45892 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1New 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. 

2These annual reports can be viewed at viewed 

at https://www.fcc.gov/general/911-fee-reports. 

TABLE 180.940(a) 

Inert ingredients CAS reg. No. Limits 

*******

C10-C18-Alkyl dimethyl amine oxides.1643–20–5, 2571–88–2, 2605–79–0, 3332–27–2, 61788–90–7, 

68955–55–5, 70592–80–2, 7128–91–8, 85408–48–6, and 85408– 

49–7.

When ready for use, the end-use 

concentration is not to exceed 

1,350 ppm. 

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–17450 Filed 8–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 9 

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

21–80; FR ID 40050] 

911 Fee Diversion; New and Emerging 

Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 

2008 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (the FCC 

or Commission) adopts 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. This Report and Order 

adopts rules that implement the 

provisions of section 902 requiring 

Commission action and that help to 

identify those uses of 911 fees by states 

and other jurisdictions that support the 

provision of 911 services. 

DATES: 

Effective date: This final rule is 

effective October 18, 2021. 

Compliance date: Compliance will 

not be required for 47 CFR 9.25(b) until 

the Commission publishes a document 

in the Federal Register announcing that 

compliance date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information, contact Brenda 

Boykin, Attorney Advisor, Policy and 

Licensing Division, Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418– 

2062 or via email at Brenda.Boykin@

fcc.gov; or Jill Coogan, Attorney 

Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, (202) 418–1499 or via email at 

Jill.Coogan@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, FCC 21–80, adopted on June 

24, 2021 and released on June 25, 2021, 

and the Erratum released on August 12, 

2021. The complete text of this 

document is available for download at 

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 

attachments/FCC-21-80A1.pdf. To 

request this document in accessible 

formats for people with disabilities (e.g., 

Braille, large print, electronic files, 

audio format, etc.) or to request 

reasonable accommodations (e.g., 

accessible format documents, sign 

language interpreters, CART, etc.), send 

an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the 

FCC’s Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at (202) 418–0530 

(voice), (202) 418–0432 (TTY). 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The requirements in 47 CFR 9.25(b) 

constitute a modification of the 

information collection with Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Control 

No. 3060–1122. This modified 

information collection is subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. The 

modified information collection will be 

submitted to OMB for review under 47 

U.S.C. 3507(d), and compliance with 47 

CFR 9.25(b) will not be required until 

after approval by OMB. 

Congressional Review Act 

The Commission has determined, and 

the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs, that this is a major rule under 

the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). The Commission will send a 

copy of this Report and Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Synopsis 

I. Background 

Congress has had a longstanding 

concern about the practice by some 

states and local jurisdictions of 

diverting 911 fees for non-911 purposes. 

Congress initially enacted measures to 

limit 911 fee diversion, codified in 47 

U.S.C. 615a–1 (section 615a–1).1

Specifically, section 615a–1(f)(1) 

provided that nothing in the New and 

Emerging Technologies (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 IP-enabled 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. The NET 911 Act also required 

the Commission to report annually on 

the collection and distribution of fees in 

each state 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.’’ 2 Pursuant to this 

provision, the Commission has reported 

annually to Congress on 911 fee 

diversion every year since 2009. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45893 

3 911 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). The 

Commission received eight comments and seven 

reply comments in response to the Notice of 

Inquiry. These 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. 

4Consolidated 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). 

5 47 U.S.C. 615a–1 Statutory Notes (as amended); 

sec. 902(d)(3). 

6 47 U.S.C. 615a–1 Statutory Notes (as amended); 

section 902(d)(3). September 23, 2021 is 270 days 

after the enactment date of section 902. 

fees.3 Shortly thereafter, Congress 

enacted section 902.4

Section 902 requires the Commission 

to take additional action with respect to 

911 fee diversion. Specifically, section 

902(c)(1)(C) adds a new paragraph (3)(A) 

to 47 U.S.C. 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. The newly added 

47 U.S.C. 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. 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.’’ 

Section 902 also amends 47 U.S.C. 

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 refers to 

the obligation or expenditure of fees or 

charges ‘‘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.’’ (Emphasis 

added.) 

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 acceptable even if it is for 

a purpose or function that has not been 

designated as such in the Commission’s 

rules. Specifically, newly added 47 

U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(5) provides that a state 

or taxing jurisdiction may petition the 

Commission 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.’’ 

Section 902(d) requires the 

Commission to create the ‘‘Ending 9–1– 

1 Fee Diversion Now Strike Force’’ (911 

Strike Force), which is tasked with 

studying ‘‘how the Federal Government 

can most expeditiously end diversion’’ 

by states and taxing jurisdictions and 

reporting to Congress on its findings 

within 270 days of the statute’s 

enactment.5 In February, the agency 

announced the formation of the 911 

Strike Force and solicited nominations. 

On May 21, 2021, the agency announced 

the 911 Strike Force membership, which 

includes a diverse array of experts from 

across the nation representing Federal, 

state, and local government agencies, 

state 911 administrators, a consumer 

group, and organizations representing 

911 professionals. The 911 Strike Force 

held its inaugural meeting on June 3, 

2021, and has formed three working 

groups that will examine: (i) The 

effectiveness of any Federal laws, 

including regulations, policies, and 

practices, or budgetary or jurisdictional 

constraints regarding how the Federal 

Government can most expeditiously end 

911 fee diversion; (ii) whether criminal 

penalties would further prevent 911 fee 

diversion; and (iii) the impacts of 911 

fee diversion. Consistent with section 

902(d), the 911 Strike Force will 

complete its work and submit its final 

report to Congress by September 23, 

2021. In addition, 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 911 

Strike Force, ‘‘including any 

information regarding the impact of any 

underfunding of 9–1–1 services in the 

State or taxing jurisdiction.’’ 

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.’’ 6 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].’’ 

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 require 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.’’ In this regard, 

section 902 charges the Commission 

with adopting rules defining what 

relevant statutory provisions mean, a 

responsibility we fulfill in adopting the 

rules in this Report and Order. In this 

regard, when we define and describe 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
45894 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

7 86 FR 12399 (March 3, 2021). 

8We also clarify in the introductory language of 

this section of the rules that where the Commission 

uses the term ‘‘acceptable’’ in subpart I, it is for 

purposes of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2021, Public Law 116–260, Division FF, Title IX, 

section 902(c)(1)(C). 

9 47 U.S.C. 251(e)(3). 

10See 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) 

section 506(c)(1) (codified at 47 U.S.C. 615 Notes). 

‘‘acceptable’’ expenditures in this 

Report and Order or in our rules, we 

mean to use that term as Congress did 

in section 902(c)(1)(C). 

On February 17, 2021, we adopted a 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

which proposed rules to implement 

section 902 and address 911 fee 

diversion.7 The Commission received 

twenty-eight comments, nine reply 

comments, and five ex parte filings. 

II. Discussion 

With this Report and Order, we adopt 

rules to implement the provisions of 

section 902 that require Commission 

action. Specifically, we amend part 9 of 

our rules to establish a new subpart I 

that addresses 911 fees and fee 

diversion in accordance with and for the 

purposes of the statute. The new subpart 

I rules (1) clarify what does and does 

not constitute the kind of diversion of 

911 fees that has concerned Congress 

(and the Commission); (2) establish a 

declaratory ruling process for providing 

further guidance to states and taxing 

jurisdictions on fee diversion issues; 

and (3) codify the specific obligations 

and restrictions that section 902 

imposes on states and taxing 

jurisdictions, including those that 

engage in diversion as defined by our 

rules. 

The record indicates that commenters 

are divided on whether expenditures of 

911 fees for public safety radio systems 

and related infrastructure should be 

considered acceptable for Section 902 

purposes. Our new rules provide 

additional guidance on this question. 

We also refer additional questions 

concerning the application of our new 

rules to the 911 Strike Force for the 

development of recommendations. We 

also note that the petition process 

established by section 902 provides a 

mechanism for further consideration of 

this issue in the context of specific fact 

patterns, after adoption of the initial 

rules in this proceeding. We conclude 

that these changes to part 9 will advance 

Congress’s stated objectives in section 

902 in a cost-effective manner that is not 

unduly burdensome to providers of 

emergency telecommunications services 

or to state and taxing jurisdictions. In 

sum, the rules we adopt in this 

document closely track the statutory 

language addressing 911 fee diversion, 

and seek to promote transparency, 

accountability, and integrity in the 

collection and expenditure of fees 

collected for 911 services, while 

providing stakeholders reasonable 

guidance as part of implementing 

section 902. 

A. Definitions and Applicability 

Section 902 defines certain terms 

relating to 911 fees and fee diversion. To 

promote consistency, the NPRM 

proposed to codify these definitions 

with certain modifications. As described 

below, we adopt these definitions as 

proposed.8

1. 911 Fee or Charge 

Background. 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.’’ In 

the NPRM, we proposed to codify this 

definition in the rules. However, we 

also noted 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 IP-enabled voice services. 

As we observed in the NPRM, 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 agency’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. 

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 proposed to define ‘‘911 fee 

or charge’’ in the 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.’’ We 

noted that this 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 CMRS and IP-enabled voice services. 

We also proposed in the NPRM to 

extend 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. 

Decision. We adopt our NPRM 

proposal. The Michigan 911 Entities 

support including ‘‘other emergency 

communications services’’ in the 

definition, and no commenter opposes 

this proposal. We find that this 

expansion of the 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 and 

Communications Act statutory 

provisions 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.9 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.’’ 10 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.’’ 

Accordingly, we conclude that 

including ‘‘other emergency 

communications services’’ within the 

scope of the definition of 911 fees is also 

reasonably ancillary to the 

Commission’s effective performance of 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45895 

11The Illinois State Police support extending the 

definition of diversion but argue that the 

Commission should clarify that any local public 

agency that receives 911 fees from the 911 authority 

serving its jurisdiction is also responsible for the 

diversion of 911 fees. IL State Police Mar. 23, 2021 

Comments at 2. Section 902 directs us to designate 

acceptable purposes and functions for the 

obligation or expenditure of 911 fees by ‘‘any State 

or taxing jurisdiction.’’ 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(A) (as 

amended); sec. 902(c)(1)(C). Consistent with this, 

we clarify that taxing jurisdictions would be 

responsible for fee diversion occurring at the level 

of the taxing jurisdiction. 

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. 

As we stated in the NPRM, 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. 

We also adopt our proposal in the 

NPRM to extend the definition of ‘‘911 

fee or charge’’ to include multi-purpose 

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 find 

that this aspect of the definition is 

consistent with the purpose of section 

902 with respect to 911 fees and 

charges, which is to discourage states 

and taxing jurisdictions from diverting 

these fees and charges for purposes that 

do not directly benefit the 911 system. 

