[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 10 (Wednesday, January 15, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2486-2489]
[FR Doc No: 2020-00556]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0159]

Parts and Accessories Necessary for Safe Operation; Vision
Systems North America, Inc. Application for an Exemption

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
announces its decision to grant Vision Systems North America, Inc.'s
(VSNA) application for a limited 5-year exemption to allow motor
carriers to operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) with the company's
Smart-Vision high definition camera monitoring system (Smart-Vision)
installed as an alternative to the two rear-vision mirrors required by
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). The Agency has
determined that granting the exemption to allow use of the Smart-Vision
system in lieu of mirrors would likely achieve a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the
regulation.

DATES: This exemption is effective January 15, 2020 and ending January
15, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jose Cestero, Vehicle and Roadside
Operations Division, Office of Carrier, Driver, and Vehicle Safety, MC-
PSV, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments submitted to notice requesting public comments on the
exemption application, go to www.regulations.gov at any time or visit
Room W12-140 on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. The on-line Federal document
management system is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.
The docket number is listed at the beginning of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant
exemptions from certain parts of the 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.
    The Agency 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). The decision of
the Agency must be published in the Federal Register (49 CFR
381.315(b)) with the reasons for denying or granting the application
and, if granted, the name of the person or class of persons receiving
the exemption, and the regulatory provision from which the exemption is
granted. The notice must also specify the effective period and explain
the terms

and conditions of the exemption. The exemption may be renewed (49 CFR
381.300(b)).

VSNA Application for Exemption

    VSNA applied for an exemption from 49 CFR 393.80(a) to allow its
Smart-Vision system to be installed as an alternative to the two rear-
vision mirrors required on CMVs. A copy of the application is included
in the docket referenced at the beginning of this notice.
    Section 393.80(a) of the FMCSRs requires that each bus, truck, and
truck-tractor be equipped with two rear-vision mirrors, one at each
side. The mirrors must be positioned to reflect to the driver a view of
the highway to the rear and the area along both sides of the CMV.
Section 393.80(a) cross-references NTHSA's standards for mirrors on
motor vehicles (49 CFR 571.111, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
[FMVSS] No. 111). Paragraph S7.1 of FMVSS No. 111 provides requirements
for mirrors on multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a gross
vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 4,536 kg and less than 11,340
kg and each bus, other than a school bus, with a GVWR of more than
4,536 kg. Paragraph S8.1 provides requirements for mirrors on
multipurpose passenger vehicles and trucks with a GVWR of 11,340 kg or
more.
    The Smart-Vision system consists of multiple digital cameras firmly
mounted high on the exterior of the vehicle, enclosed in an aerodynamic
package that provides both environmental protection for the cameras and
a mounting location for optimal visibility. Each camera has proprietary
video processing software that presents a clear, high-definition image
to the driver by means of a monitor firmly mounted to each A-pillar of
the CMV, i.e., the structural member between the windshield and door of
the cab. VSNA explains that attaching the monitors to the A-pillars
avoids the creation of incremental blind spots while eliminating the
blind spots associated with conventional mirrors. VSNA states that its
Smart-Vision system meets or exceeds the visibility requirements
provided in FMVSS No. 111 based on the following factors:
     Increased field of view (FOV) when compared to
conventional mirrors--The Smart-Vision system enables the driver to see
(1) vehicles and pedestrians in the ``No-Zone,'' (2) multiple lanes of
traffic and overtaking vehicles that are entering the commercial
vehicle ``No-Zone,'' (3) tire fires, and (4) loose straps, ropes, or
chains when transporting open cargo.
     Increased Image Quality--The Smart-Vision system provides
enhanced vision in inclement weather, higher visibility in low light
conditions, and filters out dawn and dusk sunlight glare, improving
driver visibility.
     Fail-safe design--The Smart-Vision system elements have a
fail-safe design due to the independent video processing of multiple
camera images, additionally supported by software diagnostics to ensure
that ``real time images'' are displayed and that any unlikely partial
failure is clearly identified.
     Reduced Driver Fatigue--The Smart-Vision system results in
less lateral head and eye movement by the driver due to the monitor
location on the A-pillar, and VSNA believes that this may result in
lower levels of driver fatigue after extended driving times.
    The exemption would apply to all CMV operators driving vehicles
with the Smart-Vision system. VSNA believes that mounting the system as
described would maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or
greater than, the level of safety achieved without the exemption.

Request for Comments

    FMCSA published a notice of the application in the Federal Register
on September 26, 2019, and asked for public comment (84 FR 50878). The
Agency received 5 comments from: The American Bus Association (ABA);
the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA); and 3 individuals.
    ABA supports granting the application to allow use of the Smart-
Vision system as an alternative to the two rear-view mirrors required
by the FMCSRs. ABA stated:

    Camera-based visibility systems or CBVSs, like the Smart-Vision
technology, are vehicle technology advancements ABA believes should
be deployed to improve safety of CMV operations. Such systems are
currently being installed and tested by equipment manufacturers in
limited capacity; however, to ascertain real-world viability,
equipment manufacturers need to deploy these systems for use in
actual commercial operations. As with FMCSA's decision to grant an
exemption to Stoneridge, Inc. for use of its MirrorEye Camera
Monitor System (see Docket No. FMCSA-2018-0141, published February
21, 2019), we believe the deployment of VSNA's system in place of
mirrors will achieve a level of safety equivalent to or greater than
the level of safety provided by the regulation.

    In addition, ABA stated that when compared to traditional mirrors,
the Smart-Vision system provides additional visibility benefits
including (1) anti-glare, (2) improved visibility at night and during
adverse weather conditions, and (3) elimination of blind spots by
providing a broader field of vision around the vehicle. ABA noted that
the improvements in driver visibility can lead to enhanced
maneuverability in backing up or turning a large vehicle. ABA also
stated that eliminating the side mirrors may also provide fuel
efficiency gains and carbon emission reductions, and may assist in
reducing actions that lead to increased driver fatigue such as head and
eye movements.
    Further, ABA states that granting the exemption will be consistent
with both (1) FMCSA's decision to grant an exemption to Stoneridge,
Inc. for a similar system, and (2) recent activities by NHTSA relating
to possible revisions to FMVSS No. 111. Specifically, NHTSA published a
notice and request for public comment on August 28, 2019 (84 FR 45209),
on a proposed collection of information relating to a multi-year
research effort to learn about drivers' use of camera-based systems
designed to replace traditional outside rearview mirrors. Initial
research will focus on light vehicles and be followed by research
examining camera-based visibility systems on heavy trucks.
Additionally, NHTSA published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
on October 10, 2019 (84 FR 54533), seeking public comment on permitting
camera-based rear visibility systems as an alternative to inside and
outside rearview mirrors.
    CVSA stated that while it recognizes there may be potential safety
benefits of the proposed technology, it does not have data to support
or refute the efficacy of camera monitor systems technology. However,
CVSA noted that its associate member companies that have some
experience with camera monitor systems reported that ``drivers
responded favorably when testing the technology and preferred them in
place of traditional side mirrors.'' CVSA noted that in 2018, roadside
inspectors conducted 2.41 million vehicle inspections and issued only
2,497 violations of section 393.80 of the FMCSRs for failing to equip a
vehicle with two rear vision mirrors--a violation rate of just 0.06
percent.
    Additionally, CVSA noted that granting the exemption may have
impacts on roadside enforcement personnel, as inspectors use the
mirrors for purposes beyond the intent of the FMVSS and the FMCSRs.
Specifically, CVSA states that roadside inspectors use the mirrors to
see what is happening inside the cab, and to identify when CMV drivers
are operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner, such as illegally using a
handheld electronic device, or

not wearing a safety belt. Additionally, roadside inspectors frequently
use mirrors to visually communicate with drivers during roadside
inspections, when at the side or rear of the inspection vehicle. CVSA
stated that it is unclear whether the technology has a proven safety
benefit, and noted concern that exemptions from safety regulations have
the potential to undermine consistency and uniformity in compliance
enforcement, and encouraged FMCSA to consider the roadside enforcement
and inspection aspects of rear vision mirror usage in the evaluation of
the application.
    Three individuals commented in support of granting the temporary
exemption, and noted various advantages of the Smart-Vision system as
compared to the rear vision mirrors required by the FMCSRs including
(1) improved field-of-view around a CMV, including reduction/
elimination glare and blind spots (2) increased visibility when driving
at night and during inclement weather, and (3) reduced driver fatigue.

