Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Annual Report on State Collection and Distribution of 911/E911 Fees

Download Options

Released: January 14, 2013

REPORT TO CONGRESS

ON STATE COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF

911 AND ENHANCED 911 FEES AND CHARGES

Submitted Pursuant to

Public Law No. 110-283

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Julius Genachowski, Chairman

December 21, 2012


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading
Paragraph #
I.
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 2
III. DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................................... 9
A. State Collection of 911/E911 Fees and Charges ............................................................................ 10
B. State Estimates of Collected 911/E911 Funds for 2011................................................................. 15
C. Use of 911/E911 Fees and Charges To Fund Programs Other Than 911/E911 Services .............. 16
D. Next Generation 911 ...................................................................................................................... 21
E. Indian Tribes .................................................................................................................................. 23
IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................... 26
APPENDIX A – Summary of State Responses
APPENDIX B – Copies of Responses

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
This Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911
Fees and Charges is submitted by the Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (Commission),1
pursuant to the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 Act).2
Prepared by Commission staff in the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (Bureau),3 this is the
fourth such annual report on the collection and distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 (E911) fees and
charges by the states, the District of Columbia, the U.S. territories, and the Indian territories, and covers
the period January 1 to December 31, 2011. As discussed below,4 45 states plus Puerto Rico submitted
information indicating that they use collected 911/E911 funds exclusively for 911/E911 purposes. Five
states and Guam report that they use or are allowed to use collected funds, at least in part, to support
programs other than 911 and E911.

II.

BACKGROUND

2.
NET 911 Act. Section 101 of the NET 911 Act added a new section 6(f)(2) to the
Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999 (Wireless 911 Act), which provides:
To ensure efficiency, transparency, and accountability in the collection and expenditure of a
fee or charge for the support or implementation of 9-1-1 or enhanced 9-1-1 services, the
Commission shall submit a report within 1 year after the date of enactment of the New and
Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, and annually thereafter, to the
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on
Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives detailing the status in each State of
the collection and distribution of such fees or charges, and including findings on the amount


1 See 47 U.S.C. § 155(a) (stating, inter alia, that “[i]t shall be [the Chairman’s] duty . . . to represent the Commission
in all matters relating to legislation and legislative reports”).
2 New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-283, 122 Stat. 2620 (2008)
(NET 911 Act).
3 See 47 C.F.R. § 0.191(k) (providing delegated authority to the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to
develop responses to legislative inquiries).
4 See paras. 16-19, infra.
2

of revenues obligated or expended by each State or political subdivision thereof for any
purpose other than the purpose for which any such fees or charges are specified.5
3.
2009 Report. On July 22, 2009, the Commission submitted its first Report to Congress
on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (2009 Report), covering
the annual period ending December 31, 2008.6 The 2009 Report found that 24 jurisdictions collected
911/E911 fees at the state level, 11 collected fees at the local level, and 19 states collected fees at both the
state and local levels.7 Estimates of funds collected ranged from a low of $1,468,363 in Guam to a high
of $190,239,804.99 in Pennsylvania.8 The 2009 Report also found that 30 states, Guam, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico used the funds exclusively for 911/E911 purposes, while 12 states used some
portion of their funds to support other programs.9 Additionally, seven states were unable to report whether
local funds collected in connection with 911/E911 were used exclusively for that program.10 Other uses
of funds ranged from depositing them into the state’s general fund to purchasing public safety radio
equipment.11
4.
2010 Report. On August 13, 2010, the Commission submitted the second Report to
Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (2010 Report),
covering the annual period ending on December 31, 2009.12 The 2010 Report found that 22 jurisdictions
collected 911/E911 fees at the state level, 11 collected fees at the local level, and 19 collected fees at both
the state and local level.13 Estimates of funds collected ranged from a low of $6.1 million in Maine to a
high of $203.6 million in Texas.14 The 2010 Report found that 32 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands used the funds exclusively for 911/E911 purposes, while 13 states used
some portion of their funds to support other programs.15 In addition, two states did not respond and three
states did not provide this information.16
5.
2011 Report. On October 27, 2011, the Commission submitted the Third Report to
Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (2011 Report),
covering the annual period ending on December 31, 2010.17 The Third Annual Report found that in 2010,
22 jurisdictions collected 911/E911 fees at the state level, 8 collected fees at the local level, and 20


