put in place within 18
                                        months. The narrative
                                        describes how the
                                        activities will be
                                        measured and evaluated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Implementation Grant Review and Selection Process
(a) Overall Selection Process and Ratings
    Teams of Department and contractor support staff review all
applications to determine whether they are eligible applicants based on
the eligibility information in Section C. If multiple applications are
received from the same applicant, the last one submitted will be
reviewed. All eligible Implementation Grant applications received by
the deadline will be reviewed and receive ratings for each of these
criteria: #1 Safety Impact; #2 Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration;
#3 Effective Practices and Strategies; #4 Other DOT Strategic Goals.
Based on the criteria ratings, the Department will assign an overall
application rating of ``Highly Recommended,'' ``Recommended,''
``Acceptable,'' or ``Not Recommended'' as a result of evaluation team
consensus discussion. The selection criteria are considered in numeric
order of most to least important (e.g., criterion #1 Safety Impact will
be considered most heavily, followed by #2 Equity, Engagement, and
Collaboration as the second most important, etc.).
    Implementation Grant applications that include supplemental
planning or demonstration activities will also be reviewed for
criterion #5 Additional Safety Context and quantitative Key Information
Table information on fatality counts, fatality rate per 100,000
persons, and percentage of population in underserved communities, but
it will not affect the overall Implementation Grant rating. Instead,
DOT will use the information to determine whether the supplemental
planning and/or demonstration activities should be funded as part of
the overall project. DOT is more likely to fund, as part of an overall
implementation project, supplemental planning and demonstration
activities that rate well on criterion #5. Alternatively, DOT may award
an Implementation Grant but exclude proposed supplemental planning or
demonstration activities from the scope of the award if those
activities were not rated well under criterion #5.
(b) Safety Impact Criterion Rating Methodology
    For the #1 Safety Impact criterion, the Department will assess
three subcomponents, and for each determine a rating of ``high,''
``medium,'' and ``low,'' or ``non-responsive.'' The three subcomponents
are: the description of the safety problem; the safety impact
assessment; and the implementation costs.
    The sub-ratings will use the guidelines below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 High                           Medium                    Low                 Non-responsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Description of the Safety Problem
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The narrative and supporting           The narrative and        The narrative and        The narrative and
 information demonstrate the proposal   supporting information   supporting information   supporting information
 is addressing a substantial safety     demonstrate the          demonstrate the          do not address a
 problem. The narrative is well-        proposal is addressing   proposal is addressing   safety problem.
 articulated and is strongly            an existing safety       a safety problem more
 supported by data and analysis. The    problem. Narrative       minor in scope. The
 narrative links the specific safety    articulates the          narrative is not well-
 problem to relevant historical data    description, is          articulated, and the
 at intervention locations and          generally supported by   supporting data and
 describes whether the locations are    data and analysis. The   analysis are limited.
 on their High-Injury Network or        narrative links the      The narrative provides
 equivalent.                            specific safety          an overall connection
                                        problem to relevant      between the safety
                                        historical data and      problem and the
                                        refers to the High-      jurisdiction's
                                        Injury Network or        historical data.
                                        equivalent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Safety Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The projects and strategies have       The projects and         The projects and         The projects and
 comprehensively addressed the safety   strategies address the   strategies address the   strategies do not
 problem. The projects and strategies   safety problem. Most     safety problem to a      address the safety
 proposed are highly effective, based   of the projects and      limited degree. Some     problem.
 on evidence, use a systemic            strategies proposed      or none of the
 approach, are mostly on a High-        are effective            projects and
 Injury Network, and have benefits      measures, based on       strategies proposed
 that persist over time.                evidence, use a          are effective
                                        systemic approach, are   measures, based on
                                        at least partially on    evidence, use a
                                        a High-Injury Network,   systemic approach, or
                                        and have benefits that   have benefits that
                                        persist over time.       persist over time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Implementation Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs for the implementation of    The costs for the        The costs for the        Cost information and/or
 the projects and strategies are        implementation of the    implementation of the    fatality and serious
 clearly articulated, well-             projects and             projects and             injury information at
 summarized, and reasonable. The        strategies are           strategies are not       the location level are
 projects and strategies address        summarized and appear    well-articulated or      not provided.
 locations that have many historical    to be reasonable. The    missing key details,
 fatalities and serious injuries, and   projects and             and it is uncertain
 are expected to prevent a              strategies address       whether the costs are
 significant number of fatalities and   locations that have      reasonable. The
 serious injuries per funds requested.  some historical          projects and
                                        fatalities and serious   strategies address
                                        injuries, and are        locations that have
                                        expected to prevent      very few to no
                                        some fatalities and      historical fatalities
                                        serious injuries per     and serious injuries
                                        funds requested.         and may have minimal
                                                                 impact.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Other Criteria Rating Methodology
    For the merit criteria #2 Equity, Engagement, and Collaboration, #3
Effective Practices and Strategies, and #4 Other DOT Strategic Goals,
the Department will consider whether the application narrative is
clear, direct, responsive to the selection criterion focus areas,
logical, and includes specific details and examples, which will result
in a rating of ``high, ``medium,'' ``low,'' or ``non-responsive.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 High                           Medium                    Low                 Non-responsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Rating Scale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The application is substantively       The application is       The application is       The narrative indicates
 responsive to the criteria, with       moderately responsive    minimally responsive     the proposal is
 clear, direct, and logical             to the criteria, with    to the criteria and is   counter to the
 narrative. Compelling, specific        mostly clear, direct,    somewhat addressed in    criteria or does not
 details, as well as quantified or      and logical narrative.   the narrative. General   contain sufficient
 illustrative examples, are provided.   Some details and         information is           information.
                                        examples are provided.   provided.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All applications will receive a Project Readiness evaluation, as
described below. The reviewers will use the application materials
outlined in Section D to assess the applicant's Project Readiness and
will provide a rating of either ``Likely'' or ``Unlikely.''

