[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 22, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72128-72130]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30059]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 22, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0201; Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-47-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH (TAE)
Reciprocating Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to revise an existing airworthiness directive (AD)
that applies to TAE models TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-02-99 reciprocating
engines installed on, but not limited to, Diamond Aircraft Industries
Model DA 42 airplanes. The existing AD currently requires initial and
repetitive replacements of proportional pressure reducing valves
(PPRVs) (also known as propeller control valves). Since we issued that
AD, TAE has increased the life of the PPRV, part number (P/N) 05-7212-
E002801, on TAE 125-02-99 engines, from 300 hours to 600 hours. This
proposed AD would relax the repetitive replacement interval from a 300-
hour interval to a 600-hour interval for PPRVs, P/N 05-7212-E002801, on
TAE 125-02-99 engines. We are proposing this AD to prevent engine in-
flight shutdown, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aircraft.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by January 23,
2012.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Thielert
Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350, Lichtenstein,
Germany; phone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-2912; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of the referenced
service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2009-0201;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-47-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On May 19, 2010, we issued AD 2010-11-09, Amendment 39-16314 (75 FR
32253, June 8, 2010), for TAE Models TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-02-99
reciprocating engines installed on, but not limited to, Diamond
Aircraft Industries model DA 42 airplanes. That AD requires initial and
repetitive replacements of PPRVs (also known as propeller control
valves). That AD resulted from reports of in-flight shutdown (IFSD)
incidents on Diamond Aircraft Industries DA 42 aircraft equipped with
TAE 125 engines. Preliminary investigations showed that the IFSDs were
mainly the result of failure of the PPRV. The European Aviation Safety
Agency issued AD 2009-0224, dated October 20, 2009, to address this
unsafe condition in Europe. We issued AD 2010-11-09 to prevent engine
in-flight shutdown, possibly resulting in reduced control of the
aircraft.

Actions Since Existing AD (75 FR 32253, June 8, 2010) Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2010-11-09, TAE performed a successful 600-hour
endurance test of the PPRV, P/N 05-7212-E002801, for TAE 125-02-99
engines only, on a propeller test bench, The test also had the
vibration isolator installed, which was introduced by AD 2010-11-09.

Relevant Service Information

    We reviewed TAE Service Bulletin (SB) No. TM TAE 125-1007 P1,
Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011. The SB relaxes the PPRV repetitive
replacement interval from 300 hours to 600 hours.

FAA's Determination

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

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all of the requirements of AD 2010-
11-09 (75 FR 32253, June 8, 2010), except the repetitive replacement
interval in paragraph (e)(2). This proposed AD

would relax the repetitive 300-hour replacement interval to a 600 hour-
interval.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD would affect about 300 TAE 125-01 and TAE
125-02-99 reciprocating engines installed in Diamond Aircraft
Industries Model DA 42 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate
that it would take about 0.25 work-hour per engine to replace a PPRV
and install a vibration isolator to the gearbox assembly. The average
labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $275
per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the AD on
U.S. operators to be $88,875.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing airworthiness directive
(AD) 2010-11-09, Amendment 39-16314 (75 FR 32253, June 8, 2010), and
adding the following new AD:

Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2009-0201;
Directorate Identifier 2008-NE-47-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by January 23,
2012.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD revises AD 2010-11-09, Amendment 39-16314 (75 FR 32253,
June 8, 2010).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH (TAE) models
TAE 125-01 and TAE 125-02-99 reciprocating engines designated with
part number (P/N) 05-7200-K000301 or 02-7200-14017R1. The engines
are installed on, but not limited to, Diamond Aircraft Industries
Model DA 42 airplanes.

(d) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by engine in-flight shutdown incidents
reported on Diamond Aircraft Industries DA 42 airplanes equipped
with TAE 125 engines. The investigations showed that it was mainly
the result of failure of the proportional pressure reducing valve
(PPRV) (also known as the propeller control valve) due to high
vibrations. Since the release of European Aviation Safety Agency
(EASA) AD 2008-0145, the engine gearbox has been identified as the
primary source of vibrations for the PPRV, and it has also been
determined that failure of the electrical connection to the PPRV
could have contributed to some power loss events or in-flight
shutdowns. We are issuing this AD to prevent engine in-flight
shutdown, possibly resulting in reduced control of the aircraft.

(e) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions.

(f) TAE 125-02-99 Reciprocating Engines

    (1) For TAE 125-02-99 reciprocating engines with engine, P/N 05-
7200-K000301, within 55 flight hours after the effective date of
this AD:
    (i) Replace the existing PPRV with PPRV, P/N 05-7212-E002801.
Use paragraphs A. through B. of TAE Service Bulletin (SB) No. TM TAE
125-1007 P1, Revision 3, dated October 17, 2011, or SB No. TM TAE
125-1007 P1, Revision 2, dated April 29, 2009, to do the
replacement.
    (ii) Install a vibration isolator, P/N 05-7212-K022302, to the
gearbox assembly. Use paragraphs 1 through 20 of TAE SB No. TM TAE
125-1009 P1, Revision 3, dated October 14, 2009, to do the
installation.

(2) Repetitive PPRV Replacements

    Thereafter, within every 600 flight hours, replace the PPRV, P/N
05-7212-E002801, with the same P/N PPRV.

(g) TAE 125-01 Reciprocating Engines

    (1) For TAE 125-01 reciprocating engines with engine, P/N 02-
7200-14017R1, within 55 flight hours after the effective date of
this AD:
    (i) Replace the existing PPRV with a PPRV, P/N NM-0000-0124501
or P/N 05-7212-K021401. Use paragraph 1 of TAE SB No. TM TAE 125-
0018, Revision 1, dated November 12, 2008, to do the replacement.
    (ii) Inspect the electrical connectors of the PPRV and replace
the connectors if damaged, and install a vibration isolator, P/N 05-
7212-K023801, to the gearbox assembly. Use paragraphs 1 through 27
of TAE SB No. TM TAE 125-0020, Revision 1, dated November 25, 2009,
to do the inspection and installation.

(3) Repetitive PPRV Replacements

    Thereafter, within every 300 flight hours, replace the PPRV with
a PPRV, P/N NM-0000-0124501 or P/N 05-7212-K021401.

