30-day Comment Federal Register Notice

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Notices
Dated: May 10, 2013.
John F. Kerry,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2013–12613 Filed 5–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
Public Notice for a Change in Use of
Aeronautical Property and Long-Term
Lease Approval at Harrisburg
International Airport (MDT),
Middletown, PA
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for public Comment.

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

AGENCY:

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation
Administration is requesting public
comment on the Susquehanna Area
Regional Airport Authority’s request to
change 22 acres of airport property from
aeronautical use to non-aeronautical
use. The request also solicits approval
for entering into a long-term lease for
2.893 acres within this area for a retail
convenience store.
The parcel is located at Harrisburg
International Airport (MDT) in Lower
Swatara Township, Dauphin County,
PA. The property is currently depicted
on the Airport Layout Plan of record as
airport property and consists of
unimproved, undeveloped vacant land,
which is partially paved and fenced.
The land lies at the Northeast
intersection of W. Harrisburg Pike (US
Route 230) and Meade Avenue in
Middletown, PA. The Parcel is further
identified as Dauphin County
identification parcels 36–023–008 and
009. The airport is proposing redesignating this 22-acre area as available
for non-aeronautical use. The requested
change is for the anticipated purpose of
permitting the Airport Owner to enter
into long-term lease agreements for
commercial property development as a
retail commercial center, consistent
with the findings of The Highest and
Best Use Study completed in 2011. A
2.893 acres sub parcel located within
the subject area is ready to be
developed. No land shall be sold as part
of this land release request. This action
will allow the re-designation of the 22acre area, known as the ‘‘North 29’’, as
land available for non-aeronautical use
on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP). In
addition, approval is sought by the
Airport Authority to enter into a longterm lease agreement with a retail
convenience store to be located on a
2.893 acre sub-parcel located within the
22-acre plot. The documents reflecting

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:46 May 24, 2013

Jkt 229001

the Sponsor’s request are available, by
appointment only, for inspection at the
Harrisburg International Airport,
Executive Director’s Office and the FAA
Harrisburg Airport District Office in
Camp Hill, PA.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before June 27, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Documents are available for
review at the Susquehanna Area
Regional Airport Authority Office
located at Harrisburg International
Airport: Timothy Edwards, Executive
Director, Harrisburg International
Airport, Susquehanna Area Regional
Airport Authority, One Terminal Drive,
Suite 300, Middletown, PA 17057, 717–
948–3900, and at the FAA Harrisburg
Airports District Office: Oscar D.
Sanchez, Program Manager, Harrisburg
Airports District Office, 3905 Hartzdale
Dr., Suite 508, Camp Hill, PA 17011,
(717) 730–2834.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Oscar D. Sanchez, Program Manager,
Harrisburg Airports District Office
(location listed above).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA
invites public comment on the request
to re-designate current aeronautical
property at the Harrisburg International
Airport as available for non-aeronautical
use under the provisions of Section
47125(a) of Title 49 U.S.C.
The following is a brief overview of
the request: The Susquehanna Area
Regional Airport Authority (SARAA),
that owns and operates Harrisburg
International Airport (MDT), has
requested the redesignation of a 22-acre
parcel located on airport property, as
available for non-aeronautical
development. The 22-acre parcel is
located in proximity to the Northeast
intersection of W. Harrisburg Pike (US
Route 230) and Meade Avenue in
Middletown, PA. The Parcel is further
identified as Dauphin County
identification parcels 36–023–008 and
009. The request also solicits approval
for entering into a long-term lease for
2.893 acres of this area for a retail
convenience store. The Airport
Authority has determined that it is in its
best interest to encourage development
under long-term leases of currently
unused, vacant land assets as a means
to diversify airport revenues. Due to the
location of the property, the area known
as the ‘‘North 29’’ serves no foreseeable
aeronautical purpose and is available for
non-aeronautical development. This
land was conveyed to SARAA by the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
through its Department of
Transportation by a deed dated 01/02/
1998 and recorded in Dauphin County,
Pennsylvania book 3008, page 425.

