Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12399 

[FR Doc. 2021–03410 Filed 3–2–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–C 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 9 

[PS Docket Nos. 20–291 and 09–14; FCC 

21–25; FRS 17515] 

911 Fee Diversion; New and Emerging 

Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 

2008 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (the FCC 

or Commission) proposes rules to 

implement the Don’t Break Up the TBand Act of 2020, which is Section 902 

of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2021, Division FF, Title IX (Section 

902). Section 902 directs the 

Commission to issue final rules, not 

later than 180 days after the date of 

enactment of Section 902, designating 

the uses of 911 fees by states and taxing 

jurisdictions that constitute 911 fee 

diversion for purposes of certain 

sections of the United States Code, as 

amended by Section 902. The intended 

effect of this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPRM) is to propose rules 

that implement Section 902 and help to 

identify those uses of 911 fees by states 

and other jurisdictions that support the 

provision of 911 services. 

DATES: Comments are due on or before 

March 23, 2021, and reply comments 

are due on or before April 2, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by PS Docket Nos. 20–291 

and 09–14, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: https:// 

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Parties who choose to file by 

paper must file an original and one copy 

of each filing. If more than one docket 

or rulemaking number appears in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

submit two additional copies for each 

additional docket or rulemaking 

number. Filings can be sent by 

commercial overnight courier, or by 

first-class or overnight U.S. Postal 

Service mail. All filings must be 

addressed to the Commission’s 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Commercial overnight mail (other than 

U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and 

Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 

20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 45 L Street NE, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

• Effective March 19, 2020, and until 

further notice, the Commission no 

longer accepts any hand or messenger 

delivered filings. This is a temporary 

measure taken to help protect the health 

and safety of individuals, and to 

mitigate the transmission of COVID–19. 

See FCC Announces Closure of FCC 

Headquarters Open Window and 

Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public 

Notice, DA 20–304 (March 19, 2020), 

https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcccloses-headquarters-open-window-andchanges-hand-delivery-policy. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice) or 202– 

418–0432 (TTY). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brenda Boykin, Attorney Advisor, 

Policy and Licensing Division, Public 

Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, 

(202) 418–2062, Brenda.Boykin@fcc.gov, 

or John A. Evanoff, Deputy Division 

Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, (202) 418–0848, John.Evanoff@

fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 21– 

25, in PS Docket Nos. 20–291 and 09– 

14, adopted and released on February 

17, 2021. The full text of this document 

is available at https://www.fcc.gov/ 

edocs/searchresults?t=quick&fccdaNo=21-25. 

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 Analysis 

This notice of proposed rulemaking 

may contain new or modified 

information collection(s) subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA). If the Commission adopts any 

new or modified information collection 

requirements, they will be submitted to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 

of the PRA. OMB, the general public, 

and other Federal agencies will be 

invited to comment on the new or 

modified information collection 

requirements contained in this 

proceeding. In addition, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, we seek specific comment on how 

we might further reduce the information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated in the DATES

section above. Comments may be filed 

using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS). See 

Electronic Filing of Documents in 

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 

(1998), https://transition.fcc.gov/ 

Bureaus/OGC/Orders/1998/ 

fcc98056.pdf. 

The Commission will treat this 

proceeding as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ 

proceeding in accordance with the 

Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons 

making ex parte presentations must file 

a copy of any written presentation or a 

memorandum summarizing any oral 

presentation within 2 business days 

after the presentation (unless a different 

deadline applicable to the Sunshine 

period applies). Persons making oral ex 

parte presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentation must (1) list all persons 

attending or otherwise participating in 

the meeting at which the ex parte 

presentation was made, and (2) 

summarize all data presented and 

arguments made during the 

presentation. If the presentation 

consisted in whole or in part of the 

presentation of data or arguments 

already reflected in the presenter’s 

written comments, memoranda, or other 

filings in the proceeding, the presenter 

may provide citations to such data or 

arguments in his or her prior comments, 

memoranda, or other filings (specifying 

the relevant page and/or paragraph 

numbers where such data or arguments 

can be found) in lieu of summarizing 

them in the memorandum. Documents 

shown or given to Commission staff 

during ex parte meetings are deemed to 

be written ex parte presentations and 

must be filed consistent with rule 

§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by 

rule § 1.49(f) or for which the 

Commission has made available a 

method of electronic filing, written ex 

parte presentations and memoranda 

summarizing oral ex parte 

presentations, and all attachments 

thereto, must be filed through the 

electronic comment filing system 

available for that proceeding, and must 

be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, 

.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants 

in this proceeding should familiarize 

themselves with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12400 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

1Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers 

Employing 911 Act of 2004, Public Law 108–494, 

118 Stat. 3986 (ENHANCE 911 Act) (relevant grant 

provisions codified at 47 U.S.C. 942). Congress 

provided another round of 911 grant funding, with 

similar non-diversion requirements, in the NG911 

Act. Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act 

of 2012, Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 237, Title VI, 

Subtitle E, Next Generation 9–1–1 Advancement 

Act of 2012 (NG911 Act) (relevant grant provisions 

codified at 47 U.S.C. 942). 

2New and Emerging Technologies 911 

Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 110–283, 122 

Stat. 2620 (NET 911 Act). The NET 911 Act enacted 

47 U.S.C. 615a–1 and also amended 47 U.S.C. 222, 

615a, 615b, and 942. See 47 U.S.C. 615a–1 Editorial 

Notes. 

3 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(1) (prior version). Under the 

NET 911 Act, the Commission’s annual 911 fee 

report covers states, as well as U.S. territories and 

the District of Columbia. See 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(2) 

(directing the Commission to report on the status 

‘‘in each State’’ of the collection and distribution of 

911 fees and charges); id. at 615b(2) (definition of 

‘‘State’’). 

4 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(2) (prior version). 

5These annual reports can be viewed at https:// 

www.fcc.gov/general/911-fee-reports. 

6 911 Fee Diversion; New and Emerging 

Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, PS 

Docket Nos. 20–291 and 09–14, Notice of Inquiry, 

35 FCC Rcd 11010, 11010, para. 1 (2020) (Fee 

Diversion NOI). 

7 Fee Diversion NOI, 35 FCC Rcd at 11011, 11016, 

paras. 5, 16. 

8These filings can be viewed in the FCC’s 

electronic comment filing system (ECFS) at https:// 

www.fcc.gov/ecfs/, under PS Docket Nos. 20–291 

and 09–14. 

9Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public 

Law 116–260, Division FF, Title IX, Section 902, 

Don’t Break Up the T-Band Act of 2020 (Section 

902). 

10 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(A) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 

11 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(B) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 12 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(B) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 13 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(1) (as amended) (emphasis 

added); sec. 902(c)(1)(A). 

Synopsis 

Background 

Congress has had a longstanding 

concern about the practice by some 

states and local jurisdictions of 

diverting 911 fees for non-911 purposes. 

In the ENHANCE 911 Act of 2004, 

Congress required states and local 

jurisdictions receiving Federal 911 

grants to certify that they were not 

diverting 911 funds.1 In the New and 

Emerging Technologies 911 

Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 

Act), Congress enacted additional 

measures to limit 911 fee diversion, 

codified in 47 U.S.C. 615a–1 (section 

615a–1).2 Specifically, section 615a– 

1(f)(1) provided that nothing in the NET 

911 Act, the Communications Act of 

1934, or any Commission regulation or 

order ‘‘shall prevent the imposition and 

collection of a fee or charge applicable 

to commercial mobile services or IPenabled voice services specifically 

designated by a State, political 

subdivision thereof, Indian tribe, or 

village or regional corporation . . . for 

the support or implementation of 9–1– 

1 or enhanced 9–1–1 services, provided 

that the fee or charge is obligated or 

expended only in support of 9–1–1 and 

enhanced 9–1–1 services, or 

enhancements of such services, as 

specified in the provision of State or 

local law adopting the fee or charge.’’ 3

The NET 911 Act also required the 

Commission to begin reporting annually 

on the status in each state of the 

collection and distribution of fees for 

the support or implementation of 911 or 

E911 services, including findings on the 

amount of revenues obligated or 

expended by each state ‘‘for any 

purpose other than the purpose for 

which any such fees or charges are 

specified.’’ 4 Pursuant to this provision, 

the Commission has reported annually 

to Congress on 911 fee diversion every 

year since 2009.5 All 12 of the annual 

reports issued to date have identified 

some states that have diverted 911 fees 

to other uses. 

