Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 26965 

human health were evaluated with the 

assistance of the EPA Office of Research 

and Development and the Superfund 

Health Risk Technical Support Center. 

Uncertainties related to non-cancer 

effects pertaining to the risks posed by 

the semivolatile organic contaminants 

identified in surface and subsurface soil 

were reduced, though not entirely 

eliminated. The evaluation concluded 

that an overwhelming majority of the 

compounds analyzed were not detected. 

Those SVOCs that were present in 

surface and subsurface soil were found 

below preliminary remediation goals 

and a hazard index of 1.0. In addition, 

two rounds of groundwater sampling 

conducted during 2007 showed that the 

tentatively and unidentified 

semivolatile organic compounds are not 

present in the Site’s groundwater. 

Selected Remedy 

EPA, in consultation with FDEP, 

selected a No Action Record of Decision 

(ROD) at the CSDS Site on September 

12, 2007. As discussed above, this 

decision was based principally on the 

outcome of both human health and 

ecological risk assessments. The 

estimates of human risks under the 

various exposure scenarios found that 

cancer and non-cancer risks posed by 

the Site’s media were well within the 

ranges found acceptable by EPA. 

Five-Year Review 

Although hazardous substances are 

not known to be present onsite above 

levels allowing for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure, a discretionary 

five year review will be conducted by 

EPA within five years of the signing of 

the 2007 ROD. The purpose of this 

review is to revisit the issue related to 

the presence of tentatively identified 

and unidentified semivolatile organic 

compounds believed to be present in the 

Site’s soil. 

Community Involvement 

Community relations involvement 

efforts for the CSDS Site began in 

August 2000 when the Florida 

Department of Health, Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry and 

EPA publicized and held a public 

availability session, for the purpose of 

communicating the results of the health 

consultation and to inform the 

community of the Site’s status. In mid2002, EPA finalized the Site’s 

Community Involvement Plan. Area 

residents were contacted as part of the 

community involvement work. An 

information repository was established 

at the Lake Alfred Public Library. 

Documents supporting both the removal 

action and the 2007 ROD were made 

available to the public at the Site’s 

information repository, prior to the 

issuance of this ROD. On July 6, 2007, 

EPA published a Notice of Proposed 

Plan Public Comment Period and 

offered a public meeting. Only one 

comment was received during the 

comment period. No requests for a 

Public Meeting or extension of the 

comment period were received. 

Information which EPA has relied on or 

considered in recommending this 

deletion are available for the public to 

review at the information repositories 

identified above. 

Determination That the Site Meets the 

Criteria for Deletion in the NCP 

All of the completion requirements 

for this Site have been met, as described 

in the December 2007 Final Close-Out 

Report. The State of Florida has 

concurred with the proposed deletion of 

this Site from the NPL. 

The NCP specifies that EPA may 

delete a site from the NPL if, ‘‘all 

appropriate Fund-financed response 

under CERCLA has been implemented, 

and no further response action by 

responsible parties is appropriate.’’ 40 

CFR 300.425(e)(1)(ii). EPA with the 

concurrence of the State of Florida, 

through the FDEP, believes that this 

criterion for deletion has been met. 

Consequently, EPA is deleting this Site 

from the NPL. Documents supporting 

this action are available in the Site files. 

V. Deletion Action 

EPA, with concurrence of the State of 

Florida through the FDEP, has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions under CERCLA, other 

than five-year reviews have been 

completed. Therefore, EPA is deleting 

the Site from the NPL. 

Because EPA considers this action to 

be noncontroversial and routine, EPA is 

taking it without prior publication. This 

action will be effective August 4, 2009 

unless EPA receives adverse comments 

by July 6, 2009. If adverse comments are 

received within the 30-day public 

comment period, EPA will publish a 

timely withdrawal of this direct final 

notice of deletion before the effective 

date of the deletion, and it will not take 

effect. EPA will prepare a response to 

comments and continue with the 

deletion process on the basis of the 

notice of intent to delete and the 

comments already received. There will 

be no additional opportunity to 

comment. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Dated: May 19, 2009. 

J. Scott Gordon, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 

4. 

■ For the reasons set out in this 

document, 40 CFR part 300 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 300—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 300 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

■ 2. Table 1 of Appendix B to part 300 

is amended by removing ‘‘Callaway & 

Son Drum Service’’, ‘‘Lake Alfred, 

Florida.’’ 

[FR Doc. E9–13165 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–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: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This joint Final Rule 

implements 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 IP-enabled emergency 

network. To qualify for a grant, an 

applicant must submit a State 911 plan 

and project budget, designate an E–911 

coordinator, and certify, among other 

things, that the State and other taxing 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
26966 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

jurisdictions within the State have not 

diverted E–911 charges for any other 

purpose within 180 days preceding the 

application date. This Final Rule 

establishes the requirements an 

applicant must meet and the procedures 

it must follow to receive an E–911 grant. 

DATES: This Final Rule becomes 

effective on June 5, 2009. 

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. Email: 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. Statutory Requirements 

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

IV. Comments 

A. In General 

B. Definition of IP-Enabled Emergency 

Network 

C. States Applying on Behalf of All Eligible 

Entities 

D. Application: State 911 Plan 

1. Coordination 

2. Direct Benefit of PSAPs 

3. Involvement of Integrated 

Telecommunications Services 

E. Application: Project Budget and 

Supplemental Project Budget 

F. Application: Match Requirement 

G. Application: Designation of E–911 

Coordinator 

H. Application: Certification Concerning 

Diversion of Funds 

I. Distribution of Grant Funds: Formula 

J. Eligible Use of Grant Funds 

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) 

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 

K. Congressional Review of Agency 

Rulemaking 

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 Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) regulations, 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– 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 26967 

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 Ensuring 

Needed Help Arrives Near Callers 

Employing 911 (ENHANCE 911) Act of 

2004 (Pub. L. 108–494, codified at 47 

U.S.C. 942) 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[.]’’ This 

grant program was established to 

provide $43.5 million (less 

administrative costs) for the 

implementation and operation of Phase 

II E–911 services and for migration to an 

IP-enabled emergency network. 47 

U.S.C. 942(b)(1). 

II. Statutory Requirements 

The ENHANCE 911 Act directs 

NHTSA and NTIA to issue joint 

implementing regulations prescribing 

the criteria for selection for grants. 47 

U.S.C. 942(b)(4). The Act establishes 

certain minimum requirements for grant 

applications. An applicant must provide 

at least 50 percent of the cost of a 

project from non-Federal sources. 47 

U.S.C. 942(b)(2). In addition, an 

applicant must 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). 

The Act also requires applicants 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)(2). Applicants must agree to 

return any grant awarded if the State or 

other taxing jurisdiction diverts 

designated E–911 charges during the 

time period that grant funds are 

available. 47 U.S.C. 942(c)(3). Finally, 

applicants that knowingly provide false 

information on the certification are not 

eligible to receive grant funds and must 

return any grant funds awarded. 47 

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

III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

The agencies published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to 

prescribe the criteria for grants under 

the E–911 grant program. See E–911 

Grant Program, 73 FR 57567 (Oct. 3, 

2008). The NPRM outlined the 

application and administrative 

requirements that States must meet to 

receive grant awards. In addition, the 

NPRM identified the minimum grant 

amount for each State qualifying for a 

grant award. 