Moreover, as we noted in the NPRM, 

this aspect of the definition is consistent 

with the approach taken in the agency’s 

annual fee reports, which have found 

that the mere labelling of a fee is not 

dispositive and that the underlying 

purpose of the fee is relevant in 

determining whether it is (or includes) 

a 911 fee within the meaning of the NET 

911 Act. 

Some commenters oppose the 

proposal to extend the definition of 

‘‘911 fee or charge’’ to include multipurpose fees. The New York State 

Division of Homeland Security and 

Emergency Services (NYS DHSES) 

asserts that the Commission’s statutory 

authority is limited to ‘‘specifically 

designated’’ 911 fees or charges, and 

that the Commission lacks authority to 

regulate fees and charges designated for 

other purposes. The Boulder Regional 

Emergency Telephone Service Authority 

(BRETSA) argues that extending the 

definition as proposed will limit 911 

funding because some states (including 

Colorado) have a constitutional 

prohibition on incurring debt and 

therefore must establish contingency or 

sinking funds for unpredictable 911 

expenditures. BRETSA asserts that if 

using the proceeds of such a fee to 

support 911 will mean that those 

proceeds cannot thereafter be used for 

more general purposes, the public safety 

answering point (PSAP) may be denied 

funding when needed. 

We disagree that our authority under 

the NET 911 Act extends only to 

‘‘specifically designated’’ 911 fees or 

charges. The legislative history of the 

NET 911 Act indicates Congress’s broad 

intention to discourage or eliminate the 

diversion of 911 fees by states and 

political subdivisions. 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 

Congress’s intent that ‘‘[s]tates and their 

political subdivisions should use 911 or 

E911 fees only for direct improvements 

to the 911 system’’ and that the Act ‘‘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 PSAPs.’’ A narrow 

interpretation covering only 

‘‘specifically designated’’ 911 fees or 

charges would frustrate this 

congressional purpose by creating an 

opportunity for states to divert the 911 

portion of a multi-purpose fee. 

Moreover, there is no language in the 

NET 911 Act (or in the amendments 

made by section 902) that limits the 

scope of that Act to fees designated 

exclusively for 911/E911. Finally, in its 

annual fee reports, the agency has found 

that multi-purpose fees that support 

911/E911 and other purposes fall within 

the Commission’s authority under the 

NET 911 Act. 

With respect to BRETSA’s argument 

that extending the definition of ‘‘911 fee 

or charge’’ as proposed would prevent 

the establishment of sinking or 

contingency funds for 911 expenditures, 

we disagree that this would be 

prohibited under our rules. As 

discussed below, we also adopt a safe 

harbor under which a multi-purpose fee 

would not be deemed to be diverting 

911 fees, and we note that sinking or 

contingency funds could fall within the 

safe harbor, provided that they meet the 

relevant criteria. 

2. Diversion 

Background. Section 902(f) defines 

‘‘diversion,’’ with respect to a 9–1–1 fee 

or charge, as 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 section 902, as 

purposes and functions for which the 

obligation or expenditure of such a fee 

or charge is acceptable. 

In the NPRM, we proposed to codify 

this definition with minor changes to 

streamline it. Specifically, we proposed 

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 proposed to clarify 

that the definition of diversion 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. 

Decision. We adopt this definition as 

proposed. We find that it will encourage 

states and taxing jurisdictions to take 

proactive steps to address the 

conditions that enable diversion of 911 

fees by political subdivisions, such as 

counties, that may receive 911 fees.11

Several commenters raise concerns 

with our proposal to specify that 

diversion includes distribution of 911 

fees to a locality that diverts them. The 

National Emergency Number 

Association (NENA) states that it is 

concerned that the administrative 

burden of local surveillance and 

potential lack of state-level capacity for 

diversion enforcement could add to the 

already significant burden on state-level 

911 officials. NENA also expresses 

concern that states ‘‘may lack the 

logistical capability to prevent this 

diversion of funds, especially in a 

timely manner.’’ The National 

Association of State 911 Administrators 

(NASNA) notes that in some states, 

service providers remit fees directly to 

political subdivisions, such as counties, 

for 911 use and that due to limits in 

their statutes or constitutions, these 

states have limited authority over the 

local use of those funds. NASNA adds 

that states ‘‘would have no visibility 

over how these funds are spent at the 

local level.’’ NASNA suggests that in 

states where there is limited authority 

over local 911 fee collection or use, the 

Commission should require that local 

units report directly to the Commission, 

and ‘‘the state should not be held 

accountable for any finding of diversion 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
45896 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

12Consistent with this, the agencies 

administering the grant program would decide 

eligibility in the situation posed by the Illinois State 

Police of a locality that has diverted. See IL State 

Police Mar. 23, 2021 Comments at 2. 

13 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(B) (as amended); sec. 

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

Commission ‘‘shall consult with public safety 

organizations and States and taxing jurisdictions as 

part of any proceeding under this paragraph.’’ 47 

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

902(c)(1)(C). The legislative history of section 902 

states that ‘‘[a]s part of any proceeding to designate 

purposes and functions for which the obligation or 

expenditure of 9–1–1 fees or charges is acceptable, 

the FCC is required to consider the input of public 

safety organizations and States and taxing 

jurisdictions.’’ House of Representatives Committee 

on Energy and Commerce, Report on Don’t Break 

Up the T-Band Act of 2020, H.R. Rep. No. 116–521, 

at 8 (2020) (emphasis added). We received one 

comment on this specific issue. See New York State 

Division of Homeland Security and Emergency 

Services (NYS DHSES) Comments, PS Docket Nos. 

20–291 and 09–14, at 9 (rec. Mar. 23, 2021) (arguing 

that ‘‘the consultation must be in addition to the 

comments made in response to the Proposed 

Rule’’). We note that to satisfy the consultation 

requirements of section 902, the Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau staff conducted 

outreach to a diverse representative sample of 

public safety organizations, states, and taxing 

jurisdictions that expressed an interest in fee 

diversion issues generally prior to the release of this 

Report and Order; we solicited public comments on 

the proposed rules implementing section 902; and 

we released a public draft prior to adoption of the 

NPRM so that further input on it could help to 

inform the Commission’s decision. 

14 In particular, we revise the title of § 9.23 to 

read, ‘‘Designation of acceptable obligations or 

expenditures for purposes of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021, Division FF, Title IX, 

section 902(c)(1)(C).’’ We also add a reference to 

‘‘for purposes of section 902’’ in the introductory 

language of § 9.23(a) and (c). See Appendix A of the 

Commission’s Report and Order (final rules). 

occurring at the local level of which it 

does not have authority.’’ Further, 

NASNA requests that the Commission 

‘‘notify the state in a timely manner of 

any diversion to ensure the state can 

restrict or require repayment of any 

grant funds or other restrictions that the 

local diverter would be subject to under 

the FCC’s rules on 911 fee diversion.’’ 

We find that it is consistent with the 

intent of section 902 to hold states 

responsible for fee diversion by 

localities within their boundaries. 

Absent such a policy, states or taxing 

jurisdictions could have an incentive to 

avoid oversight or accountability for 

expenditures by political subdivisions. 

We also decline to require that local 

units report directly to the Commission, 

as NASNA requests. The NET 911 Act 

requires the Commission to report on 

the ‘‘status in each State’’ of the 

collection and distribution of 911 fees or 

charges, and the agency’s annual 911 fee 

report questionnaire is consistent with 

this directive. We note that states may 

disclose limitations on their authority 

over local 911 fee collection or use in 

their responses to the fee report 

questionnaire and that these 

questionnaires are publicly available on 

the Commission’s website. We also note 

that the petition for determination 

process established by section 902 

provides a mechanism for further 

consideration of this issue in the context 

of specific fact patterns. In response to 

concerns that defining diversion in this 

way could result in the denial of grant 

funding for states or local jurisdictions 

on the basis of the actions of localities 

over which they have no control, we 

note that decisions with respect to grant 

eligibility will be made by the agencies 

managing the grant program, not the 

Commission. If states and localities seek 

flexibility under these circumstances 

with respect to eligibility for grant 

funding, they must request it from the 

agencies managing the grant program.12

We provide additional guidance below 

on how fee diversion at the local level 

would affect eligibility for Commission 

advisory panels. 

3. State or Taxing Jurisdiction 

Background. 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.).’’ We proposed 

in the NPRM to codify this definition in 

our rules. We also proposed to add the 

definition of ‘‘State’’ from 47 U.S.C. 

615b to the subpart I rules. 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.’’ 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. 

Decision. We adopt these definitions 

as proposed. We find that these 

definitions will be helpful to users of 

the subpart I regulations, and no 

commenter opposes them. With respect 

to the scope of subpart I, we proposed 

in the NPRM that the rules would 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. We believe this provision will 

help to clarify application of the subpart 

I rules, and no commenter opposes this 

proposal. Accordingly, we adopt this 

rule as proposed. 

B. 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.’’ 

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.’’ 13 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. 

1. Standard for Determining Acceptable 

Purposes and Functions for 911 Fees 

Background. In the NPRM, we 

proposed 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. 

We also noted that this language tracks 

the language in section 902. 

Decision. We adopt the general 

standard for designating acceptable 

purposes and functions for expenditures 

of 911 fees as proposed in the NPRM, 

with minor modifications to clarify that 

these designations of acceptable 

obligations or expenditures are for 

purposes of section 902.14 Commenters 

are generally supportive of this 

proposal, and the proposed language 

tracks the language of section 902. 

Several commenters urge the 

Commission to clarify the term ‘‘911 

services’’ or ‘‘911 systems’’ in the 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45897 

15NYS DHSES contends that the statutory 

standard for granting a petition for determination 

under section 902(c)(1)(C) is broader than the 

standard for defining ‘‘acceptable’’ 911 

expenditures in the rules, and asserts that the 

Commission’s proposed rules for designating the 

‘‘acceptable’’ purposes and functions should be 

consistent with, and not narrower than, the petition 

standards. NYS DHSES Mar. 23, 2021 Comments at 

5–6. See similarly City of Aurora, CO Mar. 22, 2021 

Comments at 2–3 (arguing language of petition 

standard supports broader definition of 

‘‘acceptable’’ 911 use). However, we interpret these 

two provisions of section 902 as balancing each 

other, and we reject any argument that Congress 

intended inconsistent standards for the two 

provisions. In section 902(c)(1)(C), Congress set 

forth the standard for the Commission to use in 

adopting rules by the statutory June 25, 2021 

deadline, and then separately set forth the 

complementary standard for the Commission to use 

in deciding petitions for determination going 

forward, to address yet to be identified acceptable 

911 purposes or functions in the face of a diverse 

and evolving 911 ecosystem. 

proposed rule. The City of Aurora 

asserts that as proposed, the term would 

be narrowly limited to receipt of the call 

at the PSAP and processing the call 

through computer aided dispatch (CAD) 

911, and that 911 services should 

include ‘‘all technology, staff, training, 

and administration necessary to 

effectively provide emergency response 

to the caller.’’ The Colorado Public 

Utilities Commission (CoPUC) 

comments that what constitutes 911 

services ‘‘may mean different things to 

different people, particularly as 

technological advances in emergency 

communications technology blur the 

lines between what may be considered 

‘911 service’ and what may be just part 

of the emergency communications 

ecosystem.’’ 

State and local 911 authorities also 

urge the Commission to adopt broad 

rules that would provide flexibility at 

the state and local level and to defer to 

states and local authorities in 

determining what constitutes fee 

diversion. NASNA argues that ‘‘[t]hese 

rules must be implemented in a manner 

that does not create conflict with 

existing state statutes and guidelines.’’ 