In October 2020, the Commission 

released a Notice of Inquiry seeking 

comment on the effects of fee diversion 

and the most effective ways to dissuade 

states and jurisdictions from continuing 

or instituting the diversion of 911/E911 

fees.6 Noting that publicly identifying 

diverting states in the Commission’s 

annual reports has helped discourage 

the practice but has not eliminated fee 

diversion, the Commission sought 

comment on whether it could take other 

steps to discourage fee diversion, such 

as conditioning state and local 

eligibility for FCC licenses, programs, or 

other benefits on the absence of fee 

diversion.7 The Commission received 

eight comments and seven reply 

comments in response to the Notice of 

Inquiry.8

Section 902 

On December 27, 2020, the President 

signed the Don’t Break Up the T-Band 

Act of 2020 as part of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021.9 Section 902 

of the new legislation requires the 

Commission to take action to help 

address the diversion of 911 fees by 

states and other jurisdictions for 

purposes unrelated to 911. Specifically, 

Section 902(c)(1)(C) adds a new 

paragraph (3)(A) to section 615a–1(f) 

that directs the Commission to adopt 

rules ‘‘designating purposes and 

functions for which the obligation or 

expenditure of 9–1–1 fees or charges, by 

any State or taxing jurisdiction 

authorized to impose such a fee or 

charge, is acceptable’’ for purposes of 

Section 902 and the Commission’s 

rules.10 The newly added section 615a– 

1(f)(3)(B) states that these purposes and 

functions shall be limited to ‘‘the 

support and implementation of 9–1–1 

services’’ provided by or in the state or 

taxing jurisdiction imposing the fee or 

charge, and ‘‘operational expenses of 

public safety answering points’’ within 

such state or taxing jurisdiction.11 The 

new section also states that, in 

designating such purposes and 

functions, the Commission shall 

consider the purposes and functions 

that states and taxing jurisdictions 

specify as the intended purposes and 

functions for their 911 fees or charges, 

and ‘‘determine whether such purposes 

and functions directly support 

providing 9–1–1 services.’’ 12

Section 902 also amends section 

615a–1(f)(1) to provide that the rules 

adopted by the Commission for these 

purposes will apply to states and taxing 

jurisdictions that impose 911 fees or 

charges. Whereas the prior version of 

section 615a–1(f)(1) referred to fees or 

charges ‘‘obligated or expended only in 

support of 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–1–1 

services, or enhancements of such 

services, as specified in the provision of 

State or local law adopting the fee or 

charge,’’ the amended version provides 

that nothing in the Act, the 

Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

151 et seq.), the New and Emerging 

Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 

2008, or any Commission regulation or 

order shall prevent the imposition and 

collection of a fee or charge applicable 

to commercial mobile services or IPenabled voice services specifically 

designated by a State, political 

subdivision thereof, Indian tribe, or 

village or regional corporation serving a 

region established pursuant to the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, as 

amended (85 Stat. 688) for the support 

or implementation of 911 or enhanced 

911 services, provided that the fee or 

charge is obligated or expended only in 

support of 911 and enhanced 911 

services, or enhancements of such 

services, ‘‘consistent with the purposes 

and functions designated in the final 

rules issued under paragraph (3) as 

purposes and functions for which the 

obligation or expenditure of such a fee 

or charge is acceptable.’’ 13

In addition, Section 902(c) establishes 

a process for states and taxing 

jurisdictions to seek a determination 

that a proposed use of 911 fees should 

be treated as having such an acceptable 

purpose or function even if it is for a 

purpose or function that has not been 

designated as such in the Commission’s 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12401 

14 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(5) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 

15Sec. 902(d)(3). 

16Sec. 902(d)(1). 

17Sec. 902(d)(2). Based on the December 27, 2020 

enactment date of Section 902, this requirement 

will apply beginning with the next annual fee 

report, due to Congress by December 31, 2021. 

18 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(4) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 

19 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(1) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(A). 

20 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(D)(i) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C), (f)(1). 

21For example, the Commission has extended 911 

obligations to providers of text messaging services. 

See Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to-911 and 

Other Next Generation 911 Applications; 

Framework for Next Generation 911 Deployment, 

PS Docket Nos. 10–255 and 11–153, Report and 

Order, 78 FR 32169 (May 29, 2013), 28 FCC Rcd 

7556 (2013) (requiring covered text providers to 

provide consumers attempting to send a text to 911 

with an automatic bounce-back message when the 

service is unavailable); Facilitating the Deployment 

of Text-to-911 and Other Next Generation 911 

Applications; Framework for Next Generation 911 

Deployment, PS Docket Nos. 11–153 and 10–255, 

Second Report and Order and Third Further Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking, 79 FR 55367 (Sept. 16, 

2014) and 79 FR 55413 (Sept. 16, 2014), 29 FCC Rcd 

9846 (2014) (requiring covered text providers to 

implement text-to-911 service no later than June 30, 

2015 or six months from the date of a public safety 

answering point’s (PSAP’s) request, whichever is 

later). Further, in RAY BAUM’S Act, which 

directed the Commission to consider adopting rules 

to ensure that dispatchable location is conveyed 

with 911 calls, Congress specifically defined the 

term ‘‘9–1–1 call’’ to include a voice call ‘‘or a 

message that is sent by other means of 

communication.’’ See Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2018, Public Law 115–141, 132 Stat. 348, 

Division P, Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access 

for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (RAY 

BAUM’S Act) sec. 506(c)(1) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 

615 Notes). 

22NET 911 Act sec. 201(b), codified at 47 U.S.C. 

615b(8). 

rules.14 Specifically, newly added 

section 615a–1(f)(5) provides that a state 

or taxing jurisdiction may submit to the 

Commission a petition for a 

determination that an obligation or 

expenditure of a 911 fee or charge ‘‘for 

a purpose or function other than a 

purpose or function designated under 

[section 615a–1(f)(3)(A)] should be 

treated as such a purpose or function,’’ 

i.e., as acceptable for purposes of this 

provision and the Commission’s rules. 

The new section 615a–1(f)(5) provides 

that the Commission shall grant the 

petition if the state or taxing jurisdiction 

provides sufficient documentation that 

the purpose or function ‘‘(i) supports 

public safety answering point functions 

or operations,’’ or ‘‘(ii) has a direct 

impact on the ability of a public safety 

answering point to—(I) receive or 

respond to 9–1–1 calls; or (II) dispatch 

emergency responders.’’ 

8. Section 902(d) requires the 

Commission to create an ‘‘interagency 

strike force’’ to study ‘‘how the Federal 

Government can most expeditiously end 

diversion’’ by states and taxing 

jurisdictions and to report to Congress 

on its findings within 270 days of the 

statute’s enactment.15 Section 902(d)(1) 

provides that if the Commission obtains 

evidence that ‘‘suggests the diversion by 

a State or taxing jurisdiction of 9–1–1 

fees or charges,’’ the Commission shall 

submit such information to the strike 

force, ‘‘including any information 

regarding the impact of any 

underfunding of 9–1–1 services in the 

State or taxing jurisdiction.’’ 16 Section 

902(d)(2) provides that the Commission 

shall also include evidence it obtains of 

diversion and underfunding in future 

annual fee reports, beginning with the 

first report ‘‘that is required to be 

submitted after the date that is 1 year 

after the date of the enactment of this 

Act.’’ 17 In addition, Section 902(c)(1)(C) 

provides that if a state or taxing 

jurisdiction receives a grant under 

section 158 of the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration Organization Act (47 

U.S.C. 942) after the date of the 

enactment of the new legislation, ‘‘such 

State or taxing jurisdiction shall, as a 

condition of receiving such grant, 

provide the information requested by 

the Commission to prepare the [annual 

report to Congress on 911 fees].’’ 18

Finally, Section 902(d)(4) prohibits 

any state or taxing jurisdiction 

identified as a fee diverter in the 

Commission’s annual report from 

participating or sending a representative 

to serve on any committee, panel, or 

council established to advise the First 

Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) 

under 47 U.S.C. 1425(a) or any advisory 

committee established by the 

Commission. 

