FEB 19201046204 STATE OFI~~~SImCOPYORlGJN:AL OHler or THE TnEAsunER Received & Inspected INDIANAPOLIS FCC Mail Room RICHARD E. MOURDOCK TREASURER OF STATE February 17, 2010 Marlene H. Dortch Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12'h Street SW Washington, DC. 20554-0005 RE: PS DOCKET NO. 09-14 NET 911 Act Information Collection Dear Ms. Dortch: Enclosed please Find 1 original and 4 copies of the information your agency requested in your letter to Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels. As the Indiana State Treasurer I also serve as Chairman of the Indiana Wireless 9-1-1 Board. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact Ken Lowden, the Executive Director of the Indiana Wireless Board at (317) 234-2507 or Klowden@in911.net. ) Richard Mourdock Treasurer, State of Indiana Cc: Governor Mitch Daniels Todd Rokita, Indiana Secretary of State Gerry Weaver, Chief Information Officer David LoU Hardy, Chairman Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission Best Copy and Printing, C/o FCC No. ci Cop's" ." aT~ List ABeDE (JI7) 232-6386 • FAX (317) 233-1780 • www.state.in.us/tos Received & Inspected FEB 19 2010 FCC Mail Room 1. The State of Indiana has established a mechanism to fund VOIP, 911 and E911 services. The authority to fund VOIP, 911 and E911 services for the landline side can be found in the Indiana code site IC 36-8-16-5: Sec. 5. (a) Subject to the limitations provided in section 6 of this chapter, the fiscal body of a county may adopt an ordinance to impose a monthly enhanced emergency telephone system fee for each exchange access facility used in the county. (b) If a county fiscal body decides to impose a countywide fee and establish a countywide enhanced emergency telephone system, the county shall allow all public emergency response agencies in the county to participate in the enhanced emergency telephone system. The fee must be sufficient to pay the cost of the installation and operation of the enhanced emergency telephone system for all participating agencies. (c) If a county fiscal body does not impose a fee under subsection (a), the legislative body of a municipality in the county may petition the county fiscal body to adopt an ordinance to impose a fee. If the county fiscal body does not respond to the petition within ninety (90) days, the legislative body of the municipality may adopt an ordinance to impose a fee for each exchange access facility used in the municipality, subject to section 6 of this chapter. If a county, in response to a municipality's petition. decides to impose a countywide fee, installation of the system must begin within one hundred eighty (180) days of the adoption of the ordinance. If installation has not begun within that time period, the county's response is void and the municipality may adopt an ordinance to impose a fee. (d) If a county fiscal body decides to impose a countywide fee after a municipality has imposed a fee, the municipality's fee ordinance is superseded by the county ordinance and is void. However, the fee imposed by the county must include funds sufficient to meet the outstanding obligations of the municipality for the enhanced 911 system. The wireless side obtains the authority to fund 911 or E911 services from the Indiana code site lC 36-8-16.5-25.5 (b): Sec. 25.5. (b) Except as provided in section 34 of this chapter, the board shall assess a monthly wireless emergency enhanced 911 fee on each CMRS subscriber that is a customer having a place of primary use in Indiana. A customer's place of primary use shall be determined in the manner provided by IC 6-8.1-15. As added by P.L.60-2003. SEC.3. 2. The State of Indiana has collected over $26.9 Million in Wireless 911 fees in the 2008 calendar year. The landline fees are collected at the local level by each of the 92 Indiana counties. These figures are audited annually by the Indiana State Board of Accounts and the 2009 figures will not be available until late 2010. According to the Indiana State Board of Accounts audit the counties collected $37,304,273 in landline fees in 2008. This landline revenue is down from the 2007 numbers by over $7.8 million. The State of Indiana has established a procedure for distributing wireless funds collected for 911 or E91 I services under the Indiana Wireless Enhanced 911 Board. All 92 Indiana • counties receive two wireless distributions on a monthly basis to be used specifically for 911 or E911 purposes. The first distribution uses a formula based on the population figures from the latest United States Census to distribute funds receipted in proportionately to all 92 counties. The second distribution is made equally to all 92 counties based on the funds receipted in. The State of Indiana has established strict guidelines regarding the use of these funds. The landline criteria for the use of these 911 funds are defined in