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Likely                              Unlikely
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Rating Scale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the information provided in     Based on the information
 the application and the proposed scope   provided in the application
 of the projects and strategies, it is    and the proposed scope of the
 likely the applicant can complete all    projects and strategies, it is
 projects and strategies within a five-   uncertain whether the
 year time horizon. Application           applicant can complete all
 provides information on NEPA status,     projects and strategies within
 utility relocation, and right-of-way     a five-year time horizon.
 acquisition.                             Application is missing
                                          information on NEPA status,
                                          and whether utility relocation
                                          and/or right-of-way
                                          acquisition is required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Implementation Grant applications that include supplemental
planning and/or demonstration activities will be assessed on the extent
to which the narrative aligns with the selection criterion #5
Additional Safety Context and will be evaluated to determine a rating
of ``high,'' ``medium,'' ``low,'' or ``non-responsive.''

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 High                           Medium                    Low                 Non-responsive
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Rating Scale
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The application is very responsive to  The application is       The application is       The narrative indicates
 the criteria and is expected to        responsive to the        minimally responsive     the proposal is
 advance safety planning. The           criteria and is          to the criteria. The     counter to the
 narrative has clear descriptions of    performing safety        proposed approach is     criteria, does not
 the work scope and the roadway         planning activities.     weakly tied to an        contain sufficient
 safety problem to be addressed. The    The narrative has        Action Plan.             information, or is not
 proposed approach will strongly        descriptions of the     For demonstration         connected to an Action
 inform an Action Plan.                 work scope and the       activities only: It is   Plan.
For demonstration activities only:      roadway safety problem   unclear if the          For demonstration
 The activities are likely to be put    to be addressed. The     activities will be put   activities only: The
 in place within 18 months. The         proposed approach will   in place within 18       narrative provides no
 narrative clearly describes how the    inform an Action Plan.   months. The narrative    timeline schedule or
 activities will be measured and       For demonstration         provides minimal         detail on how the
 evaluated.                             activities only: The     detail on how the        activities will be
                                        activities have a        activities will be       measured and
                                        possibility of being     measured and evaluated.  evaluated.
                                        put in place within 18
                                        months. The narrative
                                        describes how the
                                        activities will be
                                        measured and evaluated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

iii. Senior Review Team Phase
(a) Planning and Demonstration Grant Senior Review Team Phase
    For the Planning and Demonstration Grants, the Secretary will
review the three quantitative criteria ratings as well as the rating
from the Additional Safety Context and select projects that are most
advantageous to the U.S. Government's interest. The Secretary will
consult with a Senior Review Team (SRT) to make the determinations.
(b) Implementation Grant Senior Review Team Phase
    Once every Implementation Grant application has been assigned an
overall rating based on the methodology above, all ``Highly
Recommended'' applications will be included in a list of Applications
for Consideration. The SRT will also review all ``Highly Recommended''
applications that received an ``Unlikely'' project readiness rating,
and either remove those applicants from the Applications for
Consideration or recommend a reduced scope to remove components that
reduced the project's readiness, so that if awarded the applicant would
be likely to complete the scope of work within five years of the grant
agreement execution. The Secretary will consider the applications with
a reduced scope due to the Unlikely project readiness in the same way
as applications with a ``Likely'' rating.
    Additionally, to ensure the funding awards align to the extent
practicable to the program goal of equitable investment in the safety
needs of underserved communities, the SRT may review ``Recommended''
applications and set a threshold based on the percentage of funds that
will be spent in, and provide safety benefits to, locations within
underserved communities. Any ``Recommended'' applications at or above
that threshold will be included in the proposed list of Applications
for Consideration.
    For applications that would not otherwise be included on the list
of Applications for Consideration, the SRT may include applications
with supplemental planning and demonstration activity funding that
received a ``High'' rating for selection criterion #5 Additional Safety
Context. The SRT may recommend the Secretary to fund a reduced scope of
only the supplemental planning and demonstration activities for these
applications.
    For each grant type, the SRT will present the list of Applications
for Consideration to the Secretary, either collectively or through a
representative of the SRT. The SRT may advise the Secretary on any
application on the list of Applications for Consideration, including
options for reduced awards; the Secretary makes final selections. If an
Implementation Grant application includes supplemental planning and
demonstration activities, DOT may award just those activities as a
standalone Planning and Demonstration Grant based on the rating
received in selection criterion #5 Additional Safety Context. The
Secretary's final selections identify the applications that best
address program requirements and are most worthy of funding.

3. Additional Information

    Prior to entering into a grant agreement, each selected applicant
will be subject to a risk assessment as required by 2 CFR 200.206. The
Department must review and consider any information about the applicant
that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible
through SAM (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity
Information System [FAPIIS]). An applicant may review information in
FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal
awarding agency previously entered. The Department will consider
comments by the

applicant, in addition to the other information in FAPIIS, in making a
judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record
of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk
posed by applicants.
    Because award recipients under this program may be first-time
recipients of Federal funding, DOT is committed to implementing the
program as flexibly as permitted by statute and to provide assistance
to help award recipients through the process of securing a grant
agreement and delivering both Planning and Demonstration Grant
activities and Implementation Grant projects and strategies. Award
recipients are encouraged to identify any needs for assistance in
delivering the Implementation Grant projects and strategies so that DOT
can provide directly, or through a third party, sufficient support and
technical assistance to mitigate potential execution risks.

4. Anticipated Announcement and Federal Award Dates

    The Department anticipates making two rounds of awards for this
NOFO: one earlier round of awards only focused on applications
requesting Planning and Demonstration Grants, and a later round of
awards that will encompass Implementation Grants as well as Planning
and Demonstration Grant applicants who did not receive funding in the
earlier round. The earlier round is anticipated to be in October 2023,
and the later round is anticipated to be in December 2023.

