[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 125 (Monday, June 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38910-38916]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13976]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2020-0026; Internal Agency Docket No. DHS-19-GPD-044-
000-98]

Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program; Fire Prevention and
Safety Grants

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland
Security (DHS).

ACTION: Notice of guidance.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice provides guidelines that describe the application
process for Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) grants and the criteria
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will use to award these
grants for Fiscal Year (FY) 2019. It explains the differences, if any,
between these guidelines and those recommended by representatives of
the Nation's fire service leadership during the annual Criteria
Development meeting, which was held Dec. 12-13, 2018. The application
period for the FY 2019 FP&S Grant Program was April 27, 2020, to May
29, 2020, and was announced on the Assistance to Firefighters Grant
(AFG) website (www.fema.gov/firegrants), www.grants.gov, and the U.S.
Fire Administration website (www.usfa.fema.gov).

DATES: Grant applications for the FP&S Grant Program were accepted
electronically at https://go.fema.gov from April 27, 2020, at 8:00 a.m.
ET to May 29, 2020, at 5:00 p.m. ET.

ADDRESSES: Assistance to Firefighters Grants Branch, DHS/FEMA, 400 C
Street SW, 3N, Washington, DC 20472-3635.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine Patterson, Chief, Assistance
to Firefighters Grants Branch,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the FP&S Grant Program is to
enhance the safety of the public and firefighters by assisting fire
prevention programs and supporting firefighter health and safety
research and development. The FEMA Grant Programs Directorate
administers the

FP&S Grant Program as part of the AFG Program.
    FP&S grants are offered to support projects in two activities:
    1. Activities designed to reach high-risk target groups and
mitigate the incidence of death, injuries, and property damage caused
by fire and fire-related hazards (``FP&S Activity'').
    2. Projects aimed at improving firefighter safety, health, or
wellness through research and development that reduce firefighter
fatalities and injuries (``R&D Activity'').
    The grant program's authorizing statute requires that FEMA publish
the guidelines that describe the application process and the criteria
for grant awards in the Federal Register each year. In total, 675
applications for the FP&S Grant Program were submitted electronically,
using the application submission form and process available at FEMA GO:
https://go.fema.gov. Although the application period has closed,
specific information about the submission of grant applications can be
found in the FY 2019 FP&S Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), which
is available for download at www.fema.gov/firegrants and at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID: FEMA-2020-0026.

Appropriations

    Congress appropriated $350 million for AFG in FY 2019 pursuant to
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2019, Public
Law 116-6. From this amount, $35 million will be made available for
FP&S Grant awards, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2229(h)(5), which states that
not less than 10 percent of available grant funds each year are awarded
under the FP&S Grant Program. Funds appropriated for all FY 2019 AFG
awards, pursuant to Public Law 116-6, will be available for obligation
and award until Sept. 30, 2020.
    FEMA anticipates that it will award approximately 150 FP&S grants
from the 675 applications.

Background of the AFG Program

    FEMA awards grants on a competitive basis to applicants that best
address the FP&S Grant Program's priorities and provide the most
compelling justification. A panel of reviewers evaluate each project in
accordance with the evaluation criteria. The highest rated projects are
recommended for funding.

Award Criteria

    All applications for grants will be prepared and submitted through
FEMA GO (https://go.fema.gov).
    Applications submitted under the FP&S activity will be reviewed by
a panel of fire service members using the following criteria:

 Financial Need
 Vulnerability Statement
 Project Description
 Implementation Plan
 Evaluation Plan
 Cost-Benefit
    The applications submitted under the R&D Activity will be reviewed
first by a panel of fire service members to identify those applications
most relevant to the fire service. The following evaluation criteria
will be used for this review:

 Purpose
 Potential Impact
 Implementation by the Fire Service
 Barriers
 Partners
    The applications that are determined most likely to enable
improvement in firefighter safety, health or wellness will be deemed to
be in the ``competitive range'' and forwarded to the second level of
application review, which is the science panel review process. This
panel will be composed of scientists and technology experts who have
expertise pertaining to the subject matter of the proposal.
The Science Panel for the R&D Activity will review the application and
evaluate it using the following criteria:

 Project Goals, Objectives and Specific Aims
 Literature Review
 Project Methods
 Project Measurements
 Project Analysis
 Dissemination and Implementation
 Cost vs. Benefit (additional consideration)
 Financial Need (additional consideration)
 Mentoring (additional consideration for Early Career
Investigator Projects only)

Eligible Applicants

    Under the FY 2019 FP&S Grant Program, eligible applicants are
limited to those entities described below within each activity:
    1. Fire Prevention and Safety (FP&S) Activity: Eligible applicants
for this activity included fire departments and national, regional,
state, local, tribal and nonprofit organizations that are recognized
for their experience and expertise in fire prevention and safety
programs and activities. Both private and public non-profit
organizations are eligible to apply for funding in this activity. For-
profit organizations, Federal agencies, and individuals are not
eligible to receive an FP&S Grant Award under the FP&S Activity.
    2. Firefighter Safety Research and Development (R&D) Activity:
Eligible applicants for this activity include national, state, local,
federally-recognized tribal, and nonprofit organizations, such as
academic (e.g., universities), public health, occupational health, and
injury prevention institutions. Both private and public non-profit
organizations are eligible to apply for funding in this activity.
    The aforementioned entities are encouraged to apply, especially
those that are recognized for their experience and expertise in
firefighter safety, health, and wellness research and development
activities. Fire departments are not eligible to apply for funding in
the R&D activity. Additionally, for-profit organizations, Federal
agencies, and individuals are not eligible to receive a grant award
under the R&D Activity.

Funding Limitations

    Awards are limited to a maximum Federal share of $1.5 million
dollars regardless of applicant type, in accordance with 15 U.S.C.
2229(d)(2). FP&S Research and Development applicants that applied under
the Early Career Investigator category are limited to a maximum Federal
share of $75,000 per project year.

Cost Sharing

    Grant recipients must share in the costs of the projects funded
under this grant program as required by 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(1) and in
accordance with 2 CFR 200.101(b)(1), but they were not required to have
the cost share at the time of application nor are they required to have
it at the time of award. However, before a grant is awarded, FEMA may
contact potential awardees to determine whether the grant recipient has
the funding in hand or whether the grant recipient has a viable plan to
obtain the funding necessary to fulfill the cost-share requirement.
    In general, an eligible applicant seeking an FP&S grant to carry
out an activity shall agree to make available non-Federal funds to
carry out such activity in an amount equal to, and not less than, 5
percent of the grant awarded. Cash match and in-kind matches are both
allowable in the FP&S Grant Program. Cash (hard) matches include non-
Federal cash spent for project-related costs. In-kind (soft) matches
include, but are not limited to, the valuation of in-kind services;
complementary activities; and provision

of staff, facilities, services, material, or equipment. In-kind is the
value of something received or provided that does not have a cost
associated with it. For example, where an in-kind match (other than
cash payments) is permitted, then the value of donated services could
be used to comply with the match requirement. Also, third party in-kind
contributions may count toward satisfying match requirements provided
the grant recipient receiving the contributions expends them as
allowable costs in compliance with provisions listed above.
    Grant recipients under this program must also agree to a
maintenance of effort requirement per 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(3) (referred to
as a ``maintenance of expenditure'' requirement in that statute). Per
this requirement, a grant recipient shall agree to maintain during the
term of the grant, the grant recipient's aggregate expenditures
relating to the activities allowable under the FP&S NOFO at not less
than 80 percent of the average amount of such expenditures in the 2
fiscal years preceding the fiscal year in which the grant amounts are
received.
    In cases of demonstrated economic hardship and upon the request of
the grant recipient, the FEMA Administrator may waive or reduce a
certain grant recipient's cost share or maintenance of expenditure
requirements (15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(4)(A)). As required by 15 U.S.C.
2229(k)(4)(B), the Administrator established guidelines for determining
what constitutes economic hardship and published these guidelines at
FEMA's website (www.fema.gov/grants). Per 15 U.S.C. 2229(k)(4)(C), FP&S
nonprofit organization grant recipients that are not fire departments
or emergency medical services organizations are not eligible to receive
a waiver of their cost-share for economic hardship requirements.