Indiana Code 36-8-16 14: Sec. 14. (a) The emergency telephone system fees shall be used only to pay for: (I) except as provided in subsection (c), the lease, purchase, or maintenance of enhanced emergency telephone equipment, including necessary computer hardware, software, and data base provisioning; (2) the rates associated with the service suppliers' enhanced emergency telephone system network services; (3) the personnel expenses of the emergency telephone system; (4) the lease, purchase, construction, or maintenance of voice and data communications equipment. communications infrastructure, or other information technology necessary to provide emergency response services under authority of the unit imposing the fee; and (5) an emergency telephone notification system under IC 36-8-21. The rules of using these funds on the wireless side are clearly stated in Indiana Code 36 8-16.5-41: Sec. 41. (a) A PSAP shall use its distribution made under section 39 of this chapter for the lease, purchase, or maintenance of wireless enhanced emergency telephone equipment, including: (I) necessary computer hardware, software, and data base equipment; (2) personnel expense and training; (3) the provision of wireless enhanced emergency service; or (4) educating consumers about the operations. limitations, role, and responsible use of enhanced 9 I I service. 3. There is a governing body that approves expenditures at the local level. By statute, the County Commissioner must approve all 911 and E911 expenditures. However, these 91 I and E9 I I expenditures are audited annually by the Indiana State Board of Accounts. Indiana Code gives authority to the Indiana State Board of Accounts on the wireless side in section 36-8-16.5-41(d): d) The state board of accounts annually shall audit the expenditures of wireless emergency enhanced 911 fees made during the immediately preceding calendar year by each PSAP that received distributions under section 39 of this chapter during the immediately preceding calendar year. The Indiana State Board of Accounts authority on the landline side comes from Indiana Code 36-8-16-14-d: (d) The state board of accounts annually shall audit the expenditures of emergency telephone system fees made during the immediately preceding calendar year by each unit that imposes a fee under section 5 of this chapter. The Indiana Wireless E911 Board is further audited on a bi-annual basis by an outside auditing firm. The Indiana Code specifies this in 36-8-16.5-24: Sec. 24. (a) The board shall select a third party to audit the fund every two (2) years to determine whether the fund is being managed in accordance with this chapter. The board shall pay for an audit by the third party auditor as an administrative cost of the board. (b) Every two (2) years, the board shall review wireless 911 service in Indiana, including the collection, disbursement, and use of the wireless emergency enhanced 911 fee assessed under section 25.5 of this chapter. The purpose of the review is to ensure that the 911 fees: (I) do not exceed the amount reasonably necessary to provide adequate and efficient wireless 911 service: and (2) are used only for the purposes set forth in this chapter. The board shall adopt a review conducted under this subsection. As added by P.L. 98-i998, SEC.i. Amended by P.L.i6-2002, SEC. 7; P.L.i46-2005, SEC.i. 4. All funds that have been collected by the State of Indiana for VOlP, 911 and E911 purposes have been made available for the purposes statutorily designated. These funds are statutorily mandated to be placed in separate accounts for the wireless and the landline revenues. The funds are not supposed to be co-mingled. However, during their 2008 annual audit the Indiana State Board of Accounts found minor incidents of funds being used in a manner other than the intended designation. These infractions were neither fraudulent nor deliberate and very minimal in scope. 5. At no time did the State ofIndiana make VOIP, 911 or E911 funds available for any other purpose than the maintenance, enhancement or furthering of 911 services in the State of Indiana. The funds have never been given to or "raided" by the legislature of the State of Indiana. 6. Like most states, Indiana is experiencing a serious reduction in landline 911 revenue because of the loss of landline subscriber reductions. We are also experiencing a loss of prepaid 911 revenue because some carriers feel our Indiana State Law does not apply to prepaid wireless providers. This 911 fee reduction is a serious concern to local PSAP operations in Indiana. March 22, 2010 Secretary of the FCC Washington, D.C. 20554 RE: PS Docket No. 09-14 Kansas data information: 1. 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 the legal authority for such mechanism). 911 In an effort to support and implement the operation of an emergency telephone service, Kansas allows governing bodies to impose an emergency telephone tax for 911 service in those portions of the governing body's jurisdiction for which emergency telephone service has been contracted. K.S.A. § 12-5302. E911 In an effort to support and implement wireless enhanced 911 systems throughout the state, Kansas established a wireless enhanced 911 grant fee, K.S.A. § 12-5324, and a wireless enhanced 911 local fee, K.S.A. § 12-5330. 2. 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, 2009. 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. 911 The amount of 911 tax shall not exceed $.75 per month per exchange access line or its equivalent. K.S.A. § 12-5302. The 911 taxes are imposed by local governing bodies. The service suppliers collect the tax from the telephone service user. K.S.A. § 12-5302 The funds collected from 911 tax are allowed to be spent solely to pay for any or all of the following: (1) The monthly recurring charges billed by the service supplier for the emergency telephone service; (2) initial installation, service establishment; nonrecurring start-up charges billed by the service supplier for the emergency telephone service; (3) charges for capital improvements and equipment or other physical enhancements to the emergency telephone system; or (4) the acquisition and installation of road signs designed to aid in the delivery of emergency service. K.S.A. § 12-5304. E911 funding: 50 cent fee on wireless subscriber account and one percent on retail price of prepaid wireless Grant fee: The wireless enhanced 911 grant fee is $.25 per month per wireless subscriber account with primary place of use in Kansas. The wireless enhanced 911 grant fee for prepaid wireless service is an amount equal to one percent of the retail price of any prepaid wireless service sold in Kansas. K.S.A. § 12-5324. The amount of grant funds collected from these fees for calendar year 2009 is $6,705,538.67. It is the statutory duty of each wireless carrier to collect the wireless enhanced 911 grant fee from the wireless service user and remit such fee to the Secretary of Administration. K.S.A. § 12-5324. The Governor’s Grants Program, as designee for Secretary of Administration, administers the wireless enhanced 911 grant program whereby eligible municipalities can apply for funds to be used for allowable expenses, K.S.A. § 12-5323. Municipalities eligible to apply for grant funds are any county having a population of less than 75,000 or any city located within such a county; or (2) any two or more such counties or cities, K.S.A. § 12-5322. The wireless enhanced 911 grant funds are allowed to be used: (1) To pay costs of administering the grant fund, including actual and necessary expenses incurred by members of the state advisory board while performing duties required by the wireless enhanced 911 act and costs of any audit performed, but the aggregate amount of all such costs shall not exceed five percent of the moneys credited to the fund; and (2) to provide grants to eligible municipalities only for necessary and reasonable costs incurred or to be incurred by PSAPs (Public Safety Answering Point) for: (A) Implementation of wireless enhanced 911 service and VoIP 911 service; (B) purchase of equipment and upgrades and modification to equipment used solely to process the data elements of wireless enhanced 911 service and VoIP 911 service; and (C) maintenance and license fees for such equipment and training of personnel to operate such equipment, including costs of training PSAP personnel to provide effective service to all users of the emergency telephone system who have communications disabilities. Such costs shall not include expenditures to lease, construct, expand, acquire, remodel, renovate, repair, furnish, or make improvements to buildings or similar facilities or for other capital outlay or equipment not expressly authorized by the Wireless Enhanced 911 Act. K.S.A. § 12-5323. Local fee: The wireless enhanced 911 local fee is $.25 per month per wireless subscriber with primary place of use in Kansas. K.S.A. § 12-5330. It is the statutory duty of each wireless carrier to collect the wireless enhanced 911 local fee from the wireless service user and remit such fee along with the return (zip plus four data) to the local collection point administrator. Not later than 30 days after receipt of moneys from wireless carriers the local collection point administrator is required to distribute such moneys collected from the wireless enhanced 911 local fee to PSAPs based upon primary place of use information provided by wireless carriers. K.S.A. § 12-5331. The wireless enhanced 911 local fee can be used only for necessary and reasonable costs incurred or to be incurred by PSAPs for: (1) Implementation of wireless enhanced 911 service and VoIP enhanced 911 service; (2) purchase of equipment and upgrades and modification to equipment used solely to process the data elements of wireless enhanced 911 service and VoIP enhanced 911 service; and (3) maintenance and license fees for such equipment and training of personnel to operate such equipment, including costs of training PSAP personnel to provide effective service to all users of the emergency telephone system who have communications disabilities. Such costs shall not include expenditures to lease, construct, expand, acquire, remodel, renovate, repair, furnish, or make improvements to buildings or similar facilities or for other capital outlay or equipment not expressly authorized by the Wireless Enhanced 911 Act. K.S.A. § 12-5330. 3. A statement identifying any entity in your 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. 911 The Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit conducted a performance audit, Reviewing the 911 Emergency Phone Systems in Kansas, Part I: Identifying the Current Status of the Systems, April 1999. An additional report was conducted in August 1999, Reviewing the 911 Emergency Phone Systems in Kansas, Part II: Federal Mandates and Organizational Structure. The Division of Post Audit also conducted a limited scope review in 2006 and included a review as required by statute of landline emergency telephone service system in its 2008 review. K.S.A. § 12-5334. E911 Grant fund: The Governor’s Grants Program, as the Secretary of Administration’s designee, administers the enhanced wireless 911 grant program. The Kansas Wireless Enhanced 911 Advisory Board reviews all wireless enhanced 911 grant applications and makes grant funding decisions. Kansas statute required the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit to conduct an audit of the wireless enhanced 911 service system in 2006 and 2008. K.S.A. § 12- 5334. The Governor’s Grants Program, as the designee for the Secretary of Administration, provides an annual report concerning the progress toward implementation of federal phase II enhanced 911 requirements to the governor and the legislature. K.S.A. § 12-5329. Local fund: The Local Collection Point Administrator administers the distribution of the local funds. Each PSAP shall submit to the secretary an annual report accounting for the money received by the PSAP from the wireless enhanced 911 local fee. K.S.A. § 12-5330. The Local Collection Point Administrator is required to have an audit of receipts and disbursements conducted yearly by a licensed municipal accountant or certified public accountant and to submit that report to the secretary. K.S.A. § 12-5331(i). 4. 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. 911 The 911 funds are controlled locally and the use for the funds is defined by statute. It is presumed that local PSAPs are using the 911 funds in accordance with the statute. E911 All the wireless enhanced 911 grant fees collected and deposited into the state wireless enhanced 911 grant fund are made available to spend in accordance with the statutorily allowed costs. All the wireless enhanced local fees collected and deposited with the Local Collection Point Administrator are made available to spend in accordance with the statutorily allowed costs. 5. 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. 911 The 911 funds are controlled locally and the use for the funds is defined by statute. Any unintended uses of the funds would need to be identified locally. E911 Funds made available for E911 purposes have not been used for any purposes other than those designated by the funding mechanism or used for purposes otherwise unrelated to 911 or E911. 6. Any other comments you may wish to provide regarding the applicable funding mechanism for 911 and E911. Substitute for Senate Bill 48 is being reviewed by the 2010 Kansas Legislature. The bill proposes changing the funding mechanism for PSAPs by merging the landline and wireless fees. In addition the bill would create a 911 Coordinating and other functions that the state would oversee in regard to 911 services, including the implementation of NG 911. Sincerely, Juliene Maska Coordinator for E911 Kansas Governor’s Grants Program Page 1 of 4 March 22, 2010 Marlene H. Dortch Office of the Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 FILED ELECTRONICALLY - MARCH 22, 2010 Re: Letter from Admiral James Arden Barnett (Ret.), Chief - Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau: Information Collection by The New and Emerging Technologies Improvement Act Of 2009 (PS Docket No. 09-14) (OMB Control Number 3060-1122) Dear Ms. Dortch: Maryland is pleased to provide the following information in response to the Federal Communication Commission’s letter (received March 4, 2010) to Governor Martin O’Malley regarding the New and Emerging Technologies Improvement Act Of 2008. For ease of review, the responses track the order and numbering established in the original correspondence. 