NASNA adds that it believes the 

proposed rules ‘‘do not consider each 

state’s current legislative and regulatory 

processes that (1) involve their citizen 

knowledge and involvement, (2) have 

longstanding systems in place, and (3) 

have evolved through consensus-based 

processes that involve both the public 

safety community and the 

communication industry.’’ The 

Oklahoma 911 Management Authority 

(Oklahoma 911) similarly urges the 

Commission to make the rules ‘‘broad 

and allow for flexibility within the State 

and region to narrow the requirements 

to fit local need.’’ Adams County, CO, 

et al. encouraged the FCC to include a 

safe harbor for 911 entities that utilize 

funds from 911 fees in compliance with 

state laws substantially equivalent to the 

Colorado statute. BRETSA and the 

National Public Safety 

Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) 

also raise concerns that state fees and 

taxes are ‘‘matters of state interest,’’ or 

that the Commission should consider 

whether Federal rules defining how 

state funds can be used encompass any 

states’ rights issues. Some commenters 

note that funding priorities and needs 

may evolve over time, and contend that 

it is not apparent that the proposed 

rules provide sufficient flexibility for 

the future. CTIA—the Wireless 

Association (CTIA), on the other hand, 

responds that the Commission may not 

defer to state laws regarding the 

permissible uses of 911 fees, as some 

commenters suggest, because section 

902 charges the Commission with the 

responsibility to determine the 

appropriate purposes and functions for 

which 911 fees may be used. CTIA 

asserts that ‘‘[i]t is well settled that 

federal agencies may not subdelegate 

such authority to outside entities 

(including state sovereign entities) 

absent express authority to do so, and 

nothing in the statute permits the 

Commission to subdelegate this 

responsibility.’’ 

We agree that our rules should be 

reasonably broad given the diverse and 

evolving nature of the 911 ecosystem. 

Consistent with this approach, our rules 

identify broad categories of acceptable 

purposes and functions for 911 fees and 

provide examples within each category 

to guide states and localities.15 As the 

rules make clear, the examples of 

acceptable expenditures for purposes of 

section 902 are non-exclusive and are 

meant to be illustrative; they are not 

intended to anticipate every possible 

use of 911 fees at the state and local 

level. State and local jurisdictions thus 

have discretion to make reasonable, 

good faith determinations whether 

specific expenditures of 911 fees are 

acceptable under our rules. In light of 

this, we do not believe additional 

clarification of the terms ‘‘911 services’’ 

or 911 systems’’ is necessary. We also 

note that the petition for determination 

process afforded by section 902 

provides a mechanism for states and 

taxing jurisdictions that seek additional 

guidance on whether a particular 

expenditure would be an acceptable use 

of 911 fees. 

We do not agree, however, with 

commenters who contend that the 

Commission should defer to state and 

local law on what constitutes fee 

diversion for purposes of section 902. 

As CTIA points out, section 902 charges 

the Commission with responsibility for 

determining appropriate purposes and 

functions for expenditure of 911 funds. 

A policy of deferring to states or 

localities on what constitutes fee 

diversion would negate one of the 

principal aspects for these purposes of 

section 902, which is that it revises the 

language in 47 U.S.C. 615a–1 to make 

clear that fee diversion is not whatever 

state or local law says it is. Accordingly, 

we decline to create a safe harbor for 

911 entities that use 911 fees in 

compliance with their state statute, as 

this would essentially make the 

categories of acceptable purposes and 

functions we establish herein 

meaningless. We also disagree that our 

rules encroach in any way on states’ 

rights. Following the congressional 

directive given to the Commission in 

section 902, and in furtherance of a 

nationwide 911 and E911 service, the 

rules identify and define categories of 

expenditures that are, or are not, 

acceptable for 911 fees for the specific 

purposes of section 902 and, consistent 

with the statute, provide consequences 

for states or taxing jurisdictions found to 

be diverting (such as ineligibility to 

serve on certain advisory panels). The 

rules do not, however, prohibit or 

require collection or expenditure of 911 

fees by any state or taxing jurisdiction. 

Finally, we clarify the phrase 

‘‘support and implementation of 911 

services provided by or in the state or 

taxing jurisdiction imposing the fee or 

charge,’’ under new § 9.23(a). Some 

commenters contend that, as proposed 

in the NPRM, § 9.23(a) would prohibit 

states or other taxing jurisdictions from 

spending 911 fees outside of the 

originating jurisdiction (i.e., crosssubsidization) and urge the Commission 

to permit such expenditures. We believe 

that Congress did not intend to address 

all 911 fund cross-subsidization with 

this language, and this is not the 

meaning of § 9.23(a). Indeed, many 

cross-subsidization situations across 

local or state lines may be necessary for 

the benefit of a state or taxing 

jurisdiction’s own 911 system. For 

example, Oklahoma 911 argues that it 

should be deemed acceptable for 

purposes of section 902 for the landline 

fees collected at a very granular level 

locally to be used to ‘‘pay for valid 

9–1–1 expenses outside of the 

originating taxing jurisdiction when 

municipalities and counties regionalize 

or consolidate.’’ BRETSA argues, e.g., 

that there are large or sparsely 

populated areas that have insufficient 

PSAP coverage and need subsidies from 

other taxing jurisdictions within the 

state. Providing such subsidies from 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
45898 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

16We note that the petition for determination 

process provides a mechanism for states and taxing 

jurisdictions to seek additional guidance in 

applying § 9.23(a) to a particular proposal for use 

of 911 fees for cross-subsidization to meet local 

needs. 

17The North Carolina 911 Board (NC 911 Board) 

suggests clarifying the proposed rules to 

‘‘specifically identify’’ NG911 services in a manner 

consistent with 47 U.S.C. 942(e)(1), which defines 

next generation 911 services as an IP-based system 

comprised of hardware, software, data, and 

operational policies and procedures that—(A) 

provides standardized interfaces from emergency 

call and message services to support emergency 

communications; (B) processes all types of 

emergency calls, including voice, data, and 

multimedia information; (C) acquires and integrates 

additional emergency call data useful to call routing 

and handling; (D) delivers the emergency calls, 

another taxing locality might benefit the 

taxing locality not only by, e.g., 

providing mutual redundancy and 

backup, but also by reducing the load on 

the taxing locality’s 911 system because 

it no longer has to step in regularly to 

provide 911 service and support for the 

underserved area, potentially also at 

much greater expense and difficulty due 

to the lack of interconnectivity. In sum, 

we do not believe that Congress in 

section 902(c)(1)(C) intended to prohibit 

cross-subsidization from one taxing 

state or jurisdiction to another to the 

detriment of a robust, efficient, and 

reliable 911 system that serves the 

public.16

2. Designation of Acceptable Purposes 

and Functions for 911 Expenditures 

Background. We proposed in the 

NPRM that examples of acceptable 

purposes and functions include, but not 

be 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 noted in the NPRM that 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. In 

addition, we noted that these purposes 

and functions are consistent with the 

agency’s past analysis of 911 fee 

diversion in its annual fee reports, as 

well as the legislative history of the NET 

911 Act. We sought comment in the 

NPRM on our proposed designation of 

acceptable and unacceptable purposes 

and functions under the statute, 

including whether our proposals were 

underinclusive or overinclusive. In 

addition, we sought comment on the 

purposes and functions that states and 

taxing jurisdictions have specified as 

the intended functions for 911 fees and 

charges and how we should take these 

specifications into account as we 

designate acceptable purposes and 

functions under section 902. 

Decision. We revise one of the 

categories of acceptable purposes and 

functions in response to commenters’ 

requests for additional examples of 

expenditures that fall within the 

category. We adopt the other categories 

as proposed in the NPRM. 

Commenters generally support the 

proposed framework of general 

categories of acceptable and 

unacceptable expenditures for purposes 

of section 902, with examples within 

each category. CTIA states that it 

supports the proposed standard for 

determining acceptable purposes and 

functions and notes that section 902 

directs the Commission, in considering 

expenditures, to ‘‘determine whether 

such purposes and functions directly 

support providing 9–1–1 services.’’ 

Intrado states that ‘‘the basic framework 

proposed by the Commission of 

providing a list of acceptable and 

unacceptable expenditures and 

obligations for 911 fees is sound. 

Addressing fee diversion through a nonexhaustive list of acceptable and 

unacceptable purposes and functions 

will invariably produce objections from 

affected parties. What matters most, 

however, is the Commission sets a clear 

demarcation line for compliance that 

public safety organizations can 

internalize, which the Commission can 

accomplish using the proposed rule’s 

framework with an acceptable/ 

unacceptable list of expenditures and 

obligations.’’ 

Other commenters request additions 

or changes to the categories of 

acceptable expenditures. CoPUC 

contends that more clarity is needed 

regarding what constitutes ‘‘operational 

expenses of PSAPs’’ in proposed 

§ 9.23(b)(1) because a wide range of 

different service models exist. 

Commenters also ask the Commission to 

clarify the term ‘‘interoperability’’ in 

proposed § 9.23(b)(5). In addition, 

commenters request a variety of 

additions to the list of examples within 

each category, including expenditures 

for pre-arrival instructions and 

associated training; maintenance and 

replacement costs; 911 cybersecurity; 

budgeting and forecasting; hiring, 

retention, and training of staff; industryspecific training through organizations 

such as NENA and the Association of 

Public-Safety Communications 

Officials-International, Inc. (APCO); 

mental health services for 911 

professionals; administrative expenses 

for overseeing 911 programs; 

compliance costs; 911 call processing 

systems; CAD systems, mobile data 

computers (MDCs); geographic 

information systems (GIS) call routing, 

wide area networks (WANs), Emergency 

Services IP Networks (ESInets), and 

other NG911 technologies; emergency 

notification systems (ENS); and 

platforms such as Smart911 and 

RapidSOS. BRETSA provides an 

extensive list of requested additions, as 

does the Illinois State Police. 

We agree with commenters that it 

would be helpful to add some of these 

examples to the language of the rule. 

Specifically, we revise § 9.23(b)(1) to 

refer to PSAP operating costs, including 

lease, purchase, maintenance, 

replacement, and upgrade of customer 

premises equipment (CPE) (hardware 

and software), computer aided dispatch 

(CAD) equipment (hardware and 

software), and the PSAP building/ 

facility and including NG911, 

cybersecurity, pre-arrival instructions, 

and emergency notification systems 

(ENS). PSAP operating costs also 

include technological innovation that 

supports 911. 

This revision to the proposed rule 

makes clear that replacement of 911 

systems is an acceptable expenditure for 

purposes of Section 902 and that 911 

includes pre-arrival instructions and 

ENS. We also add a reference to 

cybersecurity. As NPSTC and BRETSA 

note, CSRIC VII recently recommended 

that spending on cybersecurity 

improvements be ‘‘explicitly authorized 

as an eligible use of 9–1–1 funds.’’ We 

also add a reference to NG911, and we 

revise the language to make clear that 

acceptable expenditures for these 

purposes include funding not just for 

existing systems, but also for innovation 

that will support 911 in the future.17 We 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45899 

messages, and data to the appropriate public safety 

answering point and other appropriate emergency 

entities; (E) supports data or video communications 

needs for coordinated incident response and 

management; and (F) provides broadband service to 

public safety answering points or other first 

responder entities. NC 911 Board Mar. 31, 2021 

Reply at 2; 47 U.S.C. 942(e)(5). States and taxing 

jurisdictions should use this definition if they find 

it is helpful, but we decline to add it to our rules. 

