 7 58 22 ,62 1.64 7:70 13, f"nd1?!1^7,12,15, incidents 37 2246 111 installation 118 7 ^ 7 73 18; 80 2b, 91 2,93^ 143 3,14917 5410 installed 89 20

100 11,101 9.110 16. hundreds 127(5) mclude 49 224,5 16. installel 141 6,147 19, 1 ?R 14 1^^ 3^1 37 f\ 1ft UIIMMAV c i *> 0 0 1 Q JW 7 14ft ft

1443,4 ' ' ' 1 1 4 8 ' ' mcluded7510 instance 48 25,68 6, 4 I L S X S 8 hurt80 19,93 7,136l7, ,nc .udes7623 13023 ,7 1, helps 61 7 19 including 23 21,87 17, instaaces 116 33122 l 5 Hempfield 13116 husband 1061 120 16 instead 18 22,1910 14, lHermenyl3H7 hysterical 74 12 income 11015 instructed d7 6 (7171764-7801 Min-U-Script® (71 oivee . InstrurteH

j w u 9 1 1 , 3 9 2 1 , i i 7, last I D H , 1 7 1\J, e.y 16, »—-.-*—5, — 5 2 63 2,8618,128 20, 30 9,313,33 8,37 7, Lieutenant 11 14 * U 134 18 135 14 139 21 47 4,52 21,54 7,7517, Irfe 38 20,77 3,4,8014, ^ 22 1412 ' Joe 46 23 7919,10014,12115, 84 15,8614,105 ,4 locations 6517 139 8 Joe's 66 10 122 10,18,137 2,149 25 hfe-saving 74 11 16 14017 Joey54 7 Lastly 52 16 Iife-threaten.ng 74 4 Lopan 125 19 Joey's 19 20 late 34 24,48 3,57 13 I,ght30 25 loaical 131 19 John 11 20,1058, later 12 4,297.32 5, I,ghtt80 2 3 s 2 2 0 61 11 98 21 114 17 34 15,52 2,89 8,13018 , l t ed486 long 52 20,61 11,98 21, Jones 14515 latitudinal 6516 |,,cely92 12 tonaitudmal 6517 Joneses 142 19 law 2118,22,52 9,811, |,les 85 3 lonai,udmal/latitudinal judgment 70 1 1H2,21,11312 hmit6924 4T16 14017 Judicial 36 6 Iawsuri36l5 limitations 86 21,117 6 look 5 13 7 21 13 1 jump 67 1,80 3 lawsuits 52 10,79 7,14, | lml ted 21 10,137 20 15 6,20 J 27 2! 38 7^4, June 1815,3314,5314, ,6 line 15 8,28 4,89 23, 42 19,53 25,67 12,715, 594,696,14620 Layperson 81 1,3 11521,11723 5,97 20,102 23,106 7, jurisdiction 26 6,75 21 "«««56 9 lines 27 13,28 10,21, 16,10916,118 20, lurisdictions 17 22 leadership 10 5,19 32 8,21,42 16,51 14,20, 124 13, J33 9 14 138 21, justifv9117 learned 29 22,3017, V™\'^%£*'97 , ! o £ (5), 4 JVC 2816 313 , £ £ " , u ~ . , * , Q „ * , a

leagt 11 8,101 05, "* 7 3 2 3 looked 16 19,43 18, v 10710,11013 ^ f * , , , « ^ : l , , n n , i a ,

leave 110 8 list 96 6,120 22,121 5, tootangyo^.M,^,

Kaiser4 19,620,20, S Z i ' i S J S 13, ****** l>*<™ 10j g * ° ffifini ^ 18 8,62 20 6o22 ]%"; V'™\2:, L I L ' , ^ ' L , , keep 5 19,38 8,46 5, Leechburg 62(4) } » ?' 3 i * l 1 3 6 U 1 4 ' °oks28 24 124 12 72 19,19,78 24,84 21, left n 5 5812 11311 J " ' ? ? lookups 144 9 100 5,119 25,14218 | e g a | 2119 3611 70 4 , lsten l427 Lorr«ne99 22 Keeping 115 17 teaa,v79l2 liitinl 144 24,1424,5 lose 144 4 Kelly 99 22 SfcZtlon s 4 4 « 2 "'stings 145 23 losing 120 8,13 kept 135 10 WlOwT? 319 15 I'Sts 39 2,3,13 loss 38 19,20 kind 20 5,22 20,25 11, 32 4 3 3 8 2 2 3 5 1 9 literature 74 2,5 lostl4343 37 16,51 14,54 1,133 15 20,36 3*53 16\ 54 12 iittle 12 3,13 13,37 20, lot 18 22,24 10,28 12, kindly 145 17 65 7,74 24,76 19,80 25, 48 20,61 23,63 8,65 24, 18,30 20,39 1,45 13, kinds 25 2,12,26 16, 8120,24,84 14,92 1, 66 21,712,72 13,14,18, 53 7,19,6713,70 14,17, 37 20,38 1,8015,10120 1128 80 9,817,11,82 21, 102 10,126 21112814, King 148 5 legislation's 812 98 19,11124,11819, 132 22,25,137 71397, Kirkl2723,24 legislative 13 12,1813, , 1 1 9 1 , 14010,14813,149 20 Kiskimmeta 46 16,24 30 7,3315,5313,57 13, J » J l 6 ' £ 2 ° ' » 21- ]°««' 91 13,148 6 kitchen 29 11,72 11 ll'^'?P^^\A m?l'l3si110M Luzerne 6 23,149 5 knock 104 13,i07 4 Ltmsiature'1620 147 2,'6,21,'l 4*4),' « knockingl0624 3916,4118,54 8,75 2, 1 4 9 3 ' 1 4 " knocks 144 6 85 11,90 23,94 4,951, ^ved 51 H 60 4,6 knowing 60 20,12611, 117 19 63 25,25,105 23,125 24, MA 11 12 130 16,13311 l e g i t i m a t e d ,1266 , , f t o , , „ magic 851 knowledge 7718,91 14 Lehigh 129 15 5^*? n