The NPRM proposed to permit only 

the 50 United States, the District of 

Columbia, Puerto Rico, American 

Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to 

apply for grant funds on behalf of all 

eligible entities located within their 

borders. The NPRM also outlined the 

application requirements for States to 

apply for a grant under this program. 

Specifically, the NPRM identified the 

following components as the 

application requirements: A State 911 

plan, a project budget, a supplemental 

project budget (if applicable), 

designation of an E–911 Coordinator, 

and certification of compliance with 

statutory and programmatic 

requirements. 

The NPRM provided that the State 

911 Plan must describe the projects and 

activities proposed to be funded with E– 

911 grant funds as well as establish 

performance metrics and timelines for 

grant project implementation, subject to 

E–911 Implementation Coordination 

Office (ICO) review and the agencies’ 

approval. The NPRM also provided that 

the State 911 Plan must certify (1) 

coordination with local governments, 

tribal organizations, and PSAPs within 

the State’s jurisdiction; (2) priority given 

to communities without 911 capability 

or an explanation of why priority would 

not be practicable; (3) involvement of 

integrated telecommunications service 

providers in the implementation and 

delivery of Phase II E–911 services or for 

migration to an IP-enabled emergency 

network; and (4) use of technologies to 

achieve compliance with Phase II E–911 

services or for migration to an IPenabled emergency network. In 

addition, the NPRM provided that States 

must demonstrate in the State 911 Plan 

that at least 90 percent of the grant 

funds would be used for the direct 

benefit of PSAPs. Finally, the NPRM 

specified that, in the State 911 Plan, the 

State must detail how it intended to 

employ technology to achieve 

compliance with the FCC description of 

Phase II E–911 services and/or how it 

intended to migrate to an IP-enabled 

emergency network. 

The agencies proposed that States 

submit a project budget for the projects 

or activities proposed to be funded by 

the grant funds, including the 

identification of non-Federal sources 

that would fund 50 percent of the cost, 

if applicable. See 48 U.S.C. 1469a(d) 

(waiver for non-Federal matching funds 

under $200,000, including in-kind 

contributions, for the Territorial 

governments in American Samoa, 

Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, 

and the U.S. Virgin Islands). The 

agencies specified that the project 

budget must account for the initial 

distribution of grant funds, as identified 

for each State in an appendix to the 

NPRM. The initial distribution of grant 

funds to each State, if all States applied 

and qualified for a grant, was based on 

the agencies’ proposed formula, as 

follows: 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 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, each 

State would receive a minimum award 

of $500,000, except that the four 

territories—American Samoa, Guam, the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the 

Virgin Islands—would each receive a 

minimum of $250,000. 

In anticipation of some States not 

applying or qualifying for grant funds, 

the agencies proposed distributing 

unallocated funds to the pool of 

qualifying States in accordance with the 

same formula used for the initial 

distribution. In order to obligate any 

initially unallocated balances before the 

end of fiscal year 2009, the NPRM 

proposed that States interested in 

additional grant funds include a 

supplemental project budget identifying 

proposed projects or activities with their 

application. The supplemental project 

budget would identify the maximum 

amount that the State was able to match 

from non-Federal sources and include 

details of the proposed projects or 

activities to be funded. 

The NPRM identified the eligible uses 

for the E–911 grant funds— 

implementation and operation of Phase 

II E–911 services or migration to an IPenabled emergency network. 

Specifically, the agencies proposed that 

grant funds and matching funds be used 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
26968 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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 NPRM also proposed that, as part 

of the application, the State identify a 

single officer or governmental body 

designated by the Governor to serve as 

the coordinator of implementation of E– 

911 services and the certifying official 

on the certifications. The agencies 

proposed that the E–911 Coordinator 

would be responsible for certifying that 

the State coordinated its application 

with local governments, tribal 

organizations and PSAPs; established a 

plan for the coordination and 

implementation of E–911 services; 

would ensure that at least 90 percent of 

the grant funds were used for the direct 

benefit of PSAPs; had integrated 

telecommunications services involved 

in the implementation and delivery of 

Phase II E–911 services; and would 

provide at least 50 percent of the cost of 

each project funded under this grant 

from non-Federal sources (if applicable). 

The proposal also provided that the 

E–911 Coordinator must certify that no 

designated E–911 charges imposed by 

the State or taxing jurisdiction within 

the State would be diverted for other 

purposes from the time period 180 days 

preceding the date of the application 

and continuing throughout the time 

period during which grant funds were 

available. The proposal further required 

States to agree to return all grant funds 

if any designated E–911 charges 

imposed by the State or any taxing 

jurisdiction within the State were 

diverted to other uses. 

Finally, the NPRM identified the 

financial and administrative 

requirements for the grant program. 

IV. Comments 

The agencies received submissions 

from 13 commenters in response to the 

NPRM. Commenters included the 

following seven State agencies: the 

California 9–1–1 Emergency 

Communications Office (CA 911 Office); 

the State of Missouri 9–1–1 Coordinator 

(MO 911 Coordinator); the Nebraska 

Public Service Commission (NE PSC); 

the Pennsylvania Emergency 

Management Agency, Bureau of 911 

Programs (PA EMA); the Georgia 

Emergency Management Agency (GA 

EMA); the Texas Commission on State 

Emergency Communications (TX CSEC); 

and the Washington State Enhanced 911 

Program (WA E911 Office). Additional 

commenters included four associations 

and consortiums: CSI–911 (CSI–911); 

the National Emergency Number 

Association/National Association of 

State 911 Administrators (NENA/ 

NASNA); the Alaska Chapter of the 

National Emergency Number 

Association (AK NENA); and the 

Colorado Public Utilities Commission 

9–1–1 Task Force (CO 911). Two 

interested members of the public also 

provided comments. 

A. In General 

Some commenters sought clarification 

of specific aspects of the NPRM, while 

others requested amendments to the 

application requirements. The agencies 

received comments from NENA/NASNA 

and the CA 911 Office in support of the 

formula-based approach for distributing 

grant funds. The AK NENA requested 

additional grant distributions for States 

still deploying basic 911 services or 

lacking Statewide E–911. Several 

commenters requested clarification of 

the eligible uses of grant funds. The 

agencies address these comments below 

under the appropriate heading. 

The agencies received a few 

comments concerning the sections on 

non-compliance (§ 400.8), financial and 

administrative requirements (§ 400.9), 

and close-out (§ 400.10), which were 

generally supportive. See, e.g., WA E911 

at 4; CA 911 Office at 5–6. 

Consequently, the Final Rule leaves 

these provisions unchanged. The 

agencies received one supportive 

comment concerning the proposed 

approval and award procedures 

(§ 400.5). CA 911 Office at 5. The 

agencies have added clarifying language 

in § 400.5 to highlight the importance of 

the State’s response to the ICO’s request 

for additional information. In the 

NPRM, the agencies stated that the ICO, 

upon review of a State’s application, 

may request additional information 

from the State prior to making a 

recommendation of award in order to 

clarify compliance with the statutory 

and programmatic requirements. In the 

Final Rule, the agencies have added the 

following language: ‘‘Failure to submit 

such additional information may 

preclude the State from further 

consideration for award.’’ The agencies 

believe that this was implicit in the 

proposal, but add language to clarify 

this point. 

