Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 38051 

Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment 

type code 

12. Permit to Deliver Programs to Foreign Broadcast Stations 

(per application): 

a. Commercial Television Stations ..................................... 308 & 159 ................................ 110.00 ..................................... MBT 

b. Commercial AM or FM Radio Stations ........................... 308 & 159 ................................ 110.00 ..................................... MBR 

13. Recognized Operating Agency (per application) ................. Corres & 159 ........................... 1,195.00 .................................. CUG 

■ 8. Section 1.1108 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.1108 Schedule of charges for 

applications and other filings for the 

international telecommunication services. 

Payment can be made electronically 

using the Commission’s electronic filing 

and payment system ‘‘Fee Filer’’ 

(www.fcc.gov/feefiler). Remit manual 

filings and/or payments for these 

services to: Federal Communications 

Commission, International 

Telecommunication Fees, P.O. Box 

979096, St. Louis, MO 63197–9000. 

Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment 

type code 

1. Administrative Fee for Collections (per line item) .................. 99 & 99A ................................. $2.00 ....................................... IAT 

2. Telecommunication Charges ................................................. 99 & 99A ................................. .................................................. ITTS 

■ 9. Section 1.1109 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.1109 Schedule of charges for 

applications and other filings for the 

Homeland services. 

Payments should be made 

electronically using the Commission’s 

electronic filing and payment system 

‘‘Fee Filer’’ (www.fcc.gov/feefiler). 

Manual filings and/or payments for 

these services are no longer accepted. 

Service FCC Form No. Fee amount Payment 

type code 

1. Communication Assistance for Law Enforcement (CALEA) 

Petitions.

Corres & 159 ........................... $6,945.00 ................................ CLEA 

[FR Doc. 2018–16039 Filed 8–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

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: DPhythyon@

ntia.doc.gov; 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: Laurie.Flaherty@

dot.gov. 

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: MVasquez@

ntia.doc.gov; 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: Megan.Brown@

dot.gov. 

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: press@ntia.doc.gov; 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: karen.aldana@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Statutory Requirements 

III. Comments 

A. General Comments 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
38052 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1The 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). 

2See 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). 

3Federal 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. 

4TFOPA Final Report at 15. See also, NENA 9– 

1–1 Statistics. 

5 Id. 

6TFOPA Final Report at 15. 

7 Id. 

8 Id. 

9NENA 9–1–1 Statistics. 

10See 47 CFR 20.18(e), (h) (defining Phase II 

enhanced 911 service). 

11NENA 9–1–1 Statistics. 

12National 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. 

14National 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. 

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 IPenabled 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

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

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. 

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

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 38053 

15An 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. 

16NASNA at 1, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0016. 

17APCO at 5, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0010. 

18See 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. 

19Cortez. 

20See 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. 

21APCO at 2. 

22 Id. at 3. 

23 Id. 

24See 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(1)(B). 

25 DC OUC, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0005. 

26See 47 U.S.C. 942(e)(8). 

27NASNA at 1. 

contemplated by the NG911 

Advancement Act. 

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

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. 

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.’’ 

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

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. 

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. 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
38054 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

28APCO at 2. 

29See 47 U.S.C. 942(e)(5). 

30NPRM, 82 FR 44131, 44135. 

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=NHTSA2017-0088-0002. 

32CO PUC at 2, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0012. 

33 Id. at 1–2. 

34 Id. at 1. 

35 Id. 36NASNA at 1–2. 37 47 CFR 400.4(a)(1)(iii)(A). 38 Id. at § 400.4(b)(5). 39CO PUC at 2. 40Chicago OEMC, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0013. 

41See 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. 

42See Motorola at 4–5. 

43See CO PUC at 3; NASNA at 2; TX CSEC at 2, 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=NTIA2017-0002-0011; Anonymous Comment One. 

44NASNA at 2. 

45 Id. 

46 Id. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

NASNA expressed support for a twostep 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

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 38055 

47CO PUC at 3. 

48TX CSEC at 2–3. 

49 Id. 

50 Id. at 2. 

51 Id. at 2–3. 

52See Anonymous Comment One. 

53See DC OUC. 

54MO DPS. 

55Title XXIII, section 2303, Aug. 3, 2007. 

56TX CSEC at 3. 

57 Id. at 3–4. 

58APCO at 4. 

59 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(2). 

60See Lara Wood, https://www.regulations.gov/ 

document?D=NTIA-2017-0002-0004. 

61APCO at 1. 

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. 

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. 

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 onestep 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
38056 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

62 Id. 

63See MO DPS. 

64Anonymous Comment One. 

65NASNA at 2. 

66See DC OUC, Chicago OEMC. 

67CO PUC at 4. 

68 Id. 

69CO PUC at 5–6. 

70 Id. 

71See Anonymous Comment Two, https://

www.regulations.gov/document?D=NHTSA-2017- 

0088-0005. 

72 Id. 

73See CO PUC at 5, Anonymous Comment One. 

74See CO PUC at 5. 

75See APCO at 3, CO PUC at 6–7. 

76APCO at 3. 

77See DC OUC, MO DPS. 

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. 

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

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 38057 

78See NENA at 2. 

79 Id. 

80NSGIC at 1–2. 

81CO PUC at 7. 

82Carbyne. 

83NSGIC at 1. 

84 Id. at 2. 

85CO PUC at 6. 

86 47 CFR 400.7(b). 

87NENA at 1–2. 

88See 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). 

89See APCO at 4, Motorola at 4. 

90APCO at 4, Motorola at 4. 

91CO PUC at 7. 

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. 

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 i3-based 

deployments, relying on the NENA i3

standard laid out in ‘‘Detailed 

Functional and Interface Specifications 

for the NENA i3 Solution.’’ 79 Similarly, 

NSGIC commented that the Agencies 

should more explicitly require 

applicants to follow NENA’s i3 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 i3 standard. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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 ‘‘IPenabled 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. 

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, multijurisdictional 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. 

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

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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
38058 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

92See id. at 8. 

93 Id. at 7. 

94See 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. 

95See APCO at 4, CO PUC at 8. 

96APCO at 4. 

97MO DPS. 

98 DC OUC. 

99CO PUC at 8. 

100APCO 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). 

102See Daniel Ramirez. 

103See CO PUC at 9. 

104See APCO at 4. 

105See id. 

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. 

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. 

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’ selfassessments 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. 

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. 

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. 

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. 

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

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, 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 38059 

we decline to make a change to the 

regulation in response to this comment. 

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. § 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 previouslyapproved Standard Forms 424 

(Application for Federal Assistance), 

424A (Budget Information for NonConstruction 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). 

■ In consideration of the foregoing, the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration, 

Department of Commerce, and the 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
38060 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

§ 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). 

§ 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 § 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 IPenabled 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. 

§ 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 

§ 400.2. 

§ 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— 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 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 § 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 nonFederal 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 § 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 § 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
38062 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

§ 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 § 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. 

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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. 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 38063 

§ 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 § 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 § 400.10(b)(1). 

§ 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. 

§ 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. 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
38064 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER03AU18.003</GPH>

Appendix A To Part 400-

Initial Certification For 911 Grant Applicants- States 

(To be submitted as part of the initial application) 

I. On behalf of [State/Territory], I, [print name], hereby certify that: 

(check only one box below) 

o [State or Territory] has established by law or regulation [name of911 office/coordinator] 

with the authority to manage 911 services in the State, and I am its representative. See 

[citation to State law or rule]. [Name of 911 office/coordinator] will serve as the 

designated 911 Coordinator. 

o [State or Territory] does not have an office or coordinator with the authority to manage 

911 services, and the Governor of [State or Territory] has designated 

(check only one circle below) 

o me as the State's single officer to serve as the 911 Coordinator of 911 services 

implementation; or 

o [governmental body] as the State's single governmental body, to serve as the 911 

Coordinator of911 services implementation, and I am its representative. 

(check all boxes below) 

o The State has coordinated the application with local governments, Tribal Organizations 

and PSAPs within the State. 

o The State has established a State 911 Plan, consistent with the implementing regulations, 

for the coordination and implementation of911 services, E-911 services, and Next 

Generation 911 services. 

o The State will ensure that at least 90 percent of the grant funds are used for the direct 

benefit of PSAPs. 

o The State has integrated telecommunications services involved in the implementation and 

delivery of911 services, E-911 services, and Next Generation 911 services. 

II. I further certify that the State has not diverted and will not divert 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 from the time period 180 days preceding the date of the 

application and continuing through the time period during which grant funds are available. 

I further certify that no taxing jurisdiction in the State that will receive 911 grant funds has 

diverted any portion ofthe designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes 

for which such charges are designated or presented from the time period 180 days 

preceding the date of the application. 
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 38065 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER03AU18.004</GPH>

I further certify that the State will ensure that each taxing jurisdiction in the State that 

receives 911 grant funds does not divert any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by 

the taxing jurisdiction for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are 

designated during the time period which grant funds are available. 

I agree that, as a condition of receipt of the grant, the State will return all grant funds if the 

State obligates or expends, at any time for the full duration of this grant, designated 911 

charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or 

presented, eliminates such charges, or redesignates such charges for purposes other than the 

implementation or operation of911 services, E-911 services, or Next Generation 911 

services, and that if a taxing jurisdiction in the State that receives 911 grant funds diverts 

any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction for any purpose 

other than the purposes for which such charges are designated during the time period which 

grant funds are available, the State will ensure that 911 grant funds distributed to that 

taxing jurisdiction are returned. 

III. I further certify that the State will comply with all applicable laws and regulations and 

financial and programmatic requirements for Federal grants. 

Signature of State 911 Coordinator 

(or representative of single governmental body) 

Title 

Date 
38066 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER03AU18.005</GPH>

Appendix B To Part 400 -

Initial Certification For 911 Grant Applicants -Tribal Organizations 

(To be submitted as part of the initial application) 

I. On behalf of [Tribal Organization], I, fprint name], hereby certify that: 

(check all boxes below) 

o The Tribal Organization has coordinated the application with PSAPs within its 

jurisdiction. 

o The Tribal Organization has established a 911 Plan, consistent with the implementing 

regulations, for the coordination and implementation of911 services, E-911 services, and 

Next Generation 911 services. 

o The Tribal Organization will ensure that at least 90 percent of the grant funds are used for 

the direct benefit of PSAPs. 

o The Tribal Organization has integrated telecommunications services involved in the 

implementation and delivery of911 services, E-911 services, and Next Generation 911 

services. 

II. I further certify that the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the Tribal 

Organization is located has not diverted and will not divert any portion of designated 911 

charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the Tribal 

Organization is located for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges 

are designated or presented from the time period 180 days preceding the date of the 

application and continuing through the time period during which grant funds are 

available. 

III. I agree that, as a condition of receipt of the grant, the Tribal Organization will return all 

grant funds if the taxing jurisdiction (or jurisdictions) within which the Tribal 

Organization is located obligates or expends, at any time for the full duration of this 

grant, designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for which such 

charges are designated or presented, eliminates such charges, or redesignates such 

charges for purposes other than the implementation or operation of911 services, E-911 

services, or Next Generation 911 services. 

IV. I further certify that the Tribal Organization will comply with all applicable laws and 

regulations and financial and programmatic requirements for Federal grants. 
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 38067 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER03AU18.006</GPH>

V. The single State officer or government body serving as the 911 Coordinator of 

implementation of911 services in each State in which the Tribal Organization is located 

IS ________________________________________________ __ 

Signature of Responsible Official 

Title 

Date 
38068 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER03AU18.007</GPH>

Appendix C To Part 400-

Annual Certification For 911 Grant Recipients- States 

(To be submitted annually after grant award while grant funds are available) 

On behalf of [State/Territory], I, [print name], hereby certify that 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 from the time period 180 days preceding the 

date of the application and continuing throughout the time period during which grant funds are 

available. 

I further certify that no taxing jurisdiction in the State that will receive 911 grant funds has 

diverted any portion ofthe designated 911 charges for any purpose other than the purposes for 

which such charges are designated or presented from the time period 180 days preceding the date 

of the application. 

I further certify that the State will ensure that each taxing jurisdiction in the State that receives 

911 grant funds does not divert any portion of designated 911 charges imposed by the taxing 

jurisdiction for any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated during 

the time period which grant funds are available. 

I agree that, as a condition of receipt of the grant, the State will return all grant funds if the State 

obligates or expends, at any time for the full duration ofthis grant, designated 911 charges for 

any purpose other than the purposes for which such charges are designated or presented, 

eliminates such charges, or redesignates such charges for purposes other than the implementation 

or operation of 911 services, E-911 services, or Next Generation 911 services, and that if a 

taxing jurisdiction in the State that receives 911 grant funds diverts any portion of designated 

911 charges imposed by the taxing jurisdiction for any purpose other than the purposes for which 

such charges are designated during the time period which grant funds are available, the State will 

ensure that 911 grant funds distributed to that taxing jurisdiction are returned. 

Signature of State 911 Coordinator 

(or representative of single governmental body) 

Title 

Date 
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 150 / Friday, August 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 38069 

[FR Doc. 2018–16567 Filed 8–2–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–60–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 170831849–8404–01] 

RIN 0648–XG337 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Modifications of the West Coast 

Commercial Salmon Fisheries; 

Inseason Actions #2 through #11 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Modification of fishing seasons. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces ten 

inseason actions in the ocean salmon 

fisheries. These inseason actions 

modified the commercial salmon 

fisheries in the area from the U.S./ 

Canada border to the U.S./Mexico 

border. 

DATES: The effective dates for the 

inseason actions are set out in this 

document under the heading Inseason 

Actions. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peggy Mundy at 206–526–4323. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULESER03AU18.008</GPH>