System for Award Management (SAM)

    Per 2 CFR 25.200, all grant applicants and recipients are required
to register in https://SAM.gov, which is available free of charge. FEMA
required active SAM registration at the time of application in FEMA GO,
and will not process any awards, consider any payment or amendment
requests, or consider any amendment unless the applicant or grant
recipient has complied with the requirements to provide a valid Dun &
Bradstreet (DUNS) database number and an active SAM registration with
current information. The banking information, employer identification
number (EIN), organization/entity name, address, and DUNS number
provided in SAM will be automatically transferred to the application
after the entity registers in FEMA GO at https://go.fema.gov.

Application Process

    Applicants were only permitted to submit one application, but were
permitted to apply for up to three projects under each activity (FP&S
and R&D). Any applicant that submitted more than one application may
have all applications deemed ineligible.
    Under the FP&S Activity, applicants could apply under the following
categories:
 Community Risk Reduction
 Wildfire Risk Reduction
 Fire & Arson Investigation
 Code Enforcement/Awareness
 National/State/Regional Programs and Studies Under the R&D
Activity, applicants could apply under the following categories:
 Clinical Studies
 Technology and Product Development
 Database System Development
 Dissemination and Implementation Research
 Preliminary Studies
 Early Career Investigator
    Prior to the start of the FY 2019 FP&S Grant Program application
period, FEMA provided applicants with technical assistance tools
(available at the AFG website: www.fema.gov/firegrants) and other
online information to help them prepare quality grant applications. AFG
also staffed a Help Desk throughout the application period to assist
applicants with navigation through the automated application as well as
assistance with related questions. The AFG Help Desk can be reached
year-round through a toll-free telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>) or email
(firegrants@fema.dhs.gov).
    Applicants were advised to access the application electronically at
https://go.fema.gov. The application is also accessible from the
Grants.gov website (http://www.grants.gov). New applicants were
required to register and establish a username and password
electronically at https://go.fema.gov for secure access to their
application.
    In completing an application under this funding opportunity,
applicants were asked to provide relevant information on their
organization's characteristics and existing capabilities. Those
applicants were asked to answer questions about their grant request
that reflect the funding priorities, described below. In addition,
applicants were required to complete narratives for each project
requested.
    The following are the funding priorities for each category under
the FP&S Activity:
     Community Risk Reduction-Under the Community Risk
Reduction category there are three funding priorities:
    [cir] Priority will be given to programs that target a specific
high-risk population to conduct both door-to-door smoke alarm
installations and provide home safety inspections, as part of a
comprehensive home fire safety campaign.
    [cir] Priority will be given to programs that include sprinkler
awareness that affect the entire community, such as educating the
public about sprinklers, promoting sprinklers, and demonstrating
working models of sprinklers.
    [cir] Priority will be given to programs to conduct community-
appropriate comprehensive risk assessments and risk reduction planning.
     Wildfire Risk Reduction - These are education and
awareness programs that protect lives, property, and natural resources
from fire in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) (not forestry),
including Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) or programs
supporting fire adapted community initiatives.
     Code Enforcement/Awareness-These are projects that focus
on first time or reinstatement of code adoption and code enforcement,
including WUI codes for communities with a WUI-wildfire risk.
     Fire & Arson Investigation-These are projects that aim to
aggressively investigate every fire.
     National/State/Regional Programs and Studies-These are
projects that focus on residential fire issues and/or firefighter
safety and wellness.
    Under the R&D Activity, in order to identify and address the most
important elements of firefighter safety, FEMA looked to the fire
service for its input and recommendations. In June 2005, the National
Fallen Firefighters' Foundation (NFFF) hosted a working group to
facilitate the development of an agenda for the Nation's fire service,
and in particular for firefighter safety. In November 2015, the NFFF
hosted its third working group to update the agenda with current
priorities. A copy of the research agenda is available on the NFFF
website at http://www.everyonegoeshome.com/resources/research-symposium-reports/.
    All proposed projects, regardless of whether they have been
identified by this working group, will be evaluated on their relevance
to firefighter health and safety, and scientific rigor.
    The electronic application process permits the applicant to enter
and save the application data. The system does not permit the
submission of incomplete

applications. Except for the narrative textboxes, the application uses
a ``point-and-click'' selection process or requires the entry of data
(e.g., name and address). Applicants were encouraged to read the FP&S
NOFO for more details.

Criteria Development Process

    Each year, FEMA convenes a panel of fire service professionals to
develop the funding priorities and other implementation criteria for
AFG. The Criteria Development Panel is composed of representatives from
nine major fire service organizations that are charged with making
recommendations to FEMA regarding the creation of new funding
priorities, the modification of existing funding priorities, and the
development of criteria for awarding grants. The nine major fire
service organizations represented on the panel:

 Congressional Fire Services Institute (CFSI)
 International Association of Arson Investigators (IAAI)
 International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC)
 International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)
 International Society of Fire Service Instructors (ISFSI)
 National Association of State Fire Marshals (NASFM)
 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA)
 National Volunteer Fire Council (NVFC)
 North American Fire Training Directors (NAFTD)
    The FY 2019 Criteria Development Panel meeting occurred Dec.12-13,
2018. The content of the FY 2019 FP&S Notice of Funding Opportunity
reflects the implementation of the Criteria Development Panel's
recommendations with respect to the priorities, direction and criteria
for awards. All of the funding priorities for the FY 2019 FP&S Grant
Program are designed to address the following:

 First responder safety
 Enhancing national capabilities
 Risk
     Interoperability

Changes for FY 2019

    The following changes were made between the FY 2018 and the FY 2019
FP&S Grant Program:
     Micro Grants are no longer available.
     FY 2019 FP&S Applications are submitted in FEMA GO.
     Fire Departments and Interest Organizations are scored
differently under the FP&S Activity.
     Wildfire Risk Reduction Programs are an eligible category.
     Wood Chipper Programs are eligible when part of a Wildfire
Risk Reduction Program. The following costs are eligible under a Wood
Chipper Program:

[cir] Contract services for fuel reduction or removal (community wood
chipper), or
[cir] Renting wood chippers, and
[cir] Salary & benefits for employees for dedicated community wood
chipper duties.
     Occupational Health is included as an R&D Special Emphasis
Topic.
     The following items and activities are added to the
ineligible expenses list:

[cir] Entertainment: Electronics, events, etc.
[cir] Props (except as required for educational programs)
[cir] Robotics
[cir] Demonstration tug boats
[cir] Inflatable houses
[cir] Dollar amount for giveaways (plastic fire helmets, stickers,
plastic badges, etc.) is limited to $2,500 for fire departments, and
$5,000 for regional grants
[cir] Fire Safety Trailers allowed only as part of a regional project

Application Review Process and Considerations

    The program's authorizing statute requires that each year FEMA
publish in the Federal Register a description of the grant application
process and the criteria for grant awards. This information is provided
below.
    FEMA will review and evaluate all FP&S applications submitted using
the funding priorities and evaluation criteria described in this
document, which are based on recommendations from the AFG Criteria
Development Panel.

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Panel Process--Fire Prevention and Safety Activity

    All FP&S Activity applications will be evaluated by a peer review
process. A panel of peer reviewers is composed of fire service
representatives recommended by the Criteria Development Panel. These
reviewers will assess each application's merits with respect to the
detail provided in the Narrative Statement on the activity, including
the evaluation elements listed in the Evaluation Criteria identified
below. The panel will independently score each project within the
application, discuss the merits and/or shortcomings of the application,
and document the findings. A consensus is not required.

