Development of Programmatic Reqs for the SLIGP to Assist in Planning for the Nationwide PSB FRN

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices
in particular. While behavioral
modifications, including temporarily
vacating the area around the
construction site, may be made by these
species to avoid the resultant visual and
acoustic disturbance, the availability of
alternate areas within SFB and haul-out
sites (including pupping sites) and
feeding areas within the Bay has led
NMFS to preliminarily determine that
this action will have a negligible impact
on California sea lion, Pacific harbor
seal, harbor porpoise, and gray whale
populations along the California coast.
In addition, no take by Level A
harassment (injury) or death is
anticipated and harassment takes
should be at the lowest level practicable
due to incorporation of the mitigation
measures mentioned previously in this
document.
Impact on Availability of Affected
Species for Taking for Subsistence Uses
There are no relevant subsistence uses
of marine mammals implicated by this
action.
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA)
NMFS’ prepared an Environmental
Assessment (EA) for the take of marine
mammals incidental to construction of
the East Span of the SF–OBB and made
a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) on November 4, 2003. Due to
the modification of part of the
construction project and the mitigation
measures, NMFS reviewed additional
information from CALTRANS regarding
empirical measurements of pile driving
noises for the smaller temporary piles
without an air bubble curtain system
and the use of vibratory pile driving.
NMFS prepared a Supplemental
Environmental Assessment (SEA) and
analyzed the potential impacts to
marine mammals that would result from
the modification of the action. A
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) was signed on August 5, 2009.
A copy of the SEA and FONSI is
available upon request (see ADDRESSES).

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Endangered Species Act (ESA)
NMFS has determined that issuance
of the IHA will have no effect on listed
marine mammals, as none are known to
occur in the action area.
Proposed Authorization
NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to
CALTRANS for the potential
harassment of small numbers of harbor
seals, California sea lions, harbor
porpoises, and gray whales incidental to
construction of a replacement bridge for
the East Span of the San FranciscoOakland Bay Bridge in California,

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:31 Aug 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

provided the previously mentioned
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting
requirements are incorporated. NMFS
has preliminarily determined that the
proposed activity would result in the
harassment of only small numbers of
harbor seals, California sea lions, harbor
porpoises, and possibly gray whales and
will have no more than a negligible
impact on these marine mammal stocks.
Dated: August 15, 2012.
Helen M. Golde,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–20514 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration
[Docket No. 120509050–2325–02]
RIN 0660–XC001

Development of Programmatic
Requirements for the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program To
Assist in Planning for the Nationwide
Public Safety Broadband Network
National Telecommunications
and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

The National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) issues this
Notice to announce requirements for the
State and Local Implementation Grant
Program authorized by section 6302 of
the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 (Act). The Notice
describes the programmatic
requirements under which NTIA will
award grants to assist state, local, and
tribal governments with planning for a
nationwide interoperable public safety
broadband network.
DATES: The programmatic requirements
for the State and Local Implementation
Grant Program become effective August
21, 2012.
ADDRESSES: The programmatic
requirements for the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program will be
posted to the NTIA Web site at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura M. Pettus, Program Specialist,
Office of Telecommunications and
Information Applications, National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue
NW., Room 4812, Washington, DC
SUMMARY:

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

50481

20230; telephone: (202) 482–5802.
Please direct media inquiries to NTIA’s
Office of Public Affairs, (202) 482–7002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On February 22, 2012, President
Obama signed into law the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012
(Act).1 The Act meets a long-standing
priority of the Obama Administration to
create a single, nationwide interoperable
public safety broadband network that
will, for the first time, allow police
officers, fire fighters, emergency medical
service professionals, and other public
safety officials to communicate with
each other across agencies and
jurisdictions. Public safety workers have
long been hindered by incompatible,
and often outdated, communications
equipment and this Act will help them
to do their jobs more safely and
effectively.
The Act establishes the First
Responder Network Authority (FirstNet)
as an independent authority within
NTIA and authorizes it to take all
actions necessary to ensure the design,
construction, and operation of a
nationwide public safety broadband
network (PSBN), based on a single,
national network architecture.2 FirstNet
is responsible for, at a minimum,
ensuring nationwide standards for use
of and access to the network; issuing
open, transparent, and competitive
requests for proposals (RFPs) to build,
operate, and maintain the network;
encouraging these RFPs to leverage, to
the maximum extent economically
desirable, existing commercial wireless
infrastructure to speed deployment of
the network; and overseeing contracts
with non-federal entities to build,
operate, and maintain the network.3
Additionally, the Act charges NTIA
with establishing a grant program to
assist state, regional, tribal, and local
jurisdictions with identifying, planning,
and implementing the most efficient
and effective means to use and integrate
the infrastructure, equipment, and other
architecture associated with the
nationwide PSBN to satisfy the wireless
broadband and data services needs of
their jurisdictions.4 Up to $135 million
in grant money will be available to
NTIA for the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program.5
To implement the new program, NTIA
must establish requirements, in
1 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012, Public Law 112–96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012)
(Act).
2 47 U.S.C. 1422 (b), 1426(b)(1).
3 Id.
4 47 U.S.C. 1442(a).
5 47 U.S.C. 1441(c).