Section 902 does not impose any 

requirement on states or taxing 

jurisdictions to impose any fee in 

connection with the provision of 911 

service. As revised, the proviso to 

section 615a–1 states that nothing in the 

Act or the Commission’s rules ‘‘shall 

prevent the imposition and collection of 

a fee or charge applicable to commercial 

mobile services or IP-enabled voice 

services’’ specifically designated by the 

taxing jurisdiction ‘‘for the support or 

implementation of 9–1–1 or enhanced 

9–1–1 services, provided that the fee or 

charge is obligated or expended only in 

support of 9–1–1 and enhanced 9–1–1 

services, or enhancements of such 

services, consistent with the purposes 

and functions designated in [the 

Commission’s forthcoming rules] as 

purposes and functions for which the 

obligation or expenditure of such a fee 

or charge is acceptable.’’ 19

In this notice of proposed rulemaking, 

we propose measures to implement 

Section 902. We seek comment on these 

measures, which are designed to 

identify those uses of 911 fees by states 

and other jurisdictions that support the 

provision of 911 services. 

Definitions and Applicability 

As a preliminary matter, we note that 

Section 902 defines certain terms 

relating to 911 fees and fee diversion. To 

promote consistency, we propose to 

codify these definitions in our rules 

with certain modifications, as described 

below. We seek comment on these 

proposed definitions. 

911 fee or charge. Section 902 defines 

‘‘9–1–1 fee or charge’’ as ‘‘a fee or charge 

applicable to commercial mobile 

services or IP-enabled voice services 

specifically designated by a State or 

taxing jurisdiction for the support or 

implementation of 9–1–1 services.’’ 20

We propose to codify this definition in 

our rules. However, we note that the 

statutory definition in Section 902 does 

not address services that may be subject 

to 911 fees other than Commercial 

Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) and IPenabled voice services. The reason for 

this omission is unclear. For example, 

virtually all states impose 911 fees on 

wireline telephone services and have 

provided information on such fees for 

inclusion in the Commission’s annual 

fee reports. In addition, as 911 expands 

beyond voice to include text and other 

non-voice applications, states could 

choose to extend 911 fees to such 

services in the future.21

To promote regulatory parity and 

avoid gaps that could inadvertently 

frustrate the rapid deployment of 

effective 911 services, including 

advanced Next Generation 911 (NG911) 

services, we propose to define ‘‘911 fee 

or charge’’ in our rules to include fees 

or charges applicable to ‘‘other 

emergency communications services’’ as 

defined in section 201(b) of the NET 911 

Act. Under the NET 911 Act, the term 

‘‘other emergency communications 

service’’ means ‘‘the provision of 

emergency information to a public 

safety answering point via wire or radio 

communications, and may include 9–1– 

1 and enhanced 9–1–1 service.’’ 22 The 

proposed modification will make clear 

that the rules in subpart I extend to all 

communications services regulated by 

the Commission that provide emergency 

communications, including wireline 

services, and not just to commercial 

mobile services and IP-enabled voice 

services. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12402 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

23 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(3). Section 251(e)(3) was 

added as part of the Wireless Communications and 

Public Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106–81, 113 

Stat. 1286 (1999) (911 Act), which established 911 

as the national emergency number and required the 

Commission to provide for appropriate transition 

periods for areas in which 911 was not in use. 

Congress broadly stated the purpose of the 911 Act 

as ‘‘to encourage and facilitate the prompt 

deployment throughout the United States of a 

seamless, ubiquitous, and reliable end-to-end 

infrastructure for communications, including 

wireless communications, to meet the Nation’s 

public safety and other communications needs.’’ 

911 Act sec. 2(b), codified at 47 U.S.C. 615 Notes. 

24RAY BAUM’S Act sec. 506(a). 

25 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(e)(2). 

26The 2016 report of the Task Force on Optimal 

PSAP Architecture (TFOPA) recounted how fee 

diversion practices have ‘‘delayed plans in several 

states to meet the deployment schedule for the 

transition to an NG9–1–1 system.’’ See FCC, Task 

Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture, Adopted 

Final Report at 154 (2016) (TFOPA Report), https:// 

transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_

FINALReport_012916.pdf; see generally FCC, Legal 

and Regulatory Framework for Next Generation 911 

Services, Report and Recommendations, at Sec. 

4.1.4 (2013), https://www.911.gov/pdf/FCC_Report_

Legal_Regulatory_Framework_NG911_Services_

2013.pdf. Other commenters have noted instances 

of fee diversion resulting in the delay of 911 

improvements. See New Jersey Wireless 

Association Reply Comments to Tenth Report, PS 

Docket No. 09–14, at 2 (rec. Feb. 12, 2019) (noting 

that instead of upgrading to NG911 technology, 

New Jersey is maintaining a 911 selective router 

system that is ‘‘past its useful life and is now 

costing more to maintain from previous years, due 

to its obsolescence’’); Letter from Matthew Grogan, 

1st Vice President, Nevada APCO at 1 (Feb. 15, 

2019) (noting that Nevada 911 funds have been 

used to purchase police body cameras at a time 

when ‘‘several counties and jurisdictions . . . are 

still not equipped with enhanced 9–1–1 services’’), 

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/ 

80th2019/ExhibitDocument/ 

OpenExhibitDocument?exhibitId=36516&

fileDownloadName=SB%2025_Testimony%20in

%20Opposition_Matthew%20Grogan

%20Nevada%20Fee%20Diversion.pdf. 

27We also propose a safe harbor in the rules 

providing that the obligation or expenditure of such 

fees or charges will not constitute diversion so long 

as the state or taxing jurisdiction: (1) Specifies the 

amount or percentage of such fees or charges that 

is dedicated to 911 services; (2) ensures that the 911 

portion of such fees or charges is segregated and not 

commingled with any other funds; and (3) obligates 

or expends the 911 portion of such fees or charges 

for acceptable purposes and functions as defined 

under this section. 

28E.g., FCC, Twelfth Annual Report to Congress 

on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and 

Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges at 51–52, para. 31 

(2020) (Twelfth Report), https://www.fcc.gov/files/ 

12thannual911feereport2020pdf (‘‘We do not agree 

that a fee or charge must be exclusively designated 

for 911 or E911 purposes in order to constitute a 

fee or charge ‘for the support or implementation of 

9–1–1 or enhanced 9–1–1 services’ under section 

6(f)(1) of the NET 911 Act.’’); see also FCC, Eleventh 

Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and 

Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and 

Charges at 43, para. 34 (2019) (Eleventh Report), 

https://www.fcc.gov/files/11thannual911

feereport2019pdf. 

We tentatively conclude that adoption 

of this proposed expanded definition of 

‘‘911 fee or charge’’ is reasonably 

ancillary to the Commission’s effective 

performance of its statutorily mandated 

responsibilities under Section 902 and 

other Federal 911-related statutes that, 

taken together, establish an overarching 

Federal interest in ensuring the 

effectiveness of the 911 system. The 

Commission’s general jurisdictional 

grant includes the responsibility to set 

up and maintain a comprehensive and 

effective 911 system, encompassing a 

variety of communication services in 

addition to CMRS and IP-enabled voice 

services. Section 251(e)(3) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, which 

directs the Commission to designate 911 

as the universal emergency telephone 

number, states that the designation of 

911 ‘‘shall apply to both wireline and 

wireless telephone service,’’ which 

evidences Congress’s intent to grant the 

Commission broad authority over 

different types of communications 

services in the 911 context.23 Similarly, 

RAY BAUM’S Act directed the 

Commission to consider adopting rules 

to ensure that dispatchable location is 

conveyed with 911 calls ‘‘regardless of 

the technological platform used.’’ 24 In 

addition, section 615a–1(e)(2) provides 

that the Commission ‘‘shall enforce this 

section as if this section was a part of 

the Communications Act of 1934 [47 

U.S.C. 151 et seq.]’’ and that ‘‘[f]or 

purposes of this section, any violations 

of this section, or any regulations 

promulgated under this section, shall be 

considered to be a violation of the 

Communications Act of 1934 or a 

regulation promulgated under that Act, 

respectively.’’ 25

Based on the foregoing, we tentatively 

conclude that including ‘‘other 

emergency communications services’’ 

within the scope of the definition of 911 

fees we propose is also reasonably 

ancillary to the Commission’s effective 

performance of its statutorily mandated 

responsibilities for ensuring that the 911 

system, including 911, E911, and NG911 

calls and texts from any type of service, 

is available, that these 911 services 

function effectively, and that 911 fee 

diversion by states and other 

jurisdictions does not detract from these 

critical, statutorily recognized purposes. 