Peer Review Panel Process--Research and Development Activity

    R&D Activity applications will go through a two-phase review
process. First, all applications will be reviewed by a panel of fire
service experts to assess the need for the research results and the
likelihood that the results would be implemented by the fire service in
the United States. Applications that are deemed likely to be
implemented to enable improvement in firefighter safety, health, or
wellness will be deemed to be in the ``competitive range'' and will be
forwarded to the second level of project review, which is the science
review panel process. This panel will be composed of scientists and
technology experts who have expertise pertaining to the subject matter
of the proposal.
    Science panel reviewers will independently score applications in
the competitive range and, if necessary, discuss the merits or
shortcomings of the project in order to reconcile any major
discrepancies identified by the reviewers. A consensus is not required.

Technical Evaluation Process

    The highest ranked projects from both Activities will be deemed in
the fundable range. Applications that are in the fundable range will
undergo a Technical Review by the FEMA Program Office prior to being
recommended for award. The FEMA Program Office will assess the request
with respect to costs, quantities, feasibility, eligibility, and
recipient responsibility prior to recommending any application for
award.
    Once the review process is complete, each project's score will be
determined and a final ranking of project applications will be created.
FEMA will award grants based on this final ranking. Award announcements
will be made on a rolling basis until all available grant funds have
been committed. Awards will not be made in any specified order. FEMA
will notify unsuccessful applicants as soon as it is feasible.

Evaluation Criteria for Projects--Fire Prevention and Safety Activity

    Funding decisions will be informed by an assessment of how well the
application addressed the criteria and considerations listed below.
Applications will be reviewed by the peer reviewers using weighted
evaluation criteria to score the project. These scores will impact the
ranking of a project for funding.
    The relative weight of the evaluation criteria in the determination
of the grant award is listed below.

     Financial Need (Departments-10 percent, Interest
Organizations-0 percent): Applicants must have provided details on the
need for financial assistance to carry out the proposed project(s).
Included in the description might be other unsuccessful attempts to
acquire financial assistance or specific details of the applicant's
operational budget.
     Vulnerability Statement (Departments-20 percent, Interest
Organizations-25 percent): The assessment of fire risk is essential in
the development of an effective project goal, as well as meeting FEMA's
goal to reduce risk by conducting a risk assessment as a basis for
action. Vulnerability is a ``weak link'' demonstrating high risk
behavior, living conditions or any type of high risk situation. The
Vulnerability Statement should have included a description of the steps
taken to determine the vulnerability and identify the target audience.
The methodology for determination of vulnerability (i.e., how the
vulnerability was found) should have been discussed in-depth in the
application's Narrative Statement.
    [cir] Fire Department applicants should note that 5 percent of the
available 20 percent for this narrative element will be provided to
those applicants that can demonstrate their commitment and proactive
posture to reducing fire risk. Applicants must have explained their
code adoption and enforcement (to include Wildland Urban Interface and
commercial/residential sprinkler code adoption and enforcement) and
mitigation strategies (including whether or not the jurisdiction has a
FEMA-approved mitigation strategy) to receive the full 20 percent.
Also, note that departments can have demonstrated their commitment to
reducing fire risk by applying to implement fire mitigation strategies
(code adoption and enforcement) via the application.
    [cir] The specific vulnerability that will be addressed with the
proposed project can be established through a formal or informal risk
assessment. FEMA encourages the use of local statistics, rather than
national statistics, when discussing the vulnerability.
    [cir] The applicant should have summarized the vulnerability the
project will address in a clear, to-the-point statement that addresses
who is at risk, what the risks are, where the risks are, and how the
risks can be prevented, reduced, or mitigated.
    [cir] For the purpose of the FY 2019 FP&S NOFO, formal risk
assessments consist of the use of software programs or recognized
expert analysis that assess risk trends.
    [cir] Informal risk assessments could include an in-house review of
available data (e.g., National Fire Incident Reporting System) to
determine fire loss, burn injuries, or loss of life over a period of
time and the factors that are the cause and origin for each occurrence,
including a lack of adoption and enforcement of certain codes.
     Project Description (Departments-20 percent, Interest
Organizations-25 percent): Applicants must have described in detail not
only the project components but also how the proposed project addresses
the identified capability gap, due to financial need and/or the
vulnerabilities identified in the vulnerability statement. The
following information should have been included:
    [cir] Project components.
    [cir] Review of any existing programs or models that have been
successful.
    [cir] Detailed description of how the proposed project components
fill the identified capability gap.
    [cir] If working with Fire Service Partners/Organizations, identify
each partner/organization and the role(s) they will fill in the
successful completion of the proposed project.
     Implementation Plan (Departments-25 percent, Interest
Organizations-30 percent): Projects should have provided details on the
implementation plan, discussing the proposed project's goals and
objectives. The following information should have been included to
support the implementation plan:
    [cir] Goals and objectives.
    [cir] Details regarding the methods and specific steps that will be
used to achieve the goals and objectives.
    [cir] Timelines outlining the chronological project steps (this is
critical for determining the likeliness of the project's completion
within the period of performance).
    [cir] Where applicable, examples of marketing efforts to promote
the project, who will deliver the project (e.g., effective
partnerships), and the manner in which materials or deliverables will
be distributed.
    [cir] Requests for props (i.e., tools used in educational or
awareness demonstrations), including specific goals, measurable
results, and details on the frequency for which the prop will be
utilized as part of the implementation plan. Applicants should include
information describing the efforts that will be used to reach the high
risk audience and/or the number of people reached through the proposed
project (examples of props include safety trailers, puppets, or
robots).
     Evaluation Plan (Departments-15 percent, Interest
Organizations-15 percent): Projects should have included a plan for
evaluation of effectiveness and identify measurable goals. Applicants
seeking to carry out awareness and educational projects, for example,
should have identified how they intend to determine that there has been
an increase in knowledge about fire hazards, or measure a change in the
safety behaviors of the audience. Applicants should have demonstrated
how they will measure risk at the outset of the project in comparison
to how much the risk decreased after the project is finished. There are
various ways to measure the knowledge gained about fire hazards,
including the use of surveys, pre- and post-tests, or documented
observations. Applicants are encouraged to attend training on
evaluation methods, such as the National Fire Academy's ``Demonstrating
Your Fire Prevention Program's Worth.'' In addition to a detailed
evaluation plan as described above, if awarded, grant recipients are
required to report on specific performance metrics through performance
reports and at closeout.
     Cost-Benefit (Departments-10 percent, Interest
Organizations-5 percent): Projects will be evaluated and scored by the
Peer Review panelists based on how well the applicant addresses the
fire prevention needs of the department or organization in an economic
and efficient manner. The applicant should have shown how it will
maximize the level of funding that goes directly into the delivery of
the project. The costs associated with the project also must be
reasonable for the target audience that will be reached, and a
description should have been included of how the anticipated project
benefit(s) (quantified if possible) outweighs the cost(s) of the
requested item(s). The application should have provided justification
for all costs included in the project in order to assist the Technical
Evaluation Panel with their review.
    [ssquf] Meeting the needs of people with disabilities (additional
consideration): Applicants in the Community Risk Reduction category
will receive additional consideration if, as part of their
comprehensive smoke alarm installation and education program, they
address the needs of people with disabilities (e.g., deaf/hard-of-
hearing) in their community.
    [ssquf] Experience and Expertise (additional consideration):
Applicants that demonstrated their experience and ability to conduct
fire prevention and safety activities, and to execute the proposed or
similar project(s), will receive additional consideration.