PO 00000

Frm 00118

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

32001

There are no known adverse impacts to
the operation of the airport and the 22acre parcel of land is not needed for
future aeronautical development as
shown on the Harrisburg International
Airport approved Airport Layout Plan
(ALP). There is to be no sale or transfer
of property rights in connection with
this Airport Layout Plan change. Any
proceeds from the lease of the pending
long-term commercial retail lease
agreement or other future nonaeronautical development are to remain
on the airport for capital development
and to cover the operating costs of the
Airport.
Any person may inspect the request
by appointment at the FAA office
address listed above.
Interested persons are invited to
comment on the proposed change in use
of the property. All comments will be
considered by the FAA to the extent
practicable.
Issued in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, May
17, 2013.
Lori K. Pagnanelli,
Manager, Harrisburg Airports District Office.
[FR Doc. 2013–12617 Filed 5–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration
[Docket No. FMCSA–2012–0309]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Approval of a New
Information Collection Request: Driver
and Carrier Surveys Related to
Electronic Onboard Recorders
(EOBRs), and Potential Harassment
Deriving From EOBR Use
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA), USDOT.
ACTION: Notice and request for
comments.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
FMCSA announces its plan to submit
the Information Collection Request (ICR)
described below to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval. The purpose of
this new ICR is to broadly examine, by
the collection of survey data, the issue
of driver harassment and determine the
extent to which Electronic Onboard
Recorders (EOBRs) used to document
drivers’ hours of service (HOS) could be
used by motor carriers or enforcement
personnel to harass drivers or monitor
driver productivity. The survey will
collect information on the extent to
which respondents believe that the use

E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM

28MYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

32002

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Notices

of EOBRs may result in coercion of
drivers by motor carriers, shippers,
receivers, and transportation
intermediaries. The proposed surveys
for drivers and carriers collect
information related to issues of EOBR
harassment of drivers by carriers.
FMCSA plans to publish a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking on
EOBRs. Prior to the issuance of a final
rule, FMCSA will consider the survey
results.
DATES: Please send your comments by
June 27, 2013. OMB must receive your
comments by this date in order to act on
the ICR.
ADDRESSES: All comments should
reference Federal Docket Management
System (FDMS) Docket Number
FMCSA–2012–0309. Interested persons
are invited to submit written comments
on the proposed information collection
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget. Comments
should be addressed to the attention of
the Desk Officer, Department of
Transportation/Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, and sent via
electronic mail to
oira_submission@omb.eop.gov, faxed to
(202) 395–6974, or mailed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget,
Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th
Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Albert Alvarez, Research Division,
Office of Analysis, Research and
Technology, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone: (202 385–2387); email
albert.alvarez@dot.gov. Requests for
additional information or copies of the
information collection instrument and
instructions should be directed to Gene
Bergoffen, Principal, MaineWay
Services, PO Box 166, Fryeburg, ME
04037. Telephone: 207 935–7948; email
bergoffen@roadrunner.com.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Driver and Carrier Surveys
Related to Electronic Onboard Recorders
(EOBRs), and Potential Harassment
Deriving from EOBR Use.
OMB Control Number: 2126–XXXX.
Type of Request: New ICR.
Respondents: Commercial motor
vehicle (CMV) drivers and carriers.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
1,039 [(2 carrier in-depth interviews +
20 carrier pre-test Web interviews + 400
carrier main survey Web interviews +
100 carrier non-response telephone
followup interviews) + [7 driver indepth interviews + 510 driver intercept
interviews) = 1,039].