We believe NG911 technology is still evolving and 

that we lack an adequate record to define it at this 

time. 

18See NPRM at 10, paras. 24–25. For example, the 

annual 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. See 

NPRM at 11, para. 25. 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. 

See NPRM at 11, para. 25. In addition, the agency 

has found that radio networks used by first 

responders are ‘‘technically and operationally 

distinct from the 911 call-handling system.’’ See 

NPRM at 11, para. 25. Given our request for 

comment in the NPRM on such examples in the 

annual fee reports, we reject contentions such as 

those raised by Michigan 911 Entities, who argue 

that the statements in the agency’s fee reports on 

public safety radios were never part of a notice and 

comment rulemaking and therefore cannot be used 

as a rationale for adopting rules in this proceeding. 

Michigan 911 Entities Mar. 23, 2021 Comments at 

11–12 & n.6. 

19BRETSA Mar. 23, 2021 Comments at 27. 

BRETSA also urges the Commission to focus on the 

wireless providers, rather than the 911 Authority, 

when the Commission finds diversion of 911 fees 

to subsidize commercial wireless towers. BRETSA 

notes, for example, that the Bureau has labeled 

West Virginia a fee diverter for ‘‘subsidizing 

construction of wireless towers to extend 9–1–1 

calling capabilities to areas wireless providers have 

found or represented are not financially viable or 

only marginally financially viable to serve,’’ that 

wireless providers require 911 Authorities to 

‘‘subsidize with 9–1–1 Fees their own commercial 

wireless services within their licensed service 

areas,’’ and that 911 service is ‘‘an exception to the 

rule that providers bear the cost of delivering their 

customers [sic] calls.’’ Boulder Regional Emergency 

Telephone Service Authority Reply, PS Docket Nos. 

20–291 and 09–14, at 16–17 (rec. Apr. 2, 2021) 

(BRETSA Apr. 2, 2021 Reply); see also BRETSA 

Mar. 23, 2021 Comments at 27–28 (‘‘focus should 

be on the Commission’s coverage rules and the 

actions of the wireless providers rather than on the 

9–1–1 Authorities who must pay these subsidies for 

the providers to expand coverage’’). We refer to the 

911 Strike Force for further consideration the issue 

of whether, and how much, the Commission should 

focus on wireless providers, rather than 911 

authorities, when finding fee diversion for 

subsidization of commercial wireless towers. 

find that these additions to the rule will 

help to clarify the scope of acceptable 

expenditures for PSAP operating costs 

in the implementation of section 902. 

With respect to additional suggestions 

from commenters for identifying 

specified uses of 911 funds as 

acceptable for purposes of Section 902, 

we do not believe it is necessary to add 

every specific example to the text of the 

rules or to attempt further clarification 

of terms such as ‘‘operating expenses’’ 

or ‘‘interoperability.’’ As we note above, 

we intend to keep these rules general so 

that states and taxing jurisdictions have 

reasonable flexibility to use their good 

faith judgment in applying the rules to 

particular circumstances. In addition 

(and as the rules explicitly state), the 

categories and examples are nonexclusive and are not intended to 

specify every possible use of 911 fees 

that would be acceptable. We also note 

that the petition for determination 

process provides a mechanism for states 

and taxing jurisdictions that seek 

additional guidance in applying the 

rules to a particular proposal for use of 

911 fees. 

3. Designation of Unacceptable Purposes 

and Functions for 911 Expenditures 

Background. We sought comment in 

the NPRM on specifying examples of 

purposes and functions that are not 

acceptable for the obligation or 

expenditure of 911 fees or charges for 

purposes of the statute. We proposed in 

§ 9.23(c) of the rules that such examples 

would include, but not be limited to, the 

following: 

• Transfer of 911 fees into a state or other 

jurisdiction’s general fund or other fund for 

non-911 purposes; 

• Equipment or infrastructure for 

constructing or expanding non-public safety 

communications networks (e.g., commercial 

cellular networks); and 

• 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. 

We noted that identifying these 

examples as unacceptable expenditures 

for purposes of the statute is consistent 

with the manner in which such 

expenditures have been analyzed in the 

agency’s annual 911 fee reports and 

sought comment on whether these 

examples should be codified.18

Decision. We adopt these provisions 

as proposed in the NPRM, with two 

minor modifications to § 9.23(c)(3), as 

detailed below. In light of the divided 

record on using 911 fees for public 

safety radio systems, we provide 

additional guidance on when such use 

of 911 fees will be deemed to have 

purposes or functions that ‘‘directly 

support providing 9–1–1 services’’ and 

so qualifies as ‘‘acceptable’’ for purposes 

of avoiding section 902 consequences. 

We also seek recommendations from the 

911 Strike Force on developing 

additional specific examples in these 

regards. 

We adopt our proposal to classify as 

unacceptable for Section 902 purposes 

the transfer of 911 fees into a general 

fund or other fund for non-911 

purposes. The agency’s annual fee 

reports consistently have found that 

transferring 911 fees to a state’s general 

fund constitutes fee diversion. In 

addition, no commenter opposes this 

provision. 

We also adopt our proposal that 

expenditures of 911 fees for 

constructing or expanding non-public 

safety communications networks, such 

as commercial cellular networks, are not 

acceptable for Section 902 purposes. 

This finding is consistent with our 

approach in the agency’s annual 911 fee 

reports, where the agency has 

concluded, for example, that 

construction of commercial cellular 

towers to expand cellular coverage is 

not 911 related within the meaning of 

the NET 911 Act. In the Twelfth Annual 

Report to Congress on State Collection 

and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 

911 Fees and Charges, the agency 

explained that, although expanding 

cellular coverage ‘‘enhances the public’s 

ability to call 911,’’ the NET 911 Act 

focuses on funding the elements of the 

911 call-handling system that are 

operated and paid for by state and local 

911 authorities. 

Some commenters recommend a more 

‘‘nuanced’’ approach that would allow 

911 spending on non-public safety 

communications networks in certain 

circumstances. For example, BRETSA 

agrees that ‘‘wireless providers should 

not require 9–1–1 Authorities to 

subsidize expansion of their coverage 

with 9–1–1 Fees,’’ 19 but expresses 

concern that § 9.23(c)(2) could prevent 

Colorado from providing ‘‘diverse 

paths’’ to ‘‘currently unprotected 

Central Offices [ ] serving PSAPs’’ due to 

‘‘incidental benefits to wireless 

providers.’’ Oklahoma 911 contends that 

expenditures to provide for PSAP 

backup during outages should be looked 

at on a ‘‘case by case basis’’ at the state 

and local level, to ensure 911 calls are 

delivered ‘‘quickly and appropriately.’’ 

We agree that expenditures to provide 

redundancy, backup, or resiliency in 

components of the 911 network (e.g., 

components that provide path diversity 

to PSAPs or support rerouting of 911 

traffic in the event of an outage) would 

not be deemed unacceptable under this 

rule. We also note that the petition for 

determination process provides a 

mechanism for states and taxing 

jurisdictions to seek additional guidance 

in applying § 9.23(c)(2) to a particular 

proposal for use of 911 fees to meet 

local needs. 

We also adopt with minor 

modifications our proposal to classify as 

unacceptable, for purposes of section 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
45900 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

902, expenditures of 911 fees on 

equipment or infrastructure for law 

enforcement, firefighters, and other 

public safety/first responder entities 

that do not directly support 911 

services. We revise the language of this 

section slightly to provide that examples 

of purposes and functions that are not 

acceptable for the obligation or 

expenditure of 911 fees or charges for 

purposes of section 902 include, but are 

not limited to, ‘‘Equipment or 

infrastructure for law enforcement, 

firefighters, and other public safety/first 

responder entities that does not directly 

support providing 911 services.’’ The 

reference to whether such equipment or 

infrastructure ‘‘directly support[s] 

providing 911 services’’ more closely 

tracks the language in section 902. 

Further, with respect to the 

application of this rule to public safety 

radio expenditures, we leave the precise 

dividing line between acceptable and 

unacceptable radio expenditures open 

for further refinement, and we refer this 

issue to the 911 Strike Force for further 

consideration and the development of 

recommendations. 

Commenters were divided on whether 

using 911 funds to pay for public safety 

radio systems constitutes fee diversion. 

The Tarrant County (TX) 9–1–1 District 

strongly disagrees with commenters 

who assert that allowable uses of 911 

fees should include items such as radio 

infrastructure, mobile radios, portable 

radios, pagers or other systems: ‘‘THIS 

is exactly the problem. Agencies want to 

fund the entire public safety response 

system by recategorizing equipment, 

vehicles, and unrelated systems as part 

of the 9–1–1 response. It is emphatically 

NOT all part of the 9–1–1 system. The 

purpose of the fee is strictly to support 

Basic 9–1–1 and Enhanced 9–1–1 (E911) 

services only.’’ CTIA and NTCA—The 

Rural Broadband Association (NTCA) 

argue that allowing radio system 

expenses would depart from fee report 

precedent, where the agency has ruled 

that use of funds to support public 

safety radio systems and associated 

maintenance and upgrades are not 911- 

related and constitute fee diversion. The 

North Carolina 911 Board (NC 911 

Board) supports the NPRM proposal and 

notes that it only funds radio expenses 

within the PSAP based on the definition 

of ‘‘call taking’’ in the North Carolina 

statute. 

However, some state and local 911 

entities urge the Commission to find 

that expenditures of 911 funds on 

public safety radio systems are broadly 

acceptable and do not constitute fee 

diversion. These commenters contend 

that radio networks are not 

operationally and technically distinct 

from the 911 system and should be 

treated as integral components of the 

911 ecosystem. For example, NYS 

DHSES asserts that ‘‘[p]ublic safety 

communication systems are most 

effective when they address all users. 

This requires connecting the general 

public to 911 Centers and their 

telecommunicators who, in turn, 

communicate with first responders in 

the field.’’ The Michigan 911 Entities 

assert that ‘‘[u]nless the Commission is 

suggesting that police and fire go back 

to the wired Call Box on the street 

corner, there is no doubt that a PSAP is 

virtually useless without its 

interconnection to the radio system. 

Similarly, that radio system is useless 

without subscriber units for the system 

with which to communicate.’’ 

Several commenters also assert that 

our proposal to consider expenditures 

for public safety radio expenses 

unacceptable for section 902 purposes 

in certain circumstances is inconsistent 

with our proposal that expenditures 

providing for ‘‘the interoperability of 

911 systems with one another and with 

public safety/first responder radio 

systems’’ would be acceptable. The 

Pennsylvania Emergency Management 

Agency (PEMA) asserts that ‘‘[t]he 

proposed rules imply there is a 

boundary between acceptable and not 

acceptable radio system expenses, but it 

is not clear where the boundary lies.’’ 