1 2 ' 0 I 3 , 2 0 / W 184 Magill 48 7482 21,23,25, knows 89 22,128 7, Len6l2 , ' 9 i 0 ' 83 3,11,95 23,96 3,97 4, 135 25,138 3 length 128 4 ivmgl27 9 12,98 6 99 2,10013

^ 1 4 2192 2 1112 tobby,stll713 J02 %}$£?&}V^ ¥ 11318 ' , , , ifSJ^JIS^', S IfinrS

lett18 125 25 SJl 'Jt iJs^iMiJ U2 2! 13 9 25114 7 labor 11520 lettieg 25 25 25 58 22 l ? 8 74 6 ?8 2 120 2l! 123?! 1^126 12, laborious 107 6 level 23 25 24 1 1 17 Wl 24 106 6 135 25 120 4,24 E E ^ i T T Q M 3614,37 2,262 i7,' , 13618 ' mag4ets 7511 137 25 109 7,7 locality 138 23 mail 8 n0,s75 25, Iadv47 8 818 11 levels 25 20 locally 7582 135 13,138 25 105 23 liability 9018 locals 1715 mailbox 13811 Landisburg 148 13 15 Liberty 64 14,15 located 7 8 67 8 6910 mailing 138 9,18,13918 20 license 149 9 144 21 , , , main 55 21 9416,139 7

! L (8) Min-U-Script® Key Reporters (717)764-7801

,4 13313 129 23,23,13018 25*1,28 24,3623,4221, 93 14,94 45,113315 meant 132 5 mismatch 103 23 44 5.461162 16,65 12, 144 19 meantime 92 21 misrouted 120 18 6917,18,72 6,75 23,24, needs 17 23,22 7,26 22, mechanism32 25 ,4 3 missed 420 78 23,82 12,92 8,95 20, 27 6,4816,49 25,5122,

4,7811,14024 " ' mistakel0519 Vui^nuSli MuSE** media6> 2, m.stakes85 22,86 11, 1 2 2 8; 1 3 3 2 3; 1 3 7 5,25, negotiate 125 1 2

SSSfi wS»? & H 5'7' 5" J * » , 7 „ ne.ghbor.ng 25 8,2613 19, 76(6),77 12,22,80 16,20 mobile 21 16,22 17, Imcipal89 „ 1256 J ^ 5 ' 1 4 2 L

* |^T2eo'2261262,21319 5 S^ls^1M* jyT^^i1* neUrte87 2

•21f meeting 136,389,5715 2 " I 7 4 ? » ' « W " ^5116 ,859 ,874 , K S ' S S l n "" Me.bee99 20 w i A ' M i w . w i s , 8912 102 14 20 104 13 21,28 13,19,6617,

, Melwood4712,12, Z7^tf££g£1 101 23,226 20,12918, ' J ^ * " 2 * l 6

6211,12 94 2,6,98 5 ,9 ,18 , 18,1319,142 24,14617 J » » . " X 4 I . 1 4 * , 18 member74 16,142 2 108 15,21,22,1098, municipality 8 13,23 6, « _ „ * » „ _ , , , „ : , „ , ,

. . 9 t n i / C i n i n w i u ^ 20 l2 ei u o 1-7 NeWCOm7 7,16,10 13,

82 25 83 8 9514 monies 21 13,50 19, 96 13 '

6 122 14,142 5,150 4 1 » % ,16 13,117(4), must 3 1 7> 3 5 6> 4 9 next 7 10,18 25 26 25 6 mention 515,24 22, 1 1 8 4

£ 63 5,74 20,75 25,76 2, 1 U 1 L 1 0 i 2 2 8 1 1 R 296,362,81119932, monrtormg 65 23 12,15,7719,24,78 1,8, ? ^ o t 0 1 4 6 " o 1 1 8 ' 119 24,139 21,150 6 Monroo 6 23 12,84 10,85 4,14,87 1, ^ . « ••- mentioned 41 17,66 21, Montgomery 12914, 93 11,95 5,115 2,127 4, " " W 3 "

' 95 2S 120 21 1213 113 0117 146 23 night 37 7,7919 ' ^ S T ^ S 3 month59144869,,2, Mutual 22 51821,,219. nineteen 122 18

143 23 112 2 19,23,27 2 nobody 122 8 merge 37 23 monthly 881,89 3 myself 7 14 Noburg28l5

2 Menon148 6 months 1614,411, None 115 8,123 9 message 7512 8314,10512,12115, N nonpartisan 4815 met 24 4,,2,2614 129 22 nook 148 7

method 23 23 more 17 2,15,19 13, n a w e 5 1 1 0 nor 50 12,111 18 Mich.ov.c4 17,24 22, S S " 3 ; « M S I I n Z 6 14,63 24,64 1, norma.ly55

* 5 S J S J U ' S ^ J J S K I M J W X M . 72 21,8311,87 17,18, northern8l6 *• ftniiiottjn 5618,62 16,75 24, 102 19,114 17,122 11, not-too-distant 14018

67 6 25 S f l f l 7 ** 1 .«92 8- 95 14, 98 6, 15,138 22,144 5,10 n o t e 53 t 69 20*706 9 12 7114 101 22,108 l,10918'21, name's47 notes 56 1

16 18,79 2,3,17,8114, ' 110 16,112 15,115 20 named 3124 nothing 931,131 13 95 249jVi i0 , l40i4 ^ ' J ^ , names e8138510, not.ceI7.8814

01 might 12 2,6,13 2, 1 4 0 , « ' ' 1 2 5 1 5 noticed 88 20 1420,155,243,15,645, . , 4 Narduzz13125 notrfy 5217,8815,