C. Federal Award Administration Information

1. Federal Award Notices

    Following the evaluation outlined in Section E, the Secretary will
announce awarded applications by posting a list of selected recipients.
The posting of the list of selected award recipients will not
constitute an authorization to begin performance. Following the
announcement, the Department will contact the point of contact listed
in the SF-424 to initiate negotiation of a grant agreement unless the
applicant notifies DOT of a changed contact via [email protected] after July
10.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements

i. Climate Change and Environmental Justice
    Each applicant selected for SS4A grant funding must demonstrate
effort to consider climate change and environmental justice impacts as
described in Section A. Projects that have not sufficiently considered
climate change and environmental justice in their planning, as
determined by the Department, will be required to do so before
receiving funds, consistent with Executive Order 14008, Tackling the
Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 FR 7619).
ii. Equity and Barriers to Opportunity
    Each applicant selected for SS4A grant funding must demonstrate
effort to improve equity and reduce barriers to opportunity as
described in Section A. Projects that have not sufficiently considered
equity and barriers to opportunity in their planning, as determined by
the Department, will be required to do so before receiving funds,
consistent with Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and
Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (86
FR 7009).
iii. Civil Rights and Title VI
    As a condition of a grant award, grant recipients should
demonstrate that the recipient has a plan for compliance with civil
rights obligations and nondiscrimination laws, including Title VI of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and implementing regulations (49 CFR 21),
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act, all other civil rights requirements, and
accompanying regulations. This should include a current Title VI plan,
completed Community Participation Plan, and a plan to address any
legacy infrastructure or facilities that are not compliant with ADA
standards. DOT's and the applicable Operating Administrations' Office
of Civil Rights may work with awarded grant recipients to ensure full
compliance with Federal civil rights requirements.
iv. National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
    Funding recipients must comply with NEPA under 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq. and the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA implementing
regulations at 40 CFR 1500-1508, where applicable.
v. Domestic Preference Requirements
    As expressed in Executive Order 14005, Ensuring the Future Is Made
in All of America by All of America's Workers (86 FR 7475), it is the
policy of the executive branch to maximize, consistent with law, the
use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered
in, the United States. Infrastructure projects and demonstration
activities are subject to the Build America, Buy America Act (Pub. L.
117-58, div. G sections 70901-70927) as clarified in OMB Memorandum M-
22-11.\30\ The Department expects all recipients to comply with this
requirement. Projects under this notice will be subject to the domestic
preference requirements at section 70914 of the Build America, Buy
America Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Public Law 117-58, division. G, title IX, subtitle A, 135
Stat. 429, 1298 (2021). For additional information on section 70914,
see OMB-22-11. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/M-22-11.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

vi. Labor and Workforce
    Each applicant selected for SS4A grant funding must demonstrate, to
the full extent possible consistent with the law, an effort to create
good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union and
incorporation of high labor standards. To the extent that applicants
have not sufficiently considered job quality and labor rights in their
planning, as determined by the Department of Labor, the applicants will
be required to do so before receiving funds, consistent with Executive
Order 14025, Worker Organizing and Empowerment (86 FR 22829), and
Executive Order 14052, Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (86 FR 64335).
vii. Federal Contract Compliance
    As a condition of grant award and consistent with E.O. 11246, Equal
Employment Opportunity (30 FR 12319, and as amended), all Federally
assisted contractors are required to make good faith efforts to meet
the goals of 6.9 percent of construction project hours being performed
by women, in addition to goals that vary based on geography for
construction work hours and for work being performed by people of
color. Under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and its implementing
regulations, affirmative action obligations for certain contractors
include an aspirational employment goal of 7 percent workers with
disabilities.
    The U.S. Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) is charged with enforcing Executive Order
11246, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Vietnam
Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974. OFCCP has a Mega
Construction Project Program through which it engages with project
sponsors as early as the design phase to help promote compliance with
non-discrimination and affirmative action obligations. OFCCP will
identify projects that receive an award under this notice and are
required to

participate in OFCCP's Mega Construction Project Program from a wide
range of Federally-assisted projects over which OFCCP has jurisdiction
and that have a project cost above $35 million. DOT will require
project sponsors with costs above $35 million that receive awards under
this funding opportunity to partner with OFCCP, if selected by OFCCP,
as a condition of their DOT award.
viii. Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience
    It is the policy of the United States to strengthen the security
and resilience of its critical infrastructure against both physical and
cyber threats. Each applicant selected for SS4A grant funding must
demonstrate, prior to the signing of the grant agreement, effort to
consider and address physical and cyber security risks relevant to the
transportation mode and type and scale of the activities. Award
recipients that have not appropriately considered and addressed
physical and cyber security and resilience in their planning, design,
and oversight, as determined by the Department and the Department of
Homeland Security, will be required to do so before receiving
Implementation Grant funds for construction, consistent with
Presidential Policy Directive 21, Critical Infrastructure Security and
Resilience and the National Security Presidential Memorandum on
Improving Cybersecurity for Critical Infrastructure Control Systems.
Additionally, funding recipients must be in compliance with 2 CFR
200.216 and the prohibition on certain telecommunications and video
surveillance services or equipment.
ix. Other Administrative and Policy Requirements
    All awards will be administered pursuant to the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards found in 2 CFR 200 as adopted by the Department at 2 CFR
1201. Additionally, as permitted under the requirements described
above, applicable Federal laws, rules, and regulations of the relevant
operating administration (e.g., the Federal Highway Administration,
etc.) administering the activities will apply to the activities that
receive SS4A grants, including planning requirements, Stakeholder
Agreements, and other requirements under the Department's other highway
and transit grant programs. DOT anticipates grant recipients to have
varying levels of experience administering Federal funding agreements
and complying with Federal requirements, and DOT will take a risk-based
approach to SS4A program grant agreement administration to ensure
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
    In connection with any program or activity conducted with or
benefiting from funds awarded under this notice, recipients of funds
must comply with all applicable requirements of Federal law, including,
without limitation, the Constitution of the United States; the
conditions of performance, nondiscrimination requirements, and other
assurances made applicable to the award of funds in accordance with
regulations of the Department of Transportation; and applicable Federal
financial assistance and contracting principles promulgated by the
Office of Management and Budget. In complying with these requirements,
recipients, in particular, must ensure that no concession agreements
are denied, or other contracting decisions made on the basis of speech
or other activities protected by the First Amendment. If the Department
determines that a recipient has failed to comply with applicable
Federal requirements, the Department may terminate the award of funds
and disallow previously incurred costs, requiring the recipient to
reimburse any expended award funds.

