Federal Register - August 17, 2021

Version en texte Qu'est-ce que c'est?Dateas est un site Web indépendant, non affilié à un organisme gouvernemental. La source des documents PDF que nous publions est l'agence officielle indiquée dans chacun d'eux. Les versions en texte sont des transcriptions non officielles que nous faisons pour fournir de meilleurs outils d'accès et de recherche d'informations, mais peuvent contenir des erreurs ou peuvent ne pas être complètes.

Source: Federal Register

45896

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with 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 FCCs 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 agencys 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 Commissions 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 12 Consistent 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 911 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 911 services. 13 Moreover, 13 47 U.S.C. 615a1f3B as amended; sec.
902c1C. 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. 615a1f3C as amended; sec.
902c1C. The legislative history of section 902
states that as part of any proceeding to designate purposes and functions for which the obligation or expenditure of 911 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
PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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 on Energy and Commerce, Report on Dont Break Up the T-Band Act of 2020, H.R. Rep. No. 116521, 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.
20291 and 0914, 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 Commissions 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 902c1C. We also add a reference to for purposes of section 902 in the introductory language of 9.23a and c. See Appendix A of the Commissions Report and Order final rules.

E:FRFM17AUR1.SGM

17AUR1

Acerca de esta edición

Federal Register - August 17, 2021

TitreFederal Register

PaysÉtats-Unis

Date17/08/2021

Page count255

Edition count7796

Première édition14/03/1936

Dernière édition16/06/2026

Télécharger cette édition

Otras ediciones

<<<Agosto 2021>>>
DLMMJVS
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031