! 88 14,97 20,10011, moreover 3b 14 narrowly 108 20 1015,110 8,24,14618, ' 118 16,137 3,5,,38 21, J J ™ " ^ ^ J £ nat.on 73 7,77 9,142 21 23

0, ^ 4614,72 2 i , 7 3 4 ; 8 2 ' 2 3 , " * » « J 1 7 » • » f N°V?mbe'3° * 711 mMesl39l6 24,83 7,102 9,122 12,13 77 4,841,3,4,24125, nowhere883 7 13, miles 139 16 20 21 31 3,11, _. number 5 22,9 22, 2i 22S?«»«4 34 11,39213,359312,87 3, .J^^-JH*4 10 11,24 4 97 25 37 10,

I25, 114 25,115 8,11,14, move, 14,25 7,105 17, near 142 16 73 18,74 13,75 6,22, 22 .. 10610,117 20,135 9, nearly 4812 £ J 2 X K J 2£? 7 Z A millions 3717 147 9 neeessanlv 1481 88 3,8919,90 5,92 3,

mind 214 18 ft 84 21 - M H J 1 •>< , •> 12a -7 n B C B S S B 7 96 19,25,97 9,17, •MMiu i i , 30 o, 014 i , movea 150 3A 150 / necessary 35 3 55 6 101 25 1021 106 9 11

i56 m.ne'920,47 3,49 23 ™™™*>™"> 7 1 4 S 7 5 9 2 1 3 ; i l 2 l ) 107 1 i i y 8 ; 122 U, ' S * m,nimal1322 movmg5 19,464,77 19, neea723^24,264,2989 ,»5!S SB3 U

minimize 15 24 134 19 30 21,38 23,49 2 ,12 ,18 , 134 18,135 11,136 7,14, i, minimum 35 11,111 21, M S A G 49 20,61 16,96 45 50 24,57 10,22,62 16, 24,142 2,144 8,146 5,5, 8, 11610 111,4,97 74,16,111 252 65 8,66 23,80 17,817, 149 6

f7l7)764-7801 Min-U-Script® (9) maintaining - number

102 20,107 20 ,108 8,,8 92 5,96 1,100 7,7,7, pay|ng 7119,21,>08 23, persons 37 2,115 9

20,110 22,112 24, 104 245105 25,116 7 109 20 Pesci 419,64,5,1515, overall789 PE-MA 1fi 1^ 25 19 14 18 12 2011 23 25

132 9 13i 9,f42 8, overload92 22,25, 18,24 16,d8,339,55, 27 lo!42 2*437,466, ^T * «4 3 25,44 15,17,24,45(5), 21,47 24,53 4 ,10 ,11 , onto196 overloading 110 17,19 54 14,,4618 55 91016,66 4,11,16, open 12 1,991 3,100 22, o v e r s e e m g 39 9 ) 3 4 8 PennDOT 149 1,1,11 66 24,67 22,68 2 ,9 ,15, 2 4 _,, oversight 251,10,3418 Pennsylvania 513, SJJfT^SJil6>

opening 912 " • ' • ' - ' •» • 723,981,107 18 0 ^ 2 5 9,108 19, ^ J 3 2 V 2 3 9 i 7 6 46 S f 502,'5I'l'19, Pasc.'s 47 8,61 14 0 ^ 9 2019,7910, l o ' w ' S S 1 4 , 9 4 2 * M^SSSi P e £ s 6 7 1 917,107 13 owners 93 4 7,915,22,95 16,122 22, P e t er6 l5 operation 73 1 124 16,19,21,125 2,16, Petrarea 46 23,47 25, operational 1513 wm 22,1301,142 4 ,14318, 3 3 4

operations 115 4, P 14510,148 6 Petrarka's 66 5 11621 people43 7 17,815, P e t t ybo„e 14722 opinion 7710 P891 %S%Z>%\?Z Phenomenon 100 2 opportunrt.es 105 18 pml5013 g £ 2 U41 2 Philadelphia 30 3, opportunity 11 15,16, PA 138 9,147 24 44 17' 45 i s ' 47 19" 98 13,984 16,19,21, 2 S n47168l42272420, P 8 C k a 9 e 199'48 12 53 1 9 : 62 2 4 : 6 3 23'M 3' ' h 5 3'4' H 3 ^ 1 5 0 ?

order'357,125 12, ^ ^ f ' o o S ^ S t s i t l K M S " ' k S l l S S s ^ 13118 pages 47 21,100 23,24, 5 1 1 ' 0 1 0 , i i 2 1 1 5 1 2 552,22,5625,575, organization 75 5,7, *** $ 119 5,9,125 25,127 20, 58 22,59 11, 11,17, ' ' 23, 14A If O l ^ o l o , , j U -15, 151 A, » » ^ » t

organizations 1719, Palmier. 122 21 132 23, 1 3 2 22,25,134 2,5, £ ^ J 5 , 1 1 , 7 7 1 4 ; 9 3 4' 23 2 1 2 4 5 138 17,14125,14415, 135 20 ,22 ,1361 ,137 7, 96 4,22,23,97 7,17,24,

orimnal411<5 94 2=1 l4713 22,138(5,, 145 8,14611, 99 3 ,102 24,103 7,

Sffnio.'iSJS pmaT£47l?£„ li'H1121,14855 ITolmYeVs1^ othe'rsan l a n 3 1 « ? C S S S S i t " Pete's 1492 >* J * J * ^ ^ C M T I M ? ^ . i ^ - * 1 3 7 1 2 f S S n 6 " 217 5 p