B. Definition of IP-Enabled Emergency 

Network 

The NENA/NASNA thought that the 

definition of ‘‘IP-enabled emergency 

network’’ was ‘‘overly narrow,’’ and 

requested that it be expanded to cover 

the ‘‘larger NG9–1–1 system.’’ See 

NENA/NASNA at 3–4. The NENA/ 

NASNA described the system as 

including ‘‘the software, applications, 

interfaces and databases that traverse, 

connect and enable effective routing 

over a network.’’ According to the 

NENA/NASNA, only a ‘‘system,’’ of 

which a ‘‘network’’ is a key component, 

would enable ‘‘the receipt and response 

to all citizen-activated emergency 

communications and improve 

information sharing among all 

emergency response entities’’ as 

intended by the Act. The agencies did 

not intend to define IP-enabled 

emergency network narrowly, and thus, 

adopted most of the language suggested 

by NENA/NASNA. Accordingly, the 

definition of ‘‘IP-enabled emergency 

network’’ or ‘‘IP-enabled emergency 

system’’ in § 400.2 of the Final Rule now 

reads as follows: ‘‘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.’’ 

C. States Applying on Behalf of All 

Eligible Entities 

NENA/NASNA and the CA 911 Office 

generally supported the proposal to 

limit E–911 grant applications to States, 

on behalf of all eligible entities within 

the jurisdiction. The CA 911 Office, 

however, asked whether States must 

account for distribution of grant funds 

to each eligible entity in the State, 

warning that such a requirement would 

result in an ‘‘administrative nightmare.’’ 

See CA 911 Office at 1. The CA 911 

Office suggested that States be allowed 

‘‘to apply for grant funds in a manner 

that demonstrates benefit to all eligible 

entities located within their borders.’’ 

As explained in more detail in Section 

IV.D.2, the rule does not require grant 

funds to be distributed to every eligible 

entity within the State, so long as the 

‘‘direct benefit of PSAPs’’ requirement is 

met. A State may distribute grant funds 

directly to one or more PSAPs or 

expend the funds in a manner that 

satisfies the requirement to benefit 

eligible entities within the State (as the 

CA 911 Office proposes), or it may 

follow a combination of these two 

approaches. Whatever approach is 

adopted, the State, as grant recipient, is 

responsible for accounting for the 

distribution and expenditure of all grant 

funds received under this program, in 

accordance with standard grant 

administration procedures. 

One anonymous individual 

recommended that NHTSA collect all 

applications and review and award the 

funds to ensure that ‘‘all of the money 

will be awarded directly to the 

individual agencies that need it as 

opposed to bleeding off the dollars to 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 26969 

admin/handling fees at the state level.’’ 

The commenter states that this would 

ensure that ‘‘national needs are met as 

opposed to what a State believes [are] 

important.’’ While the agencies 

understand the commenter’s concerns, 

the agencies continue to believe that 

limiting the applicant pool to States is 

necessary to streamline the grant 

process so that timely award is assured 

before the end of the program in fiscal 

year 2009. As discussed later, the 

agencies believe that the requirement for 

States to certify that 90 percent of the 

grant funds will be used for the direct 

benefit of PSAPs strikes the proper 

balance between State concerns and the 

overarching goals of the ENHANCE 911 

Act to address the interests of PSAPs. 

The agencies have made no change to 

the rule in response to this comment. 

D. Application: State 911 Plan 

The CA 911 Office recommended that 

the following two additional planning 

elements be added to ensure project 

documentation that reflects quality 

control and basic project management 

principles: ‘‘provide success parameters 

for the plan and identify any risks’’ and 

‘‘include a deliverable to provide final 

documentation that shall include, as a 

minimum, the design, testing, 

monitoring and lessons learned for use 

by other public safety authorities in the 

country by means of public record 

requests.’’ CA 911 Office at 3. The 

NPRM proposed that States provide 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 IPenabled emergency network, establishes 

metrics and a time table for grant 

implementation, and describes the steps 

the State has taken to meet statutory and 

programmatic elements of the grant 

program. See § 400.4(a)(1). In addition, 

the NPRM proposed that States submit 

annual performance reports and 

quarterly financial reports. See 

§ 400.9(b). The agencies believe that 

these requirements sufficiently address 

the need for project documentation that 

reflects quality control and basic project 

management principles. Consequently, 

the agencies have not adopted the 

suggestion for additional planning 

elements. 

The PA EMA stated that the State 911 

Plan should be more consistent with the 

requirements of the Model State 911 

Plan (‘‘Model Plan’’). PA EMA at 2. The 

Model Plan, which was developed by 

NASNA as part of a cooperative 

agreement with NHTSA, is intended to 

be a comprehensive, long-term plan to 

coordinate the planning and 

implementation of E–911 services. In 

light of the relatively limited funding 

available under this grant program, the 

agencies do not expect States to develop 

this kind of comprehensive, long-term 

plan in order to apply for a grant. 

Therefore, the agencies decline to adopt 

the PA EMA’s recommendation. 

The agencies received no comments 

on two components of the State 911 

Plan—priority to communities without 

911 capability and employing the use of 

technologies. Consequently, the rule 

remains unchanged with regard to these 

components of the State 911 Plan. 

1. Coordination 

The MO 911 Coordinator commented 

that Missouri does not have any 

statutory provisions that allow 

coordination with PSAPs, and suggested 

removing the word ‘‘statutory’’ from the 

requirements. MO 911 Coordinator at 3. 

The preamble to the NPRM merely 

explained that the basis for the 

coordination requirement in the State 

911 Plan was a statutory provision in 

the ENHANCE 911 Act. The proposal 

did not impose a requirement for a State 

to have statutory provisions concerning 

coordination. Moreover, the agencies do 

not agree with what Missouri appears to 

be implying—that such coordination 

cannot take place in the absence of a 

State statutory provision authorizing it. 

In any event, the ENHANCE 911 Act 

specifically requires such coordination. 

Consequently, States must coordinate 

their application with PSAPs in order to 

qualify for a grant award. The agencies 

make no change to the rule in response 

to this comment. 

The GA EMA asked whether a 911 

advisory committee appointed by the 

Governor, with PSAP directors’ 

representation, would satisfy the 

coordination requirement, and the WA 

E911 Office suggested that States be able 

to meet the requirement to coordinate 

with PSAPs if the State coordinates with 

all governmental agencies representing 

or managing PSAPs within the State. GA 

EMA at 1; WA E911 Office at 5. Because 

States are applying on behalf of all 

eligible entities within their borders, the 

coordination requirement is intended to 

ensure that the needs of PSAPs are 

addressed in State 911 Plans. A 911 

advisory committee would satisfy the 

coordination requirement, provided it 

included representation of PSAPs 

among its membership. Similarly, State 

coordination with all governmental 

agencies that represent or manage the 

PSAPs in the State would satisfy this 

coordination requirement. No change to 

the rule is necessary. 

The PA EMA and WA E911 Office 

questioned the proposed requirement to 

coordinate the application with tribal 

organizations located within the State. 

See PA EMA at 2; WA E911 Office at 5. 