FMCSA Decision

    The FMCSA has evaluated the VSNA exemption application, and the
comments received. For the reasons discussed below, FMCSA believes that
granting the exemption to allow motor carriers to operate CMVs with the
Smart-Vision system installed as an alternative to the two rear-vision
mirrors required by the FMCSRs is likely to achieve a level of safety
equivalent to or greater than the level of safety provided by the
regulation.
    Use of the Smart-Vision system provides CMV drivers with an
enhanced field of view when compared to the required rear-vision
mirrors because (1) it eliminates the blind spots on both sides of the
vehicle created by the required rear-vision mirrors, (2) the multi-
camera system expands the field of view compared to the required rear-
vision mirrors by an estimated 25 percent, and (3) the system uses high
definition cameras and monitors that include features such as color
night vision, low light sensitivity, and light and glare reduction that
together help provide drivers with improved vision in the field of view
when compared to traditional rear-vision mirrors.
    FMCSA notes that the Smart-Vision system is currently being used in
a number of European countries as a legal alternative to the
traditional rear-vision mirrors under the requirements of ISO
(International Organization for Standardization) 16505:2019. That
standard provides minimum safety, ergonomic, and performance
requirements for camera monitor systems to replace mandatory inside and
outside rearview mirrors for road vehicles. The ISO standard addresses
camera monitor systems that will be used in road vehicles to present
the required outside information of a specific field of view inside the
vehicle. According to VSNA, there are approximately 300 vehicles
certified with the Smart-Vision system to date.
    FMCSA acknowledges CVSA's concerns regarding the inability of
roadside inspectors and law enforcement officers to use rear-vision
mirrors for the other uses described in its comments if the exemption
is granted to permit use of the Smart-Vision system in lieu of the
mirrors. However, use of the rear-vision mirrors for purposes other
than driver visibility is beyond the scope of the FMCSR requirements.
FMCSA notes that inspectors may still communicate with drivers by means
of hand signals/gestures if the system is on, and the driver will
continue to see everything that would have been in view with the
mirrors.
    In its application, VSNA notes that the Smart-Vision system is a
fail-safe operating system due to its independent video processing of
multiple camera images. VSNA states:

    In the unlikely event of an individual camera failure, the other
camera images continue to be displayed. Proprietary software ensures
that real-time images are continuously displayed without
interruption. In addition to the Smart-Vision multi-camera redundant
design, mounting the camera housing high on the vehicle and
providing both a power-fold and breakaway feature further reduce the
potential damage that is possible in normal operating environments.

    The FMCSRs impose several operational controls that will help
ensure that the Smart-Vision system is functioning properly at all
times. Section 396.7 of the FMCSRs, ``Unsafe operations forbidden,''
prohibits any vehicle from being operated in such a condition as to
likely cause an accident or breakdown of the vehicle. Section 392.7(a)
requires each CMV driver to satisfy himself/herself that a vehicle is
in safe condition before operating the vehicle, which would include
ensuring that the rear-vision mirrors (or in this case, the Smart-
Vision system)--are in good working order. Similarly, section 396.13(a)
of the FMCSRs requires that, before driving a vehicle, a driver must be
satisfied that the vehicle is in safe operating condition. If the
Smart-Vision system (effectively functioning as the rear vision
mirrors) fails during operation, the driver must complete a driver
vehicle inspection report at the completion of the work day as required
by section 396.11 of the FMCSRs, and the motor carrier must ensure that
the defect is corrected.

Terms and Conditions for the Exemption

    The Agency hereby grants the exemption for a 5-year period,
beginning January 15, 2020 and ending January 15, 2025. During the
temporary exemption period, motor carriers operating CMVs may utilize
the VSNA Smart-Vision system installed in lieu of the two rear-vision
mirrors required by section 393.80 of the FMCSRs. FMCSA emphasizes that
this exemption is limited to the VSNA Smart-Vision system, and does not
apply to any other camera-based mirror replacement system/technology.
Section 396.7 of the FMCSRs, ``Unsafe operations forbidden,'' prohibits
any vehicle from being operated in such a condition as to likely cause
an accident or a breakdown of the vehicle. If the camera or monitor
system fails during normal vehicle operation on the highway, continued
operation of the vehicle shall be forbidden until (1) the Smart-Vision
system can be repaired, or (2) conventional rear-vision mirrors that
are compliant with section 393.80 are installed on the vehicle.
    The exemption will be valid for 5 years unless rescinded earlier by
FMCSA. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) Motor carriers and/or
CMVs fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2)
the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was
maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315(b).
    Interested parties possessing information that would demonstrate
that motor carriers operating commercial motor vehicles utilizing the
VSNA Smart-Vision system installed as an alternative to the two rear-
vision mirrors required by section 393.80 of the FMCSRs are not
achieving the requisite statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any such information and, if
safety is being compromised or if the continuation of the exemption is
not consistent with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), will take
immediate steps to revoke the exemption.

Preemption

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31313(d), as implemented by 49 CFR
381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall

enforce any law or regulation applicable to interstate commerce that
conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a
firm or person operating under the exemption. States may, but are not
required to, adopt the same exemption with respect to operations in
intrastate commerce.

    Issued on: January 6, 2020.
Jim Mullen,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-00556 Filed 1-14-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


Mancozeb Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Additions to Appendix B1

MRID No.	Report

80717

	Harper, K.H., and Palmer, A.K., Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to the Japanese Quail (Conturnix japonica): 1152/65/69, Huntingdon Research Center, submitted November 9, 1965, 6F067

	93263

	Rohm and Haas Co.  Analytical Results of Dithane M-45 Residues in Corn.  Submitted Nov. 2, 1965

	97109

	Rohm & Haas Co.  Results of Tests on the Amount of Residue Remaining in Crops Including a Description of the Analytical Method:  Dithane M-45.  Submitted September 24, 1972.

	97110

	Rohm and Haas Co.  A Study to Determine Residue Levels in Milk, Tissues and Excreta from Cows Fed Field - Aged Residues Due to Dithane M-45 on Alfafa Hay:  Research Report No.  23-21.  Submitted August 1, 1971.

	97119

	Rohm and Haas Co.  Residue Analysis and Analytical Method.  (Compilation: unpublished study received No.9, 1965 under 6F0467)  Submitted Nov 9, 1965

	97862

	Lyman, W.R.  Residues in Milk and Meat from Cows Fed Alfalfa Hay Having Residues from Dithane M-45:  Technical Report No.  36F-81-21.  Submitted December 9, 1981

129284

	Haines, L; Burnett, T.; Wilson, D.  The Octanol/Water Partition Coefficients of Dithane M-45, M-22, Z-78 and Ethylenethiourea:  Technical Report No. 31F-82-26.  Submitted May 13, 1983

	147940

	Haines, L.D.  Water Solubility of DITHANE M-45, Technical Report No.  34F-80-23 (1980)  Submitted April 25, 1985

	148228

	Scribner, H.  [Genetic Toxicity Summary, Evaluation and Conclusions]:  Mancozeb.  Submitted July 22, 1985.

	148232

	McLeod, P, Doolittle, D.  Dithane M-45 Mammalian Cell Transformation Test for Promotion:  Protocol No.  83P-057:  Report No.  84R-297.  Submitted July 22, 1985

	148235

	McCarroll, N.  Host Mediated Assay in Mice with Compound Dithane M-45:  Final Report No.  84RC-025B:  Project No.  417-411, Submitted July 22, 1985

	148236

	McCarroll, N.  Host Mediated Assay in Mice with Compound Dithane M-45:  Final Report No. 85RC-48 Revised: Project No.  417-415, Submitted July 22, 1985

	148240

	McGlynn-Kreft, A.; McCarthy, K.  Dithane M-45 Mammalian Cell Transformation Test, Protocol No. 83P-056: Report No. 84R-0055.  Submitted July 22, 1985

	159476

	Satterthwaite, S.  Analytical Reports of Mancozeb and ETU Residues for Processed Peanut Samples:  Tech. Report No. 310-86-07.  Submitted April 30, 1986

	160706

	Hagan, J., Fisher, J., et al., Mancozeb:  Two-week Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats; Final Report, Report No. 85R-190, Submitted March 5, 1986

	160782

	Hagan, J.; Fisher, J., et al., Mancozeb:  Subchronic Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats -  Thirteen-week Interim Report:  Project No. 86R-003.  Submitted March 5, 1986

	162105

	Randazzo, D.  Aerobic and Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of Mancozeb, Technical Report No.  310-86-23.  Submitted July 31, 1986.