Diverting fees collected for 911 service 

of any type, whether it be wireline, 

wireless, IP based, or text, undermines 

the purpose of these Federal statutes by 

depriving the 911 system of the funds it 

needs to function effectively and to 

modernize 911 operations.26 We seek 

comment on this tentative conclusion 

and on the extent to which our 

proposed rules would strengthen the 

effectiveness of a nationwide 911 

service. 

In addition, we seek comment on 

extending the definition of ‘‘911 fee or 

charge’’ to include fees or charges 

designated for the support of ‘‘public 

safety,’’ ‘‘emergency services,’’ or 

similar purposes if the purposes or 

allowable uses of such fees or charges 

include the support or implementation 

of 911 services.27 This would be 

consistent with the approach taken in 

the agency’s annual fee reports, which 

found that the mere labelling of a fee is 

not dispositive and that one must 

examine the underlying purpose of the 

fee to determine whether it is (or 

includes) a 911 fee within the meaning 

of the NET 911 Act.28 We seek comment 

on these conclusions. 

We propose that for purposes of 

implementing Section 902, our 

definition of ‘‘911 fee or charge’’ should 

similarly extend to fees or charges that 

are expressly identified by the state or 

taxing jurisdiction as supporting 911, 

even if the fee is not labelled as a 911 

fee. We tentatively conclude that this is 

consistent with the purpose of Section 

902 with respect to diversion of 911 fees 

and charges. We seek comment on this 

proposal. Does the proposed definition 

of 911 fees or charges capture the 

universe of 911 fees or charges that can 

be diverted? Is the definition 

overinclusive or underinclusive? Are 

there other modifications to the 

definition that would help to prevent 

911 fee diversion? 

Diversion. Section 902(f)(4) defines 

‘‘diversion’’ as, with respect to a 911 fee 

or charge, the obligation or expenditure 

of such fee or charge for a purpose or 

function other than the purposes and 

functions designated in the final rules 

issued under paragraph (3) of section 

6(f) of the Wireless Communications 

and Public Safety Act of 1999, as added 

by this Act, as purposes and functions 

for which the obligation or expenditure 

of such a fee or charge is acceptable. 

We propose to codify this definition, 

with minor changes to streamline it. 

Specifically, we propose to define 

diversion as ‘‘[t]he obligation or 

expenditure of a 911 fee or charge for a 

purpose or function other than the 

purposes and functions designated by 

the Commission as acceptable pursuant 

to [the applicable rule section in subpart 

I].’’ In addition, we propose to clarify 

that diversion also includes distribution 

of 911 fees to a political subdivision that 

obligates or expends such fees for a 

purpose or function other than those 

designated by the Commission. We 

believe this provision will clarify that 

states and taxing jurisdictions are also 

responsible for diversion of 911 fees by 

political subdivisions, such as counties, 

that may receive 911 fees. We seek 

comment on these proposals. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12403 

29 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(D)(iii) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C), (f)(5). 

30 47 U.S.C. 615b(2). 

31 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(B) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 

32 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(B) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 

33 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(5)(A) (as amended); Section 

902(c)(1)(C). Such a petition must be granted if the 

Commission finds that the State or taxing 

jurisdiction has provided sufficient documentation 

to demonstrate that the purpose or function in 

question supports PSAP functions or operations, or 

that the purpose or function has a direct impact on 

the ability of a PSAP to receive or respond to 911 

calls or to dispatch emergency responders. Id. 

34See FCC, Tenth Annual Report to Congress on 

State Collection and Distribution of 911 and 

Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges at 49, para. 40 

(2018) (Tenth Report), https://www.fcc.gov/files/ 

10thannual911feereporttocongresspdf. Under this 

analysis, funding for 911 dispatcher salaries and 

training would have a sufficient nexus to 911, but 

equipment and infrastructure for law enforcement, 

firefighters, and other first responders generally 

would not. See also Eleventh Report at 74, para. 59 

(‘‘CTIA supports the Commission in requiring 

documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the 

expenditures (1) support PSAP functions or 

operations, (2) have a reasonable nexus to PSAPs’ 

ability to receive 9–1–1 calls and/or dispatch 

emergency responders, or (3) relate to 

communications infrastructure that connects 

PSAPs.’’). 

35See Twelfth Report at 48–49, para. 26; Eleventh 

Report at 39, para. 26; Tenth Report at 42, para. 26. 

State or taxing jurisdiction. Section 

902 defines a state or taxing jurisdiction 

as ‘‘a State, political subdivision thereof, 

Indian Tribe, or village or regional 

corporation serving a region established 

pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et 

seq.).’’ 29 We propose to codify this 

definition in our rules. We note that the 

existing language in section 615a–1 

directs the Commission to submit an 

annual report to Congress on the use of 

911 fees by ‘‘each State or political 

subdivision thereof,’’ and Section 902 

does not revise this language. We also 

note that Section 902 does not alter the 

definition of ‘‘State’’ in the existing 

legislation. Under section 615b, the term 

‘‘State’’ means ‘‘any of the several 

States, the District of Columbia, or any 

territory or possession of the United 

States.’’ 30 Accordingly, provisions in 

subpart I that apply to any ‘‘State or 

taxing jurisdiction’’ would apply to the 

District of Columbia and any United 

States territory or possession as well. To 

clarify this and to assist users of the 

regulations, we propose to add the 

definition of ‘‘State’’ to subpart I. 

Regarding the scope of proposed 

subpart I, we propose that the rules 

apply to states or taxing jurisdictions 

that collect 911 fees or charges (as 

defined in that subpart) from 

commercial mobile services, IP-enabled 

voice services, and other emergency 

communications services. And as the 

proposed definitions make clear, such 

fees or charges would include fees or 

charges designated for the support of 

public safety, emergency services, or 

similar purposes if the purposes or 

allowable uses of such fees or charges 

include the support or implementation 

of 911 services. We seek comment on 

these proposals. 

A. Designation of Obligations or 

Expenditures Acceptable for Purposes of 

Section 902 

Section 902 requires the Commission 

to issue rules ‘‘designating purposes and 

functions for which the obligation or 

expenditure of 9–1–1 fees or charges, by 

any State or taxing jurisdiction 

authorized to impose such a fee or 

charge, is acceptable’’ for purposes of 

the statute. In addition, Section 902 

provides that the purposes and 

functions designated as acceptable for 

such purposes ‘‘shall be limited to the 

support and implementation of 9–1–1 

services provided by or in the State or 

taxing jurisdiction imposing the fee or 

charge and operational expenses of 

public safety answering points within 

such State or taxing jurisdiction.’’ 31

Section 902 also provides that the 

Commission shall consider the purposes 

and functions that states and taxing 

jurisdictions specify as their intended 

purposes and ‘‘determine whether such 

purposes and functions directly support 

providing 9–1–1 services.’’ 32 Moreover, 

Section 902 provides states and taxing 

authorities with the right to file a 

petition with the Commission for a 

determination that an obligation or 

expenditure of a 911 fee or charge that 

is imposed for a purpose or function 

other than those designated as 

acceptable for purposes of the statute in 

the Commission rules should 

nevertheless be treated as having an 

acceptable purpose or function for such 

purposes.33

We propose to codify the statutory 

standard for acceptable purposes and 

functions for the obligation or 

expenditure of 911 fees or charges by 

providing that acceptable purposes and 

functions for purposes of the statute are 

limited to (1) support and 

implementation of 911 services 

provided by or in the state or taxing 

jurisdiction imposing the fee or charge, 

and (2) operational expenses of PSAPs 

within such state or taxing jurisdiction. 

