16036 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Notices 

name of the individual submitting the 

comment (or of the person signing the 

comment, if submitted on behalf of an 

association, business, labor union, etc.). 

You may review DOT’s Privacy Act 

Statement for the Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) published 

in the Federal Register on December 29, 

2010 (75 FR 82132), or you may visit 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010- 

12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical 

Programs Division, 202–366–4001, 

fmcsamedical@dot.gov, FMCSA, 

Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64– 

224, Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, 

FMCSA may renew an exemption from 

the vision requirements in 49 CFR 

391.41(b)(10), which applies to drivers 

of CMVs in interstate commerce, for a 

two-year period if it finds ‘‘such 

exemption would likely achieve a level 

of safety that is equivalent to or greater 

than the level that would be achieved 

absent such exemption.’’ The 

procedures for requesting an exemption 

(including renewals) are set out in 49 

CFR part 381. 

Exemption Decision 

This notice addresses 5 individuals 

who have requested renewal of their 

exemptions in accordance with FMCSA 

procedures. FMCSA has evaluated these 

5 applications for renewal on their 

merits and decided to extend each 

exemption for a renewable two-year 

period. They are: 

Richard D. Carlson (MN) 

Robert P. Conrad, Sr. (MD) 

Donald P. Dodson, Jr. (WV) 

James A. Stoudt (PA) 

Ralph A. Thompson (KY) 

The exemptions are extended subject 

to the following conditions: (1) That 

each individual has a physical 

examination every year (a) by an 

ophthalmologist or optometrist who 

attests that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the requirements in 

49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), and (b) by a 

medical examiner who attests that the 

individual is otherwise physically 

qualified under 49 CFR 391.41; (2) that 

each individual provides a copy of the 

ophthalmologist’s or optometrist’s 

report to the medical examiner at the 

time of the annual medical examination; 

and (3) that each individual provide a 

copy of the annual medical certification 

to the employer for retention in the 

driver’s qualification file and retains a 

copy of the certification on his/her 

person while driving for presentation to 

a duly authorized Federal, State, or local 

enforcement official. Each exemption 

will be valid for two years unless 

rescinded earlier by FMCSA. The 

exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The 

person fails 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. 

Basis for Renewing Exemptions 

Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an 

exemption may be granted for no longer 

than two years from its approval date 

and may be renewed upon application 

for additional two year periods. In 

accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315, each of the 5 applicants has 

satisfied the entry conditions for 

obtaining an exemption from the vision 

requirements (63 FR 66226; 64 FR 

16517; 65 FR 20245; 65 FR 57230; 65 FR 

78256; 66 FR 16311; 66 FR 17994; 67 FR 

57266; 67 FR 76439; 68 FR 10298; 68 FR 

13360; 68 FR 15037; 69 FR 52741; 70 FR 

12265; 70 FR 14747; 70 FR 16887; 70 FR 

2701; 70 FR 7545; 72 FR 12665; 74 FR 

9329; 76 FR 15360). Each of these 5 

applicants has requested renewal of the 

exemption and has submitted evidence 

showing that the vision in the better eye 

continues to meet the requirement 

specified at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and 

that the vision impairment is stable. In 

addition, a review of each record of 

safety while driving with the respective 

vision deficiencies over the past two 

years indicates each applicant continues 

to meet the vision exemption 

requirements. 

These factors provide an adequate 

basis for predicting each driver’s ability 

to continue to drive safely in interstate 

commerce. Therefore, FMCSA 

concludes that extending the exemption 

for each renewal applicant for a period 

of two years is likely to achieve a level 

of safety equal to that existing without 

the exemption. 

Request for Comments 

FMCSA will review comments 

received at any time concerning a 

particular driver’s safety record and 

determine if the continuation of the 

exemption is consistent with the 

requirements at 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315. However, FMCSA requests that 

interested parties with specific data 

concerning the safety records of these 

drivers submit comments by April 12, 

2013. 

FMCSA believes that the 

requirements for a renewal of an 

exemption under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 

31315 can be satisfied by initially 

granting the renewal and then 

requesting and evaluating, if needed, 

subsequent comments submitted by 

interested parties. As indicated above, 

the Agency previously published 

notices of final disposition announcing 

its decision to exempt these 5 

individuals from the vision requirement 

in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). The final 

decision to grant an exemption to each 

of these individuals was made on the 

merits of each case and made only after 

careful consideration of the comments 

received to its notices of applications. 