(h) FAA Differences

    (1) We have found it necessary to not reference the second
paragraph of the unsafe condition from the MCAI EASA AD 2009-0224.
That sentence stated that the problem has only manifested itself on
those TAE engines installed on Diamond Aircraft Industries DA 42
aircraft. The affected engines which require a PPRV could be used on
other make and model airplanes in the future.
    (2) We also did not reference the February 28, 2010 compliance
date, which is in EASA AD 2009-0193R1, or the January 31, 2010
compliance date which is in EASA AD 2009-0224.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    The Manager, Engine Certification Office, FAA, may approve AMOCs
for this AD. Use the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19 to make your
request.

(j) Related Information

    (1) Refer to EASA AD 2009-0224, dated October 20, 2009 (TAE 125-
02-99), and EASA AD 2009-0193R1, dated December 1, 2009 (TAE 125-
01), for related information.

    (2) Contact Alan Strom, Aerospace Engineer, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, Engine & Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:
(781) 238-7199; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for more information
about this AD.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Platanenstrasse 14 D-09350,
Lichtenstein, Germany, phone: +49-37204-696-0; fax: +49-37204-696-
2912; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>You may review copies of
the referenced service information at the FAA, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, 12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(781) 238-7125.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 10, 2011.
Peter A. White,
Manager, Engine & Propeller Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.

[FR Doc. 2011-30059 Filed 11-21-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 59 (Wednesday, March 27, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18666-18667]
[FR Doc No: 2013-07096]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0050]

Agency Information Collection Activities; New Information
Collection: Lease and Interchange of Vehicles

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FMCSA
announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its
review and approval, and invites public comment. This ICR will enable
FMCSA to document the burden associated with the marking regulations
codified in 49 CFR Part 376, ``Lease and Interchange of Vehicles.''
These regulations require certain for-hire motor carriers to have a
formal lease when leasing equipment.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before May 28, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket Number FMCSA-2013-0050 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building, Ground
Floor, Room W12-140, 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: West Building, Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m. e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information on the exemption process, see the Public
Participation heading below. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading
below.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov, and follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets, or go to the street
address listed above.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket Management System
published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2008 (73 FR 3316), or
you may visit http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdfE8-794.pdf.
    Public Participation: The Federal eRulemaking Portal is available
24 hours each day, 365 days each year. You can obtain electronic
submission and retrieval help and guidelines under the ``help'' section
of the Federal eRulemaking Portal Web site. If you want us to notify
you that we received your comments, please include a self-addressed,
stamped envelope or postcard, or print the acknowledgement page that
appears after submitting comments online. Comments received after the
comment closing date will be included in the docket and will be
considered to the extent practicable.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas Kelly, Chief, Compliance
Division, Office of Enforcement and Compliance, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The Secretary of Transportation (Secretary) is
authorized to require a motor carrier that uses motor vehicles not
owned by it to transport property under an arrangement with another
party to make the arrangement in writing. This written agreement must
specify its duration, the compensation to be paid by the motor carrier
providing transportation subject to jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C.
14102(a), ``Leased Motor Vehicles'' and signed by the parties. The
Secretary has delegated authority pertaining to leased motor vehicles
to FMCSA pursuant to 49 CFR part 1.87(a)(6). The Agency's regulations
governing leased motor vehicles are at 49 CFR part 376.
    The rules were adopted to ensure that small trucking companies were
protected when they agreed to lease their equipment and drivers to
larger for-hire carriers. They also ensure that the government and
members of the public can determine who is responsible for a property-
carrying commercial motor vehicle. Prior to the regulations some
equipment was leased without written agreements, leading to disputes
over which party to the lease was responsible for charges and actions
and, at times, who was legally responsible for the vehicle. Under 49
U.S.C. 14102(a), FMCSA ``may require a motor carrier providing for-hire
transportation that uses motor vehicles not owned by it to transport
property under an arrangement with another party to--
    (1) Make the arrangement in writing signed by the parties
specifying its duration and the compensation to be paid by the motor
carrier;
    (2) carry a copy of the arrangement in each motor vehicle to which
it applies during the period the arrangement is in effect;
    (3) inspect the motor vehicles and obtain liability and cargo
insurance on them; and
    (4) have control of and be responsible for operating those motor
vehicles in compliance with requirements prescribed by the Secretary on
safety of operations and equipment, and with other applicable law as if
the motor vehicles were owned by the motor carrier.''
    The rules specify what must be covered in the lease, but not how
responsibilities must be divided. The parties to the lease determine
the details between themselves.
    Part 376 applies to only certain motor carriers in interstate
commerce and only certain leasing situations. The rules cover leasing
between a for-hire carrier that does not hold an operating authority
and another for-hire carrier that does hold operating authority. A for-
hire motor carrier with or without operating authority that leases its
equipment and drivers to a private motor carrier is not covered by the
rule. A for-hire carrier with operating authority that leases its
equipment to a non-motor carrier and operates under its own authority
is also not covered by the rule. Private carriers that lease their
equipment to for-hire motor carriers and for-hire carriers with their
own operating authority leasing to another such carrier are subject to
lesser requirements. For-hire carriers in interstate commerce are
exempt from the rules if they operate exclusively in commercial zones.
Commercial zones, last set by the ICC in 1975, are generally defined as
a municipality and a distance from the limits of the municipality that
ranges from 3 miles for cities with populations less than 2,500 to 20
miles for cities of a million or more people.

Some municipalities have additional areas defined for them.
    Title: Lease and Interchange of Vehicles.
    OMB Control Number: 2126-XXXX.
    Type of Request: New collection.
    Respondents: Motor carriers or shippers authorized by the Secretary
to transport property that uses leasing equipment.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 16,500.
    Estimated Time per Response: 1 hour 35 minutes [26,000 estimated
annual burden hours/16,500 respondents = 1.57575 hours or 1 hour 35
minutes].
    Expiration Date: N/A.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 26,000.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the performance of FMCSA's functions; (2)
the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways for FMCSA to enhance the
quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (4)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information. The agency will summarize or include your
comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information
collection.

    Issued on: March 18, 2013.
 G. Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-07096 Filed 3-26-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66328-66329]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27816]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-84844; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-087]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
the Fee Schedule

December 18, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on December 3, 2018, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one establishing or
changing a member due, fee, or other charge imposed by the Exchange
under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change to amend the fee schedule
applicable to Members and non-Members \5\ of the Exchange pursuant to
BZX Rules 15.1(a) and (c). Changes to the fee schedule pursuant to this
proposal are effective upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A Member is defined as ``any registered broker or dealer
that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See Exchange
Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule applicable to its
equities trading platform (``BZX Equities'') to increase the rebate
under the Non-Displayed Add Volume Tape A Tier 1, effective December 3,
2018.
    The Exchange currently provides a standard rebate of $0.00150 per
share for non-displayed orders that add liquidity. The Exchange also
provides an enhanced rebate under Non-Displayed Add Volume Tape A
Volume Tier, Tier 1 under Footnote 1 (``HV Volume Tier'') which is
available for qualifying non-displayed orders that add liquidity (Tape
A), (i.e., orders which yield fee code HV). Particularly, under the HV
Volume Tier, a Member may receive an enhanced rebate of $0.00260 per
share where they add an ADV \6\ greater than or equal to 0.20% of the
TCV \7\ as Non-Displayed orders that yield fee codes HI or HV.\8\ The
Exchange proposes to increase the HV Volume Tier rebate from $0.00260
per share to $0.00275 per share. The Exchange believes the proposed
change will encourage Members to increase non-displayed add liquidity
on the exchange. The Exchange also notes that another Exchange offers
the same rebate amount for similar transactions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ``ADV'' means average daily volume calculated as the number
of shares added or removed, combined, per day. ADAV and ADV are
calculated on a monthly basis.
    \7\ ``TCV'' means total consolidated volume calculated as the
volume reported by all exchanges and trade reporting facilities to a
consolidated transaction reporting plan for the month for which the
fees apply.
    \8\ Fee code HI is appended to non-displayed orders that receive
price improvement and add liquidity.
    \9\ See New York Stock Exchange Price List 2018, which provides
that the equity per share credit for all Midpoint Passive Liquidity
(``MPL'') orders that provide liquidity, other than MPL orders from
Designated Market Makers (``DMMs''), will receive a rebate of
$0.00275 per share if a Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to
0.14% Tape A NYSE consolidated average daily volume (``CADV''),
excluding any liquidity added by a DMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\10\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\11\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The proposed
rule changes reflect a competitive pricing structure designed to
incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the
Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes increasing the rebate under the HV Volume
Tier is reasonable because Members are provided an opportunity to
receive an enhanced rebate for Non-Displayed orders that add liquidity
and is a reasonable means to encourage Members to increase their
liquidity on the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that another
Exchange offers a similar rebate.\12\ The Exchange also believes the
proposed fee change is equitable and non-discriminatory because it
applies uniformly to all Members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See New York Stock Exchange Price List 2018, which provides
that the equity per share credit for all MPL orders that provide
liquidity, other than MPL orders from DMMs, will receive a rebate of
$0.00275 per share if a Member adds an ADV greater than or equal to
0.14% Tape A CADV, excluding any liquidity added by a DMM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed change burdens competition, but instead, enhances
competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX by
modifying pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and
incentivize participants to increase their participation on the
Exchange. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive
market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to
competing venues if they deem fee structures to be unreasonable or
excessive. The proposed change is intended to enhance the rebate
offered for certain non-displayed liquidity added to the Exchange,
which is intended to draw additional liquidity to the Exchange. The
Exchange does not believe the proposed amendment would burden
intramarket competition as it would be available to all Members
uniformly.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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) of the Act \13\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4
thereunder.\14\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposal 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 No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-087 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 No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-087. 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 such filing will also 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 No. SR-CboeBZX-2018-087 and
should be submitted on or before January 16, 2019.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-27816 Filed 12-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30817-30820]
[FR Doc No: 2023-10128]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-97457; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2023-029]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend
Rule 21.8 Regarding Certain Cancel-Replace Messages

May 8, 2023.
    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 April 25, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BZX'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``BZX Options'')
proposes to amend Rule 21.8. The text of the proposed rule change is
provided in Exhibit 5.
    The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the
Exchange's website (http://markets.cboe.com/us/equities/regulation/rule_filings/bzx/), at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 21.8 to describe the impact on
option order priority of a cancel/replace message, including a ``no-
change'' order \3\ (i.e., an order submitted to cancel or replace a
resting order that does not change any terms of an order). The Rules
are currently silent regarding how the System handles a cancel-replace
message (that either changes or does not change any terms of the
resting order). The Exchange recently determined that if the System
receives a no-change order, the resting order will lose its priority
position; however, if the System receives a ``no-change'' bid or offer
in a bulk message, the resting bid or offer will not lose its priority
position. The Exchange proposes to harmonize the handling of all no-
change orders and quotes so that any ``no-change'' order or bulk
message bid or offer will lose priority and describe this behavior in
the Exchange's Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In this context, the term ``order'' includes bids and offers
submitted in bulk messages. A bulk message means a bit or offer
included in a single electronic message a user submits with an M
(Market-Maker) capacity to the Exchange in which the user may enter,
modify, or cancel up to an Exchange-specified number of bids and
offers. See Rule 16.1 (definition of bulk message, which provides
that the System handles a bulk message bid or offer in the same
manner as it handles an order or quote, unless the Rules specify
otherwise).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, the Exchange proposes to describe in the Exchange's
Rules how the System in general handles all cancel/replace messages
submitted by users, including those that change or do not change the
price and size of a resting order's terms. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to codify current System functionality that causes a resting
order to lose its priority position (including if the price of an order
is changed or the quantity is increased) if any cancel/replace message
is submitted if any term other than a decrease to the quantity, the Max
Floor (if a Reserve Order),\4\ or the stop price (if a Stop or Stop
Limit Order) \5\ is modified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Reserve Orders'' are limit orders that have both a portion
of the quantity displayed (``Display Quantity'') and with a reserve
portion of the quantity (``Reserve Quantity'') that is not
displayed. Both the Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity of the
Reserve Order are available for potential execution against incoming
orders. If the Display Quantity of a Reserve Order is fully
executed, the System will, in accordance with the user's
instruction, replenish the Display Quantity from the Reserve
Quantity using one of the replenishment instructions set forth in
the Rules. If the remainder of an order is less than the
replenishment amount, the Exchange will replenish and display the
entire remainder of the order. A user must instruct the Exchange as
to the quantity of the order to be initially displayed by the System
(``Max Floor'') when entering a Reserve Order, which is also used to
determine the replenishment amount. A new timestamp is created for
both the Display Quantity and the Reserve Quantity of the order each
time it is replenished from reserve. See Rule 21.1(d)(1).
    \5\ ``Stop Orders'' are orders that become market orders when
the stop price is elected. ``Stop Limit Orders'' are orders that
become limit orders when the stop price is elected. A Stop or Stop
Limit Order to buy is elected when the consolidated last sale in the
option occurs at or above, or the NBB is equal to or higher than,
the specified stop price. A Stop or Stop Limit Order to sell is
elected when the consolidated last sale in the option occurs at or
below, or the NBO is equal to or lower than, the specified stop
price. See Rule 21.1(d)(10) and (11).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, the proposed rule change amends Rule 21.8 to add that if
a user submits a cancel/replace message for a resting order, regardless
of whether the cancel/replace message modifies any terms of the resting
order, the order loses its priority position and is placed in a
priority position based on the time the System receives the cancel/
replace message, unless the user only (1) decreases the quantity of an
order, (2) modifies the Max Floor (if a Reserve Order), or (3) modifies
the stop price (if a Stop or Stop-Limit order), in which case the order
retains its priority position.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of section 6(b) of the Act.\6\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \7\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be
designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers,
brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change will
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market as well as protect investors by adding transparency to the Rules
regarding how the System handles all cancel/replace messages, including
those that change no order terms. The Exchange believes consistency in
handling of all no-change orders and quotes will simplify order
handling, which will promote just and equitable principles of trade and
thus further benefit investors. The Exchange believes it is reasonable
for a user's resting order to lose priority if that user submits a
cancel/replace order, including a no-change order, to replace that
resting order (other than the three proposed exceptions). Ultimately,
the purpose of a cancel and replace message is to replace a resting
order with a new order; therefore, it is appropriate for the System to
treat that replacement order as a new order for purposes of priority.
Despite the fact that a cancel/replace message may not modify the price
or size of a resting order (and thus has no investment purpose), a user
elected to send that new order to the Exchange despite having an
identical order resting on the Exchange's book and used System capacity
to do so. Therefore, the Exchange believes it promotes just and
equitable principles of trade to treat that replacement order as a new
order for priority purposes. The Exchange believes the proposed rule
change encourages users to submit to the Exchange only bona fide
cancel/replace orders that have legitimate investment purposes and
discourages use of System capacity to send unnecessary message traffic.
    The Exchange believes it will remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market as well as protect investors by
adding transparency to codify current System functionality regarding
all cancel/replace messages, including those that do not cause a loss
of priority position. Under current System functionality, a cancel/
replace order that changes the price of a resting order or increases
the size of a resting order the order loses its priority position and
is placed in a

priority position based on the time the System receives the cancel/
replace message, as increasing the price or quantity of a resting order
could cause it to gain priority over other resting orders if it did not
otherwise get a new timestamp. Additionally, under current System
functionality, cancel/replace order that decreases the size of a
resting order (and changes no other terms) does not result in a loss of
priority position. Unlike a no-change order, an order to reduce the
size of a resting order may have a legitimate investment purpose, such
as to reduce execution risk, but would not impact its priority compared
to other resting orders (e.g., resting orders are often decreased in
size if they receive partial execution, and the remainders retain their
priority status; unlike an increase in size, a decrease in size would
not cause a resting order to otherwise gain priority over other resting
orders).
    Additionally, under current System functionality, a cancel/replace
message that changes the Max Floor (if a Reserve Order) or the stop
price (if a Stop or Stop-Limit order) and no other terms will not cause
a resting order to lose priority because it is unnecessary given the
handling of those orders and the fact that at that time there is no
priority to lose. Such handling is consistent with the definitions and
handling of both of those order types. Specifically, as set forth in
the definition of a Reserve Order, the Max Floor amount is relevant for
replenishment of the Display Quantity of the order after execution, and
once replenished, the System creates a new timestamp for both the
Display Quantity and Reserve Quantity of the order each time it is
replenished from reserve (i.e., prioritizes it in the book at the time
of replenishment). Therefore, there is no need for a loss in priority
due to a change in the Max Floor amount because that order will have
its priority reset once it is replenished with that new amount.
Similarly, as set forth in the definitions of Stop and Stop-Limit
orders, those orders become market or limit orders, respectively, once
triggered and thus placed on the book as market or limit orders and
prioritized based on that time. The stop price is the piece of
information that determines when these orders will be triggered. As a
result, there is no need for an order to lose priority due to a change
in the stop price given that those orders have not yet been prioritized
on the Book and will be prioritized once triggered and entered into the
Book for potential execution.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the System will handle
all cancel/replace orders from all users in the same manner. All
cancel/replace orders, including all no-change orders, except for the
three exceptions, will cause the resting order to lose priority. The
three types of cancel/replace orders that will not cause a resting
order to lose priority are consistent with current order handling
rules.
    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the
proposed rule change only impacts priority of orders resting on the
Exchange's book and thus will have no impact on terms of an order that
are disseminated to market participants or on trading outside of the
Exchange.

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
    A. significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest;
    B. impose any significant burden on competition; and
    C. become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was
filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has
become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \9\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \10\ 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 will institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed
rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeBZX-2023-029 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-CboeBZX-2023-029. 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 offices of the Exchange. Do not include
personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may
redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material
that is obscene or subject to copyright protection. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2023-029, and should be
submitted on or before June 2, 2023.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-10128 Filed 5-11-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


PART B OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT (FOR STATISTICAL SURVEYS)

                            INTRODUCTION TO PART B
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will conduct the following type of statistical survey to estimate end user satisfaction of its research products. This survey will evaluate EPA's research products based on the quality, usability, and timeliness of these products and will be collected by collecting survey-based feedback from the key users of EPA's research products, who include the Agencies state, local, and non-governmental partners.

                      This page intentionally left blank.

B.1	SURVEY OBJECTIVES, KEY VARIABLES AND OTHER PRELIMINARIES
B.1.a	Survey Objectives
This request is for three related surveys that will provide data to track its progress under the Stewardship goal of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement (the Agreement). The Stewardship goal is stated as:
      Increase the number and the diversity of local citizen stewards and local governments that actively support and carry out the conservation and restoration activities that achieve healthy local streams, rivers and a vibrant Chesapeake Bay.
The three surveys contained in this request provide data to track three outcomes defined under the Stewardship goal:
 Citizen Stewardship Outcome: Increase the number and diversity of trained and mobilized citizen volunteers with the knowledge and skills needed to enhance the health of their local watersheds.
 Local Leadership Outcome: Continually increase the knowledge and capacity of local officials on issues related to water resources and in the implementation of economic and policy incentives that will support local conservation actions.
 Diversity Outcome: Identify stakeholder groups that are not currently represented in the leadership, decision-making and implementation of conservation and restoration activities and create meaningful opportunities and programs to recruit and engage these groups in the Partnership's efforts.
The three surveys are aligned with the three outcomes stated above.
B.1.b	Key Variables
In designing the surveys, EPA and its partners in the Chesapeake Bay Program (the "Program") have endeavored to include only the necessary information to track the outcomes cited above, as well as information that can assist in interpreting the data (e.g., demographics and other context-related information).
The key aspects for tracking the outcomes for each outcome are describe below.
For the Citizen Stewardship Outcome (Stewardship Survey), the key data elements are:
 Information on activities the respondent performs related to lawn and/or yard care
 Stewardship behaviors (e.g., use of rain barrels, use of fertilizer) that the respondent performs currently and an assessment of the likelihood the respondent would perform them in the future
 The respondent's volunteer-related activities and attitudes toward volunteer activities
 The respondent's civic engagement and attitudes toward civic engagement
 The respondent's perceptions and attitudes towards environmental and/or water quality
For the Local Leadership Outcome (Local Leaders survey), the key data elements are:
 A set of questions on the extent to which the respondent's community takes into account upstream and downstream communities when making decisions, both overall and in specific policies
 Priorities for conservation and restoration activities and policies
 The impact that protecting the Chesapeake Bay has on the various aspects (e.g., economic, water quality) of the community
 Tools that the community considers in protecting Chesapeake Bay
 Their level of understanding of rules and regulations at various levels of government
 Access to knowledgeable people to provide assistance in implementing environmental policy
 Activities the community has undertaken in the last three years related to water quality
 An assessment of the respondent's understanding of watersheds
Finally, for the Diversity Outcome (Diversity Profile survey), the key data elements are:
 Gender identity
 Age
 Racial identity
 Identification as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community
 Disability status
 A list of groups they engage with as part of the Program
B.1.c	Statistical Approach
Both the Local Leaders Survey and the Diversity Profile Survey will be sending the survey to a set of individuals who appear on lists that the Program will use for purposes of the survey. Thus, the Local Leaders Survey and the Diversity Profile Survey are not employing statistical methods.
The Stewardship Survey has selected a sample size that is identical to the one used in the 2017 version of the survey that was implemented by a Program partner. The statistical approach for the Stewardship Survey is to use stratified random sampling where the defined strata are the seven states in the region (see Table 11). Potential respondents will be selected from each state randomly to meet the sample size requirements. Section B.2.c.i discusses the precision associated with these sample sizes in each state.
B.1.d	Feasibility
EPA has assessed the feasibility of completing the surveys regarding the potential obstacles that respondents may face, the available funding, and timeliness of the data.
 Obstacles. EPA does not expect the respondents to face any significant obstacles in responding to the three surveys. As noted above, the Stewardship survey and the Diversity Profile survey were both implemented by EPA partners previously and did not encounter obstacles to response in those instances. The Local Leaders survey, new to this effort, asks respondents a set of questions that should be answerable based on their existing knowledge. Additionally, the modes of implementation  -  web for the Local Leaders and Diversity Profile survey and a combination of phone, web, and mail for the Stewardship Survey  -  were chosen to minimize any potential obstacles to response.
 Funds. EPA has ensured that sufficient funds are available to complete the survey.
 Timeliness. The survey results will be available in time to inform EPA's tracking of outcomes.
B.2	SURVEY DESIGN
This section contains a detailed description of the statistical survey design and sampling approach including a description of the sampling frame, sample identification, precision requirements and data collection instrument. Given that only the Stewardship Survey is using a statistical design, much of the focus on this section will be on the Stewardship Survey. Where necessary, we address aspect related to the other two surveys as well.
B.2.a	Target Population and Coverage
Table 10 below provides a summary of the targeted and covered (sampling) population for each survey.
Table 10. Target and Sampled Populations for Each Survey
Survey
Target Population
Covered (Sampling) Population
Stewardship
Adults who live in the Chesapeake Bay region.
Adults living in the Chesapeake Bay region that are reachable by one of the three survey modes: phone, web, or mail.
Local Leaders
Elected or appointed officials (or their senior staff) who are involved in policymaking in the Chesapeake Bay region.
Elected or appointed officials (or their senior staff) whose email addresses have been compiled by EPA and its partners in the Program.
Diversity Profile
Individuals who are working in roles to preserve Chesapeake Bay
Individuals who are working in roles to preserve Chesapeake Bay whose email addresses have been compiled by EPA and it partners in the Program.

B.2.b	Sample Design
This section describes the sample design. It includes a description of the sampling frame, target sample size, stratification variables and sampling method.
B.2.b.i	Sampling Frame
The sampling frames for the Local Leaders survey and the Diversity Profile survey consist of lists of in-scope email addresses that were compiled by EPA and its partners on the Program. For the Diversity Profile survey, the Program developed an initial list in implementing the survey in 2016 and has refined that list since then.
The Stewardship Survey will use a list of phone numbers that consist of both landline and cellphones, an address list, and email addresses. EPA will rely on the implementing contractor to acquire these lists. As noted, this survey was implemented before as a phone survey and EPA will ensure a comparable sample frame is used.
B.2.b.ii	Sample Size
The Local Leaders and Diversity Profile surveys are not using statistical sampling and the survey is being sent to all individuals on the lists compiled by EPA and its partners. Thus, sample size will be determined by the number who respond to the survey.
The Stewardship Survey will be selecting stratified random samples from each of the seven states within the Chesapeake Bay Region based on the population of each state.
B.2.b.iii	 Stratification Variables
For the Local Leaders and Diversity Profile surveys, no stratification is being used; all individuals who appear on the sample frame will receive the survey.
The Stewardship Survey will stratify the sample by state to ensure state-level results can be analyzed with known precision and confidence. Table 11 provides a state-level breakdown of the 5,200 people that will be sampled under the survey. The data on Table 11 reflect the breakdown used in the 2017 version of the survey to ensure comparability.
Table 11. Sample by State for Stewardship Survey
State
Sample Size
Sample Percentage
Estimate of Population Living in Chesapeake Bay Region Estimate
Population Percentage
Delaware
                                      400
                                     7.7%
                                    178,000
                                     1.0%
District of Columbia
                                      800
                                     15.4%
                                    658,000
                                     3.6%
Maryland
                                     1,000
                                     19.2%
                                   5,895,000
                                     32.4%
New York
                                      400
                                     7.7%
                                    599,000
                                     3.3%
Pennsylvania
                                     1,000
                                     19.2%
                                   3,634,000
                                     19.9%
Virginia
                                     1,000
                                     19.2%
                                   6,990,000
                                     38.4%
West Virginia
                                      600
                                     11.5%
                                    268,000
                                     1.5%
Total
                                     5,200
                                     100%
                                  18,222,000
                                     100%

B.2.b.iv	 Sampling Method
For the Local Leaders and Diversity Profile surveys, no sampling method is being employed; all individuals who appear on the sample frame will receive the survey.
For the Stewardship Survey, EPA's contractor will select random samples within each stratum and will reach out to each potential respondent via mail, email, and phone.
B.2.c	Precision Requirements
B.2.c.i	Precision Targets
The Local Leaders and Diversity Profile surveys are not using statistical sampling and the survey is being sent to all individuals on the lists compiled by EPA and its partners. Thus, neither survey has a defined precision in a statistical sense.
Table 12 contains the precision values for the Stewardship Survey. EPA has set a minimum of +/- five percentage points for yes/no questions on the survey. EPA has not set a precision for each state but plans to use the same sample size as previously used to ensure comparability. Thus, EPA calculated the precision that can be obtained based on the sample from sample used in each state in the 2017 survey. The precision values reflect the plus/minus values around an assumed worst-case (variance-wise) assumption of 50 percent yes response to a yes/no question. For example, in Delaware, if the value for a yes/no question were 50 percent of respondents, a 95 percent confidence interval around that estimate would be from 45.1 percent to 54.9 percent. As measured values move from the worst-case variance value of 50 percent, the confidence intervals would become more precise as variance declines. EPA expects these precision values, especially the one for the entire region of 1.4 percentage points, is more than sufficient to meets its needs.
Table 12. Statistical Precision Estimates for Stewardship Survey
State
Sample Size
Estimate of Population Living in Chesapeake Bay Region Estimate
Precision (+/- for 95 percent confidence interval)
Delaware
                                      400
                                    178,000
                                      4.9
District of Columbia
                                      800
                                    658,000
                                      3.5
Maryland
                                     1,000
                                   5,895,000
                                      3.1
New York
                                      400
                                    599,000
                                      4.9
Pennsylvania
                                     1,000
                                   3,634,000
                                      3.1
Virginia
                                     1,000
                                   6,990,000
                                      3.1
West Virginia
                                      600
                                    268,000
                                      4.0
Total
                                     5,200
                                  18,222,000
                                      1.4

B.2.c.ii	Non-sampling Error
EPA expects the primary form of non-sampling error to affect these three surveys will be nonresponse. To minimize nonresponse, EPA will employ good survey practices, including:
 For the two email-based surveys, EPA and its partners will send a pre-notification email followed by a send-out email with the link to the survey and then a series of 3-4 reminder emails.
 For the Stewardship Survey, EPA has decided to use a multi-modal approach to maximize the likelihood of response. Respondents will be allowed to choose a response mode that is best for them.
The occurrence of nonresponse in each survey will potentially bias the results towards specific types of respondents. For the Local Leaders and Stewardship surveys, EPA expect that respondents who are more interested in conserving Chesapeake Bay will also be more likely to respond. For the Diversity Profile survey, EPA expect that individuals who are more concerned about diversity-related issues would be more likely to respond.
EPA is not basing decisions on the data collected through the survey but is using the data to track progress under three outcomes defined under the Stewardship goal of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Thus, EPA plans to collect these data over time. As long as the effect of nonresponse is constant over time, the data being tracked by EPA in each survey will allow for tracking the Agency's progress at meeting its objectives under the outcomes and the goal.
B.2.d	Data Collection Instrument Design
As noted under Section B.1.b, most of the survey questions on each instrument reflect data needed to track progress under the three outcomes of the Stewardship goal under the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. In this section, we provide further justification for each set of questions.
Local Leaders survey
 The respondent's role in the community (title, in decision-making, functionally)  -  Understanding the roles of the respondents will help EPA in interpreting the responses to key questions on the survey regarding the knowledge and capacity of local leaders.
 The size and location of the community  -  The size and location of the community will assist EPA in understanding the responses to the key data collected under the survey regarding the knowledge and capacity of local leaders.
 Several questions on the extent to which their community takes into account upstream and downstream communities when making decisions, both overall and in specific policies  -  Understanding the extent to which communities take into account upstream and downstream communities is a key aspect of understanding how local leaders can contribute to the stewardship goal.
 Priorities for conservation and restoration activities and policies  -  Understanding the priorities of the communities will provide information on the extent to which local leaders are contributing to Stewardship.
 The impact that protecting the Chesapeake Bay has on the various aspects (e.g., economic, water quality) of the community  -  Understanding how local leaders perceive the impact of protecting the Bay on their community contributes to EPA understanding the knowledge and capacity of local officials on issues related to water resources.
 Tools that the community considers in protecting Chesapeake Bay  -  Knowing the tools that the community use to protect the Bay contributes to EPA's understanding of local leader capacity.
 Their level of understanding of rules and regulations at various levels of government  -  These questions measure the knowledge of local leaders in relation to protecting the Bay.
 Which federal rules the community is subject to  -  This question measures the knowledge of local leaders in relation to protection of the Bay.
 Access to knowledgeable people to provide assistance in implementing environmental policy  -  This question measures the capacity of local leaders to access people who are knowledgeable about protecting the Bay.
 Resources (e.g., trainings, individuals, guidance documents) the respondent would use to learn more about environmental policy or water resources  -  This question provides information on the extent to which local leaders know where to go to increase their capacity and knowledge.
 Activities the community has undertaken in the last three years related to water quality  -  This question asks about the actions taken that can improve the Bay.
 An assessment of the respondent's understanding of watersheds  -  This set of questions measures the local leaders' knowledge about watersheds.
 A set of demographics (age, gender, years in current position)  -  The demographics will assist EPA in interpreting the results from the other questions.
The Diversity Profile survey asks about the following data items:
 The respondent's role in protecting Chesapeake Bay, including the type of organization they work for, their role at that organization, whether they are in leadership role in the Chesapeake Bay Program, and their tenure in the Chesapeake Bay Program  -  Understanding these context-based questions will assist EPA in interpreting the response to the key questions related to diversity in the survey.
 A set of questions that ask about gender identity, age, racial identify, identification as a member of the LGBTQIA+ community, disability status  -  These are the key questions for understanding the diversity among the respondents.
 Where they live in terms of geographic location and characteristics (e.g., urban)  -  This question on location will assist EPA in understanding the geographic scope of diversity.
 A list of groups they engage with as part of the Program  -  Understanding the network of groups in relation to diversity will assist EPA in understanding  the reach of diversity in the area.
 Whether they completed the survey in prior years  -  This question will assist EPA in understanding how the survey results may differ from year to year.
Finally, the Stewardship Survey asks several questions that can be grouped into eight broad categories:
 Information on the respondent's location within the Chesapeake Bay watershed  -  Understanding where the respondent is within the watershed assists with both sample allocation and with interpreting the results.
 Information on activities the respondent performs related to lawn and/or yard care  -  These are key data for tracking stewardship.
 Stewardship behaviors (e.g., use of rain barrels, use of fertilizer) that the respondent performs currently and an assessment of the likelihood the respondent would perform them in the future  -  These are key data for tracking stewardship.
 The respondent's volunteer-related activities and attitudes toward volunteer activities  -  These are key data for tracking stewardship.
 The respondent's civic engagement and attitudes toward civic engagement -  These are key data for tracking stewardship.
 The respondent's perceptions and attitudes towards environmental and/or water quality -  These are key data for tracking stewardship.
 A set of demographics  -  Understanding the respondents' demographics will assist EPA in better understanding the key stewardship data.

B.3	PRE-TESTS AND PILOT TEST
B.3.a	Pre-tests
The Stewardship and Diversity profile surveys have been implemented by EPA partners prior to the collection being requested under this ICR. Thus, EPA does not expect the need to conduct pre-test for the Stewardship and Diversity Profile surveys. EPA does not expect to perform a pre-test for the Local Leaders survey.

B.3.b	Pilot Test
EPA does not expect to conduct pilot testing for these surveys.
B.4	COLLECTION METHODS AND FOLLOW-UP
B.4.a	Collection Method
The Diversity Profile and the Local Leadership Survey will be collected using a web-based data collection approach. Emails will be sent to potential respondents with a link to take the survey. The Stewardship Survey will be collected as a multi-mode survey that uses a combination of phone, web, and mail to collect responses.
B.4.b	Survey Response and Follow-up
Expected Response Rates
EPA expects the following response rates for the three surveys:
 10 percent for the Stewardship Survey. This is based on prior implementation of the survey in the region by EPA's partners. EPA also notes, however, that the prior version of the survey was collected using just a phone survey; the use of three modes (phone, web, and mail) is meant to increase response rate for this implementation.
 5 percent for the Local Leaders Survey. Given the large number of potential respondents (15,000) and the broad implementation of this survey across the region, EPA expects a that 5 percent is a reasonable expectation for response.
 53 percent for the Diversity Profile Survey. This is based on prior implementation of the survey in the region by EPA's partners.
Implementation and Follow-up
The two surveys being collected using email distribution will involve the following sequence of emails to maximize response:
 A prenotification email to alert the potential respondents to the upcoming survey. This will be sent from a recognizable organization or individual to ensure the respondents see the survey as a valid data collection effort.
 An initial distribution email that provides the survey link to the respondents. This will be sent 1-2 days after the prenotification email.
 A set of 3-4 reminders that are sent at 3-4 day intervals to those who have not responded yet. Each reminder will include the link and will alter the way in which information about the survey is presented (e.g., new subject lines) in an attempt to create new stimuli for the respondents.
For Stewardship Survey, the contractor implementing the survey will obtain a list of valid phone numbers (land and cell), email addresses, and physical addresses from a reputable vendor. The contractor will remove duplicate across the different lists. The respondents will be sorted by state for each mode and then randomized within each state. The contractor will select a sample for each state that total 5,200 respondents across states from across the three modes.
Calculating Actual Response Rates
For each survey, EPA will calculate response rates by dividing the number of completed surveys by the number of attempted surveys minus out-of-scope respondents. For the Local Leaders and Diversity Profile Surveys (email), out-of-scope respondents will be defined as any respondent who (1) indicates in an emailed reply they are not in scope (e.g., no longer in the position) and (2) any undeliverable email addresses. For the Stewardship Survey (phone), EPA will define out-of-scope respondents as any respondent who provides information that indicate they are not in scope (e.g., lives outside it the area).
B.5	ANALYZING AND REPORTING SURVEY RESULTS
B.5.a	Data Preparation
Each survey effort under this request will result in an electronic data file. The data from the two web-based instruments and the data from the phone CATI system for the third survey will be transferred to an MS Excel file for analysis.
EPA does not expect to use any method to impute missing data items. Those items will be recorded as unit nonresponses.
B.5.b	Analysis
The data from each survey question in each survey will be tabulated by response option, including a full accounting of missing responses (unit nonresponse) for each question. EPA will cross-tabulate responses as needed. For the Stewardship Survey, EPA expects to tabulate the response for each state separately as well.
B.5.c	Reporting Results
Results from the surveys will be reported by EPA on the Chesapeake Bay Program website and included in the annual "Bay Barometer" report.

                      This page intentionally left blank.

Appendix A  -  Data Collection Instruments


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 14, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65136-65137]
[FR Doc No: 2020-22674]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2020-0095]

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a
petition submitted on April 10, 2020, by Mr. Surjit Singh to NHTSA's
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition requests that the
Agency investigate Model Year 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 vehicles for
alleged premature rear brake line corrosion failure. NHTSA opened
Defect Petition DP20-004 to evaluate the petitioner's request. After
reviewing the information provided by the petitioner and available
NHTSA complaint and Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data, NHTSA has
concluded that there is insufficient evidence to pursue further action
at this time. Accordingly, the Agency has denied the petition.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Frederick LaMance, Vehicle Defects
Division--D, Office of Defects Investigation, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: By letter dated April 10, 2020, Mr. Singh
(the petitioner) submitted a petition requesting that the Agency
investigate 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 vehicles for alleged premature rear
brake line corrosion failure. Interested persons may petition NHTSA
requesting that the Agency initiate an investigation to determine
whether a motor vehicle or item of replacement equipment does not
comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard or contains a
defect that relates to motor vehicle safety (49 U.S.C. 30162(a)(2); 49
CFR 552.1). Upon receipt of a properly filed petition, the Agency
conducts a technical review of the petition, material submitted with
the petition and any additional information (49 CFR 552.6). After
conducting the technical review and considering appropriate factors,
which may include, but are not limited to, the nature of the complaint,
allocation of Agency resources, Agency priorities, the likelihood of
uncovering sufficient evidence to establish the existence of a defect,
and the likelihood of success in any necessary enforcement litigation,
the Agency will grant or deny the petition. See 49 CFR 552.8.
    The petitioner alleges that his 2013 Mercedes E350 sedan with
approximately 37,000 miles has a safety defect due to rusted brake
lines. Mr. Singh stated that his vehicle was inspected by a Mercedes-
Benz dealership and received an estimate of $3,300 to repair the rear
brake lines. He attached supplemental information including photos of
his vehicle's rear brake lines, that had visible corrosion, as well as
a service invoice from the brake line repair. He does not allege that
his vehicle experienced brake line leakage or any effect on brake
system performance before the corrosion concern was detected and
repaired in a dealer inspection.

    On April 24, 2020, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI)
opened Defect Petition DP20-004 to evaluate the petitioner's request.
ODI conducted a search for all consumer complaints and Early Warning
Reporting (EWR) data related to allegations of brake line corrosion or
leakage in 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 sedans and similarly equipped
vehicles. The 2013 E350 is a fourth-generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class
vehicle (W212 platform), which was first sold in the United States in
2009 as a 2010 model. Mercedes-Benz has sold approximately 245,000
model year 2010 through 2015 E-Class sedan and wagon vehicles in the
United States with the same brake line design as the petitioner's
vehicle.
    The subject brake lines are routed along the left undercarriage and
have a corrosion protection coating system consisting of a base layer
of zinc and an outer coating of polyvinyl fluoride. The Mercedes-Benz
maintenance plan for the subject vehicles recommends brake line
inspection every 12 months or 10,000 miles to detect and repair
corrosion damage before it compromises brake circuit integrity. While
there is potential for brake line corrosion and leakage in older
vehicles operated in States with high road salt use in winter months,
the low complaint counts do not provide evidence that such failures are
occurring prematurely in the subject platform or that the failures are
having an impact on brake system performance.
    Specifically, ODI's search for complaints and EWR data in 2013
Mercedes-Benz E350 vehicles found no additional records related to the
alleged defect. Expanding the search to all W212 platform vehicles
identified just one incident, a complaint alleging unspecified brake
line corrosion and leakage in a 2011 Mercedes-Benz E550 (NHTSA ID
10902081). The complaint did not allege that the brake line leakage
resulted in reduced brake performance, crash, or injury. The resulting
failure rate of 0.4 failures per hundred thousand vehicles is extremely
low for a population that includes vehicles that have been in service
for over ten years and does not include any allegations of reduced
brake performance, crash, or injury. After reviewing the available data
and evaluating the safety risk posed by the condition specified in the
petition, ODI has not identified evidence of a defect trend in the
subject E-Class vehicles that would support opening a defect
investigation into premature brake line corrosion failure.
    Additionally, the brake system of the subject vehicles is a dual-
circuit hydraulic system split front-to-rear. Brake line leakage
resulting from undetected/unrepaired corrosion damage is not expected
to result in diminished brake performance at the onset of a slow leak
condition. Undetected brake fluid loss would first lead to brake
warning lamp illumination from low brake fluid reservoir level.
Continued operation with brake warning lamp illuminated could result in
loss of rear brake function should the fluid loss continue until the
rear circuit reservoir is empty.\1\ The subject vehicles would retain
most of their braking capacity even after loss of the rear circuit, as
the front circuit provides approximately 70 percent of the stopping
force in the split front-to-rear design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Rear circuit loss may occur more rapidly if corrosion damage
results in a more significant brake line rupture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After reviewing the available data and evaluating the safety risk
posed by the condition cited in the petition, ODI has not identified
evidence of a defect trend in the subject E-Class vehicles that would
support opening a defect investigation into premature brake line
corrosion failure. NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring
notification and remedy of a defect if the Agency's investigation shows
a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle
that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(9),
30118. Since the information currently before the Agency is not
indicative of a defect trend, it is unlikely that any investigation
opened after granting this petition would result in an order concerning
the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. Therefore, upon
full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the
potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. The denial of this
petition does not foreclose the Agency from taking further action if
warranted, or lessen the potential for a future finding that a safety-
related defect exists based upon additional information the Agency may
receive.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.95 and 501.8.

Jeffrey Mark Giuseppe,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 2020-22674 Filed 10-13-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P