This proposed language tracks the 

language in Section 902. In addition, we 

propose to specify in the rules that 

examples of such acceptable purposes 

and functions include, but are not 

limited to, the following, provided that 

the state or taxing jurisdiction can 

adequately document that it has 

obligated or spent the fees or charges in 

question for these purposes and 

functions: 

(1) PSAP operating costs, including 

lease, purchase, maintenance, and 

upgrade of customer premises 

equipment (CPE) (hardware and 

software), computer aided dispatch 

(CAD) equipment (hardware and 

software), and the PSAP building/ 

facility; 

(2) PSAP personnel costs, including 

telecommunicators’ salaries and 

training; 

(3) PSAP administration, including 

costs for administration of 911 services 

and travel expenses associated with the 

provision of 911 services; 

(4) Integrating public safety/first 

responder dispatch and 911 systems, 

including lease, purchase, maintenance, 

and upgrade of CAD hardware and 

software to support integrated 911 and 

public safety dispatch operations; and 

(5) Providing for the interoperability 

of 911 systems with one another and 

with public safety/first responder radio 

systems. 

We believe these purposes and 

functions are consistent with the general 

standard for designating acceptable uses 

of 911 fees and charges set out in 

Section 902. They also are consistent 

with the Commission’s past analysis of 

911 fee diversion in its annual fee 

reports, and, as required under Section 

902, they reflect the Commission’s 

consideration of the purposes and 

functions that states have specified for 

their 911 fees and charges. In particular, 

the Commission has stated in its annual 

fee reports that the requisite nexus to 

911 includes expenditures that (1) 

support PSAP functions or operations, 

(2) have a reasonable nexus to PSAPs’ 

ability to receive 911 calls and/or 

dispatch emergency responders, or (3) 

relate to communications infrastructure 

that connects PSAPs (or otherwise 

ensures the reliable reception and 

processing of emergency calls and their 

dispatch to first responders).34 In 

addition, the Commission has stated 

that expenses associated with 

integrating public safety dispatch and 

911 systems (e.g., purchase of CAD 

hardware and software to support 

integrated 911 and dispatch operations) 

may be 911 related, provided the state 

or other jurisdiction can document a 

connection to 911.35 We seek comment 

on our proposed inclusion of these 

examples of acceptable purposes and 

functions and any additional examples 

that should be specified in the rules. 

We also seek comment on specifying 

certain examples of purposes and 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12404 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

36E.g., Twelfth Report at 52–54, paras. 32, 35, 37; 

Eleventh Report at 40, 42–43, paras. 28, 32, 35; 

Tenth Report at 43–44, 46–47, paras. 30, 32, 35, 37. 

37See Twelfth Report at 48–49, para. 26; Eleventh 

Report at 39, para. 26; Tenth Report at 42, para. 26. 

38See Eleventh Report at 42, para. 32; see also 

Eleventh Report at 44, para. 37 (finding that there 

was no 911 fee diversion where Virginia allocated 

a portion of its wireless E911 funding to the 

Virginia State Police for costs incurred for 

answering wireless 911 telephone calls and to 

support sheriff’s 911 dispatchers). 

39House of Representatives Committee on Energy 

and Commerce, Report on 911 Modernization and 

Public Safety Act of 2007, H. Rept. 110–442 at 11 

(2007) (H. Rept. 110–442), https://

www.congress.gov/110/crpt/hrpt442/CRPT110hrpt442.pdf (‘‘The most recent data available 

indicate that four states use 911 fees, including 

wireless and wireline fees, for purposes other than 

911 or emergency communications services.’’). 

40H. Rept. 110–442 at 15. 

41CTIA Comments on Fee Diversion NOI at 5–6 

(rec. Nov. 2, 2020). 

42See, e.g., Eleventh Report at 21, para. 18; Tenth 

Report at 44–45, para. 33. 

43The TFOPA Report noted, ‘‘The legislative 

practice of sweeping uncommitted balances of 9–1– 

1-related accounts, especially those intended to 

fund NG9–1–1 system infrastructure generally 

occurs quietly without much public scrutiny.’’ 

TFOPA Report at 153–54. The TFOPA Report 

proposed measures to deter such sweeps and 

advised that ‘‘there should ultimately be 

consequences for repeated diversions.’’ Id. at 162. 

functions that are not acceptable for the 

obligation or expenditure of 911 fees or 

charges for purposes of the statute. 

These would include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Transfer of 911 fees into a state or 

other jurisdiction’s general fund or other 

fund for non-911 purposes; 

(2) Equipment or infrastructure for 

constructing or expanding non-public 

safety communications networks (e.g., 

commercial cellular networks); and 

(3) Equipment or infrastructure for 

law enforcement, firefighters, and other 

public safety/first responder entities, 

including public safety radio equipment 

and infrastructure, that does not have a 

direct impact on the ability of a PSAP 

to receive or respond to 911 calls or to 

dispatch emergency responders. 

Identifying these examples as 

unacceptable expenditures for purposes 

of the statute is consistent with the 

manner in which such expenditures 

were analyzed in our annual 911 fee 

reports. For example, the fee reports 

have repeatedly found that transferring 

911 fees to the state’s general fund or 

using 911 fees for the expansion of 

commercial cellular networks 

constitutes fee diversion.36 The fee 

reports also have found that 

expenditures to support public safety 

radio systems, including maintenance, 

upgrades, and new system acquisitions, 

are not 911 related.37 The Eleventh 

Report explained that the purchase or 

upgrade of public safety radio 

equipment was not considered to be 911 

related because ‘‘radio networks used by 

first responders are technically and 

operationally distinct from the 911 callhandling system.’’ 38 We seek comment 

on whether we should reexamine any of 

these prior findings in light of the 

impact of the coronavirus pandemic on 

public safety and emergency 

communications services, if any. 

Our proposed designation of 

acceptable purposes and functions for 

purposes of the statute is also consistent 

with the legislative history of the NET 

911 Act. In its report on H.R. 3403 (the 

bill that was enacted as the NET 911 

Act), the House Committee on Energy 

and Commerce noted that several states 

were known to be using 911 fees for 

‘‘purposes other than 911 or emergency 

communications services.’’ 39 The 

Report also noted that under subsection 

6(f) of the proposed legislation, ‘‘[s]tates 

and their political subdivisions should 

use 911 or E–911 fees only for direct 

improvements to the 911 system. Such 

improvements could include improving 

the technical and operational aspects of 

PSAPs; establishing connections 

between PSAPs and other public safety 

operations, such as a poison control 

center; or implementing the migration of 

PSAPs to an IP-enabled emergency 

network.’’ Further, ‘‘[t]his provision is 

not intended to allow 911 or E–911 fees 

to be used for other public safety 

activities that, although potentially 

worthwhile, are not directly tied to the 

operation and provision of emergency 

services by the PSAPs.’’ 40

We seek comment on our proposed 

designation of acceptable purposes and 

functions under the statute. Are the 

proposed purposes and functions that 

would be deemed acceptable 

overinclusive or underinclusive? If the 

proposed purposes are overinclusive, 

commenters should explain how and 

why. What purposes and functions have 

states and taxing jurisdictions specified 

as the intended functions for 911 fees 

and charges, and how should we take 

these specifications into account as we 

designate acceptable purposes and 

functions under Section 902? CTIA 

contends that allowable 911 

expenditures should include the 

nonrecurring costs of establishing a 911 

system, the costs of emergency 

telephone and dispatch equipment, and 

costs for training for maintenance and 

operation of the 911 system but should 

exclude costs for leasing real estate, 

cosmetic remodeling of facilities, 

salaries or benefits, or emergency 

vehicles.41 The Commission has found 

in its 911 fee reports, however, that 

some PSAP overhead costs, such as 911 

telecommunicator salaries, are 911 

related.42 To the extent that the 

proposed purposes and functions are 

underinclusive, commenters should 

identify what additional purposes and 

functions should be deemed acceptable, 

and why. 

We also propose to define acceptable 

purposes and functions under Section 

902 for states and taxing jurisdictions 

that impose multi-purpose fees or 

charges intended to support 911 

services as well as other public safety 

purposes. In such instances, we believe 

states and taxing jurisdictions should 

have the flexibility to apportion the 

collected funds between 911 related and 

non-911 related programs, but that 

safeguards are needed to ensure that 

such apportionment is not subject to 

manipulation that would constitute fee 

diversion. We therefore propose to 

adopt a safe harbor in our rules 

providing that the obligation or 

expenditure of such fees or charges will 

not constitute diversion so long as the 

state or taxing jurisdiction: (1) Specifies 

the amount or percentage of such fees or 

charges that is dedicated to 911 services; 

(2) ensures that the 911 portion of such 

fees or charges is segregated and not 

commingled with any other funds; and 

(3) obligates or expends the 911 portion 

of such fees or charges for acceptable 

purposes and functions as defined 

under this section. This provision 

would provide transparency in the use 

of 911 fees when a state or taxing 

jurisdiction collects a fee for both 911 

and non-911 purposes. It would also 

enable the Commission to verify 

through the annual fee report data 

collection that the 911 portion of such 

fees or charges is not being diverted. 