E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM

21AUN1

50482

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices

consultation with FirstNet, by August
22, 2012. These requirements include:
Determining the scope of eligible
activities that the grant program will
fund, defining eligible costs, and
prioritizing grants for activities that
ensure coverage in rural as well as
urban areas.6 The U.S. Secretary of
Commerce appointed the FirstNet Board
of Directors on August 20, 2012, and
NTIA initiated consultations with
FirstNet on the requirements for the
State and Local Implementation Grant
Program. NTIA may refine further the
programmatic requirements announced
in this Notice based on these ongoing
consultations.
II. Overview of Public Comments
On May 16, 2012, NTIA issued a
Request for Information (RFI) seeking
public comment on various issues
related to the development of the State
and Local Implementation Grant
Program.7 Specifically, the RFI
requested comment on how FirstNet
should conduct the consultation process
with regional, state, tribal, and local
jurisdictions; how to incorporate
existing public safety governance and
planning authorities into the
development of the PSBN; how best to
leverage existing infrastructure for use
in the PSBN; what state and local
actions should be eligible grant
activities; and issues related to state
funding and performance
requirements.8
NTIA received approximately 70
comments from a wide range of
stakeholders, including states, local and
tribal governments, federal and state
agencies, trade associations, private
companies, consultants, and
individuals. The majority of the
comments discuss each of the issues
identified in the RFI, and NTIA relied
on the comments for guidance to frame
the requirements of the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program,
particularly to develop the overarching
direction of the program as it relates to
the collection of data and the
consultation process with FirstNet.
In some cases, the comments address
matters not specifically covered in the
RFI, such as the need for a web-based
repository of information, the need for
clarification on the applicability of
pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

6 47

U.S.C. 1442(c).
of the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program for the Nationwide
Public Safety Broadband Network, Request for
Information, 77 FR 28857 (May 16, 2012) (RFI).
NTIA has posted all comments received in response
to the RFI on its Web site at http://www.ntia.doc.
gov/federal-register-notice/2012/commentsdevelopment-state-and-local-implementation-grantprogram.
8 Id. at 28858–59.
7 Development

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:31 Aug 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

vendor conflict of interest rules, the
importance of developing the PSBN
business models, and the necessary
considerations for network
sustainability.9 While these comments
raise important issues, many of these
matters are within the purview of
FirstNet and are better left for its
consideration as it carries out its
responsibilities under the Act. As a
result, NTIA has not incorporated these
concerns into the requirements for the
State and Local Implementation Grant
Program, but will pass the information
along to FirstNet for its consideration.
A. Data Collection
Overwhelmingly, the commenters
agree that FirstNet must establish a
standardized process before the states
engage in any data collection
activities.10 The state commenters, in
particular, point out that it would not be
an efficient use of their resources to
9 See, e.g., State of New York at 2, 4, and 7,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
state_of_new_york_response_to_ntia_grant_rfi_
june_15_2012.pdf; State of Texas at 9, 14, available
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ntia_texas_rfi_
v10.1_061512.pdf; Motorola Solutions, Inc. at 2, 7–
8, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
final_ntia_rfi_comments.pdf; Operator Advisory
Committee (OAC) at 10–11, 13–14, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/psst-oac_ntia_
rfi_response_finalv3.pdf; Los Angeles Regional
Interoperable Communications System Authority
(LA–RICS) at 4, available at http://www.ntia.doc.
gov/files/ntia/ntia_rfi_laricscomments_final.pdf;
Mid-Atlantic SWICs at 8–9, available at http://www.
ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/mid-atlantic_swics_
comments_on_ntia_rfi_6-15-2012_final.pdf.
10 See Arizona Department of Homeland Security
at 9, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
azdohs.pdf; Carlos Delatorre at 9, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/carlos_delatorre_
comments.pdf; National States Geographic
Information Council (NSGIC) at 4, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/nsgic_response_
061412.pdf; Michael A. Scales, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/federal-register-notice/2012/
comments-development-state-and-localimplementation-grant-program?page=1#comment29357; National Governors Association at 2,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
letter_to_ntia_re_state_and_local_implemenation_
grant_final_signed.docx.pdf; National Association
of State Chief Information Officers (NASCIO) at 3,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
nascio_response_to_ntia_psbn_grant_program_
final.pdf; FEMA Region 5 Regional Emergency
Communications Coordination Working Group
(RECCWG) at 6–7, available at http://www.ntia.doc.
gov/files/ntia/fema_region5_reccwg_ntia_rfi_
responses_june_2012_ver7.pdf; Ventera at 4,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ntia_
public_comments_sligp.pdf; Commonwealth of
Kentucky at 1, available at http://www.ntia.doc.
gov/files/ntia/kybroadbandrfi.pdf; Rhode Island
Broadband Program Director at 12, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ntia_rfi_
response_001.pdf; State of Utah at 5, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/state_of_utah_
ntia_rfi_response_final_6-15-12.pdf; State of North
Dakota at 5–6, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
files/ntia/north_dakota_firstnet_planning_rfi_
response_120509050-1050-01.pdf; Raytheon at 2,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
raytheon_rfi_response_to_ntia__15-jun-12.pdf.