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:46 May 24, 2013

Jkt 229001

Estimated Time per Response: The
estimated average time per responses
are as follows: 30 minutes for Form
5877, ‘‘In-Depth Interview With
Carriers,’’ Form 5878, ‘‘In-Depth
Interview With Carriers Recruitment
Questionnaire,’’ and Form MCSA–5881,
‘‘In-Depth Interview With Drivers
Recruitment Questionnaire;’’ 20 minutes
for Form 5879, ‘‘Web Survey With
Carriers,’’ Form MCSA–5880, ‘‘In Depth
Interview With Drivers Main
Questionnaire,’’ and Form MCSA–5881,
‘‘In Depth Interview With Drivers
Recruitment Questionnaire;’’ and 10
minutes for Form MCSA–5885,
‘‘Intercept Survey With Carriers.’’
Expiration Date: N/A.
Frequency of Response: Once.
Estimated Total Annual Burden:
110.5 hours [(2 carrier in-depth
interviews × 30 minutes/60 minutes) +
(20 carrier pre-test Web interviews × 20
minutes/60 minutes) + (400 carrier main
survey Web interviews × 20 minutes/60
minutes) + (100 carrier non-response
telephone followup interviews × 10
minutes/60 minutes) + (7 driver indepth interviews × 30 minutes/60
minutes) + (510 driver intercept
interviews × 20 minutes/60 minutes)/3
year approval = 110.5].
Background
Motor carrier management and
oversight of drivers’ HOS is one of
FMCSA’s fundamental concerns. Motor
carriers began to look to automated
methods of recording drivers’ record of
duty status (RODS) in the mid-1980s as
a way to save drivers’ time and improve
the efficiency of their compliance
assurance procedures. In April 1985, the
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), the predecessor agency to
FMCSA within the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT), granted the
first of 10 waivers to allow use of
onboard computers in lieu of requiring
drivers to complete handwritten RODS.
After conducting notice-and-comment
on the rulemaking regarding automated
methods of recording RODS, the Agency
issued a final rule on September 30,
1988. The rule revised part 395 of the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) by allowing
motor carriers the flexibility to equip
CMVs with an automatic onboard
recording device (AOBRD) in lieu of
requiring drivers to complete
handwritten RODS. The term
‘‘automatic onboard recording device’’
was defined under § 395.2 as follows:
an electric, electronic, electromechanical, or
mechanical device capable of recording
driver’s duty status information accurately
and automatically as required by § 395.15.
The device must be integrally synchronized

PO 00000

Frm 00119

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

with specific operations of the commercial
motor vehicle in which it is installed. At a
minimum, the device must record engine
use, road speed, miles driven, the date, and
time of day.

On April 5, 2010, FMCSA published
a final rule to incorporate new
performance standards for electronic
onboard recorders (EOBRs) installed in
CMVs manufactured on or after June 4,
2012 (75 FR 17208). The new rule
required installation of EOBRs meeting
the new performance standards in
CMVs operated by motor carriers found
by the Agency to have serious HOS
noncompliance. EOBRs would have
been required to record the CMVs
location automatically at each change of
duty status and at intervals while the
CMV is in motion. Currently, onboard
recorders are not required to do this. To
ensure a smooth transition from
AOBRDs to EOBRs, the final rule would
have required that for CMVs
manufactured on or after June 4, 2012,
devices installed by a manufacturer or
motor carrier would need to have met
the requirements of § 395.16. CMVs
manufactured prior to June 4, 2012,
could be equipped with an HOS
recording device that met the
requirements of either § 395.15
(AOBRD) or § 395.16.
The 2010 EOBR rule was challenged
in court based in part on concerns that
EOBRs could be used to harass drivers.
Owner-Operators Independent Drivers
Association v. U.S. Department of
Transportation, 656 F.3d 580 (7th Cir.
2011). At the time, a new rulemaking by
FMCSA had been started that proposed
to require certain motor carriers
operating CMVs in interstate commerce
to use EOBRs to document their drivers’
HOS (76 FR 5537, February 1, 2011).
Based on issues raised in the litigation
on the April 2010 final rule, FMCSA
published a notice requesting public
comment on the harassment issue on
April 13, 2011 (76 FR 20611). The
Agency sought and received comments
on the following items:
• Experiences drivers have had
regarding harassment, including
coercion by carriers to evade the HOS
regulations;
• Whether such carrier activity would
be permitted as productivity monitoring
or would be barred by other statutory or
regulatory provisions;
• Whether use of EOBRs would
impact the ability of carriers, shippers,
and other parties to harass or coerce
drivers to violate HOS requirements;
• The effectiveness of mechanisms
currently available under 49 CFR 392.3,
49 CFR part 395 and 49 U.S.C. 31105(a)
to protect against carrier coercion; and