4h

7o £ s M 1 2

w S ' S 8 V i " ' parai!!edic198l8 S T s ^ S S ^ o 6 ' g ^ J ^ ' g J } ourse,ves61 14 14, paramedics 76 10 « * ° » £ 5.97 16 * ^7.a608.« M, 1618 parent7412 I S ^ 1 1 2 20,11514,' » 8 8 ' 1 4 1 1 2 out 8 15,10 1,15 9, parents 74 6 11610,120 9,124 9, phonetic 11 20,23, 1666,17 3, ,1 ,18 16, part t 16,16,8 17,12 22, 132 14,137 22,143 23 18 22,28 15,67 10, 26 22,27 3,21,28 7, 13 22,15 3,481,5517, 14917 l47 22 2910,38 5,17,22,3919, 56 20,65 2 0 , 7 9 1 8 , percentagg 98 81 physical 87 16 SJ'S ll'H^l £ 1 34 12'1503'8 perfect77 20,131 23 physically678,976 6 0 1 9 614 62 2463 23 V™"*** U82 performance 13 3, physiiian 74 ,114116, « 16 21 22 655 « 7 Participatiig8623, 15 20,16 22,35 13 7 7 " S2?;7017,721i ,1o2, 5 5 0 3 performed43 , 5 P . c k 2 8 1 1 0 0 , 1 , 8,818,9611,18,9915, participation 79 23 perhaps 38 20,42 118 13513,146 20 16,101 19,24,104 55 particulaa 15 5,20 0 65 25,70 7 picking 27 22,71 242 1065,6,10711,24, particularly 9 21,19 22, periods 18 18 11 111 2 I824

S W ^ y S 1 3 , 2621 £rmit957 P«ture 2018,126 25 28 i ? 5 129 2 , partieS 78 12 Parry 4 8 P — ** * 86 16,139 13

130 13,131 11 132 17, partPS \8f 2 3 ' 3 2 9 1P parson 5 13,24,37 24, g ^ 5 ^ * 17

13612,138 7,12,140 4, P 50 4,00 lz, 0/ 7,oy lz, > "v 12,25,144 7 ,145 20, passed 8 2,32 58,33 8, 13,7713,86 2 ,11913, pinpoint 41 8,70 15 146 21222,23,147 10, 65 8 1241,125(4), 126 5, Pittsburgh 27 21,60 3, 148 22 passes 8512 127 9,128 25,130 10, 9,63 3,72 23,25,9812, outside 21 23,,467, past 45 7,73 7,7716, 13914,145 2 10510,22,231106 3, 67 23,118 9,125 1,3, 83 13,24,84 1,105 25, person's6911 114 11219,91817,23, 13510 139 6 personal 531,5516, 138(4)

75 4, IsVl1 30 ? » 4, S l f f i j »4 4, a. Personally 24 8,88 ,4, S n C , H'M9 61

L (10) Mm-U-Scrip** Key Reporters (717)764-7801

Preparedness 4 1', P J ^ r e s s 7 3 14'104 25 , PUC13 6 11 14 18 ready 72 17

29 20,83 9 1051 • ' , jgg, 2 1 2 4 5 1 1 5 6 3 l g

5) presents 21,2318, prohibrt9423 69257023 ' 64 9,67 1,8015,83 5, 78 21,115 13,17 proh.bt.ve 113 16,19 p u r c h a s e \x 10> 024 100 9,125 141127 24, presentation 19 23 prohibits 31 6 ?? ? 04 74 129 8

20 President83 25,84 1 Prrmotedl119 pu^hasmg 513,55 22 rea.Be97 8. l12 0.24, I4. pressure 90 24 promulgate 35 10,18 purpose 4 24,712 9 1 139 1 7 , 1 4 ° **

pretty8l6,113 4,123 5, promulgated 33 4,36 1, 34 5 % 6,91 21,132" reabzed 130 19,135 18 ' prevent 32 17,84 24, proper 3111,32 12,25, purposell 51 3,75 8 4118,18,5113,62 21,

86 21 35 3,43 24,67 6,74 ,3, purposes 126 4 233 ^ 1 0 , 1 0 , 6 5 8 > 6 7 1 2 > 6, prev.OUs12 21,24, 85 12,15,8918,1111, p U sh8110 79 9,132 5,133 22

17 10,96 20 125 13,1315,5,6 pushing 261 realm 118 3 previously 8 3,16 7, properly 37 5,77 19, Sut 19 2 28 9 40 M reason 37 3,42 5,55 21,

5 1232,12910 ^ X ^ ^ « 2 4 ^ 4 7^62163 8, 814,9812,105 3,145 8 pricing 70 18 'I'll 6616,68 24 ,4 ,1 ,7311 , reasons 13 8,56 8, primary 114 20 property 90 4 79 8,85 17,8916,9125, 94 14,104 22 Prime 29 5 proposal 48 10,12,23, 99 11,1,1 24,102 25, receive 2111,76 4, DncciDal245 49 23,50 7,14,52(4,) 104 4,108 6,8,10, 113 16,115 14,144 11

Sr,nti88,90i1 ^ ' L « 7 ISJJlSSi?4,1* « " - « * * " . pointed 88 4,11,13 5pZ?i?SS , X ft ? & J* J ^ . 1 ^ 98 prior 83 5,15,122 1 ?13P9512,1116 putting 53 20071 7, S S w u O W

S « 5 7 n i 7 6 2 4 * 2 5 P^S^7425 10213'1349 recent'146,1299

; ? pr.orrty473.5719 £ £ £ £ £ £ 6 Q S 3 S » 2 73 22 l* prr^yio7l317,112 1 jrd C 9°24 5 6 9 , 6 6 2 3 qualified 17 16 r e t ^ n g ^ ? "

proactive 7810,1311 proves 54 5 Quality 3514,49 8, retomlnend 16 24, P 66 V 13 19,29 9, provide 16 20,31 2,30, 77 25,78 4,7,13,8411, 10113

JS^ ll^Ti^3' «^wSl"'" • £ £ 135 9 ^ 10

7 m4T5nd a t , 0 n 8

U 1 2 In1A1 ' 5l5'23> 58 25t 6 5 16' quest ionable 30 47,9 6 reconcile 132 4 2 4 probtem8 211713 " J ? « i ? s S i r 2 1 , <U,Ck81 " I S S S a o i l .