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

begin collecting data that might not be
useful or necessary during their
consultations with FirstNet.11 Many
commenters provide helpful input about
the data the states should collect and
how they could best identify the assets
and infrastructure that FirstNet might
leverage for the PSBN.12 Recommended
assets to identify and evaluate include
existing radio tower sites, fiber and
microwave links, and governmentowned properties that might be suitable
for new wireless infrastructure, such as
building rooftops and water towers.13
Several commenters also recommend
that FirstNet create a standard template,
along with a standardized database, for
the states to use to collect and submit
information on asset inventories.14
B. The Consultation Process With
FirstNet
Many commenters believe that
preparing to consult effectively with
FirstNet will require states to dedicate
their already limited resources,
specifically funds and personnel, to this
task.15 The comments emphasize that
effective consultations with FirstNet
will require a significant amount of
11 See State of California at 5,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
california_state_response.pdf; State of South Dakota
at 1, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
national_public_safety_broadband_public_
comments.pdf.
12 See State of South Dakota at 1; Arizona
Department of Homeland Security at 4–5; Carlos
Delatorre at 3; State of Oregon at 1, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/oregon_rfi_
comments.pdf; NSGIC at 2; State of Georgia at 1–
3, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
state_of_georgia_response_06-14-2012.pdf; LA–
RICS at 3–5; Mid-Atlantic SWICs at 9; FEMA
Region 5 RECCWG at 2, 12–13; OAC at 3–5;
BayRICS at 3–4, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/bayrics_ntia_rfi_
slpgp.pdf; Motorola Solutions at 3, 7–9; PCIA-The
Wireless Infrastructure Association at 5–6, available
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ntia_state_and
_local_grant_program_rfi_pcia_comments_6-15-12_
final.pdf; Alcatel-Lucent at 5–8, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/alu_comments_on_ntia
_ps_rfi.pdf; Tilson Government Services, LLC at 4,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
tilsonrficomments.pdf; Raytheon at 6; Connected
Nation at 4, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
files/ntia/cn_letter_on_firstnet_rfi_6_15_2012_
final.pdf; Northrop Grumman Information Systems
at 2–4, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/
ntia/northrop_grumman_comments.pdf; North
Central Regional Broadband Data Consortium at 2–
4, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
ncrbdc_comments.pdf.
13 See Mid-Atlantic SWICs at 8; Arizona
Department of Homeland Security at 4–5; NSGIC at
2.
14 See Mid-Atlantic SWICs at 8; State of Georgia
at 5; State of New Jersey at 5, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/new_jersey_ntia_rfi_
sligp_response_6_15_2012.pdf.
15 See State of Colorado Governor’s Office of
Information Technology at 2, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/colorado_office_of_
information_technology_comments.pdf (stating that
the collection of relevant data ‘‘will take significant
effort in both human and capital resources’’).

E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM

21AUN1

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

planning and preparation for all
stakeholders that could span several
months, if not years.16 The states, in
particular, observe that without grant
funds to hire staff, conduct meetings
with the various stakeholders, and
develop the necessary governance
structures, the states cannot consult
with FirstNet in a meaningful way.17
Many commenters agree that state, local,
and tribal jurisdictions lack the staff
and/or technical ability to manage a
project of this size without federal
support.18
NTIA agrees that FirstNet is in the
best position to develop standards for
the collection of data on assets and
infrastructure that might be used or
incorporated into the PSBN.19 As a
result, NTIA believes that it would not
be a prudent use of grant funds to allow
the states to undertake data gathering
and collection activities, such as asset
inventories, before FirstNet has
developed guidance on the information
it will need. Additionally, NTIA
understands that coordination with
FirstNet will involve a substantial
amount of time and planning and many
states face significant resource
constraints, particularly with staffing
levels, to participate effectively in this
effort.20
16 See California Emergency Management Agency
at 3, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
california_state_response.pdf.
17 See State of Nevada at 3, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/state_of_nevada_ntia_
docket_no_120509050-1050-01.pdf
(‘‘Implementation and planning grants must be used
to fund that data collection and assessment effort
in addition to the other tasks required to establish
the State’s network requirements.’’); State of
Mississippi at 3, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/state_of_ms_response_
to_ntia_rfi_final_6_15_12.pdf (‘‘Grant funding
should also be used to provide the support for
dedicated state staff and consultants to develop
essential data for FirstNet as well as funding to
support outreach and education efforts directly
related to the PSBN.’’).
18 See State of Georgia at 1 (‘‘Very few, if any,
States or locals have the staff and technical
expertise to manage a project of this size,
complexity and importance on a full time basis.’’);
State of New York at 2 (‘‘Many states lack the state
and local resources to collect this data.’’); State of
North Dakota at 1–2 (grant funds should be
available for staffing requirements and planning
activities).
19 See Commonwealth of Massachusetts at 4,
available athttp://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/mass
_eopss_final_june_14_2012-2.pdf; State of Oregon at
5–6; State of Georgia at 5; APCO International at 5,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
apco_comments_on_ntia_rfi.pdf; LA–RICS at 9;
State of Montana at 3, available at http://www.ntia.
doc.gov/files/ntia/montana_response_ntia_npsbn_
rfi_061412.pdf; OAC at 10; State of Nevada at 2–3;
State of Colorado Governor’s Office of Information
Technology at 2.
20 See South Dakota Bureau of Information &
Telecommunications at 1, available at http://www.
ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/national_public_safety_
broadband_public_comments.pdf.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:31 Aug 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

