[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 110 (Monday, June 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32926-32927]
[FR Doc No: 2014-13351]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC14-13-000]

Commission Information Collection Activities (FERC-549B); Comment
Request; Extension

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of information collection and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the
currently approved information collection, FERC-549B, Gas Pipeline
Rates: Capacity Reports and Index of Customers.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due August 8,
2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments (identified by Docket No. IC14-13-
000) by either of the following methods:
     eFiling at Commission's Web site: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
     Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier: Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Instructions: All submissions must be formatted and filed in
accordance with submission guidelines at: http://www.ferc.gov/help/submission-guide.asp. For user assistance contact FERC Online Support
by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by phone at:<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll-free), or<PHONE_NUMBER> for TTY.
    Docket: Users interested in receiving automatic notification of
activity in this docket or in viewing/downloading comments and
issuances in this docket may do so at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/docs-filing.asp.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and fax at (202)
273-0873.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Gas Pipeline Rates: Capacity Reports and Index of Customers.
    OMB Control No.: 1902-0169.
    Type of Request: Three-year extension of the FERC-549B information
collection requirements with no changes to the current reporting
requirements.
    Abstract: The information collected under the requirements of FERC-
549B includes both the Index of Customers (IOC) report under Commission
regulations at 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 284.13(c) and three
capacity reporting requirements. One of these is in Commission
regulations at 18 CFR 284.13(b) and requires reports on firm and
interruptible services. The second is at 18 CFR 284.13(d)(1) and
requires pipelines make information on capacity and flow information
available on their Internet Web sites. The third is at 18 CFR
284.13(d)(2) and requires an annual filing of peak day capacity.

Capacity Reports Under 284.13(b) and 284.13(d)(1)

    On April 4, 1992, in Order No. 636 (RM91-11-000), the Commission
established a capacity release mechanism under which shippers could
release firm transportation and storage capacity on either a short- or
long-term basis to other shippers wanting to obtain capacity. Pipelines
posted available firm and interruptible capacity information on their
electronic bulletin boards (EBBs) to inform potential shippers.
    On August 3, 1992, in Order No. 636-A (RM91-11-002), the Commission
determined through staff audits, that the efficiency of the capacity
release mechanism could be enhanced by standardizing the content and
format of capacity release information and the methods by which
shippers accessed this information, which pipelines posted to their
EBBs.
    On March 29, 1995, through Order 577 (RM95-5-000), the Commission
amended Sec.  284.243(h) of its regulations to allow shippers the
ability to release capacity without having to comply with the
Commission's advance posting and bidding requirements. On February 9,
2000, in Order No. 637 (RM98-10-000), to create greater substitution
between different forms of capacity and to enhance competition across
the pipeline grid, the Commission revised its capacity release
regulations regarding scheduling, segmentation and flexible point
rights, penalties, and reporting requirements. This resulted in more
reliable capacity information availability and price data that shippers
needed to make informed decisions in a competitive market as well as to
improve shipper's and the Commission's ability to monitor the market
for potential abuses.

Peak Day Annual Capacity Report Under 284.13(d)(2)

    18 CFR 284.13(d)(2) requires an annual peak day capacity report of
all interstate pipelines, including natural gas storage only companies.
This report is generally a short report showing the peak day design
capacity or the actual peak day capacity achieved, with a short

explanation, if needed. The regulation states:

    An interstate pipeline must make an annual filing by March 1 of
each year showing the estimated peak day capacity of the pipeline's
system, and the estimated storage capacity and maximum daily
delivery capability of storage facilities under reasonably
representative operating assumptions and the respective assignments
of that capacity to the various firm services provided by the
pipeline.
    This annual report/filing is publicly available, while other
more specific interstate pipeline and storage capacity details are
filed as CEII, such as the Annual System Flow Diagram (FERC-567)
which are not publicly available.

Index of Customers Under 284.13(c)

    In Order 581, issued September 28, 1995 (Docket No. RM95-4-000),
the Commission established the IOC quarterly information requirement.
This Order required the reporting of five data elements in the IOC
filing: The customer name, the rate schedule under which service is
rendered, the contract effective date, the contract termination date,
and the maximum daily contract quantity, for either transportation or
storage service, as appropriate.
    In a notice issued separate from Order 581 in Docket No. RM95-4-
000, issued February 29, 1996, the Commission, through technical
conferences with industry, determined that the IOC data reported should
be in tab delimited format on diskette and in a form as proscribed in
Appendix A of the rulemaking. In a departure from past practice, a
three-digit code, instead of a six-digit code, was established to
identify the respondent.
    In Order 637, issued February 9, 2000 (Docket Nos. RM98-10-000 and
RM98-12-000), the Commission required the filing of: The receipt and
delivery points held under contract and the zones or segments in which
the capacity is held, the common transaction point codes, the contract
number, the shipper identification number, an indication whether the
contract includes negotiated rates, the names of any agents or asset
managers that control capacity in a pipeline rate zone, and any
affiliate relationship between the pipeline and the holder of capacity.
It was stated in the Order that the changes to the Commission's
reporting requirements would enhance the reliability of information
about capacity availability and price that shippers need to make
informed decisions in a competitive market as well as improve shippers'
and the Commission's ability to monitor marketplace behavior to detect,
and remedy anti-competitive behavior. Order 637 required a pipeline
post the information quarterly on its Internet Web sites instead of on
the outdated EBBs.
    Type of Respondents: Respondents for this data collection are
interstate pipelines subject to FERC regulation under the Natural Gas
Act and those entities defined as Hinshaw Pipelines under the Natural
Gas Policy Act.
    Estimate of Annual Burden: \1\ The Commission estimates the annual
public reporting burden for the information collection as:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission defines burden as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal
agency. For further explanation of what is included in the
information collection burden, reference 5 Code of Federal
Regulations 1320.3.

                                                                        FERC-549B
                                              [Gas pipeline rates: capacity reports and index of customers]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Annual  number                      Average      Total  annual
                                                             Number of     of  responses   Total  number   burden & cost  burden hours &     Cost per
                                                            respondents         per        of responses    per  response   total  annual    respondent
                                                                            respondent                          \2\            cost             ($)
                                                                     (1)             (2)     (1)*(2)=(3)             (4)     (3)*(4)=(5)         (5)/(1)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capacity Reports under 284.13(b) & 284.13(d)(1).........             185               6           1,110             145         160,950         $61,335
                                                                                $10,222.50     $11,346,975
93049344Peak Day Annual Capacity Report under                        185               1             185              10           1,850            $705
 284.13(d)(2)...........................................                                                            $705        $130,425
Index of Customers under 284.13(c)......................             185               4             740               3           2,220            $846
                                                                                $211.50        $156,510
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................................  ..............  ..............           2,035  ..............         165,020         $62,886
                                                                                $11,633,910
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comments: Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden and
cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The estimates for cost per response are derived using the
following formula: Average Burden Hours per Response * $70.50 per
hour. This cost is based on the average FERC employee salary. We
assume (based upon consultation of subject matter experts for this
industry) that respondents to this collection are similarly
compensated in terms of salary and benefits.

    Dated: May 30, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-13351 Filed 6-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60759-60761]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24027]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0727; FRL-9917-25]
RIN 2070-AB27

Significant New Use Rule on Certain Chemical Substances;
Technical Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued final significant new use rules (SNURs) in the
Federal Register of September 2, 2014 for 36 chemical substances which
were the subject of premanufacture notices (PMNs). For the chemical
substance identified generically as diisocyanate terminated
polycarbodiimide (PMN P-04-640), EPA inadvertently omitted the de
minimus exemption from the worker protection requirements. Also, for
the chemical substance identified generically as hexanedioic acid,
polymer with .alpha.-hydro-.omega.- hydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2-
ethanediyl)],1,1'-methylenebis[4-isocyanatobenzene], dihydroxydialkyl

ether and dialkanol ether (PMN P-11-311) a typographical error in the
PMN number has been identified. The amendments in this document are
being issued to correct the omission and the typographical error.

DATES: This technical correction is effective November 3, 2014.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2012-0727, is available at
http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: Jim
Alwood, Chemical Control Division (7405M), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(202) 564-8974; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this action apply to me?

    The Agency included in the September 2, 2014 final rule a list of
those who may be potentially affected by this action.

II. What does this technical correction do?

    EPA issued a final rule in the Federal Register of September 2,
2014 (79 FR 51899) (FRL-9914-19) for significant new uses for 36
chemical substances that were the subject of PMN notices. EPA omitted
the de minimus exemption of 1.0% from the worker protection
requirements for Sec.  721.10643. EPA also erroneously identified the
chemical substance in the regulatory text for Sec.  721.10653 as being
submitted with PMN P-09-311. The correct number should be PMN P-11-311.
This action corrects the omission and the typographical error.

III. Why is this correction issued as a final rule?

    Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B)) provides that, when an Agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary
to the public interest, the Agency may issue a final rule without
providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. EPA has
determined that there is good cause for making this technical
correction final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment. In
Unit V. of the September 2, 2014 final rule containing EPA's response
to comments, EPA stated in the response to comment 10 that it would
include a de minimus exemption of 1.0% from the worker protection
requirements for Sec.  721.10643. The typographic error of P-09-311
only appears in the regulatory text for Sec.  721.10653. In the
proposed rule and the preamble to the final rule EPA properly
identified the chemical substance subject to Sec.  721.10653 as being
submitted with P-11-309, thereby making clear the intention of the
Agency in promulgating the rule. EPA finds that this constitutes good
cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).

IV. Do any of the statutory and executive order reviews apply to this
action?

    No. For a detailed discussion concerning the statutory and
executive order review, refer to Unit X. of the September 2, 2014 final
rule.

V. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: October 2, 2014.
Maria J. Doa,
Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics.

    Therefore, 40 CFR part 721 is amended as follows:

PART 721--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 721 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2604, 2607, and 2625(c).

0
2. In Sec.  721.10643, revise paragraph (a)(2)(i) to read as follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]721.10643  Diisocyanate terminated polycarbodiimide
(generic).

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Protection in the workplace. Requirements as specified in Sec.
721.63(a)(1), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6)(ii), and (b) (concentration set at
1.0 percent). When determining which persons are reasonably likely to
be exposed as required for Sec.  721.63(a)(1) and (4), engineering
control measures (e.g., enclosure or confinement of the operation,
general and local ventilation) or administrative control measures
(e.g., workplace policies and procedures) shall be considered and
implemented to prevent or reduce exposure, where feasible. A National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-certified
supplied-air respirator operated in pressure demand or other positive
pressure mode and equipped with a tight-fitting full facepiece with an
assigned protection factor (APF) of at least 2,000 meets the minimum
requirements of Sec.  721.63(a)(4). As an alternative to the
respiratory requirements listed here, a manufacturer, importer, or
processor may choose to follow the new chemical exposure limit (NCEL)
provisions listed in the TSCA section 5(e) consent order for this
substance. The NCEL is 0.05 mg/m\3\. Persons whose Sec.  721.30
requests to use the NCELs approach are approved by EPA will receive
NCELs provisions comparable to those contained in the corresponding
section 5(e) consent order.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  [emsp14]721.10653, revise paragraph (a)(1) to read as
follows:

Sec.  [emsp14]721.10653  Hexanedioic acid, polymer with .alpha.-
hydro-.omega.-hydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2-ethanediyl)],1,1'-
methylenebis[4-isocyanatobenzene], dihydroxydialkyl ether and dialkanol
ether (generic).

    (a) * * *
    (1) The chemical substance identified generically as hexanedioic
acid, polymer with .alpha.-hydro-.omega.-hydroxypoly[oxy(methyl-1,2-
ethanediyl)],1,1'-methylenebis[4-isocyanatobenzene], dihydroxydialkyl
ether and dialkanol ether (PMN P-11-311) is subject to reporting under
this section for the significant new uses

described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-24027 Filed 10-7-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2733-2739]
[FR Doc No: 2021-00501]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2019-0105]

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 December 19, 2019, by Mr. Brian Sparks to NHTSA's
Office of Defects Investigation (ODI). The petition requests that the
Agency recall Tesla vehicles for an unidentified defect that allegedly
causes sudden unintended acceleration (SUA). NHTSA opened Defect
Petition DP20-001 to evaluate the petitioner's request. After reviewing
the information provided by the petitioner and Tesla regarding the
alleged defect and the subject complaints, NHTSA has concluded that
there is insufficient evidence to warrant further action at this time.
Accordingly, the Agency has denied the petition.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1.0 Introduction

    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; 49 CFR part 552. 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 U.S.C. 30162(c); 49 CFR 552.6. After considering the
technical review and taking into account appropriate factors, which may
include, among others, allocation of Agency resources, Agency
priorities, and the likelihood of success in litigation that might
arise from a determination of a noncompliance or a defect related to
motor vehicle safety, the Agency will grant or deny the petition. 49
U.S.C. 30162(d); 49 CFR 552.8.

2.0 Petition

2.1 Petition Chronology

    Mr. Brian Sparks (the petitioner) first submitted a valid petition
conforming to the requirements of 49 CFR 552.4 on December 19, 2019.\1\
On December 30, 2019, the petitioner submitted an addendum to his
petition. This addendum references NHTSA complaint 11291423, which
alleges unexpected movement of a vehicle that was parked and
unoccupied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The petitioner first raised concerns about SUA in Tesla
vehicles in September 2019 correspondence with the Agency. NHTSA did
not consider this earlier correspondence to be a validly submitted
petition because the petitioner did not provide his name and
address. See 49 CFR 552.4. The September 2019 letter cited 110
incidents of alleged SUA in complaints to NHTSA, including 102
reporting crashes. NHTSA has included the information in
petitioner's September 2019 correspondence in the Agency's analysis
of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 13, 2020, the Office of Defects Investigation (ODI)
opened Defect Petition DP20-001 to evaluate the petitioner's request
for a recall of all Tesla Model S, Model X, and Model 3 vehicles
produced to date based on the information in his correspondence,
petition and various addendums. On February 21, 2020, the petitioner
submitted another addendum to his petition, identifying 70 new
incidents of alleged SUA in NHTSA complaints (also known as Vehicle
Owner Questionnaires, or VOQs) filed since DP20-001 was opened.
Additional addendums updating VOQ counts were submitted on April 10,
2020, June 22, 2020, September 10, 2020 and December 1, 2020. The June
22 submission included a request to update the petition ``to include a
recent analysis of Tesla's SUA defect from Dr. Ronald Belt.''

2.2 Petition Basis

    Altogether, the petitioner identified a total of 232 VOQs involving
unique alleged SUA incidents in his submissions, including 203
reporting crashes.\2\ The petitioner also submitted a document
purporting to analyze Event Data Recorder (EDR) data from the incident
reported in NHTSA VOQ 11216155. The petitioner believes that ``Tesla
vehicles have a structural flaw which puts their drivers and the public
at risk'' and bases his request for a recall of the subject vehicles
on:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The petitioner identified a total of 225 VOQ in the original
petition and five addendums. Six of the VOQs are duplicative of a
prior VOQ.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. His view that, ``The volume of complaints in the NHTSA database
indicates a severe and systemic malfunction within Tesla vehicles;''
    2. A third-party analysis of data from the crash reported in VOQ
11206155, which theorizes a fault condition that allegedly ``caused the
brake pedal to behave like an accelerator pedal;'' and
    3. A complaint (VOQ 11291423) alleging SUA while the driver was
outside the vehicle, which the petitioner describes as ``the first SUA
complaint involving a Tesla vehicle in which the driver cannot
reasonably be accused of pressing the accelerator.''

3.0 Analysis

    ODI performed the following analyses in its evaluation of the
petition for a grant or deny decision:
    1. Analyzed crashes identified by petitioner for connection to SUA;
    2. Analyzed EDR or Tesla vehicle log data or both from 118 crash
incidents; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This information was not available or not obtained for the
remaining crash incidents, as detailed below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. Reviewed the crash incident reported in VOQ 11206155;
    4. Reviewed the crash incidents reported in VOQ 11291423;
    5. Reviewed Tesla's system safeguards for the accelerator pedal
position sensor (APPS) assembly and motor control system;
    6. Reviewed two defect theories referenced in the petition;
    7. Reviewed the brake system designs for the subject vehicles; and
    8. Reviewed service history information for the accelerator pedal
assemblies, motor control systems, and brake systems for 204 of the 232
vehicles identified in VOQs submitted by the petitioner.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ODI's information request letter for DP20-001 requested
crash data and service history information for all 124 VOQs cited in
the original petition and the first two addendums submitted by the
petitioner. On February 10, 2020 and October 20, 2020, ODI requested
certain supplemental information for a total of 83 additional VOQs
alleging crashes, including 80 that were cited in addendums
submitted by the petitioner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.1 Crash Classification

    ODI's crash analysis reviewed 217 incidents, including the 203
crashes identified by the petitioner and fourteen additional crashes
reported in VOQs that were either not selected by the petitioner
(eight) or were submitted after the petitioner's most recent submission
(six).
    Table 1 provides a breakdown of the driving environments and crash
data review for the crashes analyzed by ODI. Crash data (EDR, Tesla log
data, and/or video data) were reviewed for 118 of the crash incidents.
Crash data were not obtained for most of the incidents received after
DP20-001 was opened.

                               Table 1--Summary of Crash Incidents Reviewed by ODL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Crash data      Crash data      Crash data
                    Category                         reviewed      not available   not obtained        Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parking lot.....................................              61              44               9             114
Driveway........................................              26              16               4              46
Traffic light...................................              11               7               2              20
Parking garage..................................               7               5               1              12
City traffic....................................               3               1               0               4
Stop-and-go traffic.............................               2               2               0               4
Highway traffic.................................               2               1               1               4
Stop sign.......................................               2               1               0               3
Charging station................................               1               1               1               3
Street side parking.............................               1               1               0               2
Drive thru......................................               1               0               1               2
School drop-off lane............................               1               0               0               1
Car wash........................................               0               1               0               1
Gated exit (China incident).....................               0               1               0               1
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................             118              80              19             217
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Six of the crashes reported by the petitioner were assessed by ODI
as unrelated to SUA. These include all four of the crashes occurring in
highway traffic, one crash at a traffic light and one of the driveway
crashes. The highway crashes include two involving loss of lateral
control due to apparent loss of rear tire grip while driving in the
rain (VOQs 11297507 and 11307255), one involving late braking for the
cut-in of a slower moving vehicle (VOQ 11278322), and one for which the
crash data do not support the allegation and show no evidence of speed
increase or failure to respond to driver inputs (VOQ 11174732). The
crash at a traffic light involved unexpected movement of a vehicle
operating with Traffic Aware Cruise Control enabled after the vehicle
had come to a stop behind another vehicle at a red light (VOQ
11307023). The driveway crash incident will be reviewed later in this
report (VOQ 11291423).
    All of the remaining 211 crashes, assessed by ODI as related to
SUA, occurred in locations and driving circumstances where braking is
expected. Eighty-six (86) percent of these crashes occurred in parking
lots, driveways or other close-quarter ``not-in-traffic'' locations.
Almost all of these crashes were of short duration, with crashes
occurring within three seconds of the alleged SUA event.

3.2 SUA Crash Data Analysis

    ODI's analysis of EDR data, log data or both from 118 crashes did
not identify any evidence of a vehicle-based cause of unintended
acceleration or ineffective brake system performance in the subject
vehicles. The data shows that vehicles responded as expected to driver
accelerator and brake pedal inputs, accelerating when the accelerator
pedal is applied, slowing when the accelerator pedal is released
(generally in regenerative braking mode) and slowing more rapidly when
the brake is applied. ODI did not observe any incidents with vehicle
accelerations or motor torques that were not associated with
accelerator pedal applications. In the few cases where the brake and
accelerator pedal were applied at the same time, the brake override
logic performed as designed and cut motor torque.
    The data clearly point to pedal misapplication by the driver as the
cause of SUA in these incidents. Analysis of log data shows that the
accelerator pedal was applied to 85 percent or greater in 97 percent of
the SUA crashes reviewed by ODI. Peak accelerator pedal applications
were initiated within two seconds of the collisions in 97 percent of
the cases. Analysis of brake data showed no braking in 90 percent of
SUA crashes and late braking initiated less than one second before
impact in the remaining 10 percent. The pre-crash event data and driver
statements indicate that the SUA crashes have resulted from drivers
mistakenly applying the accelerator pedal when they intended to apply
the brake pedal. Approximately 51 percent of the crashes occurred in
the first six months of the driver's use of the incident vehicle.

3.3 VOQ 11206155

3.3.1 Consumer's Description of the Event
    NHTSA complaint 11206155 alleges that a 2018 Tesla Model 3
experienced an SUA event resulting in a crash in the owner's driveway
on the evening of May 6, 2019. The complaint states that:
    ``[The driver] turned into [the driver's] driveway and was going to
pull into [her] garage to park the car, when the car accelerated
suddenly and violently and crashed into the front stone wall of [the]
house. The stone wall is damaged and the front right side of the Tesla
has significant damages.''
    The petitioner referenced the incident reported in VOQ 11206155 in
the first addendum to the petition,\5\ which included a third-party
analysis of EDR data from the crash. ODI requested a copy of the EDR
data in the petition acknowledgement letter. In response, the
petitioner provided an incomplete copy of the EDR, a copy of a letter
Tesla sent to the consumer, and a document prepared by the driver that
provides additional details about the SUA allegation.\6\ The driver
alleges that the SUA event occurred after the vehicle was ``slowed to a
halt'' and while the driver was ``waiting for the garage door to fully
open.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Email from Brian Sparks to NHTSA Acting Administrator Owens,
``Motor Vehicle Defect Petition: Recall Tesla Vehicles Due to Sudden
Unintended Acceleration,'' December 19, 2019.
    \6\ Email from Brian Sparks to ODI, ``Re_DP20-001
Acknowledgement Letter,'' February 21, 2020, attachment titled ``My
Experiences with Tesla Model 3.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.3.2 Tesla Letter to the Consumer
    In a July 11, 2019 letter, Tesla provided the consumer with the
following summary of its analysis of log data for the crash event
reported in VOQ 11206155: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Tesla service manager, letter to the consumer, July 11,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``According to the vehicle's diagnostic log, immediately prior to
the incident, the accelerator pedal was released, regenerative braking
was engaged and slowing the vehicle, and the steering wheel was turned
to the right. Then, while the vehicle was traveling at approximately 5
miles per hour and the

steering wheel was turned sharply to the right, the accelerator pedal
was manually pressed and over about one second, increased from
approximately 0% to as high as 88%. During this time, the vehicle speed
appropriately increased in response to the driver's manual accelerator
pedal input. In the next two seconds, the accelerator pedal was
released, the brake pedal was manually pressed, which also engaged the
Anti-Lock Braking System, multiple crash-related alerts and signals
were triggered, and the vehicle came to a stop.''
3.3.3 ODI Analysis of the Event
    ODI's analysis of the subject crash event included reviews of
vehicle log data, the EDR report furnished by the petitioner,
statements from the driver, and a video of the incident provided by
Tesla. This analysis confirmed the sequence of events described in
Tesla's letter to the consumer. Figure 1 shows pre-crash vehicle speed
and driver controls over the ten seconds prior to impact.
    ODI's review of the vehicle log data shows that, approximately
seven seconds before the crash, the vehicle is completing a right turn
as the steering angle returns from a large positive value to neutral.
Over the next second, the driver releases the accelerator pedal and the
vehicle begins a moderate deceleration under regenerative braking. The
vehicle begins to turn right toward the owner's driveway approximately
five seconds before impact. Approximately two seconds before impact, as
the vehicle nears the apex of the turn into the driveway, the
accelerator pedal position begins to increase. The accelerator pedal
increases from 0% to 88% in about one second.
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN13JA21.007

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C
The accelerator pedal returns to 0% approximately 0.9 seconds before
impact and the brake pedal is applied approximately 0.5 seconds later.
The late brake application initiates ABS braking approximately 0.2
seconds before impact.
3.3.4 ODI Analysis of Event Video File
    An event video file from the vehicle's front camera sensor shows
the vehicle moving slowly on a residential street before beginning the
right turn into a short driveway with a moderate positive grade leading
to twin garage doors separated by a center pillar covered by stonework.
The vehicle briefly surges forward as it nears the apex of the turn
into the driveway. The vehicle never stops moving and continues to turn
right until impacting the center pillar, consistent with the steering
angle data

from the log and EDR data. The garage doors remain closed throughout
the event.
3.3.5 ODI Analysis of EDR Data
    The EDR vehicle speed, accelerator pedal position and steering
angle data mirror the log data, within the range of expected variation
due to differences in data resolution, sampling intervals and data
latencies in the two data recording systems. For example, the vehicle
speed data reported in the EDR report for the Model 3 has a resolution
of 1 mph, a sampling frequency of 5 Hz, and a maximum latency of
approximately 200 milliseconds, while the vehicle speed data recorded
in the log data has a resolution of 0.05 mph, a logging rate of 1 Hz,
and a maximum latency of approximately 10 milliseconds.
    The EDR did not record the late brake application and subsequent
ABS activation. The data log shows that the Restraint Control Module
(RCM) echoed the brake application in the near deployment alert
triggered by the impact, indicating that the EDR would be expected to
show ``On'' for service brake status at impact. Tesla indicated it was
unable to investigate the apparent discrepancy further without an
original copy of the EDR report.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This is the only event reviewed by ODI in this petition
evaluation where the data log showed the brake was applied at T0 and
the EDR did not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ODI's reviews of EDR reports for this and several other Model 3
crash events noted that the polarity of the pre-crash longitudinal
acceleration data appeared to be reversed in relation to vehicle speed
data (i.e., negative acceleration displayed when the vehicle speed is
increasing and positive acceleration displayed when vehicle speed is
decreasing).\9\ Tesla confirmed that the longitudinal acceleration data
polarity was reversed in Model 3 EDR reports produced using EDR
reporting services of v20.2.1 or earlier. Tesla advised ODI that the
error has been corrected in EDR reporting service update v20.29.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Acceleration (a) is the change in velocity (v) per unit time
(t), or a(T) = dv/dt. When vehicle speed is increasing over a given
time interval, the acceleration is positive in that interval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.4 Analysis of Log Data for VOQ 11291423

    VOQ 11291423 alleges multiple incidents of unexpected movement of a
2015 Model S after parking on an inclined driveway in Lancaster,
California on December 26, 2019. The complaint states that:
    ``[The] 2015 Model S 85D was reversed onto driveway then placed in
park and doors were closed and locked. A few moments later the vehicle
started accelerating forward towards the street and crashed into a
parked car. Front wheels were receiving power while rear wheels where
locked and dragging rather than wheels spinning. I reversed vehicle
back onto driveway and it happened another 2 times after first incident
within a 30 minute time span.''
    As previously noted, the petitioner's addendum cited this VOQ as an
``SUA complaint involving a Tesla vehicle in which the driver cannot
reasonably be accused of pressing the accelerator.'' When interviewed
by ODI, the owner stated that the vehicle was backed up an inclined
driveway and parked. The driveway was covered with freshly fallen snow.
Shortly after he shifted to ``park'' and exited the vehicle, the owner
observed the vehicle move approximately two car lengths down the
driveway.
    The movement stopped when the vehicle reached the level surface of
the street at the base of the driveway. The owner alleged the movement
occurred two more times after the vehicle was backed up the driveway
and parked in a similar position. The second incident involved a minor
impact with a vehicle parked within a couple of feet of the Tesla,
resulting in a crack in the front bumper of the second vehicle and no
damage to the Tesla. The third incident was like the first, with the
movement ending at the base of the inclined driveway.
    ODI's review of log data from this vehicle found that the movement
occurred when the vehicle was shutoff with no torque applied to the
front or rear drive motors. Based on the log data and the physics of
the vehicle movement from the driveway to the street, it is ODI's
assessment that the unexpected movement of the parked vehicle was most
likely caused by insufficient traction of the rear tires on the low-
friction surface of the snow-covered driveway, which resulted in the
vehicle sliding down the driveway. ODI has excluded this incident from
its analysis of SUA crashes.

3.5 System Safeguards

    The APPS system used in the subject Tesla vehicles has numerous
design features to detect, and respond to, single point electrical
faults, including: Redundant position sensors, contactless inductive
sensing technology, independent power and ground connections to the
sensors, and sensor voltage curves that differ by a fixed ratio.\10\
All subject vehicles are equipped with accelerator pedal assemblies
with two independent inductive sensors that convert the angular
position of the pedal to voltage signals. The pedal position can only
be changed in response to an external force being applied, such as the
driver's foot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Second channel output voltage curve is half the slope of
the first channel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Drive Inverter main processor controls motor torque based on
accelerator pedal voltage. A separate processor (Pedal Monitor) acts as
a safety monitor, continually checking both APPS signals for faults and
independently calculating motor torque. Any malfunction or deviation in
the APPS system results in a fault mode, cutting torque to zero for
driver pedal applications or regenerative braking. In addition, the
Pedal Monitor can shut off the Drive Inverter if driver's commanded
motor torque and actual motor torque do not match.
    The APPS voltage signals pass through A/D (Analog/Digital)
converters in the drive unit, which then reports the data to the
Controller Area Network (CAN) communication bus.\11\ The CAN data are
time stamped and stored at specified intervals by the data log. The RCM
receives the data from the drive unit via the CAN bus. The data is
buffered in the RCM random access memory (RAM) and then written to the
RCM Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM) \12\
in the event of a non-deploy or deployment event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The APPS data refresh rate is 10 milliseconds.
    \12\ The EEPROM is a non-volatile memory device that retains
stored data after cycling power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.6 ODI Review of SUA Theories

    As part of its evaluation of DP20-001, ODI reviewed two defect
theories alleging vehicle-based causes of SUA in the subject vehicles.
Both theories were developed by Dr. Ronald Belt, the first in 2018 and
the second in 2020. A paper describing the most recent theory was
submitted to NHTSA by the petitioner and is based upon Dr. Belt's
review of EDR data from the crash reported in VOQ 11206155. The other
theory was referenced by the consumer who submitted VOQ 11206155 and is
based upon Dr. Belt's third-hand reconstruction of log data from an
unknown SUA event. Both papers are based upon incorrect event data,
incorrect reconstructions of event dynamics, and false assumptions
regarding vehicle design factors.
3.6.1 2020 Theory (VOQ 11206155 SUA Event)
    In an addendum to the petition submitted on June 22, 2020, the
petitioner requested that NHTSA include a recent paper by Dr. Ronald

Belt in his petition.\13\ The paper, dated June 1, 2020, claims to
explain how a ``faulty brake light switch [caused] the brake pedal to
behave like an accelerator pedal'' in the crash event reported in VOQ
11206155 that was reviewed earlier in this report (see section 3.3 VOQ
11206155). The same analysis alleges that the proposed theory ``is
believed to be the cause of sudden acceleration in over 70% of Tesla
vehicles.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Belt, Ronald. ``Tesla Regen, Brakes and Sudden
Acceleration.'' Center for Auto Safety, June 1, 2020. https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Tesla-Regen-Brakes-and-Sudden-Acceleration.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SUA theory proposed by Dr. Belt in the June 2020 paper appears
to have originated from his reliance on the pre-crash longitudinal
acceleration data in the EDR report with the polarity issue recently
corrected by Tesla (see section 3.3.5 ODI Analysis of EDR Data). Rather
than recognizing the conflicts between the longitudinal acceleration
data and other pre-crash data in the EDR report (e.g., vehicle speed,
rear motor speed and accelerator pedal position all increasing over the
same time interval as the reported deceleration), Dr. Belt develops his
reconstruction of the crash event using the inverted longitudinal
acceleration data and posits a theory to explain how a faulty brake
light switch can cause the brake pedal to function like an accelerator
pedal. The theory relies upon numerous assumptions, including: A
defective brake switch, a large positive torque request from the
electronic stability control (ESC) system, an alternate explanation for
the large accelerator pedal position increase shown in the pre-crash
data, and an alleged veer to the left caused by the presumed ESC
activation.
    ODI does not believe that Dr. Belt's June 2020 paper provides a
valid theory of an SUA defect in the subject incident or any other
crash. The theory is based upon inaccurate event data and several false
assumptions regarding component defects, vehicle dynamics, and motor
control system design and operation. For example, ODI notes the
following factual errors and mistaken assumptions contained the subject
paper:
     The vehicle acceleration data used by Dr. Belt in his
analysis was reported with the polarity reversed. In other words, the
data shows the vehicle decelerating when it was accelerating and
accelerating when it was decelerating. As shown in Figure 1, the
vehicle first accelerates in response to a large accelerator pedal
application, then decelerates in response to the late brake application
that triggered ABS braking just prior to impact.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ ODI estimates that the vehicle was within approximately
five feet of the stone wall when ABS braking began.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The evidence shows that the brake light switch functioned
as designed in the event analyzed by Dr. Belt (see Figure 1).
     The ESC and Traction Control systems cannot request
positive torque in the subject vehicles.
     The APPS data recorded in the EDR report and data log show
the physical position of the accelerator pedal (see section 3.5 System
Safeguards). There is no other source for the accelerator pedal data.
     The vehicle does not veer to the left at any point during
the crash event (see Figure 1 and section 3.3.4 ODI Analysis of Event
Video File).
3.6.2 2018 Theory (Unknown SUA Event)
    ODI also reviewed an earlier paper by Dr. Belt suggesting a
different theory for a vehicle-based cause of SUA in Tesla
vehicles.\15\ This paper, dated May 1, 2018, was referenced in a
supplemental submission from the consumer who submitted VOQ
11206155.\16\ The SUA theory proposed by Dr. Belt in the May 2018 paper
originated from his reconstruction of accelerator position log data
from an unknown SUA incident that was described to him over the
phone.\17\ Based on this reconstruction, Dr. Belt concluded that the
APPS signal could not have been produced by the driver's application of
the accelerator pedal, as summarized below from the paper's abstract:
\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Belt, Ronald. ``Tesla's Sudden Acceleration Log Data--What
It Shows.'' Center for Auto Safety, May 1, 2018. https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Teslas-Sudden-Acceleration-Log-Data-What-It-Shows.pdf.
    \16\ ``My Experiences with Tesla Model 3,'' p 10.
    \17\ The paper provides the following explanation of how the
accelerator pedal position data was reconstructed: ``In this paper,
the author has obtained the complete accelerator pedal sensor log
data for a sudden acceleration incident from a driver who got the
log data from Tesla during a telephone conversation. The Tesla
engineer gave a detailed description of the log data to the driver,
who then provided it to the author. The author then plotted this
data to create the figure used in this study.''
    \18\ Dr. Belt's reconstruction imagines the APPS log data as a
square wave, which he asserts could not have been produced by a
physical application of the accelerator pedal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ``Examination of the data shows that the accelerator pedal sensor
output increased to cause the sudden acceleration. But the increase in
the accelerator pedal sensor output could not have been caused by the
driver. Instead, the increase in the accelerator pedal sensor output
appears to have been caused by a fault in the motor speed sensor, with
which it shares a common +5V power and ground.''
    Like his June 2020 paper, the theory proposed by Dr. Belt in the
May 2018 paper is based upon inaccurate event data and false
assumptions about system design. The APPS data is not recorded in
Tesla's log data in the manner claimed in the paper (see section 3.3.5
ODI Analysis of EDR Data).\19\ In addition, circuit design information
provided to ODI by Tesla shows that Dr. Belt's assumption that ``[t]he
two accelerator pedal sensors and the motor speed sensor share the same
+5V regulator and ground,'' is incorrect. Tesla uses two distinct
regulators with different voltage outputs to supply power to the APPS
and motor speed sensors. Thus, the May 2018 paper does not provide a
valid explanation for a fault-based cause of SUA in the subject
vehicles. Based upon the reported increase in accelerator pedal
position to 97 percent shortly before collision, the most likely cause
of the incident described in the May 2018 Belt paper is pedal
misapplication by the driver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ ODI does not believe that Dr. Belt's reconstruction of the
log data is accurate. The data log is not capable of recording a
square wave with 1 Hz sampling of the APPS data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.7 Brake System

    The subject vehicles are all equipped with pedal-actuated hydraulic
brake systems that are completely independent of the motor control
system. No common fault has been identified or postulated that would
cause simultaneous malfunctions of the brake and motor control systems
in the subject vehicles. Power assist is provided either electro-
mechanically or from a dedicated vacuum pump. In addition, all subject
vehicles have Tesla's brake override logic that will cut motor torque
if the brake and accelerator are applied at the same time. If the
accelerator pedal is pressed before the brake pedal (or within 100
milliseconds of brake pedal), motor torque is reduced to zero. If the
brake pedal is pressed and then the accelerator pedal, motor torque is
limited to 250 Nm and motor power is limited to 50 kW. In the latter
condition, the driver should be able to hold the vehicle stationary
regardless of accelerator pedal position with 85 to 170 N (19 to 38
lbf) of brake pedal force, depending on the platform.
    Finally, the subject vehicles also contain Tesla's Pedal
Misapplication Mitigation (PMM) software which uses vehicle sensor data
to identify potential pedal misapplications and cut motor torque to
prevent or mitigate SUA

crashes. ODI's analysis found evidence of PMM activation in
approximately 13 percent of crashes where log data was reviewed for SUA
crashes. The effectiveness of the PMM activations have been limited by
the fact that the original PMM implementation is designed for
conditions where the vehicle is traveling straight forward or rearward
toward the collision obstacle. Most SUA crashes reviewed in this
petition evaluation involved dynamic steering inputs (i.e., vehicles
with steering angles of 180 degrees or greater when the SUA occurs)
which the original implementation of PPM was not designed to address.

3.8 Complaint Vehicle Service History Review

    ODI requested service histories for the accelerator pedal
assemblies, motor control systems and brake systems for 204 of the
vehicles cited by the petitioner. Only two vehicles had faults
diagnosed in those components: One motor fault resulting in a vehicle
stall allegation and the other an APPS fault that appears to have
resulted from damage incurred by the force of the driver's foot on the
pedal during the crash event.
    One of the VOQs identified by the petitioner reported feeling a
jerk forward when approaching a stop sign, then a complete loss of
power (VOQ 11164094). The data logs from the vehicle show no increase
in speed and the system cutting motor torque to zero in response to a
drive inverter fault. ODI does not consider this incident a valid
example of SUA.
    Another vehicle had an accelerator pedal assembly replaced to
repair a crash induced fault in one of the pedal tracks (VOQ 11180431).
The data log shows increased drive motor torque in response to manual
application of the accelerator pedal to 88.4 percent. After the fault
in the pedal assembly was detected, motor torque was cut to zero within
0.04 seconds.
    The service history analysis indicates that component faults are
not a factor in the SUA incidents reported to NHTSA. The data logs for
the two incidents that did involve component faults demonstrated that
system failsafe torque cut logic worked as designed.

5.0 Conclusion

    After reviewing the available data, ODI has not identified evidence
that would support opening a defect investigation into SUA in the
subject vehicles. The evidence shows that SUA crashes in the complaints
cited by the petitioner have been caused by pedal misapplication. There
is no evidence of any fault in the accelerator pedal assemblies, motor
control systems, or brake systems that has contributed to any of the
cited incidents. There is also no evidence of a design factor
contributing to increased likelihood of pedal misapplication.
    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. Given the
fact that the event data do not provide evidence that the subject SUA
was caused by a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that an order
concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect would
be issued due to any investigation opened upon grant of this petition.
Therefore, and 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 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. 2021-00501 Filed 1-12-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43240-43241]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17819]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 33590; File No. 812-15035]

American Century ETF Trust, et al.

August 14, 2019.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Notice of an application for an order under section 6(c) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from sections
2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), and 22(d) of the Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act,
under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the Act for an exemption from sections
17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act, and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the
Act.
    Applicants: American Century ETF Trust (the ``Trust''), American
Century Investment Management, Inc. (the ``Adviser'') and Foreside Fund
Services, LLC (the ``Distributor'').
    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order (``Order'')
that permits: (a) ActiveShares ETFs (as described in the Reference
Order (as defined below)) to issue shares (``Shares'') redeemable in
large aggregations only (``creation units''); (b) secondary market
transactions in Shares to occur at negotiated market prices rather than
at net asset value; (c) certain affiliated persons of an ActiveShares
ETF to deposit securities into, and receive securities from, the
ActiveShares ETF in connection with the purchase and redemption of
creation units; and (d) certain registered management investment
companies and unit investment trusts outside of the same group of
investment companies as the ActiveShares ETFs to acquire Shares of the
ActiveShares ETFs. The Order would incorporate by reference terms and
conditions of a previous order granting the same relief sought by
applicants, as that order may be amended from time to time (``Reference
Order'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Precidian ETFs Trust, et al., Investment Company Act Rel.
Nos. 33440 (April 8, 2019) (notice) and 33477 (May 20, 2019)
(order).

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

    Filing Date: The application was filed on May 21, 2019.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the requested
relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on September 9, 2019, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing
requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts
bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason
for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be
notified of a hearing may request notification by writing to the
Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F
Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090. Applicants: American Century ETF
Trust, American Century Investment Management, Inc., 4500 Main Street,
Kansas City, Missouri 64111; Foreside Fund Services, LLC, Three Canal
Plaza, Suite 100, Portland, Maine 04101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deepak T. Pai, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6876 or Andrea Ottomanelli Magovern, Branch Chief, at (202)
551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's website by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/search.htm or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants

    1. The Trust is a statutory trust organized under the laws of the
State of Delaware and will consist of one or more series operating as
ActiveShares ETFs. The Trust is registered as an open-end management
investment company under the Act. Applicants seek relief with respect
to two Funds (as defined below, and those Funds, the ``Initial
Funds''). The Funds will operate as ActiveShares ETFs as described in
the Reference Order.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ To facilitate arbitrage, an ActiveShares ETF disseminates a
``verified intraday indicative value'' or ``VIIV,'' reflecting the
value of its portfolio holdings, calculated every second during the
trading day. To protect the identity and weightings of its portfolio
holdings, an ActiveShares ETF sells and redeems its Shares in
creation units to authorized participants only through an
unaffiliated broker-dealer acting on an agency basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Adviser, a Delaware corporation, will be the investment
adviser to the Initial Funds. An Adviser (as defined below) will serve
as investment adviser to each Fund. The Adviser is, and any other
Adviser will be, registered as an investment adviser under the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (``Advisers Act''). The Adviser may
enter into sub-advisory agreements with other investment advisers to
act as sub-advisers with respect to the Funds (each a ``Sub-Adviser'').
Any Sub-Adviser will be registered under the Advisers Act.
    3. The Distributor is a Delaware limited liability company and a
broker-dealer registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and will act as the principal underwriter of Shares of the
Funds. Applicants request that the requested relief apply to any
distributor of Shares, whether affiliated or unaffiliated with the
Adviser and/or Sub-Adviser (included in the term ``Distributor''). Any
Distributor will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order.

Applicants' Requested Exemptive Relief

    4. Applicants seek the requested Order under section 6(c) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 2(a)(32), 5(a)(1), and 22(d) of the
Act and rule 22c-1 under the Act, under sections 6(c) and 17(b) of the
Act for an exemption from sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(2) of the Act,
and under section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act for an exemption from sections
12(d)(1)(A) and 12(d)(1)(B) of the Act. The requested Order would
permit applicants to offer ActiveShares ETFs. Because the relief
requested is the same as the relief granted by the Commission under the
Reference Order and because the Adviser has entered into a licensing
agreement with Precidian Funds LLC in order to offer ActiveShares
ETFs,\3\ the Order would incorporate by reference the terms and
conditions of the Reference Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Aspects of the Funds are covered by intellectual property
rights, including but not limited to those which are described in
one or more patent applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    5. Applicants request that the Order apply to the Initial Funds and
to any other existing or future open-end management investment company
or series thereof that: (a) Is advised by the Adviser or any entity
controlling, controlled by, or under common control with the Adviser
(any such entity included in the term ``Adviser''); (b) operates as an
ActiveShares ETF as described in the Reference Order; and (c) complies
with the terms and conditions of the Order and of the Reference Order,
which is incorporated by reference into the Order (each such company or
series and any Initial Fund, a ``Fund'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All entities that currently intend to rely on the Order are
named as applicants. Any other entity that relies on the Order in
the future will comply with the terms and conditions of the Order
and of the Reference Order, which is incorporated by reference into
the Order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 6(c) of the Act provides that the Commission may exempt
any person, security or transaction, or any class of persons,
securities or transactions, from any provisions of the Act, if and to
the extent that such exemption is necessary or appropriate in the
public interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the
purposes fairly intended by the policy and provisions of the Act.
Section 17(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to exempt a proposed
transaction from section 17(a) of the Act if evidence establishes that
the terms of the transaction, including the consideration to be paid or
received, are reasonable and fair and do not involve overreaching on
the part of any person concerned, and the transaction is consistent
with the policies of the registered investment company and the general
purposes of the Act. Section 12(d)(1)(J) of the Act provides that the
Commission may exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any
class of persons, securities or transactions, from any provision of
section 12(d)(1) if the exemption is consistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors. Applicants submit that for
the reasons stated in the Reference Order the requested relief meets
the exemptive standards under sections 6(c), 17(b) and 12(d)(1)(J) of
the Act.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-17819 Filed 8-19-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


region facility species. orig stage year impinged. est entrained. est notes dummy dummy dummy dummy  999  999  999 dummy river meramec gizzard. shad age01 1974 921,362 . RM # 35961; pg 36 river meramec freshwater. drum age01 1974 24,172 . RM # 35961; pg 36 river meramec chestnut. lamprey age01 1974 38 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec shovelnose. sturgeon age01 1974 303 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec paddlefish age01 1974 1,610 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec longnose. gar age01 1974 114 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec shortnose. gar age01 1974 3,049 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec gar age01 1974 1,439 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec bowfin age01 1974 57 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec american. eel age01 1974 19 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec goldeye age01 1974 1,458 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec mooneye age01 1974 663 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec minnow age01 1974 19 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec carp age01 1974 4,185 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec flathead. chub age01 1974 57 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec sicklefin. chub age01 1974 133 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec silver. chub age01 1974 1,117 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec golden. shiner age01 1974 19 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec river. carpsucker age01 1974 663 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec quillback. carpsucker age01 1974 95 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec carpsucker age01 1974 114 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec sucker age01 1974 322 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec white. sucker age01 1974 38 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec northern. hogsucker age01 1974 57 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec smallmouth. buffalo age01 1974 587 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec bigmouth. buffalo age01 1974 966 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec black. buffalo age01 1974 57 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec buffalo age01 1974 19 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec golden. redhorse age01 1974 38 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec northern. redhorse age01 1974 208 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec blue. catfish age01 1974 455 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec black. bullhead age01 1974 492 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec channel. catfish age01 1974 455 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec catfish age01 1974 114 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec bullhead age01 1974 38 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec stonecat age01 1974 152 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec madtom age01 1974 19 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec flathead. catfish age01 1974 1,288 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec burbot age01 1974 38 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec brook. silverside age01 1974 19 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec white. bass age01 1974 1,856 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec sunfish age01 1974 265 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec green. sunfish age01 1974 19 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec orangespotted. sunfish age01 1974 38 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec bluegill age01 1974 2,178 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec largemouth. bass age01 1974 95 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec white. crappie age01 1974 398 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec black. crappie age01 1974 606 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec crappie age01 1974 95 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec river. darter age01 1974 19 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec sauger age01 1974 1,269 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec walleye age01 1974 95 . RM # 35961; pg 32 river meramec unknown egg 1974 . 5,376,145,357 RM # 35961; pg 56 & pg 60 river meramec gars larvae 1974 . 109,107 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec herrings larvae 1974 . 115,435,357 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec mooneyes larvae 1974 . 6,110,000 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec carp larvae 1974 . 59,136,071 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec minnow. spp larvae 1974 . 31,204,643 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec sucker. spp larvae 1974 . 2,400,357 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec carpsucker larvae 1974 . 436,429 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec morone. spp larvae 1974 . 9,601,429 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec sunfish. spp larvae 1974 . 2,400,357 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec bass. spp larvae 1974 . 109,107 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec crappie. spp larvae 1974 . 1,527,500 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec yellow. perch larvae 1974 . 436,429 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec logperch larvae 1974 . 109,107 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec walleye. sauger larvae 1974 . 10,910,714 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec freshwater. drum larvae 1974 . 75,065,714 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 river meramec unknown larvae 1974 . 1,745,714 RM # 35961; pg 56 57 qc dummy lefer lefer lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer, agrees with imp. data. entry lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer Number of larvae per 100,000 gallons of water sampled. species stage average no. ent. study. period source gars larvae 0.05 109,107 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 herrings larvae 52.9 115,435,357 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 mooneyes larvae 2.8 6,110,000 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 carp larvae 27.1 59,136,071 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 minnow. spp larvae 14.3 31,204,643 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 sucker. spp larvae 1.1 2,400,357 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 carpsucker larvae 0.2 436,429 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 morone. spp larvae 4.4 9,601,429 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 sunfish. spp larvae 1.1 2,400,357 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 bass. spp larvae 0.05 109,107 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 crappie. spp larvae 0.7 1,527,500 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 yellow. perch larvae 0.2 436,429 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 logperch larvae 0.05 109,107 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 walleye. sauger larvae 5 10,910,714 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 freshwater. drum larvae 34.4 75,065,714 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 unknown larvae 0.8 1,745,714 RM # 35961, pg 56 57 Volume sampled for study period: 3,967,849 gallons, RM# 35961 pg 56 ( footnote) Flow for study period: 218,214,285,714 gallons, RM# 35961 pg 30 ( 12.22 bill gal is 5.6% of flow for study period 218,214 MGD Number of fertilized eggs per 100,000 gallons of water sampled.

date julian. date species fertilized. eggs. collected days. to. extrap 7/ 17/ 1974 27227.00 unknown 95.8 15.00 7/ 23/ 1974 27233.00 unknown 44.1 6.00 7/ 30/ 1974 27240.00 unknown 72.2 7.00 8/ 7/ 1974 27248.00 unknown 11 8.00 8/ 14/ 1974 27255.00 unknown 0 7.00 8/ 21/ 1974 27262.00 unknown 20.1 7.00 8/ 28/ 1974 27269.00 unknown 0 7.00 4/ 2/ 1975 27486.00 unknown 0 217.00 4/ 9/ 1975 27493.00 unknown 0 7.00 4/ 16/ 1975 27500.00 unknown 0 7.00 4/ 25/ 1975 27509.00 unknown 0 9.00 4/ 30/ 1975 27514.00 unknown 0 5.00 5/ 7/ 1975 27521.00 unknown 0 7.00 5/ 14/ 1975 27528.00 unknown 0 7.00 5/ 21/ 1975 27535.00 unknown 0 7.00 5/ 28/ 1975 27542.00 unknown 0.7 7.00 6/ 4/ 1975 27549.00 unknown 0.7 7.00 6/ 11/ 1975 27556.00 unknown 0 7.00 6/ 18/ 1975 27563.00 unknown 0 7.00 6/ 25/ 1975 27570.00 unknown 0 7.00 7/ 2/ 1975 27577.00 unknown 2.6 7.00 QC lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer extrapolated. fert. eggs source QC 3,135,739,286 RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer 577,395,000 RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer 1,102,855,000 RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer 192,028,571 RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer 307,027,500 RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer 10,692,500 RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer 10,692,500 RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer  RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer 39,715,000 RM # 35961 pg 60 lefer 5,376,145,357 Extrapolated based on RM # 35961 pg 60 Number of larvae per 100,000 gallons of water sampled. species stage july. 17.1974 july. 23.1974 july. 30.1974 aug. 7.1974 gars larvae 0 0 0 0 herrings larvae 5 0 0 0 mooneyes larvae 0 0 0 0 carp larvae 5 0 0 0 minnow. spp larvae 186.6 10.7 21.5 0.4 carpsucker larvae 0 0 3 0 morone. spp larvae 0 0 0 0 sunfish. spp larvae 0 0 0 0 bass. spp larvae 0 0 0 0 crappie. spp larvae 0 0 0 0 yellow. perch larvae 0 0 0 0 logperch larvae 0 0 0 0 walleye. sauger larvae 0 0 0 0 freshwater. drum larvae 5 1.2 0.5 0 unknown larvae 0 0 0 0.4 totals 201.6 11.9 25 0.8 Volume sampled for study period: 3,967,849 gallons, RM# 35961 pg 56 ( footnote) Flow for study period: 218,214,285,714 gallons, RM# 35961 pg 30 ( 12.22 bill gal is 5.6% of flow for study period aug. 14.1974 aug. 21.1974 aug. 28.1974 april. 2.1975 april. 9.1975 april. 16.1975 april. 25.1975 april. 30.1975 may. 7.1975 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 119.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42.2 315.5 2.3 1.3 0 0 0 0 0.4 3.1 48.3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 0.5 2.1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14.6 0.8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0.4 0.5 52 0.8 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.9 2.7 0 0 0 0.7 1.7 51.4 557.6 may. 14.1975 may. 21.1975 may. 28.1975 june. 4.1975 june. 11.1975 june. 18.1975 june. 25.1975 july. 2.1995 source 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 0.4 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 141.9 42.5 380 138.6 1.5 12.2 13.4 3.9 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 33.3 6.8 1.8 9.7 0 0 0 0 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 105.9 4.8 52.6 9.4 0 0 1.8 3.9 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 18.8 24.1 28.5 28.4 2.5 2.4 17.8 38.2 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 13.9 0.5 2.9 0.7 0 0 0 0 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 0 0 29.6 5 1.5 3.7 57.1 1.3 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 1.7 0 1.8 2.7 0 0 0 0 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 0.5 0 0 9.4 0 0 0 0 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 51.6 1.4 0.4 0 0 0 0 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 0 0 4.3 236.5 53.7 95.3 201.7 64.7 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 3.9 1 4.3 1.3 0 0 0 1.3 RM # 35961, pg 56 5 371.5 81.6 506.2 442.4 59.2 113.6 291.8 113.7 QC lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer lefer species imp extrap. imp source qc chestnut. lamprey 2 38 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer shovelnose. sturgeon 16 303 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer paddlefish 85 1610 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer longnose. gar 6 114 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer shortnose. gar 161 3049 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer gar 76 1439 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer bowfin 3 57 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer american. eel 1 19 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer goldeye 77 1458 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer mooneye 35 663 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer minnow 1 19 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer carp 221 4185 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer flathead. chub 3 57 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer sicklefin. chub 7 133 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer silver. chub 59 1117 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer golden. shiner 1 19 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer river. carpsucker 35 663 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer quillback. carpsucker 5 95 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer carpsucker 6 114 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer sucker 17 322 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer white. sucker 2 38 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer northern. hogsucker 3 57 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer smallmouth. buffalo 31 587 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer bigmouth. buffalo 51 966 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer black. buffalo 3 57 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer buffalo 1 19 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer golden. redhorse 2 38 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer northern. redhorse 11 208 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer blue. catfish 24 455 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer black. bullhead 26 492 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer channel. catfish 24 455 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer catfish 6 114 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer bullhead 2 38 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer stonecat 8 152 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer madtom 1 19 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer flathead. catfish 68 1288 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer burbot 2 38 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer brook. silverside 1 19 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer white. bass 98 1856 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer sunfish 14 265 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer green. sunfish 1 19 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer orangespotted. sunfish 2 38 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer bluegill 115 2178 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer largemouth. bass 5 95 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer white. crappie 21 398 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer black. crappie 32 606 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer crappie 5 95 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer river. darter 1 19 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer sauger 67 1269 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer walleye 5 95 RM # 35961, pg 32 lefer total 1449 27441 RM # 35961, pg 36 lefer Losses data for Meramec Power Plant ( Missouri). Cooling water source: Mississippi River Intake 316( b) Phase III A. Gage, 12/ 2/ 2003 Notes: Impingement sampling was conducted for 24 hour periods from July 1974 July 1975. Impinged fish were washed from the travelling s Entrainment sampling was conducted over 21 weekly samplings of a 24 hr period from July Aug 1974 & April July 1975. Plankton net Impingement extrapolated based on annual total for all species from pg 36. Entrainment given in densities. Extrapolated using the flow for the study period given on pg 30.  need to check. QC performed by ensuring sums of numbers entered matched the sums presented in RM # 35961 Did not enter nocturnal drift samples from Table 6. Eggs not presented by species.

QC Checked data entry against source documents. Confirmed total for all spp. On losses page equaled the sum on data entry page. Mlefer 12/ 9/ 03; 03/ 17/ 04.

extrapolations checked by dc 2/ 10/ 04 look ok; drum larvae ent changed to walleye larvae ent g screens and tallied. ets were used to sample water from in front of the intake.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8571-8572]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03944]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0120]

Hours of Service of Drivers: Application for Exemption; G4S
Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (G4S)

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition; denial of application for
exemption.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to deny the application of G4S
Secure Solutions (USA), Inc. (G4S), for an exemption from the
requirement that its drivers use electronic logging devices (ELDs) to
record their hours of service (HOS). G4S requested the exemption for
all its drivers of customer/government-owned vehicles used
intermittently to perform passenger transportation. FMCSA analyzed the
exemption application and public comments, and determined that the
record does not establish that the applicant would not achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved absent such exemption. FMCSA therefore issued a letter of
denial to the applicant on January 5, 2018.

DATES: Application for exemption was denied January 5, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information concerning this
notice, contact Mr. Tom Yager, Chief, FMCSA Driver and Carrier
Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety
Standards; Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email: [email protected]. If you have
questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact
Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
Federal Register (49 CFR 381.315(a)). The Agency must provide the
public an opportunity to inspect the information relevant to the
application, including any safety analyses that have been conducted.
The Agency must also provide an opportunity for public comment on the
request.
    FMCSA reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted, and
determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level
of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be
achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reason for the grant or denial, and, if granted,
the specific person or class of persons receiving the exemption, and
the regulatory provision or provisions from which exemption is granted.
The notice also must specify the effective period of the exemption (up
to 5 years), and explain the terms and conditions of the exemption. The
exemption may be renewed (49 CFR 381.300(b)).

III. Request for Exemption

    G4S is an international security solutions group, with operations
in more than 100 countries and more than 54,000 employees in North
America. One component of G45's operations is detainee and prisoner
transport. Government agencies across the country, including the U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and State/county police
departments, contract with G4S to safely and securely transport
prisoners, offenders, and illegal aliens. To perform these
transportation services, G4S is registered with the FMCSA as a for-hire
motor carrier. While the company maintains a relatively small fleet of
vehicles, a significant portion of its transportation services are
performed by G4S employees operating customer/government-owned
equipment (e.g., buses and 15-passenger-vans).
    The company had started the process of installing compliant ELDs in
its own vehicle fleet. G4S, however, believed an exemption was for
instances when its drivers operate customer/government-owned equipment
to perform passenger transportation services. In these instances, it is
the customer, not G4S, that owns and maintains the vehicles. For its
part, G4S provides qualified drivers to operate the vehicles and is
explicitly precluded, often by contract, from making any modifications
to or installing any equipment in the vehicles.
    G4S claimed that, from a safety perspective, its operations are
indistinguishable from driveaway-

towaway operations, which are excluded from the ELD mandate. In these
instances, neither the carriers nor the drivers own the vehicles being
driven, nor are they authorized to make any modifications to those
vehicles. Similarly, in both cases, the vehicles at issue may only be
operated by the carrier's drivers for a single trip.
    The application for exemption is in the docket for this notice.

IV. Public Comments

    On April 21, 2017, FMCSA published notice of the G4S application
and requested public comment (82 FR 18820). The Agency received three
comments, and all opposed the granting of the G4S exemption request.
Groups filing in opposition were the Advocates for Highway and Auto
Safety (Advocates), the Owner-Operator Independent Driver's Association
(OOIDA), and the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA). Issues
raised by these commenters in opposition to the exemption request are
as follows.
    (1) The G4S application does not meet the statutory and regulatory
requirements for the exemption. It fails to consider practical
alternatives, justify the need for exemption, provide an analysis of
the safety impacts the requested exemption may cause, and provide
information on the specific countermeasures to be undertaken to ensure
that the exemption will achieve an equivalent or greater level of
safety than would be achieved absent the exemption.
    (2) G4S cites technical concerns regarding interoperability of ELDs
and the use of different vehicles as reasons why their drivers should
be exempted from the ELD mandate. While these points are legitimate,
they are not limited to this carrier. Carriers of all sizes may
encounter these same interoperability problems as drivers operate
multiple ELD platforms with varying methods of data transfer.
    (3) Confusion and inconsistencies, such as patchwork adoption of
the ELD requirement because of exemptions, create more work for the
enforcement community and industry alike. These inconsistencies also
have a direct impact on data quality, an especially important
consideration for the accurate tracking of HOS compliance.
    All comments are available for review in the docket for this
notice.

V. FMCSA Decision

    When FMCSA published the final rule mandating ELDs, it relied upon
research indicating that the rule improves commercial motor vehicle
(CMV) safety by improving compliance with the hours-of-service rules.
The rule also reduces the overall paperwork burden for both motor
carriers and drivers.
    In its application, G4S provides no analysis of the safety
performance of drivers who would operate using paper records of duty
status under the exemption. G4S compares its request to the ELD
regulatory exception for driveaway-towaway vehicles, but provides no
analysis of how the risk of fatigue and crashes when operating an empty
vehicle in a driveaway-towaway operation would be equivalent to the
risk posed by operating a passenger-carrying vehicle.
    The G4S application does not consider practical alternatives or
provide an analysis of the safety impacts the requested exemption may
cause. It also does not provide countermeasures to be undertaken to
ensure that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the
current regulation.
    For these reasons, FMCSA denied the request for exemption by letter
dated January 5, 2018.

    Issued on: February 20, 2018.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-03944 Filed 2-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Recommended PM 2.5 Nonattainment Counties Monitor Monitor MSA/ CMSA Option Option Option County Attainment Nonattainment Attainment Nonattainment Adams X X Allen X X Ashland X X Ashtabula X X Athens X X Auglaize X X Belmont X X Brown X X Butler X X Carroll X X Champaign X X Clark X X Clermont X X Clinton X X Columbiana X X Coshocton X X Crawford X X Cuyahoga X X Darke X X Defiance X X Delaware X X Erie X X Fairfield X X Fayette X X Franklin X X Fulton X X Gallia X X Geauga X X Greene X X Guernsey X X Hamilton X X Hancock X X Hardin X X Harrison X X Henry X X Highland X X Hocking X X Holmes X X Huron X X Jackson X X Jefferson X X Knox X X Lake X X Lawrence X X Licking X X Logan X X Lorain X X Lucas X X Madison X X Mahoning X X Marion X X Medina X X Meigs X X Mercer X X Miami X X Monroe X X Montgomery X X Morgan X X Morrow X X Muskingum X X Noble X X Ottawa X X Paulding X X Perry X X Pickaway X X Pike X X Portage X X Preble X X Putnam X X Richland X X Ross X X Sandusky X X Scioto X X Seneca X X Shelby X X Stark X X Summit X X Trumbull X X Tuscarawas X X Union X X Van Wert X X Vinton X X Warren X X Washington X X Wayne X X Williams X X Wood X Wyandot X X 26 15