22 12,39 6,10,5115, 9311,14,99 4,1013, quickly 7318 12613,140 8,142 23 2. 57 2,612,7,12,8016, 10312,107 20,123 24 quite 13213 record 1210,83 4,

89 4,9616,25,100 9, provided 10 6,53 3, quote 117 16,127 11 8719,143 20,14711 102 24,12120,124 22, 76 20,107 18,142 20 quoted 133 24 recording 8010

20, 13412,135 19,14010, prov,der 56 5 74 6 recordings 52 8162 26 1 4 8 2 * , providers 35 16,24, R records 52 8,61 1,

5 9 'mffiRw^ 3 3 " ^ M i ™ M 5 9 2 radio 5810,14,10911, £ ^ 4 1 * 1 3 ' 33 ffifiJSJ135'17, Drev^no^Vi 7 , 1 l ra,sed3,l0,08l0 I ^ T ^ 2

Drocedure2512 57 24,100 20,2l', 114*16 Ralph 4 18,6 200, 11 ^ ^ 1 2 ' Sroc^ur:s025123,77 5, ^ ^ 3 6 3,7,52 12, ^2320 J - ~ £ a

proc°essl7 6,35 23. prov.s.ons449.6l8,9, rapidry 5511 j j j j l ^ o T 3716.489.5619,7725, 2 1 rrrely863 reducmg942 78(4), 90 9,9,11,91 23, Prudent 81113 rate 20 13,14,22,2216, redundant 143 24

1fiStfl'Xfo'S* PrUSSI81485 104 24,137 21 JJ" 22,126 12,128 19,25, PSAP85 21,9210,22, rates 91 19 „ t „ „ H «< KA ->n

I 4 0 M . , „ , 9*\£\T^2o4l£?' ^ " ^ JO 9,241,39 20, ^ . ' e 7 a ^ 6r

,7 5 2 o

processes 35 2i 13,130 19,14Z 9,144 4 24,25,66 10,98 20, " 3,7, processing 97 9 PSAPs 92 8,95 8,101 9, 1214,122 23,126 25, refused 88 22

professional 30 13,15, 11616 1273,1474 regard 217,372,45 12 83 23 public 4 24,23 22,30 16, RD 118 113,13,1 rrgarding 33 36,35 50,

f717l764-7801 Min-U-Scrint® f i1 ) nlace - reeardine

14 24 4Q 7^k 5V4"* l w " " « »^« « •KWMIJI ivw •* 59C), 60(7), 61(4), 62 20, r e s t 7 1 2 4 0 7 0 7 2 5 , routing 32 13 seeking 21 25 64 12,65(5), 66(4), 67 16, 1 1 3 2 3 runed 93 10 seeks 33 22 22,25,68(6), 69 4,16,20, restaurant 130 9 ruling 99 19 seem 1451 ? S 9 V ! - f i 1 S , 1 K 7 2 3 ' restr.ct.ons 95 5 run 36 4,39 5,64 19, seems 79 11185 3,19, S f ^ ' S ' l i M o f * rest«22 23 65 4 ,8618 ,96 8,103,9, 9317,140 20,144 22 " J ' l o M S w t ' M resubmrt352 1465 sees8723,881 c w n i i i n W m i ^ result 47 15,22,115 5 running 25 6,1,137 11 selling 117 25 w££T^i resu.tea-3418,47 21, rura.876 Senate8 3,l0 4 ,7 ,1 , 108 25,109 5,13,110 1, 129 6 125 7 18,112 9,118 12,14, results5710 $ send 27 4,3816,7752, 119 21,120 20,1212,7, retain 50 8 92 19,98 8,99 7,8,

SbH2,1461(4),71438, jJ-^T*71 23 sadly 47 13,73 12 \% WTll'.Ul \l'

representatives 8 7,10, 33 21,35 8 . . J ^ . . _, M 1 M , . ' i l . 104,2225,2320,9817 reverse73i3 2 ^ 2 856 15 Z L ^ « » representing4 22,6 5, Rev.ew35 14,27,707 ff?%5.5,21'™*JJJ,„ ^ " f l T f £ , fiQ , a

911 rev.ewed74232874, *4 £1173,25'13020' S 2 0 L Y I 2 1 0 5 1 0 represents7l6,622 10925 Saint i27 18 18 ?06?3^399 request 19 3.34 20 reviews 53912 Saladay47 11,14 separate 15 17,145 21 requests782 R.chard8218 Salar.es50l6 September 150 9

IK"^1? 4V \l i i 17 S1?5 2 f '^ 1 3 '* M 9 salary6 l619 ser,ous 3710'38 23-33 24,35 1,42 25,44 17, Ridge 11 14 c«i.i»...™ n o 41 18 129 7

1482 229S 282?25 4 u ' same 1424,252,31 2, «3 required 15 2,19 6, 2 2 JJ 2 ° J ^ 1 ^ 41 ,6,39 9,42 21 43 11, served 11 19,12 21 31 12,44 14,49 1,76 18, % 4 ' g % 5 2 ^ 7

16' 47 19,65 1,68 3,69 1, serves 129 13,134 25 785,,94 8,95 3,11121 691470117257420 9223,24,952,11723, service 2311,25 20, requirement 17 2,4, £ V 2 80 i s 24 |2 i 13, 1 ? , L V . 2 ? ^ 3 0 8> 3 9 * 10> 4 5 5> 55(4(>