3. Reporting

i. Progress Reporting on Grant Activity
    Reporting responsibilities include quarterly program performance
reports using the Performance Progress Report (SF-PPR) and quarterly
financial status using the SF-425 (also known as the Federal Financial
Report or SF-FFR).\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ https://www.grants.gov/forms/post-award-reporting-forms.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Budget and recipient performance information will be gathered on a
quarterly basis in a Performance Progress Report (SF-PPR). To fulfill
the data collection requirements and in accordance with the USDOT
Public Access Plan, award recipients must consider, budget for, and
implement appropriate data management, for data and information outputs
acquired or generated during the course of the grant.32 33
Federally recognized Tribal governments receiving grants may request
alternative data collection requirements during grant agreement
formulation, as appropriate. Applicants are expected to account for
data and performance reporting in their budget submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ https://doi.org/10.21949/1520559.
    \33\ United States. Department of Transportation. (2022) DOT
Public Access [Home page]. https://doi.org/10.21949/1503647.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii. Post Award Reporting Requirements/Reporting of Matters Related to
Integrity and Performance
    All award recipients shall submit a report by the end of the period
of performance that describes:
     The costs of each eligible project and strategy carried
out using the grant;
     The roadway safety outcomes and any additional benefits
(e.g., increased walking, biking, or transit use without a commensurate
increase in serious and fatal crashes, etc.) that each such project and
strategy has generated, as--
    [cir] Identified in the grant application; and
    [cir] Measured by data, to the maximum extent practicable;
     The percent of funds spent in, and providing benefits to,
underserved communities; and
     The lessons learned and any recommendations relating to
future projects or strategies to prevent death and serious injury on
roads and streets.
    Implementation Grant recipients must also provide: geo-coordinate
information identifying specific project location(s); crash data on
serious injury and fatalities in the locations where projects and
strategies are implemented on an annual basis and at the end of the
period of performance, which are expected to include crash
characteristics and contributing factor information associated with the
safety problems being addressed; and quantitative and qualitative
project benefits documented in a final report.
    Award recipients carrying out demonstration activities must also
measure potential benefits through data collection and evaluative
activities and report to the Department how the demonstration
activities informed an Action Plan's list of projects and strategies
and future implementation.
    If the total value of a selected applicant's currently active
grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all
Federal awarding agencies exceeds $10,000,000 for any period of time
during the period of performance of this Federal award, then the
applicant during that period of time must maintain the currency of
information reported in SAM that is made available in the designated
integrity and performance system (currently the Federal Awardee
Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)) about civil,
criminal, or administrative proceedings described in paragraph 2 of
this award term and condition. This is a statutory requirement under
section 872 of Public

Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010
of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated
integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except
past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts,
will be publicly available. Additionally, if applicable funding
recipients must be in compliance with the audit requirements in 2 CFR
200, subpart F.
iii. Program Evaluation
    As a condition of grant award, SS4A grant recipients may be
required to participate in an evaluation undertaken by DOT, or another
agency or partner. The evaluation may take different forms such as an
implementation assessment across grant recipients, an impact and/or
outcomes analysis of all or selected sites within or across grant
recipients, or a benefit/cost analysis or assessment of return on
investment. The Department may require applicants to collect data
elements to aid the evaluation and/or use information available through
other reporting. As a part of the evaluation, as a condition of award,
grant recipients must agree to: (1) make records available to the
evaluation contractor; (2) provide access to program records, and any
other relevant documents to calculate costs and benefits; (3) in the
case of an impact analysis, facilitate the access to relevant
information as requested; and (4) follow evaluation procedures as
specified by the evaluation contractor or DOT staff.
    Recipients and sub-recipients are also encouraged to incorporate
program evaluation including associated data collection activities from
the outset of their program design and implementation to meaningfully
document and measure the effectiveness of their projects and
strategies. Title I of the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking
Act of 2018 (Evidence Act), Public Law 115-435 (2019) urges Federal
awarding agencies and Federal assistance recipients and sub-recipients
to use program evaluation as a critical tool to learn, to improve
equitable delivery, and to elevate program service and delivery across
the program lifecycle. Evaluation means ``an assessment using
systematic data collection and analysis of one or more programs,
policies, and organizations intended to assess their effectiveness and
efficiency'' (codified at 5 U.S.C. 311). For grant recipients,
evaluation expenses are allowable costs (either as direct or indirect),
unless prohibited by statute or regulation, and such expenses may
include the personnel and equipment needed for data infrastructure and
expertise in data analysis, performance, and evaluation (2 CFR 200).

D. Federal Awarding Agency Contacts

    For further information concerning this notice, please contact the
Office of the Secretary via email at [email protected]. In addition, up to
the application deadline, the Department will post answers to common
questions and requests for clarifications on the Department's website
at https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A. To ensure applicants
receive accurate information about eligibility or the program, the
applicant is encouraged to contact the Department directly, rather than
through intermediaries or third parties, with questions. Department
staff may also conduct briefings on the SS4A grant selection and award
process upon request.

E. Other Information

1. Publication of Application Information

    Following the completion of the selection process and announcement
of awards, the Department intends to publish a list of all applications
received along with the names of the applicant organizations and a few
relevant data fields from the application. This includes unsuccessful
applicants. The Department may share application information within the
Department or with other Federal agencies if the Department determines
that sharing is relevant to the respective program's objectives.

2. Department Feedback on Applications

    The Department will not review applications in advance, but
Department staff are available for technical questions and assistance.
DOT expects to hold ``virtual-office hours'' to further describe how to
submit a complete application; for more information visit https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A. The deadline to submit technical
questions is June 16, 2023. The Department strives to provide as much
information as possible to assist applicants with the application
process. Unsuccessful applicants may request a debrief up to 30 days
after the selected funding recipients are publicly announced on https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A. Program staff will address
questions to [email protected] throughout the application period.

