OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
August 6, 2010
The Honorable John M. Shimkus
U.S. House of Representatives
2452 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congressman Shimkus:
Thank you for your letter regarding state diversion of 911 funds for non-911 purposes. I
share your concern that thc diversion of 911 funds will impede the improvement of 911 services
and call centers.
As you noted, in accordance with the NET 911 Act, the Commission staff is wrapping up
its work on the Second Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911
Fees and Charges. Among other things, this report will give us important data on state use of
911 funds during the past year. According to early indications, the majority of states have used
their 911 funds for 911 purposes. Nevertheless, some states reported using these funds for other
purposes. Akin to first annual repolt submitted to Congress in July 2009, the second annual
report will provide full details on the practices of each state.
I have directed the Commission's staff to explore steps that the Commission could take
within its existing jurisdiction, including under the NET 911 Improvement Act, to address the
practice of some states diverting 911 funds to other purposes. In particular, they are examining
whether the Commission's truth-in-billing requirements could be used to expose or discourage
this practice. Another option they are exploring is whether the Commission would have the
authority to preempt the assessment of excessive fees on communications services, such as
substantial fees that are designated for 911 purposes but di verted to other uses. However,
questions remain regarding the extent of the Commission's existing jurisdiction to restrict states
from divelting funds. Additional legislation would be one way to address such questions. I
welcome your continued leadership in devising legislation to address this critical issue.
I support and appreciate effolts by the 911 Caucus, NENA, and others to highlight the
importance of this issue. The Commission staff will continue to address the issue of state
diversion of911 funds in its ongoing communication and outreach with the states. J look
forward to working closely with you and the 911 Caucus to remedy this very impOltant matter.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
/'
/
./
ulius Genachowski
QF"F"ICE OF"
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
August 6, 2010
The Honorable Richard M. Burr
United States Senate
217 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator BUIT:
Thank you for your letter regarding state di version of 91 I funds for non-911 purposes. I
share your concern that the di version of 911 funds will impede the improvement of 911 services
and call centers.
As you noted, in accordance with the NET 911 Act, the Commission staff is wrapping up
its work on the Second Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911
Fees and Charges. Among other things, this report will give us important data on state use of
911 funds during the past year. According to early indications, the majority of states have used
their 911 funds for 911 purposes. Nevertheless, some states reported using these funds for other
purposes. Akin to first annual repolt submitted to Congress in July 2009, the second annual
report will provide full details on the practices of each state.
I have directed the Commission's staff to explore steps that the Commission could take
within its existingjulisdiction, including under the NET 911 Improvement Act, to address the
practice of some states divelting 911 funds to other purposes. In particular, they are examining
whether the Commission's truth-in-billing requirements could be used to expose or discourage
this practice. Another option they are exploring is whether the Commission would have the
authority to preempt the assessment of excessive fees on communications services, such as
substantial fees that are designated for 911 purposes but divelted to other uses. However,
questions remain regarding the extent of the Commission's existing jurisdiction to restrict states
from divelting funds. Additional legislation would be one way to address such questions. [
welcome your continued leadership in devising legislation to address this critical issue.
[ SUPPOlt and appreciate efforts by the 911 Caucus, NENA, and others to highlight the
irnpoltance of this issue. The Commission staff will continue to address the issue of state
diversion of911 funds in its ongoing communication and outreach with the states. 1 look
forward to working closely with you and the 911 Caucus to remedy this very important matter.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sin~
/'
,/
OFFICE OF
THE CHAIRMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
August 6, 20 I0
The Honorable Amy Klobuchar
United States Senate
302 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Klobuchar:
Thank you for your letter regarding state di version of 911 funds for non-9 I I purposes. I
share your concern that the diversion of 911 funds will impede the improvement of 911 services
and call centers.
As you noted, in accordance with the NET 911 Act, the Commission staff is wrapping up
its work on the Second Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911
Fees and Charges. Among other things, this report will give us important data on state use of
911 funds during the past year. According to early indications, the majOlity of states have used
their 911 funds for 91 I purposes. Nevertheless, some states reported using these funds for other
purposes. Akin to first annual report submitted to Congress in July 2009, the second annual
repOt1 will provide full details on the practices of each state.
I have directed the Commission's staff to explore steps that the Commission could take
within its existing jurisdiction, including under the NET 91 I Improvement Act, to address the
practice of some states di verting 9 I I funds to other purposes. In particular, they are examining
whether the Commission's truth-in-billing requirements could be used to expose or discourage
this practice. Another option they are exploring is whether the Commission would have the
authority to preempt the assessment of excessive fees on communications services, such as
substantial fees that are designated for 911 purposes but diverted to other uses. However,
questions remain regarding the extent of the Commission's existing jurisdiction to restrict states
from diverting funds. Additional legislation would be one way to address such questions. [
welcome your continued leadership in devising legislation to address this critical issue.
I support and appreciate efforts by the 911 Caucus, NENA, and others to highlight the
importance of this issue. The Commission staff will continue to address the issue of state
diversion of 91 I funds in its ongoing communication and outreach with the states. I look
forward to working closely with you and the 9 I I Caucus to remedy this very important matter.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
...........,
Sincerely,
/
VUJiUS G
OFFICE 0.
THE CtlAlllMAN
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON
August 6, 20 to
The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo
U.S. House of Representatives
205 Cannon Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Congresswoman Eshoo:
Thank you for your letter regarding state diversion of911 funds for non-911 purposes. 1
share your concern that the di version of 911 funds wi II impede the improvement of 911 services
and call centers.
As you noted, in accordance with the NET 911 Act, the Commission staff is wrapping up
its work on the Second Annual Report to Congress on State Collection and Distribution of 911
Fees and Charges. Among other things, this report will give us important data on state use of
911 funds during the past year. According to early indications, the majority of states have used
their 911 funds for 911 purposes. Nevertheless, some states reported using these funds for other
purposes. Akin to first annual report submitted to Congress in July 2009, the second annual
repott will provide full detail on the practices of each state.
I have directed the Commission's staff to explore steps that the Commission could take
within its existing jurisdiction, including under the NET 911 Improvement Act, to address the
practice of some states diverting 911 funds to other purposes. In particular, they are examining
whether the Commission's truth-in-billing requirements could be used to expose or discourage
this practice. Another option they are exploring is whether the Commission would have the
authority to preempt the assessment of excessive fees on communications services, such as
substantial fees that are designated for 911 purposes but diverted to other uses. However,
questions remain regarding the extent of the Commission's existing jurisdiction to restrict states
from diverting funds. Additional legislation would be one way to address such questions. I
welcome your continued leadership in devising legislation to address this critical issue.
I support and appreciate efforts by the 911 Caucus, NE A, and others to highlight the
importance of this issue. The Commission staff will continue to address the issue of state
diversion of 911 funds in its ongoing communication and outreach with the states. I look
forward to working closely with you and the 911 Caucus to remedy this very impoltant matter.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.
Sincerel
,
tlius Genac
owski