FCC 911 Fee Diversion Rules Get 4-0 Vote

The FCC unanimously approved 911 fee diversion rules, as expected (see 2106210022). They largely mirror statutory language in the Don’t Break Up the T-Band Act of 2020, and are “reasonably broad given the diverse and evolving nature of the 911 ecosystem.” Rules take effect 60 days after Federal Register publication and fee report data collection compliance takes effect after OMB OK. The commission defined a 911 levy Friday as “a fee or charge applicable to commercial mobile services, IP-enabled voice services, or other emergency communications services specifically designated by a state or taxing jurisdiction for the support or implementation of 911 services.” The definition included multipurpose fees that support “public safety, emergency services, or similar purposes.” Replacement of 911 systems is OK. Diversion is what's used to support a political subdivision or other non-911 related purposes. Examples include “equipment or infrastructure for constructing or expanding non-public safety communications networks” and transferring money to a general fund. States will be held responsible for local jurisdictions that divert fees. The 911 strike force will consider and provide recommendations on what types of radio expenditures constitute diversion. The rules establish a procedure for jurisdictions to petition the Public Safety Bureau for determination an expenditure should be treated as acceptable. The jurisdiction must demonstrate this supports public safety answering point functions or directly affects a PSAP's ability to “receive or respond to 911 calls.” The FCC clarified that “only employees of a diverting jurisdiction” are ineligible to participate on advisory committees. Representatives of non-diverting localities within a diverting state remain eligible. An individual employed by a diverting jurisdiction may still serve on an advisory committee as a representative of a public safety organization or association. The FCC “took a big step towards eliminating the unacceptable practice of 911 fee diversion,” said CTIA Vice President-Regulatory Affairs Matt Gerst. The new rules “provide much-needed clarity on what does and does not constitute 911 fee diversion, which is essential as the stakes for diversion are raised with the potential federal NG-911 transition funding,” emailed National Emergency Number Association Director-Government Affairs Dan Henry. “To the extent that edge cases remain in certain states’ fee models, the 911 community will have to be proactive in seeking determinations from the Commission.”