3. Grant Application Resources

    The Department will provide resources to help interested applicants
understand the different DOT discretionary grant programs through
webinars, frequently asked questions, and other materials provided such
as the SS4A program website https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SS4A.
Additional grant applications resources for this and other Departmental
grant programs can be found on the DOT Navigator at
www.transportation.gov/dot-navigator. User-friendly information and
resources regarding DOT's discretionary grant programs relevant to
rural applicants can be found on the Rural Opportunities to Use
Transportation for Economic Success (ROUTES) website at
www.transportation.gov/rural.

[FR Doc. 2023-07716 Filed 4-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2743]
[FR Doc No: 2012-931]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0036]

Recovery Directorate Fact Sheet 9580.213, Residential Electrical
Meter Repair--``Power Up''

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is accepting
comments on Recovery Directorate Fact Sheet 9580.213, Residential
Electrical Meter Repair--``Power Up.''

DATES: Comments must be received by February 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be identified by docket ID FEMA-2011-0036 and
may be submitted by one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Please note that this proposed
policy is not a rulemaking and the Federal Rulemaking Portal is being
utilized only as a mechanism for receiving comments.
    Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief Counsel, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472-3100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lu Juana Richardson, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-
4014<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

I. Public Participation

    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or
material, all submissions will be posted, without change, to the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will
include any personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting
this information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice, which can be viewed by clicking on the ``Privacy Notice'' link
in the footer of www.regulations.gov.
    You may submit your comments and material by the methods specified
in the ADDRESSES section above. Please submit your comments and any
supporting material by only one means to avoid the receipt and review
of duplicate submissions.
    Docket: The proposed policy is available in docket ID FEMA-2011-
0036. For access to the docket to read background documents or comments
received, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov and search for the docket ID. Submitted comments
may also be inspected at FEMA, Office of Chief Counsel, Room 835, 500 C
Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

II. Background

    Under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act and implementing regulations, FEMA may direct
or reimburse activities to save lives, protect property and public
health and safety, and lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe.
Under that authority, FEMA may fund the repair of residential
electrical meters damaged in a major disaster or emergency, when
warranted by the incident and necessary to meet the immediate needs of
disaster survivors. ``Power Up'' is intended to reduce the number of
displaced disaster survivors needing shelter and allow for a faster
recovery.
    FEMA may provide this assistance to State, Tribal and local
governments under the Public Assistance (PA) Program in the areas
designated by a major disaster or emergency declaration where
Individual Assistance (IA) has not been declared by the President.
Reimbursement will be at the Federal cost share rate established in the
Presidential declaration, which is generally 75%. If IA has been
declared by the President, the IA Program will reimburse eligible
residential meter repair to avoid any potential duplication of
benefits.
    FEMA seeks comment on the proposed policy, which is available
online at http://www.regulations.gov in docket ID FEMA-2011-0036. Based
on the comments received, FEMA may make appropriate revisions to the
proposed policy. Although FEMA will consider any comments received in
the drafting of the final policy, FEMA will not provide a response-to-
comments document. When or if FEMA issues a final policy, FEMA will
publish a notice of availability in the Federal Register and make the
final policy available at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207; 44 CFR part 206.

David J. Kaufman,
Director, Office of Policy and Program Analysis, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-931 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 120 (Wednesday, June 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36390-36392]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15536]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0571; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-263-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Model 747SP Series
Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This proposed AD would require replacing or
modifying the upper and lower rudder power control modules (PCM). This
proposed AD was prompted by a report of a rudder hard-over event on a
Model 747-400 series airplane, caused by a rudder PCM manifold cracking
and separating in the area of the yaw damper cavity end-cap. We are
proposing this AD to prevent a failure of the lower or upper rudder PCM
manifold, which could result in a hard-over of the rudder surface
leading to an increase in pilot workload and a possible high-speed
runway excursion upon landing.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by August 8, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone 206-
544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may review copies of the
referenced service information at the FAA, Transport Airplane
Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES
section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after
receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marie Hogestad, Aerospace Engineer,
Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA, Seattle Aircraft
Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98057-
3356; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2011-0571;
Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-263-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We received a report from an operator of a Model 747-400 series
airplane of a lower rudder hard-over event caused by a lower rudder PCM
manifold cracking and separating in the area of the yaw damper cavity
end-cap. This allowed the yaw damper sleeve to shift, giving the system
a lower rudder left input (beyond the yaw damper authority).

Yaw damper authority is limited to +/- 4 degrees of rudder command. The
failure removed the yaw damper end stop and allowed the yaw damper
input to exceed the maximum design yaw damper authority. Although
commanding full retract, pilot pedal inputs were ineffective in moving
the lower rudder back to the right. We also received three additional
reports of cracking in the rudder PCM manifold. These events did not
result in a hard-over, but created the need for a retention feature
solution specified in AD 2008-13-03, Amendment 39-15566, for Model 747-
400, -400D, and -400F series airplanes. Upon investigation, it was
determined that the Model 747SP fleet could be susceptible to the same
failure because they use the same manifold sub-assembly as the Model
747-400 series airplanes. Cracking in a rudder PCM manifold, if not
corrected, could result in a failure of the upper or lower rudder PCM
manifold, which could result in a hard-over of the rudder surface
leading to an increase in pilot workload and a possible high-speed
runway excursion upon landing.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated
September 30, 2010. The service information describes procedures for
either replacing the upper and lower rudder PCMs having Boeing part
number (P/N) 60B80093-3 (Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Boeing P/N
60B80093-4 (Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>), with new rudder PCMs having Boeing
P/N 60B80093-104 (Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>); or modifying the upper and
lower rudder PCMs having Boeing P/N 60B80093-3 (Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>)
or Boeing P/N 60B80093-4 (Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) by replacing the
access cap with a two piece cap that includes a retention feature for
the yaw damper modulating piston assembly in the rudder PCM.
    Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30,
2010, refers to Parker Service Bulletin 241700-27-333, dated January
26, 2010, as an additional source of guidance for modifying the upper
and lower rudder PCMs provided in Option 2 of Work Packages 1 and 2 of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30, 2010.

