Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 156 / Tuesday, August 17, 2021 / Rules and Regulations collection. We find that these existing procedural options available to nongovernmental entities are sufficient and decline to add another layer of procedures. For example, these other stakeholders may file a petition for declaratory ruling under 1.2 of the Commissions rules or a petition for rulemaking under 1.401 of the Commissions rules. However, such petitions would not be subject to or entitled to the specialized petition for determination process and substantive standards that we establish here.
Bureau delegation and public comment. In general, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Bureau has delegated authority under our existing rules that is sufficient to act on petitions for determination in the first instance. We also adopt our NPRM
proposal that the Bureau seek comment on petitions. Although the North Carolina 911 Board expresses concern that the comment and reply process could lead to administrative burdens for state and local government, other commenters support the proposal. We conclude that seeking comment on petitions will promote transparency and informed decision-making in furtherance of Congresss goals.
Time Limits. We decline to place a time limit on Bureau action on petitions for determination. We agree with commenters who advocate for timely action on petitions, but also agree with CTIA that the process needs to allow for public comment and sufficient deliberation of whether expenditures are appropriately within the scope of the Commissions rules. Although some commenters advocate mandatory timelines, imposing a rigid time limit on an as yet unknown volume of petition decisions, many of which will require careful consideration of complex situations and questions, would not allow time for sufficient deliberation or public input, would unduly burden limited Commission staff resources, and would potentially lead to inconsistent results.
Review. Some commenters advocate that an appeal process should be available, whether specifically in relation to the petition decision, or as a more general matter for any finding of fee diversion. In terms of appeals of the Bureaus petition decisions, we believe creating any specialized appeal process is unnecessary, because petitioners may submit petitions for reconsideration under 1.106 of the Commissions rules or applications for Commission review of any Bureau-level decision under 1.115 of the Commissions rules.
Blanket Waivers. We continue to believe that Congress intended the
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:18 Aug 16, 2021

Jkt 253001

petition process to serve as a safety valve allowing states to seek further refinement of the definition of obligations and expenditures that are considered 911 related. However, BRETSA argues that the petition process should include provisions for blanket waivers or special rules for certain common situations that affect a large number of 911 authorities. We decline to establish such specialized provisions.
We find that our general guidelines on acceptable and unacceptable 911
expenditures are sufficiently broad, and that these overarching national guidelines, the illustrative lists of examples, and the petition process complement each other, with the petition process allowing localized refinements that accommodate varying circumstances as well as a reasonable mechanism to evaluate future perhaps as yet unforeseen, but legitimate, expenses. We also note that nothing in the rules prevents multiple states or taxing authorities from filing a joint petition to address a common issue.
Eligibility To Participate on Advisory Committees Background. Pursuant to section 902d4, any state or taxing jurisdiction identified by the agency in the annual 911 fee report as engaging in diversion of 911 fees or charges shall be ineligible to participate or send a representative to serve on any committee, panel, or council established under section 6205a of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 . . . or any advisory committee established by the Commission. In the NPRM, we proposed to codify this restriction in 9.26 as it applies to any advisory committee established by the Commission.
Decision. We adopt the proposal from the NPRM with a minor modification and provide additional guidance and clarification on certain aspects of the rule.23 As proposed, we find that any state or taxing jurisdiction identified by the agency as engaging in diversion will be ineligible to participate on any advisory committee established by the Commission. The first fee diversion report required to be submitted one year after the enactment of section 902 will include a list of states and taxing jurisdictions identified as practicing fee diversion. The agency will begin identifying representatives of diverting jurisdictions on its current advisory committees, if any, following the 23 We revise the language of the proposed rule to clarify the reference to section 6f2 of the Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, as amended 47 U.S.C. 615a1f2.

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

45903

issuance of that report, and evaluate how to remove such representatives from current advisory committees. One commenter supports the prohibition without caveats, and some commenters seek clarification on or ask the Commission to revisit the scope of the prohibition against serving on advisory committees when a state or taxing jurisdiction has been designated a diverter.24
We clarify that only employees of a diverting jurisdiction i.e., state or other taxing jurisdiction who are acting as official representatives of that jurisdiction will be ineligible to participate on advisory committees established by the Commission. Further, we clarify that this prohibition will not extend to representatives of nondiverting localities that are located within diverting states. We also clarify that an individual who is employed by a diverting jurisdiction may still serve on a Commission advisory committee as a representative of a public safety organization or other outside association. Lastly, we clarify that an advisory committee established by the Commission includes any advisory committee established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and any other panel that serves an advisory function to the Commission as reflected on the Commissions website.25 In light 24 NPSTC notes that section 902d4 references the ineligibility of diverting states or taxing jurisdictions to serve on FirstNet committees, panels, or councils, and states that this section encompasses the FirstNet Public Safety Advisory Committee PSAC. NPSTC Mar. 23, 2021
Comments at 7. NPSTC asserts that the PSAC
appears to be established by Congress in the legislation, not by the Commission. Id. at 7.
NPSTC argues that the Commission, in coordination with the FirstNet governmental entity, should clarify any impact of this legislation to FirstNet and related advisory committees, councils or panels, as an individual on the PSAC that represents a public safety or governmental association/organization should not be penalized for an employers 911 fee decisions over which he/
she may have no involvement. Id. at 7; see also IAFC Apr. 2, 2021 Reply at 5 quoting NPSTC. We observe that at the May 5, 2021 FirstNet board meeting, FirstNet updated the charter of the PSAC
to prevent representatives of fee diverting jurisdictions from participating on the PSAC. See First Responder Network Authority, Board Resolution 109Bylaws and Public Safety Advisory Committee Charter Revisions at 12 & Exh. B May 5, 2021, https firstnet.gov/sites/default/files/
Resolution%20109%20-%20Bylaws%20and %20PSAC%20Charter %20Revisions%20May%202021.pdf.
25 A full list of the advisory committees established by the Commission can be found at https www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/advisorycommittees-fcc. This prohibition would not extend to the Regional Planning Committees RPCs, which are administrative rather than advisory in nature.
See NPSTC Mar. 23, 2021 Comments at 6
requesting clarification of whether RPCs would be considered committees established by the Commission.

E:FRFM17AUR1.SGM

17AUR1