3?5,3520 82 15 103 20 21104 8 135 10,14,13613,140 3, 56 3,11.5724,5810, requ,rements nt 17,517 nXTlAUwA " " 5?S4Jf^2J 18 1,19 8 123 21,124 23,132 10, sat.100 13 71 2 0,75 7.:24J^5, requ.res 58 24,11613 12 f ! ^ " 1 6 4 1 5 > 1 ' 6 5 , 2 ' « 1 4 J M • H U P ' requiring 25 19,43 3, Right-to-Know o2 9 ^ ^ ^ j ? ?2o 20 21,'lM 4 122 22, re^dence 60 12,15, *£!£.{? save 84 23,137 7 J23 £ g £ i £ 1 2 , 8810 ns .ngl l68 saved 73 20,20,84 18 133 4,5,6,134 7,22, resident 47 11,107 2 risk 75 15 saving 77 3,4 136 21,22,138 20,1391, resrientiaa71 20 Road47 16 62 11 65 , s a w 6 3 20,64 9,19,654, 23,140 11142 20,144 16, residents 918,2817, 6912,7325,131 17 ' 1 3 8 2 0 19,145 6,21,146 2,3,25, 10123,106 25,139 22 roads967 saying 42 8,68 6,84 8, 147(4) res«•mg7924 R o g e r s910,15,102, ?f24'!?3 JJ17'17' TfiZl J14" 2 4 ,

l 6

r e T r c l s ^ 8 4 4 K S S . 7 7 " s c e n ' a r ^ 1 22. " ^ " " ^ '

respondl015,l046, ^ 7 2 ^ ^ ^ ~97,« ^f^^'

Z S E i f J * »"".»"»' ' scheduled 136,468, sess,ons67l4 responder6l3 Roth 72 15,21,22,79 4, 114 10,122 9 set 19 15,32 19,84 111 r e s p o n d e d 8,10,6 63,80 ,48122,82 ,8 s c h o o l 7 7 1 2 14024,1509 responding 78 11 83 5,119 4 Schweiker 1115 setting 94 20 response 22 18,29 23, roughly 7 18 sc .e™ 77 17 83 18 settmgs37 72 l¥{6%*o£i?765 Z S r ^ " — * « 4 » seven^,grt7413,75 6, 82 10,'88 25,'89 6,90 1,,' U214, UA 11,15,17, S C r B e n 3 8 4'124 3 several 4 3 7 20 19 22 1036,118 24,137 21 1 1 8 l3] 1 1 9 ^ 1 2 0 242 screwed 106 16 ^ 1 S ^ i s S 15 responsibilities 114 20 121 6,9,25,122 5, seamless 25 13,75 25 3 7 l t 4 6 10> 5 1 21> 5 6 x 1, responsibility 13 12, 123 17,137 16,141 244 second 17 8,42 23, 731,6,24,74 15,24, 1913,22 6,27 13,33 9, 145 7,147 17,148 4 4710,7919,110 6 8120,82 25,105 25, 9614,139 22,140 7 Routt 64 40,24,70 242 secondary 27 5 11119,112 16,11311,

> Min-U-Script® Key Reporters (717)764-7801

118 17 1\ 1*R*fi ~,684 st""U'-"0 ™iuy7*«

140 25 start 4 4,5 25,6 25,119, studying 49 2 Switching 75 16

somebody's7119 11% S , 2 ?' 7 9 1 > 8 4 8 , subject 5010,150 11 sympathy 1th12 somehowl43 11 start^ip217 !^^Sf 2^V»} £9

STS5?2t7a?25 ^l^ 2 ,296,5323, 14?'15 ' ' ' 26 2,29 23:25,31229>

89 24,110 8,21,120 25 63 16,83 2 submitted M4 8,15 18, 32 19,34 8,9 ,35 6,36 16, someone's 62 25, starting 6 3,104 23 20,108 16,21,121 24 37 5,9,15,38 8 , 3 9 1 8 , 104 starts 64 3,,14 subscriber 56 5,74 20' 4114442 1,144,19,

,12 something 14 17,19 14, state 5 10,6 4,18,8 14, 17321 44 24,4612,4816, 12°' 2 J 2 S S S ? 1 4 , 10(5),1910,24 1,17, subscribers 5511,13, S i ^ ' i S S ?

65 7,66 16,17,68 8, 32 10,19,33 19,34 7, _ _ . , _ _ , , _ _- . , 74 4 ,58 23, 59 1,63 4, 9 102 12,103 9,118 14,211 3614,4916,50 1,59 23, £ JJ „ 5 Y l i18 a 2fSS2itl55,

133 7,20,137 19 , ,1919 , 62 7,67 4,73 24,75 4, , i « , , 789,13,14,8013,85(4), 14915 7612,1,,83 31122 19, 1 2 ° " 8616,17,10814,19, sometimes 8 22,37 119 138 7 142 44,43 117 ^ ^ f !n E'!?!£ Iv"1 * 39 6 104 13 14812 I 4 6 i 8 subsidize 58 22 123 13,14,125 17,

€ 1 , somewhat i l 7 1 8 , state*f-the-artll6 21 substantive 127 77 J» J J | g * " £ J 4

513 12619 Stated34 22,9817, 128 11,24,1296 22 a46 8 somewhere 8811,23 2235 suburb 13810 systems 35 4,36 4,8 sophisticated62 17 statement 132 3 subwta 64 21,65 5, 1 ^ 7 1 , 8 6 56 1*4 24, sorry 11415 States 41 10,74 24, 1191.13812 65 23,68 14,87 7.91225 sort 69 8,100 10,141 10 " f.« 2 * J 2-9, successful 36 15 107 19f 21.25,142 155

r7 uiniifiiiuiiwin ' ' suffers74 18 443 55 zisrr assays ZEES?," —^— 12, South 6 21 Btat.Bt. 1 OK 1 suggesizoiz j _ 3 Cmrtkunet^Ti/: siaiisiics 86 7 suggestion 67 2,86 72,

Suh^lr„^,7 stotusll71 1333 T - » b i s 1 i 6 S a c e ^ Steel2723,,82215, sugges t ions s94 ™£*6 « ^ 0 2 6^3 83 10 stmographer's 29 8 Smted3517 , S - 6 3

5 89 4,100 16,18.114 17, ^ 3 5 3 78 17 ™2Z?JM tabloid 5213 122 25,124 1,12613. * " ' / * u m m e r 31 23 fe fi ^ 128 4,141 18 sieps w "• " 1U Sunflower 128 7 1 0 M 1 , ; ,

191, speak,ng99i8 2-S.^S superfluous 144 25 ^ 3 0 5 13.315.