Both commenters asserted that the 

agencies were extending the 

coordination requirements beyond the 

proper reach of the ENHANCE 911 Act. 

NENA/NASNA suggested that ‘‘the 

agencies may wish to consider how 

[tribal organizations], many of whom 

greatly need funding assistance, can be 

eligible for grant funds despite their 

separate governing structure that is fully 

severable from the state government.’’ 

NENA/NASNA at 2, n. 6. The agencies 

disagree with these commenters. The 

ENHANCE 911 Act, as amended, directs 

the agencies to make grants to ‘‘eligible 

entities,’’ which specifically include 

tribal organizations. Short of expanding 

the applicant pool to include the many 

existing tribal organizations, which is 

administratively impracticable for 

reasons explained in the preamble to the 

NPRM, the coordination requirement is 

necessary. 

The WA E911 Office expressed 

concern that the State might not have 

authority to coordinate with tribal 

organizations. WA E911 Office at 5. 

States need not have specific statutory 

authority to coordinate E–911 related 

services with tribal organizations. Most 

States have existing relationships with 

tribal organizations that would readily 

facilitate the coordination necessary to 

meet the objectives of the E–911 grant 

program. Consequently, the agencies 

have made no changes to the rule. 

2. Direct Benefit of PSAPs 

The agencies received comments from 

NENA/NASNA, CA 911 Office, GA 

EMA, WA E911 Office, and PA EMA 

requesting clarification of the meaning 

of ‘‘direct benefit of PSAPs.’’ The CA 

911 Office, WA E911 Office and PA 

EMA asked whether Statewide activities 

or projects that benefited PSAPs would 

satisfy the ‘‘direct benefit of PSAPs’’ 

requirement or whether the term’s 

meaning was limited to direct 

distribution to PSAPs. See CA 911 

Office at 1–2; WA E911 Office at 5–6; 

PA EMA at 2. This proposed 

requirement is not intended to 

encourage the continuation of the 

traditional model of investment at the 

individual PSAP level, as the WA E911 

Office suggested. Rather, the agencies 

intend the phrase ‘‘direct benefit of 

PSAPs’’ to cover both direct distribution 

to PSAPs at the individual PSAP level 

and Statewide projects in which 

multiple PSAPs would benefit from the 

investment of E–911 grant funds, as 

articulated by NENA/NASNA. NENA/ 

NASNA at 4. In either case, the State 

must ensure that 90 percent of the grant 

funds are being used for the actual 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
26970 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

implementation and operation of E–911 

services or for migration to an IPenabled emergency network. Because E– 

911 capabilities vary from State to State, 

the agencies believe that States, in 

coordination with the eligible entities 

within their borders, are best positioned 

to select between direct distribution to 

PSAPs and Statewide projects benefiting 

multiple PSAPs (or a combination of 

both approaches) to upgrade their E–911 

capabilities. As noted by NENA/ 

NASNA, some States with many PSAPs 

not capable of receiving Phase II E–911 

information may choose to prioritize 

their grant funds to upgrade these 

PSAPs while other States may use their 

grant funds for Statewide projects that 

would benefit all PSAPs, such as 

establishing or enabling access to an 

emergency services IP network. NENA/ 

NASNA at 5. The agencies believe that 

the existing language accommodates 

both approaches, and that no change to 

the Final Rule is necessary. 

The MO 911 Coordinator requested 

clarification as to the use of the 

remaining 10 percent of the grant funds, 

after the 90 percent used for the direct 

benefit of PSAPs. MO 911 Coordinator 

at 2. The agencies intend that up to 10 

percent of the grant funds be available 

to the State to manage the projects and 

activities approved under the E–911 

grant program. To clarify this point, the 

agencies have added language in 

§ 400.4(a)(1)(ii) stating that not more 

than 10 percent of the grant funds may 

be used for the State’s administrative 

expenses. 

The TX CSEC requested that the 

following language be added to the 

State’s certification that 90 percent of 

the grant funds will be used for the 

direct benefit of PSAPs: ‘‘[t]his 

requirement is presumed to have been 

met provided that all PSAPs in the 

State, through their respective 9–1–1 

Governing Authorities as defined in 

NENA Master Glossary of 9–1–1 

Terminology, have been involved in the 

development of the State 911 Plan. For 

purposes of this requirement, the term 

‘‘direct-benefit’’ shall be liberally 

construed.’’ TX CSEC at 2. As discussed 

above, the agencies intended the 

language ‘‘direct benefit of PSAPs’’ to 

require States to target the grant funds 

to meet the specific needs of PSAPs. 

The agencies did so to give proper 

weight to the broad eligibility criteria in 

the ENHANCE 911 Act. The agencies do 

not agree with the TX CSEC that the 

goal of directly benefiting PSAPs would 

be achieved merely by virtue of PSAP 

participation in the development of the 

State 911 plan, and the agencies decline 

to adopt the comment. 

3. Involvement of Integrated 

Telecommunications Services 

The agencies received two comments 

regarding the involvement of integrated 

telecommunications services. The PA 

EMA requested that a definition of this 

term be added to the rule, and the GA 

EMA asked how a State must involve 

integrated telecommunications services 

in the implementation and delivery of 

Phase II E–911 services. PA EMA at 1; 

GA EMA at 1. The Act requires 

applicants to certify that they have 

integrated telecommunications services 

involved in the implementation and 

delivery of E–911 services, but did not 

provide a definition for the term 

‘‘integrated telecommunications 

services.’’ In response to these 

comments, the agencies have added a 

definition in § 400.2. The term 

‘‘integrated telecommunications 

services,’’ also referred to as ‘‘integrated 

telecommunications,’’ as now defined in 

the Final Rule refers to ‘‘those entities 

engaged in the provision of multiple 

services, such as voice, data, image, 

graphics, and video services, which 

make common use of all or part of the 

same transmission facilities, switches, 

signaling, or control devices.’’ Integrated 

telecommunications services play a vital 

role in enabling PSAPs to upgrade their 

capability to receive E–911 services. To 

effectuate the statutory requirement, 

States should consult with integrated 

telecommunications services in the 

planning phase of implementing E–911 

services. 

E. Application: Project Budget and 

Supplemental Project Budget 

The CA 911 Office described its 

understanding of the supplemental 

project budget as follows: ‘‘[t]his is a 

proposed contingency plan in the event 

a state did not qualify for an E–911 

Grant because they could not meet the 

certification, but they may be able to 

qualify for use of any remaining Grant 

funds.’’ CA 911 Office at 3. That is a 

misunderstanding of the purpose of the 

supplemental project budget. A State 

that does not qualify for the initial 

distribution because it cannot make the 

required certifications will not be 

eligible for any E–911 grant funds. In 

the event funds remain because some 

States do not apply or fail to qualify, 

only a State that qualifies for an initial 

distribution will be eligible for a 

supplemental distribution. However, the 

State must submit a supplemental 

project budget as well as a project 

budget as part of its application in order 

to be eligible for the supplemental 

distribution. The agencies have added 

language in § 400.4(a)(3) to clarify this 

point. 

F. Application: Match Requirement 

The agencies received a number of 

comments regarding the 50 percent 

match requirement. The MO 911 

Coordinator and the PA EMA asked 

whether the match requirement could 

be met with local as well as State funds. 