E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM

28MYN1

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Notices
• Whether additional regulations or
guidance from FMCSA are necessary to
ensure that EOBR devices are not used
to harass vehicle operators.
On August 26, 2011, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated
the Agency’s April 2010 final rule on
the use of EOBRs. The court stated that
contrary to statutory requirements, the
Agency failed to address the issue of
driver harassment, including how
EOBRs could potentially be used to
harass drivers and ways to ensure that
EOBRs were not used to harass drivers.
The basis for the court’s decision was
FMCSA’s failure to directly address a
requirement in 49 U.S.C. 31137(a).
As a result of the court’s ruling,
carriers relying on electronic devices to
monitor HOS compliance are currently
governed by the rules that address the
use of AOBRDs as in effect immediately
before the court’s ruling (49 CFR
395.15). On May 14, 2012, FMCSA
rescinded the April 5, 2010, final rule,
as amended September 13, 2010, in
response to the court’s decision to
vacate the rulemaking. FMCSA had
previously announced its intent to move
forward with a proposal on EOBRs with
a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) [77 FR 7562
(February 13, 2012)]. Congress
subsequently mandated that the
Secretary of Transportation adopt
regulations requiring that CMVs
involved in interstate commerce and
operated by drivers who are required to
keep records of duty status (RODS) be
equipped with ‘‘electronic logging
devices’’ (MAP–21, Pub. L. 112–141,
§ 32301(b), 126 Stat. 405, 786–788 [July
6, 2012], amending 49 U.S.C. 31137).
MAP–21 retained the requirement that
regulations ensure such devices not be
used to harass drivers of CMVs and also
required that certain regulations
governing CMV safety ensure that
drivers of CMVs are not coerced into
operating in violation of regulations to
be promulgated [Pub. L. 112–141,
§ 32911. 126 Stat. at 818 (amending 49
U.S.C. 31136(a))].
The objectives of the proposed driver
and carrier surveys through this ICR are
to broadly examine the issue of driver
harassment and coercion and determine
the extent to which EOBRs could be
used to either harass and/or monitor
driver productivity. These surveys will
explore the relevant issues from the
point of view of both drivers and
carriers toward the use of EOBRs. The
survey results will inform FMCSA in its
ongoing rulemaking on EOBRs,
including potential countermeasures or
best practices that could ensure that
EOBRs are not used to harass or coerce
CMV drivers. The purpose of these

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:46 May 24, 2013

Jkt 229001

surveys is, in part, to respond to the
court’s suggestion that the Agency
research the issue of driver harassment
based on use of the device.
Comments From the Public
General Summary
The FMCSA received 36 comments to
the 60-day Federal Register notice
published December 13, 2012 (77 FR
74267), regarding the Agency’s
Information Collection Activities;
Approval of a New Information
Collection Request: Driver and Carrier
Surveys Related to Electronic Onboard
Recorders (EOBRs), and Potential
Harassment Deriving from EOBR Use.
There were no requests from
commenters to receive copies of the
survey and the documents associated
with the survey that were available
upon request as stated in the Federal
Register notice. Of the 36 comments
received three directly related to the
survey. The remaining comments
focused directly or indirectly on the
effects of EOBRs in-truck operations.
Commenters included industry
associations, motor carriers, and
individual CMV drivers. The three
commenters directly referencing the
survey notice were the American
Trucking Association (ATA), OwnerOperator Independent Drivers
Association (OOIDA), and Trans
Products & Tran Services.
Five comments from trucking
companies addressed the use of EOBRs
in their operations. One company had a
neutral comment, one had a negative
comment, and three had positive
comments.
Twenty-six separate comments from
CMV drivers generally opposed the use
of EOBRs in truck operations according
to the following four categories:
• One opposed the use of EOBRs and
their intrusion into driver’s rest and
personal time;
• Twenty-one objected to the impact
of EOBRs on driver fatigue/HOS given
the unreasonable demands of carriers to
exceed their legal driving time;
• Two opposed the excessive costs for
small carriers in the purchase and
maintenance of EOBRs; and
• Two said the use of EOBRs would
be an invasion of privacy.
Four individual commenters
supported EOBRs. Their reasoning was
that EOBRs will enable CMV drivers to
be accountable for ensuring they do not
run over the legal HOS limits and, by
the use of EOBRs, carriers will not be
able to force drivers to drive beyond
their HOS.
None of these commenters provided
substantive information resulting in

