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
JULY 22, 2009
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph
I. Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
II. Background ......................................................................................................................................2
III. Discussion........................................................................................................................................4
A. State Collection of 911/E911 Fees and Charges ....................................................................4
B. State Estimates of Collected 911/E911 Funds for 2008.........................................................7
C. Use of 911/E911 Fees and Charges To Fund Programs Other Than 911/E911 Services ......9
D. Indian Tribes ........................................................................................................................13
IV. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................13
Appendices
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 first 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.  
II. BACKGROUND
2. Section 101 of the NET 911 Act adds 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. In order to collect the data necessary to compile the report, the Commission received 
authorization from the Office of Management Budget (OMB) to implement a data collection program.5  
Following OMB’s approval, the Commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau (the 
Bureau) issued a Public Notice on February 6, 2009, soliciting specific information from state, territory, 
  
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 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).
3
and tribal authorities regarding the collection and use of 911/E911 funding in their jurisdictions.6 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).
• 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, 2008.  
• 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 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 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.
• Any other comments the respondent may wish to provide regarding the applicable 
funding mechanism for 911 and E911.
4. On February 23, 2009, 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 March 23, 2009.  
On April 10, 2009, the Bureau sent Second Notice letters via certified mail to those states and territories 
that had not yet replied to the initial request for information.  Similarly, on April 14, 2009, the Bureau 
sent Second Notice letters via certified mail to the Offices of the Regional Directors of those BIA regions 
that had not yet replies to the initial request for information.  On April 29-30, 2009, Bureau staff placed 
telephone calls to states, territories and BIA Offices that had not yet responded.  The Bureau made further 
outreach calls on June 24-25, 2009 to certain non-responding states and territories.  The Bureau made 
final outreach phone calls to states on July 8, 2009.  The Bureau also took various other measures to 
ensure a complete response, including announcing the information collection requirement at various 
  
6 Information Collection Mandated By the New and Emerging Technologies Improvement Act of 2008, PS Docket 
No. 09-14, Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 1344 (PSHSB 2009).
4
public safety-oriented meetings and conferences, and outreach to relevant national public safety 
organizations.  
5. The Bureau received information from every state and from the District of Columbia.7 As for 
the U.S. territories, we received responses from Puerto Rico, Guam, and American Samoa; we did not 
receive responses from the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands.8 We did not receive 
many responses from the BIA offices regarding the status of 911/E911 for Indian Tribes.  The responses 
that the Commission received are attached to this report as Appendix B.
III. DISCUSSION
6. Based upon the information gathered from the responding states, and territories, this report 
describes how states and other entities collected 911/E911 funds in 2008, how they oversaw the 
expenditure of these funds, and how much they collected.  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
7. 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 24
Local Authority 11
Hybrid 19
8. Twenty-four respondents provide for statewide E911 fees that are collected by the state and 
then either distributed to counties or administered directly by the state.9 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.10 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.11
  
7 While Nevada did not provide a single state-level response, several Nevada counties, representing the major 
population centers, provided information The Commission received responses from Carson City Fire Department, 
Douglas County, Elko County, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, and Washoe County.  Elko County 
and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department report that they do not charge a 911/E911 surcharge. 
8 American Samoa reported that it does not impose any fees or charges in connection with 911/E911 services, so 
Guam and Puerto Rico are the only territories discussed in this report.
9 This category includes Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maine, 
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Vermont, plus the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico.
10 See Maine Response at 1-2.
11 Id. at 2.
5
9. Eleven states allow counties and other local jurisdictions to establish funding mechanisms for 
911 and E911 purposes, subject to state statutory requirements.12 Colorado is typical of such states.  In 
Colorado, state statutes authorize local governing bodies to charge fees to support 911 services with 
certain restrictions.13 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.”14 This charge may not exceed seventy cents per month per “exchange access 
facility, per wireless communications access, and per interconnected [VoIP] service in those portions of 
the governing body’s jurisdiction for which emergency telephone service will be provided.”15  
10. Nineteen states employ a hybrid approach where two or more governing bodies or providers 
are allowed to collect surcharges from customers.16 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.17 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.18 Guam reports that it requires each Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) and Commercial Mobile 
Radio Service (CMRS) provider to collect a one dollar per month surcharge per access line up to a 
maximum of 25 access lines per account.  Each LEC and CMRS provider then remits the amounts 
collected to the Department of Administration through the Treasurer of Guam.19
11. 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.
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
  
12 This category includes Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, 
and Wyoming.
13 See Colorado Response at 1; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-11-102.  
14 See Colorado Response at 1; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-11-102(1)(a).
15 Colorado Response at 1; Colo. Rev. Stat. § 29-11-102(2)(a).
16 This category includes Alabama, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, 
Missouri, Nebraska, New York, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
17 Illinois Response at 1.
18 Id.
19 Guam Response at 2; Guam Public Law No. 25-55.
6
State State Approval of Expenditures?
Florida Yes
Georgia Yes
Guam Yes
Hawaii Yes
Idaho No
Illinois State oversight for wireless.
Local control for wireline.
Indiana Yes
Iowa Yes
Kansas Of the four programs, only one 
is administered by the State.
Kentucky State oversight for wireless.
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.20
New Hampshire Yes
New Jersey Yes
New Mexico Yes
New York State oversight for state funds.
Local oversight for local funds.
North Carolina Yes
North Dakota No
Ohio No
Oklahoma No
Oregon Yes
Pennsylvania Yes
Puerto Rico Yes
Rhode Island Yes
South Carolina Yes
South Dakota No
Tennessee No, but subject to audit.
Texas Yes
Utah No
Vermont Yes
Virginia Yes
  
20 While the State of Nevada did not provide information on this subject, the Carson City Fire Department indicated 
in its response that “the State of Nevada doesn’t track, or keep records on the fees charged for this [911/E911] 
purpose.”
7
State State Approval of Expenditures?
Washington Yes
West Virginia No, but subject to audit.
Wisconsin State oversight for wireless.
Local control for wireline.
Wyoming No
B. State Estimates of Collected 911/E911 Funds for 2008
12. 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, 2008.  The fees range from a low of 
$1,468,363 in Guam to an estimated high of $190,239,804.99 in Pennsylvania.  Some states did not 
provide an estimate of the amount raised.  Some states provided separate figures for wireless and wireline 
services (and, in one case, for VoIP services as well).  Other states provided separate figures for charges 
collected locally and those collected at the state level.
Table 3
State Funds Collected in 2008
Wireline:
$32,000,000.00
(est.)Alabama
Wireless:
$28,465,103.67
Alaska Did not provide
Arizona $15,056,353.00
Arkansas $24,799,338.00(est.)
California $106,817,446.59
Colorado $45,000,000.00(est.)
Connecticut $20,116,090.61
Delaware Did not provide
District of Columbia $12,744,103.00
Wireline:
$53,510,624.00Florida
Wireless:
$77,451,429.00
Georgia Did not provide
Guam $1,468,363.00
Wireline:
$1,400,000.00
(est.)Hawaii
Wireless:
$7,442,841.49
(est.)