Based in large part on this feedback,
and in keeping with the intent of the
Act, NTIA believes that, given the funds
available and the need for FirstNet to
make initial decisions on the data
collection process, it can make the most
efficient and effective use of grant
dollars by focusing the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program on
planning and development activities in
preparation for consultations with
FirstNet.21
III. Establishment of Programmatic
Requirements for the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program
A. Funding Distribution
Consistent with the statutory
framework, NTIA plans to design the
State and Local Implementation Grant
Program as a formula-based, matching
grant program to assist states, in
collaboration with regional, tribal, and
local jurisdictions, with activities
related to planning for the establishment
of a nationwide public safety broadband
network.22 NTIA is not announcing
procedures for the submission of grant
applications in this Notice nor is it
accepting applications at this time.
NTIA intends to release a Federal
Funding Opportunity (FFO) notice that
will provide information on topics
including: The amount of funding
available for award and how NTIA will
allocate funds to applicants,
instructions on the application process,
and the evaluation criteria for
application review. Subject to activities
of FirstNet, NTIA expects to issue a FFO
and open the application window
during the first quarter of calendar year
2013. This time frame will allow NTIA
to complete the administrative functions
it must undertake to prepare to award
grants under this program.
NTIA plans to distribute the funding
available under this grant program in
two phases, and will consider the input
solicited through the RFI to develop a
methodology to distribute the available
funds.23 The commenters suggest
numerous factors as relevant to
allocating these funds, including:
Population; 24 population density; 25
land mass; 26 geography and
21 See

47 U.S.C. 1442(a).
id.
23 See RFI, 77 FR at 28859.
24 See State of Georgia at 12; LA–RICS at 20; State
of New York at 10.
25 See Commonwealth of Massachusetts at 12;
USDA-Rural Utilities Service (USDA–RUS),
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/federalregister-notice/2012/comments-development-stateand-local-implementation-grant-program#comment
-29426.
26 See State of South Dakota at 5.
22 See

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

50483

topography; 27 risk, threat, and
vulnerability; 28 probability of
disaster; 29 expected level of effort
required for completion; 30 existing
critical infrastructure; 31 number of
highway miles; 32 demand and
marketing components; 33 number of
regional/local/tribal governmental
entities using the network; 34 number of
first responders using the network; 35
effective signal propagation; 36 amount
of uncovered rural broadband
customers; 37 prioritization of rural
areas; 38 areas with backhaul
deficiencies; 39 length of international
borders; 40 and amount of tribal lands.41
Additionally, some commenters propose
that NTIA provide each state with an
initial, equal distribution of funds to
enable the states to accomplish certain
planning tasks.42 NTIA will take this
input into account and consider those
factors that can be quantified in
developing the formula it will use to
allocate the available grant funds among
eligible applicants. NTIA will announce
this formula when it issues the FFO.
B. Eligible Applicants
The 56 states and territories are
eligible for grants under the State and
Local Implementation Grant Program.
The Act directs NTIA to make grants to
states; thus, each state and territory
choosing to apply for a grant should
27 See State of Oregon at 16; State of Montana at
8; State of Maine at 3, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/firstnetrfiresponse.pdf;
Florida at 18, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
files/ntia/florida_response_to_ntia_rfi_state_and_
local_implementation_grant.pdf; Tilson
Government Services, LLC at 11.
28 See Arizona Department of Homeland Security
at 15; State of Georgia at 12; BayRICS at 12–13.
29 See State of Texas at 13.
30 See Carlos Delatorre at 18–19; Florida at 18;
State of North Dakota at 13; Washington State
Interoperability Executive Committee at 4, available
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/wa_siec_
response_to_ntia_rfi_06152012.pdf.
31 See State of Georgia at 12; State of Maine at 3;
FEMA Region 5 RECCWG at 15; North Central
Regional Broadband Data Consortium at 13–14.
32 See State of Nevada at 6–7; State of Utah at 14;
State of Mississippi at 20.
33 See APCO International at 7.
34 See Mid-Atlantic SWICs at 11; Florida at 18;
OAC at 22.
35 See FEMA Region 5 RECCWG at 15; OAC at 22.
36 See State of Maine at 3.
37 See State of Nevada at 7; State of Mississippi
at 20.
38 See Mendocino County, California at 3,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
mendocinocommentsonntiafirstnetrfi.pdf.
39 See State of Utah at 14.
40 See State of Texas at 14; State of North Dakota
at 13; Washington State Interoperability Executive
Committee at 3.
41 See State of North Dakota at 13.
42 See, e.g., Commonwealth of Massachusetts at 2,
4 (proposing that NTIA give each state $500,000 to
establish and operate a Public Safety Broadband
office).