The notices of applications stated in 

detail the qualifications, experience, 

and medical condition of each applicant 

for an exemption from the vision 

requirements. That information is 

available by consulting the above cited 

Federal Register publications. 

Interested parties or organizations 

possessing information that would 

otherwise show that any, or all, of these 

drivers are not currently achieving the 

statutory level of safety should 

immediately notify FMCSA. The 

Agency will evaluate any adverse 

evidence submitted and, if safety is 

being compromised or if continuation of 

the exemption would not be consistent 

with the goals and objectives of 49 

U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will 

take immediate steps to revoke the 

exemption of a driver. 

Issued on: March 4, 2013. 

Larry W. Minor, 

Associate Administrator for Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05746 Filed 3–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–EX–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Service Level Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Texas Oklahoma 

Passenger Rail Study Corridor, South 

Texas to Oklahoma City 

AGENCY: Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to 

advise the public that it will prepare a 

Service Level/Tier 1 EIS with the Texas 

Department of Transportation (TxDOT) 

to study potential new and/or improved 

high-speed intercity passenger rail 

service along an 850-mile corridor 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Notices 16037 

extending from Oklahoma City, 

Oklahoma, to the south Texas cities of 

Laredo and Brownsville (proposed 

action). In addition to the Service Level 

EIS, the Texas Oklahoma Passenger Rail 

Study (Study) also includes preparation 

of a service development plan for the 

corridor for each of three sections of the 

corridor: Oklahoma City to Dallas/Fort 

Worth, Dallas/Fort Worth to San 

Antonio, and San Antonio to south 

Texas. The Oklahoma Department of 

Transportation (ODOT) is a partnering 

state agency in the development of the 

EIS. The Service Level EIS will evaluate 

a reasonable range of corridor 

alternatives and make decisions 

regarding the preferred corridor, 

location of train service termini, 

location of intermediate stops, the level 

of service, and future planning for 

projects to implement the service. 

Alternatives under consideration will 

include a No Action (No Build) 

alternative, as well as multiple build 

alternatives. The build alternatives may 

include infrastructure improvements in 

existing or prior rail corridors, the 

development of one or more new rail 

corridors, or a combination of both, as 

well as varying levels of service. FRA is 

issuing this Notice to solicit public and 

agency input in the development of the 

scope of the EIS and to advise the public 

that FRA and TxDOT will conduct 

outreach activities regarding the scope 

of the EIS. To ensure all significant 

issues are identified and considered, the 

public is invited to comment on the 

scope of the EIS, including the purpose 

and need, alternatives to be considered, 

impacts to be evaluated, and 

methodologies to be used in the 

evaluation. 

DATES: Written comments on the scope 

of the Service Level EIS for the Texas 

Oklahoma Passenger Rail Study should 

be provided to TxDOT by April 26, 

2013. Comments will also be accepted at 

public scoping meetings to be held from 

March 25, 2013, through April 4, 2013, 

at the times and locations identified 

below: 

• Oklahoma City: Metro Tech Center, 

1900 Springlake Drive, Oklahoma City, 

OK on March 25, 2013 from 2 p.m. 

through 4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. through 

8 p.m. 

• Ardmore: Ardmore Train Station, 

251 E. Main Street, Ardmore, OK on 

March 26, 2013 from 6 p.m. through 8 

p.m. 

• Sherman: Sherman Senior Center, 

1500 N. Broughton Street, Sherman, TX 

on April 2, 2013 from 6 p.m. through 8 

p.m. 

• Fort Worth: TxDOT Training 

Offices, 2501 SW Loop 820, Fort Worth, 

TX on March 28, 2013 from 6 p.m. 

through 8 p.m. 

• Dallas: MSDC Offices, 8828 N. 

Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, TX on April 

3, 2013 from 2 p.m. through 4 p.m. and 

from 6 p.m. through 8 p.m. 

• Belton: Central Texas Council of 

Governments, 2180 N, Main Street, 

Belton, TX on April 1, 2013 from 6 p.m. 

through 8 p.m. 

• Waco: Heart of Texas Council of 

Governments, 1514 S. New Road, Waco, 

TX on March 25, 2013 from 6 p.m. 

through 8 p.m. 

• Austin: TxDOT Austin Office, 

Building 7, 7901 N. IH 35, Austin, TX 

on March 27, 2013 from 2 p.m. through 

4 p.m. and from 6 p.m. through 8 p.m. 

• Windcrest: Windcrest Civic Center, 

9310 Jim Seal Drive, Windcrest, TX on 

April 1, 2013 from 6 p.m. through 8 

p.m. 