PO 00000

Frm 00120

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

32003

changes to the proposed survey or its
associated documents. However,
FMCSA does appreciate all these
comments and will consider them when
reviewing the findings of the survey
project.
ATA wrote a supportive letter for the
use of EOBRs and the survey project
goals. It stated ‘‘ATA supports laws and
regulations mandating the use of
electronic logging devices (ELDs)—often
called electronic onboard recorders or
EOBRs—for recording drivers’
compliance with Federal hours-ofservice regulations. ATA also supports
the FMCSA plan to survey drivers and
carriers on how ELDs can be used to
monitor productivity and their potential
use as a tool to harass drivers.’’
OOIDA commented that it ‘‘support[s]
the goals of the proposed survey.’’ It
further stated ‘‘OOIDA submits these
comments to encourage the Agency to
design this effort in a way that collects
information on the wide range of
pertinent driver experiences.’’
Trans Products & Tran Services,
which offers trucking regulation support
and education, opposed the plan survey
stating:
We feel this survey will be inadequate and
will not fairly represent the entire industry
that will be potentially affected by a final
rule requiring all commercial motor carriers
to have EOBRs as a way to record driver
hours of service. Furthermore we do not feel
that the data retrieved and recorded will
significantly reduce crashes.

FMCSA Response
ATA
FMCSA agrees with ATA on the need
for the survey, the findings, and the
survey’s potential importance to the
trucking industry.
TRANS PRODUCTS & TRAN SERVICES
The commenter raised two concerns
related to the survey process. First, the
commenter stated that the survey will
not represent the proper pool of affected
drivers. FMCSA plans to randomly
survey drivers at truck stops and will
sample an adequate sample of drivers
who actually use EOBRs. But the first
questions being asked will be tested
with a random sample of drivers
contacted through a telephone survey.
FMCSA believes that this sample
strategy will be generally representative
of the universe of drivers that currently
use and will be potentially required to
use EOBRs.
Second, this commenter raised a
concern that drivers will not feel free to
comment because of the fear of
intimidation by their superiors. In
response, no surveys conducted at truck
stops will identify the driver or the

E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM

28MYN1

32004

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Notices

company for which he/she works for,
and the data will be aggregated and not
associated with any individual or fleet.
OOIDA
FMCSA understands that OOIDA
supports the goals of the proposed
survey but raises questions as to
whether the survey process will reflect
concerns of drivers. The OOIDA
comments also suggest some content for
the surveys.
OOIDA raised concerns about the
composition of the research team and
question whether drivers are adequately
represented at this stage. In response,
given the contentious nature of this
issue, FMCSA selected a team of

consultants and academic researchers
with expertise in the motor carrier
industry and survey design.
Nonetheless, we look forward to
working with OOIDA, as well as other
parties from the driver and carrier
community, to optimize the
effectiveness of this survey.
The following table notes FMCSA’s
reply to OOIDA’s suggestions in
response to four questions in the notice
of December 13, 2012. Additionally, it is
important to note that the surveys were
developed after intensive review of
OOIDA’s earlier submissions including
comments relating to potential EOBR
regulations. The FMCSA also reviewed

the complete docket of comments,
which includes driver input from public
listening sessions held in 2012. In
addition, FMCSA considered public
input provided at a subcommittee
meeting of FMCSA’s Motor Carrier
Safety Advisory Committee, of which an
OOIDA official is a member.
As part of the survey development
there will be interviews of randomly
selected drivers and fleets on the survey
instruments. The purpose is to test the
survey before it is provided to drivers
and fleet carriers.
Responses to OOIDA’s concerns are
provided in regular text in the chart
below.

Page/reference of
OOIDA comment
6; III–A–2 ...................

6; III–A–3–a ...............

6; III–A–3–b ...............

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

6; III–A–3–c ...............

7; III–A–3–d ...............

7; III–A–4 ...................

14 ...............................

