Je veux savoir à propos de…

45902

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

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Petition for Determination Background. Section 902c1C
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 911 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 21 NTIA and NHTSA administer the 911 Grant Program, enacted by the ENHANCE 911 Act section 158 codified at 47 U.S.C. 942c, and amended by the NG911 Act section 6503 codified at 47 U.S.C.
942c. 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 FCCs 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.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 Commissions 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 Commissions 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 22 The Commission notes that the decision to apply 1.2 of the Commissions 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. 554e 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 902c1C
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. 615a1f5B as amended; sec.
902c1C.

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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 911 fee diversion. However, other commenters oppose expanding the petition process to other stakeholders. The Adams County E911 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 Commissions 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 CASEs 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
E:FRFM17AUR1.SGM

17AUR1