CoPUC states that the line between 

acceptable and unacceptable radio 

equipment ‘‘is not clear at all’’ and that 

‘‘[p]resumably, radio equipment inside 

the PSAP is allowed, but everything 

from the PSAP to the portable radio on 

a patrol officer’s utility belt is part of the 

infrastructure required to dispatch 

emergency responders.’’ 

The issue whether radio system 

expenditures are acceptable or 

unacceptable for purposes of section 

902 turns on how the Commission 

interprets the statutory provision that 

911 fee expenditures directly support 

the provision of 911 services. We 

believe it is important to strike a balance 

between the opposing views in the 

record while recognizing the evolving 

nature of the 911 landscape and the 

variety of specific issues that could 

arise. Therefore, we reject as overbroad 

the proposition that all public safety 

radio expenditures ‘‘directly support the 

provision of 911 services’’ and are 

therefore acceptable. This is 

inconsistent with the standard applied 

in prior 911 fee reports and risks 

becoming an exception that swallows 

the rule. However, the test of whether 

specific radio expenditures directly 

support the provision of 911 services 

should be sufficiently flexible to allow 

for innovation and evolution in the 911 

environment. For example, acceptable 

radio expenditures are not necessarily 

limited to technology ‘‘inside the PSAP’’ 

and could extend to development of 

integrated communications systems that 

support 911-related functions such as 

caller location or that enhance 911 

reliability and resiliency. As NENA 

points out, the Commission’s 

determinations with respect to edge 

cases ‘‘evolve and are clarified over time 

as [the agency] is confronted with new 

quasi–9–1–1 public safety 

expenditures.’’ We therefore decline to 

define a ‘‘bright line’’ test for applying 

the rule to specific radio expenditures. 

We also find that commenters on both 

sides of this issue raise arguments that 

warrant additional consideration in 

determining where the line should be 

drawn between acceptable and 

unacceptable expenditures for public 

safety radio equipment. Accordingly, we 

do not specify public safety radio 

expenditures in our codified list of 

unacceptable uses, but we adopt our 

proposal defining expenditures on 

infrastructure or equipment as 

unacceptable if they do not directly 

support providing 911 services. In 

addition, we refer this issue to the 911 

Strike Force for further guidance on 

how to apply this standard—to be 

delivered to the Commission 

contemporaneously with its final report 

to Congress—including the extent to 

which radio expenditures should be 

considered acceptable for purposes of 

section 902 because they provide for the 

interoperability of 911 systems with one 

another and with public safety/first 

responder radio systems. Finally, we 

note that the petition for determination 

process established by the statute 

provides a mechanism for further 

consideration of this issue in the context 

of specific cases after adoption of these 

rules. 

4. Safe Harbor for Multi-Purpose Fee or 

Charge 

Background. In the NPRM, we 

proposed to adopt an elective safe 

harbor in our rules providing that if a 

state or taxing jurisdiction collects fees 

or charges designated for ‘‘public 

safety,’’ ‘‘emergency services,’’ or 

similar purposes and a portion of those 

fees goes to 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: (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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45901 

20 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(3)(A), (f)(5) (as amended); 

sec. 902(c)(1)(C). Furthermore, Congress defined 

diversion under section 902(f)(4) in reference to the 

final rules that the Commission issues here, stating 

that diversion is ‘‘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.’’ 47 U.S.C. 615a–1 Statutory Notes (as 

amended); sec. 902(f)(4). When the agency reports 

to Congress as required by 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(2) on 

the status of diversion in states and taxing 

jurisdictions, it will do so using this definition. See 

47 U.S.C. 615a–1 Statutory Notes (as amended); sec. 

902(d)(2). 

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 in 

§ 9.23 under new subpart I. We reasoned 

that the rules should provide states and 

taxing jurisdictions the flexibility to 

apportion the collected funds between 

911 related and non-911 related 

programs, but include safeguards to 

ensure that such apportionment is not 

subject to manipulation that would 

constitute fee diversion. 

Decision. We adopt the safe harbor 

provision as proposed. As we note 

above, Congress tasked us with 

designating the acceptability of the 

obligation and expenditure of 911 fees 

or charges for purposes of determining 

whether section 902 consequences will 

apply. Consistent with that mandate, 

and to incentivize states and taxing 

jurisdictions to be transparent about 

multi-purpose fees, adopting a safe 

harbor provision offers flexibility to 

states and taxing jurisdictions to have 

the 911 portion of such multi-purpose 

fees be deemed acceptable while not 

having the non-911 portion be deemed 

diversion. Some commenters support 

adoption of the proposed safe harbor, 

while other commenters object to the 

creation of the safe harbor provision as 

regulating non-911 fees outside of the 

Commission’s authority or as 

burdensome. In establishing the safe 

harbor, we believe that we are neither 

regulating non-911 fees nor 

overstepping the responsibility Congress 

required of the Commission. Because 

new paragraphs (3)(A) and (B) of section 

615a–1(f) require the Commission to 

define ‘‘acceptable’’ expenditures of 911 

fees or charges for purposes of section 

902, and because some states and taxing 

jurisdictions collect 911 fees or charges 

as part of multi-purpose fees, we 

conclude that the Commission has the 

obligation to consider the portions of 

such fees that are dedicated to 911 

services. The safe harbor is a voluntary 

provision that provides a set of criteria 

for states and taxing jurisdictions with 

multi-purpose fees to demonstrate that 

they are not diverting 911 fees or 

charges. Accordingly, § 9.23(d)(2), 

which provides that the 911 portion of 

such fees or charges is segregated and 

not commingled with any other funds, 

only applies to states and taxing 

jurisdictions that opt to use the safe 

harbor provision to demonstrate that 

they are not diverting 911 fees. 

Arguments that fee segregation exceeds 

the Commission’s authority or is 

burdensome are obviated by the elective 

nature of the safe harbor. 

We find that the safe harbor will 

promote visibility into how funds 

ostensibly collected for both 911 and 

other purposes are apportioned, which 

furthers Congress’s transparency goals 

and enhances our ability to determine 

whether 911 funds are being diverted. 

Without such visibility, multi-purpose 

fees could be used to obscure fee 

diverting practices from Commission 

inquiry, and potentially could render 

our rules and annual 911 fee report 

ineffective. 

We also clarify that the safe harbor 

provision is not intended to preclude 

the use of fees collected for non-911 

purposes from later being used for 911 

purposes. BRETSA ‘‘supports the 

Commission’s proposal in Section 

9.23(d),’’ but challenges a purported 

provision that ‘‘if a fee which is 

specified to be for a purpose other than 

9–1–1 is used to support 9–1–1, it will 

thereafter be considered a 9–1–1 Fee.’’ 

BRETSA misconstrues the safe harbor 

provision. Nothing in the rules we adopt 

in this document would prevent a state 

or taxing jurisdiction from using fees 

originally collected for other public 

safety purposes to instead support 911 

services if needed, and then later using 

those same non-911 public safety fees to 

support other public safety purposes 

again. 

BRETSA also contends that the safe 

harbor prohibition on comingling of 911 

funds with other funds is 

‘‘unnecessarily restrictive.’’ We 

disagree. Segregation of 911 funds in a 

separate account will help to ensure that 

the funds are fully traceable, provide a 

straightforward framework to avoid 911 

fee diversion issues, and promote 

transparency in the use of 911 fees 

when a state or taxing jurisdiction 

collects a fee for both 911 and non-911 

purposes. We also clarify that states and 

taxing jurisdictions are not required to 

use the safe harbor provision of our 

rules. Thus, a state or taxing jurisdiction 

may create an alternative multi-purpose 

fee mechanism that does not meet the 

safe harbor requirements. If it does so, 

however, the burden will be on the state 

or taxing jurisdiction to demonstrate 

that it is not diverting 911 funds. 

Finally, BRETSA suggests that ‘‘[i]n 

section 9.23(d)(1), it should suffice if the 

9–1–1 funding statute or regulations 

specify the: (i) Amount or percentage of 

such fees or charges which are 

dedicated to purposes other than 9–1– 

1 Services, (ii) minimum amount or 

percentage dedicated to 9–1–1 services, 

or (iii) prioritize use of the fees or 

charges for 9–1–1 Service (e.g., permit 

use of the fees for non-911 purposes 

after the costs of 9–1–1 Service have 

been met[)].’’ BRETSA’s suggestions (i) 

and (ii) appear consistent with 

§ 9.23(d)(1), as long as the state or taxing 

jurisdiction adheres to § 9.23(d)(2) 

requiring that the fees be kept 

segregated. We do not intend the safe 

harbor to restrict flexibility of states and 

taxing jurisdictions to adjust the 

percentages of a multi-purpose fee that 

are allocated to 911 and non-911 

purposes. 

5. Diverter Designations 

Some commenters raise concerns 

regarding the sufficiency of the process 

by which jurisdictions are determined 

to be engaged in diversion by the 

Commission, or request additional 

procedural safeguards before being 

designated a diverter in the annual fee 

report. In addition, some commenters 

urge creation of an appeal process for 

states identified as diverters, and one 

commenter requests a process by which 

a diversion finding can be removed once 

a state has come into compliance. 

We decline to adopt such procedures 

that are not provided for in either 

section 902 or the NET 911 Act. As 

discussed above, Congress directed the 

Commission to adopt final rules 

defining the acceptable uses of 911 fees 

and to rule on petitions for 

determination for additional uses, in 

order to discourage fee diversion.20

Section 902 also does not alter the wellestablished data collection and 

reporting process that the agency has 

employed to compile its annual reports. 

To the contrary, Congress implicitly 

affirmed the agency’s existing reporting 

processes by requiring that Federal grant 

recipients participate in the annual data 

collection. 

For similar reasons, we decline to 

establish a ‘‘glide path’’ or ‘‘phase-in’’ 

period for states and taxing jurisdictions 

to come into compliance with our rules, 

as proposed by some commenters. 

Section 902 does not provide any 

mechanism for the Commission to delay 

the implementation of these rules under 

the statute. We recognize that 

commenters are concerned about the 

potential 911 grant eligibility 

consequences of being designated a fee 

diverter based on the rules adopted in 

this order. The Michigan Chapter of 

APCO, for example, asserts that a 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
45902 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

21NTIA and NHTSA administer the 911 Grant 

Program, enacted by the ENHANCE 911 Act section 

158 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 942(c)), and amended by 

the NG911 Act section 6503 (codified at 47 U.S.C. 

942(c)). In rulemakings to revise the implementing 

regulations for the 911 Grant program, NTIA, 

NHTSA, the Department of Commerce, and the 

Department of Transportation have clarified that 

they ‘‘are not bound by the FCC’s interpretation of 

non-diversion under the NET 911 Act.’’ 911 Grant 

Program, 83 FR 38051, 38058 (Aug. 3, 2018) 

(codified at 47 CFR part 400). 