VerDate Mar<15>2010

OOIDA commented: Without knowing the number of questions and the scope of the discussions that FMCSA interviewers intend to conduct, it is difficult to judge whether the estimated time burden in the notice is accurate.
Reply: The truck drivers’ intercept survey is estimated to have a burden of 20 minutes per interview. A series of questions focuses on 14 different interactions between drivers and their supervisors. Drivers are asked the following about
them: the frequency with which they occur; which, if any, they consider harassment; which, if any, they see as coming
from the existence of an EOBR (if their truck has one); and which, if any, are rooted in other truck functionality. In addition, information is gathered about coercion and management reactions to driver’s reluctance to obey management’s
instructions. The draft list of interactions is as follows:
Schedules:
A. Ask you to meet a customer load schedule you viewed as unrealistic.
B. Ask a customer to adjust a load schedule so it was realistic for you.
Fatigue:
C. Ask you to operate when you judged you were fatigued.
D. Ask that you shut down if you felt fatigued.
Logging and breaks:
E. Ask you to log inaccurately to get more work time or delay a break.
F. Ask you to log accurately when you could have had more work time or delayed a break by being inaccurate.
G. Change your log record after it was made to give you more work time or delay a break.
H. Ask you to take sufficient time off duty to recover from fatigue.
Communications:
I. Interrupt your off-duty time with a message that woke you up.
J. Contact you promptly about a new job task so you didn’t have to wait without pay.
Paid and Unpaid Time:
K. Pay you for customer delays in picking up or delivering freight.
L. Require you to wait for customer delays for more than 2 hours without pay.
M. Arrange your loads so you had little delay time between loads.
N. Require you to wait between loads for more than 2 hours without pay.
Other situations that might be identified through the qualitative survey phase
OOIDA commented: FMCSA would enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information collected if it: a) collected sufficient data from drivers who operated an EOBR rather than just a random sample.
Reply: We are aware that a minority of truck drivers use EOBRs. The plan for intercepts is designed to limit the number
of truck drivers without EOBRs in order to oversample truck drivers with EOBRs. Quotas will be established throughout day-parts in order to ensure that drivers with and without EOBRs will be interviewed through the course of the
day, limiting day-part bias.
OOIDA commented: FMCSA would enhance the quality usefulness, and clarity of the information collected if it: b) asked
drivers whether they had experienced each of the examples of the type of harassment outlined in these comments.
Reply: As noted above, drivers will be handed a list of interactions with their carriers, asked whether they have experienced them, and asked whether or not they consider them harassment.
OOIDA commented: FMCSA would enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information collected if it: c) guaranteed drivers’ confidentiality to ensure candor without fear of retaliation or enforcement actions.
Reply: Promises of confidentiality are made at the beginning of the survey. The language currently reads as follows: ‘‘All
responses to this collection of information are voluntary and confidentiality will be provided to the extent allowed by
law.’’
OOIDA commented: FMCSA would enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information collected if it: d) ensured the survey was broad enough to inquire to the types of harassment described in these comments.
Reply: Please see the list of interactions listed above.
OOIDA commented: The burden of the survey would be reduced if drivers were asked whether they had specifically
been harassed, rather than asking driver broad, nonspecific questions.
Reply: We agree and believe the list of interactions is specific.
OOIDA commented: Include law enforcement use or non-use of EOBRs.

17:46 May 24, 2013

Jkt 229001

PO 00000

Frm 00121

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM

28MYN1

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 102 / Tuesday, May 28, 2013 / Notices

32005

Page/reference of
OOIDA comment

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Reply: Regarding law enforcement use (or non-use) of EOBRs, members of law enforcement are currently not included
in the survey plan as respondents, but drivers’ experiences with them are. Drivers with EOBRs are asked the following two questions:
Have you ever had a problem producing your electronic hours-of-service records for a law enforcement officer?
If so, was this problem big enough that you felt harassed by the request to see your records?
Carriers are not asked this pair of questions.

