Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

45898

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

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 localitys 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 902c1C 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 agencys past analysis of 911 fee diversion in its annual fee reports, as 16 We note that the petition for determination process provides a mechanism for states and taxing jurisdictions to seek additional guidance in applying 9.23a to a particular proposal for use of 911 fees for cross-subsidization to meet local needs.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

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 911 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 rules 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 9.23b1 because a wide range of different service models exist.
Commenters also ask the Commission to clarify the term interoperability in proposed 9.23b5. 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
PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

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 9.23b1 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 911 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 17 The 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. 942e1, which defines next generation 911 services as an IP-based system comprised of hardware, software, data, and operational policies and procedures thatA
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,
E:FRFM17AUR1.SGM

17AUR1