E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM

21AUN1

50484

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices

submit an individual application during
the application window. An applicant
may decide, however, to collaborate or
coordinate with other states and regions
in preparing application submissions, as
is contemplated in the statute.43
NTIA will specify in the FFO the
exact contents of the application
package that applicants must submit
during the application window. There
are several items, however, that NTIA
will likely require, and applicants may
prepare to address them in advance of
the FFO’s publication. First, the Act
directs each state to certify in its
application for grant funds that the state
has designated a single officer or
governmental body to serve as the
coordinator of the grant funds.44 This
designated officer or governmental body
will also be responsible for determining
the method of consultation between
FirstNet and the state.45 Multiple
commenters urge NTIA to give the states
flexibility in making this decision.46
Commenters point out that states are
best equipped to identify the most
appropriate office or governmental body
suited to this task, which may vary from
state to state, as well as the personnel
qualified to act in this capacity.47
Accordingly, NTIA will give states
flexibility in determining which state
officer or governmental body to
designate as the coordinator of the grant
funds.
Second, in response to concerns
expressed by some commenters and
consistent with the intent of the statute,
NTIA will likely ask applicants to
describe how they plan to collect input
from local and tribal jurisdictions to
ensure that their public safety needs are
adequately represented during the
consultation process with FirstNet and
in the coordination of the grant funds.48
43 47

U.S.C. 1442(a).
U.S.C. 1442(d).
45 47 U.S.C. 1426(c)(2)(B).
46 See State of Oregon at 2; State of California at
3; Nebraska at 2, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/1399_001.pdf; Florida
at 4.
47 See Minnesota at 4, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ecn_ntia_rfi_grant_
filing_06_15_2012_d4_final.pdf; State of New York
at 3; State of Hawaii at 5–6, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/state_of_hawaii_sligp_
rfi_response.pdf; State of Georgia at 3; State of
Texas at 2–3.
48 See 47 U.S.C. 1442(a); see also National
Congress of American Indians at 2–3, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ncai_comments_
on_sligp_06152012f.pdf (NTIA and FirstNet must
‘‘institute rules and reporting requirements to
ensure that tribal governments are included in the
planning and implementation process’’); NASCIO at
2–3 (‘‘The State and Local Implementation grant
program should encourage states to leverage all preexisting relationships to ensure coordination and
input into the planning process.’’); State of Alaska
at 1, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

44 47

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:31 Aug 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

Third, NTIA requested comment on
how the existing public safety
governance and planning authorities in
each state might be incorporated into
the consultations with FirstNet about
the PSBN.49 While each state may be at
different stages in their development of
their public safety governance
structures, the commenters generally
agree that the states should use
established governing bodies in the
PSBN consultations.50 Because the
governance structures tend to vary from
state to state, NTIA will likely ask the
states to discuss how they will leverage
their existing governance structures in
the PSBN consultations. Finally,
because these public safety governance
structures have traditionally focused
solely on interoperable Land Mobile
Radio (LMR) voice communications,
NTIA anticipates asking applicants to
describe how they intend to expand the
expertise of their governance structures
to include representatives with an
understanding of broadband and Long
Term Evolution (LTE) technology to
state_of_alaska_response_to_ntia_rfi.pdf (‘‘Any
mechanisms that mandate involvement of federal,
local, and tribal users would not be unreasonable
to the degree that involvement levels could be
determined by the states.’’); New Mexico
Department of Information Technology at 3,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/rfi_
response_final_15jun12.pdf (suggesting each state
‘‘provide a plan for ensuring inclusion of local and
tribal entities via aggregate structure’’); LA–RICS at
6 (‘‘NTIA should allow each State to determine the
best method for undertaking [involving tribal
entities] and include a description and plan in its
grant application.’’); Commonwealth of
Massachusetts at 2–3 (saying that it should be a
stipulation for funding that ‘‘the responsible state
governing body ensures that local and tribal (if
applicable) participation in the planning process is
present’’); APCO International at 1 (‘‘[S]tates must
place the highest priority on establishing or
enhancing governance structures that ensure
adequate representation of local jurisdictions in
their respective [S]tates.’’).
49 RFI, 77 FR at 28858–59.
50 See State of Montana at 3–4 (‘‘[T]o facilitate the
planning and deployment [of the PSBN,] an already
established governing body and governance
structure in each individual [S]tate should be
utilized.’’); FEMA Region 5 RECCWG at 3 (‘‘[T]here
is no need to establish a new governance structure,
even though there is now a new technology to
govern,’’ since the governance structures in place or
being developed should already include
representatives of multiple disciplines as well as
local and tribal responders.); Florida at 7–8 (finding
that even though the underlying technology is
changing, the mission of the Interoperability
Governing Bodies (IGBs) remains, and therefore,
‘‘existing IGBs should continue to have principle
[sic] responsibility for interoperability within the
NPSBN’’); Minnesota at 8 (‘‘[E]xisting IGBs should
continue to have principle [sic] responsibility for
interoperability within the NPSBN.’’); New Mexico
Department of Information Technology at 5–6
(stating that the current governance structures can
and should be considered for use with the PSBN);
Montgomery County, Maryland at 6, available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/commentsmontgomerycountymd.pdf (emphasizing that
existing public safety governance and planning
authorities’ voices must be heard in the program).