MO 911 Coordinator at 3; PA EMA at 3. 

The proposal specified only that 

matching funds must come from nonFederal sources meeting the 

requirements of 49 CFR 18.24 (the 

Department of Transportation’s 

codification of the Common Grant 

Rule)—it did not restrict the match only 

to State funds. States may use both State 

and local funds to provide the match as 

long as these funds meet the 

requirements of 49 CFR 18.24. The 

agencies determined that no change to 

the rule is necessary. 

The MO 911 Coordinator asked for 

guidance on what is considered a nonFederal source, and the GA EMA asked 

if funds from a State grant program 

funded with 911 fees could be used to 

meet the match requirement. See MO 

911 Coordinator at 3; GA EMA at 1. The 

MO 911 Coordinator also asked whether 

the match requires a separate budget 

line item of funds specifically set aside 

for the grant match or whether existing 

operating budgets could be used to 

match. MO 911 Coordinator at 3–4. The 

agencies do not require a specific line 

item set aside for the grant match. The 

agencies refer both commenters to 49 

CFR 18.24 for guidance on what is 

allowable to meet the match 

requirement. The TX CSEC requested 

that ‘‘consistent with 49 CFR 18.24,’’ be 

added to the certification regarding the 

matching funds. TX CSEC at 4. The 

agencies agree with this comment, and 

have added that similar language to the 

certification. 

The NE PSC asked that States be 

allowed flexibility to match funds based 

on the overall cost of implementation 

rather than for specific projects. See NE 

PSC at 4. The NE PSC explained that 

NE’s wireless fund could not be used for 

expenses that were not directly related 

to wireless service, such as rural 

addressing. As explained in Section 

IV.J., rural addressing, purchase of street 

signs and development of MSAG are not 

eligible uses for E–911 grant funds. For 

this reason, costs associated with rural 

addressing would not meet the match 

requirement for the E–911 grant funds. 

Although the agencies are aware that 

local counties need funds for rural 

addressing, it is not clear from NE PSC’s 

comments how matching based on the 

overall cost of full implementation of E– 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 26971 

911 service rather than on a project 

basis would help local counties receive 

the financial assistance needed for those 

expenses that could not be funded by 

wireless surcharges. 

The PA EMA asked whether the State 

could meet the matching requirement 

‘‘by leveraging funds already 

encumbered for wireless Phase II E9–1– 

1 or NG9–1–1 studies and/or planning.’’ 

PA EMA at 3. According to the PA 

EMA, it would be difficult to find new 

funds to meet the match requirement 

because the timeline of the application 

does not line up with State or local 

budget cycles. While the agencies 

recognize the potential difficulties 

described by these commenters, the Act 

requires applicants to meet the match 

on ‘‘a project’’ basis. See 47 U.S.C. 

942(b)(2). To allow States to match 

based on overall cost of implementation 

would be contrary to the statutory 

intent. The Act also requires applicants 

to have an already established plan for 

the coordination and implementation of 

E–911 services in order to apply for the 

grant program. See 47 U.S.C. 

942(b)(4)(A)(iii). As explained in 

Section IV.J., grant funds may not be 

used to develop a plan for the 

implementation of E–911 services. The 

agencies believe that allowing the use of 

leveraged funds intended for developing 

a plan for matching purposes also 

would be contrary to the statutory 

intent. The agencies decline to amend 

the rule in response to these comments. 

G. Application: Designation of E–911 

Coordinator 

The agencies received numerous 

comments regarding the proposed 

requirement that the Governor of the 

State designate an E–911 Coordinator to 

implement E–911 services and to sign 

the certifications. The CO 911 expressed 

concern that requiring a Governorappointed E–911 Coordinator would 

disqualify States without a Statewide 

coordinator. CO 911 at 2. Three 

commenters asserted that some States 

by law or rule already have designated 

an E–911 Coordinator or an equivalent 

entity with the authority to manage or 

coordinate emergency communications, 

and that requiring the Governor to make 

another designation in such cases was 

not necessary and might have a negative 

impact on established State 911 

programs. NENA/NASNA at 5; TX CSEC 

at 1–2; WA E911 Office at 6. In contrast, 

the AK NENA requested that the 

Governor be allowed to designate an 

entity other than the statutory 911 

coordinator to apply on behalf of the 

State. AK NENA at 3. 

In enacting the ENHANCE 911 Act, 

Congress stated that one of the purposes 

of the grant program was ‘‘to coordinate 

911 services and E–911 services, at the 

Federal, State, and local levels.’’ Section 

103, Public Law 108–494. Coordination 

of 911 services is traditionally managed 

by the executive branch of the State 

government. The agencies believe that 

the Governor of the State is best 

positioned to identify which agency or 

office is able to serve as the designated 

E–911 Coordinator. In light of the 

express statutory requirement that 

applicants must certify that the State 

has a designated E–911 Coordinator (47 

U.S.C. 942(b)(4)(A)(ii) and (b)(4)(B)), the 

rule continues to require States to 

designate E–911 Coordinators. The 

agencies recognize that the ENHANCE 

911 Act does not require the coordinator 

to have direct legal authority to 

implement E–911 services or manage 

emergency communications operations 

in order to meet the requirements of the 

proposal. See 47 U.S.C. 942(b)(4)(A)(ii). 

Because the rule does not require the E– 

911 Coordinator to have such direct 

legal authority, the agencies do not 

believe that adding language to that 

effect is necessary, as suggested by the 

TX CSEC. TX CSEC at 2. 

The agencies did not intend to 

circumvent existing State authorities for 

911 services in proposing that the 

Governor designate an E–911 

Coordinator. In many States, the State 

911 offices are the point of contact for 

E–911 services. The agencies believe 

that State 911 offices are well equipped 

to coordinate the implementation and 

operation of Phase II E–911 services and 

the migration to an IP-enabled 

emergency network. Accordingly, the 

agencies have made changes in the Final 

Rule to accommodate the commenters’ 

concerns. If the State has established by 

law or regulation an office or 

coordinator with the authority to 

manage E–911 services, that office or 

coordinator must be identified as the 

designated E–911 Coordinator. 

However, if the State does not have such 

an office or coordinator established by 

law or regulation, the Governor must 

designate a single officer or 

governmental body to serve as the E– 

911 Coordinator. The agencies believe 

that giving States these two options for 

designating an E–911 Coordinator is the 

most reasonable and efficient approach 

to address these concerns. The agencies 

have made changes to the rule and 

corresponding changes to the 

certifications in Appendix B and 

Appendix C in response to these 

comments. 

The AK NENA claims that Alaska’s 

911 Coordinator would be ‘‘unable to 

develop a capable ENHANCE 911 Grant 

application within the currently stated 

timelines,’’ and asks that the Governor 

be allowed to designate another 

coordinator. AK NENA at 3. The 

agencies decline to adopt this 

recommendation since allowing the 

Governor to appoint another officer or 

entity for purposes of the E–911 grant 

program where one already exists could 

lead to confusion and blurring of 

responsibilities, resulting in a negative 

impact on established 911 programs 

within the State. 

