Quiero saber acerca de...

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 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 these 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 states 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. CTIAthe 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 it 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 15 NYS DHSES contends that the statutory standard for granting a petition for determination under section 902c1C is broader than the standard for defining acceptable 911
expenditures in the rules, and asserts that the Commissions 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 56. See similarly City of Aurora, CO Mar. 22, 2021
Comments at 23 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 902c1C, 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

45897

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. 615a1 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 9.23a. Some commenters contend that, as proposed in the NPRM, 9.23a 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 9.23a. Indeed, many cross-subsidization situations across local or state lines may be necessary for the benefit of a state or taxing jurisdictions 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 911 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
E:FRFM17AUR1.SGM

17AUR1