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

facilitate their consultations with
FirstNet.
C. Allowable Grant Activities
The State and Local Implementation
Grant Program will support activities
related to planning for the establishment
of the nationwide PSBN. NTIA received
detailed input from the majority of
commenters regarding the types of
activities that it should allow under the
grant program to accomplish this
objective.51 Some of the activities that
commenters identify include ensuring
that states have an appropriate
framework in place to consult with
FirstNet,52 developing and managing
personnel/administrative positions,53
conducting meetings,54 arranging
travel,55 and providing public outreach
and education as well as internal
training.56 Commenters further note that
some states may need to work with their
legal teams to evaluate any potential
local legal barriers, negotiate necessary
agreements, and develop standard
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)
to govern access to assets and
infrastructure that may used in the
PSBN.57
51 See

RFI, 77 Fed. Reg. at 28859.
6206(c)(2)(A) of the Act directs FirstNet
to consult with regional, state, tribal, and local
jurisdictions about the distribution and expenditure
of any amounts required to carry out the network
policies that it is charged with establishing,
including (i) construction of a core network and any
radio access network build-out; (ii) placement of
towers; (iii) coverage areas of the network, whether
at the regional, state, tribal, or local level; (iv)
adequacy of hardware, security, reliability, and
resiliency requirements; (v) assignment of priority
to local users; (vi) assignment of priority and
selection of entities seeking access to or use of the
nationwide public safety interoperable broadband
network; and (vii) training needs of local users. 47
U.S.C. 1426(c)(2)(A).
53 See State of South Dakota at 4; Arizona
Department of Homeland Security at 13; State of
Oregon at 12; State of California at 8; APCO
International at 6; LA–RICS at 17; Anjee Toothaker
at 2, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
june_15_2012_ltr_to_natl_telecomm_and_
info_admin.pdf; FEMA Region 5 RECCWG at 12;
Florida at 14; State of North Carolina at 5, available
at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
ntia_rfi_comments_by_north_carolina.pdf; Dr.
Michael Myers at 14, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
meyers_rfi_response.pdf.
54 See LA–RICS at 17; Mid-Atlantic SWICs at 10–
11; State of Montana at 6; Commonwealth of
Kentucky at 2; State of New York at 7; Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe 911 at 3, available at http://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ntia_rfi_comments
_from_crst_911_corp_v2.pdf; State of Texas at 11.
55 See Carlos Delatorre at 15; Michael A. Scales;
State of Utah at 11; State of Mississippi at 16;
National Congress of American Indians at 6.
56 See State of Oregon at 12; State of California
at 8; Commonwealth of Massachusetts at 9; State of
Georgia at 9; Florida at 15.
57 See NACo, NLC, USCM & NATOA at 3,
available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
response_to_rfi_on_grant_structure_final.pdf; State
of South Dakota at 3; State of California at 1–2; LA–
52 Section

E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM

21AUN1

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices
NTIA anticipates structuring the State
and Local Implementation Grant
Program into two phases of funding for
planning activities. The first phase will
focus on initial planning and
consultation activities, including
strategy and timeline development,
meetings, governance planning, and
outreach and education efforts. The
second phase will not begin until
FirstNet has consulted with the statedesignated contact about the matters
listed in the Act, including defining
coverage needs, user requirements, and
network hardening and resiliency
requirements.58 The second funding
phase will address states’ needs in
preparing for additional consultation
with FirstNet and planning to undertake
data collection activities.
NTIA will detail the full scope of
allowable activities under the grant
program in the FFO; however, NTIA
will likely require recipients to show
that they have accomplished the
following activities by the end of the
grant period of performance: (1)
Established a governance structure, or
expanded existing structures, to consult
with FirstNet; (2) developed procedures
to ensure local and tribal representation
and participation in the consultation
process with FirstNet; (3) created a
process for education and outreach,
through program development or
through other efforts, among local and
tribal officials, public safety users, and
other stakeholders about the nationwide
public safety broadband network; (4)
identified potential public safety users
of the public safety broadband network;
(5) developed standard MOUs to
facilitate the use of existing
infrastructure, or identified the legal
barriers to creating standard MOUs and
described potential remedies; and (6)
developed staffing plans that include
local and tribal representation to
participate in the public safety
governance structure and to prepare for
data collection activities in consultation
with FirstNet. NTIA also will consider
having grant recipients prepare a
comprehensive plan, similar in concept
to their existing Statewide
Interoperability Communications Plans
(SICPs), describing the public safety
needs that they expect FirstNet to
address in its design of the nationwide
PSBN, as well as how they intend to
satisfy each of the elements enumerated
above, including milestones that
demonstrate their progress.
If sufficient funds are available, NTIA
may permit grant recipients that have
RICS at 5; State of New Jersey at 4; State of Nevada
at 4; State of Texas at 12.
58 47 U.S.C. 1426(c)(2)(A).