	162913

	Rohm and Haas Co.  Residue Analytical Methods for Ethylenebisdithiocarbamate Fungicides.  Submitted August 18, 1986

	164641

	Yeh, S.  Eighteen-month Mancozeb Storage Stability Study on Grapes:  Technical Report No. 310-86-53.  Submitted October 23, 1986

	40019501

	Yeh, S.  Mancozeb Residues on Crops - Time Intervals from Harvest to Analysis for Mancozeb or Ethylenethiourea (ETU):  Laboratory Project Identification:  310-86-155.  Submitted Nov. 12, 1986

	40121001

	Pease, H; Holt, R.  Residue Studies on Crops Treated with Ethylenebisdithiocarbamate Fungicides.  Unpublished status report dated 11/1/72.

	40121001

	Pease, H; Holt, R.  Residue Studies on Crops Treated with Ethylenebisdithiocarbamate Fungicides.  Unpublished status report dated 11/1/72.

	40122801

	Stelter, T.  Analytical Results for Ethylene Thiourea (ETU) Residues:  Celery.  Sample Code Nos.  2-72-045, 2-72-048, 2-72-049 and 2-72-053

40128802	Stelter, T.  Analytical Results of Dithane M-45 Residues:  Celery R.A.R. Nos. 2-72-045, 048, 049 and 053 dated October 23, 1972.  Submitted March 5, 1986

	40222902

	Yeh, S.  Batch Soil Adsorption/Desorption of Ethylenethiourea (ETU):  [Mancozeb Supplement]:  Biospherics No.  86E205AD; Technical Report No.  310-86-63.  Submitted June 5, 1987

	40301101

	Nelson, S.S. Bioconversion of Mancozeb to ETU in Rat:  Supplemental Report to Metabolism of [Carbon 14] Mancozeb in Rat:  Lab Project ID:  31C-87-24.  Submitted August 17, 1987

	40467502

	Forbis, A.  Acute Toxicity of Dithane Flowable (F-45) Fungicide to Daphnia Magna:  Final Report:  ABC Laboratory Project ID#36282:  Rohm and Haas Report#87RC-0041.  Submitted January 11, 1988

	40586801

	Ward, G.  Acute Toxicity of Dithane M-45 Fungicide to Mysid Shrimp (Mysidopsis Bahia)  Under Static Conditions:  Rohm and Haas Company Protocol No.  87P-258.  Rohm and Haas Report No.  87RC-0065.  Submitted April 14, 1988.

	40764601

	Schweitzer, M.G.  Analysis of Mancozeb and Ethylenethiourea by FDA Pesticide Analytical Manual Volume I, Protocols I through IV.  Report No.  34C-88-41.  Submitted July 27, 1988

	40768001

	Schweitzer, M.  Commercial Tomato Processing Study with Tomatoes Treated with Mancozeb:  Technical Report No.  34C-88-04.  Unpublished Study Prepared by Rohm and Haas Co. in Cooperation with Enviro-Bio-Tech, Ltd.

	40786201

	Burgess, D.  Chronic Toxicity of Dithane M-45 to Daphnia Magna Under Flow-Through Test Conditions:  Raw Data Report #36733:  Rohm and Haas Report No.  88RC-0053.  Submitted August 11, 1988

	40869703

	Satterthwaite S.  Supplement Report:  Analytical Reports of Dithane and ETU for Carrot Residue Samples:  Report No.  31A-86-06.  Submitted Nov. 1, 1988

	40869704

	Satterthwaite, S.  Supplemental Report:  Analytical Reports of Dithane and ETU for Celery Samples:  Report No.  31A-86-11.  Submitted November 1, 1988.

	40913302

	Satterthwaite, S.  Mancozeb and ETU Residues in Cucumbers:  Rohm and Haas Analytical Report No. 31A-86-10.  Submitted Nov. 29, 1988

	41187801

	Lisk, D.  Mancozeb Benefits Data-Use Practice Information:  EBDC Data Call-In Notice of March 10. 1989:  Laboratory Project ID:  DCL-89-87.  Submitted August 2, 1989

	41237701

	Carley, H.  Documentation of Resistance to Ethylenebisdithiocarbamates (EBDC's) and Alternative Fungicides:  Project ID:  HEC-89-136.  Submitted September 18, 1989

	41262601

	Carley, H.  Comparative Biological Studies for Mancozeb and Alternative Fungicides:  Project ID/HEC-89-151.  Submitted October 12, 1989.

	41462901

	Ollinger, J.  Supplemental Report:  Risk Assessment of Farm Worker Exposure to Dislodgeable Foliage Residue of Mancozeb and ETU:  Lab Project No:  87R-183.  Submitted April 23, 1990.

	41552201

	Cairns, S. Response to EPA's review of risk assessment of Farm Worker Exposure to Dislodgeable Foliage Residue of Mancozeb and ETU:  Lab Project No:  34-90-32.  Submitted July 11, 1990

	41643601

	Slesinski, R.  EBDC/ETU National Food Survey:  Fourth Quarter and Interim Report:  Lab Project Number:  89-01:  ETU  90-09.  Submitted October 1, 1990

	41665001

	Loftus, M.  EBDC/ETU  National Food Survey:  Grape and Apple Storage Stability Study:  Lab Project Number:  ETU-89-01.  Submitted October 19, 1990.

	41771001

	Honeycutt, R.  Collection and Analysis of Produce Bananas for ETU and EBDCs:  Interim Report:  Lab Project Number:  90-112RA.  Submitted February 1, 1991.

	41790301

	Honeycutt, R.  Collection and Analysis of Produce Bananas for ETU and EBDCs:  Lab Project Number:  90-112RA.  91-100: 90-0098  Submitted February 20, 1991.

	41814801

	Honeycutt, R.  Collection and Analysis of Product Wine for ETU and EBDCs:  Lab Project Number:  90-114RA:  91-102.  Submitted March 15, 1991.

	41826101

	Ollinger, J.  1990 Mancozeb Raw Grape Monitoring Study:  Lab Project Number:  JO 91-1.  Submitted March 28, 1991.

41829601

	Honeycutt, R.  Collection and Analysis of Produce Grape Juice for ETU and EBDCs Residue:  Lab Project Number:  90-113RA:  91-104.  Submitted April 1, 1991.

	41948401

	Beavers, J.B.  Mancozeb:  A One-Generation Reproduction Study with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos)  Submitted July 3, 1991.

	42036901

	Leparulo, M.  Mancozeb and Metiram Apple Field Study:  Storage Stability Study:  Lab Project Number:  ETU  91-06.  Submitted September 30, 1991

	42311301	Honeycutt, R. Mancozeb Dislodgeable Foliar Residue and Worker Reentry Studies on Grapes:  Lab Project Number:  91-117RA; 91-108.  Submitted May 8, 1992

	43473401

		Beavers, J; Marselas, G., et al., Mancozeb:  A One-Generation Reproduction Study with the Mallard (Anas Platyrhynchos):  Supplement II:  Lab Project Number:  129-144.  Unpublished Study Prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd.  Submitted December 6, 1994.

	44038801

	Leppert, B.  Magnitude of Mancozeb Residues in Cotton From In-Furrow Treatment:  Final Report:  Lab Project Number:  SARS-93-20:  ML93-0431-RAH: RH.1993-01.  Unpublished Study Prepared by Stewart Agricultural Research Services, Inc. and Morse Laboratories, Inc.

	44064001

	Bennett, R.M. and Honeycutt, R.  EBDC Residues - Commercial Apple Preparation:  Lab Project Number:  94-403RA:  ETU-94-APP:  95-514.  Submitted July 22, 1996

	44958501

	Graves, D.D.  Determination of Transferable Turf Residues on Turf Treated with Mancozeb (Dithane F-45®); Report No. TR 3499-107.  October 25,1999.

	45802101

	Fisher, L.  Mancozeb In Vivo Dermal Absorption Study in the Male Rat.  Report No.  EFA/041.  Submitted April 30. 2002.