22The Commission notes that the decision to 

apply § 1.2 of the Commission’s rules to the filing 

of these section 902 petitions is limited to the use 

of § 1.2 as a procedural vehicle for conducting an 

adjudication of these petitions. Accordingly, any 

limitations of 47 CFR 1.2 and the Administrative 

Procedure Act at 5 U.S.C. 554(e) that might arise 

from the specification that the Commission may 

issue a declaratory ruling to terminate a controversy 

or remove uncertainty do not apply here. Rather, 

the standard for accepting and granting these 

special petitions for determination is dictated by 

the statutory requirements of section 902(c)(1)(C)— 

specifically, that the Commission must grant such 

a petition if it finds that the State has provided 

sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the 

‘‘purpose or function’’ (i) supports PSAP functions 

or operations, or (ii) has a direct impact on the 

ability of a PSAP to ‘‘(I) receive or respond to 911 

calls; or (II) dispatch emergency responders.’’ 47 

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

902(c)(1)(C). 

determination of diversion puts 

significant Federal grant money at risk, 

which could hinder the 911 system in 

fulfilling its primary purpose and 

ultimately harm those it was originally 

created to protect. Several commenters 

note that a finding of diversion could 

impact eligibility for future grants under 

the Leading Infrastructure for 

Tomorrow’s America (LIFT America) 

Act if it is enacted into law. However, 

these issues are beyond the scope of this 

proceeding. The current 911 grant 

program is administered by the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) and the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), and the LIFT America Act, as 

currently drafted, provides for grants to 

be administered by these same agencies. 

Thus, these agencies, and not the 

Commission, will determine the 

appropriate criteria for eligibility to 

receive 911 grants, including whether a 

state or taxing jurisdiction would be 

eligible in the circumstances raised by 

commenters.21

Petition for Determination 

Background. 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 911 fee 

for a purpose or function other than 

those already deemed ‘‘acceptable’’ by 

the Commission should be treated as an 

acceptable expenditure. 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.’’ 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. 

In the NPRM, we proposed to codify 

these provisions in our rules. We stated 

our belief that ‘‘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.’’ We also stated 

that the proposed rule would set clear 

standards for what states must 

demonstrate to support a favorable 

ruling, including the requirement to 

provide sufficient documentation. In 

addition, to promote efficiency in 

reviewing such petitions, we proposed 

that states or taxing jurisdictions 

seeking a determination do so by filing 

a petition for declaratory ruling under 

§ 1.2 of the Commission’s rules. We 

noted that 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. We proposed to 

delegate authority to the Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau to rule 

on these petitions for determination, 

following the solicitation of comments 

and reply comments via public notice. 

We sought comment on these proposals 

and on any possible alternative 

processes for entertaining such 

petitions. 

We adopt our proposed rules and 

procedures for addressing petitions for 

determination, with some clarifications. 

Commenters generally support these 

proposals, although most commenters 

recommend modifications or additions 

to the process. We address these issues 

in turn. 

Petitions and permitted filers. First, 

we adopt our proposal that states or 

taxing jurisdictions seeking a 

determination must do so by filing a 

petition for declaratory ruling under 

§ 1.2 of the Commission’s rules.22 Some 

commenters, however, urge us to make 

the declaratory ruling process available 

to other stakeholders, such as 

communications providers and public 

safety organizations, to request 

Commission guidance on whether 

certain measures constitute 911 fee 

diversion. For example, CTIA asserts 

that expanding this process would 

‘‘create a deterrent effect that can 

restrain state or local taxing 

jurisdictions from taking new actions 

that may constitute 9–1–1 fee 

diversion.’’ However, other commenters 

oppose expanding the petition process 

to other stakeholders. The Adams 

County E–911 Emergency Telephone 

Service Authority, Arapahoe County 

911 Authority, and Jefferson County 

Emergency Communications Authority 

(AAJ Authorities) note that section 902 

‘‘clearly states’’ that ‘‘only states and 

taxing jurisdictions’’ can initiate such 

proceedings, for the limited purpose of 

determining whether an expenditure by 

such a state or taxing jurisdiction is 

consistent with the Commission’s rules. 

BRETSA also opposes expanding the 

petition process to other stakeholders, 

noting the ‘‘wide disparity’’ between the 

resources of wealthy service providers 

and many PSAPs, most of which ‘‘do 

not regularly retain counsel and 

participate in Commission 

proceedings,’’ and might ‘‘lack the 

resources to oppose’’ the petitions. 

Another commenter, Consumer Action 

for a Strong Economy (CASE), proposes 

a different mechanism, suggesting that 

to encourage reporting by nongovernmental entities, the Commission 

could establish ‘‘a new docket or a 

portal’’ in which non-governmental 

entities could provide evidence 

demonstrating that a state or taxing 

jurisdiction is underfunding 911 

services or ‘‘has failed to meet an 

acceptable purpose and function for the 

obligation or expenditure of 911 fees or 

charges.’’ The AAJ Authorities ask the 

Commission to reject CASE’s proposal, 

contending that creation of a new 

docket or portal would create ‘‘undue 

burdens’’ for states and local 911 

authorities, which would have to spend 

time and resources responding to 

Commission inquiries. The AAJ 

Authorities also note that Commission 

‘‘already has an information collection 

process to identify fee diverters.’’ 

We find that, under the explicit 

language of section 902, only a ‘‘State or 

taxing jurisdiction’’ may file a petition 

for determination, and that other 

stakeholders (e.g., communications 

providers) may not file a petition for 

determination. In addition, we decline 

to create a ‘‘new docket or portal’’ for 

non-governmental authorities to report 

911 fee diversion and underfunding 

issues. Non-governmental parties can 

provide information to the Commission 

on a 911 fee concern at any time and 

can comment on annual 911 fee reports 

and state responses to the FCC data 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45903 

23We revise the language of the proposed rule to 

clarify the reference to section 6(f)(2) of the 

Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 

1999, as amended (47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(2)). 

24NPSTC notes that section 902(d)(4) references 

the ineligibility of diverting states or taxing 

jurisdictions to serve on FirstNet committees, 

panels, or councils, and states that this section 

encompasses the FirstNet Public Safety Advisory 

Committee (PSAC). NPSTC Mar. 23, 2021 

Comments at 7. NPSTC asserts that ‘‘[t]he PSAC 

appears to be established by Congress in the 

legislation, not by the Commission.’’ Id. at 7. 

NPSTC argues that ‘‘the Commission, in 

coordination with the FirstNet governmental entity, 

should clarify any impact of this legislation to 

FirstNet and related advisory committees, councils 

or panels,’’ as ‘‘an individual on the PSAC that 

represents a public safety or governmental 

association/organization should not be penalized 

for an employer’s 911 fee decisions over which he/ 

she may have no involvement.’’ Id. at 7; see also 

IAFC Apr. 2, 2021 Reply at 5 (quoting NPSTC). We 

observe that at the May 5, 2021 FirstNet board 

meeting, FirstNet updated the charter of the PSAC 

to prevent representatives of fee diverting 

jurisdictions from participating on the PSAC. See 

First Responder Network Authority, Board 

Resolution 109–Bylaws and Public Safety Advisory 

Committee Charter Revisions at 1–2 & Exh. B (May 

5, 2021), https://firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/ 

Resolution%20109%20-%20Bylaws%20and

%20PSAC%20Charter

%20Revisions%20May%202021.pdf. 

25A full list of the advisory committees 

established by the Commission can be found at 

https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisorycommittees-fcc. This prohibition would not extend 

to the Regional Planning Committees (RPCs), which 

are administrative rather than advisory in nature. 

See NPSTC Mar. 23, 2021 Comments at 6 

(requesting clarification of whether RPCs would be 

considered committees ‘‘established’’ by the 

Commission). 

collection. We find that these existing 

procedural options available to nongovernmental entities are sufficient and 

decline to add another layer of 

procedures. For example, these other 

stakeholders may file a petition for 

declaratory ruling under § 1.2 of the 

Commission’s rules or a petition for 

rulemaking under § 1.401 of the 

Commission’s rules. However, such 

petitions would not be subject to or 

entitled to the specialized petition for 

determination process and substantive 

standards that we establish here. 

Bureau delegation and public 

comment. In general, the Public Safety 

and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau) 

has delegated authority under our 

existing rules that is sufficient to act on 

petitions for determination in the first 

instance. We also adopt our NPRM 

proposal that the Bureau seek comment 

on petitions. Although the North 

Carolina 911 Board expresses concern 

that the comment and reply process 

could lead to administrative burdens for 

state and local government, other 

commenters support the proposal. We 

conclude that seeking comment on 

petitions will promote transparency and 

informed decision-making in 

furtherance of Congress’s goals. 

Time Limits. We decline to place a 

time limit on Bureau action on petitions 

for determination. We agree with 

commenters who advocate for timely 

action on petitions, but also agree with 

CTIA that the process needs ‘‘to allow 

for public comment and sufficient 

deliberation of whether expenditures 

are appropriately within the scope of 

the Commission’s rules.’’ Although 

some commenters advocate mandatory 

timelines, imposing a rigid time limit on 

an as yet unknown volume of petition 

decisions, many of which will require 

careful consideration of complex 

situations and questions, would not 

allow time for sufficient deliberation or 

public input, would unduly burden 

limited Commission staff resources, and 

would potentially lead to inconsistent 

results. 

Review. Some commenters advocate 

that an appeal process should be 

available, whether specifically in 

relation to the petition decision, or as a 

more general matter for any finding of 

fee diversion. In terms of appeals of the 

Bureau’s petition decisions, we believe 

creating any specialized appeal process 

is unnecessary, because petitioners may 

submit petitions for reconsideration 

under § 1.106 of the Commission’s rules 

or applications for Commission review 

of any Bureau-level decision under 

§ 1.115 of the Commission’s rules. 

Blanket Waivers. We continue to 

believe that Congress intended the 

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.’’ However, 

BRETSA argues that the petition process 

should include provisions for ‘‘blanket 

waivers’’ or special rules for certain 

common situations that affect a large 

number of 911 authorities. We decline 

to establish such specialized provisions. 

We find that our general guidelines on 

acceptable and unacceptable 911 

expenditures are sufficiently broad, and 

that these overarching national 

guidelines, the illustrative lists of 

examples, and the petition process 

complement each other, with the 

petition process allowing localized 

refinements that accommodate varying 

circumstances as well as a reasonable 

mechanism to evaluate future perhaps 

as yet unforeseen, but legitimate, 

expenses. We also note that nothing in 

the rules prevents multiple states or 

taxing authorities from filing a joint 

petition to address a common issue. 

Eligibility To Participate on Advisory 

Committees 

Background. Pursuant to section 

902(d)(4), any state or taxing 

jurisdiction identified by the agency 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.’’ In the 

NPRM, we proposed to codify this 

restriction in § 9.26 as it applies to any 

advisory committee established by the 

Commission. 