1) 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). Response: The Public Safety Article, Annotated Code of Maryland (Public Safety Article), Title 1 - Section 3 is the enabling legislation that established a 911 Trust Fund and the Emergency Number Systems Board (Board) with the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services as the oversight agency. The referenced statute creates a funding mechanism and oversight Board to provide for the orderly installation, maintenance, and operation of 911 systems in Maryland. The legislation also permits Maryland counties and Baltimore City to offset local 911 operational costs. The Code of Maryland Regulations (COMAR) Title 12, Subtitle 11, Chapter 03 further codifies the activities of the Board and describes in detail its essential functions, responsibilities, and training standards. STATE OF MARYLAND MARTIN O’MALLEY GOVERNOR ANTHONY G. BROWN LT. GOVERNOR GARY D. MAYNARD SECRETARY G. LAWRENCE FRANKLIN DEPUTY SECRETARY ANTHONY MYERS CHAIR GORDON DEANS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JUMARY WEST FISCAL COORDINATOR HOWARD REDMAN TRAINING COORDINATOR Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Emergency Number Systems Board 115 Sudbrook Lane – Suite 201, Pikesville, Maryland 21208-4199 (410) 585-3015 • FAX (410) 764-4136 • www.dpscs.state.md.us/ensb/ Page 2 of 4 2) 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, 2009. 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. Response: The Maryland Public Safety Article (§1-310 & §1-311) establishes two funding streams to support 911. The first is the State “911 Fee”, which is $0.25 per subscriber per month. The second is the County “Additional Fee” in an amount determined by each county, through local ordinance, up to maximum of $0.75 per bill per month. All Maryland counties and Baltimore City currently have local ordinances establishing the “Additional Fee” at $0.75. Telephone companies, wireless carriers, and other 911 accessible service providers, collect and remit both portions of the 911 Surcharge to the State Comptroller, monthly, for deposit into the 911 Trust Fund. The total amount of 911 fees remitted to Maryland in calendar year 2009 is $55,556,616.37. Quarterly, the County “Additional Fee” portion is distributed to each county prorated in accordance with the level of fees collected in each jurisdiction (Public Safety Article §1-309). Annually, the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services requests a budget appropriation from the 911 Trust Fund in an amount sufficient to carry out the purposes of the enabling legislation, pay administrative costs, and reimburse counties for the cost of enhancing their 911 system (Public Safety Article §1-309). Through this budget appropriation process, the State “911 Fee” is distributed from the 911 Trust Fund to the Maryland counties at the discretion of the Emergency Number Systems Board in response to county 911 enhancement requests. Maryland has established written criteria identifying the allowable uses of funds collected. Money collected from the State “911 Fee” may be used to reimburse counties for the cost of enhancing Maryland’s 911 system through payment to a third party contractor (Public Safety Article §1-308). COMAR (12.11.03.12) further defines equipment qualifying for funding or reimbursement. Money distributed quarterly to the counties from the collection of the County “Additional Fee” may be spent on the installation, enhancement, maintenance, and operation of a county or multi-county 911 system. Maintenance and operation costs may include telephone company charges, equipment costs, equipment lease charges, repairs, utilities, personnel costs, and appropriate carryover costs from previous years (Public Safety Article §1-312). Page 3 of 4 3) A statement identifying any entity in your 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. Response: Maryland established the seventeen (17) member Emergency Number Systems Board (Public Safety Article §1-305 & §1-306) to work cooperatively with the counties to provide an effective and efficient Maryland 911 system through the administration of the 911 Trust Fund revenues. The Emergency Number Systems Board is the entity that has the authority to approve expenditures from the 911 Trust Fund. The Emergency Number Systems Board provides for an annual audit of each county’s expenditures for the maintenance and operation of the county’s 911 system (Public Safety Article §1-312). The amount of the county “additional charges” may not exceed a level necessary to cover the total eligible maintenance and operation costs of the county (Public Safety Article §1-311). The 2009 audits have demonstrated that all counties are in compliance with this requirement. The Maryland Legislative Auditor conducts fiscal/compliance audits of the 911 Trust Fund and of the appropriations and disbursements made for purposes of complying with Maryland statutes (Public Safety Article §1-309). All such audits have found the expenditures from the 911 Trust Fund to be compliant with established statutes. 4) 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. Response: Maryland has expended or directed all funds collected in 2009 from both portions of the Maryland 911 Surcharge to be available for the purposes designated by the Public Safety Article to support or enhance Maryland’s 911 system. 5) 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. Page 4 of 4 Response: No funds collected in 2009 for 911 or E911 purposes have been made available or used for any other purpose other than the one designated by the Public Safety Article or used for purposes unrelated to 911 or E911 implementation or support. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 410-585-3019. Sincerely, Gordon Deans, Executive Director Emergency Number Systems Board cc: The Honorable Martin O’Malley – Governor of the State of Maryland John P. McDonough – Maryland Secretary of State Gary Maynard – Secretary, Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Thomasina Hiers – Assistant Secretary/Chief of Staff, DPSCS Douglas R. M. Nazarian – Chairman, Maryland Public Service Commission Anthony Myers – Chairman, Maryland Emergency Number Systems Board STATE OF MICHIGAN JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, LABOR & ECONOMIC GROWTH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Monica Martinez Orjiakor N. Isiogu Greg R. White COMMISSIONER CHAIRMAN COMMISSIONER STANLEY “SKIP” PRUSS DIRECTOR DELEG is an equal opportunity employer/program. Auxiliary aids, services and other reasonable accommodations are available upon request to individuals with disabilities. 6545 MERCANTILE WAY • P.O. BOX 30221 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 www.michigan.gov • (517) 241-6180 March 23, 2010 Mr. James Arden Barnett, Jr., Chief Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 RE: New and Emerging Technologies Improvement Act of 2008 Dear Mr. Barnett: Please accept the joint filing of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) and the Michigan State Police (MSP) as response to the Federal Communications Commission’s request, dated February 5, 2010, in regard to the NET911 Act. The Michigan Emergency 9-1-1 Services Enabling Act provides for funding of 9-1-1 services in Michigan. Two funding mechanisms, a State of Michigan 9-1-1 charge and individual county 9-1-1 surcharges, are currently being collected by all communications providers serving Michigan customers on all devices. In addition, carriers collect technical surcharges to cover their costs for providing access to 9-1-1 dispatch centers. If you need further information regarding the State of Michigan’s 9-1-1 funding system, please do not hesitate to contact either of us at (517) 241-6200 for the Michigan Public Service Commission, Telecommunications Division, or (517) 336-2666 for the Michigan State Police, State 9-1-1 Office. Sincerely yours, Robin P. Ancona, Director Harriet Miller-Brown Telecommunications Division State 9-1-1 Administrator 1 FCC Request on NET 911 (DA 09-205) Joint Michigan Public Service Commission/Michigan State Police Response March 22, 2010 1. 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)(2) 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). ANSWER: The Michigan Emergency 9-1-1 Services Enabling Act (Act 32 of 1986, as amended) provides funding in the following ways: • Michigan’s state 9-1-1 charge is currently $0.19 per communications device per month. The level of funding is determined by the Michigan Public Service Commission, in consultation with the Michigan State 9-1-1 Committee. Sec. 401(a) • Each of the 83 Michigan counties has the opportunity to assess a county-wide surcharge on all communications devices billed to an address in their county. Sixty-seven (67) counties requested surcharge approval by the Michigan Public Service Commission in January 2008. With passage of PA 379 in December 2008, counties also have the opportunity to request additional funds from their citizens to support county 9-1-1 services. Sec. 401(b) • Prepaid wireless communications devices are mandated to remit a combination of the state 9-1-1 surcharge and a weighted average of the cumulative county surcharges, collected from their customers, to the Michigan Department of Treasury. Two remittance equations are defined in the statute. Sec. 401(c) • Communications providers are able to recover their costs through a 9-1-1 technical charge on customer bills. Sec. 401(d) 2. The amount of 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, 2009. • The total amount collected through a county-based 9-1-1 surcharge by sixty-seven (67) Michigan counties is $65,881,869.64. • The total amounted collected by the Michigan Department of Treasury, for 9-1-1 purposes during 2009, is $27,118,262.60. A statement describing how 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. 2 ANSWER: • Each Michigan county receives an 82.5% share of the total Michigan state 9-1-1 charge and the prepaid device 9-1-1 charge, remitted based on Section 401(a) and 401(b). Sec. 408(4)(a). • Communications providers remit county 9-1-1 surcharge monies directly to Michigan counties. (Link: http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/comm/911index/911charges.pdf ) Sec. 401(b)(6) • The Michigan 9-1-1 Committee developed a list of Allowable Wireless and Wireline 9-1-1 Surcharge Expenditures. In accordance with PA 379 of 2008, any changes made to the document language must be transmitted to the Michigan Legislature. Sec. 401(b)(14) (link: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ListingofAllowable_14259_7.pdf ) 3. A statement identifying any entity in your 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. ANSWER: • Currently, the Michigan 9-1-1 Committee’s list of Allowable Wireless and Wireline 9-1-1 Surcharge Expenditures is being used by counties to determine allowable expenses. (link: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ListingofAllowable_14259_7.pdf ) In accordance with PA 379 of 2008, any changes made to the document language must be transmitted to the Michigan Legislature. Sec. 401(b)(14) • The Michigan Public Service Commission, in consultation with the Michigan 9-1- 1 Committee, may promulgate rules for uniform procedures, policies, and standards for the receipt and expenditure of 9-1-1 funds. Sec. 413(1)(c) • The Michigan Department of Treasury is under the audit powers of the Michigan Auditor General. • Each Michigan County is required to have an annual audit by an independent auditor, and must have the audit available for public inspection. Sec. 406(3) • Each wireline carrier may collect a technical fee for costs related to providing 9- 1-1 per Sec. 401d and is subject to an annual accounting under Sec. 412a. 4. A statement whether all 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. ANSWER: • Michigan’s Emergency 9-1-1 Services Enabling Act allows also for: 3 o $500,000 to the Michigan State Police to study the feasibility of an IP- based 9-1-1 system for the State of Michigan. The study was completed in December 2009. Sec. 408(5) o 7.75% of the Michigan 9-1-1 charges collected is available for to reimburse local exchange carriers for costs related to wireless emergency services. Sec. 408(4)(b) o 1.88% of the Michigan 9-1-1 charges collected for the Michigan State Police to operate a regional dispatch center. Sec. 408(4)(d) o 1.87% of the Michigan 9-1-1 charges collected for the Michigan State Police to administer the 9-1-1 Act and maintain the office of the state 9-1-1 coordinator. Sec. 408(4)(d) o 6% of the Michigan 9-1-1 charges go directly to the PSAPs for training funds for PSAP personnel. Sec. 408(4)(c). 5. 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. ANSWER: • During 2009, the Michigan Public Service Commission and the Michigan State Police did not authorize any instances where funds collected for 911 or E911 purposes were allowed to be used for purposes unrelated to 911 or E911. 6. Any other comments you may wish to provide regarding the applicable funding mechanism for 911 or E911. ANSWER: • We have no further comments. BRIAN SCHWEITZER JOHN BOHLINGER GOVERNOR LT. GOVERNOR STATE CAPITOL • P.O. BOX 200801 • HELENA, MONTANA 59620-0801 TELEPHONE: 406-444-3111 • FAX: 406-444-5529 • WEBSITE: WWW.MT.GOV OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR STATE OF MONTANA March 22, 2010 Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, S. W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: OMB Control Number 3060-1122 - Information Collection Mandated by the New and Emerging Technologies Improvement Act of 2008 Dear Sir or Madam: Pursuant to the FCC Public Notice DA 10-240 dated February 5, 2010 the State of Montana is filing the following information. FCC Request #1 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 NET911 Act, has established a funding mechanism designated for or imposed for the purposes of 9-1-1 or E9-1-1 support or implementation (including a citation to the legal authority for such mechanism). Response The Montana legislature delegated to the Department of Administration (DOA), an executive branch agency, responsibility to assist in the development of a 9-1-1 emergency telephone system. The legislature levied a surcharge fee on all telephone lines to fund the implementation, operation, and maintenance of the system. The 9-1-1 Program, which is a part of DOA?s Public Safety Services Bureau, is responsible for oversight of 9-1-1 activities. Cite: Montana Code Annotated Title 10, Chapter 4, Parts 1 and 2 (MCA 10-4-102; MCA 10-4- 201) http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca_toc/10_4.htm FCC Request #2 The amount of the fees or charges imposed for the implementation and support of 9-1-1 and E9- 1-1 services, and the total amount collected pursuant to the assessed fees or charges, for the annual period ending December 31, 2009. 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. Response $1.00 is collected for 9-1-1 services. The surcharge is based on $.25 for basic 9-1-1, $.25 for Enhanced 9-1-1 and $.50 for wireless 9-1-1. The monthly surcharge is imposed on telephone exchange access services, wireless telephone service, or other 9-1-1 accessible services. FCC Page two March 22, 2010 The total amount collected for the calendar year ending December 31, 2009 was $13,172,462.14. DOA makes quarterly distributions of the entire basic and enhanced 9-1-1 accounts on a per capita basis. Distribution of the wireless 9-1-1 account provides for a „small county sunset? provision that divides such that 84% is distributed to all counties on a per capita basis. The remaining 16% is divided evenly to counties with 1% or less of the population. This provision will sunset in 2011. After the provision has sunset the entire wireless account will be distributed based on per capita basis. “9-1-1 Funding Guidelines” and “Carrier Cost Recovery Guidelines” establish the criteria for the expenditures of the 9-1-1 fees. The Department of Administration, in conjunction with the State 9-1-1 Advisory Board adopted administrative rules to implement these guidelines. Cite: Montana Code Annotated Title 10, Chapter 4, Parts 2 and 3 (MCA 10-4-201; 10-4-302; 10-4-311; 10-4-313) http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca_toc/10_4.htm FCC Request #3 A statement identifying any entity in your State that has the authority to approve the expenditure of funds collected for 9-1-1 or E9-1-1 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 9-1- 1 or E9-1-1. Response DOA has authority to monitor implementation of approved basic, enhanced and wireless 9-1-1 system plans for compliance and use of funding. Local PSAPs are responsible for implementing, operating, maintaining, and improving 9-1-1 operations locally. “9-1-1 Funding Guidelines” and “Carrier Cost Recovery Guidelines” establish the criteria for the expenditures of the 9-1-1 fees. The Guidelines are on the 9-1-1 Program web page at http://pssb.mt.gov/911programs.mcpx. Cite: Montana Code Annotated Title 10, Chapter 4, Parts 1 and 3 (MCA 10-4-102; 10-4-114; 10-4-303) http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca_toc/10_4.htm FCC Request #4 A statement whether all the funds collected for 9-1-1 or E9-1-1 purposes have been made available or used for the purposes designated by the funding mechanism, or otherwise used for implementation or support of 9-1-1 or E9-1-1. Response All fees are deposited in four separate special revenue accounts. Legislation passed in the 2009 legislative session clarifies existing statute and ensures that all 9-1-1 fees are deposited in FCC Page three March 22, 2010 9-1-1 special revenue accounts to be distributed to the local 9-1-1 jurisdictions and fund the State 9-1-1 Program Office. Cite: Montana Code Annotated Title 10, Chapter 4, Part 3 (MCA 10-4-301) http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca_toc/10_4.htm FCC Request #5 A statement identifying what amount of funds collected for 9-1-1 or E9-1-1 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 9-1-1 or E9-1-1 implementation or support, including a statement identifying the unrelated purposes for which the funds collected for 9-1-1 or E9-1-1 purposes were made available or used. Response The State of Montana has not used funds collected for 9-1-1 or E9-1-1 for unrelated to the implementation, support or operation of 9-1-1 programs. FCC Request #6 Any other comments the respondent may wish to provide regarding the applicable funding mechanism for 9-1-1 and E9-1-1. Response Montana took proactive steps to clarify existing statute to ensure all 9-1-1 funds were used solely for 9-1-1 purposes. Effective July 1, 2009 the Legislature passed a bill that created a special revenue fund for the administrative costs and reduced 9-1-1 funds for the program?s administrative costs. Any remaining administrative funding is required to be distributed to the 9- 1-1 jurisdictions at the end of each fiscal year. Over the history of the program the State of Montana never diverted any 9-1-1 fees or used fees for purposes other than identified in the governing statutes. Chairman Genachowski accepted my recommendation to appoint Ms. Becky Berger to the FCC Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council (CSRIC). Ms. Berger is my designated 9-1-1 Representative. If you need additional information please contact her at (406) 444-1966. Sincerely, BRIAN SCHWEITZER Governor