We seek comment on our proposal for 

determining whether there is diversion 

of a fee or charge collected for both 911 

and non-911 purposes. Are the 

measures we propose sufficient to 

provide transparency with respect to 

diversion in the use of such fees? Are 

there other measures that would help 

ensure that 911 fees or charges are fully 

traceable in states or taxing jurisdictions 

with such funding mechanisms? In 

addition, some state laws and 

regulations provide that any excess 911 

funds left over after all 911 expenditures 

have been covered can be used for non911 related purposes.43 Similarly, some 

state laws and regulations provide that 

if the 911 service is discontinued, the 

remaining 911 funds can be disbursed to 

non-911 uses, such as a general fund. 

Does the existence or implementation of 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12405 

44 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(5)(A) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 

45 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(5)(B) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 

46 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(5)(A) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). 

47See 47 CFR 1.2. 

48Sec. 902(d)(4) (internal citations omitted). 49 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(4) (as amended); Section 

902(c)(1)(C). The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration and National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration will review the 

regulations for the 911 Grant Program at 47 CFR 

part 400 in order to determine how best to 

implement the new obligation under the law. The 

Commission will work with these Agencies to 

ensure a coordinated compliance regime. 50Sec. 902(d)(1). 

such provisions for non-911 related 

disbursements constitute diversion? 

B. Petition for Determination 

Section 902(c)(1)(C) provides that a 

state or taxing jurisdiction may petition 

the Commission for a determination that 

‘‘an obligation or expenditure of a 9–1– 

1 fee or charge . . . by such State or 

taxing jurisdiction for a purpose or 

function other than a purpose or 

function designated under paragraph 

(3)(A) [support for 911 services/PSAP 

expenditures] should be treated as such 

a purpose or function.’’ 44 The state or 

taxing jurisdiction must demonstrate 

that the expenditure: (1) ‘‘supports 

public safety answering point functions 

or operations,’’ or (2) has a direct impact 

on the ability of a public safety 

answering point to ‘‘receive or respond 

to 9–1–1 calls’’ or to ‘‘dispatch 

emergency responders.’’ 45 If the 

Commission finds that the state or 

taxing jurisdiction has provided 

sufficient documentation to make this 

demonstration, Section 902 provides 

that the Commission shall grant the 

petition.46

We propose to codify these provisions 

in new subpart I of the rules. We believe 

Congress intended this petition process 

to serve as a safety valve allowing states 

to seek further refinement of the 

definition of obligations and 

expenditures that are considered 911 

related. At the same time, the proposed 

rule would set clear standards for what 

states must demonstrate to support a 

favorable ruling, including the 

requirement to provide sufficient 

documentation. To promote efficiency 

in reviewing such petitions, we also 

propose that states or taxing 

jurisdictions seeking such a 

determination must do so by filing a 

petition for declaratory ruling under 

§ 1.2 of the Commission’s rules.47 The 

declaratory ruling process would 

promote transparency regarding the 

ultimate decisions about 911 fee 

revenues that legislatures and executive 

officials make and how such decisions 

promote effective 911 services and 

deployment of NG911. Consistent with 

the declaratory ruling process outlined 

in § 1.2(b), we anticipate docketing the 

petition within an existing or new 

proceeding. In addition, we anticipate 

the Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau will seek comment on 

petitions via public notice and with a 

comment and reply comment cycle. We 

propose to delegate authority to the 

Bureau to rule on these petitions. We 

seek comment on these proposals and 

on any possible alternative processes for 

entertaining such petitions. 

C. Other Section 902 Provisions 

Pursuant to Section 902(d)(4), any 

state or taxing jurisdiction identified by 

the Commission in the annual 911 fee 

report as engaging in diversion of 911 

fees or charges ‘‘shall be ineligible to 

participate or send a representative to 

serve on any committee, panel, or 

council established under section 

6205(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief 

and Job Creation Act of 2012 . . . or any 

advisory committee established by the 

Commission.’’ 48 We propose to codify 

this restriction as it applies to any 

advisory committee established by the 

Commission in subpart I and seek 

comment on this proposal. We also seek 

comment on the extent to which state 

and local governments currently 

diverting 911 fees (based on the 

Commission’s most recent report) now 

participate in such Commission 

advisory committees and the impact on 

them from being prohibited from doing 

so. Would it be helpful to provide a 

mechanism for states and taxing 

jurisdictions to raise questions regarding 

their eligibility to serve on an advisory 

committee? 

Section 902(c)(1)(C) also provides that 

if a state or taxing jurisdiction receives 

a grant under section 158 of the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942) after 

the date of enactment of Section 902, 

‘‘such State or taxing jurisdiction shall, 

as a condition of receiving such grant, 

provide the information requested by 

the Commission to prepare [the annual 

report to Congress on 911 fees].’’ 49 We 

propose to codify this provision in 

subpart I and seek comment on this 

proposal. What effect does this statutory 

provision and its proposed codification 

in the Commission’s rules have on states 

or taxing jurisdictions that receive such 

grants? Does this provision, combined 

with other statutory anti-diversion 

restrictions that already apply to 911 

grant recipients, increase the likelihood 

that diverting states and taxing 

jurisdictions will change their diversion 

practices? Are there any aspects of our 

proposed implementation of Section 

902 that might create obstacles to state 

fiscal needs? 

Finally, Section 902(d)(2) provides 

that, beginning with the first annual fee 

report ‘‘that is required to be submitted 

after the date that is 1 year after the date 

of the enactment of this Act,’’ the 

Commission shall include in each report 

‘‘all evidence that suggests the diversion 

by a State or taxing jurisdiction of 9–1– 

1 fees or charges, including any 

information regarding the impact of any 

underfunding of 9–1–1 services in the 

State or taxing jurisdiction.’’ Given that 

the Commission is similarly required to 

provide the interagency strike force with 

any information regarding underfunding 

of 911 services,50 in addition to the 

proposals discussed above, we seek 

comment on how the Commission can 

emphasize this aspect of its information 

collection reports. 

Procedural Matters 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 

this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in the 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). 

Written public comments are requested 

on this IRFA. Comments must be 

identified as responses to the IRFA and 

must be filed by the deadlines for 

comments provided on the first page of 

the NPRM. The Commission will send 

a copy of the NPRM, including this 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the Small Business Administration 

(SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA 

(or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

The NPRM proposes and seeks 

comment on ways to implement Section 

902 of the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2021. On December 27, 2020, the 

President signed the Don’t Break Up the 

T-Band Act of 2020, which is Division 

FF, Title IX, Section 902 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 

(Pub. L. 116–260). Section 902 directs 

the Commission to issue final rules 180 

days after enactment on December 27, 

2020 designating acceptable purposes 

and functions for the obligation or 

expenditure of 911 fees by states and 

taxing jurisdictions. Section 902 also 

provides that the use of 911 fees for any 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12406 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

purpose or function other than those 

designated by the Commission 

constitutes 911 fee diversion. 

To implement Section 902 of the Act, 

the NPRM seeks comment on the 

Commission’s proposals to amend part 

9 of the rules to establish a new subpart 

I regarding ‘‘911 Fees.’’ Section 902 

defines several terms, and the NPRM 

proposes to codify these definitions in 

the new subpart I of the rules. In 

addition, Section 902 directs the 

Commission to issue final rules 

designating purposes and functions for 

which the obligation or expenditure of 

911 fees is acceptable. It also provides 

that the purposes and functions 

identified by the Commission as 

acceptable ‘‘shall be limited to the 

support and implementation of 9–1–1 

services provided by or in the State or 

taxing jurisdiction imposing the fee or 

charge and operational expenses of 

public safety answering points within 

such State or taxing jurisdiction.’’ The 

NPRM seeks comments on proposals to 

develop an illustrative, non-exhaustive 

list of permissible and non-permissible 

uses for purposes of Section 902. 