Decision. We adopt the proposal from 

the NPRM with a minor modification 

and provide additional guidance and 

clarification on certain aspects of the 

rule.23 As proposed, we find that any 

state or taxing jurisdiction identified by 

the agency as engaging in diversion will 

be ineligible to participate on any 

advisory committee established by the 

Commission. The first fee diversion 

report required to be submitted one year 

after the enactment of section 902 will 

include a list of states and taxing 

jurisdictions identified as practicing fee 

diversion. The agency will begin 

identifying representatives of diverting 

jurisdictions on its current advisory 

committees, if any, following the 

issuance of that report, and evaluate 

how to remove such representatives 

from current advisory committees. One 

commenter supports the prohibition 

without caveats, and some commenters 

seek clarification on or ask the 

Commission to revisit the scope of the 

prohibition against serving on advisory 

committees when a state or taxing 

jurisdiction has been designated a 

diverter.24

We clarify that only employees of a 

diverting jurisdiction (i.e., state or other 

taxing jurisdiction) who are acting as 

official representatives of that 

jurisdiction will be ineligible to 

participate on advisory committees 

established by the Commission. Further, 

we clarify that this prohibition will not 

extend to representatives of nondiverting localities that are located 

within diverting states. We also clarify 

that an individual who is employed by 

a diverting jurisdiction may still serve 

on a Commission advisory committee as 

a representative of a public safety 

organization or other outside 

association. Lastly, we clarify that an 

advisory committee ‘‘established’’ by 

the Commission includes any advisory 

committee established under the 

Federal Advisory Committee Act and 

any other panel that serves an advisory 

function to the Commission as reflected 

on the Commission’s website.25 In light 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
45904 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

26 47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(4) (as amended); sec. 

902(c)(1)(C). NHTSA and NTIA 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. 

27We revise the language of the rule to clarify the 

reference to section 6(f)(2) of the Wireless 

Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, as 

amended (47 U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(2)). We also clarify 

that each state or taxing jurisdiction subject to this 

requirement must file the information requested by 

the Commission and in the form specified by the 

Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. 

28APCO Mar. 23, 2021 Comments at 2 (using the 

Strike Force and annual reports will produce 

helpful information and serve the goal of 

discouraging fee diversion ‘‘while looking at the 

bigger picture of the extent of underfunding 

regardless of the source’’); NC 911 Board Mar. 31, 

2021 Reply at 3 (stating that the NC 911 Board 

‘‘supports the Commission’s apparent intent to seek 

greater clarity [on underfunding] through the Strike 

Force’’); IAFC Apr. 2, 2021 Reply at 5–6 (quoting 

and supporting APCO’s assertion that the 

Commission should use the Strike Force and annual 

reports to produce helpful information regarding 

underfunding). We note that the 911 Strike Force 

is due to submit its report to Congress by September 

of this year, which will not be enough time for the 

agency to pass along underfunding information 

collected through the fee report process this year. 

The 911 Strike Force will examine, however, the 

impact of fee diversion on underfunding, and the 

Commission will submit to the 911 Strike Force the 

information that it currently has, as mandated by 

statute. See 47 U.S.C. 615a–1 Statutory Notes (as 

amended); sec. 902(d)(1)–(3). 

of these clarifications, we believe the 

prohibition appropriately balances the 

interests of Congress in restricting 

representatives of fee diverting 

jurisdictions from serving on advisory 

committees, without limiting 

representatives of non-diverting 

jurisdictions from providing their 

perspectives. Our clarification tracks 

NPSTC’s view that an individual ‘‘may 

be employed by a locality or state, but 

serve voluntarily in public safety 

associations/organizations for the 

benefit of all public safety,’’ and may 

wish to end diverting practices. 

Mission Critical Partners proposes 

that the restriction on diverter 

participation on advisory committees be 

expanded to include ‘‘congressional 

panel[s], the National 911 Program, or 

other public safety-related committees, 

panels, or councils.’’ Because this 

proposal would exceed Congress’s 

directive in section 902, we decline to 

adopt it. 

Reporting Requirement 

Background. 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 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].’’ 26 In 

the NPRM, we proposed to codify this 

provision in § 9.25 under new subpart I 

to require grant recipients to provide 

such information to the Commission. 

Decision. We adopt our proposal, 

which was unopposed in the comment 

record, with clarifying modifications.27

Mission Critical Partners notes that the 

collection of information regarding 

states’ use of 911 funds ‘‘provides 

comprehensive information for Congress 

to scrutinize and understand the needs 

of states and local 911 authorities.’’ 

APCO notes that ‘‘[u]sing the strike 

force and annual reports to better 

understand the relationship between 

funding for 9–1–1 and emergency 

response will produce helpful 

information for public safety agencies 

and serve the Commission’s and 

Congress’s goal of discouraging fee 

diversion.’’ 

Underfunding 911 Services and 

Improving the Annual 911 Fee Report 

Background. In the Notice of Inquiry 

in this proceeding, we sought comment 

on whether improvements to the 

agency’s data collection and reporting 

process could further discourage fee 

diversion. 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 

section 902 similarly requires us to 

forward any evidence of fee diversion, 

‘‘including any information regarding 

the impact of any underfunding of 9–1– 

1 services,’’ to the 911 Strike Force, in 

the NPRM we sought comment on how 

we can best emphasize this aspect in 

our information collection reports. 

Decision. As a threshold matter, we 

direct the Bureau to update the annual 

911 fee report questionnaire to reflect 

the rules adopted in the Report and 

Order. This should help address 

concerns raised by commenters that our 

annual data collection be more effective 

in identifying fee diversion. 

Commenters generally support the 

Commission’s approach of using the 911 

Strike Force and annual reports to better 

understand underfunding.28 APCO and 

several other commenters urge us to 

take a ‘‘broad approach’’ to analyzing 

the extent and impacts of 911 

underfunding, whether or not it is 

caused by 911 fee diversion. 

Commenters note that the presence or 

absence of fee diversion does not 

reliably correlate to adequate funding 

for 911 and suggest that we take 

additional steps to study the broader 

impacts of underfunding the 911 

system. We direct the Bureau to modify 

the annual fee report questionnaire to 

seek additional information on the 

underfunding of 911 systems, including 

both (1) information on the impact of fee 

diversion on 911 underfunding, and (2) 

information on 911 underfunding in 

general. We also refer this issue to the 

911 Strike Force. The 911 Strike Force 

is charged with examining, among other 

things, ‘‘the impacts of diversion,’’ and 

we expect that its report will address 

underfunding as a potential impact of 

diversion. 

We decline two requests from the NC 

911 Board to expand the Commission’s 

approach to analyzing underfunding, 

first that the Commission address 

underfunding of 911 as a prerequisite to 

finding that fee diversion has occurred, 

and second that the Commission 

provide more detail regarding the intent, 

definition, and scope of underfunding. 

Neither section 902 nor the NET 911 Act 

contains a requirement that the 

Commission find underfunding prior to 

finding fee diversion. Regarding the 

request that the Commission provide 

more detail about the intent, definition, 

and scope of underfunding, we note that 

section 902 did not specifically direct 

the Commission to define underfunding 

at this time, but we refer the topic of 

defining underfunding 911 to the 911 

Strike Force to study. 

III. Procedural Matters 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 

amended (RFA), requires that an agency 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for notice and comment rulemakings, 

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule 

will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 

Accordingly, we have prepared a Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) 

concerning the possible impact of the 

rule changes contained in this Report 

and Order on small entities. The FRFA 

is set forth in Appendix B of the 

Commission’s Report and Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Analysis. The requirements in § 9.25(b) 

constitute a modified information 

collection to OMB Control No. 3060– 

1122. The modified information 

collection will be submitted to the 

Office of Management and Budget 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45905 

(OMB) for review under section 3507(d) 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA). OMB, the general public, and 

other Federal agencies are invited to 

comment on the new or modified 

information collection requirements 

contained in this proceeding. In 

addition, we note that, pursuant to the 

Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 

2002, we previously sought, but did not 

receive, specific comment on how the 

Commission might further reduce the 

information collection burden for small 

business concerns with fewer than 25 

employees. The Commission does not 

believe that the new or modified 

information collection requirements in 

§ 9.25(b) will be unduly burdensome on 

small businesses. Applying these 

modified information collections will 

implement section 902 and promote 

transparency in the collection and 

expenditure of 911 fees. We describe 

impacts that might affect small 

businesses, which includes most 

businesses with fewer than 25 

employees, in the FRFA in Appendix B 

of the Commission’s Report and Order. 

Congressional Review Act. The 

Commission has determined, and the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs, that this is a major rule under 

the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). The Commission will send a 

copy of this Report and Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

Additional Information. For 

additional information on this 

proceeding, contact Brenda Boykin, 

Brenda.Boykin@fcc.gov or 202–418– 

2062, Rachel Wehr, Rachel.Wehr@

fcc.gov or 202–418–1138, or Jill Coogan, 

Jill.Coogan@fcc.gov or 202–418–1499, of 

the Public Safety and Homeland 

Security Bureau, Policy and Licensing 

Division. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

NPRM adopted in February 2021. The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the NPRM, 

including comment on the IRFA. No 

comments were filed addressing the 

IRFA. This present Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to 

the RFA. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Final 

Rules 

The Report and Order adopts rules to 

implement section 902 of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 

that required the Commission to take 

action to help address the diversion of 

911 fees by states and taxing 

jurisdictions for purposes unrelated to 

911. The Commission amends part 9 of 

its rules to establish a new subpart I to 

address the use of 911 fees and fee 

diversion in accordance with the 

requirements of section 902. More 

specifically, the rules the Commission 

adopts in the new subpart I designate 

illustrative, non-exhaustive purposes 

and functions for the obligation or 

expenditure of 911 fees or charges by 

states and taxing jurisdiction authorized 

to impose such a fee or charge that are 

acceptable for purposes of section 902 

and the Commission’s rules; clarify 

what does and does not constitute 911 

fee diversion; establish a declaratory 

ruling process for providing further 

guidance to states and taxing 

jurisdictions on fee diversion issues; 

and codify the specific restrictions that 

section 902 imposes on states and taxing 

jurisdictions that engage in diversion, 

such as the exclusion from eligibility to 

participate on Commission advisory 

committees. 

The Commission adopts rules in the 

Report and Order that provide guidance 

on the types of expenditures of 911 fees 

for public safety radio systems and 

related infrastructure that can be 

considered acceptable but leaves the 

precise dividing line between 

acceptable and unacceptable radio 

expenditures open for further 

refinement, and refers this issue to the 

911 Strike Force for further 

consideration and development of 

recommendations. The Report and 

Order also codifies the provision of 

section 902 that allows states and taxing 

jurisdictions to 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. 

Further, the Commission amends its 

rules to include a voluntary safe harbor 

provision that provides if a state or 

taxing jurisdiction collects fees or 

charges designated for ‘‘public safety,’’ 

‘‘emergency services,’’ or similar 

purposes and a portion of those fees 

goes to 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 meets 

certain criteria. This safe harbor 

provision should incentivize states and 

taxing jurisdictions to be transparent 

about multi-purpose fees, while 

providing flexibility to states and taxing 

jurisdictions to have the 911 portion of 

such multi-purpose fees be deemed 

acceptable while not having the non-911 

portion be deemed diversion. 

The safe harbor provision should also 

provide visibility into how funds 

ostensibly collected for both 911 and 

other purposes are apportioned, while 

including safeguards to ensure that such 

apportionment is not subject to 

manipulation that would constitute fee 

diversion. Inclusion of the safe harbor 

furthers Congress’s transparency goals 

and enhances our ability to determine 

whether 911 funds are being diverted. 