OOIDA also expressed a concern
regarding measures to prevent carriers
from harassing drivers through the use
of EOBRs. The qualitative
questionnaires for both carriers and
drivers ask participants what could be
done to prevent this, either through the
technology itself or in processes
surrounding EOBR usage. Additionally,
the issue is addressed in the
quantitative surveys. Carriers and
drivers are asked to identify (from a list)
actions which they think are ‘‘good
ideas’’ to prevent carriers from harassing
their drivers. In addition, carriers and
drivers are asked what FMCSA actions
would be appropriate in response to
carrier harassment. For specific
examples of relevant questions
regarding mitigation see: Qualitative,
Carriers: 18b, 19; Qualitative, Drivers:
18; Quantitative, Carriers: 26, 27; and
Quantitative, Drivers: 32, 33.
No party requested a copy of the
survey instruments and associated
documents before their submission.
These documents were, however,
available upon request as stated in the
60-day notice (77 FR 74267, Dec. 13,
2012). Should FMCSA receive a request
for these instruments or documents,
FMCSA will post them in the docket for
this ICR to ensure broad public access.
FMCSA will publish a SNPRM on
EOBRs and will consider survey results
concerning the EOBR use by motor
carriers to ensure that EOBRs are not
used by carriers to harass or coerce
drivers prior to the issuance of a final
rule.
Public Comments Invited: You are
asked to comment on any aspect of this
information collection, including the
following: (1) Whether the proposed
collection is necessary for FMCSA to
perform its functions; (2) the accuracy of
the estimated burden; (3) ways for
FMCSA to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the collected
information; and 4) ways that the
burden could be minimized without
reducing the quality of the collected
information.

VerDate Mar<15>2010

17:46 May 24, 2013

Jkt 229001

Issued on: May 20, 2013.
Dr. G. Kelly Leone,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research
and Information Technology and Chief
Information Officer.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

to Ms. Toone at Kim.Toone@dot.gov.
Please refer to the assigned OMB control
number and the title of the information
collection in any correspondence
submitted. FRA will summarize
comments received in response to this
notice in a subsequent notice and
include them in its information
collection submission to OMB for
approval.

Federal Railroad Administration

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

[FR Doc. 2013–12564 Filed 5–24–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P

[Docket No. FRA 2013–0002–N–12]

Agency Information Collection
Activities; Comment Request
Federal Railroad
Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:

SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and
its implementing regulations, the
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
hereby announces that it is seeking reapproval of the following information
collection activities that were
previously approved by OMB under
Emergency Clearance Procedures.
Before submitting these information
collection requirements for clearance by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), FRA is soliciting public
comment on specific aspects of the
activities identified below.
DATES: Comments must be received no
later than July 29, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments
on any or all of the following proposed
activities by mail to either: Mr. Robert
Brogan, Office of Safety, RRS–21,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17,
Washington, DC 20590, or Ms. Kimberly
Toone, Office of Information
Technology, RAD–20, Federal Railroad
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave.
SE., Mail Stop 35, Washington, DC
20590. Commenters requesting FRA to
acknowledge receipt of their respective
comments must include a self-addressed
stamped postcard stating, ‘‘Comments
on OMB control number 2130–lll.’’
Alternatively, comments may be
transmitted via facsimile to (202) 493–
6216 or (202) 493–6497, or via email to
Mr. Brogan at Robert.Brogan@dot.gov, or

PO 00000

Frm 00122

Fmt 4703

Sfmt 4703

Mr.
Robert Brogan, Office of Safety, RRS–21,
Federal Railroad Administration, 1200
New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 17,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493–6292) or Ms. Kimberly Toone,
Office of Information Technology, RAD–
20, Federal Railroad Administration,
1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Mail Stop 35,
Washington, DC 20590 (telephone: (202)
493–6132). (These telephone numbers
are not toll-free.)
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104–13, § 2, 109 Stat.
163 (1995) (codified as revised at 44
U.S.C. 3501–3520), and its
implementing regulations, 5 CFR Part
1320, require Federal agencies to
provide 60-days notice to the public for
comment on information collection
activities before seeking approval of
such activities by OMB. 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A); 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1),
1320.10(e)(1), 1320.12(a). Specifically,
FRA invites interested respondents to
comment on the following summary of
proposed information collection
activities regarding (i) whether the
information collection activities are
necessary for FRA to properly execute
its functions, including whether the
activities will have practical utility; (ii)
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; (iii) ways for
FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information being
collected; and (iv) ways for FRA to
minimize the burden of information
collection activities on the public by
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology (e.g., permitting electronic

E:\FR\FM\28MYN1.SGM

28MYN1