Section 902 provides that a state or 

taxing jurisdiction may petition the FCC 

for a determination that an obligation or 

expenditure of a 911 fee for a purpose 

or function other than those deemed 

acceptable by the Commission should 

be treated as an acceptable expenditure. 

Per Section 902, the petition must 

demonstrate that the expenditure: (1) 

Supports public safety answering point 

(PSAP) functions or operations, or (2) 

has a direct impact on the ability of a 

PSAP to receive or respond to 911 calls 

or to dispatch emergency responders. If 

the Commission finds that a state or 

taxing jurisdiction has provided 

sufficient documentation to make this 

demonstration, the statute provides that 

it shall grant the petition. In addition, 

the Commission seeks comment on 

amending the rules to require that if a 

state or taxing jurisdiction receives a 

grant under section 158 of the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration Organization Act (47 

U.S.C. 942) after December 27, 2020, 

such state or taxing jurisdiction shall 

provide the information requested by 

the Commission to prepare the annual 

report to Congress required by the NET 

911 Act. The NPRM seeks comment on 

proposals to codify these provisions in 

subpart I of part 9 of the rules. 

B. Legal Basis 

This action was taken pursuant to 

Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 201(b), 251(e), 

301, 303(b), and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

154(o), 201(b), 251(e), 301, 303(b), and 

303(r), the Don’t Break Up The T-Band 

Act of 2020, Section 902 of Title IX, 

Division FF of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 

116–260, Section 101 of the New and 

Emerging Technologies 911 

Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–283, 47 U.S.C. 615a–1, and the 

Wireless Communications and Public 

Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106–81, 

47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, and 615b. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

The RFA directs agencies to provide 

a description of and, where feasible, an 

estimate of the number of small entities 

that may be affected by the proposed 

rules, if adopted. The RFA generally 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’ 

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’ 

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small-business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. A ‘‘small-business 

concern’’ is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the SBA. 

Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, 

may affect small entities that are not 

easily categorized at present. We 

therefore describe here, at the outset, 

three broad groups of small entities that 

could be directly affected herein. First, 

while there are industry-specific size 

standards for small businesses that are 

used in the regulatory flexibility 

analysis, according to data from the 

Small Business Administration’s 

(SBA’s) Office of Advocacy, in general 

a small business is an independent 

business having fewer than 500 

employees. These types of small 

businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 30.7 million businesses. 

Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 

exempt organizations. Nationwide, for 

tax year 2018, there were approximately 

571,709 small exempt organizations in 

the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 

or less according to the registration and 

tax data for exempt organizations 

available from the IRS. 

Finally, the small entity described as 

a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ is 

defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate that there were 

90,075 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, we 

estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall 

into the category of ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were 967 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms 

employed fewer than 1,000 employees 

and 12 firms employed 1000 employees 

or more. Thus, under this category and 

the associated size standard, the 

Commission estimates that the majority 

of Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite) are small 

entities. 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

The U.S. Census Bureau defines this 

industry as ‘‘establishments primarily 

engaged in operating and/or providing 

access to transmission facilities and 

infrastructure that they own and/or 

lease for the transmission of voice, data, 

text, sound, and video using wired 

communications networks. 

Transmission facilities may be based on 

a single technology or a combination of 

technologies. Establishments in this 

industry use the wired 

telecommunications network facilities 

that they operate to provide a variety of 

services, such as wired telephony 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12407 

services, including voice over internet 

protocol (VoIP) services, wired (cable) 

audio and video programming 

distribution, and wired broadband 

internet services. By exception, 

establishments providing satellite 

television distribution services using 

facilities and infrastructure that they 

operate are included in this industry.’’ 

The SBA has developed a small 

business size standard for Wired 

Telecommunications Carriers, which 

consists of all such companies having 

1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 

Bureau data for 2012 show that there 

were 3,117 firms that operated that year. 

Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

size standard, the majority of firms in 

this industry can be considered small. 

All Other Telecommunications. The 

‘‘All Other Telecommunications’’ 

category is comprised of establishments 

primarily engaged in providing 

specialized telecommunications 

services, such as satellite tracking, 

communications telemetry, and radar 

station operation. This industry also 

includes establishments primarily 

engaged in providing satellite terminal 

stations and associated facilities 

connected with one or more terrestrial 

systems and capable of transmitting 

telecommunications to, and receiving 

telecommunications from, satellite 

systems. Establishments providing 

internet services or VoIP services via 

client-supplied telecommunications 

connections are also included in this 

industry. The SBA has developed a 

small business size standard for ‘‘All 

Other Telecommunications,’’ which 

consists of all such firms with annual 

receipts of $35 million or less. For this 

category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 

2012 show that there were 1,442 firms 

that operated for the entire year. Of 

those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual 

receipts less than $25 million, and 15 

firms had annual receipts of $25 million 

to $49,999,999. Thus, the Commission 

estimates that the majority of ‘‘All Other 

Telecommunications’’ firms potentially 

affected by our action can be considered 

small. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

As indicated in Section A above, the 

NPRM seeks comment on proposed 

rules to implement Section 902. The 

NPRM generally does not propose 

specific reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. The NPRM does, 

however, propose and seek comment on 

codifying the requirement that states or 

taxing jurisdictions seeking a 

Commission determination on 911 fee 

diversion satisfy certain criteria 

established in Section 902. In such 

cases, a state or taxing jurisdiction 

would have to show that a proposed 

expenditure: (1) Supports PSAP 

functions or operations, or (2) has a 

direct impact on the ability of a PSAP 

to receive or respond to 911 calls or to 

dispatch emergency responders. If the 

Commission finds that a state or taxing 

jurisdiction has provided sufficient 

documentation to make this 

demonstration, the statute provides that 

it shall grant the petition. The 

information and documentation that a 

state or taxing jurisdiction will have to 

provide the Commission to make the 

requisite showing will impact the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements for small entities and 

others subject to the requirements. The 

Commission proposes to apply the 

existing declaratory ruling procedures 

and obligations under § 1.2 of the 

Commission’s rules, which small 

entities may already be familiar with, to 

petitions for determination. 

In addition, the NPRM seeks comment 

on amending the rules to require that if 

a state or taxing jurisdiction receives a 

grant under section 158 of the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration Organization Act (47 

U.S.C. 942) after December 27, 2020, 

such state or taxing jurisdiction shall 

provide the information requested by 

the Commission to prepare the report 

required under section 6(f)(2) of the 

Wireless Communications and Public 

Safety Act of 1999 (47 U.S.C. 615a– 

1(f)(2)). This proposed requirement is 

consistent with the requirements of 

Section 902. Under OMB Control No. 

3060–1122, the Office of Management 

and Budget previously approved and 

renewed the information collection 

requirements associated with filing 

annual 911 fee reports as mandated by 

the NET 911 Act. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant specifically 

small business alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its proposed 

approach, which may include the 

following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities. 

In the NPRM, the Commission seeks 

to implement the provisions of Section 

902 that require Commission action by 

proposing changes to part 9 of our rules 

that would achieve the stated objectives 

of Congress’s mandated rules in a costeffective manner that is not unduly 

burdensome to providers of emergency 

telecommunication services or to states 

and taxing jurisdictions. Using this 

approach, we inherently take steps to 

minimize any significant economic 

impact or burden for small entities. 

Specifically, we propose to adopt and 

codify the definitions in Section 902 for 

certain terms relating to 911 fees and fee 

diversion in part 9 of our rules. For a 

few terms, we make limited 

modifications to the definition to avoid 

gaps and promote the apparent intent of 

the new statute. In addition to 

promoting consistency, we believe our 

proposals will help small entities and 

others who will be subject to Section 

902 and our rules avoid additional 

expenses for compliance which may 

have resulted if the Commission in the 

alternative proposed and adopted 

different definitions for certain terms in 

Section 902 relating to 911 fees and fee 

diversion. 

Similarly, to fulfill the Commission 

obligations associated with issuing rules 

designating acceptable purposes and 

functions, for consistency we propose to 

use language from Section 902 codifying 

the statutory standard for which the 

obligation or expenditure of 911 fees or 

charges by any state or taxing 

jurisdiction is considered acceptable. 

