Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57567 

3. Amend § 8360.0–5 by revising 

paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 8360.0–5 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(c) Developed recreation sites and 

areas mean sites and areas that contain 

structures or capital improvements 

primarily used by the public for 

recreation purposes. Such sites or areas 

may include such features as: 

Delineated spaces for parking, camping 

or boat launching; sanitary facilities; 

potable water; grills or fire rings; tables; 

or controlled access. 

* * * * * 

4. Revise § 8365.1–5(b)(2) to read as 

follows: 

§ 8365.1–5 Property and resources. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) Nonrenewable resources such as 

mineral specimens, common 

invertebrate and plant fossils, and 

semiprecious gemstones; 

* * * * * 

5. Revise § 8365.2–3 to read as 

follows: 

§ 8365.2–3 Occupancy and use. 

In developed camping and picnicking 

areas, no person shall, unless otherwise 

authorized: 

(a) Pitch any tent, park any trailer, 

erect any shelter or place any other 

camping equipment in any area other 

than the place designed for it within a 

designated campsite; 

(b) Leave personal property 

unattended for more than 24 hours in a 

day use area, or 72 hours in other areas. 

Personal property left unattended 

beyond such time limit is subject to 

disposition under the Federal Property 

and Administration Services Act of 

1949, as amended (40 U.S.C. 484(m)); 

(c) Build any fire except in a stove, 

grill, fireplace or ring provided for such 

purpose; 

(d) Enter or remain in campgrounds 

closed during established night periods 

except as an occupant or while visiting 

persons occupying the campgrounds for 

camping purposes; 

(e) Occupy a site with more people 

than permitted within the developed 

campsite; or 

(f) Move any table, stove, barrier, litter 

receptacle or other campground 

equipment. 

[FR Doc. E8–23258 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–84–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration 

47 CFR Part 400 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2008–0142] 

RIN 2127–AK37 

E–911 Grant Program 

AGENCIES: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation (DOT); 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA), 

Department of Commerce (DOC). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This joint notice proposes 

implementing regulations for the E–911 

Grant Program authorized under 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). The Act authorizes 

grants for the implementation and 

operation of Phase II enhanced 911 

services and for migration to an IPenabled emergency network. This 

NPRM proposes the application, award 

and administrative requirements for the 

E–911 grant program and seeks 

comments thereon. 

DATES: Written comments may be 

submitted to this agency and must be 

received by December 2, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by DOT Docket ID Number 

NHTSA–2008–0142 by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://wwww.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, West Building, Ground 

Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: West 

Building, Ground Floor, Room W12– 

140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

Instructions: For detailed instructions 

on submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the ‘‘Public Participation’’ heading 

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. Note that all 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided. Please 

see the ‘‘Privacy Act’’ heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic form of all comments 

received into any of our dockets by the 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or signing the comment, if 

submitted on behalf of an association, 

business, labor union, etc.). You may 

review DOT’s complete Privacy Act 

Statement in the Federal Register 

published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 

19476–78). 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov at any time or to 

West Building, Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 

5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

program issues: Mr. Drew Dawson, 

Director, Office of Emergency Medical 

Services, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., NTI–140, Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–9966. 

E-mail: Drew.Dawson@dot.gov. 

For legal issues: Ms. Jin Kim, 

Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief 

Counsel, National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., NCC–113, Washington, DC 

20590. Telephone: (202) 366–1834. 

E-mail: Jin.Kim@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of the ENHANCE 911 Act 

III. Proposed Regulations 

A. Definitions 

B. Who May Apply 

C. Application Requirements 

1. State 911 Plan 

2. Project Budget 

3. Supplemental Project Budget 

4. Designated E–911 Coordinator 

5. Certifications 

6. Due Date 

D. Approval and Award 

E. Distribution of Grant Funds 

F. Eligible Uses for Grant Funds 

G. Non-Compliance 

H. Financial and Administrative 

Requirements 

I. Closeout 

IV. Public Participation 

V. Statutory Basis for This Action 

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
57568 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. National Environmental Policy Act 

H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribes) 

I. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

J. Privacy Act 

I. Background 

Trends in telecommunications 

mobility and convergence have put the 

nation’s 911 system at a crossroads. The 

growing market penetration of both 

wireless telephones (commonly known 

as mobile or cell phones) and Voice over 

Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephony have 

underscored the limitations of the 

current 911 infrastructure. The 911 

system, based on decades-old 

technology, cannot handle the text, data, 

image and video that are increasingly 

common in personal communications 

and critical to emergency response. 

Many of the limitations of the current 

911 system stem from its foundation on 

1970s circuit-switched network 

technology. Each introduction of a new 

access technology (e.g., wireless) or 

expansion of system functions (e.g., 

location determination) requires 

significant engineering and system 

modifications. There appears to be 

consensus within the 911 community 

on the shortcomings of the present 911 

system and the need for a new, more 

capable system, based upon a digital, 

Internet-Protocol (IP) based 

infrastructure. 

Today, there are approximately 255 

million wireless telephones in use in 

the United States. About 80 percent of 

Americans now subscribe to wireless 

telephone service and 14 percent of 

American adults live in households 

with only wireless telephones, i.e., no 

landline telephones. Of the estimated 

240 million 911 calls made each year, 

approximately one-third originate from 

wireless telephones. In many 

communities, at least half of the 911 

calls come from wireless telephones. 

Unlike landline 911 calls, not all 

wireless 911 calls are delivered to 

dispatchers with Automatic Number 

Information (ANI) and Automatic 

Location Information (ALI), two pieces 

of information that aid in identifying the 

telephone number and geographic 

location of the caller. The increasing use 

of VoIP communications has 

compounded this problem because the 

location of the caller cannot 

automatically be determined when a 

911 call is made on some 

interconnected VoIP services. Without 

this information, emergency response 

times may be delayed. Prompt and 

accurate location information is critical 

to delivering emergency assistance. 

Ensuring enhanced 911 (E–911) service 

for each caller, i.e., telephone number 

and location information of the caller, is 

increasingly important to public safety, 

given the vast number of 911 calls 

originating from wireless and VoIP 

telephones. 

Successful E–911 service 

implementation requires the 

cooperation of multiple distinct entities: 

Wireless carriers, wireline telephone 

companies (also known as local 

exchange carriers), VoIP providers, and 

Public Safety Answering Points 

(PSAPs). A PSAP is a facility that has 

been designated to receive emergency 

calls and route them to emergency 

personnel. For example, when a 911 call 

is made from a wireless telephone, the 

wireless carrier must be able to 

determine the location of the caller, the 

local exchange carrier must transmit 

that location information from the 

wireless carrier to the PSAP, and the 

PSAP must be capable of receiving such 

information. 

Currently, many PSAPs are not 

technologically capable of receiving ANI 

and ALI from wireless 911 calls. In 

order to receive this information, PSAPs 

must upgrade their operations centers 

and make appropriate trunking 

arrangements (i.e., establish a wired 

connection between the PSAP and the 

networks of the local wireline telephone 

companies) to enable wireless E–911 

data to pass from the wireless carrier to 

the PSAP. Once a PSAP is 

technologically capable of receiving this 

information, the PSAP can submit 

requests to wireless carriers for E–911 

service. Under regulations of the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC), 

this request triggers a wireless carrier’s 

obligation to deploy E–911 service to a 

PSAP. 

Upgrading the 911 system to an IPenabled emergency network will enable 

E–911 calls from more networked 

communication devices, enable the 

transmission of text messages, 

photographs, data sets and video, enable 

geographically independent call access, 

transfer, and backup among and 

between PSAPs and other authorized 

emergency organizations, and support 

an ‘‘interoperable internetwork’’ of all 

emergency organizations. 

Many PSAPs do not have the 

resources to make the upgrades 

necessary to request E–911 service. 

Some PSAPs are able to fund upgrades 

from their existing budgets, but other 

PSAPs must rely on funds collected by 

the State to maintain operation and 

make capital improvements to 911 

services. While most States collect some 

type of wireless fee or surcharge on 

consumers’ wireless telephone bills to 

help fund PSAP operations and 

upgrades, not all State laws ensure that 

such surcharges are dedicated to their 

intended use. In fact, some States have 

used E–911 surcharges to satisfy other 

State obligations that may be marginally 

related to public safety, even though 

PSAPs remain unable to receive E–911 

service. See, e.g., Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), States’ 

Collection and Use of Funds for 

Wireless Enhanced 911 Services, GAO– 

06–338 (March 2006); see also GAO, 

Survey on State Wireless E911 Funds, 

GAO–06–400sp (2006). 

Recognizing the need for dedicated 

funding of E–911 services, the 

ENHANCE 911 Act was enacted ‘‘to 

improve, enhance, and promote the 

Nation’s homeland security, public 

safety, and citizen activated emergency 

response capabilities through the use of 

enhanced 911 services, to further 

upgrade Public Safety Answering Point 

capabilities and related functions in 

receiving E–911 calls, and to support 

the construction and operation of a 

ubiquitous and reliable citizen activated 

system[.]’’ The Act directs NHTSA and 

NTIA to establish a joint program to 

facilitate coordination and 

communications among stakeholders 

and to provide grants for the 

implementation and operation of E–911 

services. The provisions of the Act 

expire on October 1, 2009. 47 U.S.C. 

942(f)(2). 

Section 3011 of the Deficit Reduction 

Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109–171) 

authorized $43.5 million to NTIA for the 

implementation of the ENHANCE 911 

Act, to be derived from the proceeds of 

an auction of analog television 

spectrum. Thereafter, the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110– 

53), as amended by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008 (Pub. L. 110– 

161), authorized NTIA to borrow up to 

$43.5 million in advance of the 

spectrum auction and directed the 

agencies to allow a portion of the funds 

to be used to give priority to grants that 

are requested by PSAPs that are not 

capable of receiving 911 calls for the 

incremental costs of upgrading from 

Phase I to Phase II compliance. The New 

and Emergency Technologies 911 

Improvement Act of 2008 (NET 911 

Improvement Act) (Pub. L. 110–283) 

recently amended the Act to permit 

grant funds to be used for migration to 

an IP-enabled emergency network. 

The agencies are now issuing this 

NPRM to implement the grant program. 

II. Summary of the ENHANCE 911 Act 

The ENHANCE 911 Act requires 

NHTSA and NTIA to ‘‘establish a joint 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57569 

program to facilitate coordination and 

communication between Federal, State, 

and local emergency communications 

systems, emergency personnel, public 

safety organizations, 

telecommunications carriers, and 

telecommunications equipment 

manufacturers and vendors involved in 

the implementation of E–911 services’’ 

and ‘‘create an E–911 Implementation 

Coordination Office [ICO] * * *.’’ 47 

U.S.C. 942(a)(1). The Act charges the 

ICO with three tasks related to E–911 

grant program administration. 

Specifically, the Act requires the ICO to: 

(1) Advise and assist eligible entities in 

the preparation of plans required under 

the Act for the coordination and 

implementation of E–911 services; (2) 

receive and review grant applications 

and recommend approval or 

disapproval; and (3) oversee the use of 

grant funds in fulfilling implementation 

plans. 47 U.S.C. 942(a)(3). The agencies 

have centralized the grant-related 

administrative functions of the ICO 

within NHTSA. 

The Act directs NHTSA and NTIA, 

acting through the ICO and after 

consultation with the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Federal 

Communications Commission, to 

provide grants to eligible entities for the 

implementation and operation of Phase 

II E–911 services, as defined by FCC 

regulations. 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(1). (Phase 

II E–911 service refers to providing 

PSAPs with the location of all 911 calls 

by latitude and longitude within 50 to 

300 meters depending on the type of 

technology used. See 47 CFR 20.18.) 

The Act was amended by the NET 911 

Improvement Act to permit grant funds 

to be used for migration to an IP-enabled 

emergency network. 

The Act directs the agencies to issue 

joint implementing regulations 

prescribing the criteria for selection for 

grant awards after a 60-day public 

comment period. 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(4). 

The Act requires an applicant to certify 

that it has coordinated its application 

with the public safety answering points 

located within the jurisdiction; that the 

State has designated a single officer or 

governmental body to serve as the 

coordinator of implementation of E–911 

services; that it has established a plan 

for the coordination and 

implementation of E–911 services; and 

that it has integrated 

telecommunications services involved 

in the implementation and delivery of 

Phase II E–911 services. 47 U.S.C. 

942(b)(3). 

In addition, the Act requires each 

applicant to certify that no portion of 

any designated E–911 charges imposed 

by the State or other taxing jurisdiction 

within the State is being or will be 

obligated or expended for any purpose 

other than E–911 purposes during the 

period at least 180 days immediately 

preceding the date of the application 

and continuing throughout the time 

grant funds are available to the 

applicant. 47 U.S.C. 942(c). The Act 

imposes a penalty for providing false 

information on a certification. 

Specifically, an applicant providing 

false information on a certification will 

not be eligible to receive an E–911 grant, 

must return any grant awarded during 

the time that the certification is not 

valid, and is ineligible to receive 

subsequent E–911 grants. 47 U.S.C. 

942(c)(4). 

III. Proposed Regulations 

As directed by the ENHANCE 911 

Act, today’s notice sets forth 

application, award and administrative 

procedures to implement the E–911 

grant program. 

A. Definitions (47 CFR 400.2) 

Generally, terms used in this part are 

terms defined by the ENHANCE 911 

Act. The NET 911 Improvement Act, 

which amended the ENHANCE 911 Act 

to allow grant funds to be used for 

migration to an ‘‘IP-enabled emergency 

network,’’ does not define that term. IP, 

or Internet Protocol, is one method or 

protocol by which data is sent from one 

computer to another. See RFC 791, 

‘‘Internet Protocol, DARPA Internet 

Program Protocol Specification’’ (Sept. 

1981), available at http://rfc.net/ 

rfc0791.html; see also STD 5 ‘‘Internet 

Protocol, DARPA Internet Program 

Protocol Specification’’ (Sept. 1981), 

available at http://rfc.net/std0005.html. 

Because the agencies believe that such 

emergency communications should be 

transmitted securely, the agencies 

propose defining ‘‘IP-enabled 

emergency network’’ as an emergency 

communications network based on an 

infrastructure allowing secured 

transmission of data among computers 

that use the Internet Protocol. 

B. Who May Apply (47 CFR 400.3) 

The ENHANCE 911 Act directs 

NHTSA and NTIA to make grants to 

‘‘eligible entities’’ for the 

implementation and operation of Phase 

II E–911 services. 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(1). 

The Act defines an eligible entity as ‘‘a 

State or local government or a tribal 

organization’’ and includes ‘‘public 

authorities, boards, commissions, and 

similar bodies created by [a State or 

local government or a tribal 

organization] to provide E–911 

services.’’ 47 U.S.C. 942(f)(3)(A), (B). 

Based on this broad statutory definition, 

the agencies estimate that such entities 

number in the thousands. To minimize 

administrative costs and to streamline 

the grant process, the agencies propose 

to permit only States to apply for grant 

funds on behalf of all eligible entities 

located within their borders. We believe 

that this limitation on the number and 

identity of applicants is also necessary 

to properly address the certification 

requirements under the Act, as States 

are the only eligible entities capable of 

certifying that their E–911 charges were 

not diverted to other uses and capable 

of designating a single officer or 

governmental body to serve as the 

coordinator of implementation of E–911 

services. For purposes of this program, 

a State includes any of the 50 United 

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

The agencies also believe that the 

amount of available grant funds 

supports limiting the applicant pool to 

States. While the Act authorizes a fiveyear grant program totaling $1.25 billion 

($250 million per year), the amount 

appropriated, on a one-time basis, was 

only $43.5 million. The agencies believe 

that $43.5 million would not have a 

meaningful impact on E–911 services if 

the funds were divided into small grants 

among a large number of grantees. 

Therefore, we believe that limiting the 

applicant pool is necessary to ensure 

that benefits are realized, and that States 

are best positioned to make wise 

resource deployment decisions within 

their borders. 

The agencies propose to require 

assurances from States in their 

applications to ensure adequate 

participation by local governments, 

tribal organizations, and PSAPs, 

consistent with the Act. Specifically, the 

State would be required to coordinate 

its application with PSAPs and to 

ensure that 90 percent of the grant funds 

would be used for the direct benefit of 

PSAPs. In addition, consistent with the 

statute, the proposed regulation would 

require States to identify the amount 

designated for the benefit of PSAPs 

without the capability to receive 911 

calls or provide an explanation as to 

why such designation is not practicable. 

C. Application Requirements (47 CFR 

400.4) 

The proposed rule outlines the 

requirements for States to apply for a 

grant under this program. In order to 

qualify to receive an E–911 grant, the 

agencies propose that States must 

submit an application containing the 

following components: a State 911 plan, 

a project budget, a supplementary 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
57570 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

project budget, designation of the State 

E–911 Coordinator, and a certification of 

compliance with statutory and 

programmatic requirements. These 

components are consistent with the 

application requirements of the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements to State 

and Local Governments. See 49 CFR 

18.10; Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A–102. 

1. State 911 Plan (47 CFR 400.4(a)(1)) 

The ENHANCE 911 Act requires 

applicants to certify that they have 

established a plan for the coordination 

and implementation of E–911 services. 

The agencies propose that States would 

submit a State 911 Plan as part of their 

application for a grant. As further 

detailed below, the minimum 

components of a State 911 plan would 

incorporate the statutory provisions 

related to coordination with PSAPs 

within the State’s jurisdiction, giving 

priority to communities without 911 

capability, and the involvement of 

integrated telecommunications service 

providers in the implementation and 

delivery of Phase II E–911 services or in 

the migration to an IP-enabled 

emergency network. In addition, a State 

911 Plan would be required to provide 

details about how the State intends to 

employ technology to achieve 

compliance with the FCC description of 

Phase II E–911 services and/or how it 

intends to migrate to an IP-enabled 

emergency network. 

The Act requires applicants to 

coordinate their applications with 

PSAPs within their jurisdiction. To 

address this requirement, the agencies 

propose that States would detail in the 

State 911 Plan the steps they have taken 

to coordinate their applications with 

local governments, tribal organizations, 

and PSAPs within their borders. We 

believe that requiring States to 

coordinate their applications with these 

entities will ensure that the State 911 

Plan takes into account the needs of 

these stakeholders. To ensure that grant 

funds are used predominantly where 

their impact is most significant—in the 

communities—the agencies propose 

requiring States to demonstrate in the 

State 911 Plan that at least 90 percent 

of the grant funds will be used for the 

direct benefit of PSAPs. 

The Act directs the agencies to allow 

a portion of the E–911 grant funds to be 

used to give priority to PSAPs that were 

not capable of receiving 911 as of 

August 3, 2007. 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(4). To 

effectuate this provision, the agencies 

propose that States would identify in 

their application the percentage of grant 

funds that will be designated for those 

communities. The agencies are stopping 

short of proposing this as an absolute 

requirement, however. Based on the 

amount of grant funds available, we 

recognize that such a designation may 

not always be practicable for efficient 

use of the limited funds. Therefore, if 

the State chooses not to so designate a 

portion of the funds, the State would be 

required to provide an explanation. The 

agencies believe that the States are best 

situated to make these difficult resource 

decisions. 

The proposed regulation also would 

require that the State 911 plan describe 

how the State has integrated 

telecommunications service providers 

involved in the implementation and 

delivery of Phase II E–911 services and 

in the migration to an IP-enabled 

emergency network. 47 U.S.C. 

942(b)(3)(A)(iv). The term ‘‘integrated 

telecommunications service providers’’ 

refers to local exchange carriers, 

wireless carriers and Internet Protocol 

(IP)-enabled voice service providers. It 

is necessary to detail how integrated 

telecommunications service providers 

are involved in the State 911 Plan 

because they provide essential network 

functions for consumer delivery of E– 

911 services. 

The agencies also propose that States 

describe in the State 911 Plan how they 

plan to use technology to allow a PSAP 

to meet the functionality required by the 

FCC’s description of Phase II E–911 

services or to migrate to an IP-enabled 

emergency network. Such an approach 

is consistent with the Act’s citation to 

47 CFR 20.18 of the FCC’s regulations 

for the meaning of Phase II E–911 

services. 47 U.S.C. 942(f)(5). According 

to 47 CFR 20.18, Phase II E–911 services 

are described as location information of 

all 911 calls by longitude and latitude 

with a specific degree of accuracy. For 

States interested in using grant funds to 

migrate to an IP-enabled emergency 

network, the agencies propose that 

States provide details about how the 

State intends to employ technology 

toward that end. 

Finally, because the level of Phase II 

E–911 services and IP-enabled 

emergency networks differs significantly 

from State to State, the agencies propose 

that States establish performance 

metrics and timelines for grant project 

implementation, subject to the ICO’s 

review and the agencies’ approval. 

2. Project Budget (47 CFR 400.4(a)(2); 

Appendix A) 

The agencies propose that a State 

would submit a project budget for the 

projects and activities that it seeks to 

fund with E–911 grant funds and the 

required State matching funds. See 49 

CFR 18.10; OMB Circular A–102. 

Elsewhere in this notice, the agencies 

propose to distribute grant funds based 

on a formula. See discussion under 

Section III.E., below. Based on that 

proposed formula, we have identified in 

an appendix to this part the minimum 

award each State would receive if all 

States qualified for a grant. A State’s 

project budget would need to account 

for all funds (those identified in 

Appendix A for the State and State 

matching funds) in describing the 

projects or activities for which it seeks 

funding, and describe the non-Federal 

sources that will fund 50 percent of the 

cost. The non-Federal sources must be 

consistent with the requirements set out 

in the matching provision of 49 CFR 

part 18, DOT’s implementation of the 

government-wide common grant rule for 

State and local governments. As 

provided in 48 U.S.C. 1469a, the 

requirement for non-Federal matching 

funds under $200,000 (including inkind contributions) is waived for the 

Territorial governments in American 

Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. 

3. Supplemental Project Budget (47 CFR 

400.4(a)(3)) 

It is possible that some States may 

choose not to apply or may not qualify 

for an E–911 grant because they are 

unable to make the required 

certifications. To address these 

contingencies, the agencies propose to 

distribute all remaining available funds 

to the pool of qualifying grant 

recipients, in accordance with the same 

formula used for the initial distribution. 

See discussion under Section III.E., 

below. In order to expedite the award of 

these grant funds, the agencies propose 

that States would include a 

supplemental project budget in 

anticipation of the potential availability 

of additional grant funds. Specifically, 

the agencies propose that States identify 

in their supplemental project budget the 

maximum amount that the State would 

be able to match from non-Federal 

sources and include proposed projects 

or activities for those grant and 

matching funds, up to the same total 

amount and to the same level of detail 

as required for the project budget under 

proposed § 400.4(a)(2). The agencies 

propose that the supplemental project 

budget meet the same requirements 

identified for the project budget in 

§ 400.4(a)(2) and be consistent with the 

State 911 Plan in § 400.4(a)(1). 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57571 

4. Designated E–911 Coordinator (47 

CFR 400.4(a)(4); Appendix B; Appendix 

C) 

The Act requires States to designate a 

single officer or governmental body to 

serve as the coordinator of 

implementation of E–911 services. 47 

U.S.C. 942(b)(3)(A)(ii). To implement 

this provision, the agencies propose that 

this officer or governmental body would 

be designated by the Governor, and that 

the State would document the 

designation of the E–911 Coordinator by 

the Governor through the use of a 

certification. See discussion under the 

next heading. We are identifying the E– 

911 Coordinator as the proposed 

certifying official on the certifications. 

In the event that a governmental body 

is designated as the State’s E–911 

Coordinator, the agencies propose that 

States affirmatively identify an official 

representative of the governmental body 

to serve as the certifying official on the 

certifications. The agencies also propose 

that the State notify NHTSA in writing 

within 30 days of a change in 

appointment of the E–911 Coordinator. 

The E–911 Coordinator would act as the 

liaison between the agencies and the 

State. 

5. Certifications (47 CFR 400.4(a)(5); 

Appendix B; Appendix C) 

The Act requires applicants to certify 

that they meet certain conditions to 

qualify for a grant. An applicant must 

certify that it has: (1) Coordinated its 

application with the PSAPs located 

within the jurisdiction; (2) designated a 

single officer or government body to 

serve as the E–911 Coordinator; (3) 

established a plan for the coordination 

and implementation of E–911 services; 

and (4) integrated telecommunications 

involved in the implementation and 

delivery of Phase II E–911 services. 47 

U.S.C. 942(b)(3). The Act also requires 

that applicants certify at the time of 

application and annually thereafter that 

no portion of any designated E–911 

charges imposed by the State or other 

taxing jurisdiction within the State is 

being diverted for any other purpose 

during the period at least 180 days 

before the application date and 

continuing throughout the period of 

time for which grant funds are available. 

47 U.S.C. 942(c). To meet these statutory 

requirements, the agencies propose that 

States submit a certification as part of 

their application. To meet the statutory 

requirement for annual certification 

concerning the diversion of funds, the 

agencies propose that States submit an 

annual certification 30 days after the 

end of each fiscal year. (In this annual 

certification, States would also certify 

that they have appointed a single officer 

or governmental body as the E–911 

Coordinator.) 

The agencies also propose that States 

would certify that they have 

coordinated their application with local 

governments, tribal organizations, and 

PSAPs, and certify that at least 90 

percent of the grant funds will be used 

for the direct benefit of PSAPs. While 

these certifications go beyond those 

required by the statute, we believe they 

will help to ensure that the intent and 

purposes of the Act are met. Finally, as 

discussed under the previous heading, 

the agencies propose that States would 

certify that the Governor has appointed 

a single officer or governmental body to 

serve as the E–911 Coordinator. The 

agencies have set forth the proposed 

certifications in appendices to the 

NPRM. 

6. Due Date (47 CFR 400.4(b)) 

The agencies’ proposal establishes an 

application due date of 60 days after 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. This proposed date 

balances the need to provide the States 

appropriate time to prepare proposals 

with the agencies’ need for review time 

prior to award, taking into account that 

awards must be made by September 30, 

2009. 

D. Approval and Award (47 CFR 400.5) 

The Act established the ICO to 

receive, review and recommend the 

approval or disapproval of applications 

for grants. 47 U.S.C. 942(a)(3)(D). The 

agencies’ proposal incorporates this 

statutory requirement, and would allow 

the ICO, upon review of a State’s 

application, to request additional 

information from the State prior to 

making a determination of award in 

order to clarify compliance with the 

statutory and programmatic 

requirements. As provided by statute, 

the Administrator of NHTSA and the 

Assistant Secretary for Communications 

and Information of the Department of 

Commerce will jointly approve and 

announce grant award recipients. The 

proposal specifies that this approval 

will be in writing. 

E. Distribution of Grant Funds (47 CFR 

400.6; Appendix A) 

The ENHANCE 911 Act does not 

specify how the grants are to be 

awarded. In order to distribute grant 

funds on an equitable and 

administratively expedient basis for this 

one-time grant program, the agencies 

propose to distribute grants to States in 

accordance with a formula. Specifically, 

the agencies propose to distribute grant 

funds as follows: (1) 50 percent in the 

ratio which the population of each State 

bears to the total population of all the 

States, as shown by the latest available 

Federal census, and (2) 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. 

However, we believe that a strict 

application of the formula would result 

in many jurisdictions receiving too few 

funds to make any meaningful progress 

in deploying Phase II technologies or 

migrating to an IP-based emergency 

network. Accordingly, the agencies 

propose to modify the formula to 

distribute a minimum of $500,000 to 

each State, except that the four 

territories—American Samoa, Guam, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the 

Virgin Islands—would each receive a 

minimum of $250,000. The agencies 

believe that a lower minimum amount 

for these four territories is equitable and 

appropriate due to their vastly lower 

populations and road miles. The 

agencies have applied the formula to the 

total grant funds available ($41,325,000, 

after deduction of the five percent for 

administering the grant program) and 

calculated the minimum amounts that 

each State would receive if all States 

applied for and qualified for a grant 

award. See Appendix A to this part. 

As discussed under Section III.C.3, it 

is possible that some States may not 

apply for grant funds or may not qualify 

for grant funds because they cannot 

make the required certifications. To 

address this possibility, the agencies 

propose to redistribute any remaining 

grant funds to those States that have 

qualified for grant funds and have 

submitted supplemental project budgets 

as described in proposed § 400.4(a)(3). 

The agencies propose to distribute these 

funds in accordance with the same 

formula discussed above. 

F. Eligible Uses for Grant Funds (47 CFR 

400.7) 

The ENHANCE 911 Act provides that 

the grants are intended for the 

implementation and operation of Phase 

II E–911 services or for migration to an 

IP-enabled emergency network. To 

implement this requirement, the 

agencies propose that grant funds and 

matching funds be used either for the 

acquisition and deployment of hardware 

and software that enables compliance 

with Phase II E–911 services or that 

enables migration to an IP-enabled 

emergency network, or for training in 

the use of such hardware and software. 

The agencies believe that limiting grant 

funds to these identified uses will 

maximize progress toward 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
57572 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

implementing Phase II E–911 services 

and IP-enabled 911 services, and would 

best effectuate the purposes of the Act. 

G. Non-Compliance (47 CFR 400.8) 

The Act requires that grant funds be 

returned to the government if a State 

makes a false certification concerning 

the diversion of E–911 charges. 47 

U.S.C. 942(c)(4). The proposal 

incorporates this statutory requirement. 

H. Financial and Administrative 

Requirements (47 CFR 400.9) 

The agencies’ proposal specifies that 

the requirements of 49 CFR part 18, 

DOT’s implementation of the 

government-wide common grant rule for 

State and local governments, including 

applicable cost principles in circulars of 

the Office of Management and Budget, 

will apply to E–911 grants. In addition, 

the agencies propose that grant 

recipients submit annual performance 

reports and quarterly financial reports, 

following the procedures of 49 CFR 

18.40 and 18.41, respectively. 

I. Closeout (47 CFR 400.10) 

The Act provides that enhanced 911 

is a national priority. To effectuate the 

Act’s intent, the agencies believe that 

the States should use grant funds in an 

expeditious manner to implement E– 

911 services in their communities. 

According to industry estimates, 

upgrading the average PSAP takes 

approximately three years. Accordingly, 

the agencies propose that the total 

duration of the grant program be three 

years. The agencies also propose that 

grant recipients submit a final voucher 

for costs incurred within 90 days after 

the completion of projects and activities 

funded under this part, but in no event 

later than three years after grant award. 

Finally, the proposal specifies that the 

final reporting requirements of 49 CFR 

18.50 would apply to E–911 grants, and 

that any funds remaining unexpended at 

the end of fiscal year 2012 will no 

longer be available to the State and must 

be returned to the government. 

IV. Public Participation 

A. How do I prepare and submit 

comments? 

Your comments must be written and 

in English. To ensure that your 

comments are correctly filed in the 

Docket, please include the docket 

number of this document in your 

comments. 

Your primary comments must not be 

more than 15 pages long. 49 CFR 553.21. 

However, you may attach additional 

documents to your primary comments. 

There is no limit on the length of the 

attachments. 

Please submit two copies of your 

comments, including the attachments, 

to Docket Management at the address 

given above under ADDRESSES. 

Comments may also be submitted to 

the docket electronically on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

B. How can I be sure my comments were 

received? 

If you wish Docket Management to 

notify you upon its receipt of your 

comments, enclose a self-addressed, 

stamped postcard in the envelope 

containing your comments. Upon 

receiving your comments, Docket 

Management will return the postcard by 

mail. 

C. Will the agencies consider late 

comments? 

We will consider all comments that 

Docket Management receives before the 

close of business on the comment 

closing date indicated above under 

DATES. To the extent possible, we will 

also consider comments that Docket 

Management receives after that date. 

D. How can I read the comments 

submitted by other people? 

You may read the comments received 

by the Docket Management at the 

address given under ADDRESSES. The 

hours of the Docket are indicated above 

in the same location. To read the 

comments on the Internet, go to 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for accessing the 

docket. 

Please note that even after the 

comment closing date, we will continue 

to file relevant information on the 

docket as it becomes available. Further, 

some people may submit late comments. 

Accordingly, we recommend that you 

periodically check the docket for new 

material. 

V. Statutory Basis for This Action 

The agencies’ proposal would 

implement the grant program created by 

section 104 of the ENHANCE 911 Act of 

2004, as amended (Pub. L. 108–494, 

codified at 47 U.S.C. 942), which 

requires the Administrator and the 

Assistant Secretary to issue joint 

implementing regulations prescribing 

the criteria for grant awards. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses and Notices 

A. Executive Order 12866 and 

Regulatory Policies and Procedures 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ provides for 

making determinations whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to OMB review and to 

the requirements of the Executive Order. 

58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993. The Order 

defines a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

as one that is likely to result in a rule 

that may: 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or Tribal governments or 

communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

This rulemaking document was not 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget under Executive Order 

12866. The rulemaking action is not 

considered to be significant within the 

meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 

the agencies’ regulatory policies and 

procedures. 

The agencies’ proposal would not 

affect amounts over the significance 

threshold of $100 million each year. The 

proposal sets forth application 

procedures and showings to be made to 

be eligible for a grant. The funds to be 

distributed under the procedures 

developed in the proposal total $43.5 

million, well below the annual 

threshold of $100 million. The agencies’ 

proposal would not adversely affect in 

a material way the economy, a sector of 

the economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local, or Tribal 

governments or communities. The 

agencies’ proposal would not create an 

inconsistency or interfere with any 

actions taken or planned by other 

agencies. The agencies’ proposal would 

not materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof. Finally, 

the agencies’ proposal would not raise 

novel legal or policy issues arising out 

of legal mandates, the President’s 

priorities, or the principles set forth in 

the Executive Order. 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

agencies have determined that if it is 

made final, this rulemaking action 

would not be economically significant. 

The impacts of the rule would be so 

minimal that a full regulatory evaluation 

is not required. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57573 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act, whenever an agency publishes a 

notice of rulemaking for any proposed 

or final rule, it must prepare and make 

available for public comment a 

regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effect of the rule on small 

entities (i.e., small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions). 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. The 

Small Business Administration’s 

regulations at 13 CFR part 121 define a 

small business, in part, as a business 

entity ‘‘which operates primarily within 

the United States.’’ 13 CFR 121.105(a). 

No regulatory flexibility analysis is 

required if the head of an agency 

certifies the rulemaking action would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act to require 

Federal agencies to provide a statement 

of the factual basis for certifying that an 

action would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

NHTSA and NTIA have considered 

the effects of this proposal under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. States are the 

recipients of funds awarded under the 

section 2010 program and they are not 

considered to be small entities under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Therefore, we certify that this notice of 

proposed rulemaking would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

requires NHTSA and NTIA to develop 

an accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ 64 FR 43255, Aug. 10, 

1999. ‘‘Policies that have federalism 

implications’’ are defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

the States, on the relationship between 

the national government and the States, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government.’’ Under Executive 

Order 13132, an agency may not issue 

a regulation with Federalism 

implications that imposes substantial 

direct compliance costs and that is not 

required by statute unless the Federal 

government provides the funds 

necessary to pay the direct compliance 

costs incurred by State and local 

governments or the agency consults 

with State and local governments in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. An agency also may not 

issue a regulation with Federalism 

implications that preempts a State law 

without consulting with State and local 

officials. 

The agencies have analyzed this 

rulemaking action in accordance with 

the principles and criteria set forth in 

Executive Order 13132, and have 

determined that this proposed rule 

would not have Federalism implications 

as defined in the order. 

D. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12988, 

‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ the agencies 

have considered whether this 

rulemaking would have any retroactive 

effect. 61 FR 4729, Feb. 7, 1996. This 

rulemaking action would not have any 

retroactive effect. This action meets 

applicable standards in sections 3(a) 

and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, 

Civil Justice Reform, to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information 

by a Federal agency unless the 

collection displays a valid Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number. This NPRM, if made final, 

would result in a new collection of 

information that would require OMB 

clearance pursuant to 5 CFR part 1320. 

Before an agency submits a proposed 

collection of information to OMB for 

approval, it must first publish a 

document in the Federal Register 

providing a 60-day comment period and 

otherwise consult with members of the 

public and affected agencies concerning 

each proposed collection of information. 

OMB has promulgated regulations 

describing what must be included in 

such a document. Under OMB’s 

regulation (at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)), an 

agency must ask for public comment on 

the following: 

(i) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of the functions of the 

agency, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(ii) The accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collections of information, including the 

validity of the methodology and 

assumptions used; 

(iii) How to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; 

(iv) How to minimize the burden of 

the collections of information on those 

who are to respond, including the use 

of appropriate automated, electronic, 

mechanical, or other technological 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology, e.g., permitting 

electronic submission of responses. 

In compliance with these requirements, 

the agencies ask for public comments on 

the following proposed collections of 

information: 

Title: E–911 Grant Program. 

OMB Control Number: N/A 

Requested Expiration Date of 

Approval: Three years from the 

approval date. 

Type of Request: New collection. 

Affected Public: State Governments 

Form Number: N/A 

Abstract: 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) 

authorizes a joint grant program 

between the National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the 

U.S. Department of Transportation and 

the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) of 

the Department of Commerce to 

facilitate coordination among all parties 

involved in the organization of E–911 

services. 

The Act requires an applicant to 

certify to several conditions in its 

application in order to qualify for a 

grant. Specifically, an applicant must 

certify that (1) it has coordinated its 

application with the public safety 

answering points (PSAP’s); (2) it has 

designated a single officer or 

governmental body to serve as the 

coordinator of implementation of E–911 

services; (3) it has established a plan for 

the coordination of and implementation 

of E–911 services; (4) it has integrated 

telecommunications services involved 

in the implementation of E–911 

services; and (5) no portion of any 

designated E–911 charges imposed by 

the State or other taxing jurisdiction 

within the State is being diverted for 

any other purpose during the period at 

least 180 days before the application 

date and continuing throughout the 

period of time for which grant funds are 

available. In addition, the Act requires 

grantees to match at least 50 percent 

from non-Federal sources. 

The information collected for this 

grant program is to include an 

application consisting of a State 911 

Plan, project budget information and 

certifications. This information is 

necessary to determine whether a State 

satisfies the criteria for a grant award. 

In a Federal Register document 

published on March 11, 2008, NHTSA 

sought public comment on a proposed 

collection of information for the E–911 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
57574 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

grant program. See 73 FR 13068. In that 

notice, NHTSA inadvertently identified 

HS–217 (Highway Safety Program Cost 

Summary) for submission in the 

application instead of SF–424 

(Application for Federal Assistance), 

including SF–424a and SF–424b, which 

have been approved by OMB. The 

agencies intend to use the SF–424 forms 

as part of the application for the E–911 

grant program. Accordingly, the 

agencies are not required to obtain OMB 

approval for the use of these forms. 

A State must also submit a State 911 

Plan as part of its application. This plan 

must detail the projects and activities 

proposed to be funded for the 

implementation of Phase II E–911 

services or migration to an IP-enabled 

emergency network, establish metrics 

and a time table for grant 

implementation, and describe the steps 

that the State has take to meet the grant 

criteria. It is important for the agencies 

to review each applicant’s plan to 

confirm that the applicant has met 

certain statutory requirements—a plan 

for the coordination of and 

implementation of E–911 services, 

coordination of its application with 

PSAPs, involvement of integrated 

telecommunications services in the 

implementation of E–911 services, and 

priority funding to communities 

without 911 capability. 

Estimated Annual Burden: 2240 hours 

(for State 911 plans). 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 56 

(50 States, District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands). 

Comments are invited on: Whether 

the proposed collection of information 

is necessary for the proper performance 

of the functions of the agencies, 

including whether the information will 

have practical utility; the accuracy of 

the agencies’ estimate of the burden of 

the proposed information collection; 

ways to enhance the quality, utility and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and ways to minimize the 

burden of the collection of information 

on respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

Comments must refer to the docket and 

notice numbers cited at the beginning of 

this NPRM and be submitted to one of 

the addresses identified at the beginning 

of this NPRM. 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 

requires Federal agencies to prepare a 

written assessment of the costs, benefits, 

and other effects of proposed or final 

rules that include a Federal mandate 

likely to result in the expenditure by 

State, local, or tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

more than $100 million annually. This 

proposed rule would not meet the 

definition of a Federal mandate because 

the resulting annual State expenditures 

would not exceed the $100 million 

threshold. The program is voluntary and 

States that choose to apply and qualify 

would receive grant funds. 

G. National Environmental Policy Act 

NHTSA and NTIA have reviewed this 

rulemaking action for the purposes of 

the National Environmental Policy Act. 

The agencies have determined that this 

proposal would not have a significant 

impact on the quality of the human 

environment. 

H. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribes) 

The agencies have analyzed this 

proposed rule under Executive Order 

13175, and have determined that the 

proposed 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. Therefore, a 

tribal summary impact statement is not 

required. 

I. Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) 

The Department of Transportation 

assigns a regulation identifier number 

(RIN) to each regulatory action listed in 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulations. The Regulatory Information 

Service Center publishes the Unified 

Agenda in April and October of each 

year. You may use the RIN contained in 

the heading at the beginning of this 

document to find this action in the 

Unified Agenda. 

J. Privacy Act 

Please note that anyone is able to 

search the electronic form of all 

comments received into any of our 

dockets by the name of the individual 

submitting the comment (or signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

Register. 65 FR 19477, Apr. 11, 2000. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 400 

Grant programs, Telecommunications, 

Emergency response capabilities (911). 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Department of 

Transportation, and the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, Department of 

Commerce propose to establish a new 

Chapter IV consisting of Part 400 in 

Title 47 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations to read as follows: 

CHAPTER IV—NATIONAL 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND 

INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, AND 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

PART 400—E–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 Non-compliance. 

400.9 Financial and administrative 

requirements. 

400.10 Closeout. 

Appendix A to Part 400: Minimum Grant 

Awards Available to Qualifying States 

Appendix B to Part 400: Certification for E– 

911 Grant Applicants 

Appendix C to Part 400: Annual Certification 

for E–911 Grant Recipients 

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. 

§ 400.2 Definitions. 

As used in this part— 

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 E–911 charges mean 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 E–911 services. 

E–911 Coordinator means a single 

officer or governmental body of the 

State that is responsible for 

implementing E–911 services in the 

State. 

E–911 services mean both phase I and 

phase II enhanced 911 services, as 

described in 47 CFR 20.18. 

Eligible entity means a State or local 

government or tribal organization, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57575 

including public authorities, boards, 

commissions, and similar bodies created 

by such governmental entities to 

provided E–911 services. 

ICO means the National E–911 

Implementation Coordination Office 

established under 47 U.S.C. 942 for the 

administration of the E–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. 

IP-enabled emergency network means 

an emergency communications network 

based on an infrastructure allowing 

secured transmission of data among 

computers that use the Internet 

Protocol. 

Phase II E–911 services mean phase II 

enhanced 911 services, as described 

in47 CFR 20.18. 

PSAP means a public safety 

answering point, a facility that has been 

designated to receive emergency calls 

and route them to emergency personnel. 

State includes any State of the United 

States, the District of Columbia, Puerto 

Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. 

Virgin Islands. 

§ 400.3 Who may apply. 

In order to apply for a grant under this 

part, an applicant must be a State 

applying on behalf of all eligible entities 

within its jurisdiction. 

§ 400.4 Application requirements. 

(a) Contents. A State’s application for 

funds for the E–911 grant program must 

consist of the following components: 

(1) State 911 Plan. A plan that details 

the projects and activities proposed to 

be funded for the implementation and 

operation of Phase II E–911 services or 

migration to an IP-enabled emergency 

network, establishes metrics and a time 

table for grant implementation, and 

describes the steps the State has taken 

to— 

(i) Coordinate its application with 

local governments, tribal organizations, 

and PSAPs within the State; 

(ii) Ensure that at least 90 percent of 

the grant funds will be used for the 

direct benefit of PSAPs; 

(iii) Give priority to communities 

without 911 capability as of August 3, 

2007 to establish Phase II coverage by 

identifying the percentage of grant funds 

designated for those communities or 

providing an explanation why such 

designation would not be practicable in 

successfully accomplishing the 

purposes of the grant; 

(iv) Involve integrated 

telecommunications services in the 

implementation and delivery of Phase II 

E–911 services or in the migration to an 

IP-enabled emergency network; and 

(v) Employ the use of technologies to 

achieve compliance with Phase II E–911 

services or for migration to an IPenabled emergency network. 

(2) Project budget. A project budget 

for all proposed projects and activities 

to be funded by the grant funds 

identified for the State in Appendix A 

to this part and matching funds. 

Specifically, for each project or activity, 

the State 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 of49 CFR 

18.24, that will fund at least 50 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. To 

be eligible for 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 49 CFR 18.24, 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 E–911 Coordinator. 

The identification of a single officer or 

government body appointed by the 

Governor of the State to serve as the E– 

911 Coordinator of implementation of 

E–911 services and to sign the 

certifications required under this part. If 

the Governor appoints a governmental 

body to serve as the E–911 Coordinator, 

an official representative of the 

governmental body shall be identified to 

sign the certifications for the E–911 

Coordinator. The State must notify 

NHTSA in writing within 30 days of any 

change in appointment of the E–911 

Coordinator. 

(5) Certifications. 

(i) The certification in Appendix B to 

this part, signed by the E–911 

Coordinator, certifying that the State has 

complied with the required statutory 

and programmatic conditions in 

submitting its application, including 

that the State and all other taxing 

jurisdictions within the State have not, 

during the time period 180 days 

preceding the application date, diverted 

any portion of designated E–911 charges 

imposed by the State or any other taxing 

jurisdiction within the State to any 

purpose other than the purposes for 

which such charges are designated, and 

will not do so throughout the time 

period during which grant funds are 

available. 

(ii) Submitted on an annual basis 30 

days after the end of each fiscal year 

during which grant funds are available, 

the certification in Appendix C to this 

part, signed by the E–911 Coordinator, 

making the same certification as 

required under paragraph (a)(5)(i) of this 

section concerning the diversion of 

designated E–911 charges. 

(b) Due date. The State must submit 

the application documents identified in 

this section so that they are received by 

the ICO no later than 60 days after 

publication of the Final Rule in the 

Federal Register. Failure to meet this 

deadline will preclude the State from 

receiving consideration for an E–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 State, with respect 

to any of the application submission 

requirements of § 400.4, prior to making 

a determination of award. 

(c) The Administrator and Assistant 

Secretary will jointly approve and 

announce, in writing, grant awards to 

qualifying States no later than 

September 30, 2009. 

§ 400.6 Distribution of grant funds. 

(a) Initial distribution. Subject to 

paragraph (b) of this section, grant funds 

for each State that meets the 

requirements in § 400.4 will be 

distributed— 

(1) 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 

(2) 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. 

(b) Minimum distribution. The 

distribution to each qualifying State 

under paragraph (a) of this section shall 

not be less than $500,000, except that 

the distribution to American Samoa, 

Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
57576 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands shall not be 

less than $250,000. 

(c) Supplemental distribution. Grant 

funds that are not distributed under 

paragraph (a) of this section will be 

redistributed among qualifying States 

that have met the requirements of 

§ 400.4, including the submission of a 

supplemental project budget as 

provided § 400.4(a)(3), in accordance 

with the formula in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

§ 400.7 Eligible uses for grant funds. 

Grant funds awarded under this part 

may be used only for the acquisition 

and deployment of hardware and 

software that enables the 

implementation and operation of Phase 

II E–911 services, for the acquisition and 

deployment of hardware and software to 

enable the migration to an IP-enabled 

emergency network, or for the training 

in the use of such hardware and 

software, provided such uses have been 

identified in the State 911 Plan. 

§ 400.8 Non-compliance. 

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 942(c), 

where a State provides false or 

inaccurate information in its 

certification related to the diversion of 

E–911 charges, the State shall be 

required to return all grant funds 

awarded under this part. 

§ 400.9 Financial and administrative 

requirements. 

(a) General. The requirements of 49 

CFR part 18, the Uniform 

Administrative Requirements for Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements to State 

and Local Governments, including 

applicable cost principles referenced at 

49 CFR 18.22, 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 49 CFR 

18.40, within 90 days after each fiscal 

year that grant funds are available, 

except when a final report is required 

under § 400.10(b)(ii). 

(2) Financial reports. Each grant 

recipient shall submit quarterly 

financial reports to NHTSA, following 

the procedures of 49 CFR 18.41, within 

30 days after each fiscal quarter that 

grant funds are available, except when 

a final voucher is required under 

§ 400.10(b)(i). 

§ 400.10 Closeout 

(a) Expiration of the right to incur 

costs. The right to incur costs under this 

part expires on September 30, 2012. The 

State and its subgrantees 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— 

(i) A final voucher for the costs 

incurred. The final voucher constitutes 

the final financial reconciliation for the 

grant award. 

(ii) A final report to NHTSA, 

following the procedures of 49 CFR 

18.50(b). 

(c) Disposition of unexpended 

balances. Any funds that remain 

unexpended by the end of fiscal year 

2012 shall cease to be available to the 

State and shall be returned to the 

government. 

Appendix A to Part 400 

MINIMUM GRANT AWARDS AVAILABLE

TO QUALIFYING STATES

State name Minimum E–911 

grant award 

Alabama ............................ $686,230.25 

Alaska ............................... 500,000.00 

American Samoa .............. 250,000.00 

Arizona .............................. 627,067.26 

Arkansas ........................... 594,060.05 

California ........................... 2,841,352.77 

Colorado ........................... 662,637.98 

Connecticut ....................... 500,000.00 

MINIMUM GRANT AWARDS AVAILABLE

TO QUALIFYING STATES—Continued 

State name Minimum E–911 

grant award 

Delaware ........................... 500,000.00 

District of Columbia .......... 500,000.00 

Florida ............................... 1,579,728.30 

Georgia ............................. 1,063,089.13 

Guam ................................ 250,000.00 

Hawaii ............................... 500,000.00 

Idaho ................................. 500,000.00 

Illinois ................................ 1,343,670.10 

Indiana .............................. 783,700.36 

Iowa .................................. 668,545.47 

Kansas .............................. 770,896.23 

Kentucky ........................... 584,385.38 

Louisiana .......................... 511,974.11 

Maine ................................ 500,000.00 

Maryland ........................... 500,000.00 

Massachusetts .................. 527,000.57 

Michigan ........................... 1,108,704.89 

Minnesota ......................... 874,841.32 

Mississippi ........................ 500,000.00 

Missouri ............................ 891,711.03 

Montana ............................ 500,000.00 

Northern Mariana Islands 250,000.00 

Nebraska .......................... 508,655.45 

Nevada ............................. 500,000.00 

New Hampshire ................ 500,000.00 

New Jersey ....................... 666,876.13 

New Mexico ...................... 500,000.00 

New York .......................... 1,603,343.25 

North Carolina .................. 971,280.91 

North Dakota .................... 500,000.00 

Ohio .................................. 1,203,583.60 

Oklahoma ......................... 700,339.78 

Oregon .............................. 500,000.00 

Pennsylvania .................... 1,242,455.97 

Puerto Rico ....................... 500,000.00 

Rhode Island .................... 500,000.00 

South Carolina .................. 541,705.79 

South Dakota .................... 500,000.00 

Tennessee ........................ 751,822.46 

Texas ................................ 2,702,727.44 

Utah .................................. 500,000.00 

Vermont ............................ 500,000.00 

Virgin Islands .................... 250,000.00 

Virginia .............................. 758,028.12 

Washington ....................... 734,176.40 

West Virginia .................... 500,000.00 

Wisconsin ......................... 820,409.48 

Wyoming ........................... 500,000.00 

Total Available E–911 

Grant Funds ........... 41,325,000.00 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57577 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALSEP03oc08.026</GPH>
57578 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALSEP03oc08.027</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 57579 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALSEP03oc08.028</GPH>
57580 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 193 / Friday, October 3, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Issued on: September 29, 2008. 

David Kelly, 

Acting Administrator, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration. 

Meredith Attwell Baker, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Communications and Information. 

[FR Doc. E8–23266 Filed 10–2–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 501, 515, and 552 

[GSAR Case 2008–G506; Docket 2008–0007; 

Sequence 23] 

RIN 3090–AI76 

General Services Acquisition 

Regulation; GSAR Case 2008–G506; 

Rewrite of GSAR Part 515, Contracting 

by Negotiation 

AGENCY: Office of the Chief Acquisition 

Officer, General Services 

Administration (GSA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The General Services 

Administration (GSA) is proposing to 

amend the General Services Acquisition 

Regulation (GSAR) to revise language 

that provides requirements for 

contracting by negotiation. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat on or before December 2, 

2008 to be considered in the 

formulation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by GSAR Case 2008–G506 by 

any of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Submit comments 

via the Federal eRulemaking portal by 

inputting ‘‘GSAR Case 2008–G506’’ 

under the heading ‘‘Comment or 

Submission’’. Select the link ‘‘Send a 

Comment or Submission’’ that 

corresponds with GSAR Case 2008– 

G506. Follow the instructions provided 

to complete the ‘‘Public Comment and 

Submission Form’’. Please include your 

name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘GSAR Case 2008–G506’’ on your 

attached document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, 

ATTN: Laurieann Duarte, Washington, 

DC 20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite GSAR Case 2008–G506 in 

all correspondence related to this case. 

All comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. 

Michael O. Jackson at (202) 208–4949. 

For information pertaining to the status 

or publication schedules, contact the 

Regulatory Secretariat (VPR), Room 

4041, GS Building, Washington, DC 

20405, (202) 501–4755. Please cite 

GSAR Case 2008–G506. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The General Services Administration 

(GSA) is amending the General Services 

Administration Acquisition Regulation 

(GSAR) to revise sections of GSAR part 

515 that provide requirements for 

contracting by negotiation. 

This rule is a result of the General 

Services Administration Acquisition 

Manual (GSAM) Rewrite initiative 

undertaken by GSA to revise the GSAM 

to maintain consistency with the FAR 

and to implement streamlined and 

innovative acquisition procedures that 

contractors, offerors, and GSA 

contracting personnel can utilize when 

entering into and administering 

contractual relationships. The GSAM 

incorporates the GSAR as well as 

internal agency acquisition policy. 

GSA will rewrite each part of the 

GSAR and GSAM, and as each GSAR 

part is rewritten, will publish it in the 

Federal Register. 

This rule covers the rewrite of GSAR 

Part 515. The specific changes are as 

follows: 

• GSAR 501.106 - Added Control 

Number 3090–0163 as a cross reference 

for 515.201–1. 

• GSAR 515.204—Added a paragraph 

to specify that the senior procurement 

executive is the designee per FAR 

15.204(e). 

• GSAR 515.204–1—Moved 

paragraph (a) to 515.204. Renumbered 

remaining paragraphs and references 

accordingly. 

• GSAR 515.205—Added ‘‘or unless 

the incumbent contractor is otherwise 

ineligible for the award’’ to advise 

contracting officers that they are not 

obligated to include an offeror in the 

competition if they are not eligible to 

compete. 

• GSAR 515.209–70, Examination of 

records by GSA clause— 

a. In paragraph (b), changed ‘‘You’’ to 

‘‘The contracting officer’’ eliminated the 

dashes in ‘‘Assistant Inspector GeneralAuditing’’ and ‘‘Regional Inspector 

General-Auditing’’; and replaced each 

dash with a ‘‘for’’; and 

b. Paragraphs (c) and (d) were 

trasferred to Part 538 because they only 

pertain to Federal Supply Schedule 

(FSS) Multiple Award Schedule (MAS). 

• 515.305, Proposal evaluation— 

a. Transferred paragraph (a), 

renumbered it 515.208–70 and made it 

non-regulatory; 

b. Transferred paragraph (b), 

renumbered it 515.305–71 and made it 

non-regulatory; 

c. Made 515.305–70 non-regulatory; 

and 

d. The text made non-regulatory and 

renumbered to 515.208–70 and 

515.305–71, as well as the text that was 

formerly regulatory at 515.305–70, the 

team decided that it did not affect the 

public and was only applicable 

internally to GSA. 

• 515.408, Solicitation provisions 

and contract clauses—Transferred to 

GSAM Part 538 because it is only 

applicable to the Multiple Award 

Schedules Program. This proposed 

revision also includes the CSP–1 form. 

• 515.7002, Procedures— 

a. Replaced ‘‘You’’ with ‘‘Contracting 

Officer’’ throughout the clause. Also 

changed ‘‘Base your determination’’ to 

‘‘This determination should be based’’; 

b. In paragraph (a) changed FAR 

reference ‘‘14.202–4(g)’’ to ‘‘14.202–4(f)’’ 

and changed ‘‘However, qualifications’’ 

to ‘‘Samples are not requested. Any 

samples submitted with’’. This is to 

include minor editorial changes 

suggested by the Advanced Notice of 

Public Rulemaking; and 

c. In paragraph (b)(1) deleted 

‘‘52.214–20’’ and replaced it with 

‘‘552.214–72’’. Deleted the remainder of 

the paragraph. 

• 552.215–71—Transferred to Part 

538 because of the proposed move in 

515.209–70(c) and (d). 

• 552.215–72—Transferred to Part 

538 because of the proposed move in 

515.408. 

As a result of the rewrite of GSAM 

Part 515, certain text and clauses such 

as 552.215–71, Examination of Records 

by GSA (Multiple Award Schedule), and 

552.215–72, Price Adjustment—Failure 

to Provide Accurate Information, were 

transferred to the GSAM rewrite team 

handling the rewrite of GSAM Part 538. 

The 538 team was assembled with GSA 

personnel who have experience in 

dealing with GSAM Part 538, including 

personnel from GSA’s Federal 

Acquisition Service, which is the GSA 

component responsible for GSA’s 

Multiple Award Schedules. GSA 

established a process in the rewrite 

initiative where text and clauses that 

were found more suited to be allocated 

to other parts of the GSAM were sent to 

the other rewrite teams for their analysis 

and incorporation into their assigned 

rewrite parts. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with PROPOSALS