VerDate Mar<15>2010

15:31 Aug 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

satisfactorily completed the milestones
associated with these initial planning
requirements to use funds for
supplemental activities related to
preparing for any FirstNet data
collections, such as determining staffing
levels to dedicate to these tasks,
designating a state point of contact for
data collection, where appropriate, and
evaluating the feasibility of using
public/private partnerships. At present,
NTIA does not expect to include the
compiling of asset and infrastructure
inventories as an allowable activity
until FirstNet has developed a
standardized process to govern data
collection activities.
D. Funding Restrictions—Eligible and
Ineligible Costs
Grantees may only use funds awarded
under the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program to pay
eligible costs. Eligible costs are
consistent with the cost principles
identified in the applicable Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
circulars 59 and in the grant program’s
authorizing legislation.
Based on input received from
multiple commenters, eligible costs
under the planning grant program will
likely include the following categories
of expenses:
1. Hiring staff and consultants
required for the planning process (such
as project managers, program directors,
engineers, grant administrators,
financial analysts, accountants, and
attorneys);
2. Holding planning meetings with
state agencies, local and tribal
stakeholders, and regional partners;
3. Covering travel costs for state, local,
and tribal representatives to attend
planning meetings (such as preparing
for FirstNet consultations and attending
state, regional, and national meetings
that address public safety broadband
issues);
4. Developing, modifying, or
enhancing state plans and governance
structures, including efforts to adapt
existing public safety governance
authorities, such as the Statewide
Interoperability Coordinators (SWIC),
Statewide Interoperability Executive
Committees (SIEC), and Statewide
Interoperability Governing Bodies
(SIGB), to include public safety
broadband stakeholders and expertise,
59 Allowable costs are determined in accordance
with the cost principles applicable to the entity
incurring the costs. For example, the allowability of
costs incurred by State, local or federallyrecognized Indian tribal governments is determined
in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular
A–87, ‘‘Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian
Tribal Governments,’’ 2 CFR Part 225.

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

50485

and determining the role of the state
Chief Information Officers (CIO), Chief
Technology Officers (CTO), or Chief
Budget Officers (CBO);
5. Conducting communications,
education, and outreach activities with
state, local, tribal, and regional
stakeholders;
6. Developing standardized MOUs
and other types of agreements to
facilitate access to and use of existing
infrastructure;
7. Identifying potential public safety
users for the public safety broadband
network;
8. Administrative services and
supplies necessary to prepare for and
manage the grant program;
9. Legal services related to the
planning process; and
10. Training costs related to the
planning process.
NTIA does not envision allowing
funds awarded under the State and
Local Implementation Grant Program to
be used for activities related to site
preparation, broadband deployment,
installation, construction, or the
acquisition of equipment used to
provide wireless broadband services,
including LTE-related activities.
E. Rural Coverage Prioritization
The Act provides that the State and
Local Implementation Grant Program
shall include requirements to prioritize
grants for activities that ensure coverage
in rural as well as urban areas.60 Some
commenters note that states with a
higher percentage of rural areas may
face unique challenges; thus, designing
a one-size-fits-all approach to ensuring
rural coverage may not be appropriate
for all circumstances.61
In designing the formula that it will
use to allocate funds under the grant
program, NTIA intends to avoid a solely
population-based approach and will
consider additional factors that affect
rural coverage. Additionally, NTIA
agrees that the states will need
flexibility in determining the most
effective means by which FirstNet can
provide adequate rural coverage. While
the FFO will describe in detail the exact
contents of the application package,
NTIA anticipates having the states
address how they will prioritize their
grant activities to ensure coverage in
rural areas, including providing specific
plans and metrics to demonstrate how
they will achieve these requirements.62
60 47

U.S.C. 1442(c).
State of South Dakota at 4; State of Georgia
at 10; Arizona Department of Homeland Security at
13–14.
62 See State of Mississippi at 17; OAC at 20–21.
61 See