Evaluation Criteria--Firefighter Safety Research and Development
Activity

    Funding decisions will be informed by an assessment of how well the
application addresses the criteria and considerations listed below. All
applications will be reviewed by a fire service expert panel using
weighted evaluation criteria, and those projects deemed to be in the
``competitive range'' will then be reviewed by a science panel using
weighted evaluation criteria to score the project. Science panel
evaluations will impact the ranking of the project for funding.
    Fire Service Panel Evaluation Criteria:
     Purpose (25 percent): Applicants should have clearly
identified the benefits of the proposed research project to improve
firefighter safety, health, or wellness, and identify specific gaps in
knowledge that will be addressed.
     Implementation by Fire Service (25 percent): Applicants
should have discussed how the outcomes/products of this research, if
successful, are likely to be widely/nationally adopted and accepted by
the fire service as changes that enhance firefighter safety, health, or
wellness.
     Potential Impact (15 percent): Applicants should have
discussed the potential impact of the research outcome/product on
firefighter safety by quantifying the possible reduction in the number
of fatal or non-fatal injuries, or on the projected wellness by
significantly improving the overall health of firefighters.
     Barriers (15 percent): The applicant should have
identified and discussed potential fire service and other barriers to
successfully complete the study on schedule, including contingencies
and strategies to deal with barriers if they materialize. This may
include barriers that could inhibit the proposed fire service
participation in the study or the adoption of successful results by the
fire service when the project is completed.
     Partners (20 percent): Applicants should have recognized
that participation of the fire service as a partner in the research,
from development to dissemination, is regarded as an essential part of
all projects. Applicants should have described the fire service
partners and contractors that will support the project to accomplish
the objectives of the study. The specific roles and contributions of
the partners should have been described. Partnerships may be formed
with local and regional fire departments, and also with national fire-
related organizations. Letters of support and letters of commitment to
actively participate in the project should have been included in the
appendix of the application. Generally, participants of a diverse
population, including both career and volunteer firefighters, are
expected to facilitate acceptance of results nationally. In cases where
this is not practical, due to the nature of the study or other
limitations, these circumstances should have been clearly explained.
    Science Panel Evaluation Criteria:
     Project goals, objectives, and specific aims (15 percent):
Applicants should have addressed how the purpose, goals, objectives,
and aims of the proposal will lead to results that will improve
firefighter safety, health, or wellness. For multi-year projects,
greater detail should have been given for the first year, however
specific goals and objectives are required for the second and third
years (if applicable).
     Literature Review (10 percent): Applicants should have
provided a literature review that is relevant to the project's goals,
objectives, and specific aims. The citations should be placed in the
text of the Narrative Statement, with references listed at the end of
the Narrative Statement (and not in the Appendix) of the application.
The review should be in sufficient depth to make it clear that the
proposed project is necessary, adds to an existing body of knowledge,
is different from current and previous studies, and offers a unique
contribution.
     Project Methods (20 percent): Applicants should have
provided a description of how the project will be carried out,
including demonstration of the overall scientific and technical rigor
and merit of the project. This includes the operations to accomplish
the purpose, goals and objectives, and the specific aims of the
project. Plans to recruit and retain human subjects, where applicable,
should have been described. Where human subjects are involved in the
project, the applicant should describe plans for submission to the
Institutional Review Board (for further guidance and requirements, see
the FY 2019 FP&S NOFO).
     Project Measurements (20 percent): Applicants should have
provided evidence of the technical rigor and merit of the project, such
as data pertaining to validity, reliability, and sensitivity (where
established) of the facilities, equipment, instruments, standards, and
procedures that will be used to carry out the research. The applicant
should have discussed the data to be collected to evaluate the
performance methods, technologies, and products proposed to enhance
firefighter safety, health, or wellness. The applicant should have
demonstrated that the measurement methods and equipment selected for
use are appropriate and sufficient to successfully deliver the proposed
project objectives.
     Project Analysis (20 percent): The applicant should have
indicated the planned approach for analysis of the data obtained from
measurements, questionnaires, or computations. The applicant should
have specified within the plan what will be analyzed, the statistical
methods that will be used, the sequence of steps, and interactions as
appropriate. It should be clear that the principal investigator and
research team have the expertise to perform the planned analysis and
defend the results in a peer review process.
     Dissemination and Implementation (15 percent): Applicants
should have indicated dissemination plans for scientific audiences
(such as plans for submissions to specific peer review publications)
and for firefighter audiences (such as websites, magazines, and
conferences). Also, assuming positive results, the applicant should
have indicated future steps that would support dissemination and
implementation throughout the fire service, where applicable. These
steps are likely to be beyond the current study, so those features of
the research activity that will facilitate future dissemination and
implementation should be discussed. All applicants should have
specified how the results of the project, if successful, might be
disseminated and implemented in the fire service to improve firefighter
safety, health, or wellness. It is expected that successful R&D
Activity Projects may give rise to future programs including FP&S
Activity Projects.
     Cost vs. Benefit (additional consideration): Cost vs.
benefit in this evaluation element refers to the costs of the grant for
the research and development project as it relates to the benefits that
are projected for firefighters who would have improved safety, health,
or wellness. Applicants should have demonstrated a high benefit for the
cost incurred and effective utilization of Federal funds for research
activities.
     Financial Need (additional consideration): In the
Applicant Information section of the application, applicants should
have provided details on the need for Federal financial assistance to
carry out the proposed project(s). Applicants may have included a
description of unsuccessful attempts to acquire financial assistance.
Applicants should have provided detail about the organization's
operating budget, including a high-level breakdown of the budget;
describe the

department's inability to address financial needs without Federal
assistance; and discuss other actions the department has taken to meet
their staffing needs (e.g., state assistance programs, other grant
programs, etc.).
     Mentoring (additional consideration for Early Career
Investigator Projects only): An important part of Early Career
Investigator projects is the integration of mentoring for the principal
investigator by experienced researchers in areas appropriate to the
research project, including exposure to the fire service community as
well as support for ongoing development of knowledge and skills.
Mentoring is regarded as critical to the research skills development of
early career principal investigators. As part of the application
Appendix, the applicant should have identified the mentor(s) who have
agreed to support the applicant and the expected benefit of their
interactions with the researcher. A biographical sketch and letter of
support from the mentor(s) were encouraged and should have been
included in the Appendix materials.

Other Selection Information

    Awards will be made using the results of peer-reviewed applications
as the primary basis for decisions, regardless of activity. However,
there are some exceptions to strictly using the peer review results.
The applicant's prior AFG, SAFER, and FP&S grant management performance
will also be taken into consideration when making recommendations for
award. All final funding determinations will be made by the FEMA
Administrator, or the Administrator's designee.
    Fire departments and other eligible applicants that have received
funding under the FP&S Grant Program in previous years are eligible to
apply for funding in the current year. However, FEMA may take into
account an applicant's performance on prior grants when making funding
decisions on current applications.
    Once every application in the competitive range has been through
the technical evaluation phase, the applications will be ranked
according to the average score awarded by the panel.
    The ranking will be summarized in a Technical Report prepared by
the AFG Program Office. A Grants Management Specialist will contact the
applicant to discuss and/or negotiate the content of the application
and SAM.gov registration before making final award decisions.

    Authority:  15 U.S.C. 2229.

Pete Gaynor,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2020-13976 Filed 6-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 27983]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12911]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-OW-2018-0270; FRL-9979-53-OW]

Announcement of the Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
New England Community Engagement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of an event.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will kick off the
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) community engagements with a
two-day event in Exeter, New Hampshire. The goal of the event is to
allow the EPA to hear directly from New England communities to
understand ways the Agency can best support the work that is being done
at the state, local, and tribal level. For more information on the
event, visit the EPA's PFAS website: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-community-engagement. During the recent PFAS National Leadership
Summit, the EPA announced plans to visit communities to hear directly
from those impacted by PFAS. This engagement is the next step in the
EPA's commitment to address challenges with PFAS. The EPA anticipates
that the community engagements will provide valuable insight for the
agency's efforts moving forward. For more information, go to the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this notice.

DATES: The event will be held on June 25-26, 2018. On June 25, a
listening session will be held at 4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., eastern
time. A working session will be held on June 26 from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m., eastern time.