20 5 6^nVlV2444l3335 23, Sticking 10 18 ^ Z I fl S 2 £ ^ l Y i ^ 1363 S ^ ^ S i * suppl*d755 1S.» 22,43 19,67 a *

l05 ^TKUia £S?iSiS" 5?S?5^ i a s y 4 i 9 3 3 ' 1 0 7 9 >

tf S. 63C201824^4 2, l 1 ' ! ^ ' 107' Z2SZi\ ZSSgSA"* 1 2 7 1 8 -top92l8.937.1107. " J ^ J talking 42 1,1.65 1,

2 5 spelled 12713 « ; « „ „ , „ „ , , n 7 suDDOsed 12 16 87 15 °03 667,120 1.135 1 , , sponsored 4 25 * 0 r y * 2 9 8 , 68 24.84 13.91 6.93 21, target5210

5 spot 4217,7514 straighten 45 8 94 5,95 6,107 12,1113, targeted 518 Spring 14816 stranded 110 21223 11324,14111 taskl3922 m i ._d« i n strapped 113 4 surcharges 166,2111, taunht7* i s 112 11

staff 5 24,612,14,53 55 64R8SQ87S17966 93 4,9811,22,101 19, team 32 3,34 23 8,5711,14,70, I24i6;i9.20.127,23, ' 10314.110 19.20,114 4. Technical 11 23.568. staffing 719 128 7.8,132 11,11, 126 22,128 3,21,133 1, 57 2,66 22

14, stand 99 20 136 7,15,138 22,145 16, 142 19,143 8 technological 65 21 standard 49 7,77 8 ,21, 147 22 surpass 92 5 technology 2513,56 2, 7910 streets 40 3,62 14,96 7. surplus 10 11107 222 68 6,9124493 14.116 23 standards 14 12,17 20, s0219 108 22 technology's 66 14, 20,3013,35 11,13, s tress 34 4 surpluses 107 25 68 20

(717) 764-7801 Min-U-Scri ,** (13) Shaler - technology's

^75,11112,120 4, S T u 7 3 1 M . » K VJ,\?X\V°' iSTlV 13611,12,24 60 22,2362 12 13 J J » - | g j 103:1. U p p e n 1 3 0 2 4

thought 2812,43 24, ^ " S I S M 23 UPS 135 22 125 23,136 15 | » «; JJ-J- g j H ^ „ 22 l 6 „ „ ^ upset 20 2,71 3 thousand 111 19,212 16 * " * " ° *-* " ' * 2120,40 6,4113,44 20, urge 94 4 thousands 63 1,6 townshios 39 20 5111 « 1 1 , 5 2 13,54 1 use 24 16,26 8,3119, threat7421 townships 39 20,51 19, 1ype9l289 42 5,5016,18,52 13, threaten 80 13 tracking 6913 Tyrone 148 15 569,86 6,9117,94 18, threatening 8614 tractor 144 6 1112,10,116 23,117 6, three « 9 i i < « 7 m

l r a c , o r 144 b W T 134 24,145 13,147 4, 1 0 5 1 1 1 2 3 6 9 rraditiona8 18 1 * J 1498 th r~Ji . i l 4« 1 traditionally 14718 used 12 25,21 13,4919, n^H012 traffic 57 8,92 15 uftrnately 76 4,140 20, 51 5.7.93 22,94 H

inrewi40i2 tragedies 38 23.4116 141* 11310,12,11614, throughout 10 8,32 21, t „ l ^ „ a n , , ' , . unable 144 11 117 24,144 9 33 18 ,34 9339 23,73 2, %™££>l "> unaware 36 14 user 71 23,116 14, t h ^ Q K , tragic3411,371,649 ""conscious 74 9 11721,22 inrow xf " V t fe .. 6 uncooperative 85 16 users 54 23,55 2,20, Thursday 13 5,19 24 ™ f

1 4 4 6 deder 18 21,191,4, 5612159 5,58 21,69 8, tick 13422 i r a i n n l ^ 20 13,19,2118,21, 7121,92 14,22,110 3 Tigue 4 2 0 ,6 22,22, tramed 49 1 76 16 2 2 l% ,23 ,2 % 2 9 25> u s e s x l 6 2 4

18 10 ,11 ,212 ,3 ,22 9, 77 19,112 5,11819 3613,68 24,90 17, using 12 22 3 1 6 70 22 20,23 24,24 18,38 9, traiaing 17 16,24,18 1, 108 12,111 5,21,113 232 "IT°94 22112! 10 23 44 6,19,45 23,81 18, 30 24,31<7), 35 11,44(4), 1152,143 18 « i « 14 128 4 146 15 82 1,7,102 7,8,21, 48 24,49 4,63 16,21, underneath 63 9 149 5 103(5), 104(4), 10618, 7661,17,77 23,84 12, undertook 61 15 l r t H l h „ 0

107 7,108 25,109 5,13, 13,1113,16,25,112 7, "noertooK 61 15 utir ty88 9 1101 18 11814 120 20 21 underway 82 16 utilize 123 18,,12 9, I S i ^ i l i V " , Transportation 77 21 undent ing 117 4 1328 13110,14120,143 ,8 travel 65 2 uffortunate 61 5 utilized 34 5 144 17 1467,14714,25, tremendous 1 1 3 1 3 unfortunate^ 15 utilizes 123 34 Z94 1,9 10,10 22, « ' " » l4n „ 2 '12*0,87 tl^U' * V 46 6,53 10,22 2666 3,20, triangulate 14016 124 4,129 5,130 9 V