E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM

21AUN1

50486

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 21, 2012 / Notices

F. NTIA Consultations With FirstNet on
the State and Local Implementation
Grant Program Requirements
As previously discussed, the Act
directs NTIA to consult with FirstNet to
establish the requirements of the State
and Local Implementation Grant
Program not later than 6 months after
the date of the Act’s enactment, or by
August 22, 2012. The Act also required
that FirstNet be established no later than
August 20, 2012. The Act’s framework,
which essentially placed the creation of
FirstNet and the development of the
grant program requirements on parallel
tracks, proved challenging for NTIA as
it attempted to fulfill the statutory
mandate to consult with FirstNet in
establishing the State and Local
Implementation Grant Program. As
noted, NTIA has only started to consult
with the newly-formed FirstNet Board
on the grant program requirements
outlined in this Notice. NTIA expects
these consultations to proceed over the
next few months as NTIA continues to
prepare the FFO in which the State and
Local Implementation Grant Program
requirements will be described more
fully.
Dated: August 16, 2012.
Lawrence E. Strickling,
Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information.
[FR Doc. 2012–20502 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–60–P

COORDINATING COUNCIL ON
JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
[OJP (OJJDP) Docket No. 1601]

Meeting of the Coordinating Council
on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention
Coordinating Council on
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:

The Coordinating Council on
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (Council) announces its next
meeting.
DATES: Friday, September 14, 2012 from
10:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place
in the third floor main conference room
at the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, 810 7th St. NW.,
Washington, DC 20531.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit
the Web site for the Coordinating
Council at www.juvenilecouncil.gov or
contact Robin Delany-Shabazz,

pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

SUMMARY:

VerDate Mar<15>2010

20:08 Aug 20, 2012

Jkt 226001

Designated Federal Official, by
telephone at 202–307–9963 [Note: this
is not a toll-free telephone number], or
by email at Robin.Delany-Shabazz@
usdoj.gov or Geroma.Void@usdoj.gov.
The meeting is open to the public.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
established pursuant to Section 3(2)A of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. App. 2) will meet to carry out its
advisory functions under Section 206 of
the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601,
et seq. Documents such as meeting
announcements, agendas, minutes, and
reports will be available on the
Council’s Web page, www.
juvenilecouncil.gov, where you may also
obtain information on the meeting.
Although designated agency
representatives may attend, the Council
membership is composed of the
Attorney General (Chair), the
Administrator of the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(Vice Chair), the Secretary of Health and
Human Services (HHS), the Secretary of
Labor, the Secretary of Education, the
Secretary of Housing and Urban
Development, the Director of the Office
of National Drug Control Policy, the
Chief Executive Officer of the
Corporation for National and
Community Service, and the Assistant
Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The nine additional members are
appointed by the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, the Senate Majority
Leader, and the President of the United
States. Other federal agencies take part
in Council activities including the
Departments of Agriculture, Defense,
the Interior, and the Substance and
Mental Health Services Administration
of HHS.
Meeting Agenda
The agenda for this meeting includes:
(a) Presentations on the distinct risk
factors, needs and pathways to success
for girls and young women ‘‘at the
margins’’ of society; (b) discussions of
potential areas where agency
coordination might improve delivery of
services and outcomes for girls; and (c)
agency updates and announcements.
Registration
For security purposes, members of the
public who wish to attend the meeting
must pre-register online at www.
juvenilecouncil.gov no later than
Monday, September 10, 2012. Should
problems arise with web registration,
call Daryel Dunston at 240–221–4343 or
send a request to register to Mr.

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Dunston. Include name, title,
organization or other affiliation, full
address and phone, fax and email
information and send to his attention
either by fax to 301–945–4295, or by
email to ddunston@edjassociates.com.
[Note: These are not toll-free telephone
numbers.] Additional identification
documents may be required. Space is
limited.
Note: Photo identification will be required
for admission to the meeting.

Written Comments: Interested parties
may submit written comments and
questions by Monday, September 10,
2012, to Robin Delany-Shabazz,
Designated Federal Official for the
Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at
Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov. The
Coordinating Council on Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention
expects that the public statements
presented will not repeat previously
submitted statements. Written questions
from the public may also be invited at
the meeting.
Melodee Hanes,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012–20525 Filed 8–20–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[OE Docket No. EA–294–B]

Application To Export Electric Energy;
TexMex Energy, LLC
Office of Electricity Delivery
and Energy Reliability, DOE.
ACTION: Notice of application.
AGENCY:

TexMex Energy, LLC
(TexMex) has applied to renew its
authority to transmit electric energy
from the United States to Mexico
pursuant to section 202(e) of the Federal
Power Act (FPA).
DATES: Comments, protests, or motions
to intervene must be submitted on or
before September 20, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments, protests, or
motions to intervene should be
addressed to: Christopher Lawrence,
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability, Mail Code: OE–20, U.S.
Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0350. Because
of delays in handling conventional mail,
it is recommended that documents be
transmitted by overnight mail, by
electronic mail to
Christopher.Lawrence@hq.doe.gov, or by
facsimile to 202–586–8008.
SUMMARY:

E:\FR\FM\21AUN1.SGM

21AUN1