Quiero saber acerca de...

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

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 Commissions 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 Commissions rules seeking to achieve the stated objectives of Congresss 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 Commissions 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 Commissions 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
PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

45907

one of the principal aspects 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. 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 9.23b1 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 Commissions 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 Commissions rules for 911
fee diversion and any ensuing economic and other consequences.

E:FRFM17AUR1.SGM

17AUR1