FAA's Determination

    We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type designs.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified
in the service information described previously.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S.
registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per    Cost on U.S.
                  Action                            Labor cost           Parts cost    product       operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replace rudder PCM (P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>).....  11 work-hours x $85 per           $5,856       $6,791         $47,537
                                            hour = $935.
Replace rudder PCM (P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>).....  11 work-hours x $85 per            8,568        9,503          66,521
                                            hour = $935.
Modify rudder PCM (P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>)......  3 work-hours x $85 per hour        1,374        1,629          11,403
                                            = $255.
Modify rudder PCM (P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>)......  3 work hours x $85 per hour        4,086        4,341          30,387
                                            = $255.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new
airworthiness directive (AD):

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2011-0571; Directorate Identifier
2010-NM-263-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by August 8, 2011.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 747SP series
airplanes, certificated in any category.

Subject

    (d) Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC)/Air Transport
Association (ATA) of America Code 27, Flight Controls.

Unsafe Condition

    (e) This AD was prompted by a report of a rudder hard-over event
on a Model 747-400 series airplane, caused by a rudder power control
module (PCM) manifold cracking and separating in the area of the yaw
damper cavity end-cap. We are issuing this AD to prevent a failure
of the lower or upper rudder PCM manifold, which could result in a
hard-over of the rudder surface leading to an increase in pilot
workload and a possible high-speed runway excursion upon landing.

Compliance

    (f) Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

Replace or Modify Rudder PCMs

    (g) Within 24 months or 8,400 flight hours after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do the replacement
specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD or the modification
specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this AD for the upper and lower
rudder PCMs, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30, 2010.
    (1) Replace any rudder PCM having Boeing part number (P/N)
60B80093-3 (Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Boeing P/N 60B80093-4 (Parker
P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) with rudder PCM having Boeing P/N 60B80093-104
(Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    (2) Modify the rudder PCM having Boeing P/N 60B80093-3 (Parker
P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) or Boeing P/N 60B80093-4 (Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>).

    Note 1:  Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated
September 30, 2010, refers to Parker Service Bulletin 241700-27-333,
dated January 26, 2010, as an additional source of guidance for
modifying the upper and lower rudder PCM manifold access caps
provided in Option 2 of Work Packages 1 and 2 of Boeing Alert
Service Bulletin 747-27A2497, dated September 30, 2010.

Parts Installation

    (h) As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install a
rudder PCM having Boeing P/N 60B80093-3 (Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>) or
Boeing P/N 60B80093-4 (Parker P/N<PHONE_NUMBER>), on any airplane.

Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (i)(1) The Manager, Seattle Aircraft Certification Office (ACO),
FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested
using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14
CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local
Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending
information directly to the manager of the ACO, send it to the
attention of the person identified in the Related Information
section of this AD. Information may be e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

Related Information

    (j) For more information about this AD, contact Marie Hogestad,
Aerospace Engineer, Systems and Equipment Branch, ANM-130S, FAA,
Seattle Aircraft Certification Office, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,
Renton, Washington 98057-3356; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax: 425-
917-6590; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (k) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Data & Services Management,
P.O. Box 3707, MC 2H-65, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207; telephone
206-544-5000, extension 1; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You
may review copies of the referenced service information at the FAA,
Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on June 14, 2011.
Ali Bahrami,
Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-15536 Filed 6-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 55 (Monday, March 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15264-15267]
[FR Doc No: 2015-06514]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74519; File No. SR-CBOE-2015-026]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Rules 6.74A and 6.74B

March 17, 2015.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on March 6, 2015, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(the ``Exchange'' or ``CBOE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described
in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange seeks to amend CBOE Rules 6.74A and 6.74B. The text of
the proposed rule change is provided below (additions are italicized;
deletions are [bracketed]).
* * * * *

Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated Rules

Rule 6.74A. Automated Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'')

* * * * *
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
* * * * *
    .04 [Any solicited orders submitted by the Initiating Trading
Permit Holder to trade against the Agency Order may not be for the
account of a Market-Maker assigned to the option class.] A Market-Maker
submitting a solicited order to execute against a particular Agency
Order may not modify its pre-programmed response to Request for
Responses based on information regarding the particular Agency Order or
solicited order.
* * * * *

Rule 6.74B. Solicitation Auction Mechanism

* * * * *
    . . . Interpretations and Policies:
* * * * *
    .03 Under Rule 6.74B, Trading Permit Holders may enter contra
orders that are solicited. The Auction provides a facility for Trading
Permit Holders that locate liquidity for their customer orders. Trading
Permit Holders may not use the Auction to circumvent Rules 6.45A.01,
6.45B.01 or 6.74A limiting principal transactions. This may include,
but is not limited to, Trading Permit Holders entering contra orders
that are solicited from (a) affiliated broker-dealers, or (b) broker-
dealers with which the Trading Permit Holder has an arrangement that
allows the Trading Permit Holder to realize similar economic benefits
from the solicited transaction as it would achieve by executing the
customer order in whole or in part as principal. Additionally,
[solicited contra orders entered by Trading Permit Holders to trade
against Agency Orders may not be for the account of a CBOE Market-Maker
assigned to the options class.] a Market-Maker submitting a solicited
order to execute against a particular Agency Order may not modify its
pre-programmed response to Request for Responses based on information
regarding the particular Agency Order or solicited order.
* * * * *
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx), at the Exchange's Office of the
Secretary, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules regarding the ability of a
Market-Maker assigned to an options class to be solicited as the contra
party to an Agency Order in that class on the Exchange's Automated
Improvement Mechanism (``AIM'') and Solicitation Auction Mechanism \3\
(``SAM'' and, together with AIM, the ``Auctions''). Currently,
Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 6.74A (AIM) states that ``Any
solicited orders submitted by the Initiating Trading Permit Holder to
trade against the Agency Order may not be for the account of a Market-
Maker assigned to the option class.'' Similarly, the last sentence of
Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 6.74B (SAM) states that
``Additionally, solicited contra orders entered by Trading Permit
Holders to trade against Agency Orders may not be for the account of a
CBOE Market-Maker assigned to the options class.'' This rule language
acts to limit a Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') initiating Auctions
from access to liquidity that should otherwise be available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Exchange notes that the SAM Auction is currently
deactivated. See CBOE Regulatory Circular RG14-076--Deactivation of
the Solicitation Auction Mechanism (SAM) (May 16, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the Exchange, there are a number of large, global Market-Making
firms that have market-making and proprietary operations. In addition,
there are small market-making firms that only have market-making
operations. The current rule neither prohibits the proprietary arm of a
global firm from submitting a contra order in these Auctions nor
prohibits the global firm's market-making operation from responding to
an Auction in which the proprietary desk has submitted a contra order.
More importantly, if two Market-Makers are nominees of the same firm--
one appointed to a class on CBOE and the other appointed in the same
class on another exchange (PHLX for example)--the current rule allows
the PHLX Market-Maker to be solicited to participate on an AIM order
and the CBOE Market-Maker to respond to the AIM auction. The rule does,
however, effectively prohibit the small market-making firms from
providing liquidity in the form of contra orders. In preventing a
Market-Maker assigned to an options class from being solicited by TPHs
to trade against Agency Orders in that class, the small Market-Making
firms are effectively prohibited from being solicited by TPHs to trade
against nearly all Agency Orders. Because a TPH initiating an auction
using AIM or SAM can thusly not solicit contra orders from these
Market-Making firms, the TPH is unable to access the greater liquidity
that these firms can provide. The Market-Makers, TPHs, and customers
are harmed by this rule language, and the Exchange therefore proposes
to delete it.\4\ The Exchange believes this is a reasonable
modification designed to provide additional flexibility for the
Exchange's TPHs to obtain executions on behalf of their customers and
to provide CBOE Market-Makers assigned to a given option class with the
same opportunity as other solicited parties to participate in the
auction process through means of solicited orders submitted by the
Initiating TPH. Absent this rule change, CBOE Market-Makers assigned to
a given option class are not able to achieve solicited contra order
priority status when trading against Agency Orders executed through
AIM/SAM while all other parties solicited by the Initiating TPH may
have such priority status. Additionally, the Exchange does not believe
the rule change will deplete the liquidity available through Auctions;
rather, the Exchange believes that by allowing more individuals to
participate in the Auction process liquidity will increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Exchange proposes to delete all of the language
currently in Interpretation and Policy .04 to Rule 6.74A and replace
it with the word ``Reserved.'' The Exchange also proposes to delete
the last sentence of Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 6.74B,
which states that ``Additionally, solicited contra orders entered by
Trading Permit Holders to trade against Agency Orders may not be for
the account of a CBOE Market-Maker assigned to the options class.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that the rule language that the Exchange
proposes to delete applies only to AIM and SAM transactions. As such, a
Market-Maker assigned to an options class can currently be solicited to
trade against an Agency Order in that class for non-AIM/SAM
transactions. Therefore, because Market-Makers only face this
prohibition for AIM and SAM transactions, the rules for whether a
Market-Maker assigned to an options class can currently be solicited to
trade against an Agency Order in that class differ depending on the
execution mechanism. The proposed change would eliminate this
difference.
    In addition, the Boston Options Exchange LLC (``BOX'') rules
include a ``Directed Order'' process that is functionally equivalent to
the solicitation of orders, and also does not prevent Market-Makers
from being solicited to trade against an Agency Order in a class in
which the Market-Maker is appointed.\5\ As such, the Exchange merely
proposes to put Market-Makers at CBOE on a similar competitive footing
vis-[agrave]-vis the directed orders on BOX.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BOX Options Exchange LLC Rule 7150--Price Improvement
Period (``PIP Auction''). The PIP Auction's Directed Order process
allows broker-dealers to route orders to BOX Market-Makers for
possible PIP Auction execution. The Market-Maker that receives the
Directed Order has three seconds to initiate a PIP Auction or
decline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe there is a meaningful
regulatory purpose behind the prohibition against Market-Makers being
solicited to trade against an Agency Order in a class in which the
Market-Maker is appointed because for the firms with appointments on
multiple exchanges, the solicited order can simply come from a Market-
Maker on a different exchange. More importantly, a Market-Maker that is
solicited to trade against an Agency Order in a class in which the
Market-Maker is appointed would still be required to abide by Exchange
Rules 4.1 (Just and Equitable Principles of Trade), 4.18 (Prevention of
the Misuse of Material, Nonpublic Information), and 6.9 (Solicited
Transactions) (as well as all other Exchange rules, of course). As
such, a Market-Maker would still be prohibited from, for example,
learning (via solicitation) that a large order is being sent to the
Exchange and therefore widening its quotes. Moreover, because upon
entry, an AIM/SAM order is ``stopped'' for its full quantity at the
contra order's price, if a Market-Maker were to widen his quotes, it
would not impact the price of the trade. Also, because many classes on
the Exchange have a number of Market-Makers appointed, the widening of
quotes by one Market-Maker would likely have limited impact on the NBBO
(and indeed, it is possible that the solicited Market-Maker that is
widening quotes would not be on the NBBO in the first place).
Regardless, the Exchange notes that it does not believe the changes
contemplated in this filing will have an adverse effect on Market-Maker
quoting because the Exchange believes Market-Makers will continue to
seek access to order flow that comes into the Exchange outside of the
auction process. In order to access that order flow, Market-Makers will
need to continue to quote aggressively.\6\ The same is true for
Auctions in that the solicited Market-Maker will still need to price
aggressively in order to trade with an Agency Order because Auctions
are

competitive with other Market-Makers actively responding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The Exchange notes that Market-Makers that make markets on
multiple exchanges will also have to continue to quote aggressively
to access order flow on those other exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is also proposing to add language that explicitly
states that ``a Market-Maker submitting a solicited order to execute
against a particular Agency Order may not modify its pre-programmed
response to Request for Responses based on information regarding the
particular Agency Order or solicited order.'' This language prohibits a
Market-Maker from using any information regarding a particular Agency
Order or the Market-Maker's solicited order for purposes of modifying
the Market-Maker's Request for Responses. However, this language also
recognizes that a Market-Maker's quotes may change for many reasons
other than an Agency order or the Market-Maker's solicited order (e.g.,
a non-exclusive list of reasons that a Market-Maker may choose to
adjust the size and/or price of quotes, irrespective of an Agency Order
or a Market-Maker's solicited order, is a change in the price of the
underlying, the Market-Maker's inventory, or interest rates) and those
unrelated changes are not prohibited. Furthermore, this language is not
intended to prohibit a Market-Maker from providing multiple responses
to Request for Responses. Finally, the CBOE Department of Market
Regulation already surveils for market participants seeking to take
advantage of non-public information by attempting to terminate Auctions
early in an effort to limit the number of Auction Reponses in order to
ensure a larger allocation amount.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change will provide TPHs
initiating auctions via AIM and SAM with the ability to access more
liquidity by allowing them to solicit Market-Makers assigned to the
relevant options class. This will also let Market-Makers assigned to a
class benefit from being able to be solicited for trades in that class.
As such, the proposed rule change both provides greater access to
liquidity and increases the market participants that can participate in
a trade (thereby preventing discrimination against Market-Makers
assigned to a class). In these ways, the proposed change removes
impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system. The Exchange believes that the proposed
change is reasonable and should promote price competition by providing
CBOE Market-Makers with a more reasonable opportunity to compete for
proposed crosses along with other market participants. By providing
CBOE Market-Makers with the opportunity to be solicited on AIM/SAM
Agency Orders in classes in which the Market-Makers are appointed, the
proposed change prevents discrimination by providing such Market-Makers
with the same opportunity to participate in the transaction (via
solicitation) with which other market participants are provided.
Furthermore, the Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change
will alter Market-Maker incentives to respond to AIM/SAM Auctions.
Market-Makers responding to Auctions are seeking to execute as many
contracts as possible with the Agency order. The best way to accomplish
that goal--currently and after the proposed rule change--is to
aggressively respond to Auctions, regardless of who else may be
responding or whether the contra-order is a solicited Market-Maker. An
Auction with a solicited Market-Maker as contra should have no bearing
on whether a competitive and interested responder will respond, nor
should it have any bearing on which price that interested Market-Maker
would place on his response. In addition, the Exchange does not believe
this proposal will have an adverse effect on quoting because, as
previously noted, in order to execute against order flow outside of
Auctions or on other exchanges Market-Makers will have to continue to
quote aggressively.
    The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and prevents unfair discrimination, because a Market-Maker assigned to
an options class can currently be solicited to trade against an Agency
Order in that class for non-AIM/SAM transactions. Therefore, because
Market-Makers only currently face this prohibition for AIM and SAM
transactions, the rules for whether a Market-Maker assigned to an
options class can currently be solicited to trade against an Agency
Order in that class differ depending on the execution mechanism. The
proposed change would eliminate this difference.
    The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfects
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system,
and prevents unfair discrimination, because BOX rules include a
``Directed Order'' process that allows for the solicitation of orders
and does not include a prohibition that prevents Market-Makers from
being solicited to trade against an Agency Order in a class in which
the Market-Maker is appointed. As such, the Exchange merely proposes to
put Market-Makers at CBOE on a similar competitive footing vis-
[agrave]-vis these solicited orders.
    The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change would not impact a
Market-Maker's requirements to abide by Exchange Rules 4.1 (Just and
Equitable Principles of Trade), 4.18 (Prevention of the Misuse of
Material, Nonpublic Information), and 6.9 (Solicited Transactions). As
such, a Market-Maker would still be prohibited from, for example,
learning (via solicitation) that a large order is being sent to the
Exchange and therefore widening its quotes. Indeed, while this could
theoretically occur regarding non-AIM/SAM solicitation orders, the
Exchange currently prohibits this activity. Moreover, because upon
entry, an AIM/SAM order is ``stopped'' for its full quantity at the
contra order's price, if a Market-Maker were to widen his quotes, it
would not impact the price of the trade. Also, because many classes on
the Exchange have a number of Market-Makers appointed, the widening of
quotes by one Market-Maker would likely have limited impact on the NBBO
(and indeed, it is possible that the solicited Market-Maker that is
widening quotes would not on the NBBO in the first place). As
previously noted, however, the Exchange does not believe the changes in
this proposal will adversely effect Market-Maker quoting.
    Finally, in addition to the above general prohibitions, the
proposed

prohibition against a Market-Maker modifying its pre-programmed
responses to Request for Responses based on information regarding a
particular Agency Order or solicited order serves to protect investors
and the public interest.

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because it actually provides
the opportunity for a market participant to be solicited on an order
when such market participant currently does not have that opportunity
(the Market-Maker assigned to that option class). Furthermore, the
Exchange does not believe soliciting Market-Makers will negatively
impact auction responses. As noted above, the Exchange believes that an
Auction with a solicited Market-Maker as contra should have no bearing
on whether a competitive and interested responder will respond, nor
should it have any bearing on which price that interested Market-Maker
would place on his response. The Exchange also believes that exposure
to an electronic auction following a solicitation encourages
competition; thus, expanding the pool of available solicited parties
prior to the initiation of an Auction further exposes orders to
competitive Auctions and results in a higher level of potential
execution quality for customers.
    CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed change
applies only to trading on CBOE. However, the opportunity for a Market-
Maker to be solicited on an order in a class to which he is assigned
may make CBOE a more attractive marketplace by giving more trading
opportunities to Market-Makers as well as providing greater volume and
liquidity, thereby enhancing competition. As such, to the extent that
the proposed change makes CBOE a more attractive marketplace to market
participants on other exchanges, such market participants may elect to
become CBOE market participants.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period up to 90 days (i) as the
Commission may designate if it finds such longer period to be
appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:
    A. By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
    B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-CBOE-2015-026 on the subject line.

Paper comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-026. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2015-026, and should be
submitted on or before April 13, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-06514 Filed 3-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P