Without such visibility, multi-purpose 

fees could increase the burden on 

limited Commission staff resources in 

analyzing varied fee structures, and 

potentially render our rules and annual 

911 fee report ineffective. The changes 

to part 9 adopted in the Report and 

Order are consistent with and advance 

Congress’s stated objectives in section 

902 in a cost-effective manner that is not 

unduly burdensome to providers of 

emergency telecommunications services 

or to state or taxing jurisdictions. The 

rules closely track the statutory 

language of section 902 addressing 911 

fee diversion and seek to promote 

transparency, accountability, and 

integrity in the collection and 

expenditure of fees collected for 911 

services, while providing stakeholders 

reasonable guidance as part of 

implementing section 902. 

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Comments in Response to the IRFA 

There were no comments filed that 

specifically addressed the proposed 

rules and policies presented in the 

IRFA. 

C. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs 

Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, 

the Commission is required to respond 

to any comments filed by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. 

The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

rules in this proceeding. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

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 rules 

adopted herein. The RFA generally 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
45906 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

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 1,000 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 

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. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

The rules adopted in the Report and 

Order to implement section 902 will 

impose new or additional reporting or 

recordkeeping and/or other compliance 

obligations on small and other sized 

state and taxing jurisdictions subject to 

compliance with the Commission’s 911 

fee obligation or expenditure 

requirements. While some of the 

requirements will only impact entities 

that choose to invoke the provisions, the 

Commission is not in a position to 

determine whether small entities will 

have to hire professionals to comply and 

cannot quantify the cost of compliance 

for small entities. Below we discuss the 

reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements implicated in the Report 

and Order. 

New § 9.25 requires 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, as amended (47 

U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(2)). Each state or taxing 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45907 

jurisdiction subject to paragraph (a) of 

this section must file the information 

requested by the Commission and in the 

form specified by the Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau). 

The Report and Order directs the 

Bureau to update the Commission’s 911 

fee report questionnaire to facilitate the 

provision of information regarding 

states’ use of 911 funds in order for the 

Commission to prepare an annual report 

to Congress on 911 fees. The Report and 

Order also directs the Bureau to modify 

the annual fee report questionnaire to 

obtain additional information on the 

underfunding of 911 systems, including 

both (1) information on the impact of fee 

diversion on 911 underfunding, and (2) 

information on 911 underfunding in 

general. 

Pursuant to the voluntary Petition for 

Determination process adopted in the 

Report and Order to resolve questions of 

what are and are not acceptable 911 

expenditures, a petitioning state or 

taxing jurisdiction is required to provide 

information 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 is required 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. 

Similarly, pursuant to the voluntary 

safe harbor provisions adopted in the 

Report and Order, small and other sized 

state or taxing jurisdictions that utilize 

the safe harbor provision to have the 

non-911 portion of a multi-purpose fee 

or charge not constitute diversion, must: 

(1) Specify the amount or percentage of 

such fees or charges that is dedicated to 

911 services; (2) show that the 911 

portion of such fees or charges are 

segregated and not commingled with 

any other funds; and (3) obligate or 

expend the 911 portion of such fees or 

charges for acceptable purposes and 

functions as defined in § 9.23 under 

new subpart I. 

F. 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 such 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 such small entities. 

In the Report and Order the approach 

we take to implement the provisions of 

section 902 that require Commission 

action to help address diversion of 911 

fees for other purposes by state and 

taxing jurisdictions, adopts changes to 

part 9 of the Commission’s rules seeking 

to achieve the stated objectives of 

Congress’s mandates in a cost-effective 

manner that is not unduly burdensome 

to providers of emergency 

telecommunication services or to states 

and taxing jurisdictions. Using this 

approach, we have taken the steps 

discussed below to minimize any 

significant economic impact or burden 

for small entities. 

To promote consistency for small 

entities and others who will be subject 

to both section 902 and our rules, the 

rules adopted in the Report and Order 

and codified in part 9 of the 

Commission’s rules, closely tracks the 

statutory language from section 902. 

Specifically, the definitions in section 

902 for certain terms relating to 911 fees 

and fee diversion in part 9 of our rules 

were adopted and codified as proposed 

in the NPRM. For a few terms, limited 

modifications were made to the 

definition, i.e., the definitions for the 

terms ‘‘911 fee or charge’’ and 

‘‘Diversion’’ include modifications to 

promote regulatory parity and avoid 

gaps that could inadvertently interfere 

with the rapid deployment of effective 

911 services. We believe that having 

consistency between section 902 and 

our rules will avoid additional 

compliance costs for small entities. 

Similarly, to fulfill the Commission’s 

obligations associated with issuing rules 

designating acceptable purposes and 

functions, we 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 considered but rejected 

arguments to defer to states and local 

authorities in determining what 

constitutes fee diversion. A policy of 

deferring to states or localities on what 

constitutes fee diversion would negate 

one of the principal aspects of section 

902, which is that it revises the language 

in 47 U.S.C. 615a–1 to make clear that 

fee diversion is not whatever state or 

local law says it is. Section 902 charges 

the Commission with responsibility for 

determining appropriate purposes and 

functions for expenditure of 911 funds 

and we agree that our rules should be 

reasonably broad given the evolving and 

diverse 911 ecosystem. The rules 

adopted in the Report and Order 

establish broad categories of acceptable 

purposes and functions for 911 fees and 

provide examples within each category 

to guide states and localities. Therefore, 

we have provided State and local 

jurisdictions sufficient discretion to 

make reasonable, good faith 

determinations whether specific 

expenditures of 911 fees are acceptable 

under our rules. 

In the final rules we specify examples 

of both acceptable and unacceptable 

purposes and functions for the 

obligation or expenditure of 911 fees or 

charges. For example, we revised 

§ 9.23(b)(1) from the NPRM proposal to 

include examples to make clear that 

replacement of 911 systems is an 

acceptable expenditure and that 911 

includes pre-arrival instructions and 

ENS and also added a reference to 

cybersecurity. Identifying and including 

specific 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, we adopt two processes in the 

Report and Order that could minimize 

the economic impact for small entities, 

(1) the safe harbor for multi-purpose 

fees or charges and (2) the petition for 

determination. As discussed in the prior 

section, the safe harbor provision gives 

flexibility to states and taxing 

jurisdictions to implement multipurpose fees or charges and to have the 

911 portion of such multi-purpose fees 

be deemed acceptable and the non-911 

portion not deemed 911 fee diversion 

provided certain conditions are met. 

Also discussed in the prior section, the 

Commission adopted a petition for 

determination process to resolve 

questions of what are and are not 

acceptable 911 expenditures, allowing 

states and other taxing jurisdictions to 

request a determination on whether a 

proposed expenditure would constitute 

fee diversion. Using these processes 

small, and other sized state and taxing 

jurisdictions can avoid violating section 

902 and the Commission’s rules for 911 

fee diversion and any ensuing economic 

and other consequences. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
45908 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

G. Report to Congress 

26. The Commission will send a copy 

of the Report and Order, including this 

FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant 

to the Congressional Review Act. In 

addition, the Commission will send a 

copy of the Report and Order, including 

this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 

Report and Order and FRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

IV. 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 Report and Order is hereby 

adopted. 

It is further ordered that the 

amendments of part 9 of the 

Commission’s rules, as set forth in 

Appendix A of the Commission’s Report 

and Order, are adopted, effective sixty 

(60) days after publication in the 

Federal Register. Compliance will not 

be required for paragraph (b) in § 9.25 

until after approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget. The 

Commission delegates authority to the 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau to publish a document in the 

Federal Register announcing that 

compliance date and revising paragraph 

(c) in § 9.25. 

It is further ordered that the Office of 

the Managing Director, Performance 

Evaluation and Records Management, 

shall send a copy of this Report and 

Order in a report to be sent to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

It is further ordered that the 

Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Report and Order, including the 

Final 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. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 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 for purposes of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, 

Division FF, Title IX, section 

902(c)(1)(C). 

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 

meanings set forth in this section. 

Furthermore, where the Commission 

uses the term ‘‘acceptable’’ in this 

subpart, it is for purposes of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, 

Public Law 116–260, Division FF, Title 

IX, section 902(c)(1)(C). 

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 for purposes of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, 

Division FF, Title IX, section 902(c)(1)(C). 

(a) Acceptable purposes and functions 

for the obligation or expenditure of 911 

fees or charges for purposes of section 

902 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, 

replacement, and upgrade of customer 

premises equipment (CPE) (hardware 

and software), computer aided dispatch 

(CAD) equipment (hardware and 

software), and the PSAP building/ 

facility and including NG911, 

cybersecurity, pre-arrival instructions, 

and emergency notification systems 

(ENS). PSAP operating costs include 

technological innovation that supports 

911; 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 45909 

(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 for purposes of section 902 

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 

that does not directly support providing 

911 services. 

(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: 

(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. 

(a) 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, as amended (47 

U.S.C. 615a–1(f)(2)). 

(b) Each State or taxing jurisdiction 

subject to paragraph (a) of this section 

must file the information requested by 

the Commission and in the form 

specified by the Public Safety and 

Homeland Security Bureau. 

(c) Paragraph (b) of this section 

contains information collection and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Compliance will not be required until 

after approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget. The 

Commission will publish a document in 

the Federal Register announcing that 

compliance date and revising this 

paragraph (c) accordingly. 

§ 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, as amended 

(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. 2021–16068 Filed 8–16–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 20 

[Docket No. FWS–HQ–MB–2020–0032;

FF09M220002012;2012;FXMB1231099BPP0] 

RIN 1018–BE34 

Migratory Bird Hunting; Migratory Bird 

Hunting Regulations on Certain 

Federal Indian Reservations and 

Ceded Lands for the 2021–22 Season 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule prescribes special 

migratory bird hunting regulations for 

certain Tribes on Federal Indian 

reservations, off-reservation trust lands, 

and ceded lands. This rule responds to 

Tribal requests for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (hereinafter ‘‘Service’’ 

or ‘‘we’’) recognition of their authority 

to regulate hunting under established 

guidelines. This rule allows the 

establishment of season bag limits and, 

thus, harvest at levels compatible with 

populations and habitat conditions. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 17, 

2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may inspect comments 

received on the migratory bird hunting 

regulations at http://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–HQ–MB–2020–0032. You may 

obtain copies of referenced reports from 

the Division of Migratory Bird 

Management’s website at http://

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ or at 

http://www.regulations.gov at Docket 

No. FWS–HQ–MB–2020–0032. 

Information Collection Requirements: 

Written comments and suggestions on 

the information collection requirements 

may be submitted at any time to the 

Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, 

MS: PRB (JAO/3W), Falls Church, VA 

22041–3803 (mail); or Info_Coll@fws.gov 

(email). Please reference ‘‘OMB Control 

Number 1018–0171’’ in the subject line 

of your comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jerome Ford, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Department of the Interior, 

(202) 208–2012;1050. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(MBTA) of July 3, 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703 

et seq.), authorizes and directs the 

Secretary of the Department of the 

Interior, having due regard for the zones 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES