[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 150 (Friday, August 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38051-38069]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16567]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

47 CFR Part 400

[Docket No. 170420407-8048-02]
RIN 0660-AA33; RIN 2127-AL86


911 Grant Program

AGENCY: National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA), Commerce (DOC); and National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action revises the implementing regulations for the 911 
Grant Program, as a result of the enactment of the Next Generation 911 
(NG911) Advancement Act of 2012. The 911 Grant Program provides grants 
to improve 911 services, E-911 services, and NG911 services and 
applications.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective on August 3, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For program issues: Daniel Phythyon, Telecommunications Policy 
Specialist, Office of Public Safety Communications, National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of 
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Room 4076, Washington, DC 20230; 
telephone: (202) 482-5802; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b5f4b73626f736274755b756f727a357f7478357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d99d89b1a0adb1a0b6b799b7adb0b8f7bdb6baf7beb6af">[email protected]</span></a>; or
    Laurie Flaherty, Coordinator, National 911 Program, Office of 
Emergency Medical Services, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, NPD-400, Washington, DC 
20590; telephone: (202) 366-2705; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#75391400071c105b3319141d1007010c35111a015b121a03"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="80cce1f5f2e9e5aec6ece1e8e5f2f4f9c0e4eff4aee7eff6">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For legal issues: Michael Vasquez, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the 
Chief Counsel, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Room 4713, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1816; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6a273c0b191b1f0f102a041e030b440e0509440d051c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="efa2b98e9c9e9a8a95af819b868ec18b808cc1888099">[email protected]</span></a>; or
    Megan Brown, Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, 
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue 
SE, NCC-300, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-1834; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cb86aeacaaa5e589b9a4bca58bafa4bfe5aca4bd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="35785052545b1b77475a425b75515a411b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For media inquiries: Stephen F. Yusko, Public Affairs Specialist, 
Office of Public Affairs, National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue 
NW, Room 4897, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7002; email: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ea9a988f9999aa849e838bc48e8589c48d859c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b3b392e38380b253f222a652f2428652c243d">[email protected]</span></a>; or
    Karen Aldana, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of Communications 
and Consumer Information, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 
Avenue SE, Room W52-306, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (202) 366-
3280; email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2942485b4c470748454d484748694d465d074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3d565c4f5853135c51595c535c7d595249135a524b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Statutory Requirements
III. Comments
    A. General Comments

[[Page 38052]]

    B. Definitions (400.2)
    C. Who May Apply (400.3)
    1. Tribal Organizations
    2. Local Applicants
    D. Application Requirements (400.4)
    1. One Versus Two Step Application Process
    2. Other Application Issues
    E. Approval and Award (400.5)
    F. Distribution of Grant Funds (400.6)
    1. Formula
    2. Tribal Organizations
    G. Eligible Uses for Grant Funds (400.7)
    1. NG911 Services
    2. Training
    3. Planning and Administration
    4. Operation of 911 System
    H. Continuing Compliance (400.8)
    I. Waiver Authority (400.11)
IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

I. Background

    In 2009, NTIA and NHTSA issued regulations implementing the E-911 
Grant Program enacted in the Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers 
Employing 911 (ENHANCE 911) Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-494, codified at 
47 U.S.C. 942) (74 FR 26965, June 5, 2009). Accordingly, in 2009, NTIA 
and NHTSA made more than $40 million in grants available to 30 States 
and Territories to help 911 call centers nationwide upgrade equipment 
and operations through the E-911 Grant Program.
    In 2012, the NG911 Advancement Act of 2012 (Middle Class Tax Relief 
and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, Title VI, Subtitle E 
(codified at 47 U.S.C. 942)) enacted changes to the program. The NG911 
Advancement Act provides new funding for grants to be used for the 
implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 services, migration 
to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption and operation of NG911 
services and applications; the implementation of IP-enabled emergency 
services and applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, 
including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application 
layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of 
emergency response organizations; and training public safety personnel, 
including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and 
organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 
services. In 2016, about $115 million from spectrum auction proceeds 
were deposited into the Public Safety Trust Fund and made available to 
NTIA and NHTSA for the 911 Grant Program.\1\ On September 21, 2017, the 
Agencies published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeking 
public comment on proposed regulations for the 911 Grant Program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Public Safety Trust Fund (TAS 13-12/22-8233) is an 
account established in the Treasury and managed by NTIA. From this 
account, NTIA makes available funds for a number of public safety 
related programs, including the 911 Grant Program. See 47 U.S.C. 
1457(b)(6).
    \2\ See NTIA and NHTSA, 911 Grant Program, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 82 FR 44131 (Sept. 21, 2017), available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-09-21/pdf/2017-19944.pdf (NPRM).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more than 40 years, local and state 911 call centers, also 
known as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), have served the public 
in emergencies. PSAPs receive incoming 911 calls from the public and 
dispatch the appropriate emergency responders, such as police, fire, 
and emergency medical services, to the scene of emergencies. The 
purpose of the 911 Grant Program is to provide federal funding to 
support the transition of PSAPs and their interconnecting 911 network 
and core services, to facilitate migration to an IP-enabled emergency 
network, and adoption and operation of NG911 services and applications.
    There are approximately 6,000 PSAPs nationwide that are responsible 
for answering and processing 911 calls requiring a response from 
police, fire, and emergency medical services agencies.\3\ PSAPs 
collectively handle more than an estimated 240 million 911 calls each 
year.\4\ About 70 percent of all 911 calls annually are placed from 
wireless phones.\5\ Besides the public, PSAPs communicate with third-
party call centers, other PSAPs, emergency service providers (e.g., 
dispatch agencies, first responders, and other public safety entities), 
and State emergency operations centers.\6\ Most PSAPs rely on decades-
old, narrowband, circuit-switched networks capable of carrying only 
voice calls and very limited amounts of data.\7\ Advances in consumer 
technology offering capabilities such as text messaging and video 
communications have quickly outpaced those of PSAPs, which often cannot 
support callers who wish to send text messages, images, video, and 
other communications that utilize large amounts of data (e.g., 
telematics, sensor information).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Final Report of the 
Task Force on Optimal PSAP Architecture (TFOPA) at 15 (Jan. 29, 
2016), available at https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_FINALReport_012916.pdf (TFOPA Final Report). The National 
Emergency Number Association (NENA) estimates that there are 5,874 
primary and secondary PSAPs as of January 2017. NENA 9-1-1 
Statistics, available at http://www.nena.org/?page=911Statistics.
    \4\ TFOPA Final Report at 15. See also, NENA 9-1-1 Statistics.
    \5\ Id.
    \6\ TFOPA Final Report at 15.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While there are still an estimated 50 counties that are using 
``Basic'' 911 infrastructure, the majority of State and local 
jurisdictions have completed the process of updating their 911 
network's infrastructure since the ENHANCE 911 Act was passed in 
2004.\9\ As of January 2017, data collected by the National Emergency 
Number Association (NENA) show that 98.6 percent of PSAPs are capable 
of receiving Phase II E-911 \10\ calls, providing E-911 service to 98.6 
percent of the U.S. population and 96.5 percent of our country's 
counties.\11\ With the transition to E-911 essentially completed, State 
and local jurisdictions are now focused on migrating to NG911 
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ NENA 9-1-1 Statistics.
    \10\ See 47 CFR 20.18(e), (h) (defining Phase II enhanced 911 
service).
    \11\ NENA 9-1-1 Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NG911 is an initiative to modernize today's 911 services so that 
citizens, first responders, and 911 call-takers can use IP-based, 
broadband-enabled technologies to coordinate emergency responses.\12\ 
Using multiple formats, such as voice, text messages, photos, and 
video, NG911 enables 911 calls to contain real-time caller location and 
emergency information, improve coordination among the nation's PSAPs, 
dynamically re-route calls based on location and PSAP congestion, and 
connect first responders to key health and government services in the 
event of an emergency.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ National 911 Program, Next Generation 911 for Leaders in 
Law Enforcement Educational Supplement at 3 (2013), available at 
https://www.911.gov/pdf/National_911_Program_NG911_Publication_Leaders_Law_Enforcement_2013.pdf.
    \13\ Id. at 4-5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data collected by the National 911 Profile Database in 2016 show 
that 20 of the 46 States submitting data have adopted a statewide NG911 
plan, 17 of 46 States are installing and testing basic components of 
the NG911 infrastructure, 10 of 45 States have 100 percent of their 
PSAPs connected to an Emergency Services IP Network, and 9 of 45 States 
are using NG911 infrastructure to receive and process 911 voice 
calls.\14\ These data suggest that most State and local jurisdictions 
have already invested in and completed implementation of both basic 911 
services and E-911 services and are focused on migration to NG911. The 
911 Grant Program now seeks to provide financial support for investment 
in the forward-looking technology of NG911 as

[[Page 38053]]

contemplated by the NG911 Advancement Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ National 911 Program, 2016 National 911 Progress Report at 
3, 85, 89 (Dec. 2016), available at https://www.911.gov/pdf/National_911_Program_Profile_Database_Progress_Report_2016.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory Requirements

    The Agencies' action implements modifications to the E-911 Grant 
Program as required by the NG911 Advancement Act of 2012 (Pub. L. 112-
96, Title VI, Subtitle E, codified at 47 U.S.C. 942). The NG911 
Advancement Act modifies the 911 Grant Program to incorporate NG911 
services while preserving the basic structure of the program, which 
provided matching grants to eligible State and local governments and 
Tribal Organizations for the implementation and operation of Phase II 
services, E-911 services, or migration to an IP-enabled emergency 
network.
    The NG911 Advancement Act, however, broadens the eligible uses of 
funds from the 911 Grant Program to include: Adoption and operation of 
NG911 services and applications; the implementation of IP-enabled 
emergency services and applications enabled by NG911 services, 
including the establishment of IP backbone networks and the application 
layer software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of 
emergency response organizations; and training public safety personnel, 
including call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and 
organizations who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 
services. The NG911 Advancement Act also increases the maximum Federal 
share of the cost of a project eligible for a grant from 50 percent to 
60 percent.
    States or other taxing jurisdictions that have diverted fees 
collected for 911 services remain ineligible for grants under the 
program and a State or jurisdiction that diverts fees during the term 
of the grant must repay all grant funds awarded. The NG911 Advancement 
Act further clarifies that prohibited diversion of 911 fees includes 
elimination of fees as well as redesignation of fees for purposes other 
than implementation or operation of 911 services, E-911 services, or 
NG911 services during the term of the grant.

III. Comments

    The Agencies received submissions from 21 commenters in response to 
the NPRM. Commenters included the following five State and local 
agencies: The City of Chicago Office of Emergency Management and 
Communications (Chicago OEMC); the Colorado Public Utilities Commission 
(CO PUC); the District of Columbia Office of Unified Communications (DC 
OUC); the Missouri Department of Public Safety (MO DPS); and the Texas 
Commission on State Emergency Communications (TX CSEC). Four 
associations and consortiums provided comments: the Association of 
Public-Safety Communications Officials-- International, Inc. (APCO); 
the National Association of State 911 Administrators (NASNA); the 
National Emergency Number Association, Inc. (NENA); and the National 
States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC). There were two corporate 
commenters: Carbyne Public Safety Systems (Carbyne) and Motorola 
Solutions, Inc. (Motorola). Ten individual commenters also provided 
comments: Annabel Cortez; Daniel Ramirez; John Sage; Jonathan Brock; 
Lara Wood; Lisa Ondatje; S. Bennett; and three anonymous commenters. Of 
these comments, three were out of the scope of this rulemaking.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ An anonymous commenter commented broadly on EPA grants. 
Jonathan Brock and the Missouri Department of Public Safety both 
commented to encourage inter-agency sharing of dark fiber resources 
at the State level. However, the 911 Grant Program is an 
implementation grant and does not opine on the technologies used by 
grantees to implement NG911.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. General Comments

    NASNA expressed general agreement with the Agencies' proposal to 
retain the E911 Grant Program regulations as the basic framework for 
the 911 Grant Program.\16\ We address NASNA's specific recommendations 
in the sections below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ NASNA at 1, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    APCO recommended consistent use of ``the National 911 program 
office'' for purposes of administering the grant program in order to 
provide simplicity and avoid confusion.\17\ The regulatory text 
contains references to the ICO, the Administrator and Assistant 
Secretary (jointly), the Agencies, and to NHTSA. After reviewing these 
references, the Agencies have determined that, with the exception of 
one reference, these designations are appropriate to the roles 
fulfilled in each case. As a result, the Agencies have changed the 
reference to ``Agencies'' in 47 CFR 400.6(a)(2) to ``ICO.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ APCO at 5, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three commenters, Lisa Ondatje, Annabel Cortez, and S. Bennett, 
expressed general support for the importance of implementing NG911 
technologies.\18\ Annabel Cortez further stressed that ``[s]tatistics 
of 911 services are key to accurately measuring current status and 
implementation across the United States.'' \19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See generally, Lisa Ondatje, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0007; Annabel Cortez, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0004; S. Bennett, 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0003.
    \19\ Cortez.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four commenters discussed interoperability as a primary goal of the 
911 Grant Program.\20\ APCO commented that the standards listed in the 
SAFECOM Guidance are ``very broad, in some cases incomplete, and 
unlikely to ensure interoperability, at least without costly after-the-
fact integrations.'' \21\ APCO recommended that the Agencies add a 
definition for ``interoperable'' and explicitly require that 
applicants' State 911 plans commit to ensuring that solutions meet 
clear interoperability requirements.\22\ Specifically, APCO suggested 
that the Agencies replace the word ``interconnect'' in 47 CFR 
400.4(a)(1)(i)(B) with the term ``interoperable.'' \23\ The proposed 
regulatory language in Section 400.4(a)(1)(i)(B) is a direct quote from 
the statute.\24\ While the Agencies agree that interoperability is an 
important goal in the implementation of an NG911 system, the Agencies 
believe that the statutory term ``interconnect'' sufficiently covers 
the goal of interoperability, and make no change to the regulation in 
response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See APCO at 1-3; Carbyne, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0008; NENA at 2 (late-filed), https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0017; NSGIC at 1, 
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0009.
    \21\ APCO at 2.
    \22\ Id. at 3.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ See 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Definitions (400.2)

    The DC OUC suggested that the agencies add a definition for 
``District'' or ``territories.'' \25\ The statutory definition for 
``State,'' which the agencies have incorporated into the regulation in 
its entirety, includes the District of Columbia and all U.S. 
territories,\26\ therefore the agencies decline to make this change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ DC OUC, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0005.
    \26\ See 47 U.S.C. 942(e)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters requested changes to the definition for ``Next 
Generation 911 services.'' NASNA noted that some of the capabilities 
listed in the definition for Next Generation 911 services do not 
currently exist, and suggested that the definition be modified to 
clarify this.\27\ APCO requested clarification that NG911 services 
encompass the ``operational

[[Page 38054]]

goal whereby information sent to PSAPs can be received, processed, and 
acted upon.'' \28\ The agencies decline to make the requested changes 
because the regulatory definition incorporates the statutory 
definition.\29\ However, in the eligible uses section of the NPRM, the 
agencies specifically stated that grant recipients may choose to 
purchase or contract for services that provide the ``hardware and 
software that perform the necessary functions enabling NG911 calls to 
be received, processed and dispatched.'' \30\ We reaffirm that here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ NASNA at 1.
    \28\ APCO at 2.
    \29\ See 47 U.S.C. 942(e)(5).
    \30\ NPRM, 82 FR 44131, 44135.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Who May Apply (400.3)

1. Tribal Organizations
    Daniel Ramirez, NASNA, NENA, and an anonymous commenter all 
expressed general support for the Agencies' proposal to allow Tribal 
Organizations to apply directly for 911 Grant Program funding, noting 
that the prior regulations only allowed Tribal Organizations to receive 
grant funding through States and thus did not adequately support 
tribes.\31\ The anonymous commenter further noted that Tribal 
Organizations may have difficulty meeting program requirements, but did 
not specify which requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Daniel Ramirez, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0006; NASNA at 1-2; NENA at 1; Anonymous 
Comment One, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CO PUC cautioned the Agencies not to create a ``one-size fits 
all'' approach for Tribal Organization applications and participation 
because Tribal Organizations vary widely in ``size, resources, and the 
current sophistication of their 9-1-1 systems.'' \32\ The CO PUC 
further noted that the ability of Tribal Organizations to meet the non-
diversion, 911 Coordinator, or match requirements would likely vary by 
Tribal Organization.\33\ The Agencies agree that the needs and 
capacities of Tribal Organizations may vary widely. The Agencies 
believe that providing Tribal Organizations the option to apply for 
grant funding either directly or through States accommodates this 
diversity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ CO PUC at 2, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0012.
    \33\ Id. at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CO PUC cautioned that if Tribal Organizations are allowed to 
obtain grant funding both directly and through States, it could lead to 
waste or duplication of efforts.\34\ The CO PUC recommended that the 
Agencies require Tribal Organizations to determine whether to apply 
individually or to be included in a State's application.\35\ Similarly, 
NASNA recommended that the Agencies require any applicant Tribal 
Organizations to inform the relevant State 911 Coordinator of their 
application in order to avoid duplication of efforts.\36\ As in the 
prior iteration of the program, each State applicant must coordinate 
its application with local governments, Tribal Organizations, and PSAPs 
within the State.\37\ In the course of this coordination--and prior to 
including a Tribal Organization in its application project budget--the 
State should determine whether a Tribal Organization within its 
jurisdiction intends to apply directly for grant funding. An applicant 
Tribal Organization must certify non-diversion by the State(s) in which 
it is located; to do so, a Tribal Organization should contact the 
State(s) in which it is located.\38\ The Agencies believe that the 
existing coordination inherent in the application process ensures that 
a State will not unknowingly account for a Tribal Organization in its 
grant application if that Tribal Organization has applied 
independently, and therefore, we do not believe any changes to the 
regulation are required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Id. at 1.
    \35\ Id.
    \36\ NASNA at 1-2.
    \37\ 47 CFR 400.4(a)(1)(iii)(A).
    \38\ Id. at Sec.  400.4(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agencies specifically asked commenters whether tribal PSAPs 
collect 911 surcharge fees and/or receive State-provided 911 surcharge 
funds. The CO PUC responded that 911 surcharges are collected by local 
911 governing bodies in Colorado and that one tribe, the Southern Ute 
Tribe, receives funding from the Emergency Telephone Service Authority 
of La Plata County. However, the CO PUC stated that it does not have 
reason to believe that the Southern Ute Tribe will have trouble 
certifying that it does not divert 911 surcharge fees.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ CO PUC at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Local Applicants
    The Chicago OEMC suggested that cities with large 911 systems be 
allowed to apply directly for grants due to ``the expansive scope of 
their operations as well as their specialized requirements.'' \40\ 
While the Agencies understand this concern, the Agencies continue to 
believe that limiting the applicant pool to States and Tribal 
Organizations is necessary in order to minimize administrative costs 
and to streamline the grant process. However, as in the prior iteration 
of the program, each applicant State is required to coordinate its 
application with local governments and PSAPs within the State and to 
ensure that 90 percent of the grant funds be used for the direct 
benefit of PSAPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ Chicago OEMC, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Application Requirements (400.4)

1. One- Versus Two-Step Application Process
    The Agencies sought comment on whether to retain the one-step 
application process from the prior E911 Grant Program, or whether to 
use a proposed two-step application process. Two commenters, Motorola 
and the MO DPS, requested that the Agencies retain the one-step 
application process from the prior E911 Grant Program.\41\ Motorola 
explained that the one-step application would expedite the grant 
process and avoid confusion amongst applicants, and argued that the 
proposed two-step application process is burdensome by requiring 911 
authorities to meet two deadlines.\42\ Four commenters--the CO PUC, 
NASNA, the TX CSEC, and an anonymous commenter--supported a two-step 
application process as proposed by the Agencies.\43\ Based on the 
comments received, including the more detailed comments described 
below, the Agencies have determined that a two-step application will 
provide applicants with the most stable initial funding levels upon 
which they can prepare project budgets and will ensure the most 
efficient application process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Motorola at 4-5, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0015; MO DPS, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0014.
    \42\ See Motorola at 4-5.
    \43\ See CO PUC at 3; NASNA at 2; TX CSEC at 2, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0011; Anonymous 
Comment One.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASNA expressed support for a two-step process, while noting 
several issues that may still arise under that process.\44\ NASNA noted 
that, for example, applicants may make the initial certifications, but 
later find they are unable to meet the match requirement or certify 
non-diversion of funds.\45\ Nonetheless, NASNA stated that ``there is 
practical value to states in knowing exactly how much funding they can 
apply for.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ NASNA at 2.
    \45\ Id.
    \46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CO PUC noted that the two-step application process would be 
more efficient because it would not require applicants to submit a 
supplemental project budget after submitting their

[[Page 38055]]

original applications.\47\ The Agencies do note, however, that although 
a supplemental budget is no longer required, applicants are still 
advised to submit a supplemental budget in the second step of the 
application process for use if additional funds become available at any 
point in the grant program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ CO PUC at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TX CSEC requested confirmation on some aspects of the two-step 
application process.\48\ The TX CSEC asked whether an applicant that 
does not submit the certifications by the initial application deadline 
would be precluded from further participation in the grant program.\49\ 
It further asked whether, in the event a State did not submit the 
initial certifications, ``the portion of 911 grant funds that would 
otherwise be allocated to it by formula would be included in the 
preliminary funding allocations for certifying Applicants?'' \50\ In 
order to participate in the grant program, an applicant must submit the 
initial certifications by the initial application deadline. Failure to 
do so will remove that State from the funding pool; the preliminary 
funding levels will be calculated only for those applicants that 
submitted initial certifications. Finally, TX CSEC sought confirmation 
that the option to submit a supplemental project budget is meant to 
``to account for the possibility that, notwithstanding having submitted 
an acceptable initial certification, an Applicant may (a) ultimately 
not submit an application, (b) may submit an application with a budget 
less than its preliminary funding amount; (c) not be able to use all of 
its preliminary funding during the grant period, or (d) have to return 
a portion of grant funds as a result of being unable to provide a 
complete annual certification regarding or a previous certification was 
deemed inaccurate.'' \51\ The Agencies confirm this statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ TX CSEC at 2-3.
    \49\ Id.
    \50\ Id. at 2.
    \51\ Id. at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The anonymous commenter recommended that the two-step process 
``should be implemented and run for a trial period,'' and that the 
Agencies make modifications or return to the one-step process if the 
trial does not work.\52\ The funds made available from the Public 
Safety Trust Fund for the 911 Grant Program are available for 
obligation only until September 30, 2022. The Agencies do not believe 
that there is sufficient time before that date to undertake a second 
rulemaking to change the application process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See Anonymous Comment One.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Other Application Issues
    The DC OUC requested that the required State 911 Plan be ``defined 
well,'' noting that although DC has an NG911 Plan, it does not have a 
State 911 Plan because DC only has a single PSAP.\53\ Without specific 
concerns from commenters, the Agencies do not believe it is necessary 
to clarify those requirements further because the application 
requirements laid out in Section 400.4 provide a detailed description 
of the required components of a State 911 Plan. The Agencies note that 
in instances like that of DC where there is a single PSAP in an 
applicant's jurisdiction, it is not necessary to include multiple PSAPs 
in the State 911 Plan as described in the regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ See DC OUC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The MO DPS stated that ``the requirement to give priority to 
communities without 911 from the current E-911 Grant Program should not 
be eliminated.'' \54\ The ENHANCE 911 Act, as amended by Public Law 
110-53,\55\ directed the Agencies to allow a portion of the E-911 grant 
funds to be used to give this priority to PSAPs that could not receive 
911 calls. The NG911 Advancement Act, however, eliminated that 
requirement and the Agencies do the same in this regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ MO DPS.
    \55\ Title XXIII, section 2303, Aug. 3, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The TX CSEC commented that the certification requirement 
``obligates each designated State 911 Coordinator (the Coordinator) to 
certify as to the non-diversion of designated 911 charges for all grant 
recipients,'' including ``taxing jurisdictions and grant recipients 
over whom the Coordinator may have no direct authority.'' \56\ TX CSEC 
proposed modifications to Section 400.4(a)(5) and Appendices A and C in 
order ``to allow the State 9-1-1 Coordinator to receive and submit 
certifications directly from each taxing jurisdiction that will be a 
grant recipient,'' so that the 911 Coordinator could ``pass-through the 
certifications of [these] taxing jurisdictions.'' \57\ Applicants, 
through their 911 Coordinator, must certify that neither the State (or 
Tribal Organization) nor any taxing jurisdiction that directly receives 
grant funds has diverted or will divert designated 911 charges. The 
Agencies understand that applicants may not have authority over every 
taxing jurisdiction which receives grant funds. However, the statutory 
language and certification requirements are clear that each applicant 
must sign the certification. Applicants may, if they wish, solicit 
certifications from grant subrecipients as an internal matter, but the 
certification submitted to the Agencies must be signed by the 911 
Coordinator. The Agencies, therefore, make no modifications to the 
regulatory language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ TX CSEC at 3.
    \57\ Id. at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    APCO recommended that the Agencies allow applicants ``that have 
already expended non-federal funds toward NG911 deployments to count 
such expenses as in-kind contributions'' to satisfy the grant program's 
40 percent non-Federal match requirement.\58\ To allow applicants to 
match grant funds based on previous investments in 911 would be 
contrary to the statutory intent. The NG911 Advancement Act mandates a 
60 percent Federal share at the project level.\59\ The Agencies refer 
all applicants to 2 CFR 200.306 for more details on what is allowable 
to meet the match requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ APCO at 4.
    \59\ 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Approval and Award (400.5)

    Lara Wood commented that 47 CFR 400.5(c) states that the agencies 
will announce awards by September 30, 2009, and suggested that the date 
should read September 30, 2019.\60\ September 30, 2009, is the date 
that appeared in the previously published E-911 Grant Program 
regulations. The new regulatory language does not include a specific 
award announcement date. Instead, the Agencies intend to provide the 
expected award date in the Notice of Funding Opportunity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ See Lara Wood, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Distribution of Grant Funds (400.6)

1. Formula
    The Agencies requested comment on whether the existing grant 
distribution formula factors--population and public road mileage--
remain appropriate, and if not, what factors they should consider. The 
Agencies sought specific comment on how to account for remote and rural 
areas.
    APCO commented that the Agencies' proposal to apportion ``available 
grant funds across all of the states and tribal organizations, to serve 
911, Enhanced 911 (E911), and NG911 purposes'' would lead to only 
marginal enhancements in any given area.\61\ Instead, APCO suggested 
that the Agencies give grants for ``model NG911

[[Page 38056]]

deployments for a few areas.'' \62\ While the Agencies understand 
APCO's concerns, the Agencies continue to believe that a formula-based 
distribution of grant funds to all eligible States is necessary to 
assist in the implementation of NG911 nationwide, not just in specific 
locations. The Agencies have set a minimum grant amount in order to 
ensure that each eligible State and Territory receives a more than de 
minimis amount of grant funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ APCO at 1.
    \62\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Several commenters--identified in more detail below--recommended 
additional or substitute factors to use in the funding allocation, 
including call volume, land area, tourism rates, terrain, cost of 
needed technological advancements, usage data of call centers, wealth 
of state/region, access to hospitals/emergency centers, and type of 
threat experienced by location.
    The MO DPS expressed support for retaining the current formula 
factors: Population and public road mileage.\63\ An anonymous commenter 
expressed support for using population and public road mileage as 
factors for distribution of funds, and suggested the following 
additional potential factors: ``Data regarding the usage of call 
centers in those areas, wealth of the state or region and their access 
to hospitals and emergency centers.'' \64\ However, the anonymous 
commenter did not provide any explanation for those factors. NASNA 
stated that the currently proposed formula may not adequately fund 
rural areas, but cautioned against choosing a factor that advantages 
rural states with a large land mass over smaller rural states.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ See MO DPS.
    \64\ Anonymous Comment One.
    \65\ NASNA at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DC OUC and the Chicago OEMC both suggested using call volume as 
a factor in the funding allocation in order to account for locations 
that have high tourist and commuter populations.\66\ Funds for the 911 
Grant Program are distributed at the State level, rather than at the 
PSAP level. The Agencies are concerned that call volume, which might 
provide useful localized data, would be less useful once aggregated 
across a State with a mix of urban and rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ See DC OUC, Chicago OEMC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, the CO PUC commented that it does not support the 
currently proposed formula because it is unfair to rural, mountainous 
states such as Colorado that have large tourist populations.\67\ The CO 
PUC agreed that cell towers retain an important role in the 
transmission of 911 calls to PSAPs, but disagreed with the Agencies' 
use of road miles as a proxy for cell towers because cell towers in 
Colorado are often built on mountain peaks far from roads.\68\ The CO 
PUC recommended the following formula: 40 percent population, 40 
percent land area, and 20 percent tourism rates.\69\ The CO PUC further 
recommended that the Agencies consider including terrain as a factor in 
distributing grant funding.\70\ The Agencies acknowledge the difficulty 
of accounting for tourism and terrain differences between states. 
However, the commenter has not identified a reliable source for State-
level tourism rates, nor provided any recommendation for translating 
terrain into a formula variable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ CO PUC at 4.
    \68\ Id.
    \69\ CO PUC at 5-6.
    \70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An anonymous commenter supported better accounting for rural areas 
and advocated a weighted tiered system with individualized factors--
including weighted scales to account for the types of threats to safety 
as well as the cost and type of the technological advancements needed--
for determining grant funding amounts in order to provide for more 
flexibility.\71\ The commenter further recommended breaking States into 
geographic regions ``so grants can be distributed to areas justifiably 
with public input.'' \72\ While the Agencies appreciate the importance 
of directing grant funds where they are needed most, the Agencies 
recognize that it is necessary to streamline the grant process in order 
to provide timely awards. In addition, the Agencies do not have the 
expertise to make this type of localized determination. The Agencies 
believe that States are best situated to determine the needs of 
localities within their borders. The Agencies have, therefore, limited 
applications to States and Tribal Organizations. The Agencies make no 
change to the rule in response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ See Anonymous Comment Two, https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017-0088-0005.
    \72\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments submitted, and consistent with the 
Agencies' specific responses above, the Agencies have determined that 
the existing formula, which equally accounts for population and road 
miles, is the most reliable method for calculating the distribution of 
911 Grant Program funds.
2. Tribal Organizations
    The Agencies specifically sought comment on how to distribute grant 
funds to Tribal Organizations. Two commenters, the CO PUC and an 
anonymous commenter, expressed support for applying the same formula to 
States and Tribal Organizations as proposed by the Agencies.\73\ The CO 
PUC further recommended setting a floor level of funding for Tribal 
Organizations, similar to the minimum grant amounts provided for States 
and Territories.\74\ The Agencies decline to set a minimum grant amount 
for Tribal Organizations because the size of Tribal Organizations 
varies so widely that a minimum funding level could create inequities 
and inefficiencies. Therefore, the Agencies will retain the proposed 
maximum funding level applicable to Tribal Organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ See CO PUC at 5, Anonymous Comment One.
    \74\ See CO PUC at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Eligible Uses for Grant Funds (400.7)

    The regulatory language of 47 CFR 400.7 lays out the broad 
parameters of eligible use of 911 Grant Program funds. The Agencies 
provided additional clarification on certain specific uses of funds in 
the preamble to the NPRM. The Agencies received several comments 
relating to these uses. In order to keep the regulatory language broad, 
and to provide flexibility to grant recipients, the Agencies make no 
change to the regulatory language in response to these comments, but 
will address those comments here to provide further clarification.
1. NG911 Services
    APCO and the CO PUC expressed support for the Agencies' proposal to 
provide grant recipients the flexibility to determine whether to 
provide NG911 services directly or through a contract.\75\ APCO further 
suggested that the Agencies encourage applicants to ``propose forward-
thinking solutions for NG911, even if the proposals deviate from 
traditional approaches to NG911 network architectures.'' \76\ Provided 
that the hardware, software, and/or services comply with current NG911 
standards, the Agencies do not proscribe specific architecture for a 
grantee's NG911 system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See APCO at 3, CO PUC at 6-7.
    \76\ APCO at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The DC OUC and the MO DPS requested that the Agencies add 
consulting services to assist with the NG911 transition and deployment 
as an eligible cost.\77\ In 47 CFR 400.9(a), the Agencies identified 
the requirements of

[[Page 38057]]

2 CFR part 200, including the cost principles in Subpart E, as 
applicable to the grants awarded under this program. In accordance with 
those cost principles, consultant costs are allowable provided that 
certain conditions are met. Commenters are directed to the applicable 
cost principle, 2 CFR 200.459--Professional service costs, for detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See DC OUC, MO DPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NENA supports the Agencies' incorporation of the NG911 standards, 
as listed in the DHS SAFECOM Guidance, Appendix B, which NENA notes 
incorporates by reference many NENA standards.\78\ NENA specifically 
urged the Agencies to encourage grant recipients to implement 
i<INF>3</INF>-based deployments, relying on the NENA i<INF>3</INF> 
standard laid out in ``Detailed Functional and Interface Specifications 
for the NENA i<INF>3</INF> Solution.'' \79\ Similarly, NSGIC commented 
that the Agencies should more explicitly require applicants to follow 
NENA's i<INF>3</INF> standard, instead of the existing incorporation of 
the DHS SAFECOM Guidance.\80\ The Agencies would like to clarify that 
the SAFECOM Guidance contains a list of acceptable standards which is a 
vital resource for developing an NG911 system that meets the goal of 
interoperability. The Agencies reaffirm the requirement for grant 
recipients to specify that hardware, software, and services comply with 
current NG911 standards; however, individual products only need to meet 
the relevant standard(s) within the list of standards in the SAFECOM 
Guidance. As NENA notes in its comment, the DHS SAFECOM Guidance 
incorporates by reference the 911 Program's ``NG911 Standards 
Identification and Review,'' which in turn lists NENA's i<INF>3</INF> 
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ See NENA at 2.
    \79\ Id.
    \80\ NSGIC at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Conversely, the CO PUC recommended that States be able to apply for 
waivers of the requirement that hardware, software, and services comply 
with the current NG911 standards listed in DHS's SAFECOM Guidance in 
certain instances--for example, when unable to find a product that 
meets all of the listed standards.\81\ The Agencies do not believe that 
waivers are the most effective means of addressing the problem of 
vendors that do not meet existing standards. Rather, any vendor that 
believes it is impossible to meet existing standards is encouraged to 
work with the relevant Standards Development Organization (SDO) to 
revise existing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ CO PUC at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Carbyne expressed support for innovative solutions in NG911 and 
recommended that ``any allocation of grant funds must come with the 
requirement that software and hardware be able to communicate with 
different PSAPs based on clearly defined standards that the FCC 
demands.'' \82\ The FCC has jurisdiction to regulate the 
telecommunications service providers that deliver 911 calls from the 
public to PSAPs, whereas the 911 Grant Program provides funds for the 
direct benefit of PSAPs to improve the 911 system. FCC standards, 
therefore, are not applicable to hardware and software purchased using 
911 Grant Program funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \82\ Carbyne.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NSGIC commented that development and maintenance of geospatial 
datasets are necessary in order to support the desired NG911 services 
of call routing and coordinated incident response and management.\83\ 
NSGIC provided suggested regulatory language modifications to the 
definition of Next Generation 911 services (Section 400.2), to the 
Application requirements section (Section 400.4(a)(1)(i)(B)), and to 
the Eligible uses section (Section 400.7(b)) to incorporate geographic 
information system (GIS) data.\84\ The Agencies agree that GIS data is 
an integral component of the NG911 system. However, GIS data is already 
included in the broader terms ``software'' and ``data,'' which are used 
in the specified regulatory provisions. Furthermore, the regulatory 
provisions to which NSGIC provides recommended modifications are taken 
directly from the statutory language. Therefore, the Agencies decline 
to make the suggested modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ NSGIC at 1.
    \84\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CO PUC requested clarification as to what qualifies as an 
``NG911 application eligible for funding,'' and specifically asked 
whether a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system configured similar to an 
Emergency Services IP-network, or a CAD or radio system that is 
interoperable with the NG911 network, would be considered an eligible 
``NG911 application.'' \85\ The regulation allows use of funds for 
``IP-enabled emergency services and applications enabled by NG911 
services.'' \86\ Whether a CAD or a radio system is an eligible 
application enabled by NG911 services, therefore, depends on whether 
the CAD or radio system is IP-enabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ CO PUC at 6.
    \86\ 47 CFR 400.7(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NENA urged the Agencies to ``encourage applicants to include 
relevant [independent verification and validation testing (IV&V)] for 
all proposed product, service, and system purchases funded with grant 
monies, or to fund collaborative, multi-jurisdictional IV&V testing'' 
to ensure interoperability.\87\ The NG911 Advancement Act was 
established to facilitate implementation of NG911 services. While IV&V 
testing may be a useful tool for grantees, the Agencies do not believe 
that IV&V testing by individual States is an effective or efficient use 
of the limited grant funds available at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ NENA at 1-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Training
    The Agencies requested comment on whether they should set a limit 
on the amount of 911 Grant Program funds that may be used for training 
and whether training funds should be limited to training designed to 
meet the ``Recommended Minimum Training Guidelines for 
Telecommunicators,'' \88\ developed as part of a three-year effort by 
the National 911 program office. Two commenters, APCO and Motorola, 
stated that use of 911 Grant Program funds for training should not be 
limited to training designed to meet the ``Recommended Minimum Training 
Guidelines for Telecommunicators.'' \89\ APCO recommended that eligible 
training ``should be related to operationalizing NG911 capabilities,'' 
whereas Motorola recommended that ``NG9-1-1 grant program funds should 
therefore be made available to support all levels of 9-1-1 services 
training.'' \90\ The CO PUC expressed support for the Minimum Training 
Guidelines developed by the National 911 Program Office and commented 
that those guidelines were not unduly burdensome. The CO PUC then 
stated that it recommends that training expenses ``be strictly limited 
to training pertaining to NG9-1-1 transition and implementation,'' but 
does not believe that there should be a limit on the amount of funds 
expended on training.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ See National 911 Program, ``Recommended Minimum Training 
Guidelines for Telecommunicators'' (May 19, 2016), available at 
http://www.911.gov/pdf/Recommended_Minimum_Training_Guidelines_for_the_911_Telecommunicator_FINAL_May_19_2016.pdf (Minimum Training Guidelines).
    \89\ See APCO at 4, Motorola at 4.
    \90\ APCO at 4, Motorola at 4.
    \91\ CO PUC at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After considering the comments received, the Agencies believe that 
it is important to retain flexibility for grant recipients while 
ensuring efficient use of funds to meet the statutory intent to assist 
implementation of NG911.

[[Page 38058]]

Therefore, the Agencies will not set a limit on the amount of funds 
that may be used for training. However, 911 Grant Program funds may 
only be used for training that is related to NG911 implementation and 
operations. In order to ensure similar levels of training across the 
different components of NG911, the ``Recommended Minimum Training 
Guidelines for Telecommunicators'' must serve as a base level for 
training provided.
    In response to the Agencies' request for comment on possible 
methods of documentation of PSAP compliance with the Minimum Training 
Guidelines, the CO PUC recommended certification by the 911 
coordinator.\92\ The Agencies' goal is to ensure that training provided 
using 911 Grant Program funding at least meet the Minimum Training 
Guidelines with the least burden on grantees. As such, the Agencies 
will require grantees to submit documentation that describes the 
training being provided and that identifies the included elements from 
the Minimum Training Guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See id. at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CO PUC recommended that the Agencies allow recipients to use 
grant funds to ``establish an ongoing training program for public 
safety telecommunicators.'' \93\ The Agencies believe that establishing 
an ongoing training program is already an allowable expense under the 
program, though some costs of establishing such a program may qualify 
as administrative expenses subject to the 10 percent maximum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ Id. at 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Planning and Administration
    The Agencies proposed allowing the use of funds for an assessment, 
using the FCC's ``NG911 Readiness Scorecard,'' \94\ in order to assist 
States in determining the status of their current 911 systems as part 
of the NG911 implementation process. APCO and the CO PUC both agreed 
with the Agencies' proposal to allow grant recipients to use a portion 
of the 10 percent maximum for administrative costs to perform an 
assessment of the current 911 system.\95\ However, APCO stated that 
``the Office should avoid limiting applicants' self-assessments to any 
particular tool,'' such as the NG911 Readiness Scorecard.\96\ The NG911 
Readiness Scorecard was developed by the Task Force on Optimal Public 
Safety Answering Point Architecture, with extensive participation from 
the 911 stakeholder community, both private and public. One of the most 
important capacities of 911 systems is interoperability. The Agencies 
believe that a common assessment will help in this goal. For this 
reason, the Agencies strongly recommend that grantees complete an 
assessment using the NG911 Readiness Scorecard, but grantees may choose 
another basis for their assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See FCC, TFOPA Working Group 2 Phase II Supplemental 
Report: NG9-1-1 Readiness Scorecard (Dec. 2, 2016), available at 
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/911/TFOPA/TFOPA_WG2_Supplemental_Report-120216.pdf.
    \95\ See APCO at 4, CO PUC at 8.
    \96\ APCO at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Operation of 911 System
    The MO DPS stated that ``[f]or 911-PSAPs that only have basic 911 
infrastructure and the legacy enhancements from the 2009 E-911 grant, 
sustainment and maintenance of those systems should be considered as an 
eligible cost.'' \97\ Relatedly, the DC OUC requested that the agencies 
allow recipients to use grant funds for ``continuation or maintenance 
of NG911'' for ``early adopters.'' \98\ However, in order to maximize 
use of funds to meet the statutory goal of implementation of an NG911 
system, the Agencies have determined that grant recipients may only use 
911 Grant Program funds to cover the costs of operating the NG911 
system during the period when the recipient is also operating the 
current legacy system. Once the NG911 system is fully operational, the 
costs of operating the system should be paid for using surcharge fees 
collected by State and local governments, as anticipated by the NG911 
Advancement Act. Grant recipients should already be using designated 
911 charges to fund the operation and maintenance of the 911 or E-911 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ MO DPS.
    \98\ DC OUC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While expressing agreement with the Agencies' clarification that 
operation of the NG911 system is an eligible cost while the grantee is 
still operating its legacy 911 system, the CO PUC stated that it does 
``not believe the Agencies intend to restrict the use of funds to only 
operational costs.'' \99\ The Agencies' clarification regarding 
operation of the NG911 system was intended to clarify the circumstances 
in which the costs of operation, as opposed to costs of implementation, 
of the NG911 system would be allowable. As laid out in the regulation, 
implementation of the NG911 system--which includes non-recurring and 
capital expenses related to the NG911 transition--is an eligible cost.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ CO PUC at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Continuing Compliance (400.8)

    APCO requested that the Agencies create a clear definition of fee 
diversion, citing disagreement between the FCC and four States in the 
most recent FCC report ``On State Collection and Distribution of 911 
and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges.'' \100\ The FCC's annual report is 
authorized under the New and Emerging Technologies 911 Improvement Act 
of 2008 (NET 911 Act), which is separate from the NG911 Advancement 
Act. As such, the Agencies are not bound by the FCC's interpretation of 
non-diversion under the NET 911 Act. The NG911 Advancement Act requires 
applicants to certify that ``no portion of any designated 911 charges 
imposed by a State or other taxing jurisdiction within which the 
applicant is located are being obligated or expended for any purpose 
other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or 
presented.'' \101\ As such, fee diversion is largely dependent upon how 
the fees in question are designated, which varies by State. Providing a 
single definition of fee diversion, beyond the description provided by 
the statute and incorporated in the certifications, would ignore the 
ability of States to designate 911 charges. The Agencies make no change 
to the rule in response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ APCO at 3. FCC, Eighth Annual Report to Congress On State 
Collection and Distribution of 911 and Enhanced 911 Fees and Charges 
(Dec. 30, 2016), available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-17-61A2.pdf.
    \101\ 47 U.S.C. 942(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Daniel Ramirez submitted a comment that was somewhat unclear, but 
that the Agencies interpret to state agreement with the non-diversion 
requirement in the grant.\102\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See Daniel Ramirez.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Waiver Authority (400.11)

    The CO PUC stated general support for allowing waiver requests for 
discretionary provisions of the grant program regulations.\103\ APCO 
stated that certain circumstances could justify a waiver.\104\ APCO 
also requested that the Agencies provide an opportunity for notice and 
comment by the 911 community when considering whether to grant a 
waiver.\105\ The Agencies intend to only use this waiver ability in 
extraordinary circumstances. Therefore,

[[Page 38059]]

we decline to make a change to the regulation in response to this 
comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ See CO PUC at 9.
    \104\ See APCO at 4.
    \105\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Policies and Procedures)

    This rulemaking has been determined to be significant under section 
3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866, and therefore has been reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Executive Order 13771

    This rulemaking is exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 
13771 because it is a ``transfer rule.''

Administrative Procedure Act

    The effective date of this final rule is the date of publication. 
The Administrative Procedure Act's required 30-day delay in effective 
date for substantive rules does not apply here as this rule concerns 
grants. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce and 
the Assistant Chief Counsel for the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration certified to the Small Business Administration Office of 
Advocacy at the proposed rule stage that this final rule is not 
expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities. Congress enacted the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980 (RFA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to ensure that Government 
regulations do not unnecessarily or disproportionately burden small 
entities. The RFA requires a regulatory flexibility analysis if a rule 
would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. The majority of potential applicants (56) for 911 
grants are U.S. States and Territories, which are not ``small 
entities'' for the purposes of the RFA. See 5 U.S.C. 601(5). The 
remaining potential grant applicants are a small number of Tribal 
Organizations (approximately 13) with a substantial emergency 
management/public safety presence within their jurisdictions. Like 
States, Tribal Organizations are not ``small entities'' for the 
purposes of the RFA. See Small Business Regulatory Flexibility 
Improvements Act of 2015, S. 1536, 114th Cong. Sec.  2(d) (2015) 
(proposing to add Tribal Organizations to the RFA's ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' definition, one of three categories of 
``small entities'' in the RFA). Therefore, we have determined under the 
RFA that this final rule would not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, no Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is required, and none has been prepared.

Congressional Review Act

    This rulemaking has not been determined to be major under the 
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This final rule does not contain policies having federalism 
implications requiring preparations of a Federalism Summary Impact 
Statement.

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This rulemaking has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, 
Civil Justice Reform, as amended by Executive Order 13175. The Agencies 
have determined that the final rule meets the applicable standards 
provided in section 3 of the Executive Order to minimize litigation, 
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Consultation)

    Applications under this program are subject to Executive Order 
12372, ``Intergovernmental Review of Federal Programs,'' which requires 
intergovernmental consultation with State and local officials. All 
applicants are required to submit a copy of their applications to their 
designated State Single Point of Contact (SPOC) offices. See 7 CFR part 
3015, subpart V.

Executive Order 12630

    This final rule does not contain policies that have takings 
implications.

Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribes)

    The Agencies have analyzed this final rule under Executive Order 
13175, and have determined that the action would not have a substantial 
direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, would not impose 
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, and 
would not preempt tribal law. The program is voluntary and any Tribal 
Organization that chooses to apply and subsequently qualifies would 
receive grant funds. Therefore, a tribal summary impact statement is 
not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 
requires each Federal agency to seek and obtain OMB approval before 
collecting information from the public. Federal agencies may not 
collect information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control 
number. OMB has approved the Agencies' requests to use previously-
approved Standard Forms 424 (Application for Federal Assistance), 424A 
(Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs), 424B (Assurances 
for Non-Construction Programs), 424C (Budget Information for 
Construction Programs), 425 (Federal Financial Report), and SF-LLL 
(Disclosure for Lobbying Activities) under the respective control 
numbers 4040-0004, 4040-0005, 4040-0006, 4040-0007, 4040-0014, and 
4040-0013. OMB pre-approved the Agencies' information collection 
request for the State 911 Plans and the Annual Performance Reports and 
assigned it control number 0660-0041.
    The Agencies received no comments in response to their requests to 
utilize common forms or their information collection request for the 
State 911 Plans and Annual Performance Reports. The approved requests 
to use common forms and approved information collection request may be 
viewed at reginfo.gov.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory 
provision of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995) for 
State, local, and tribal governments or the private sector. The program 
is voluntary and States and Tribal Organizations that choose to apply 
and qualify would receive grant funds. Thus, this rulemaking is not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

National Environmental Policy Act

    The Agencies have reviewed this rulemaking action for the purposes 
of the National Environmental Policy Act. The Agencies have determined 
that this final rule would not have a significant impact on the quality 
of the human environment.

    Dated: July 30, 2018.
David J. Redl,
Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Heidi King,
Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 400

    Grant programs, Telecommunications, Emergency response capabilities 
(911).


0
In consideration of the foregoing, the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration, Department of Commerce, and the

[[Page 38060]]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of 
Transportation, revises 47 CFR part 400 to read as follows:

PART 400--911 GRANT PROGRAM

Sec.
400.1 Purpose.
400.2 Definitions.
400.3 Who may apply.
400.4 Application requirements.
400.5 Approval and award.
400.6 Distribution of grant funds.
400.7 Eligible uses for grant funds.
400.8 Continuing compliance.
400.9 Financial and administrative requirements.
400.10 Closeout.
400.11 Waiver authority.
Appendix A to Part 400--Initial Certification for 911 Grant 
Applicants--States
Appendix B to Part 400--Initial Certification for 911 Grant 
Applicants--Tribal Organizations
Appendix C to Part 400--Annual Certification for 911 Grant 
Recipients--States
Appendix D to Part 400--Annual Certification for 911 Grant 
Recipients--Tribal Organizations

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 942.


Sec.  [thinsp]400.1   Purpose.

    This part establishes uniform application, approval, award, 
financial and administrative requirements for the grant program 
authorized under the ``Ensuring Needed Help Arrives Near Callers 
Employing 911 Act of 2004'' (ENHANCE 911 Act), as amended by the ``Next 
Generation 911 Advancement Act of 2012'' (NG911 Advancement Act).


Sec.  [thinsp]400.2   Definitions.

    As used in this part--
    911 Coordinator means a single officer or governmental body of the 
State in which the applicant is located that is responsible for 
coordinating implementation of 911 services in that State.
    911 services means both E-911 services and Next Generation 911 
services.
    Administrator means the Administrator of the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of 
Transportation.
    Assistant Secretary means the Assistant Secretary for 
Communications and Information, U.S. Department of Commerce, and 
Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA).
    Designated 911 charges means any taxes, fees, or other charges 
imposed by a State or other taxing jurisdiction that are designated or 
presented as dedicated to deliver or improve 911, E-911 or NG911 
services.
    E-911 services means both phase I and phase II enhanced 911 
services, as described in Sec.  20.18 of this title, as subsequently 
revised.
    Emergency call refers to any real-time communication with a public 
safety answering point or other emergency management or response 
agency, including--
    (1) Through voice, text, or video and related data; and
    (2) Nonhuman-initiated automatic event alerts, such as alarms, 
telematics, or sensor data, which may also include real-time voice, 
text, or video communications.
    ICO means the 911 Implementation Coordination Office established 
under 47 U.S.C. 942 for the administration of the 911 grant program, 
located at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. 
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, NTI-140, 
Washington, DC 20590.
    Integrated telecommunications services means one or more elements 
of the provision of multiple 911 systems' or PSAPs' infrastructure, 
equipment, or utilities, such as voice, data, image, graphics, and 
video network, customer premises equipment (such as consoles, hardware, 
or software), or other utilities, which make common use of all or part 
of the same transmission facilities, switches, signaling, or control 
devices (e.g., database, cybersecurity).
    IP-enabled emergency network or IP-enabled emergency system means 
an emergency communications network or system based on a secured 
infrastructure that allows secured transmission of information, using 
internet Protocol, among users of the network or system.
    Next Generation 911 services means an IP-based system comprised of 
hardware, software, data, and operational policies and procedures 
that--
    (1) Provides standardized interfaces from emergency call and 
message services to support emergency communications;
    (2) Processes all types of emergency calls, including voice, data, 
and multimedia information;
    (3) Acquires and integrates additional emergency call data useful 
to call routing and handling;
    (4) Delivers the emergency calls, messages, and data to the 
appropriate public safety answering point and other appropriate 
emergency entities;
    (5) Supports data or video communications needs for coordinated 
incident response and management; and
    (6) Provides broadband service to public safety answering points or 
other first responder entities.
    PSAP means a public safety answering point, a facility that has 
been designated to receive emergency calls and route them to emergency 
service personnel.
    State means any State of the United States, the District of 
Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the United States Virgin 
Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or 
possession of the United States.
    Tribal Organization means the recognized governing body of any 
Indian tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is 
controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is 
democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to 
be served by such organization and which includes the maximum 
participation of Indians in all phases of its activities: Provided, 
that in any case where a contract is let or grant made to an 
organization to perform services benefiting more than one Indian tribe, 
the approval of each such Indian tribe shall be a prerequisite to the 
letting or making of such contract or grant.


Sec.  [thinsp]400.3   Who may apply.

    In order to apply for a grant under this part, an applicant must be 
a State or Tribal Organization as defined in Sec.  400.2.


Sec.  [thinsp]400.4   Application requirements.

    (a) Contents for a State application. An application for funds for 
the 911 Grant Program from a State must consist of the following 
components:
    (1) State 911 plan. A plan that--
    (i) Details the projects and activities proposed to be funded for:
    (A) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 
services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption 
and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;
    (B) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and 
applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the 
establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer 
software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of 
emergency response organizations; and
    (C) Training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first 
responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the 
emergency response chain in 911 services.
    (ii) Establishes metrics and a time table for grant implementation; 
and
    (iii) Describes the steps the applicant has taken to--

[[Page 38061]]

    (A) Coordinate its application with local governments, Tribal 
Organizations, and PSAPs within the State;
    (B) Ensure that at least 90 percent of the grant funds will be used 
for the direct benefit of PSAPs and not more than 10 percent of the 
grant funds will be used for the applicant's administrative expenses 
related to the 911 Grant Program; and
    (C) Involve integrated telecommunications services in the 
implementation and delivery of 911 services, E-911 services, and Next 
Generation 911 services.
    (2) Project budget. A project budget for all proposed projects and 
activities to be funded by the grant funds. Specifically, for each 
project or activity, the applicant must:
    (i) Demonstrate that the project or activity meets the eligible use 
requirement in Sec.  400.7; and
    (ii) Identify the non-Federal sources, which meet the requirements 
of 2 CFR 200.306, that will fund at least 40 percent of the cost; 
except that as provided in 48 U.S.C. 1469a, the requirement for non-
Federal matching funds (including in-kind contributions) is waived for 
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands for grant amounts up to $200,000.
    (3) Supplemental project budget. States that qualify for a grant 
under the program may also qualify for additional grant funds that may 
become available. To be eligible for any such additional grant funds 
that may become available in accordance with Sec.  400.6, a State must 
submit, with its application, a supplemental project budget that 
identifies the maximum dollar amount the State is able to match from 
non-Federal sources meeting the requirements of 2 CFR 200.306, and 
includes projects or activities for those grant and matching amounts, 
up to the total amount in the project budget submitted under paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section. This information must be provided to the same 
level of detail as required under paragraph (a)(2) of this section and 
be consistent with the State 911 Plan required under paragraph (a)(1) 
of this section.
    (4) Designated 911 Coordinator. The identification of a single 
officer or government body to serve as the 911 Coordinator of 
implementation of 911 services and to sign the certifications required 
under this part. Such designation need not vest such coordinator with 
legal authority to implement 911 services, E-911 services, or Next 
Generation 911 services or to manage emergency communications 
operations. If a State applicant has established by law or regulation 
an office or coordinator with the authority to manage 911 services, 
that office or coordinator must be identified as the designated 911 
Coordinator and apply for the grant on behalf of the State. If a State 
applicant does not have such an office or coordinator established, the 
Governor of the State must appoint a single officer or governmental 
body to serve as the 911 Coordinator in order to qualify for a 911 
grant. If the designated 911 Coordinator is a governmental body, an 
official representative of the governmental body shall be identified to 
sign the certifications for the 911 Coordinator. The State must notify 
NHTSA in writing within 30 days of any change in appointment of the 911 
Coordinator.
    (5) Certifications. The certification in Appendix A of this part, 
signed by the 911 Coordinator, certifying that the applicant has 
complied with the required statutory and programmatic conditions in 
submitting its application. The applicant must certify that during the 
time period 180 days immediately preceding the date of the initial 
application, the State has not diverted any portion of designated 911 
charges imposed by the State for any purpose other than the purposes 
for which such charges are designated or presented, that no taxing 
jurisdiction in the State that will be a recipient of 911 grant funds 
has diverted any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the 
taxing jurisdiction for any purpose other than the purposes for which 
such charges are designated or presented, and that, continuing through 
the time period during which grant funds are available, neither the 
State nor any taxing jurisdiction in the State that is a recipient of 
911 grant funds will divert designated 911 charges for any purpose 
other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or 
presented.
    (b) Contents for a Tribal Organization application. An application 
for funds for the 911 Grant Program from a Tribal Organization must 
consist of the following components:
    (1) Tribal Organization 911 Plan. A plan that--
    (i) Details the projects and activities proposed to be funded for:
    (A) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 
services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption 
and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;
    (B) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and 
applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the 
establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer 
software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of 
emergency response organizations; and
    (C) Training public safety personnel, including call-takers, first 
responders, and other individuals and organizations who are part of the 
emergency response chain in 911 services.
    (ii) Establishes metrics and a time table for grant implementation; 
and
    (iii) Describes the steps the applicant has taken to--
    (A) Coordinate its application with PSAPs within the Tribal 
Organization's jurisdiction;
    (B) Ensure that at least 90 percent of the grant funds will be used 
for the direct benefit of PSAPs and not more than 10 percent of the 
grant funds will be used for the applicant's administrative expenses 
related to the 911 Grant Program; and
    (C) Involve integrated telecommunications services in the 
implementation and delivery of 911 services, E-911 services, and Next 
Generation 911 services.
    (2) Project budget. A project budget for all proposed projects and 
activities to be funded by the grant funds. Specifically, for each 
project or activity, the applicant must:
    (i) Demonstrate that the project or activity meets the eligible use 
requirement in Sec.  400.7; and
    (ii) Identify the allowable sources, which meet the requirements of 
2 CFR 200.306, that will fund at least 40 percent of the cost.
    (3) Supplemental project budget. Tribal Organizations that qualify 
for a grant under the program may also qualify for additional grant 
funds that may become available. To be eligible for any such additional 
grant funds that may become available in accordance with Sec.  400.6, a 
Tribal Organization must submit, with its application, a supplemental 
project budget that identifies the maximum dollar amount the Tribal 
Organization is able to match from allowable sources meeting the 
requirements of 2 CFR 200.306, and includes projects or activities for 
those grant and matching amounts, up to the total amount in the project 
budget submitted under paragraph (b)(2) of this section. This 
information must be provided to the same level of detail as required 
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section and be consistent with the 
Tribal Organization 911 Plan required under paragraph (b)(1) of this 
section.
    (4) Designated 911 Coordinator. Written identification of the 
single State officer or government body serving as the 911 Coordinator 
of implementation of 911 services in the State (or States) in which the 
Tribal Organization is

[[Page 38062]]

located. If a State has not designated an officer or government body to 
coordinate such services, the Governor of the State must appoint a 
single officer or governmental body to serve as the 911 Coordinator in 
order for the Tribal Organization to qualify for a 911 grant. The 
Tribal Organization must notify NHTSA in writing within 30 days of any 
change in appointment of the 911 Coordinator.
    (b) Responsible Tribal Organization Official. Written 
identification of the official responsible for executing the grant 
agreement and signing the required certifications on behalf of the 
Tribal Organization.
    (5) Certifications. The certification in Appendix B of this part, 
signed by the responsible official of the Tribal Organization, 
certifying that the applicant has complied with the required statutory 
and programmatic conditions in submitting its application. The 
applicant must certify that during the time period 180 days immediately 
preceding the date of the initial application, the taxing jurisdiction 
(or jurisdictions) within which the applicant is located has not 
diverted any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing 
jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the applicant is located 
for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are 
designated or presented and that, continuing through the time period 
during which grant funds are available, the taxing jurisdiction (or 
jurisdictions) within which the applicant is located will not divert 
designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for 
which such charges are designated or presented.
    (c) Due dates--(1) Initial application deadline. The applicant must 
submit the certification set forth in Appendix A of this part if a 
State, or Appendix B of this part if a Tribal Organization, no later 
than the initial application deadline published in the Notice of 
Funding Opportunity. Failure to meet this deadline will preclude the 
applicant from receiving consideration for a 911 grant award.
    (2) Final application deadline. After publication of the funding 
allocation for the 911 Grant Program in a revision to the Funding 
Opportunity, applicants that have complied with paragraph (c)(1) of 
this section will be given additional time in which to submit remaining 
application documents in compliance with this section, including a 
supplemental project budget. The revision to the Notice of Funding 
Opportunity will provide such deadline information. Failure to meet 
this deadline will preclude the applicant from receiving consideration 
for a 911 grant award.


Sec.  400.5   Approval and award.

    (a) The ICO will review each application for compliance with the 
requirements of this part.
    (b) The ICO may request additional information from the applicant, 
with respect to any of the application submission requirements of Sec.  
400.4, prior to making a recommendation for an award. Failure to submit 
such additional information may preclude the applicant from further 
consideration for award.
    (c) The Administrator and Assistant Secretary will jointly approve 
and announce, in writing, grant awards to qualifying applicants.


Sec.  [thinsp]400.6   Distribution of grant funds.

    (a) Funding allocation. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this 
section--
    (1) Grant funds for each State that meets the certification 
requirements set forth in Sec.  400.4 will be allocated--
    (i) 50 percent in the ratio which the population of the State bears 
to the total population of all the States, as shown by the latest 
available Federal census; and
    (ii) 50 percent in the ratio which the public road mileage in each 
State bears to the total public road mileage in all States, as shown by 
the latest available Federal Highway Administration data.
    (2) Grant funds for each Tribal Organization that meets the 
certification requirements set forth in Sec.  400.4 will be allocated--
    (i) 50 percent in the ratio to which the population of the Tribal 
Organization bears to the total population of all Tribal Organizations, 
as determined by the most recent population data on American Indian/
Alaska Native Reservation of Statistical Area; and
    (ii) 50 percent in the ratio which the public road mileage in each 
Tribal Organization bears to the total public road mileage in tribal 
areas, using the most recent national tribal transportation facility 
inventory data.
    (2) Supplemental project budgets. As set forth in Sec.  400.4(a)(3) 
and (b)(3), the ICO reserves the right to allocate additional funds 
based on supplemental project budgets.
    (b)(1) Minimum distribution. The distribution to each qualifying 
State under paragraph (b) of this section shall not be less than 
$500,000, except that the distribution to American Samoa, Guam, the 
Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands shall not be less 
than $250,000.
    (2) Tribal Organization set-aside. Up to 2 percent of grant funds 
available under this part will be set aside for distribution to 
qualifying Tribal Organizations for a 911 grant. The distribution to 
each qualifying Tribal Organization shall not be more than $250,000. 
Any remaining funds after distribution to qualifying Tribal 
Organizations under this subparagraph will be released for distribution 
to the States consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Additional notices of funding opportunity. Grant funds that are 
not distributed under paragraph (a) of this section may be made 
available to States and Tribal Organizations through subsequent Notices 
of Funding Opportunity.


Sec.  400.7   Eligible uses for grant funds.

    Grant funds awarded under this part may be used only for:
    (a) The implementation and operation of 911 services, E-911 
services, migration to an IP-enabled emergency network, and adoption 
and operation of Next Generation 911 services and applications;
    (b) The implementation of IP-enabled emergency services and 
applications enabled by Next Generation 911 services, including the 
establishment of IP backbone networks and the application layer 
software infrastructure needed to interconnect the multitude of 
emergency response organizations; and
    (c) 911-related training of public safety personnel, including 
call-takers, first responders, and other individuals and organizations 
who are part of the emergency response chain in 911 services.


Sec.  400.8   Continuing compliance.

    (a) A grant recipient must submit on an annual basis 30 days after 
the end of each fiscal year during which grant funds are available, the 
certification set forth in Appendix C of this part if a State, or 
Appendix D of this part if a Tribal Organization, making the same 
certification concerning the diversion of designated 911 charges.
    (b) In accordance with 47 U.S.C. 942(c), where a recipient 
knowingly provides false or inaccurate information in its certification 
related to the diversion of designated 911 charges, the recipient 
shall--
    (1) Not be eligible to receive the grant under this part;
    (2) Return any grant awarded under this part during the time that 
the certification was not valid; and
    (3) Not be eligible to receive any subsequent grants under this 
part.

[[Page 38063]]

Sec.  400.9   Financial and administrative requirements.

    (a) General. The requirements of 2 CFR part 200, the Uniform 
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements 
for Federal Awards, including applicable cost principles referenced at 
subpart E, govern the implementation and management of grants awarded 
under this part.
    (b) Reporting requirements--(1) Performance reports. Each grant 
recipient shall submit an annual performance report to NHTSA, following 
the procedures of 2 CFR 200.328, within 90 days after each fiscal year 
that grant funds are available, except when a final report is required 
under Sec.  400.10(b)(2).
    (2) Financial reports. Each recipient shall submit quarterly 
financial reports to NHTSA, following the procedures of 2 CFR 200.327, 
within 30 days after each fiscal quarter that grant funds are 
available, except when a final voucher is required under Sec.  
400.10(b)(1).


Sec.  400.10   Closeout.

    (a) Expiration of the right to incur costs. The right to incur 
costs under this part will expire as of the end of the period of 
performance. The grant recipient and its subrecipients and contractors 
may not incur costs for Federal reimbursement past the expiration date.
    (b) Final submissions. Within 90 days after the completion of 
projects and activities funded under this part, but in no event later 
than the expiration date identified in paragraph (a) of this section, 
each grant recipient must submit--
    (1) A final voucher for the costs incurred. The final voucher 
constitutes the final financial reconciliation for the grant award.
    (2) A final report to NHTSA, following the procedures of 2 CFR 
200.343(a).
    (c) Disposition of unexpended balances. Any funds that remain 
unexpended after closeout shall cease to be available to the recipient 
and shall be returned to the government.


Sec.  400.11   Waiver authority.

    It is the general intent of the ICO not to waive any of the 
provisions set forth in this part. However, under extraordinary 
circumstances and when it is in the best interest of the federal 
government, the ICO, upon its own initiative or when requested, may 
waive the provisions in this part. Waivers may only be granted for 
requirements that are discretionary and not mandated by statute or 
other applicable law. Any request for a waiver must set forth the 
extraordinary circumstances for the request.

[[Page 38064]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AU18.003


[[Page 38065]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AU18.004


[[Page 38066]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AU18.005


[[Page 38067]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AU18.006


[[Page 38068]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AU18.007


[[Page 38069]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03AU18.008

[FR Doc. 2018-16567 Filed 8-2-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-60-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>