911 Strike Force to Seek 'Escalating' Fee Diversion Penalties
FCC 911 Strike Force working groups are nearing completion of a report to Congress, due Sept. 23. Members told their Monday meeting some tough issues remain to be worked out. This was the strike force’s second meeting, with the last to come next month. Members said despite the FCC push, fee diversion continues. The report is mandated by 2020's Don’t Break Up the T-Band Act.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Criminal penalties for fee diversion may not be the answer but could have an effect, said Richard Bradford, special deputy attorney general in North Carolina and chair of WG-2, which is looking at the efficacy of penalties. Since the main actors are “public officials or state legislators … alleging they have criminal intent or determining that may raise additional concerns or issues,” he said: “It may raise issues regarding enforcement.”
The report will recommend “a series of escalating enforcement actions,” starting with a fine, Bradford said. “It might be a percentage of fees diverted, and this is an issue in our ongoing discussions.” If violations continue, fines would increase and the FCC could take steps against spectrum licenses held by the offender, he said: “We regard that as very significant step.” The report identifies state legislative appropriations and legislative limitations as the biggest concern for fee diversion, Bradford said. “States may need time to modify their laws to conform with Congress’ legislative changes, legislative intent and the commission’s rules.”
A report by WG-1, on effectiveness of federal laws in ending fee shuffling, will urge that the FCC provide more clarity on what constitutes the practice, said Chairman Budge Currier, 911 branch manager for the California Office of Emergency Services. Some states not seen as diverting funds may be seen as in violation following the June FCC order (see 2106250049), he said. The report will recommend that funds must “directly support” communications between public safety answering points and first responders, he said. “It’s very important that the [demarcation point] of the entry into the 911 system is the demarc so nothing would be funded prior to that.” LTE and Wi-Fi-based systems would be eligible provided they meet the rest of the definition, he said.
“Despite all the negative press and the inability to apply for 911 grants and significant pressure that’s been applied, there is still fee diversion,” Currier said: “Laws and regulations and policies and practices at the federal level … have not stopped fee diversion.” Taking away grants is effective if the amount is larger than what's shifted and “we haven’t seen that yet,” he said.
WG-3, looking at impacts of fee diversion, is finding effects widespread, said co-Chair Dana Wahlberg. When funds are diverted, they can no longer pay for new technology, she said. She's director of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety's Department of Public Safety Emergency Communications Networks.
Diversion “inhibits us” from “being able to maintain the legacy systems,” said WG-3 Chair Karima Holmes, senior director at ShotSpotter and former head of the District of Columbia's 911 center. Call centers are less likely to buy improved location accuracy or text-to-911 technology “because there’s not enough money,” she said: “We did take a stab at it,” but there wasn’t enough time to examine all the effects.