Idaho $19,191,409.99
Illinois Did not provide
8
State Funds Collected in 2008
Wireline:
$45,000,000.00
Indiana
Wireless:
$26,000,000.00
Wireline:  
$13,327,484.00Iowa
Wireless:
$15,727,138.00
Kansas Did not provide
Kentucky $23,569,921.00
Louisiana Did not provide
Maine $6,664,062.00
Maryland $57,176,923.16
Massachusetts Did not provide
Counties:
$46,276,851.00Michigan
State:
$23,558,820.59
Minnesota $51,281,641.00
Mississippi $11,758,733.12
Missouri Did not provide
Montana $13,172,462.14
Wireline:
$7,771,667.39Nebraska
Wireless:
$5,507,239.80
Nevada Did not provide
New Hampshire $10,854,202.82
New Jersey $130,000,000.00
New Mexico $12,786,327.64
No estimate for 2008
2007 estimate for state:
$19,200,000.00New York
2007 estimate for New York City:
$62,900,000.00
North Carolina $84,613,672.00
No estimate for 2008
North Dakota 2007 estimate:
$8,203,884.00
Ohio Wireless:$28,544,923.91
Oklahoma Did not provide
Oregon $87,447,639.72
Pennsylvania Wireline:$91,260,664.56
9
State Funds Collected in 2008
Wireless:
$98,560,282.00
VoIP:
$418,858.43
Puerto Rico $20,952,458.73
Rhode Island $19,400,000.00
Wireless:
Over $22,000,000.00
(est.)South Carolina
Wireline:
Did not provide
South Dakota Did not provide
Tennessee $51,536,089.00
Wireline:
$78,531,345.27
Wireless:
$100,338,737.00Texas
Equalization Surcharge:
$18,358,713.61
Local:
$20,659,351.00Utah
State:
$2,706,950.00
Vermont $4,832,374.02
Virginia Did not provide
County:
$49,659,402.00Washington
State:
$19,863,761.00
West Virginia $32,278,728.00
Wireline:
Did not provideWisconsin
Wireless:
$9,602,745.46
Wyoming $6,700,000(est.)
C. Use of 911/E911 Fees and Charges To Fund Programs Other Than 911/E911 
Services
13. The majority of respondents – 30 states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico and the District of 
Columbia – indicate that 911/E911 surcharges are used only for 911/E911 purposes.  Twelve states, 
however, report that collected funds are or may be used, at least in part, to support programs other than 
911 and E911.  
10
14. States that reported that they use 911/E911 funds for other purposes indicated that they use 
the collected money for a variety of reasons, primarily related to other emergency first responder 
programs.  Utah, for example, states that its Automated Geographic Reference Center receives an amount 
equal to 1 cent per month to enhance and upgrade statewide digital mapping.21 Some states allow a 
portion of collected fees to be used to “cover program costs.”22 Five states (Illinois, Maine, Oregon, 
Tennessee, and Wisconsin) report that they used money collected for 911/E911 to assist in closing the 
state’s general fund, although Tennessee used only interest accrued on the collected funds.23 In its 
original filing, Wisconsin stated that it collected approximately $25 million in excess of actual requests 
for funds submitted by 911 grant applicants and that, while it has used some of the excess for 
administrative costs, it has not made a final decision on the balance of the money.24 Wisconsin stated in a 
further filing that the E911 funding program was established to recover the amounts needed to pay for 
approved grants given to counties/providers for E911 expenditures.25 When the program ended per state 
statute, the money collected exceeded the amount necessary to pay for approved grants.26 Excess money 
was then used for other needs in the state budget.27 Wisconsin notes that all providers and counties were 
fully compensated for the amount of their approved grants and requests for reimbursement.28 Rhode 
Island deposits collected funds directly into the General Fund.  In 2008, Rhode Island reports that, in 
2008, approximately $13,600,000 was used for purposes other than 911 and E911.29 Virginia did not 
indicate any non-911/E911 spending for 2008.  However, in its current proposed budget, wireless E911 
funds would be used to support sheriff’s dispatchers.30
15. Seven states report that they were unable to confirm that funds collected and administered at
the local level were used solely for 911/E911 purposes because they do not have oversight authority in the 
matter.  Florida reports that 911/E911 fees are collected and spent at both the state and county level.  
While Florida reports that it does not use any state-level funds for non 911-related purposes, there is no 
formal state audit of counties and the state cannot attest as to how county funds are utilized.  Florida 
reports that its statutes prohibit counties from using E911 money for purposes other than E911.31 Georgia 
states that it is unable to provide this information because, “[a]s of the date of [Georgia’s] report the state 
fiscal year 2010 budget has not been approved,” and “[u]ntil such time as the state fiscal year 2010 budget 
is signed into law by the Governor, the State is unable to report on whether funds collected should have 
been made available or used for the purposes designated in the funding mechanism.”32  
  
21 Utah Response at 2.
22 These states include Illinois, Montana, Nebraska, Utah, and Wisconsin.
23 See Maine Response at 2; Oregon Response at 2; Tennessee Response at 7.
24 Wisconsin Response at 6.
25 E-mail from Gary Evenson, Administrator – Telecommunications Division, Public Service Commission of 
Wisconsin, to Aaron Garza, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission (July 7, 2009).
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id.
29 Rhode Island Response at 3.
30 Virginia Response at 2.  The budget proposes that $6 million be transferred from the Wireless E911 Fund to the 
Compensation Board.  Id.
31 Florida Response at 3.
32 Georgia Response at 3.
11
16. In short, at the state level, most states used the 911/E911 fees they collected in 2008 strictly 
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).  Below, Table 4 summarizes the reported 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
Idaho Statutes allow for the use of 911 funds for public safety radio.33
Illinois Wireline carriers are allowed to keep 3% of wireline funds collected each 
month to defray administrative costs.34 The Illinois Commerce Commission 
is allowed to use up to $.01 per wireless surcharge to recover administrative 
costs.35 Illinois’ Wireless Carrier Reimbursement Fund has had $16.8 million 
in transfers to the State’s General Revenue Fund or for administrative charges 
to the state between July 2003 and 2009.36 This is primarily due to funds 
being unused by wireless carriers.  State law has been amended to allow 
“excess funds” to be transferred once a year to the State’s Wireless Service 
Emergency Fund (which goes directly to the 911 centers).37
Maine During calendar year 2008, the Maine Legislature transferred $2,623,253 
from the E911 fund to the general fund.38
Montana 911 revenues to support program’s administrative costs are deposited in the 
state’s General Fund.39 General Fund deposits have outpaced the 911 
program’s administrative costs.40 Current statute does not allow for excess 
general fund deposits for the program’s administrative costs to be transferred 
to the special revenue account to be distributed to 911 jurisdictions.41 The 
2009 Legislature has approved a bill that creates a special revenue fund for
the administrative costs and reduces 911 funds being deposited into the 
General Fund for the program’s administrative costs.42 Upon the Governor’s 
signature, the bill will be effective July 1, 2009.43
Nebraska $167,633.33 was used for administrative costs.44
  
33 Idaho Response at 3.
34 Illinois Response at 1.
35 Illinois Response at 2.
36 Illinois Response at 5.
37 Id.
38 Maine Response at 2.
39 Montana Response at 2.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Nebraska Response at 5.
12
State Use of 911/E911 Fees/Charges for Other Purposes
New Jersey Funds deposited in a 911 System and Emergency Response Trust Fund 
Account and applied to offset the costs of several programs, including: Dept. 
Health and Senior Services - Disease Surveillance; Interdepartmental - State 
Police Emergency Ops Center and Multipurpose Bldg. + Troop C 
Headquarters.; Dept. Law and Public Safety - Office of Homeland Security 
and Preparedness; State Police - CAD System, Forensic Lab, Vehicle 
Purchases, Central Monitoring Station, Radio Upgrade, Emergency Ops 
Center (Operating), and Remaining Operating Budget; Dept. of Military and 
Veteran's Affairs - National Guard and Support Services; and Dept. of 
Treasury - Statewide 911 Emergency Telephone System, E911 Grants, and 
OETS.45
New York In 2008-2009, $10 million was transferred from the balance of the Local 
Wireless account to provide relief for the state's General Fund, which was 
facing a substantial deficit.  Transfer authorized by statute.46
Oregon In February 2009, the Oregon Legislature reallocated $35 million from the 
911 fund, sub account Equipment Replacement Account, to the State's general 
fund.47 This is the first instance of this type of legislative action since the 
tax/fund was established in 1981.48
Rhode Island Funds collected for 911/E911 go directly to the General Fund.  
Approximately $13,600,000 was used in 2008 for purposes other than 
911/E911.49
Tennessee Interest accrued on funds ($10,000,000) collected for 911/E911 was used for 
“the purpose of closing the general fund at June 30, 2008.”50
Utah State’s Automated Geographic Reference Center in the Division of Integrated 
Technology of the Department of Technology Services receives an amount 
equal to one cent per month levied on telecommunications service to enhance 
and upgrade statewide digital mapping standards.51 The 1 cent is taken from 
the eight cents collected for the state.52 Tax Commission is authorized to 
retain up to 1.5% for the collection and distribution of 911 funds.53
Wisconsin For wireless, the 911 Fund collected approximately $25 million in excess of 
actual requests for funds submitted by 911 grant applicants.54 A small portion 
of that collection was applied to the salary expense that the Commission 
incurred to administer the program.55 Excess funds were used to assist in 
closing the General Fund.56
  
45 New Jersey Response at 5-6.
46 New York Response at 4.
47 Oregon Response at 2.
48 Id.
49 Rhode Island Response at 3.
50 Tennessee Response at 7.
51 Utah Response at 2. 
52 Id.
53 Id.
54 Wisconsin Response at 6.
55 Id.
13
D. Indian Tribes
17. 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 regional BIA offices.57 Only five offices responded, and only two, the BIA offices for the Eastern 
Region and for the Great Plains Region, indicated that they collected information on 911/E911 funding.
18. The Eastern Region BIA Office indicates that no tribe within its jurisdiction has established a 
funding mechanism for 911/E911.58 The Great Plains Region BIA Office indicates that the 911 systems 
for the Indian tribes within its district are managed by state and local authorities.59 Thus, no money is 
collected by Indian tribes within their jurisdiction.  Finally, Maine reports that its state system serves the 
Indian tribes within the state.60  
IV. CONCLUSION
19. The Commission is pleased to have the opportunity to report on the issue of 911 fee 
collection and distribution.  In this initial report, we have been able to report on the practices of almost 
every state and territory.  The information that the states provided indicates that in 2008, most of the 
911/E911 fees collected by the states were in fact used to fund 911/E911 services, and only twelve states 
reported using, or potentially using, 911 fees to support other services.
    
56 See E-mail from Gary Evenson, Administrator – Telecommunications Division, Public Service Commission of 
Wisconsin, to Aaron Garza, Attorney Advisor, Federal Communications Commission (July 7, 2009).
57 The BIA has twelve regional offices, organized by geographical 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.
58 BIA Eastern Regional Office Response at 1.
59 BIA Great Plains Regional Office Response at 1.
60 Maine Response at 2.
14
APPENDIX A
Summary of State Responses
State/Territory Type of Fund Collection State Approval of Expenditures Funds Collected
Use of 911/E911 
Fees/Charges for 
Other Purposes
Wireline:
$32,000,000.00 
(est.)Alabama Hybrid Yes
Wireless:
$28,465,103.67
N/A
Alaska Local No Did not provide N/A
Arizona State Yes $15,056,353.00 N/A
Arkansas Hybrid Yes $24,799,338.00 (est.) N/A
California State Yes $106,817,446.59 N/A
Colorado Local No $45,000,000.00 (est.) N/A
Connecticut State Yes $20,116,090.61 N/A
Delaware State Yes Did not provide N/A
District of 
Columbia N/A Yes $12,744,103.00 N/A
Wireline:
$53,510,624.00Florida State Yes
Wireless:
$77,451,429.00
N/A
Georgia State Yes Did not provide N/A
Guam State Yes $1,468,363.00 N/A
Wireline:
$1,400,000.00 
(est.)Hawaii Hybrid Yes
Wireless:
$7,442,841.49 
(est.)
N/A
Idaho Local No $19,191,409.99 Yes
15
State/Territory Type of Fund Collection State Approval of Expenditures Funds Collected
Use of 911/E911 
Fees/Charges for 
Other Purposes
Illinois Hybrid
State oversight 
for wireless; 
Local control for 
wireline
Did not provide Yes
Wireline:
$45,000,000.00Indiana Hybrid Yes
Wireless:
$26,000,000.00
N/A
Wireline:
$13,327,484.00Iowa Hybrid Yes
Wireless:
$15,727,138.00
N/A
Kansas Hybrid
Of four 
programs, one is 
administered by 
the state
Did not provide N/A
Kentucky Hybrid
State oversight 
for wireless; 
local control for 
wireline
$23,569,921.00 N/A
Louisiana Local No Did not provide N/A
Maine State Yes $6,664,062.00 Yes
Maryland Hybrid Yes $57,176,923.16 N/A
Massachusetts State Yes Did not provide N/A
Counties:
$46,276,851.00Michigan Hybrid Yes
State:
$23,558,820.59
N/A
Minnesota State Yes $51,281,641.00 N/A
Mississippi Local No $11,758,733.12 N/A
Missouri Hybrid No Did not provide N/A
Montana State Yes $13,172,462.14 Yes
Nebraska Hybrid State oversight for wireless; 
local control for 
Wireline:
$7,771,667.39 Yes
16
State/Territory Type of Fund Collection State Approval of Expenditures Funds Collected
Use of 911/E911 
Fees/Charges for 
Other Purposes
wireline Wireless:
$5,507,239.80
Nevada Local Did not provide Did not provide Did not provide
New Hampshire State Yes $10,854,202.82 N/A
New Jersey State Yes $130,000,000.00 Yes
New Mexico State Yes $12,786,327.64 N/A
No estimate for 
2008
Estimate for 
2007:  
$19,200,000.00New York Hybrid
State oversight 
for state funds; 
local oversight 
for local funds
2007 estimate for 
New York City:
$62,900,000.00
Yes
North Carolina State Yes $84,613,672.00 N/A
No estimate for 
2008
North Dakota Local No
Estimate for 
2007:  
$8,203,884.00
N/A
Ohio Hybrid No Wireless:
$28,544,923.91
N/A
Oklahoma Local No Did not provide N/A
Oregon State Yes $87,447,639.72 Yes
Wireline:
$91,260,664.56
Wireless:
$98,560,282.00
Pennsylvania Hybrid Yes
VoIP:
$418,858.43
N/A
Puerto Rico State Yes $20,952,458.73 N/A
Rhode Island State Yes $19,400,000.00 Yes
South Carolina Hybrid Yes Wireless:$22,000,000.00 
(est.)
N/A
17
State/Territory Type of Fund Collection State Approval of Expenditures Funds Collected
Use of 911/E911 
Fees/Charges for 
Other Purposes
Wireline:
Did not provide
South Dakota Hybrid No Did not provide N/A
Tennessee State No, but subject to audit $51,536,089.00 Yes
Wireline:
$78,531,345.27
Wireless:
$100,338,737.00Texas Hybrid Yes
Equalization 
Surcharge:
$18,358,713.61
N/A
Local:
$20,659,351.00Utah Hybrid No
State:
$2,706,950.00
Yes
Vermont State Yes $4,832,374.02 N/A
Virginia Hybrid Yes Did not provide N/A
Counties:
$49,659,402.00Washington Hybrid Yes
State:
$19,863,761.00
N/A
West Virginia Hybrid No, but subject to audit $32,278,728.00 N/A
Wireline:
Did not provideWisconsin Hybrid
State oversight 
for wireless; 
local control for 
wireline Wireless:
$9,602,745.46
Yes
Wyoming Local No $6,700,000
(est.)
N/A
18
APPENDIX B
Copies of Responses