9052 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 5, 2025 / Notices 

26See supra note 4. 

27See also supra Item III.B. 

28See Spot Bitcoin and Ether ETP Approval 

Order. 

29 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

30 In addition, the Shares of the Trust must 

comply with the requirements of NYSE Arca Rule 

8.201–E (Commodity-Based Trust Shares) to be 

listed and traded on the Exchange on an initial and 

continuing basis. 

31 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

32 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5); 15 U.S.C. 78k– 

1(a)(1)(C)(iii). 

33 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2). 

34 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). 

be submitted on or before February 26, 

2025. 

V. Accelerated Approval 

The Commission finds good cause to 

approve the Proposal prior to the 30th 

day after the date of publication of 

notice of Amendment No. 1 26 in the 

Federal Register. The amendment 

clarified the description of the Trust; 

further described the terms of the Trust; 

and conformed various representations 

in the amended filing to representations 

that exchanges have made for other 

ETPs that the Commission has 

approved.27 The amended filing is now 

substantially similar to filings for other 

spot bitcoin and spot ether ETPs that the 

Commission has approved.28

Accordingly, the Commission finds 

good cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) 

of the Exchange Act,29 to approve the 

Proposal on an accelerated basis. 

VI. Conclusion 

This approval order is based on all of 

the Exchange’s representations and 

descriptions in the Proposal, which the 

Commission has carefully evaluated as 

discussed above.30 For the reasons set 

forth above, the Commission finds, 

pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the 

Exchange Act,31 that the Proposal is 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Exchange Act and the rules and 

regulations thereunder applicable to a 

national securities exchange, and in 

particular, with Section 6(b)(5) and 

Section 11A(a)(1)(C)(iii) of the Exchange 

Act.32

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to 

Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act,33

that the Proposal (SR–NYSEARCA– 

2024–104) be, and hereby is, approved 

on an accelerated basis. 

For the Commission, by the Division of 

Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated 

authority.34

Sherry R. Haywood, 

Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2025–02223 Filed 2–4–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8011–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

[Docket No. FAA–2025–0152] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Requests for Comments; 

Clearance of a Renewed Approval of 

Information Collection: Procedures for 

Non-Federal Navigation Facilities 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 

invites public comments about our 

intention to request the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

approval to renew an information 

collection. The collection involves 

aerial navigation aids (NavAids), 

electrical/electronic facilities, owned 

and operated by non-federal sponsors 

for use by the flying public. ‘‘NonFederal sponsors’’ refers to entities such 

as State and local governments, 

businesses, and private citizens. The 

information to be collected is necessary 

to ensure that operation and 

maintenance of these non-federally 

owned facilities is in accordance with 

FAA safety standards. The FAA is not 

changing its information-collection 

practices pertaining to non-Federal 

facilities. It is merely renewing its legal 

authority to collect that information. 

DATES: Written comments should be 

submitted by April 7, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: Please send written 

comments: 

By Electronic Docket: 

www.regulations.gov (Enter docket 

number into search field). 

By email: Non-Federal-Program@

faa.gov (Enter docket number into 

subject line). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Michael Schoen by email at 

Michael.J.Schoen@faa.gov; phone (202) 

267–9841. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

collection involves the compilation of: 

• Commissioning data, such as the 

initial standards and tolerances 

parameters for the aerial navigation aids 

(NavAids) and electrical/electronic 

facilities, owned and operated by nonfederal sponsors; 

• Maintenance activities and 

operational history, such as outages and 

repairs, for facilities owned and 

operated by non-federal sponsors; and 

• The facilities’ periodically verified 

parameters for the life of the facility. 

Public Comments Invited: You are 

asked to comment on any aspect of this 

information collection, including (a) 

Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for FAA’s 

performance; (b) the accuracy of the 

estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to 

enhance the quality, utility and clarity 

of the information collection; and (d) 

ways that the burden could be 

minimized without reducing the quality 

of the collected information. The agency 

will summarize and/or include your 

comments in the request for OMB’s 

clearance of this information collection. 

OMB Control Number: 2120–0014. 

Title: Procedures for Non-federal 

Navigation Facilities. 

Form Numbers: FAA Form 6000–10; 

FAA Form 6000–8; FAA Form 6030–1. 

Type of Review: Renewal of an 

information collection. 

Background: Title 14 CFR part 171 

establishes procedures and 

requirements for non-federal sponsors, 

(‘‘non-federal sponsors’’ refers to 

entities such as state and local 

governments, businesses, and private 

citizens) to purchase, install, operate, 

and maintain electronic NavAids for use 

by the flying public, in the National 

Airspace System (NAS). Part 171 

describes procedures for receiving 

permission to install a facility and 

requirements to keep it in service. 

Documenting the initial parameters 

during commissioning is necessary to 

have a baseline to reference during 

future inspections. Another requirement 

is recording maintenance tasks, removal 

from service, and any other repairs 

performed on these facilities in on-site 

logs to have an accurate history on the 

performance of the facility. In addition, 

at each periodic inspection, recording 

the facilities’ current parameters 

provides performance information for 

the life of the facility. Records must be 

kept on site and the FAA must receive 

copies of the logs. 

Respondents: Approximately 2,200 

non-federal facilities/respondents. 

Frequency: Information is collected 

(submitted to FAA Inspectors) on 

occasion. 

Estimated Average Burden per 

Response: 13.72 hours per year. 

• Form 6000–10, 1.72 hours per 

response 

• Form 6000–8, 30 minutes per 

response 

• Form 6030–1, 30 minutes per 

response 

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 

Approximately 26,429 hours per year. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 23 / Wednesday, February 5, 2025 / Notices 9053 

1The AVs do not couple but rather receive 

commands to move together. 

2See Petition Exhibit C, ‘‘Testing will take place 

between mileposts 503 and 577.8 on the [GC] and 

mileposts 577.8 and 663 on the [HOG], which are 

two Class III freight railroads that connect directly 

in Vidalia, GA.’’ 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 

2025. 

Shelly Beauchamp, 

Manager, Advanced Systems Design Service 

Team, NAS Modernization Group, AJW–121, 

Operations Support Directorate, Technical 

Operations, Air Traffic Organization, Federal 

Aviation Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2025–02224 Filed 2–4–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

[Docket No. FRA–2023–0066] 

Program Approval: Georgia Central 

Railway, L.P. and Heart of Georgia 

Railroad, Inc. 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of approval. 

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to 

approve a petition from Georgia Central 

Railway, L.P. (GC) and Heart of Georgia 

Railroad, Inc. (HOG) (collectively, 

Petitioners), subsidiaries of Genesee and 

Wyoming (G&W), for a Test Program 

designed to test self-propelled, zeroemission, battery-electric rail vehicles 

and their associated computer and 

telemetry technology systems, and to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the system 

and new operational approaches to rail 

vehicle technology in the short-haul 

movement of containers. The approval 

grants limited, temporary suspension of 

certain FRA rules necessary to facilitate 

the conduct of the Test Program, 

including an exemption for certain 

safety appliance laws (collectively, 

Impacted FRA Safety Standards). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Matthew Brewer, Staff Director, FRA 

Engineering and Technology Division, 

Office of Railroad Safety at (509) 994– 

1978 or email: matthew.brewer@dot.gov; 

or Michael Masci, Senior Attorney 

Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, 

telephone: (202) 302–7117 or email: 

michael.masci@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Petitioners’ submission (available in 

docket FRA–2023–0066 at 

www.regulations.gov) explains that the 

proposed Test Program involves a 

system of novel, self-propelled, zeroemission, battery-electric rail vehicles 

and their associated computer and 

telemetry technology systems, 

manufactured by Parallel Systems, Inc. 

The vehicle concept consists of a single 

intermodal container carried by two 

autonomous rail vehicles (AVs). Each 

rail AV is propelled by a battery and 

traction motor and has the necessary 

sensors, radios, and computers to be 

independent. Through hand-held 

controls or via the dispatch center, the 

AVs receive instructions to move either 

individually (e.g., 2 AVs with one 

container) or with a group of AVs to 

operate in a platoon.1 Petitioners note 

that following testing of the AVs’ 

braking system and other components at 

a test site owned by MxV Rail, the 

Program, if approved, would take place 

in seven phases on a 160-mile segment 

of track in central Georgia,2 to 

progressively test and aim to prove the 

technology and collect data to support 

the safety case. 

Petitioners state that the goal of the 

technology is to provide smaller freight 

railroads an opportunity to 

meaningfully compete in the short-haul 

transportation of containers, and the 

technology would provide public 

benefits for the environment, the 

economy, the national highway system, 

and communities disproportionately 

impacted by highway movement of 

containers. Petitioners contend that 

‘‘safety is an overriding focus of the 

proposed Program,’’ and Petitioners 

have developed, and will adhere to, a 

Pilot Test Safety Plan (Safety Plan), 

Exhibit C of the submission, to ensure 

safety during testing. Petitioners explain 

the ‘‘Safety Plan includes protocols for 

hazard analysis, control, and 

verification of controls which will be 

reviewed by six technical working 

groups who will consider the risks 

associated with each phase and the 

necessary actions to mitigate each risk.’’ 

Petitioners provide that the Program, 

detailed in Exhibit B of the submission, 

‘‘is based on seven phases of tightly 

structured and closely monitored field 

testing.’’ The Program would use the 

‘‘results of testing performed during 

each phase’’ ‘‘to evaluate the safety of 

the proceeding phase.’’ The Program 

would collect ‘‘data and service history’’ 

and then ‘‘evaluate changes in the 

design of the System, its components, 

and the relevant operating procedures in 

support of further testing before any 

proposed use of the System outside of 

the Program.’’ The Program includes a 

structured sequence of test phases to 

‘‘allow collection and evaluation of the 

operating data in progressively more 

complex operating conditions.’’ 

Petitioners emphasize that the priority 

‘‘of each phase of the Program is to 

assure safety of railroad employees, 

other persons and property, and the 

general public along the railroad lines 

that will be used for the Program.’’ 

Petitioners state that the Program is 

‘‘designed to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the system and new operational 

approaches to rail vehicle technology in 

the short-haul movement of containers.’’ 

As described in Exhibit B of the 

submission, the Program will gather 

‘‘quantitative and qualitative data’’ in 

each phase and evaluate the reliability, 

compatibility, and cost of operation, 

along with a safety analysis. 

Additionally, phase-specific testing 

objectives are identified in the 

submission (e.g., to determine if 

conditions at the test track affect 

controllability of the vehicle, as well as 

identify any sources of variation 

between phases). 

The testing is planned in seven 

phases, with defined success criteria 

that must be achieved prior to FRA 

approval to move to the next test phase: 

• Phase 1—Verification of Vehicle 

Communications, Traction and Braking: 

Criteria to move to the next phase 

include successful validation of all 

vehicle controls and validation of all 

field test procedures, communication, 

and safety protocols. 

• Phase 2—Testing Over a Longer 

Distance and More Diverse Territory: 

Criteria to move to the next phase 

include successful validation of all 

vehicle controls throughout the longer 

distances and more diverse territory, 

control of the vehicle is fully validated, 

and confirmation of shunting at a grade 

crossing. 

• Phase 3—Validation of Remote 

Capability of Vehicle With Direct 

Supervision: Criteria to move to the next 

phase include successful validation of 

all vehicle controls over the broader 

environment, validation of remote 

monitoring and video links, including 

back-up when communications fail, and 

shunting validation over the territory. 

• Phase 4—Testing and Data 

Gathering With Extended Remote 

Operations: Criteria to move to the next 

phase include final validation of all 

vehicle controls, validation of remote 

monitoring and video links, including 

back-up when there is a 

communications failure, and shunting 

validation over the territory. 

• Phase 5—Vehicle Upgrades To 

Enhance Reliability and Performance 

(Based on Previous Phases): Criteria to 

move to the next phase include revalidation of all vehicle controls, revalidation of remote monitoring and 

video links, including back-up when 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1