5 NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(f)(2). The NET 911 Act was signed into law on July 23, 2008.
6 Federal Communications Commission, Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and
Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (July 22, 2009) (2009 Report).
7 Id. at ¶¶ 8-10.
8 Id. at ¶ 12.
9 Id. at ¶ 13.
10 Id. at ¶ 15.
11 See id. at Table 4.
12 Federal Communications Commission, Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and
Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (August 13, 2010) (2010 Report).
13 Id. at Table 1.
14 Id. at Table 3.
15 Id. at ¶ 14.
16 Id.
17 Federal Communications Commission, Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and
Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (Nov. 1, 2011) (2011 Report).
3

collected fees at both the state and local levels.18 The funds collected ranged from an estimated low of
$3,017,672 in Louisiana to an estimated high of $199,025,787 in Texas.19 The Report also found that 39
states, Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia reported using the funds
exclusively for 911/E911 purposes, while seven states reported using some portion of their funds to
support other programs.20
6.
2012 Revised Information Collection. For the Commission’s 2012 Report, the Bureau
modified its information collection to obtain more detailed information about how states and other
reporting jurisdictions determine what activities, programs, and organizations qualify as being “in support
of 9-1-1 and enhanced 9-1-1 services, or enhancements of such services,” for purposes of receiving
monies collected from 911/E911 funds.21 The Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau (Bureau) issued a Public Notice on June 8, 2012, soliciting specific information from state,
territorial, and tribal authorities regarding the collection and use of 911/E911 funding in their
jurisdictions.22 The Public Notice sought the following information:
·
A statement as to whether or not your State, or any political subdivision, Indian tribe,
village or regional corporation therein as defined by Section 6(f)(1) of the NET 911 Act,
has established a funding mechanism designated for or imposed for the purposes of 911
or E911 support or implementation (including a citation to the legal authority for such
mechanism).
·
The amount of the fees or charges imposed for the implementation and support of 911
and E911 services, and the total amount collected pursuant to the assessed fees or
charges, for the annual period ending December 31, 2011.
·
A statement describing how the funds collected are made available to localities, and
whether your state has established written criteria regarding the allowable uses of the
collected funds, including the legal citation to such criteria.
·
A statement identifying any entity in your State that has the authority to approve the
expenditure of funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes; a description of any oversight
procedures established to determine that collected funds have been made available or
used for the purposes designated by the funding mechanism or otherwise used to
implement or support 911; and a statement describing enforcement or other corrective
actions undertaken in connection with such oversight, for the annual period ending
December 31, 2011.
·
A statement whether all the funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes have been made
available or used for the purposes designated by the funding mechanism, or otherwise


18 Id. at ¶¶ 10-12.
19 Id. at ¶ 14.
20 Id. at ¶ 15.
21 See Public Safety and Homeland Security Seeks Comment on Information Collection and Recommendations to
Congress Regarding State 911/E911 Fees and Expenditures, Public Notice, PS Docket No. 09-14 (rel. Nov. 8, 2011).
Commenters supported the expanded data collection. See, e.g., NENA Comments at 1; CTIA Comments at
1; see also, Letter from Kevin F. Neyland, Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, OMB Control Number 3060-1122 (May 17, 2012).
22 Information Collection Mandated By the New and Emerging Technologies Improvement Act of 2008, PS Docket
No. 09-14, Public Notice (PSHSB Jun. 8, 2012).
4

used for the implementation or support of 911 or E911.
· A statement identifying what amount of funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes were
made available or used for any purposes other than the ones designated by the funding
mechanism or used for purposes otherwise unrelated to 911 or E911 implementation or
support, including a statement identifying the unrelated purposes for which the funds
collected for 911 or E911 purposes were made available or used.
·
A statement identifying with specificity all activities, programs, and organizations for
whose benefit your State, or political subdivision thereof, has obligated or expended
funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes and how these activities, programs, and
organizations support 911 and E911 services or enhancements of such services. [New
2012 Information Collection]

·
A statement regarding whether your State classifies expenditures on Next Generation 911
as within the scope of permissible expenditures of funds for 911 or E911 purposes,
whether your State has expended such funds on Next Generation 911 programs, and if so,
how much your state has expended in the annual period ending December 31, 2011 on
Next Generation 911 programs. [New 2012 Information Collection]
·
Any other comments you may wish to provide regarding the applicable funding
mechanism for 911 and E911.
7.
During the week of June 11, 2012, the Bureau sent letters to the Office of the Governor
of each state and territory and the Regional Directors of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) requesting the
information sought in the Public Notice. The Public Notice and letters requested submission of
information by July 31, 2012. On September 3, 2012, the Bureau sent second notice letters to those states
and territories that had not yet replied to the initial request for information. Thereafter, Bureau staff
placed telephone calls to states that had not yet responded and, on October 12, 2012, sent final notice
letters to non-responding states and territories requesting information by October 30, 2012. Bureau staff
made final outreach calls on November 1, 2012 to non-responding states and territories.
8.
The responses that the Bureau received are attached to this report as Appendix B. The
Bureau received information from 47 states.23 With respect to the territories, the Bureau received
responses from Guam and Puerto Rico but did not receive responses from the Northern Mariana Islands
or the US Virgin Islands. The Bureau also did not receive a response from the District of Columbia. The
Bureau received responses from four of twelve BIA offices regarding the status of 911/E911 for Indian
tribes.

III.

DISCUSSION

9.
Based upon the information gathered from the responding states and territories, this
Report describes how states and other entities collected 911/E911 funds in calendar year 2011, how much
they collected, and how they oversaw the expenditure of these funds. The Report then describes the
extent to which states spent the collected 911/E911 funds on programs other than those that support or
implement 911/E911 services.

A.

State Collection of 911/E911 Fees and Charges

10.
States use a variety of methods to collect and distribute 911/E911 fees. Table 1 provides
an overview of whether 911/E911 funds are collected by the state (or equivalent jurisdiction), by local


23 The Commission did not receive responses from the District of Columbia, Louisiana, New Hampshire, or Rhode
Island.
5

jurisdictions, or through a combination of the two.

Table 1

Type of Collection

Number of States

State Collection
14
Local Authority
12
Hybrid
23
No Response
6
11.
Fourteen states report that they collect statewide E911 fees that are then either distributed
to counties or administered directly by the state.24 Arizona, for example, reports that it imposes a
statewide surcharge of twenty cents per month on every telecommunications provider for each activated
wire (including VoIP) line and wireless service.”25 Revenue generated from this tax is then deposited into
the Emergency Telecommunications Services Revolving Fund pursuant to Arizona’s funding statute.26
12.
Twelve states allow counties and other local jurisdictions to establish funding
mechanisms for 911 and E911 purposes, subject to state statutory requirements.27 Missouri is typical of
such states. Missouri statutes allow counties to establish 911 funding mechanisms through one of two
ways. The majority of counties in Missouri (52 of 97 counties), have opted to fund 911 through a tax on
each “access line” in those parts of the county’s jurisdiction “for which emergency telephone service has
been contracted.”28 The remaining counties have opted to establish a county sales tax which, by law,
cannot “exceed one percent of the receipts from the sale at retail of all tangible personal property or
taxable services at retail within any county adopting such tax.”29
13.
Twenty-three states employ a hybrid approach which allows two or more governing
bodies or providers to collect surcharges from customers.30 Kentucky is typical of this approach. In
Kentucky, as in several other states, local jurisdictions are authorized by law to establish a fee on
landlines within the local jurisdiction’s area; whereas, the state has established a fee on all CMRS
connections within the state.31 All but ten counties in Kentucky have adopted a landline fee; however,
Kentucky notes that local governments are exploring new ways to fund local 911/E911 as landline
revenue has dropped due to substantial decreases in the use landline phones.32 Kentucky estimates that


24 This category includes Arizona, California, Connecticut, Guam, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New
Jersey, North Carolina, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Vermont, and Virginia.
25 See Arizona Response at 1-2.
26 Id. at 2.
27 This category includes Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma,
South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
28 Missouri Response at 1.
29 Id. at 1-2.
30 This category includes Alabama, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,
Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia.
31 See Kentucky Response at 1-2.
32 See Kentucky Response at 2.
6

the total decrease in landlines may be as high as 25 percent in the last decade.33
14.
Table 2 indicates whether each state controls the expenditures of funds collected from
911/E911 surcharges. States that responded “no” to this question typically cede control of 911/E911
funds to local jurisdictions. In this table and the tables that follow, states and other entities that did not
provide identified information are listed as “DNP.”

Table 2

State

State Approval of Expenditures?

Alabama
Yes for state collection; no for local
collection
Alaska
No
Arizona
Yes
Arkansas
No
California
Yes
Colorado
No for local collection; yes for prepaid
collection
Connecticut
Yes
Delaware
Yes
District of Columbia
DNP
Florida
Yes
Georgia
Yes
Guam
Yes
Hawaii
Yes
Idaho
No
Illinois
No for wireline; yes for wireless
Indiana
Yes
Iowa
Yes
Kansas
Yes
Kentucky
No for wireline; yes for wireless
Louisiana
DNP
Maine
Yes
Maryland
Yes
Massachusetts
Yes
Michigan
Yes
Minnesota
Yes
Mississippi
Yes
Missouri
No
Montana
Yes
Nebraska
No for wireline; Yes for wireless.
Nevada34
No
New Hampshire
DNP
New Jersey
Yes


33 See id.
34 While Nevada did not provide a single state-level response, several Nevada counties and tribal areas provided
information. These responses can be found in Appendix B.
7

State

State Approval of Expenditures?

New Mexico
Yes
New York
Yes
North Carolina
Yes
North Dakota
Yes
Ohio
No
Oklahoma
DNP
Oregon
Yes
Pennsylvania
Yes
Puerto Rico
Yes
Rhode Island
DNP
South Carolina
Yes
South Dakota
Yes
Tennessee
Yes
Texas
Yes
Utah
No for local; yes for state
Vermont
Yes
Virginia
Yes
Washington
Yes
West Virginia
Yes
Wisconsin
Yes
Wyoming
No

B.

State Estimates of Collected 911/E911 Funds for 2011

15.
Table 3 shows the reported amount of money collected by various states, territories, and
in a few cases, political subdivisions, for the year ending December 31, 2011. Some states did not
provide an estimate of the amount collected. Some states provided separate figures for wireless and
wireline services (and, in two cases, for VoIP services as well). Some states that collect funds at the state
and local levels provided a full breakdown of all such funds, separately identifying state and local-
collected funds. Other states that collect funds at the state and local levels only reported state-collected
funds. The funds collected ranged from an estimated low of $1,779,710 in Guam to an estimated high of
$209,202,098 in Texas.

Table 3

State

Funds Collected in 2011

Local:
DNP
Alabama
State:
$28,401,585
$12,320,888
Alaska
Arizona
$16,747,691
DNP
Arkansas
California
8

State

Funds Collected in 2011

$85,952,018
Local:
DNP. Last estimate was in 2008; however, a
new assessment will be conducted this year.
Colorado
Prepaid:
$1,907,087
$22,413,228
Connecticut
$8,775,757
Delaware
DNP
District of Columbia
$122,550,767
Florida
Landline and Wireless:
DNP
Georgia
Pre-paid:
$13,700,097
$1,779,710
Guam
Wireline:
$1,100,000
Hawaii
Wireless:
$8,655,031
$17,013,000
Idaho
Wireline:
DNP
Illinois
Wireless:
$71,900,000
Estimates not available for 2012. However,
in 2011, approximately $30,000,000 was
Indiana
collected.
Wireline:
$13,246,008
Iowa
Wireless:
$17,418,245
9

State

Funds Collected in 2011

Of 118 PSAPs in the state, 96 PSAPs reported
a total of $22,125,937. The remaining 22
PSAPs did not report this information and the
Kansas
total number for these PSAPs cannot be
ascertained.
Wireline:
No exact estimate; however, a recent survey
suggests that the total is approximately
$32,000,000
Kentucky
Wireless:
$24,500,000
DNP
Louisiana
Maine
$8,416,235
$52,099,601
Maryland
Wireline:
$21,143,853
Wireless:
$45,259,307
Massachusetts
Pre-Paid Wireless:
$2,380,236
VoIP:
$4,625,439
Michigan
$196,215,849
$58,654,182
Minnesota
$60,813,014
Mississippi
DNP
Missouri
Montana
$13,626,940
10

State

Funds Collected in 2011

Wireline:
$6,795,727
Nebraska
Wireless:
$8,012,694
DNP
Nevada
DNP
New Hampshire
$125,000,000 (est.)
New Jersey
$13,424,002
New Mexico
State:
$194,787,113
New York
Local:
DNP
DNP
North Carolina
$9,506,000
North Dakota
DNP
Ohio
DNP
Oklahoma
$39,370,086
Oregon
Wireline:
$63,995,252
VoIP:
Pennsylvania
$17,399,788
Wireless:
$110,902,419
$21,367,260
Puerto Rico
DNP
Rhode Island
Wireline:
DNP
South Carolina
Wireless:
$22,215,748
11

State

Funds Collected in 2011

$8,200,000
South Dakota
Wireline:
$36,005,368
Tennessee
Non-Wireline:
$58,492,513
$209,202,098
Texas
Utah
$23,070,307
$4,993,132
Vermont
$54,079,487
Virginia
DNP
Virgin Islands
State:
$26,566,346
Washington
Local:
$74,385,769
$36,176,377
West Virginia
DNP
Wisconsin
Wyoming
DNP

C.

Use of 911/E911 Fees and Charges To Fund Programs Other Than 911/E911
Services

16.
The majority of respondents – 45 states plus Puerto Rico– indicate that they use collected
911/E911 funds only for 911/E911 purposes. Five states and Guam report that they use or are allowed to
use collected funds, at least in part, to support programs other than 911 and E911. Compared to prior
years, this represents a reduction in the number of states that have reported using funds for purposes other
than 911/E911. In the 2011 Report, seven states reported using funds for non-911/E911 purposes, while
in the 2010 Report, thirteen states reported using funds for non-911/E911 purposes, and in the 2009
Report, twelve states reported using funds for non-911/E911 purposes.
17.
For this year’s report, the Commission requested that states and territories identify “with
12

specificity all activities, programs, and organizations for whose benefit your State, or political
subdivision thereof, has obligated or expended funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes and how these
activities, programs, and organizations support 911 and E911 services or enhancements of such services.”
The purpose of this request was to generate a more accurate and specific picture of what states and
territories defined as being in support of 911/E911. Forty-one states responded to this information
request and their responses are included in Appendix B.35
18.
States that reported that they use 911/E911 funds for other purposes indicated that they
use the collected money for a variety of matters, primarily related to other emergency first responder
programs. Guam, for example, reported that $486,223 was expended for other public safety-related
activities, including leasing ambulances and maintaining the territory’s public safety radio
communications system. Four other states (Arizona, Illinois, Maine, and New York) indicated that they
transferred 911/E911 funds to the General Fund.
19.
Two states, New Jersey and West Virginia, indicated that they used 911 fees for other
public safety related purposes consistent with their funding statutes. New Jersey’s funding mechanism
allows for 911 fees to be used to support other public safety related items, such as National Guard
Support Services and the Division of State Police Operating Budget.36 West Virginia states that its
funding mechanism allows for 911 fees to be allocated towards its Department of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management.37 This funding is used to fund expansion of its Statewide Interoperable Radio
System, to subsidize an expansion of cell towers, and to fund equipment upgrades for the West Virginia
State Police.38 West Virginia maintains that this funding is in support of 911 services as interoperable
radios are used by first responders, cell towers expand cell phone access in areas where it would not
otherwise be feasible, and funds used by the West Virginia State Police have been spent to provide radios
and other communications devices to state troopers to enable them to have communications with 911
enters.39
20.
In short, at the state level for the year ending December 31, 2011, most states report that
they used collected 911/E911 fees solely to fund 911/E911 services. Many of the remaining states use
some 911/E911 fees for related expenses, such as to cover the administrative costs of collecting the fees,
or for other public safety purposes (such as public safety radio communications). Table 4 below
summarizes the disclosed uses of revenue in the states that reported using 911/E911 fees for purposes
other than 911/E911.

Table 4

State

Use of 911/E911 Fees/Charges for Other Purposes

Arizona
$2,213,700 was used to help close the General Fund.
Georgia
In 2011, $13,700,097 was collected in pre-paid 911 fees, none of which was
allocated for 911/E911 use.


35 Arkansas, Alabama, District of Columbia, Illinois, Louisiana, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode
Island, and Wyoming did not respond to this request.
36 See New Jersey Response at 3-4.
37 See West Virginia Response at 2.
38 See West Virginia Response at 2-3.
39 See West Virginia Response at 3-4.
13

State

Use of 911/E911 Fees/Charges for Other Purposes

Guam
$486,323 was appropriated for other public safety-related issues, namely, the
leasing of ambulances, and maintenance and repair of the public safety radio
communications system.
Illinois
$2,908,000 went to the General Fund for FY 2012. In FY 2011, $6,665,500
was transferred to the General Fund, of which $1,416,000 has been repaid.
The rest must be repaid in September 2012.
Maine
$24,568 was transferred to the General Fund for personnel service reduction
initiatives.
New York
In FY 2011-2012, $22,800,000 was diverted to the General Fund.

D.

Next Generation 911

21.
As part of its ongoing efforts to support the nationwide transition to Next Generation 911
(NG911), the Commission requested that states provide information on whether they classify
expenditures on NG911 as within the scope of permissible expenditures for 911 or E911 purposes, and
whether and how much they expended such funds in 2011.
22.
Thirty-three respondents indicate that their 911 funding mechanism allows for
distribution of 911 funds for the implementation of NG911. Three respondents report that their funding
mechanism does not allow for the use of 911 funds for NG911 implementation. Of the states that
indicated that their funding mechanism allows for NG911 funding, sixteen states indicated that they used
911 funds for NG911 programs in 2011. Finally, fifteen states indicated that they did not have, or could
not provide, such information.40

E.

Indian Tribes

23.
Because of a low response rate among BIA offices, and because many BIA offices do not
collect information regarding 911/E911 funding among Indian tribes, the Commission does not have a
clear picture of Indian tribe use of 911/E911 funds. The Commission requested information from the
twelve (12) regional BIA offices.41 Only four offices responded,42 and none indicated that they had
information collection of 911 fees in tribal areas.
24.
Last year, the Eastern Region BIA Office reported that no tribe within its jurisdiction has
established a funding mechanism for 911/E911.43 The Great Plains Region BIA Office reported that state
and local authorities manage the 911 systems for the Indian tribes within its district.44 Thus, Indian tribes


40 Appendix A provides further information on state use of 911/E911 funds for NG911 purposes.
41 The BIA has twelve regional offices, organized by geographic location: Alaska Region, Eastern Oklahoma
Region, Eastern Region, Southern Plains Region, Great Plains Region, Midwest Region, Navajo Region, Northwest
Region, Pacific Region, Rocky Mountain Region, Southwest Region, and Western Region.
42 Eastern Region, Pacific Region, Southern Plains Region, and Eastern Oklahoma Region replied to the information
request.
43 BIA Eastern Regional Office 2011 Response at 1.
44 BIA Great Plains Regional Office 2011 Response at 1.
14

within its jurisdiction collect no 911/E911 funds.
25.
The Commission also received a response from the Shoshone Paiute Tribes in Nevada.
The Shoshone Paiute Tribes note that “Shoshone Paiute Tribal residents were being charged $1 per phone
subscriber line per month by CenturyTel (now CenturyLink) by Owyhee County, Idaho.”45 However,
Owyhee County does not, and never did, provide emergency services to the Shoshone Paiute tribal area.46
The Shoshone Paiute Tribes provide their own emergency services, and “after confirmation of these
charges, Owyhee County reimbursed the tribe for funding that was owed.”47 The Shoshone Paiute Tribes
now have their own funding mechanism, which allows CenturyLink to assess a 911 tax for local
subscribers.48 In calendar year 2011, the Shoshone Paiute Tribes received $5,154 from this 911 tax.49

IV.

CONCLUSION

26.
The Commission once again is pleased to have the opportunity to report on the issue of
911 fee collection and distribution. Reported information indicates that in 2011, most of the 911/E911
fees collected by the states were in fact used to fund 911/E911 services, and only five states that
responded to the Commission’s data collection reported using, or potentially using, 911 fees to support
other activities. The Commission intends to release this report to the public, as we have done in previous
years. For the first time, the Commission will formally seek public comment about the report and the
information contained in it. We will include information about that public comment in next year’s report.


45 Shoshone Paiute Tribes Response at 1.
46 See id.
47 Id.
48 Id.
49 Id. at 2.
15

Appendix A

Summary of State Responses

NG911

Use of

Type of

State

Services

911/E911

State/Territory

Fund

Approval of

Funds Collected

Funded Under Fees/Charges

Collection

Expenditures

Funding

for Other

Mechanism

Purposes

Local:
Yes for state
DNP
collection; no
Alabama
Hybrid
DNP
No
for local
State:
collection
$28,401,585
Alaska
Local
No
$12,320,888
No
DNP
Implementation
of NG911 falls
within scope of
mechanism;
however, due
$2,213,700 used
Arizona
State
Yes
$16,747,691
to limited
to help close
revenue no
General Fund
funds were
expended for
NG911 in
2011.
Arkansas
Local
No
DNP
DNP
No
Yes. In 2011,
California
expended a
California
State
Yes
$85,952,018
total of
No
$645,239 on
NG911 Pilot
Projects.
Locals can
Local: DNP.
determine
Last estimate
whether to use
No for local
was 2008. A
911 funds for
collection.
new assessment
NG911. Some
Colorado
Hybrid
Yes for
will be
No
localities have
prepaid
conducted this
done so;
collection.
year.
however, no
Prepaid:
estimate on
$1,907,087
total amount.
Yes. In 2011,
Connecticut
State
Yes
$22,413,228
No
Connecticut
16

NG911

Use of

Type of

State

Services

911/E911

State/Territory

Fund

Approval of

Funds Collected

Funded Under Fees/Charges

Collection

Expenditures

Funding

for Other

Mechanism

Purposes

expended
$13,070,000 in
in NG911
procurement
and
construction of
the Public
Safety data
network on
which it will be
carried.
Yes. In 2011,
Delaware
invested over
Delaware
Hybrid
Yes
$8,775,757
No
$2,500,000 in
NG911
technology.
District of
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
Columbia
Yes, but not
possible to
Florida
Hybrid
Yes
$122,550,767
provide an
No
exact dollar
amount.
No information
for local. Yes,
Landline and
for pre-paid. In
Wireless:
2011,
$13,700,097
DNP
Yes, but did not was collected in
Georgia
Hybrid
Yes
provide a dollar pre-paid 911
Pre-paid:
amount.
fees, none of
which was
$13,700,097
allocated for
911/E911 use.
Yes. $486,323
was
appropriated for
other public
Guam
State
Yes
$1,779,710
No
safety-related
issues, namely,
the leasing of
ambulances, and
maintenance and
17

NG911

Use of

Type of

State

Services

911/E911

State/Territory

Fund

Approval of

Funds Collected

Funded Under Fees/Charges

Collection

Expenditures

Funding

for Other

Mechanism

Purposes

repair of the
public safety
radio
communications
system.
Wireline:
$1,100,000
Hawaii
State
Yes
Wireless:
Yes
No
$8,655,031
Yes. In 2011,
the State
awarded
$535,302 to ten
counties to
Idaho
Local
No
$17,013,000
No
assist in their
movement to
Next
Generation
equipment.
No information
for wireliness.
For wireless,
$2,908,000 went
to the General
Wireline:
Fund for FY
2012. In FY
Unable to
2011,
No for
provide
$6,665,500 was
Illinois
Hybrid
wireline; yes
DNP
transferred to
for wireless.
Wireless:
the General
Fund, of which
$71,900,000
$1,416,000 has
been repaid.
The rest must be
repaid in
September
2012.
Estimates not
Yes, however,
available for
no specific
2012. However,
financials for
Indiana
Hybrid
Yes
No
in 2011,
NG911
approximately
expenditures as
$30,000,000 was they are not
18

NG911

Use of

Type of

State

Services

911/E911

State/Territory

Fund

Approval of

Funds Collected

Funded Under Fees/Charges

Collection

Expenditures

Funding

for Other

Mechanism

Purposes

collected.
reported to the
state.
Wireless:
Yes.
Approximately
$17,418,245
$167,000 was
Iowa
Hybrid
Yes
No
spent in 2011
Wireline:
on the NG911
program.
$13,246,008
Hybrid.
Note,
Of 118 PSAPs in
however,
the state, 96
that Kansas
PSAPs reported
amended its
a total of
law in 2011
$22,125,937.
Yes, however,
to create a
The remaining
911 funds were
state-based
Yes
22 PSAPs did
not expended
No
Kansas
funding
not report this
on NG911 in
mechanism.
information and
2011.
These
the total number
changes go
for these PSAPs
into effect
cannot be
January 1,
ascertained.
2012
Wireless:
$24,500,000
Wireline:
Yes.
Yes for
Expenditures
No exact
Kentucky
Hybrid
wireless. No
have totaled
No
estimate;
for wireline.
approximately
however, a
$1,000,000.
recent survey
suggests that the
total is
approximately
$32,000,000
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
Louisiana
The statute
$24,568 was
does not
transferred to
State
Yes
$8,416,235
Maine
expressly
the General
permit
Fund for
19

NG911

Use of

Type of

State

Services

911/E911

State/Territory

Fund

Approval of

Funds Collected

Funded Under Fees/Charges

Collection

Expenditures

Funding

for Other

Mechanism

Purposes

expenditures
personnel
for NG911;
service
however, the
reduction
Maine PUC
initiatives.
intends to
clarify the issue
in the
upcoming
legislative
session. No
funds were
expended in
2011 for
NG911.
Yes.
Legislation was
passed during
the Maryland
2012
Legislative
Session that
codified a Next
Generation 911
definition
within the
Public Safety
Article §1-301.
The Emergency
Number
Hybrid
Yes
$52,099,601
Systems Board
No
Maryland
obligated or
expended
$8,026,666.32
on NG911
enabled or
ready phone
systems and
NG911
enhanced
logging
recorders for
Maryland
Primary and
Secondary
PSAPs.
20

NG911

Use of

Type of

State

Services

911/E911

State/Territory

Fund

Approval of

Funds Collected

Funded Under Fees/Charges

Collection

Expenditures

Funding

for Other

Mechanism

Purposes

Wireline:
$21,143,853
Wireless:
$45,259,307
Yes. In 2011,
$241,498 was
State
Yes
Pre-Paid
No
Massachusetts
expended on
Wireless:
NG911.
$2,380,236
VoIP:
$4,625,439
Yes. In 2011,
$106,700 was
expended for
Michigan
Hybrid
Yes
$196,215,849
NG911 through No
the ENHANCE
911 Grant
Project.
State
Yes
$61,940,811
DNP
No
Minnesota
Determined by
Local
Yes
$60,813,014
local board of
No
Mississippi
supervisors.
Local
No
DNP
DNP
No
Missouri
Hybrid
Yes
$13,626,940
Yes
No
Montana
The Enhanced
Wireless 911
Services Act
Wireline:
does not
contain any
No for
$6,795,727
references to
Nebraska
Hybrid
wireline; Yes
No
NG911 and the
for wireless.
Wireless:
state has not
expended any
$8,012,694
funds on
NG911 in
2011.
21

NG911

Use of

Type of

State

Services

911/E911

State/Territory

Fund

Approval of

Funds Collected

Funded Under Fees/Charges

Collection

Expenditures

Funding

for Other

Mechanism

Purposes

Local
No
DNP
DNP
DNP
Nevada
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
New Hampshire
Yes, however,
no funds were
$127,000,000
expended for
State
Yes
No
New Jersey
(est.)
NG911 in
2011.
Yes. During
2011, New
Mexico
Hybrid
Yes
$13,424,002
No
New Mexico
expended
$491,339 on
NG911.
State:
In FY 2011-
$194,787,113
2012,
$22,800,000
New York
Hybrid
Yes
Yes.
Local:
was diverted to
the General
DNP
Fund.
Yes. No funds
were expended
State
Yes
DNP
No
North Carolina
for NG911 in
2011.
North Dakota
Local
Yes
$9,506,000
DNP
No
Ohio
Local
No
DNP
DNP
DNP
Local
No
DNP
DNP
DNP
Oklahoma
Yes. In 2011,
$295,078 was
expended for a
consolidation
State
Yes
$39,370,086
No
Oregon
report, much of
which was
centered on
NG911.
22

NG911

Use of

Type of

State

Services

911/E911

State/Territory

Fund

Approval of

Funds Collected

Funded Under Fees/Charges

Collection

Expenditures

Funding

for Other

Mechanism

Purposes

Yes. In 2011,
Pennsylvania
disbursed
$652,656 for
Wireline:
NG911 needs
$63,995,252
assessments
VoIP:
and $567,207
Pennsylvania
Hybrid
Yes
No
$17,399,788
for NG911
Wireless:
planning, and
$110,902,419
for the
development of
functional and
operational
ESInets.
State
Yes
$21,367,260
DNP
No
Puerto Rico
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
Rhode Island
Wireline:
DNP
Yes, however,
specific amount
South Carolina
Hybrid
Yes
No
Wireless:
cannot be
determined.
$22,215,748
Yes, however,
no funds were
expended for
South Dakota
Local
Yes
$8,200,000
No
NG911
purposes in
2011.
Wireline:
Yes. In 2011,
$36,005,368
Tennessee
Hybrid
Yes
expended
No
Tennessee
Non-Wireline:
$4,357,580 for
NG911.
$58,492,513
Hybrid
Yes
$209,202,098
Yes.
No
Texas
23

NG911

Use of

Type of

State

Services

911/E911

State/Territory

Fund

Approval of

Funds Collected

Funded Under Fees/Charges

Collection

Expenditures

Funding

for Other

Mechanism

Purposes

No for local;
Utah
Hybrid
$23,070,307
Yes.
No
yes for state.
Yes. In 2011,
Vermont
State
Yes
$4,993,132
expended
No
Vermont
$1,410,466 for
NG911.
Yes. In 2011,
the
Commonwealth
expended
$2,155,818 on
State
Yes
$54,079,487
No
Virginia
NG911 to
support
regional
technology
pilots.
State:
Yes, but no
funds expended
$26,566,346
in 2011 other
Washington
Hybrid
Yes
No
than operating
Local:
costs for
ESInets.
$74,385,769
Yes, however,
West Virginia
did not expend
West Virginia
Hybrid
Yes
$36,176,377
No
any money on
NG911 in
2011.
Undetermined.
No funds were
Wisconsin
Local
Yes
DNP
used for
No
NG911 in
2011.
Local
No
DNP
DNP
DNP
Wyoming
24

Appendix B

Copies of Responses

25

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.