ADDRESSES: The two-day event will be held at the Exeter High School, 1
Blue Hawk Drive, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833. If you are unable to
attend the New England Community Engagement, you will be able to submit
comments at http://www.regulations.gov: Enter Docket ID No. EPA-OW-
2018-0270. Citizens are encouraged to send written statements to the
public docket. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the
official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish
to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e. on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Gutro, EPA New England
Headquarters (Mail Code ORAO1-1), 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100,
Boston, MA 02109-3912; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number: 617-
918-0021; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Details about Participating in the Event: The public is invited to
speak during the June 25 listening session. Those interested in
speaking can sign up for a 3-minute speaking slot on EPA's website at
https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-community-engagement. Please check this
website for event materials as they become available, including a full
agenda, leading up to the event.
    The PFAS National Leadership Summit: On May 22-23, 2018, the EPA
hosted the PFAS National Leadership Summit. During the summit,
participants worked together to share information on ongoing efforts to
characterize risks from PFAS, develop monitoring and treatment/cleanup
techniques, identify specific near-term actions (beyond those already
underway) that are needed to address challenges currently facing states
and local communities, and develop risk communication strategies that
will help communities to address public concerns regarding PFAS.
    The EPA wants to ensure the public that their input is valuable and
meaningful. Using information from the National Leadership Summit,
public docket, and community engagements, the EPA plans to develop a
PFAS Management Plan for release later this year. A summary of the New
England Community Engagement will be made available to the public
following the event on the EPA's PFAS Community Engagement website at:
https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-community-engagement.

    Dated: June 11, 2018.
Eric Burneson,
Acting Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
[FR Doc. 2018-12911 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 18, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26973-26979]
[FR Doc No: 2021-10379]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-91857; File No. SR-MIAX-2021-19]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Its Fee Schedule To Remove the Cap on the
Number of Additional Limited Service Ports Available to Market Makers

May 12, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on May 10, 2021, Miami International Securities

Exchange, LLC (``MIAX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (``Commission'') a 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 is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to remove the cap on the number of
additional Limited Service MIAX Express Interface (``MEI'') Ports
(defined below) available to Market Makers.\3\ The Exchange does not
propose to amend the fees for additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to Lead Market Makers
(``LMMs''), Primary Lead Market Makers (``PLMMs''), and Registered
Market Makers (``RMMs'') collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, 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 delete footnote 30 of Section 5)d)ii) of
the Fee Schedule to remove the cap on the number of additional Limited
Service MEI Ports available to Market Makers. The Exchange does not
propose to amend the fees charged for any additional Limited Service
MEI Ports purchased by Market Makers.
    The Exchange initially filed this proposal to remove the cap on the
number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports available to Market
Makers on April 9, 2021.\4\ On April 12, 2021, the Exchange withdrew
the First Proposed Rule Change and refiled this proposal to make a
technical correction.\5\ On April 22, 2021, the Exchange withdrew the
Second Proposed Rule Change and refiled this proposal (without
increasing the actual fee amounts) to provide further clarification
regarding the Exchange's revenues, costs, and profitability any time
more Limited Service MEI Ports become available, in general, (including
information regarding the Exchange's methodology for determining the
costs and revenues for additional Limited Service MEI Ports).\6\ On May
3, 2021, the Exchange withdrew the Third Proposed Rule Change and
refiled this proposal to further clarify its cost methodology.\7\ On
May 10, 2021, the Exchange withdrew the Fourth Proposed Rule Change and
refiled this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See SR-MIAX-2021-10 (the ``First Proposed Rule Change'').
    \5\ See SR-MIAX-2021-11 (the ``Second Proposed Rule Change'').
    \6\ See SR-MIAX-2021-15 (the ``Third Proposed Rule Change'').
    \7\ See SR-MIAX-2021-17 (the ``Fourth Proposed Rule Change'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange assesses monthly MEI Port Fees on Market
Makers based upon the number of MIAX matching engines \8\ used by the
Market Maker. The Exchange allocates two (2) Full Service MEI Ports \9\
and two (2) Limited Service MEI Ports \10\ per matching engine to which
each Market Maker connects. The Full Service MEI Ports, Limited Service
MEI Ports and the additional Limited Service MEI Ports all include
access to the Exchange's primary and secondary data centers and its
disaster recovery center. Market Makers may request additional Limited
Service MEI Ports for which they are assessed the existing $100 monthly
fee for each additional port they request. This fee has been unchanged
since 2016.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ A ``matching engine'' is a part of the MIAX electronic
system that processes options quotes and trades on a symbol-by-
symbol basis. Some matching engines will process option classes with
multiple root symbols, and other matching engines will be dedicated
to one single option root symbol (for example, options on SPY will
be processed by one single matching engine that is dedicated only to
SPY). A particular root symbol may only be assigned to a single
designated matching engine. A particular root symbol may not be
assigned to multiple matching engines. See Fee Schedule, Section
5)d)ii), note 29.
    \9\ Full Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send Market Maker quotes, eQuotes, and quote purge
messages to the MIAX System. Full Service MEI Ports are also capable
of receiving administrative information. Market Makers are limited
to two Full Service MEI Ports per matching engine. See Fee Schedule,
Section 5)d)ii), note 27.
    \10\ Limited Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send eQuotes and quote purge messages only, but not
Market Maker Quotes, to the MIAX System. Limited Service MEI Ports
are also capable of receiving administrative information. Market
Makers initially receive two Limited Service MEI Ports per matching
engine. See Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii), note 28.
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79666 (December 22,
2016), 81 FR 96133 (December 29, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange originally added the Limited Service MEI Ports to
enhance the MEI Port connectivity available to Market Makers, and
subsequently made additional Limited Service MEI Ports available to
Market Makers.\12\ Limited Service MEI Ports have been well received by
Market Makers since their addition. Market Makers are currently limited
to purchasing eight (8) additional Limited Service MEI Ports per
matching engine, for a total of ten (10) per matching engine.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 70137 (August 8,
2013), 78 FR 49586 (August 14, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-39); 70903
(November 20, 2013), 78 FR 70615 (November 26, 2013) (SR-MIAX-2013-
52); 78950 (September 27, 2016), 81 FR 68084 (October 3, 2016) (SR-
MIAX-2016-33); and 79198 (October 31, 2016), 81 FR 76988 (November
4, 2016) (SR-MIAX-2016-37); 90811 (December 29, 2020), 86 FR 344
(January 5, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2020-41).
    \13\ See Fee Schedule, Section 5)d)ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange now proposes to delete footnote 30 in Section 5)d)ii)
of the Fee Schedule to remove the cap on the number of additional
Limited Service MEI Ports that are available to Market Makers. The
Exchange notes that no other exchange provides similar caps concerning
connectivity and access in their rulebooks or fee schedules.\14\
Including the cap on the number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports
in the Fee Schedule unnecessarily hampers the Exchange's ability to
adjust access to the Exchange's network in order to ensure that the
Exchange meets its obligations under the Act such that access to the
Exchange is offered on

terms that are not unfairly discriminatory \15\ among its Members,\16\
as well as to ensure sufficient capacity and headroom in the
System.\17\ The Exchange monitors the System's performance and makes
adjustments to its System based on market conditions and Member demand.
Accordingly, the Exchange's obligations under the Act to provide access
on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory and market conditions are
key drivers of the System's architecture and expansion. Thus the
Exchange believes a cap in the Fee Schedule is inconsistent with other
exchanges access offerings and not an appropriate mechanism to govern
access to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Cboe Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule, available at https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/membership/Cboe_FeeSchedule.pdf; Cboe BZX
Exchange, Inc. Options Fee Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/bzx/; Cboe C2
Exchange, Inc. Fee Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/ctwo/; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.
Options Fee Schedule, available at https://www.cboe.com/us/options/membership/fee_schedule/edgx/; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC Options
Fee Schedule, available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/nasdaq/rules/Nasdaq%20Options%207; Nasdaq PHLX LLC Options
Fee Schedule, available at https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/rulebook/phlx/rules/Phlx%20Options%207; NYSE Arca, Inc. Options Fee
Schedule, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/arca-options/NYSE_Arca_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf; NYSE American LLC
Options Fee Schedule, available at https://www.nyse.com/publicdocs/nyse/markets/american-options/NYSE_American_Options_Fee_Schedule.pdf.
    \15\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \16\ The term ``Member'' means an individual or organization
approved to exercise the trading rights associated with a Trading
Permit. Members are deemed ``members'' under the Exchange Act. See
Exchange Rule 100.
    \17\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that adjusting the amount of available
Limited Service MEI Ports does not change on a material basis the
overall profitability of Limited Service MEI Ports. Any increase in
revenue associated with adding more Limited Service MEI Ports is
generally offset by the cost of purchasing and operating such new
equipment and providing the services associated with Limited Service
MEI Ports. When the Exchange provides fewer Limited Service MEI Ports,
its overall expense is lower, but is generally offset by lower revenues
associated with Limited Service MEI Ports. The Exchange's recent filing
\18\ to increase the number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports
provides clear evidence of that fact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 90811 (December 29,
2020), 86 FR 344 (January 5, 2021) (SR-MIAX-2020-41) (the ``Cost
Analysis Filing'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All fees related to MEI Ports shall remain unchanged and Market
Makers that voluntarily purchase additional Limited Service MEI Ports
will remain subject to the existing $100 monthly fee per port.
    The Exchange also proposes to make corresponding changes to
footnotes 31 and 32 in Sections 5)d)ii) and 5)d)iv) of the Fee
Schedule, respectively, in light of the Exchange's proposal to delete
current footnote 30. Accordingly, with the proposed changes, footnote
31 will be changed to footnote 30 and footnote 32 will be changed to
footnote 31.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \19\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \20\ in that it is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general protect investors and the public interest and is not
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \21\ because the proposal to
remove the cap on the number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports
available to Market Makers will apply equally to all Market Makers,
regardless of type or size, and will allow the Exchange to offer access
to its System on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The
Exchange does not propose to change the amount of fees charged for
additional Limited Service MEI Ports. The existing fee of $100 per
month will apply equally to all Market Makers that choose to purchase
additional Limited Service MEI Ports, which is a business decision of
each Market Maker and not a requirement of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the
requirements under Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act that the
Exchange provide access on terms that are not unfairly
discriminatory.\22\ Including the cap on the number of additional
Limited Service MEI Ports in the Fee Schedule unnecessarily burdens the
Exchange from being able to adjust the connectivity and access to the
Exchange's System in order to ensure that the Exchange is able to
provide access \23\ to Members on non-discriminatory terms and ensure
sufficient capacity and headroom in the System. The Exchange constantly
monitors the System's performance based on market conditions and needs
to make adjustments based on customer demand. Adjusting the amount of
available Limited Service MEI Ports does not change on a material basis
the overall profitability of Limited Service MEI Ports. Any increase in
revenue associated with adding more Limited Service MEI Ports is
generally offset by the cost of purchasing and operating such new
equipment and providing the services associated with Limited Service
MEI Ports. When the Exchange provides fewer Limited Service MEI Ports,
its overall expense is lower, but is generally offset by lower revenues
associated with Limited Service MEI Ports. The Exchange's recent filing
\24\ to increase the number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports
provides clear evidence of that fact. Accordingly, the Exchange's
obligations under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \25\ and market conditions
are key drivers of the System's architecture and expansion and thus the
Exchange believes a cap in the Fee Schedule is not an appropriate
mechanism to govern access to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Id.
    \23\ Id.
    \24\ See supra note 18.
    \25\ See 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other exchanges, like MIAX, are required to provide access and
connectivity pursuant to the same requirements under Section 6(b)(5) of
the Act regardless of whether a their rules or fee schedules set forth
caps on access.\26\ Further, the Exchange anticipates that it will
continue to expand its System and provide Market Makers and other
market participants with additional access, including Limited Service
MEI Ports, based on customer demand and in response to changing market
conditions. The Exchange represents that any expansion or reduction in
the number of additional Limited Service MEI Ports will be conducted in
a similar manner that ensures fair access to its System.\27\ The
Exchange will also continuously assess its connectivity options and
availability to ensure that they meet the needs of all market
participants seeking to access the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Id.
    \27\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b)(4) of the Act because only Market Makers that voluntarily purchase
additional Limited Service MEI Ports will be charged the existing $100
monthly fee per port, which has been unchanged since 2016.\28\ The
Exchange does not propose to amend the fees applicable to additional
Limited Service MEI Ports, which were filed with the Commission and
became effective after notice and public comment.\29\ As stated above,
the Exchange anticipates that in the future, it may provide more
Limited Service MEI Ports due to customer demand and increased
volatility in the marketplace, which will result in increased message
traffic rates across the network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See supra note 11.
    \29\ See supra notes 11 and 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange further believes its proposal is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act in that any time the

Exchange makes available more Limited Service MEI Ports, such ports
that are voluntarily purchased by Market Makers will not result in the
Exchange making a supracompetitive profit. The Exchange recently
conducted an extensive cost review in which the Exchange analyzed every
expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger (this includes
over 150 separate and distinct expense items) to determine whether each
such expense relates to additional Limited Service MEI Ports, and, if
such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such
expense actually supports additional Limited Service MEI Ports, and
thus bears a relationship that is, ``in nature and closeness,''
directly related to those services.
    To provide continuity with the Exchange's most recent filing to add
two additional Limited Service MEI Ports \30\ and this filing, the
Exchange performed this cost review anticipating that Market Makers may
purchase two additional Limited Service MEI Ports.\31\ The sum of all
such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to
provide services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports pursuant to this proposed rule change. Assuming the costs
outlined in this proposal remain unchanged, the Exchange represents
that the below cost and revenue analysis would continue to be true
should the Exchange make additional Limited Service MEI Ports available
beyond the analysis for two additional Limited Service MEI Ports
discussed below.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See supra note 18.
    \31\ The cost review in this proposal is based on two additional
Limited Service MEI Ports because two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports were purchased since the First Proposed Rule Change was
submitted on April 12, 2021.
    \32\ As stated above, currently the number of available Limited
Service MEI Ports does not change on a material basis the overall
profitability of Limited Service MEI Ports; however, the Exchange
represents that it will continue to monitor its costs and revenue
analysis for material changes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the avoidance of doubt, none of the expenses included herein
relating to the services associated with providing two additional
Limited Service MEI Ports also relate to the provision of any other
services offered by the Exchange. Stated differently, no expense amount
of the Exchange is allocated twice. The Exchange notes that it made
certain representations in a previous filing \33\ regarding its expense
allocation for the provision of network connectivity services. The
Exchange represents that none of the expenses allocated to the
provision of network connectivity services are also allocated to the
provision of ports--that is, there is no overlap of any such expenses
that are included in the costs associated with services the Exchange
provides for connectivity and for the services the Exchange provides
for ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87875 (December 31,
2019), 85 FR 770 (January 7, 2020) (SR-MIAX-2019-51).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Specifically, utilizing 2020 \34\ expense figures, total third-
party expense relating to fees paid by the Exchange to third-parties
for certain products and services for the Exchange to be able to
provide two additional Limited Service MEI Ports is approximately
$12,537. This includes, but is not limited to, a portion of the fees
paid to: (1) Equinix, for data center services, for the primary,
secondary, and disaster recovery locations of the Exchange's trading
system infrastructure; (2) Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. (``Zayo'') for
network services (fiber and bandwidth products and services) linking
the Exchange's office locations in Princeton, NJ and Miami, FL to all
data center locations; (3) Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure
(``SFTI''),\35\ which supports network feeds for the entire U.S.
options industry; (4) various other services providers (including
Thompson Reuters, NYSE, Nasdaq, and Internap), which provide content,
network services, and infrastructure services for critical components
of options network services; and (5) various other hardware and
software providers (including Dell and Cisco, which support the
production environment in which Members and non-Members connect to the
network to trade, receive market data, etc.). For clarity, only a
portion of all fees paid to such third-parties is included in the
third-party expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice.
Accordingly, the Exchange does not allocate its entire information
technology and communication costs to the services associated with
providing two additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ The Exchange is utilizing year-end 2020 expenses because
expenses incurred within 2021 have not yet been reviewed and full
year 2021 expenses have not yet been fully projected. Therefore, the
2020 year-end expenses are the most accurate to date.
    \35\ In fact, on October 22, 2019, the Exchange was notified by
SFTI that it is again raising its fees charged to the Exchange by
approximately 11%, without having to show that such fee change
complies with the Act by being reasonable, equitably allocated, and
not unfairly discriminatory. It is unfathomable to the Exchange
that, given the critical nature of the infrastructure services
provided by SFTI, that its fees are not required to be rule-filed
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act and Rule
19b-4 thereunder. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1) and 17 CFR 240.19b-4,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such third-party
expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to
provide the services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports. In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to
allocate the identified portion of the Equinix expense because Equinix
operates the data centers (primary, secondary, and disaster recovery)
that host the Exchange's network infrastructure. This includes, among
other things, the necessary storage space, which continues to expand
and increase in cost, power to operate the network infrastructure, and
cooling apparatuses to ensure the Exchange's network infrastructure
maintains stability. Without these services from Equinix, the Exchange
would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports to
its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange did not
allocate all of the Equinix expense toward the cost of providing the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports, only
that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped
to providing the services associated with two additional Limited
Service MEI Ports, approximately 0.5% of the total Equinix expense. The
Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents
the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports, and not any other service, as
supported by its cost review.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portion of the Zayo expense because Zayo provides the internet, fiber
and bandwidth connections with respect to the network, linking the
Exchange with its affiliates, MIAX Pearl and MIAX Emerald, as well as
the data center and disaster recovery locations. As such, all of the
trade data, including the billions of messages each day per exchange,
flow through Zayo's infrastructure over the Exchange's network. Without
these services from Zayo, the Exchange would not be able to operate and
support the network and provide the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports. The Exchange did not allocate all
of the Zayo expense toward the cost of providing the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports, only the
portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to
providing two additional Limited Service MEI Ports, approximately 0.4%
of the total Zayo expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is
reasonable because it

represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports, and not any
other service, as supported by its cost review.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portions of the SFTI expense and various other service providers'
(including Thompson Reuters, NYSE, Nasdaq, and Internap) expense
because those entities provide connectivity and feeds for the entire
U.S. options industry, as well as the content, network services, and
infrastructure services for critical components of the network. Without
these services from SFTI and various other service providers, the
Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and
provide access to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The
Exchange did not allocate all of the SFTI and other service providers'
expense toward the cost of providing the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports, only the portions which the
Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports,
approximately 0.5% of the total SFTI and other service providers'
expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it
represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portion of the other hardware and software provider expense because
this includes costs for dedicated hardware licenses for switches and
servers, as well as dedicated software licenses for security monitoring
and reporting across the network. Without this hardware and software,
the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and
provide access to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The
Exchange did not allocate all of the hardware and software provider
expense toward the cost of providing the services associated with the
two additional Limited Service MEI Ports, only the portions which the
Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports,
approximately 0.3% of the total hardware and software provider expense.
The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it
represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
    For 2020, total projected internal expense relating to the internal
costs of the Exchange to provide the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports is approximately $91,291. This
includes, but is not limited to, costs associated with: (1) Employee
compensation and benefits for full-time employees that support the
services associated with providing two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports, including staff in network operations, trading operations,
development, system operations, business, as well as staff in general
corporate departments (such as legal, regulatory, and finance) that
support those employees and functions (including an increase as a
result of the higher determinism project); (2) depreciation and
amortization of hardware and software used to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports, including
equipment, servers, cabling, purchased software and internally
developed software used in the production environment to support the
network for trading; and (3) occupancy costs for leased office space
for staff that provide the services associated with two additional
Limited Service MEI Ports. The breakdown of these costs is more fully-
described below. For clarity, only a portion of all such internal
expenses are included in the internal expense herein, and no expense
amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, the Exchange does not allocate
its entire costs contained in those items to the services associated
with providing two additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such internal
expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to
provide the services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports. In particular, the Exchange's employee compensation and benefits
expense relating to providing the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports is approximately $65,434, which is
only a portion of the $10,905,680 total projected expense for employee
compensation and benefits. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
allocate the identified portion of such expense because this includes
the time spent by employees of several departments, including
Technology, Back Office, Systems Operations, Networking, Business
Strategy Development (who create the business requirement documents
that the Technology staff use to develop network features and
enhancements), Trade Operations, Finance (who provide billing and
accounting services relating to the network), and Legal (who provide
legal services relating to the network, such as rule filings and
various license agreements and other contracts). As part of the
extensive cost review conducted by the Exchange, the Exchange reviewed
the amount of time spent by each employee on matters relating to the
provision of services associated with two additional Limited Service
MEI Ports. Without these employees, the Exchange would not be able to
provide the services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports to its Members and non-Members and their customers. The Exchange
did not allocate all of the employee compensation and benefits expense
toward the cost of the services associated with providing two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports, only the portions which the
Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports,
approximately 0.6% of the total employee compensation and benefits
expense. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it
represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports, and not any
other service, as supported by its cost review.
    The Exchange's depreciation and amortization expense relating to
providing the services associated with two additional Limited Service
MEI Ports is approximately $23,937, which is only a portion of the
$4,787,419 total projected expense for depreciation and amortization.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portion of such expense because such expense includes the actual cost
of the computer equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers,
laptops, monitors, information security appliances and storage, and
network switching infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps
that were purchased to operate and support the network and provide the
services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports.
Without this equipment, the Exchange would not be able to operate the
network and provide the services associated with two additional Limited
Service MEI Ports to its Members and non-Members and their customers.
The Exchange did not allocate all of the depreciation and amortization
expense toward the cost of providing the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports, only the portion which the
Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the
services associated with the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports,
approximately 0.5% of the total

depreciation and amortization expense, as these services would not be
possible without relying on such equipment. The Exchange believes this
allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual
cost to provide the services associated with two additional Limited
Service MEI Ports, and not any other service, as supported by its cost
review.
    The Exchange's occupancy expense relating to providing the services
associated with providing two additional Limited Service MEI Ports is
approximately $1,920, which is only a portion of the $480,036 total
projected expense for occupancy. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense
represents the portion of the Exchange's cost to rent and maintain a
physical location for the Exchange's staff who operate and support the
network, including providing the services associated with two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports. This amount consists primarily of
rent for the Exchange's Princeton, NJ office, as well as various
related costs, such as physical security, property management fees,
property taxes, and utilities. The Exchange operates its Network
Operations Center (``NOC'') and Security Operations Center (``SOC'')
from its Princeton, New Jersey office location. A centralized office
space is required to house the staff that operates and supports the
network. The Exchange currently has approximately 160 employees.
Approximately two-thirds of the Exchange's staff are in the Technology
department, and the majority of those staff have some role in the
operation and performance of the services associated with providing
additional Limited Service MEI Ports. Without this office space, the
Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and
provide the services associated with two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports to its Members and non-Members and their customers. Accordingly,
the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified
portion of its occupancy expense because such amount represents the
Exchange's actual cost to house the equipment and personnel who operate
and support the Exchange's network infrastructure and the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports. The Exchange
did not allocate all of the occupancy expense toward the cost of
providing the services associated with two additional Limited Service
MEI Ports, only the portion which the Exchange identified as being
specifically mapped to operating and supporting the network,
approximately 0.4% of the total occupancy expense. The Exchange
believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the
Exchange's cost to provide the services associated with two additional
Limited Service MEI Ports, and not any other service, as supported by
its cost review. Accordingly, based on the facts and circumstances
presented, the Exchange believes that its provision of the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports will not
result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit.
    The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory to allocate the respective percentages of each expense
category described above towards the total cost to the Exchange of
operating and supporting the network, including providing the services
associated with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports because the
Exchange performed a line-by-line item analysis of all the expenses of
the Exchange, and has determined the expenses that directly relate to
operation and support of the network. Further, the Exchange notes that,
without the specific third-party and internal items listed above, the
Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network,
including providing the services associated with two additional Limited
Service MEI Ports to its Members and non-Members and their customers.
Each of these expense items, including physical hardware, software,
employee compensation and benefits, occupancy costs, and the
depreciation and amortization of equipment, have been identified
through a line-by-line item analysis to be integral to the operation
and support of the network.
    To provide continuity with the Exchange's most recent filing to add
two additional Limited Service MEI Ports \36\ and this filing, the
Exchange is basing its projected revenue from additional Limited
Service MEI Ports that may be purchased by Market Makers as though
seven Market Makers purchased two additional Limited Service MEI Ports
each. The Exchange notes that any time it needs to expand its network
by making available two additional Limit Service MEI Ports due to
increased customer demand and increased volatility in the marketplace,
which translates into increased message traffic rates across the
network, there is an initial build out cost. The cost to expand the
network in this manner is greater than the revenue the Exchange
anticipates the additional Limited Service MEI Ports will generate.
Specifically, the Exchange estimates it will incur a one-time cost of
approximately $175,000 in capital expenditures (``CapEx'') on hardware,
software, and other items to expand the network to make available two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports. This estimated cost also includes
expense associated with providing the necessary engineering and support
personnel to transition those Market Makers who wish to acquire two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports. Further, the Exchange projects
that the annualized revenue from the two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports will be approximately $16,800 (assuming seven Market Makers
purchase the two additional Limited Service MEI Ports). Therefore, the
Exchange's upfront cost in expanding its network to provide its Members
with two additional Limited Service MEI Ports--approximately $175,000--
is significant relative to the anticipated annualized revenue the
Exchange expects to bring in from two additional Limited Service MEI
Ports--approximately $16,800. Further, the Exchange anticipates it will
incur approximately $103,828 in annualized ongoing operating expense
(``OpEx'') in order to support the expanded network and two additional
Limited Service MEI Ports. Thus, even excluding the upfront CapEx of
$175,000, the Exchange is not generating a supra-competitive profit
from the provision of two additional Limited Service MEI Ports. In
fact, even excluding the one-time CapEx cost of $175,000, the Exchange
anticipates generating an annual loss from the provision of two
additional Limited Service MEI Ports of ($87,028)--that is, $16,800 in
revenue minus $103,828 in expense equates to a loss of ($87,028) to
support the additional ports annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See supra note 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also notes that no other exchange has a similar cap on
the amount of ports that firms can purchase in their rulebooks or fee
schedules and those exchanges have the same requirements under Section
6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act \37\ as MIAX.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \38\ See supra note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The
proposed rule change will not impose a burden on competition but

will benefit competition by enhancing the Exchange's ability to compete
by providing additional services to market participants. It is not
intended to address a competitive issue. Rather, the proposal is
intended to allow the Exchange to increase its inventory of MEI Ports
to meet increased Member demand and increased message traffic resulting
from greater marketplace volatility. The Exchange also does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose a burden on intramarket
competition because additional Limited Service MEI Ports are available
to all Market Makers on an equal basis. It is a business decision of
each Market Maker whether to pay for the additional Limited Service MEI
Ports.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\39\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \40\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \40\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-MIAX-2021-19 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-MIAX-2021-19. 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 website (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 website 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 the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2021-19 and should be submitted on
or before June 8, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-10379 Filed 5-17-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 70 (Tuesday, April 12, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 21692]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07741]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2021-0111]

Notice of Application for Approval of Discontinuance or
Modification of a Railroad Signal System

    Under part 235 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and 49
U.S.C. 20502(a), this document provides the public notice that on
December 20, 2021, CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) petitioned the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) seeking approval to discontinue
or modify a signal system. FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-
2021-0111.

Applicant: CSXT--Carl A. Walker, Chief Engineer--Communication &
Signals, 500 Water Street, Jacksonville, FL 32202

    Specifically, CSXT requested approval to discontinue the cab signal
system (CSS) on all tracks between CP Anacostia (mile post (MP) CFP-
114.7) and CP Greendale (MP CFP-4.8) between Washington, DC, and
Richmond, VA, on the RF&P subdivision. In a clarification letter dated
March 30, 2022, CSXT describes the affected trackage to include (1) on
the CSXT Capital subdivision in Washington, DC, the tracks include all
tracks in both directions between and including CP Anacostia at MP CFP-
114.7 to CP M Street at MP CFP-113.8; and (2) on the CSXT RF&P
subdivision in Washington, DC, the tracks include all tracks in both
directions between and including CP M Street at MP CFP-113.8, to the
southbound absolute signals of CP Greendale at MP CFP-4.8 in Richmond,
VA. CSXT states that affected railways Virginia Passenger Rail
Authority, Virginia Railway Express, and Amtrak have concurred with the
proposed change. In support of its request, CSXT states that
implementation of the Interoperable Electronic Train Management System
Positive Train Control system, without the CSS, will simplify the
signal design and improve safety and efficiency of train operations.
    A copy of the application, as well as any written communications
concerning the application, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by May 27, 2022 will be considered by FRA
before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be
considered if practicable. Anyone can search the electronic form of any
written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by
the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the
document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor
union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform
its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any
personal information the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as
described in the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can
be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of
regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-07741 Filed 4-11-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 48 (Tuesday, March 14, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13739-13740]
[FR Doc No: 2017-04980]

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

 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Intelligent Transportation Systems Program Advisory Committee;
Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: ITS Joint Program Office, Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Program Advisory
Committee (ITSPAC) will hold a meeting on April 19, 2017, from 8:30
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (EST) in the Doubletree Crystal City Hotel, 300 Army
Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.
    The ITSPAC, established under Section 5305 of Public Law 109-59,
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, August 10, 2005, and re-

established under Section 6007 of Public Law 114-94, Fixing America's
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, December 4, 2015, was created to
advise the Secretary of Transportation on all matters relating to the
study, development, and implementation of intelligent transportation
systems. Through its sponsor, the ITS Joint Program Office (JPO), the
ITSPAC makes recommendations to the Secretary regarding ITS Program
needs, objectives, plans, approaches, content, and progress.
    The following is a summary of the meeting tentative agenda: (1)
Welcome, (2) Discussion of Potential Advice Memorandum Topics, (4)
Summary and Adjourn.
    The meeting will be open to the public, but limited space will be
available on a first-come, first-served basis. Members of the public
who wish to present oral statements at the meeting must submit a
request to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>not later than April 7, 2017.
    Questions about the agenda or written comments may be submitted by
U.S. Mail to: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, ITS Joint Program
Office, Attention: Stephen Glasscock, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., HOIT,
Washington, DC 20590 or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>. The ITS JPO requests
that written comments be submitted not later than April 7, 2017.
    Notice of this conference is provided in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act and the General Services Administration
regulations (41 CFR part 102-3) covering management of Federal advisory
committees.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on the 9th day of March 2017.
Stephen Glasscock,
Designated Federal Officer, ITS Joint Program Office.
[FR Doc. 2017-04980 Filed 3-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-22-P