We also propose to specify in the rules 

examples of both acceptable and 

unacceptable purposes and functions for 

the obligation or expenditure of 911 fees 

or charges. If adopted, identifying and 

including these examples in the 

Commission’s rules should enable small 

entities to avoid unacceptable 

expenditures in violation of our rules, 

which could impact eligibility for 

Federal grants and participation in 

Federal advisory committees. 

Finally, the Commission expects to 

more fully consider the economic 

impact on small entities, as identified in 

comments filed in response to the 

NPRM and this IRFA, in reaching its 

final conclusions and taking action in 

this proceeding. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
12408 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Ordering Clauses 

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to 

Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 4(o), 201(b), 251(e), 

301, 303(b), and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 

154(o), 201(b), 251(e), 301, 303(b), and 

303(r), the Don’t Break Up the T-Band 

Act of 2020, Section 902 of Title IX, 

Division FF of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 

116–260, Section 101 of the New and 

Emerging Technologies 911 

Improvement Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–283, 47 U.S.C. 615a–1, and the 

Wireless Communications and Public 

Safety Act of 1999, Public Law 106–81, 

47 U.S.C. 615 note, 615, 615a, and 615b, 

that this notice of proposed rulemaking 

is hereby adopted. 

It is further ordered that, pursuant to 

applicable procedures set forth in 

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s 

Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested 

parties may file comments on the notice 

of proposed rulemaking on or before 20 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register, and reply comments on or 

before 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register. 

It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this notice of proposed rulemaking, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 9 

Communications common carriers, 

Communications equipment, Radio, 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 9 as follows: 

PART 9—911 REQUIREMENTS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 9 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151–154, 152(a), 

155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 

219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303, 307, 

308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 

610, 615, 615 note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a– 

1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721, and 

1471, and Section 902 of Title IX, Division 

FF, Pub. L. 116–260, 134 Stat. 1182, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Add subpart I, consisting of §§ 9.21 

through 9.26, to read as follows: 

Subpart I—911 Fees 

Sec. 

9.21 Applicability. 

9.22 Definitions. 

9.23 Designation of acceptable obligations 

or expenditures. 

9.24 Petition regarding additional purposes 

and functions. 

9.25 Participation in annual fee report data 

collection. 

9.26 Advisory committee participation. 

§ 9.21 Applicability. 

The rules in this subpart apply to 

States or taxing jurisdictions that collect 

911 fees or charges (as defined in this 

subpart) from commercial mobile 

services, IP-enabled voice services, and 

other emergency communications 

services. 

§ 9.22 Definitions. 

For purposes of this subpart, the 

terms in this section have the following 

meaning: 

911 fee or charge. A fee or charge 

applicable to commercial mobile 

services, IP-enabled voice services, or 

other emergency communications 

services specifically designated by a 

State or taxing jurisdiction for the 

support or implementation of 911 

services. A 911 fee or charge shall also 

include a fee or charge designated for 

the support of public safety, emergency 

services, or similar purposes if the 

purposes or allowable uses of such fee 

or charge include the support or 

implementation of 911 services. 

Diversion. The obligation or 

expenditure of a 911 fee or charge for a 

purpose or function other than the 

purposes and functions designated by 

the Commission as acceptable pursuant 

to § 9.23. Diversion also includes 

distribution of 911 fees to a political 

subdivision that obligates or expends 

such fees for a purpose or function other 

than those designated as acceptable by 

the Commission pursuant to § 9.23. 

Other emergency communications 

services. The provision of emergency 

information to a public safety answering 

point via wire or radio communications, 

and may include 911 and E911 service. 

State. Any of the several States, the 

District of Columbia, or any territory or 

possession of the United States. 

State or taxing jurisdiction. A State, 

political subdivision thereof, Indian 

Tribe, or village or regional corporation 

serving a region established pursuant to 

the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) 

§ 9.23 Designation of acceptable 

obligations or expenditures. 

(a) Acceptable purposes and functions 

for the obligation or expenditure of 911 

fees or charges are limited to: 

(1) Support and implementation of 

911 services provided by or in the State 

or taxing jurisdiction imposing the fee 

or charge; and 

(2) Operational expenses of public 

safety answering points within such 

State or taxing jurisdiction. 

(b) Examples of acceptable purposes 

and functions include, but are not 

limited to, the following, provided that 

the State or taxing jurisdiction can 

adequately document that it has 

obligated or spent the fees or charges in 

question for these purposes and 

functions: 

(1) PSAP operating costs, including 

lease, purchase, maintenance, and 

upgrade of customer premises 

equipment (CPE) (hardware and 

software), computer aided dispatch 

(CAD) equipment (hardware and 

software), and the PSAP building/ 

facility; 

(2) PSAP personnel costs, including 

telecommunicators’ salaries and 

training; 

(3) PSAP administration, including 

costs for administration of 911 services 

and travel expenses associated with the 

provision of 911 services; 

(4) Integrating public safety/first 

responder dispatch and 911 systems, 

including lease, purchase, maintenance, 

and upgrade of CAD hardware and 

software to support integrated 911 and 

public safety dispatch operations; and 

(5) Providing for the interoperability 

of 911 systems with one another and 

with public safety/first responder radio 

systems. 

(c) Examples of purposes and 

functions that are not acceptable for the 

obligation or expenditure of 911 fees or 

charges include, but are not limited to, 

the following: 

(1) Transfer of 911 fees into a State or 

other jurisdiction’s general fund or other 

fund for non-911 purposes; 

(2) Equipment or infrastructure for 

constructing or expanding non-public 

safety communications networks (e.g., 

commercial cellular networks); and 

(3) Equipment or infrastructure for 

law enforcement, firefighters, and other 

public safety/first responder entities, 

including public safety radio equipment 

and infrastructure, that does not have a 

direct impact on the ability of a PSAP 

to receive or respond to 911 calls or to 

dispatch emergency responders. 

(d) If a State or taxing jurisdiction 

collects fees or charges designated for 

‘‘public safety,’’ ‘‘emergency services,’’ 

or similar purposes that include the 

support or implementation of 911 

services, the obligation or expenditure 

of such fees or charges shall not 

constitute diversion provided that the 

State or taxing jurisdiction: 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 40 / Wednesday, March 3, 2021 / Proposed Rules 12409 

(1) Specifies the amount or percentage 

of such fees or charges that is dedicated 

to 911 services; 

(2) Ensures that the 911 portion of 

such fees or charges is segregated and 

not commingled with any other funds; 

and 

(3) Obligates or expends the 911 

portion of such fees or charges for 

acceptable purposes and functions as 

defined under this section. 

§ 9.24 Petition regarding additional 

purposes and functions. 

(a) A State or taxing jurisdiction may 

petition the Commission for a 

determination that an obligation or 

expenditure of 911 fees or charges for a 

purpose or function other than the 

purposes or functions designated as 

acceptable in § 9.23 should be treated as 

an acceptable purpose or function. Such 

a petition must meet the requirements 

applicable to a petition for declaratory 

ruling under § 1.2 of this chapter. 

(b) The Commission shall grant the 

petition if the State or taxing 

jurisdiction provides sufficient 

documentation to demonstrate that the 

purpose or function: 

(1) Supports public safety answering 

point functions or operations; or 

(2) Has a direct impact on the ability 

of a public safety answering point to: 

(i) Receive or respond to 911 calls; or 

(ii) Dispatch emergency responders. 

§ 9.25 Participation in annual fee report 

data collection. 

If a State or taxing jurisdiction 

receives a grant under section 158 of the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

Organization Act (47 U.S.C. 942) after 

December 27, 2020, such State or taxing 

jurisdiction shall provide the 

information requested by the 

Commission to prepare the report 

required under section 6(f)(2) of the 

Wireless Communications and Public 

Safety Act of 1999 (47 U.S.C. 615a– 

1(f)(2)). 

§ 9.26 Advisory committee participation. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, any State or taxing jurisdiction 

identified by the Commission in the 

report required under section 6(f)(2) of 

the Wireless Communications and 

Public Safety Act of 1999 (47 U.S.C. 

615a–1(f)(2)) as engaging in diversion of 

911 fees or charges shall be ineligible to 

participate or send a representative to 

serve on any advisory committee 

established by the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2021–04250 Filed 3–1–21; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS