Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

911 Fees, Congressional Report

Download Options

Released: November 8, 2011










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


October 27, 2011



TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page

I.
Introduction......................................................................................................................... 2
II.
Background ......................................................................................................................... 2
III.
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 5
A.

State Collection of 911/E911 Fees and Charges........................................................ 5
B.
State Estimates of Collected 911/E911 Funds for 2010 ............................................ 8
C.
Use of 911/E911 Fees and Charges To Fund Programs Other Than 911/E911
Services ............................................................................................................................. 10
D.
Indian Tribes ............................................................................................................ 12
IV.
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 12

I.

INTRODUCTION

1. This report 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 This report, which was prepared by Commission staff,3 is the third 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, covering the period of January 1 to December 31,
2010.

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
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.4
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, 2008.5 The 2009 Report found that 24 jurisdictions collected

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 NET 911 Act § 101(2); Wireless 911 Act § 6(f)(2). The NET 911 Act was signed into law on July 23, 2008.
5 Federal Communications Commission, Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and
Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (July 22, 2009) (2009 Report).
2

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.6 Estimates of funds collected ranged from a low of $1,468,363 in Guam to a high
of $190,239,804.99 in Pennsylvania.7 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.8 Additionally, seven states were unable to report
whether local funds collected in connection with 911/E911 were used exclusively for that program.9
Other uses of funds ranged from depositing them into the state’s general fund to purchasing public safety
radio equipment.10
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, 2009.11 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.12 Estimates of funds collected ranged from a low of $6.1 million in Maine to a high of
$203.6 million in Texas.13 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.14 In addition, two states did not respond and three states
did not provide this information.15
5. 2011 Information Collection. To collect the data necessary to compile the 2011 report, the
Commission received authorization from the Office of Management Budget (OMB) to implement a data
collection program.16 Following OMB’s approval, the Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau (Bureau) issued a Public Notice on March 3, 2011, soliciting specific information from
state, territorial, and tribal authorities regarding the collection and use of 911/E911 funding in their
jurisdictions.17 The Public Notice sought the following information:

A statement as to whether or not the state 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).


6 Id. at ¶¶ 8-10.
7 Id. at ¶ 12.
8 Id. at ¶ 13.
9 Id. at ¶ 15.
10 See id. at Table 4.
11 Federal Communications Commission, Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911 and
Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges (August 13, 2010) (2010 Report).
12 Id. at Table 1.
13 Id. at Table 3.
14 Id. at ¶ 14.
15 Id.
16 See Letter from Kevin F. Neyland, Deputy Administrator, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, to Karen Wheeless, Certifying Official, FCC, OMB Control Number 200812-3060-008
(Jan. 26, 2009).
17 Information Collection Mandated By the New and Emerging Technologies Improvement Act of 2008, PS Docket
No. 09-14, Public Notice (PSHSB 2011).
3


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, 2010.


A statement describing how the funds collected are made available to localities, and
whether the 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 the state that has the authority to approve the
expenditure of funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes, and 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 or E911.


A statement regarding 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 used for the implementation or support of 911 or E911.


A statement identifying the amount of funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes that 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.


Any other comments the respondent may wish to provide regarding the applicable
funding mechanism for 911 and E911.

6. On March 4, 2011, 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 Bureau also sent copies of the Public Notice to the Secretary of State,
Public Utility Commission Chairman, and 911 Director of each state and equivalent offices in the
territories. The Public Notice and letters set a due date for submission of information of April 11, 2011.
On April 26, 2011, the Bureau sent second notice letters to those states and territories that had not yet
replied to the initial request for information. During the week of May 24, 2011, Bureau staff placed
telephone calls to states that had not yet responded. On June 21, 2011, the Bureau sent final notice letters
to non-responding states and territories requesting information by July 8, 2011. Bureau staff made final
outreach calls on July 11, 2011 to non-responding states and territories.
7. The responses that the Bureau received are attached to this report as Appendix B. The
Bureau received information from 47 states and the District of Columbia.18 With respect to the
territories, the Bureau received responses from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands but did not
receive responses from Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands. The Bureau received responses from four
of twelve BIA offices regarding the status of 911/E911 for Indian tribes.

18 The Commission did not receive responses from Kansas, New Jersey, or Oklahoma.
4

III.

DISCUSSION

8. 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 2010, 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

9. 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
jurisdictions, or through a combination of the two.

Table 1


Type of Collection

Number of States

State Collection
21
Local Authority
8
Hybrid 20
No Response
4

10. Twenty states report that they collect statewide E911 fees that are then either distributed to
counties or administered directly by the state.19 Maine, for example, reports that it imposes a statewide
surcharge on monthly telephone bills and administers the collection and expenditure of 911 funds within
the state.20 The Maine statute granting the state authority to collect and administer 911 funds created an
Emergency Services Communications Bureau within the State Public Utility Commission, which
implements and manages the 911/E911 system. This system serves the entire state, including Indian
tribes within Maine.21
11. Eight states allow counties and other local jurisdictions to establish funding mechanisms for
911 and E911 purposes, subject to state statutory requirements.22 Colorado is typical of such states. In
Colorado, state statutes authorize local governing bodies to charge fees to support 911 services with
certain restrictions.23 Under the Colorado statutes, local governing bodies impose an emergency
telephone charge for emergency telephone services to cover the costs of “equipment, installation, and
other directly related costs.”24 Colorado statutes provide for a surcharge of up to seventy cents per month
on “wireline, wireless, or VoIP services in which emergency services are provided.”25 Local

19 This category includes Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Maine, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Tennessee, and Vermont, plus the District of Columbia.
20 See Maine Response at 1-2.
21 Id. at 2.
22 This category includes Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and
Wyoming.
23 See Colorado Response at 1; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-11-102.
24 See Colorado Response at 1; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-11-102(1)(a).
25 Colorado Response at 1.

5

governments are allowed to petition the state Public Utilities Commission if the local jurisdiction believes
a surcharge of more than seventy cents is required.26
12. Twenty states employ a hybrid approach which allows two or more governing bodies or
providers to collect surcharges from customers.27 For instance, Illinois reports that it allows local
governments to establish “Emergency Telephone System Boards” that set and distribute telephone bill
surcharges but also empowers the Illinois Commerce Commission to levy and collect surcharges on
wireless subscribers.28 The Illinois Commerce Commission has created two separate funds through its
surcharge – one to reimburse wireless carriers for 911 costs and the other to pay for wireless 911
services.29
13. 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
Alaska No
Arizona Yes
Arkansas Yes
California Yes
Colorado No
Connecticut Yes
Delaware Yes
District of Columbia
Yes
Florida Yes
Georgia
State oversight for pre-paid.
Local control for wireless, wireline, and
VoIP.
Guam DNP
Hawaii Yes
Idaho No
Illinois
State oversight for wireless.
Local control for wireline.
Indiana Yes
Iowa Yes
Kansas DNP
Kentucky
State oversight for wireless.

26 Id.
27 This category includes Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland,
Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and
Wisconsin.
28 Illinois Response at 1.
29 Id.
6

State

State Approval of Expenditures?

Local control for wireline.
Louisiana No
Maine Yes
Maryland Yes
Massachusetts Yes
Michigan Yes
Minnesota Yes
Mississippi No
Missouri No
Montana Yes
Nebraska
State oversight for wireless.
Local control for wireline.
Nevada No
New Hampshire
Yes
New Jersey
DNP
New Mexico
Yes
New York
State oversight for state funds.
Local oversight for local funds.
North Carolina
Yes
North Dakota
Yes
Ohio Yes
Oklahoma DNP
Oregon Yes
Pennsylvania Yes
Puerto Rico
Yes
Rhode Island
Yes
South Carolina
State oversight for wireless.
Local control for wireline.
South Dakota
Yes
Tennessee Yes
Texas Yes
Utah No
Vermont Yes
Virginia Yes
Washington Yes
West Virginia
Yes
Wisconsin
State oversight for wireless; local
control for wireline.
Wyoming No

7

B.

State Estimates of Collected 911/E911 Funds for 2010

14. 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, 2010. Some states did not provide an
estimate of the amount collected. Some states provided separate figures for wireless and wireline services
(and, in one case, 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 $3,017,672 in Louisiana to an estimated high of $199,025,787
in Texas. Last year, fees ranged from an estimated low of $1,400,000 in Hawaii to an estimated high of
$203,547,359.97 in Texas.

Table 3

State

Funds Collected in 2010

State:
$28,680,846
Alabama
Local:
DNP
Alaska $8,649,083
$16,238,766. Interest generated was
Arizona
$109,587
Arkansas DNP
California $100,000,000
(est.)
Colorado $45,000,000
(2008
est.)
Connecticut $20,723,228
Delaware $8,044,859
District of Columbia
$12,700,000 (est. that includes FY 2009)
$45,888,321
Florida
Prepaid: $8,950,569
Georgia
Local: DNP
Guam DNP
Wireline:
$1,200,000
Hawaii
Wireless:
$8,344,397
Idaho $18,013,902
Wireline:
DNP
Illinois
Wireless:
$69,700,000 (excl. Chicago)


Indiana
$39,600,000 (2009 information)
Wireline:
Iowa
$14,406,862
8

State

Funds Collected in 2010

Wireless:
$16,897,515
Kansas DNP
Wireline:
$27,200,000 (est.)
Kentucky
Wireless:
$27,700,000 (est.)
Louisiana $3,017,672
Maine $7,786,855
Maryland $54,560,255
Massachusetts $75,125,185
Counties:
$59,929,592
Michigan
State:
$27,744,301
Minnesota $58,821,937
Mississippi $56,335,986
Missouri DNP
Montana $13,715,064
Wireline:
$8,306,725 (2009 est.)
Nebraska
Wireless:
$8,128,042
Nevada DNP
New Hampshire
$9,832, 831
New Jersey
DNP
New Mexico
$13,081,062

State:
$193,194,759
New York

County:
DNP
North Carolina
$80,001,662
North Dakota
$8,369,366 (2009 est.)
Ohio $29,175,929
Oklahoma DNP
Oregon $39,592,560
Wireline:
$71,682,316
Wireless:
Pennsylvania
$108,538,000
VoIP:
$14,333,944
Puerto Rico
$20,952,458 (2008 est.)
9

State

Funds Collected in 2010

Rhode Island
$15,488,729
Wireless:
$21,988,052
South Carolina
Wireline:
DNP
South Dakota
$8,100,000 (2009 est.)
State:
$58,500,000
Local:
Tennessee
No information for 2010. However, estimates
for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 are
$43,800,000 and $43,900,000 respectively.
Texas
$199,025,787
Local:
$21,140,368
Utah
State:
$2,769,198
Vermont $4,605,803
Virginia $53,217,635
Virgin Islands
$554,245
County:
$50,888,882
Washington
State:
$20,355,553
West Virginia
$35,375,580
Wisconsin
DNP
DNP
Wyoming

C.

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

15. The majority of respondents – 39 states plus Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the
District of Columbia – indicate that they use collected 911/E911 funds only for 911/E911 purposes.
Seven states 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 2010 Report, thirteen states reported
using funds for non-911/E911 purposes, while in the 2009 Report, twelve states reported using funds for
non-911/E911 purposes.
16. 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. Utah, for example, states that its Automated Geographic Reference Center receives an amount
equal to one cent per line levied on telecommunications services to enhance and upgrade statewide digital
mapping.30 The one cent is taken from the eight cent per line charge collected by the state.31 Four states
10

(Arizona, Illinois, Oregon, and Rhode Island) report that they used money collected for 911/E911 to assist
in closing the state’s general fund, although Oregon reports that it used only interest accrued on the
collected funds. Illinois reports that it borrowed $6,665,500 from its Wireless Carrier Reimbursement
Fund but states that under state law, this money must be paid back into the fund within 18 months of the
time it was borrowed.32 Illinois also reports that it took $13,650,000 from its Wireless Carrier
Reimbursement Fund to assist in closing its General Fund.33 Illinois reports that this money does not
need to be paid back, as Section 5h of the Illinois State Finance Act requiring reimbursement of these
funds did not become effective until January 11, 2011.34 South Dakota indicates that it cannot provide
expenditure information at this time as it is currently reviewing information sent to the State by counties
regarding their use of E911 funds.35 However, it notes that the Governor of South Dakota recently signed
into law an amendment that clarifies that the use of the 911 surcharge is restricted to the implementation
and support of the 911 system.36 Virginia allows wireless E911 funds to be used to support sheriffs’ 911
dispatchers.37 West Virginia distributes 911 fees to the State Police and the Division of Homeland
Security and Emergency Management for the expansion of an interoperable radio system and to the
Public Service Commission for the expansion of cell towers.38
17. In short, at the state level for the year ending December 31, 2010, 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
$2,463,000 allocated to General Fund to help address state budget crisis.
Illinois
Borrowed $6,665,500 from its Wireless Carrier Reimbursement Fund. This
money must be paid back into the fund. Took $13,650,000 from its Wireless
Carrier Reimbursement Fund to assist in closing its General Fund. This
money does not need to be paid back, as Section 5h of the Illinois State
Finance Act requiring reimbursement of these funds did not become effective
until January 11, 2011.
Oregon
Interest accrued went to General Fund.
Rhode Island
Transferred $10,852,828 to the state’s General Fund. This amount represents
money collected by Rhode Island that was not specifically appropriated for
E911 operation or implementation.

30 Utah Response at 2.
31 Id.
32 Illinois Response at 6. See also 30 ILCS 105/5h.
33 Illinois Response at 7.
34 Id.
35 South Dakota Response at 5.
36 South Dakota Response at 4.
37 Virginia Response at 3.
38 West Virginia Response at 2.
11

State

Use of 911/E911 Fees/Charges for Other Purposes

South Dakota
Cannot provide this information at this time. The Governor of South Dakota
recently signed into law an amendment that clarifies that the use of the 911
surcharge is restricted to the implementation and support of the 911 system.
Virginia
Current biennial budget allows wireless E911 funds to be used to support
sheriffs’ 911 dispatchers. The state’s budget provides that $8M will be
transferred each year from the Wireless E911 Fund to the Compensation
Board for this purpose. Although support of sheriffs’ 911 dispatchers is not
specifically mentioned in the funding mechanism, the purpose is directly
related to supporting E911.
West Virginia
$1,169,639 distributed to WV State Police. $1,769,391 distributed to Division
of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to be used to expand the
state’s interoperable radio system. $1,000,000 distributed to the Public
Service Commission to expand cell towers. Remainder of funds distributed to
counties.

D. Indian

Tribes

18. 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.39 Only four offices responded, and only the BIA offices for the Eastern
Region and the Great Plains Region indicated that they collected information on 911/E911 funding.
19. The Eastern Region BIA Office indicates that no tribe within its jurisdiction has established a
funding mechanism for 911/E911.40 The Great Plains Region BIA Office indicates that state and local
authorities manage the 911 systems for the Indian tribes within its district.41 Thus, Indian tribes within its
jurisdiction collect no 911/E911 funds. Finally, Maine reports that its state system serves the Indian
tribes within Maine.42

IV.

CONCLUSION

20. The Commission is pleased to have the opportunity to report on the issue of 911 fee
collection and distribution. In this report, we have been able to report on the practices of almost every
state and territory. Reported information indicates that in 2010, most of the 911/E911 fees collected by
the states were in fact used to fund 911/E911 services, and only seven states that responded to the
Commission’s data collection reported using, or potentially using, 911 fees to support other activities.

39 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.
40 BIA Eastern Regional Office Response at 1.
41 BIA Great Plains Regional Office Response at 1.
42 Maine Response at 2.
12

APPENDIX A

Summary of State Responses


Use of 911/E911

Type of Fund

State Approval

State/Territory

Funds Collected

Fees/Charges for

Collection

of Expenditures

Other Purposes

State:
$28,680,846
Alabama Hybrid
Yes
N/A
Local:
DNP
Alaska Hybrid No $8,649,083
N/A
Arizona State Yes $16,238,766 Yes
Arkansas State
Yes
DNP
N/A
$100,000,000
California State
Yes
N/A
(est.)
$45,000,000.00
Colorado Local
No
N/A
(2008 est.)
Connecticut State
Yes $20,723,228
N/A
Delaware State
Yes $8,044,859
N/A
$12,700,000 (est.
District of
State Yes
that includes FY
N/A
Columbia
2009)

Florida State Yes $45,888,321
N/A

State oversight
Prepaid:
for pre-paid;
$8,950,569
local control for
Georgia Hybrid
N/A
wireless,
wireline, and
Local:
VoIP.
DNP
Guam DNP DNP DNP
DNP
Wireline:
$1,200,000
Hawaii Hybrid Yes
N/A
Wireless:
$8,344,397
13

Use of 911/E911

Type of Fund

State Approval

State/Territory

Funds Collected

Fees/Charges for

Collection

of Expenditures

Other Purposes

Idaho Local No $18,013,902 N/A
State oversight
Wireline:
for wireless;
DNP
Illinois Hybrid
Yes
Local control for
Wireless:
wireline
$69,700,000
(excl. Chicago)
Indiana Hybrid Yes $39,600,000
N/A
(2009 est.)
Wireline:
Iowa Hybrid
$14,
Yes
406,862
N/A
Wireless:
$16,897,515





Kansas
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP
Wireline:
State oversight
$27,200,000
for wireless;
Kentucky Hybrid
(est.)
N/A
local control for
Wireless:
wireline
$27,700,000
(est.)





Louisiana
Local
No
$3,017,672
N/A





Maine
State
Yes
$7,786,855
N/A





Maryland
Hybrid
Yes
$54,560,255
N/A





Massachusetts
State
Yes
$75,125,185
N/A
Counties:
$59,929,592
Michigan Hybrid
Yes
N/A

State:
$27,744,301







14

Use of 911/E911

Type of Fund

State Approval

State/Territory

Funds Collected

Fees/Charges for

Collection

of Expenditures

Other Purposes

Minnesota State
Yes $58,821,937
N/A





Mississippi
Local
No
$56,335,986
N/A





Missouri
Hybrid
No
DNP
N/A





Montana
State
Yes
$13,715,064
N/A
State oversight
Wireline:
for wireless;
$8,306,725 (2009
Nebraska Hybrid
N/A
local control for
est.)
wireline
Wireless:
$8,128,042





Nevada
Local
No
DNP
DNP





New Hampshire
State
Yes
$9,823,831
N/A





New Jersey
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP





New Mexico
State
Yes
$13,081,062
N/A

State oversight
State:
for state funds;
New York
Hybrid
$193,194,759
N/A
local oversight
for local funds
County:
DNP





North Carolina
State
Yes
$80,001,662
N/A
North Dakota
Local
Yes
$8,369,366 (2009
N/A
est.)
Ohio State Yes
N/A
$29,175,929
15

Use of 911/E911

Type of Fund

State Approval

State/Territory

Funds Collected

Fees/Charges for

Collection

of Expenditures

Other Purposes






Oklahoma
DNP
DNP
DNP
DNP





Oregon
State
Yes
$39,592,560
Yes
Wireline:
$71,682,316
Pennsylvania State
Yes
Wireless:
N/A
$108,538,000

VoIP:
$14,333,944





Puerto Rico
State
Yes
$20,952,458
N/A





Rhode Island
State
Yes
$15,488,729
Yes
State oversight
Wireless:
for wireless;
$21,988,052
South Carolina
Hybrid
N/A
local control for
Wireline:
wireline.
DNP
$8,100,000 (2009
South Dakota
Local
Yes
Yes
est.)

State:
$58,500,000
Local:
No information




for 2010.
However,
Tennessee
State
Yes
N/A
estimates for
fiscal years 2007
and 2008 are
$43,800,000 and
$43,900,000
respectively.






Texas
Hybrid
Yes
$199,025,787
N/A

16

Use of 911/E911

Type of Fund

State Approval

State/Territory

Funds Collected

Fees/Charges for

Collection

of Expenditures

Other Purposes

Local:
$21,140,368
Utah Hybrid No
N/A

State:
$2,769,198





Vermont
State
Yes
$4,605,803
N/A





Virginia
Hybrid
Yes
$53,217,635
Yes
Counties:
$50,888,882
Washington Hybrid
Yes
N/A

State:
$20,355,553
West Virginia
Hybrid
Yes
Yes
$35,375,580
State oversight
for wireless;
Wisconsin Hybrid
N/A
local control for
DNP
wireline





Wyoming
Local
No
DNP
N/A

17

Document Outline

  • NET 911 Act THIRD Report to Congress 2011 FINAL.pdf

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.