Two commenters questioned the need 

for the Governor to make any 

designation when States already have 

designated a single point of contact for 

911 under FCC procedures. PA EMA at 

3–4; MO 911 Coordinator at 4–5. These 

commenters suggested that the agencies 

use this single point of contact instead. 

The agencies decline to adopt these 

suggestions, since there is an 

independent obligation to ensure the 

designation of an E–911 Coordinator for 

the specific purposes of this program. 

However, nothing precludes a State 

from using the same single officer or 

governmental body identified to the 

FCC to satisfy the designation 

requirement for the E–911 grant 

program. 

One anonymous commenter and the 

WA E911 Office requested that the 

agencies publish a list of the E–911 

Coordinators. WA E911 Office at 6. 

These comments are outside the scope 

of the rulemaking. This information will 

not be available until after all 

applications have been reviewed. At 

that time, the agencies will consider 

publishing a list of the E–911 

Coordinators for the States that are 

awarded E–911 grants. 

H. Application: Certification Concerning 

Diversion of Funds 

The agencies received many 

comments regarding the requirement for 

certification that neither the State nor 

any taxing jurisdiction in the State has 

diverted designated E–911 charges. The 

ENHANCE 911 Act mandates that 

‘‘[e]ach applicant * * * shall certify 

* * * that no portion of any designated 

E–911 charges imposed by the 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 

from 180 days preceding the date of the 

application and continuing through the 

period in which grant funds are 

available * * *.’’ 47 U.S.C. 942(c). In 

the NPRM, the agencies proposed 

certification language that is nearly 

identical to this statutory language. 

The WA E911 Office claims that this 

certification process discourages 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
26972 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

applications, especially if States must 

return all grant funds if false or 

inaccurate information is provided in 

the certification. See WA E911 Office at 

3–4. The WA E911 Office also 

commented that if the State does not 

apply because it cannot make the 

certifications regarding the diversion of 

funds, then local taxing jurisdictions 

and tribal organizations will not be able 

to apply and receive E–911 grant funds. 

Similarly, CSI–911 commented that if 

the Governor of the State has diverted 

designated E–911 charges, then local 

911 systems that are using such 

designated charges for appropriate 

purposes will be unfairly disqualified 

from receiving E–911 grant funds. CSI– 

911 at 1. Several commenters thought 

that the State should only certify to the 

State’s use of designated E–911 charges 

and should not be required to certify to 

local taxing jurisdictions’ use of 

designated E–911 charges. See, e.g., WA 

E911 Office at 3–4; TX CSEC at 2; 

NENA/NASNA at 7; AK NENA at 3. 

Some of these commenters suggested 

having each local taxing jurisdiction 

certify individually to its own use of 

designated E–911 charges. The WA 

E911 Office suggested modifying the 

language to add ‘‘to the best of my 

knowledge’’ and allowing the State to 

provide a description of the measures 

the State has taken to ensure that local 

taxing jurisdictions are not diverting 

funds. WA E911 Office at 2. 

Although the agencies understand 

these commenters’ concerns, the 

statutory language and certification 

requirement are clear and provide no 

discretion. If the State, as applicant, is 

unable to certify that it is not diverting 

designated E–911 charges, then neither 

the State nor any eligible entity located 

in the State may receive E–911 grant 

funds. The Act requires ‘‘each 

applicant’’ to certify that the State is not 

diverting any designated E–911 charges 

imposed by the State for any purpose 

other than the purposes for which such 

charges are designated or presented. 47 

U.S.C. 942(c)(2) (emphasis added). This 

statutory certification is an affirmative 

requirement, and the agencies decline to 

make any of the changes recommended 

by the commenters regarding a State’s 

diversion of E–911 funds. 

The agencies, however, recognize the 

difficulty States may have in certifying 

that no taxing jurisdictions in the State 

are diverting E–911 charges and believe 

the Act provides discretion in one 

aspect. The MO 911 Coordinator and 

CSI–911 were concerned that a single 

taxing jurisdiction that independently 

diverts designated E–911 charges could 

preclude the entire State from receiving 

grant funds. See MO 911 Coordinator at 

1; CSI–911 at 1. After careful 

consideration, the agencies have 

decided to amend the rule to allow 

States to qualify for E–911 grant funds 

even if a taxing jurisdiction is diverting 

designated E–911 charges, provided the 

State meets the following conditions: 

the State, itself, is not diverting and will 

not divert designated E–911 charges 

during the relevant time period and the 

State does not distribute E–911 grant 

funds to entities that are located in 

taxing jurisdictions where designated E– 

911 charges are being diverted during 

the relevant time period. For example, 

if a PSAP is located in a taxing 

jurisdiction where designated E–911 

charges are being diverted for other 

purposes, the State may not distribute 

E–911 grant funds to that PSAP. 

However, the State may distribute grant 

funds to PSAPs in other taxing 

jurisdictions where designated E–911 

charges are not being diverted, but must 

ensure that these taxing jurisdictions 

that receive E–911 grant funds do not 

divert designated E–911 charges while 

grant funds remain available. In 

addition, the State may use E–911 grant 

funds for a Statewide project or activity 

even though it may incidentally benefit 

PSAPs in a diverting jurisdiction as well 

as PSAPs in compliant jurisdictions. In 

any case, the State must certify that if 

a taxing jurisdiction that directly 

receives grant funds does divert E–911 

charges, the State will ensure that those 

grant funds are returned to the 

government. The agencies have 

amended the rule and certification 

requirements to provide this flexibility. 

The amendments make no change to the 

requirement that the State certify that 

during the relevant time period, it has 

not diverted and will not divert 

designated E–911 charges imposed by 

the State for any other purpose, and that 

it will return all E–911 grant funds if the 

State diverts designated E–911 charges 

for any other purpose. 

The NENA/NASNA commented that 

States that divert 911 fees after July 23, 

2008 would not be in compliance with 

the NET 911 Act and asks that these 

States be ineligible for E–911 grant 

funds. NENA/NASNA at 7–8. The 

requirements of the NET 911 Act are 

separate from and unrelated to the 

requirements of the ENHANCE 911 Act. 

There is no statutory language in the 

NET 911 Act that would amend the 

explicit statutory requirement in the 

ENHANCE 911 Act that applicants must 

certify that during the 180 days before 

the date of the application and 

continuing through the time period that 

grant funds are available, the State and 

taxing jurisdictions did not divert 

designated E–911 charges for any other 

purpose. Consequently, the agencies 

decline to change the Final Rule in 

response to this comment. 

I. Distribution of Grant Funds: Formula 

The approach used in this formula is 

similar to formulae utilized by the 

Department of Transportation programs, 

including the Federal Transit 

Administration non-urbanized area 

grant formula and the Federal-Aid 

Highway Act of 1944 grant formula. 

Both programs utilize road 

infrastructure miles as a component of 

the formula for grant distribution. In 

this case, the road mileage serves as a 

proxy for the ‘‘electronic information 

highway’’ since many 

telecommunication and wireless carriers 

develop their systems along these 

routes. In the arena of wireless E–911, 

Phase II compliance would significantly 

improve emergency response along the 

highway system. The mileage aspect of 

this formula also serves as weight for 

coverage of geographic areas, including 

rural jurisdictions. The population 

aspects of the formula provide a balance 

to ensure that the funds would go to 

those areas in which the E–911 system 

would be improved to help as many 

Americans as possible. The agencies 

believe the result was an equitable 

distribution of the limited funds. The 

minimum was set based on the agencies’ 

understanding that the cost of bringing 

at least one PSAP into Phase II 

compliance would be approximately 

$200,000–$250,000. 

The comments about the proposed 

formula for distribution of E–911 grant 

funds were largely positive. However, 

one commenter, the AK NENA, 

requested that additional grant 

allocations be available for Alaska and 

other States that are still deploying basic 

911 services as well as those lacking 

Statewide E–911 and wireless 911 

capabilities. See AK NENA at 3. The AK 

NENA notes that States that have 

already achieved Statewide deployment 

of E–911 and wireless 911 capabilities 

have access to funding to support the 

deployment of Statewide emergency 

communications. Although the agencies 

recognize that States have varying levels 

of deployment, providing additional 

grant funds to those States that have not 

established funding to support the 

deployment of E–911 services unduly 

penalizes States that have taken steps to 

keep pace with advancing technologies. 

While the agencies also recognize the 

commenter’s concerns about the greater 

needs of some communities, these needs 

are appropriately addressed through 

State planning, and that the formula 

distribution remains an equitable 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 26973 

approach. As a result, the agencies made 

no change to the formula. 

J. Eligible Use of Funds 

The agencies received numerous 

comments requesting clarification of the 

eligible uses of grant funds. In the 

NPRM, the agencies specified that grant 

funds could be used 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 CA 

911 Office asked whether grant funds 

could be used for all three activities. CA 

911 Office at 5. The agencies intend that 

grant funds may be used for any or all 

of the three activities and have amended 

the rule to clarify this point. 

Several commenters asked whether 

grant funds could be used to pay 

consultants. See, e.g., NENA/NASNA at 

8–9; MO 911 Coordinator at 5. In 47 

CFR 400.9(a), the agencies identified the 

requirements of 49 CFR Part 18, 

including the cost principles referenced 

in 49 CFR 18.22, 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 principles for detail. No 

change to the Final Rule is necessary in 

response to these comments. 

Several commenters asked whether 

Statewide projects are eligible for 

funding under the E–911 grant program. 

See, e.g., CA 911 Office at 2; WA E911 

Office at 5–6; PA EMA at 2. Statewide 

E–911 projects are eligible, provided the 

State complies with the requirement 

that 90 percent of the funds be 

expended for the direct benefit of 

PSAPs, as discussed in Section IV.D.2. 

Although the agencies believe that 

States are in the best position to make 

specific deployment decisions, States 

are encouraged to consider those that 

would benefit the largest number of 

PSAPs when selecting Statewide 

projects. Some commenters specifically 

asked whether a Statewide project, such 

as establishing an emergency services IP 

network or ESInet, would be an eligible 

use. NENA/NASNA at 5; MO 911 

Coordinator at 2. According to the 

NENA, ESInets ‘‘are engineered, 

managed networks, and are intended to 

be multi-purpose, supporting extended 

Public Safety communications services, 

in addition to 9–1–1. ESInets use 

broadband, packet switched technology 

capable of carrying voice plus large 

amounts of varying types of data using 

Internet Protocols and standards.’’ See 

NENA, ‘‘A Policy Maker Blueprint for 

Transitioning to the Next Generation 9– 

1–1 System’’ (September 2008). Based 

on this description, the agencies believe 

that establishing an ESInet would help 

enable PSAPs to migrate to an IPenabled emergency network, and 

therefore, would be an eligible use. 

The PA EMA requested a 

modification to allow grant applications 

to include a ‘‘plan to plan’’ and to allow 

grant funds to be used for the 

development of a more thorough State 

911 plan. PA EMA at 4. The PA EMA 

noted that 60 days were insufficient to 

develop such a Statewide 911 plan in 

the manner envisioned by the NASNA 

Model State 9–1–1 Plan, the Act or the 

NPRM. As explained in Section IV.D. 

above, the State 911 Plan required under 

this grant program is not the 

comprehensive plan patterned after the 

Model Plan. The agencies believe that 

60 days is adequate to establish the 

significantly less detailed coordination 

plan anticipated by the ENHANCE 911 

Act. Moreover, the Act requires an 

applicant to certify that it has already 

established a plan for the 

implementation and coordination of E– 

911 services as a condition to apply for 

an E–911 grant. 47 U.S.C. 

942(b)(3)(A)(iii). Allowing the E–911 

grant funds to be used for plan 

development would be inconsistent 

with this statutory prerequisite. 

Consequently, the agencies decline to 

amend the rule to allow applicants to 

include a ‘‘plan to plan’’ and to use 

grant funds to develop a plan. 

The NE PSC requested that eligible 

uses be expanded to include the costs 

incurred for rural addressing, purchase 

of street signs and the development of 

a master street address guide. NE PSC at 

2. The agencies believe that such uses 

are only marginally related to the 

implementation and operation of E–911 

services, and do not meet the purposes 

of the grant program. Consequently, the 

agencies decline to adopt this 

recommendation. 

V. Statutory Basis for This Action 

The Final Rule implements 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. Section 

3011 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 

2005 (Pub. L. 109–171, as amended by 

section 2301 of Pub. L. 110–53 and 

section 539 of Pub. L. 110–161) 

authorized funding for the ENHANCE 

911 Act. 

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 rule was not reviewed by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866. The rule is not 

considered to be significant within the 

meaning of Executive Order 12866 or 

the agencies’ regulatory policies and 

procedures. 

The rule does not affect amounts over 

the significance threshold of $100 

million each year. The rule sets forth 

application procedures and showings to 

be made to be eligible for a grant. The 

funds to be distributed under the rule 

total $43.5 million, well below the 

annual threshold of $100 million. The 

rule does 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 rule 

does not create an inconsistency or 

interfere with any actions taken or 

planned by other agencies. The rule 

does not materially alter the budgetary 

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof. Finally, 

the rule does 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 this rule 

is not significant. The impacts of the 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
26974 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

rule are minimal and a full regulatory 

evaluation is not required. 

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. The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

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 rule under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. States are the 

recipients of funds awarded under the 

E–911 grant program and they are not 

considered to be small entities under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act. 

Therefore, the agencies certify that this 

rule would not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

requires the agencies 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, August 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 rule 

in accordance with the principles and 

criteria set forth in Executive Order 

13132, and have determined that this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant consultation 

with State and local officials or the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. Moreover, the Final 

Rule will not preempt any State law or 

regulation or affect the ability of States 

to discharge traditional State 

government functions. 

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 

rule does not have any retroactive effect. 

This rule 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 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), 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. There are 

reporting requirements contained in the 

Final Rule that are considered to be 

information collection requirements 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, as 

that term is defined by OMB in 5 CFR 

Part 1320. The use of Standard Forms 

424, 424A, 424B, and SF–LLL have been 

approved by OMB under the respective 

control numbers 0348–0043, 0348–0044, 

0348–0040, and 0348–0046. The 

submission of a State 911 Plan 

constitutes a new information collection 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

The estimated total annual burden is 

10,976 hours. The total estimated 

number of respondents is 56 (50 States, 

the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

American Samoa, Guam, the Northern 

Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin 

Islands). 