7114 tr.angulat.on 68 21 uniformity 14913 Tim's 21 3 tried 41 24,67 23,103 3 uninformed 5110 vacation 100 6 timely 76 5 triennial 15 18,33 3, unit 3817,119 18 validate 1351 times 64 3,105 25, 4 2 2 d Unrtedll511 Valley 46 16,24,47 6 11519,24,102 11,129 55 4nes2814 units37 24,38 5 Van4 19,68,8,467,14, 13155 trigger 133 8 universal 7* 18 75 2=4 15,6018,616,6510,18, tip 791 4 trouble 741 8 Unwersrtv72 13 66 2,70 2,95 21,96 5, Title 36 6 truck 59 11 im- . , ' . „ , , 112 9,127 23,24 todav 4 12 15 5 11 7 6 true 20 17 89 10 91 10 " M S " 3' Vandergrift 27 246127 9 9^4. lSM? 8 20;2 7 5 6 , S S l i s 1 * 9 1 1 0 , u ^ s

2s

9a r y 5 1 3 Van i t y

| e l 5 12

12 1

S ^ i ^ S ^ o ' try62 25,72 18.85 16. untrained 7 7 1 3 various 24 13.25 1 i n a f f i i i T T i a i ? 8613,99 1,104 9, up 5 23,11 3 ,1211 , vehemently 110 4 108 3,114 17,11853 126 22,1374,134 10, 14 17,1817,2315, vehicle 116 2S together 19 3.3215, 14413 27 22,281,29 2,32 19, ^ , " f ! J 54 e5,60 23.62 1,85 14, t r v m a u 1 2 1 3 gg 7 38 3,46 13,49 11,51 17, vehicles 21 25 14115,14918 6717 6V3 70 24 7212 53 6,6111,22,64 18, vein 4911 told297,33 10,805 W 19 101 8 132 4 7 1 ",24,72 13,761, verify 88 4,101 4,18, Tom417,201622,2422, H ^ V ' « 8 . » ^ W ^ l O u f A 12117,14712 70 20,131 10 Tubes 64 15 | * J J , 1 ® 9' Veteran 29 19 took721,32 10,409 turn625,162,539, 2? g l g ^ l i * Veteran's838 top 47 3,13318 14018 24 2 , 2 9 24,35 8 , 3 , Veterans 411 tort 36 9 turnpike 7 1 1 2 1364 6,140 24,142 18 Vice 4 10 ,841 total54l6 turns4022,747 1431,144 1,145 3 V.ct ,m525 tour 7 7,19,20 twelve-month 112 3 update 23 7 ,1218 victims 52 14 toward 95 10,011 13 twenty 30 3,73 7,13 updated 3 9 1 3 , 4 0 1 7 view 11 25,14 20,111 24 towards 142(5) twenty-hour 25 6 updating 6 1 1 views 61 20 4) Min-U-Scrfpt® Key Reporters (717)764-7801

wholeheartedly 84 9 2 1 1 4 > 2 2 1 3 > 2 3 l 4 > 2 4 2> whose 7 1 25 16,26 10 ,18 ,2711

28 3i,4444,45 4,13 Wilkmsburg97 22 Wyoming 147 22 willing 92 13,93 7,8 w,ndstorm801 X

W.re58 221,11 21, ~ " ^929,9323,941, x X2 5,22 24,27 25

7,11313 _ _ — wireless 53 21154 2, Y

55(5), 56 2,4,5,57 20, 23,25,58(4), 91 4,92(4), Y 26 25,27 2,4

S f t n 2 i M « J 2' Yeah4222'4419'709' 117 13 22 24 118 5 79 3,108 3,138 24,141 1 142it* • • ' syiYMfiflo24, Within 5 18,2 3,25 99 78 20;93 13, {l4 25,' 44 10,47 4,113 ,25 7 l 6 6> 8 ) % 117 6,135 9 1 1 L10'^] •!? ,« , 0 y1ar-end 107 22,1081 S S « « ? m i vears 3 2 1 8 > 3415> 35 2-94 14,95 6,101 23, 44 9> 47 3> 5> 5221,73 7,

, wrtnes1s2e^196 20,21 w £ « 5 S T s T ' 65> witnessing 75 20 122 18,135 3,4 ! \ wonwn3124 yellow 100 22,24 H, wondered 134 9 yesterday 7 19,8 9,38 9 • 20, wondering 2611 York 27 21

word 26 9 young 63 16,64 10 122, words 20 4,21 8,127 6, Y u c k l l 8 2 °

w X 20 13 18 ,1 16 2

85 14 99 8 24 104 9 zero 107 2I ,nn 126 21,142 8,8,25,' Zip 125 8 ) 2 0 ' 84618 147 16 Zug 0 20,6 15,15,16 3,

worked 45 4 60 2 63 4 4,17 7,18 2,59 8,9,

^ 2 5 2 6 1 5 ' S S ? 2 6 4 1 2 , 9 7 2 4 ' STSsS 10,12,9615, 102 16,124 6,6,1318,

8, 132 7,133 1,134 16, 1J7 7.M0 16, U l 158

£Ld»» works 41 4,51 23,

worry 70 24,86 16,138 5 worse 110 7

0 worst 74 17,180 5,6,13 w„te2118

255 writing 79 9,134 15 m . 1 2 2.1,1 12.

wrong 3817,85 21, 89 24g90 3,6,80,9619,

10 S i 130 192425 1 1 3 4f6,11381352 2 , 2 4 , 1 3 5 1 '

(717) 764-7801 M M * * * (15) violaUon-Zug

on

UMBER OF MGBS/TAFKS __

DPZBS SBMT TOl

BRSON/TXTLB LOCATION DATK SENT

"fJA/p i^icHLgvi^ ISLiiJhSL 5Lt-L€_r5_?