	45934701

	Rhodes, J.E.  Acute Toxicity of Dithane* M-45 to the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) Determined Under Flow - Through Test Conditions.  Source:  ABC Labs.  Company:  Dow AgroSciences.  Report No:  00RC-0114; ER 94-1 GLP, Unpublished, Submitted Year:  2000

	45934703

	Rhodes, J.E.  Acute Toxicity of Dithane* M-45 to the Water Flea, Daphnia Magna, Determined Under Flow-Through Conditions Source:  ABC Labs.  Company:  Dow AgroSciences.  Report No.  00RC-0116; ER 94.3 GLP, Unpublished.  Year Submitted:  2000

	46392701

	Purghart, V.  Validation of Analytical Method for the Determination of Dithane M-45 (as CS2) in Grass, Sand and Poecilus Cupreus by GC/MS.  Springborn Laboratory.  Report NO.  01RC-0238, 2002

	46392801

	Purghart, V.  Residual Analysis of Grass Samples and Poecilus Cupreus Treated with Dithane M-45.  Springborn Laboratories Study Number1007.075.252.  Report No.  01RC-0230, 2002


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22015-22017]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08556]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69331; File No. SR-BATS-2013-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; BATS Exchange, Inc.; Order
Approving, on an Accelerated Basis, Proposed Rule Change To Modify the
BATS Options Market Maker Obligation Rule

April 5, 2013.

I. Introduction

    On March 1, 2013, BATS Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``BATS'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ a
proposed rule change to modify the BATS Options Market (``BATS
Options'') Market Maker

obligation rule. The proposed rule change was published for comment in
the Federal Register on March 12, 2013.\4\ The Commission received no
comment letters on the proposal. This order approves the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 69038 (March 5,
2013), 78 FR 15773.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On May 6, 2010, the U.S. equity markets experienced a severe
disruption that, among other things, resulted in the prices of a large
number of individual securities suddenly declining by significant
amounts in a very short time period before suddenly reversing to prices
consistent with their pre-decline levels.\5\ This severe price
volatility led to a large number of trades being executed at
temporarily depressed prices, including many that were more than 60%
away from pre-decline prices. One response to the events of May 6,
2010, was the development of the single-stock circuit breaker pilot
program, which was implemented through a series of rule filings by the
equity exchanges and by FINRA.\6\ The single-stock circuit breaker was
designed to reduce extraordinary market volatility in NMS stocks by
imposing a five-minute trading pause when a trade was executed at a
price outside of a specified percentage threshold.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The events of May 6 are described more fully in a joint
report by the staffs of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
(``CFTC'') and the Commission. See Report of the Staffs of the CFTC
and SEC to the Joint Advisory Committee on Emerging Regulatory
Issues, ``Findings Regarding the Market Events of May 6, 2010,''
dated September 30, 2010, available at http://www.sec.gov/news/studies/2010/marketevents-report.pdf.
    \6\ For further discussion on the development of the single-
stock circuit breaker pilot program, see Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 67091 (May 31, 2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012)
(``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62884 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56618 (September 16, 2010) and Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 62883 (September 10, 2010), 75 FR 56608 (September
16, 2010) (SR-FINRA-2010-033) (describing the ``second stage'' of
the single-stock circuit breaker pilot) and Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 64735 (June 23, 2011), 76 FR 38243 (June 29, 2011)
(describing the ``third stage'' of the single-stock circuit breaker
pilot).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To replace the single-stock circuit breaker pilot program, the
equity exchanges filed a National Market System Plan \8\ pursuant to
Section 11A of the Act,\9\ and Rule 608 thereunder,\10\ which featured
a ``limit up-limit down'' mechanism (as amended, the ``Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ NYSE Euronext filed on behalf of New York Stock Exchange LLC
(``NYSE''), NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE Amex''), and NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''), and the parties to the proposed National Market
System Plan, BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago
Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE''), Chicago Stock
Exchange, Inc., EDGA Exchange, Inc., EDGX Exchange, Inc., Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc., NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc., NASDAQ OMX
PHLX LLC, the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC, and National Stock Exchange,
Inc. (collectively with NYSE, NYSE MKT, and NYSE Arca, the
``Participants''). On May 14, 2012, NYSE Amex filed a proposed rule
change on an immediately effective basis to change its name to NYSE
MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
67037 (May 21, 2012) (SR-NYSEAmex-2012-32).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1.
    \10\ 17 CFR 242.608.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Plan sets forth requirements that are designed to prevent
trades in individual NMS stocks from occurring outside of the specified
price bands. The price bands consist of a lower price band and an upper
price band for each NMS stock. When one side of the market for an
individual security is outside the applicable price band, i.e., the
National Best Bid is below the Lower Price Band, or the National Best
Offer is above the Upper Price band, the Processors \11\ are required
to disseminate such National Best Bid or National Best Offer \12\ with
a flag identifying that quote as non-executable. When the other side of
the market reaches the applicable price band, i.e., the National Best
Offer reaches the lower price band, or the National Best Bid reaches
the upper price band, the market for an individual security enters a
15-second Limit State, and the Processors are required disseminate such
National Best Offer or National Best Bid with an appropriate flag
identifying it as a Limit State Quotation. Trading in that stock would
exit the Limit State if, within 15 seconds of entering the Limit State,
all Limit State Quotations were executed or canceled in their entirety.
If the market does not exit a Limit State within 15 seconds, then the
Primary Listing Exchange will declare a five-minute trading pause,
which is applicable to all markets trading the security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As used in the Plan, the Processor refers to the single
plan processor responsible for the consolidation of information for
an NMS Stock pursuant to Rule 603(b) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
    \12\ ``National Best Bid'' and ``National Best Offer'' has the
meaning provided in Rule 600(b)(42) of Regulation NMS under the
Exchange Act. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Primary Listing Exchange may also declare a trading pause when
the stock is in a Straddle State, i.e., the National Best Bid (Offer)
is below (above) the Lower (Upper) Price Band and the NMS Stock is not
in a Limit State. In order to declare a trading pause in this scenario,
the Primary Listing Exchange must determine that trading in that stock
deviates from normal trading characteristics such that declaring a
trading pause would support the Plan's goal to address extraordinary
market volatility.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As set forth in more detail in the Plan, all trading
centers would be required to establish, maintain, and enforce
written policies and procedures reasonably designed to prevent the
display of offers below the Lower Price Band and bids above the
Upper Price Band for an NMS Stock. The Processors would be able to
disseminate an offer below the Lower Price Band or bid above the
Upper Price Band that nevertheless may be inadvertently submitted
despite such reasonable policies and procedures, but with an
appropriate flag identifying it as non-executable; such bid or offer
would not be included in National Best Bid or National Best Offer
calculations. In addition, all trading centers would be required to
develop, maintain, and enforce policies and procedures reasonably
designed to prevent trades at prices outside the price bands, with
the exception of single-priced opening, reopening, and closing
transactions on the Primary Listing Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 31, 2012, the Commission approved the Plan as a one-year
pilot, which shall be implemented in two phases.\14\ The first phase of
the Plan shall be implemented beginning April 8, 2013.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See ``Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra note 6. See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68953 (February 20, 2013), 78 FR
13113 (February 26, 2013) (Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS Y-Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board
Options Exchange, Inc., et al.) and Securities Exchange Act Release
No. 69062 (March 7, 2013), 78 FR 15757 (March 12, 2013) (Third
Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan by BATS Exchange, Inc., BATS
Y- Exchange, Inc., Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc., et al.)
    \15\ See ``Second Amendment to Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,'' supra
note 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Description of the Proposal

    In light of and in connection with the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan,
BATS is amending Rule 22.6(d) to suspend the obligation of Market
Makers registered with BATS Options to enter continuous bids and offers
during a halt, suspension, or pause in trading of the underlying
security.
    Currently, under Rule 22.6(d), BATS Options requires Market Makers
to enter continuous bids and offers for the options series to which it
is registered in at least 75% of the options series in which the Market
Maker is registered. The Exchange's proposal would suspend a Market
Maker's continuous quoting obligation for the duration that an
underlying NMS stock is in a Limit State or a Straddle State. The
Exchange's proposal would also suspend those obligations during a
trading halt, suspension, or pause (collectively, a ``Trading Halt'')
in the underlying security. Following a trading halt, the market
maker's quoting obligations would only resume following the first
regular-way transaction on the primary listing market in the underlying
security.

IV. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.\16\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\17\ which,
among other things, requires a national securities exchange to be so
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and to enforce compliance by its members and persons associated
with its members with the provisions of the Act, the rules and
regulations thereunder, and the rules of the exchange, and is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulation, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ In approving the proposed rule changes, the Commission has
considered their impact on efficiency, competition, and capital
formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds that the proposal to suspend a Market Maker's
obligations when the underlying security is in a limit up-limit down
state is consistent with the Act. When the underlying is in a Limit or
Straddle State or is subject to a Trading Halt,\18\ there may not be a
reliable price for the underlying security to serve as a benchmark for
market makers to price options. In addition, the absence of an
executable bid or offer for the underlying security will make it more
difficult for market makers to hedge the purchase or sale of an option.
Given these significant changes to the normal operating conditions of
market makers, the Commission finds that the Exchange's decision to
suspend a Market Maker's obligations in these limited circumstances is
consistent with the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The Commission notes that, pursuant to BATS Rule 20.5, BATS
will halt trading in the option when the trading in the underlying
is halted as a result of a circuit breaker. Therefore, the proposal
to suspend market maker quoting obligations when the underlying is
subject to a trading halt would apply to other, non-circuit breaker-
related instances when the underlying is no longer trading, but,
pursuant to Rule 20.3, BATS has elected to continue trading the
overlying option.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes, however, that the Plan was approved on a
pilot basis and its Participants will monitor how it is functioning in
the equity markets during the pilot period. To this end, the Commission
expects that, upon implementation of the Plan, the Exchange will
continue monitoring the quoting requirements that are being amended in
this proposed rule change and determine if any necessary adjustments
are required to ensure that they remain consistent with the Act.
    In addition, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act \19\ for approving the proposed rule change on an
accelerated basis. The proposal is in part related to the Plan, which
will become operative on April 8, 2013.\20\ Without accelerated
approval, the proposed rule change, and any attendant benefits, would
take effect after the Plan's implementation date. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that good cause exists for approving the proposed rule
change on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \20\ See supra note 15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\21\ that the proposed rule change (SR-BATS-2013-016) is approved on an
accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08556 Filed 4-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 51 (Monday, March 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15022-15028]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2020-0004-N-3]

Proposed Agency Information Collection Activities; Comment
Request

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of information collection; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its
implementing regulations, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding
the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR
describes the information collection and its expected burden. On
December 30, 2019, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for
public comment on the ICR.

DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
April 15, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the ICR to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget,
725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: FRA Desk Officer.
Comments may also be sent via email to OMB at the following address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Hodan Wells, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Railroad Safety, Regulatory
Analysis Division, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC

20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>); or Ms. Kim Toone, Information
Collection Clearance Officer, Office of Information Technology, Federal
Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590 (telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Comment Under the PRA

    The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5
CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to issue two notices seeking
public comment on information collection activities before OMB may
approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8
through 1320.12. On December 30, 2019, FRA published a 60-day notice in
the Federal Register soliciting public comment on the ICR for which it
is now seeking OMB approval. See 84 FR 72121.
    The 60-day comment period closed on February 28, 2020, and FRA
received three sets of comments. First, on December 30, 2019, via
email, J.P. Morgan's Equity Research Division (Airfreight & Surface
Transportation) inquired about whether FRA will make railroads'
Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177)
publicly available. The statutory mandate does not require FRA to
publicly release the Statutory Notifications of PTC System Failures
(Form FRA F 6180.177) that railroads submit under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4). However, if FRA decides in the future to publicly release
any failure-related information, FRA would be limited to a certain
extent by any requests for confidentiality that railroads may submit
pursuant to 49 CFR 209.11.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The statutory mandate specifically requires FRA to publicly
release railroads' Annual PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F
6180.166). See 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(3). FRA also voluntarily publishes
railroads' Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.165) on
FRA's website at https://railroads.dot.gov/train-control/ptc/ptc-annual-and-quarterly-reports. In addition, each quarter, FRA posts
detailed infographics depicting railroads' self-reported progress
toward fully implementing FRA-certified and interoperable PTC
systems at https://www.fra.dot.gov/ptc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, by email and letter dated February 28, 2020, on behalf of
itself and its member railroads, the Association of American Railroads
(AAR) submitted comments regarding FRA's proposed changes to the
Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and the Annual PTC
Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166), and FRA's new proposed form, the
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177),
implementing the temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4).
    Third, by two letters dated February 28, 2020, on behalf of itself
and its member organizations, the American Public Transportation
Association (APTA) submitted comments regarding FRA's new proposed
form, the Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F
6180.177).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ FRA acknowledges that APTA submitted two separate letters,
both dated February 28, 2020, to Docket No. FRA-2019-0004-N-20 on
www.regulations.gov. The letters are mostly identical in substance,
except one of the letters contains an additional section with four
questions at the end of the letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA notes that AAR's and APTA's written comments are generally
similar in substance to several Class I railroads' and passenger
railroads' verbal comments during FRA's most recent PTC collaboration
session on February 5, 2020. In the respective sections regarding each
form below, FRA summarizes and responds to AAR's and APTA's comments,
including identifying the modifications FRA is amenable to making to
each proposed form based on the industry's comments.
    Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of
information, it must provide 30-days' notice for public comment.
Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages
between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C.
3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.10(b), 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983
(Aug. 29, 1995). OMB believes the 30-day notice informs the regulated
community to file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate
time to digest public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR at
44983. Therefore, respondents should submit any additional comments to
OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full
effect.
    Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) Whether
the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly
execute its functions, including whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of
the information collection activities, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways
for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

II. Proposed Revisions to the Quarterly and Annual PTC Progress Report
Forms

    On September 24, 2018, OMB approved the Quarterly PTC Progress
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and the Annual PTC Progress Report (Form
FRA F 6180.166) for a period of 18 months, expiring on March 31, 2020.
The current Quarterly PTC Progress Report Form and Annual PTC Progress
Report Form, as approved through March 31, 2020, can be accessed and
downloaded in FRA's eLibrary at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L17365 and https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L17366,
respectively.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The current, OMB-approved versions of the forms considered
prior comments from AAR on behalf of itself and its member
railroads; APTA on behalf of the Northeast Illinois Commuter Rail
System (Metra), the Utah Transit Authority, the Tri-County
Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, and the Fort Worth
Transportation Authority; and industry stakeholders during FRA's
public meeting on April 19, 2016. FRA published minutes from the
public meeting on www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FRA 2016-
0002-N-17. For a summary of past oral and written comments and FRA's
responses to the comments, please see 81 FR 28140 (May 9, 2016); 81
FR 65702 (Sept. 23, 2016); and 83 FR 39152 (Aug. 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Railroads' submission of Quarterly PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F
6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Reports (Form FRA F 6180.166)--
consistent with the reporting requirements under the Positive Train
Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015 (PTCEI Act)--enables
FRA to effectively monitor railroads' progress toward fully
implementing FRA-certified and interoperable PTC systems on the
approximately 57,709 route miles subject to the statutory mandate.
Moreover, this reporting framework enables FRA to provide the public
and Congress with data-driven status updates regularly, which will be
especially important throughout 2020, as the statutory deadline for
most mandated railroads to fully implement PTC systems is December 31,
2020. Please see Section II of FRA's 60-day notice for additional
background about the mandatory Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA
F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166), under
49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1) and (2). 84 FR 72121-23 (Dec. 30, 2019).\4\ FRA
will request OMB's re-approval of both forms, with the three types of
changes described below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As stated on the cover page of the Quarterly PTC Progress
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165), ``A railroad must submit quarterly
reports until a PTC system is fully implemented on all required main
lines under 49 U.S.C. 20157 and 49 CFR part 236, subpart I,
including a quarterly report for the quarter in which the railroad
completes full PTC system implementation.'' See 49 U.S.C.
20157(c)(2).

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

A. Changes To Simplify Both Progress-Related Reporting Forms

    Per the industry's and OMB's previous recommendations, FRA has
considered ways in which it can phase out certain requirements of the
Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC
Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166), while railroads continue to
fully implement their PTC systems on the required main lines. Although
many of the specific reporting requirements are statutorily required
under 49 U.S.C. 20157(c)(1)(A)-(G), FRA is amenable to making certain
sections of both forms optional for most railroads, at this stage.
    In the 60-day Federal Register notice, FRA initially proposed to
make the following three sections of both the Quarterly PTC Progress
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and the Annual PTC Progress Report (Form
FRA F 6180.166) optional for most railroads: Section 2 (``Update on
Spectrum''); Section 3.1 (``Locomotive Status''), except the software-
related narrative section; and Section 3.3 (``Infrastructure/Wayside
Status''). 84 FR at 72123. In AAR's comments, dated February 28, 2020,
AAR requested that FRA also make the following additional sections
optional: Section 3.2 (``Infrastructure/Back Office Status''); Section
4 (``Installation/Track Segment Progress''); Section 5 (``Update on
Employee Training''); and multiple rows in Section 1 (``Summary'') to
the extent the information in those rows ``will not significantly
change.''
    Based on AAR's comments, in addition to the sections FRA initially
identified in the 60-day notice, FRA also agrees to make the following
sections optional for certain railroads, for the reasons set forth
below: Section 3.2 (``Infrastructure/Back Office Status''); Section 4
(``Installation/Track Segment Progress''); and Section 5 (``Update on
Employee Training''). In addition, FRA agrees to remove the row labeled
``Radio Towers Fully Installed and Equipped'' from Section 1
(``Summary'') of both progress-related reporting forms.
    However, contrary to AAR's comments, the high-level information
railroads provide in Section 1 (``Summary'') is not limited to
hardware-specific information, as that section also encompasses
railroads' progress with respect to programming PTC system software and
taking other steps necessary to ensure the PTC system is operable.
Also, AAR comments that it should be optional to provide spectrum-
specific information in Section 1 (``Summary''); however, there are no
fields related to spectrum in the summary section of either the
Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) or the Annual PTC
Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166).
    FRA believes that the revised Section 1 (``Summary'') \5\ is
necessary for FRA to understand railroads' high-level progress and
accurately convey railroads' status in FRA's quarterly updates on its
website and during FRA's regular briefings to the pertinent
Congressional committees. FRA believes that it has sufficiently
balanced the industry's request to phase out progress-related reporting
requirements, where possible, and FRA's need to closely monitor
railroads' progress toward fully implementing FRA-certified and
interoperable PTC systems on all required main lines, especially during
this period leading up to the statutory December 31, 2020, deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Removing only the row labeled, ``Radio Towers Fully
Installed and Equipped.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, based on the industry's comments and feedback, FRA now
proposes making the following sections of the Quarterly PTC Progress
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F
6180.166) optional for most railroads: Section 2 (``Update on
Spectrum''); Section 3.1 (``Locomotive Status''), except the software-
related narrative section; Section 3.2 (``Infrastructure/Back Office
Status''); Section 3.3 (``Infrastructure/Wayside Status''); and Section
5 (``Update on Employee Training''). Specifically, FRA proposes that
those sections would be optional for any railroad that previously
demonstrated to FRA it had finished acquiring all necessary spectrum,
installing all PTC system hardware for the implementation of its PTC
system, and/or training the employees required to receive PTC training
under 49 CFR 236.1041 through 236.1049, consistent with the governing
FRA-approved PTCIP. This would encompass nearly all railroads subject
to the statutory mandate that are still in the process of fully
implementing their PTC systems--including the railroads currently field
testing their PTC systems, conducting revenue service demonstration
(RSD) or extending RSD to additional main lines, and conducting
interoperability testing with their PTC-required tenant railroads--
given that railroads generally needed to finish acquiring spectrum,
installing all PTC system hardware, and training necessary employees by
December 31, 2018, to qualify for and obtain FRA's approval of an
alternative schedule and sequence by law. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B).
    The only railroads for which the above sections--Sections 2, 3.1,
3.2, 3.3, and 5--would remain mandatory are those railroads that are
still in the spectrum acquisition, hardware installation, or employee
training phases, which is the case for certain railroads that, for
example: (A) Commenced regularly scheduled intercity passenger or
commuter rail service after December 31, 2018, and therefore did not
need to qualify for or obtain FRA's approval of an alternative
schedule; (B) are in the process of constructing new main lines subject
to the statutory mandate; or (C) have one or more lines that are
subject to a temporary main line track exception and must still
implement a PTC system. In those three cases, FRA would still need to
obtain updates regarding such railroads' progress toward acquiring all
necessary spectrum, installing all necessary PTC system hardware, and
training its applicable employees as required under 49 CFR 236.1041 to
236.1049.
    In addition, based on AAR's comments, FRA also now proposes to make
Section 4 (``Installation/Track Segment Progress'') optional but only
for a railroad that reports in Section 1 (``Summary'') of the
applicable Quarterly PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) or
Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F 6180.166) that its PTC system is
governing operations, including RSD, on all PTC-mandated route miles as
of that reporting period. Section 4 (``Installation/Track Segment
Progress'') remains mandatory for all other railroads subject to the
statutory mandate.

B. Improvement to the Drop-Down Menu in Sections 4 and 6 of Both
Progress-related Reporting Forms

    In Section 4 (entitled ``Installation/Track Segment Progress'') of
both the quarterly form and the annual form, FRA proposes adding a new
option to the drop-down menus. Currently, the options include only:
``Not Started,'' ``Installing,'' ``Field Testing,'' ``Revenue Service
Demonstration,'' and ``Operational/Complete.'' Given that some
railroads are beyond the installation phase, but not yet at the field
testing phase on multiple track segments, FRA proposes to add a new
option to the drop-down menu, specifically labeled, ``Pre-field
Testing.'' That way, such railroads will not need to select
``Installing'' or ``Field Testing,'' neither of which would accurately
represent the actual status of a railroad's specific track segment.
This minor revision to the forms will help ensure clearer and more
accurate reporting, without imposing an additional

reporting burden. For consistency with Section 4, FRA also proposes to
update the corresponding drop-down menu in Section 6 (entitled ``Update
on Interoperability Progress'') of both forms to include the same
options: ``Not Started,'' ``Installing,'' ``Pre-field Testing,''
``Field Testing,'' ``Revenue Service Demonstration,'' \6\ and
``Operational/Complete.'' FRA received no comments on this proposed
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Previously, the relevant part of the drop-down menu allowed
a host railroad to indicate only that a tenant railroad was
generally conducting ``testing,'' without specifying the stage of
testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Clarification in Section 6 of Both Progress-Related Reporting Forms

    In Section 6 (entitled ``Update on Interoperability Progress'') of
both the quarterly form and the annual form, FRA proposes revising the
heading of the last column in the table to state, ``Current Tenant
Interoperability Status,'' instead of ``Current Tenant Implementation
Status,'' to help ensure proper interpretation. For example, at least
one commuter railroad has improperly listed the status of a Class I
tenant railroad's progress toward fully implementing a PTC system on
the Class I railroad's own main lines (so as a host railroad), instead
of the Class I railroad's status specifically as a tenant railroad on
that commuter railroad's required main lines. FRA expects that this
minor revision might make this heading clearer. FRA received no
comments on this proposed change.

III. Proposal for a New Mandatory Form--Statutory Notification of PTC
System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177)

    Please see FRA's 60-day Federal Register notice about the default
reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) requiring railroads
to notify FRA any time a railroad operating an FRA-certified PTC system
``fails to initialize, cuts out, or malfunctions,'' and FRA's authority
to establish an alternative reporting deadline (instead of within 7
days of each occurrence) and an alternative reporting location (instead
of submitting the notifications to the appropriate FRA region).\7\ See
49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4); 49 CFR 1.89; see also 84 FR 72121, 72123-26
(Dec. 30, 2019). On February 28, 2020, AAR submitted written comments
stating, ``AAR appreciates and supports FRA's proposal to modify, as
permitted under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), the frequency and location of
reporting in order to simplify and ease the burdens of carriers during
the applicable Early Adopter period.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ By law, this temporary reporting requirement under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4) sunsets on approximately December 31, 2021--or more
specifically, one year after the last Class I railroad obtains PTC
System Certification from FRA and finishes fully implementing an
FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all its required main
lines. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FRA did not receive any comments requesting changes to its proposed
two-tiered or bifurcated reporting frequency for this temporary
reporting requirement, where the reporting frequency depends on whether
or not the host railroad has fully implemented an FRA-certified and
interoperable PTC system on all its required route miles.\8\ For
detailed information regarding the applicable reporting frequency and
deadlines, please see Section IV of FRA's 60-day notice. 84 FR at
72124-26. AAR's comments, dated February 28, 2020, also generally
express support for the fact that FRA's web-based form for the
Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177)
will enable railroads to upload bulk data using a comma-separated
values (CSV) file (e.g., FRA's template Excel spreadsheet saved as a
CSV file). AAR states that it ``supports this flexibility, which would
reduce the railroads' reporting burden by avoiding the necessity of
having to copy the data from a spreadsheet onto FRA's form.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ One of AAR's comments, however, asserts that 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4) ``only addresses reporting by carriers operating a fully
certified and implemented PTC system.'' That interpretation is not
supported by the plain language of the statute. See 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4); see also 84 FR 72121, 72124 (Dec. 30, 2019). Consistent
with the statutory canons of construction, FRA interprets the word
``implemented'' consistently throughout the provisions in the
statutory mandate, including 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi) and 49
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). For example, acknowledging the incremental
nature of implementation, the PTCEI Act required Class I railroads
and Amtrak to demonstrate they ``implemented a [PTC] system or
initiated revenue service demonstration on the majority of [its PTC-
mandated] territories'' by December 31, 2018, to qualify for an
alternative schedule and sequence with a final deadline not later
than December 31, 2020. 49 U.S.C. 20157(a)(3)(B)(vi) (emphasis
added).
    \9\ With respect to the reporting burden of Form FRA F 6180.177,
AAR comments, ``Eventually it might take only one hour, but
undoubtedly it will take a railroad more than one hour to develop a
reporting system.'' However, FRA notes that the default statutory
reporting requirement has generally been in effect since October 29,
2015. In addition, many Class I railroads and passenger railroads
have demonstrated they already have a reporting system in place and
are actively tracking PTC system initialization failures, cut outs,
and malfunctions to understand the reliability and performance of
their PTC systems and/or generally ensure compliance with 49 CFR
part 236, subpart I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), FRA's proposed Statutory
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) would require
the host railroad to identify the number of times each type of PTC
system failure identified in the statutory mandate occurred during the
reporting period: Any failure to initialize, any cut out, and any
malfunction, as defined below. During FRA's industry meetings to date,
railroads have requested clarification regarding the meaning and scope
of these statutory terms.
    Given that the statutory mandate requires railroads to notify FRA
any time an FRA-certified PTC system ``fails to initialize, cuts out,
or malfunctions,'' FRA interprets these terms reasonably broadly and in
accordance with their plain language meaning, to encompass the
following, for purposes of this temporary reporting requirement:
     Failure to Initialize: Any instance when a PTC system
fails to activate on a locomotive or train, unless the PTC system
successfully activates during a subsequent attempt in the same location
or before entering PTC territory. For the types of PTC systems that do
not ``initialize'' by design, a failed departure test is considered a
``failure to initialize'' for purposes of this reporting requirement,
unless the PTC system successfully passes the departure test during a
subsequent attempt in the same location or before entering PTC
territory.
     Cut Out: Any cut out of a PTC system, subsystem, or
component en route, including when the PTC system cuts out on its own
or a person cuts out the system, unless the cut out was necessary to
exit PTC-governed territory and enter non-PTC territory.
     Malfunction: Any instance when a PTC system, subsystem, or
component fails to perform the functions mandated under 49 U.S.C.
20157(i)(5), 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, or the applicable host
railroad's PTC Safety Plan.
    FRA revised its proposed definitions to incorporate AAR's and
APTA's feedback in their respective letters, dated February 28, 2020,
about the definitions FRA initially proposed in the 60-day notice. See
84 FR 72121, 72125 (Dec. 30, 2019). AAR generally stated that certain
definitions were ambiguous, so FRA refined its proposed definitions to
be more precise yet still sufficiently broad to apply to all types of
PTC systems and align with the plain language and scope identified in
49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4).
    For example, consistent with AAR's and APTA's comments, FRA
eliminated the reference to ``initial terminal'' from its proposed
definition of ``failure to initialize,'' given AAR's comment that
``there is only one initial terminal but there could be multiple crew
changes and multiple initialization opportunities,'' and APTA's comment
that ``an initial terminal may be different for freight, intercity or
commuter operations.'' See 84 FR at 72125. Also, FRA's proposed
definition

of ``failure to initialize'' set forth above is consistent with AAR's
understanding that ``a number of unsuccessful attempts to initialize a
particular train by the crew would constitute one initialization
failure.''
    In addition, AAR's comments acknowledged that unlike the
Interoperable Electronic Train Management System, certain PTC systems,
including the Advanced Civil Speed Enforcement System II and
Incremental Train Control System, do not actually initialize, so FRA
provided examples of how this statutory term may apply to other types
of PTC systems in its revised definition, as listed above.
    In APTA's letter, dated February 28, 2020, APTA requests that the
scope of the term ``cut out'' should include only instances when the
onboard PTC apparatus is manually disabled. FRA disagrees and notes
that the relevant statutory provision, 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), is not
limited only to the onboard PTC subsystem or manual cut outs. FRA
acknowledges that APTA's use of the word ``disabling'' in its comments
is generally consistent with FRA's use of the phrase ``cut out,'' but
FRA proposes to use the phrase ``cut out'' as it is a term of art.
    Also, in its February 28, 2020, letter, AAR ``urges FRA to delete
the phrase `could prevent' '' from the definition of ``malfunction''
that FRA previously proposed in its 60-day notice, as AAR argues that
such a phrase could cause confusion. See 84 FR at 72125. Similarly,
APTA's February 28, 2020, comments request that FRA delete the phrase
``or could prevent,'' on the basis that it could be considered
subjective. Accordingly, FRA has eliminated that phrase and proposes
the definition set forth above (i.e., any instance when a PTC system,
subsystem, or component fails to perform the functions mandated under
49 U.S.C. 20157(i)(5), 49 CFR part 236, subpart I, or the applicable
host railroad's PTC Safety Plan (PTCSP)), which FRA believes is clearer
and consistent with the statutory provision. Also, for clarity and
precision, FRA expanded its proposed definition of ``malfunction'' to
refer to the applicable host railroad's PTCSP, in addition to 49 U.S.C.
20157(i)(5) and 49 CFR part 236, subpart I. That approach is also
consistent with APTA's observation, in its comments, that a PTC system
must perform in accordance with the governing PTC Development Plan
(PTCDP) and PTCSP.\10\ As railroads are aware, FRA's regulations
generally require a PTC system to be ``fully operative and functioning
in accordance with the applicable PTCSP,'' except in limited
circumstances. See, e.g., 49 CFR 236.1006(a)-(b), 236.1009(d)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FRA, however, disagrees with APTA's comments that suggest
``an unintended enforcement'' or ``an unintended speed enforcement''
are not malfunctions, if the ``event is consistent with the
railroad's PTCDP.'' Class I railroads have explained that an
unintended braking event could lead to a derailment or another
unsafe situation, and such unintended enforcement by the PTC system
would indicate that the PTC system malfunctioned in some way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, in FRA's 60-day notice, FRA requested comments about
its proposal to require host railroads to identify and categorize the
number of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and
malfunctions by state and subdivision.\11\ See 84 FR at 72125. AAR's
comments, dated February 28, 2020, argue that ``[p]roviding data by
state or region would be unduly burdensome and is not necessary to
achieve FRA's objective. Railroads do not keep data by state or region.
. . . Railroads should report failures by subdivision alone, consistent
with other reporting requirements.'' Based on AAR's request and
justification, FRA modified its proposed web-based form (Form FRA F
6180.177) to require host railroads to identify the number of PTC
system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions by
subdivision \12\ only (and not by state), which FRA believes will still
enable FRA to closely monitor trends in PTC system reliability
throughout the country and focus its resources, for example, on any
areas where such failures are occurring at a high rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ FRA's 60-day notice acknowledged that absent a breakdown by
state and/or subdivision, FRA would require host railroads to
identify the number of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs,
and malfunctions per FRA region, at a minimum. FRA explained that
such an approach would retain the same minimum level of geographical
information about where such PTC system failures are occurring, as
explicitly required under the default reporting requirement under 49
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4).
    \12\ Or any other categorization a host railroad uses in its
timetables, including district, territory, main line, branch, or
corridor. FRA recognizes that this specific type of information
(i.e., a breakdown by subdivision) is not required under 49 U.S.C.
20157(j)(4), and FRA would be collecting such information under its
general authority under 49 CFR 236.1009(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also, based on railroads' input at industry meetings, FRA proposed
in its 60-day notice that a Statutory Notification of PTC System
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) would additionally require a host
railroad to list a percentage or rate, demonstrating how the
occurrences of PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and
malfunctions compare to all operations on that host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines.\13\ See 84 FR at 72125. Several railroads
previously commented that, without such a percentage or context, the
frequency of these failures might otherwise seem high, and a percentage
would help convey the actual rate of such failures. In its February 28,
2020, comments, AAR specifically suggests that to ``keep the report of
PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions in
perspective, particularly if comparing individual railroads, it would
be useful to normalize results between railroads.'' Similarly, in
APTA's letter dated February 28, 2020, APTA requests that FRA identify
the applicable denominator(s) to utilize when calculating the rate of
PTC system initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ FRA recognizes that this specific type of information is
not required under 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4), and FRA would be
collecting such information under its general authority under 49 CFR
236.1009(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    APTA recommends that the quotient of mean-time/distance-between-
failure would be an appropriate measure, if the intent of the
percentage field is to monitor a PTC system's reliability. While FRA
agrees that this specific data point is valuable, FRA believes that
more tailored denominators would be useful for purposes of the three
types of PTC system failures referenced in 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)--i.e.,
failures to initialize, cut outs, and malfunctions. However, railroads
can also provide any additional data or metrics, including the quotient
of mean-time/distance-between-failure, in the narrative section of the
web-based form.
    AAR's comments recommend two distinct denominators for the three
types of PTC system failures identified in 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4). FRA
agrees with AAR that the appropriate denominator with respect to
initialization failures would be ``the number of scheduled attempts at
initialization.'' In the proposed Statutory Notification of PTC System
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), FRA now provides a field for host
railroads to provide the total number of scheduled attempts at PTC
system initialization during the applicable reporting period. As AAR
recommends, FRA will calculate the percentage or rate by dividing the
host railroad's number of failures to initialize, as defined above, by
the total number of scheduled attempts at PTC system initialization
during the reporting period.
    With respect to PTC system cut outs and malfunctions, AAR
recommends that the appropriate denominator would be ``the number of
train miles operated with PTC active'' and, for arithmetic

purposes, suggests expressing the number in thousands of train miles.
In its comments, AAR also notes that ``AAR's members would be amenable
to including in the report data on PTC train miles.'' FRA will include
a field in the web-based form for host railroads to provide that raw
denominator (i.e., the total number of PTC-required train miles), and
FRA will calculate the rate of cut outs and malfunctions, utilizing
that raw denominator. FRA believes that providing fields for railroads
to enter such raw denominators, instead of percentages or rates, will
help ensure FRA accurately interprets railroads' data, especially when
comparing multiple railroads' data or a single railroad's data to its
own prior notifications of PTC system initialization failures, cut
outs, and malfunctions.
    In addition, at industry meetings to date, multiple railroads
expressed that FRA should not require tenant railroads to submit this
failure-related information directly to FRA, but via their host
railroads. Accordingly, FRA's 60-day notice proposed that only host
railroads subject to the statutory mandate (currently 36 host
railroads) would submit the Statutory Notification of PTC System
Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), and these notifications would encompass
both a host railroad's and its tenant railroad(s)' PTC system
initialization failures, cut outs, and malfunctions. See 84 FR at
72125-26.
    In AAR's comments, dated February 28, 2020, AAR generally expressed
opposition to providing ``tenant data'' and noted that this requirement
may be ``burdensome, likely requiring host railroads to devote
significant employee time to getting that information from their
tenants.'' Specifically, AAR commented, ``If FRA is going to require
hosts to report tenant data, the agency must impose a clear and direct
requirement on tenants to report the desired information to their host
railroad.'' In its comments, APTA also acknowledges that a host
railroad would need to obtain ``all necessary logs'' from its tenant
railroads to accurately complete the Statutory Notification of PTC
System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177). FRA notes that an existing
regulatory provision, 49 CFR 236.1029(b)(4), would already require a
tenant railroad to report a PTC system failure or cut out to ``a
designated railroad officer of the host railroad as soon as safe and
practicable.'' Also, FRA is aware that several host railroads,
including Class I railroads and passenger railroads, already regularly
monitor and track tenant railroads' PTC system initialization failures,
cut outs, and malfunctions via automatically generated reports and/or
via connected PTC system back offices.
    Furthermore, AAR specifically ``urges FRA to exclude tenant
information when reporting percentages,'' as obtaining ``tenant
information on the number of miles operated with PTC active would
likely be a particularly burdensome and frustrating exercise for host
railroads. Finally, any reporting of tenant data by host railroads
should be on a subdivision basis.'' Based on AAR's feedback, FRA
proposes to eliminate the percentage column from the section of the
proposed Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F
6180.177) regarding tenant railroads' PTC system initialization
failures, cut outs, and malfunctions. Acknowledging AAR's specific
concern and APTA's general comments, FRA will instead provide a field
for a host railroad to identify the total number of trains that each
PTC-required tenant railroad operated on the host railroad's PTC-
governed main lines during the reporting period, instead of requiring a
host railroad to provide a tenant railroad's PTC train miles. Several
host railroads have previously acknowledged that they can readily
access and compile such high-level data, including the number of train
movements during the applicable reporting period, for each PTC-required
tenant railroad.
    In APTA's letter, dated February 28, 2020, APTA also inquired about
whether the web-based Statutory Notification of PTC System Failures
(Form FRA F 6180.177) will be ``used for reporting post certification
(Annual and Critical anomalies).'' The reporting requirement under 49
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4)--as implemented by FRA's proposed Statutory
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177)--applies only
to FRA-certified PTC systems and is effective only until approximately
December 31, 2021.\14\ Furthermore, while FRA is open to considering
developing a web-based form for purposes of 49 CFR 236.1029(h), Annual
report of system failures, that permanent regulatory reporting
requirement is separate and distinct from FRA's proposed Statutory
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177), which is
intended to implement only the temporary reporting requirement under 49
U.S.C. 20157(j)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As noted above, the temporary reporting requirement under
49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) sunsets on approximately December 31, 2021--or
more specifically, one year after the last Class I railroad obtains
PTC System Certification from FRA and finishes fully implementing an
FRA-certified and interoperable PTC system on all its required main
lines. See 49 U.S.C. 20157(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, 49 U.S.C. 20157(j)(4) explicitly requires a railroad to
provide in the notification ``a description of the safety measures the
affected railroad . . . has in place,'' so the web-based Statutory
Notification of PTC System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177) contains a
field for a host railroad to enter such information. FRA received no
comments on this aspect of the proposed form.

IV. Overview of Information Collection

    FRA will submit this ICR to OMB for regular clearance as required
by the PRA.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved information
collection.
    Title: Positive Train Control and Other Signal Systems (including
the Quarterly Positive Train Control Progress Report, the Annual
Positive Train Control Progress Report, and the Statutory Notification
of Positive Train Control System Failures).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ FRA makes a technical correction to the title of OMB
Control Number 2130-0553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Control Number: 2130-0553.
    Form(s): FRA F 6180.165, FRA F 6180.166, and FRA F 6180.177.
    Affected Public: Businesses.
    Frequency of Submission: On occasion (depending on the specific
reporting requirement).
    Respondent Universe: 35 railroads \16\ (including 32 host railroads
and 3 tenant-only commuter railroads) for the Quarterly PTC Progress
Report (Form FRA F 6180.165) and Annual PTC Progress Report (Form FRA F
6180.166); 36 host railroads for the Statutory Notification of PTC
System Failures (Form FRA F 6180.177); and varies for other information
collections under OMB Control No. 2130-0553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Currently, 42 railroads are directly subject to the
statutory mandate to implement a PTC system. However, only 35
railroads are currently subject to these progress-related reporting
requirements, given that by law, such reporting requirements no
longer apply to the 4 host railroads that fully implemented PTC
systems as of December 31, 2018, and 3 other tenant-only commuter
railroads that fully implemented their PTC systems to date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Total Estimated Annual Responses: 4,568,393.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden: 68,373 hours.
    Total Estimated Annual Burden Hour Dollar Cost Equivalent:
$5,533,356.
    Under 44 U.S.C. 3507(a) and 5 CFR 1320.5(b) and 1320.8(b)(3)(vi),
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor,
and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

(Authority: 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520; 49 U.S.C. 20157)

Brett A. Jortland,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2020-05289 Filed 3-13-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-06-P