Pursuant to the Act, the agencies 

solicited public comments on the 

proposed collection of information, with 

a 60-day comment period, in the notice 

of proposed rulemaking published on 

October 3, 2008 (73 FR 57567). In a 

Federal Register Notice published on 

May 19, 2009, the agencies announced 

that they submitted the information 

collection request to OMB for approval. 

(73 FR 23465). OMB approval for this 

information collection is pending. 

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 

rule does 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 

The agencies have reviewed this rule 

for the purposes of the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The agencies 

have determined that this rule will 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 rule 

under Executive Order 13175, and have 

determined that the rule will not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, will not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments, and will 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.). 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 26975 

You may review DOT’s complete 

Privacy Act Statement in the Federal 

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

K. Congressional Review of Agency 

Rulemaking 

The agencies have not submitted the 

Final Rule to the Congress and the 

Government Accountability Office 

under the Congressional Review of 

Agency Rulemaking Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et 

seq. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ 

within the meaning of the Act. 

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 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—Initial 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, 

including public authorities, boards, 

commissions, and similar bodies created 

by such governmental entities to 

provide 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, 

US Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., NTI–140, 

Washington, DC 20590. 

Integrated telecommunications 

services mean those entities engaged in 

the provision of multiple services, such 

as voice, data, image, graphics, and 

video services, which make common 

use of all or part of the same 

transmission facilities, switches, 

signaling, or control devices. 

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. 

Phase II E–911 services mean phase II 

enhanced 911 services, as described in 

47 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 and not more 

than 10 percent of the grant funds will 

be used for the State’s administrative 

expenses related to the E–911 grant 

program; 

(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 

provide 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 for migration to an IPenabled 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 

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 of 49 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. 

States that meet the qualification 

requirements for the initial distribution 

of E–911 grant funds 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 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
26976 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 400.6, a State must submit, with its 

application, a supplemental project 

budget that identifies the maximum 

dollar amount the State is able to match 

from non-Federal sources meeting the 

requirements of 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 to serve as the E–911 

Coordinator of implementation of E–911 

services and to sign the certifications 

required under this part. If the State has 

established by law or regulation an 

office or coordinator with the authority 

to manage E–911 services, that office or 

coordinator must be identified as the 

designated E–911 Coordinator and 

apply for the grant on behalf of the 

State. If the State 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 E–911 Coordinator in order 

to qualify for an E–911 grant. If the 

designated E–911 Coordinator is a 

governmental body, 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. 

The State must certify that during the 

time period 180 days preceding the 

application date, the State has not 

diverted any portion of designated E– 

911 charges imposed by the State for 

any purpose other than the purposes for 

which such charges are designated, that 

no taxing jurisdiction in the State that 

will be a recipient of E–911 grant funds 

has diverted any portion of designated 

E–911 charges imposed by the taxing 

jurisdiction for any purpose other than 

the purposes for which such charges are 

designated, and that neither the State 

nor any taxing jurisdiction in the State 

that is a recipient of E–911 grant funds 

will divert designated E–911 charges for 

any purpose other than the purposes for 

which such charges are designated 

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 August 4, 2009. 

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 recommendation for an award. Failure 

to submit such additional information 

may preclude the State from further 

consideration for 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, 

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 in § 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, for the training in 

the use of such hardware and software, 

or for any combination of these uses, 

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)(2). 

(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)(1). 

§ 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— 

(1) A final voucher for the costs 

incurred. The final voucher constitutes 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 26977 

the final financial reconciliation for the 

grant award. 

(2) 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 

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

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

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

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

APPENDIX A TO PART 400—MINIMUM

GRANT AWARDS AVAILABLE TO

QUALIFYING STATES—Continued 

State name Minimum E–911 

grant award 

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 

APPENDIX A TO PART 400—MINIMUM

GRANT AWARDS AVAILABLE TO

QUALIFYING STATES—Continued 

State name Minimum E–911 

grant award 

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 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES
26978 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULESER05JN09.000</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 26979 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULESER05JN09.001</MATH>
26980 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULESER05JN09.002</MATH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 107 / Friday, June 5, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 26981 

Issued on: June 2, 2009. 

Ronald Medford, 

Acting Deputy Administrator, National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Anna M. Gomez, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Communications and Information. 

[FR Doc. E9–13206 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–59–C 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 2, 22, and 52 

[FAC 2005–29, Amendment–4; FAR Case 

2007–013; Docket 2008–0001; Sequence 19] 

RIN 9000–AK91 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR 

Case 2007–013, Employment Eligibility 

Verification 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Amendment to final rule; delay 

of applicability date. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense, 

General Services Administration, and 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration have agreed to delay the 

applicability date of FAR Case 2007– 

013, Employment Eligibility 

Verification, to September 8, 2009. 

DATES: Applicability Date: The 

applicability date of FAC 2005–29, 

Amendment–3, published April 17, 

2009, 74 FR 17793, is delayed until 

September 8, 2009. 

Contracting officers shall not include 

the new clause at 52.222–54, 

Employment Eligibility Verification, in 

any solicitation or contract prior to the 

applicability date of September 8, 2009. 

On or after September 8, 2009, 

contracting officers— 

• Shall include the clause in 

solicitations, in accordance with the 

clause prescription at 22.1803 and FAR 

1.108(d)(1); and 

• Should modify, on a bilateral basis, 

existing indefinite-delivery/indefinitequantity contracts in accordance with 

FAR 1.108(d)(3) to include the clause 

for future orders if the remaining period 

of performance extends beyond March 

8, 2010, and the amount of work or 

number of orders expected under the 

remaining performance period is 

substantial. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

FAR Secretariat at (202) 501–4755 for 

further information pertaining to status 

or publication schedule. Please cite FAC 

2005–29 (delay of applicability date). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document extends to September 8, 2009, 

the applicability date of the E-Verify 

rule, in order to permit the new 

Administration an adequate opportunity 

to review the rule. 

Federal Acquisition Circular 

Federal Acquisition Circular (FAC) 

2005–29, Amendment–4, is issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of 

Defense, the Administrator of General 

Services, and the Administrator for the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

The Federal Acquisition Regulation 

(FAR) contained in FAC 2005–29 was 

effective January 19, 2009, and is 

applicable September 8, 2009. 

Dated: May 29, 2009. 

Amy G. Williams, 

Acting Deputy Director, Defense Procurement 

and Acquisition Policy (Defense Acquisition 

Regulations System). 

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

Rodney P. Lantier, 

Acting Senior Procurement Executive & 

Acting Deputy Chief Acquisition Officer, 

Office of the Chief Acquisition Officer, U.S. 

General Services Administration. 

Dated: May 29, 2009. 

William P. McNally, 

Assistant Administrator for Procurement, 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. E9–13124 Filed 6–4–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation 

49 CFR Part 1 

[Docket No. DOT–OST–1999–6189] 

RIN 9991–AA55 

Organization and Delegation of Powers 

and Duties: Federal Railroad 

Administrator and Federal Transit 

Administrator 

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation (OST), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule delegates all of 

the authorities vested in the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) by the Rail 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 to the 

Administrator of the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA). This final rule 

also delegates the authorities vested in 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULESER05JN09.003</MATH>