• Harlingen: Harlingen City Hall, 502 

E. Tyler Avenue, Harlingen, TX on April 

4, 2013 from 6 p.m. through 8 p.m. 

• Corpus Christi: TxDOT Offices, 

1701 S. Padre Island Drive, Corpus 

Christi, TX on April 2, 2013 from 6 p.m. 

through 8 p.m. 

• Laredo: TxDOT Offices, 1817 Bob 

Bullock Avenue, Laredo, TX on April 3, 

2013 from 6 p.m. through 8 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

scope of this study should be mailed or 

emailed to Mr. Mark Werner, Rail 

Division, Texas Department of 

Transportation, 125 E. 11th Street, 

Austin, TX 78701–2483. The email 

address is provided on the project Web 

site: www.txokrail.org. 

The buildings used for the scoping 

meetings are accessible to persons with 

disabilities. Any individual who 

requires special assistance, such as a 

sign language interpreter, to participate 

in the meetings should contact Mr. Mark 

Werner, Project Manager, Texas 

Department of Transportation, (512) 

486–5137, seven calendar days prior to 

the meeting. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mark Werner, Project Manager, TxDOT, 

125 E. 11th Street, Austin, TX 78701– 

2483, (512) 486–5137; or Ms. Catherine 

Dobbs, Office of Railroad Policy and 

Development, Federal Railroad 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 

(202) 493–6347 . Information and 

documents regarding the Service Level 

EIS and environmental process will be 

made available for the duration of the 

environmental process at: 

www.txokrail.org. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Environmental Review Process 

The Service Level (Tier 1) EIS will be 

prepared in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing 

NEPA and the FRA’s Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts as 

set forth in 64 FR 28545 dated May 26, 

1999 (Environmental Procedures). The 

Service Level EIS will also address 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Act of 

1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) and other 

applicable Federal and state laws and 

regulations. The Service Level EIS and 

any subsequent project (Tier 2) 

environmental documents will be 

developed in accordance with CEQ 

regulations, FRA’s Environmental 

Procedures, and FRA’s Update to NEPA 

Implementing Procedures (78 FR 2713; 

January 14, 2013). 

FRA and TxDOT will use a tiered 

process, as provided for in 40 CFR 

1508.28, in the completion of the 

environmental review of the Study. 

‘‘Tiering’’ is a staged environmental 

review process applied to 

environmental reviews for complex 

projects. The Service Level EIS will 

address first tier of broad corridor issues 

and alternatives. Subsequent projectlevel second tier NEPA evaluations will 

analyze site-specific projects based on 

the decisions made at the Service Level. 

The Service Level NEPA assessment 

will result in an EIS with the 

appropriate level of detail for corridor 

decisions and will address broad overall 

issues of concern, including but not 

limited to: 

• Confirm the purpose and need for 

the proposed action. 

• Confirm the study area appropriate 

to assess reasonable alternatives. 

• Identify a comprehensive set of 

goals and objectives for the corridor in 

conjunction with stakeholders. These 

goals and objectives will be crafted to 

allow comprehensive evaluation of all 

aspects of study alternatives necessary 

to achieve the goals, including train 

operations, vehicles, and infrastructure. 

• Develop alternative evaluation 

criteria based on purpose and need, 

goals and objectives. 

• Identify the range of reasonable 

alternatives to be considered, consistent 

with the current and planned use of the 

corridor and the existing services within 

and adjacent to the study area, as well 

as considering a no action/no build 

alternative. 

• Identify the general corridor 

alignment(s) and right-of-way 

requirements of the reasonable build 

alternatives. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

16038 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Notices 

• Identify, at a corridor planning 

level, the infrastructure and equipment 

investment requirements for the 

reasonable build alternatives. 

• Include the consideration of the NoBuild Alternative which will be studied 

as the baseline for comparison with the 

build alternatives. The No-Build 

Alternative represents other 

transportation modes such as auto, air 

travel, intercity bus, and existing rail 

and the physical characteristics and 

capacities as they exist at the time of the 

Service Level EIS, with planned and 

funded improvements that will be in 

place at the time rail improvements 

would become operational. 

• Evaluate and describe, at a corridor 

planning level, the potential 

environmental consequences (benefits 

and adverse effects to the human and 

natural environment) associated with 

the reasonable alternatives. 

• Establish the timing and sequencing 

and future NEPA processes for 

component actions to implement the 

proposed action. 

• Identify preferred alternatives for 

corridor route alignment within each of 

the three corridor sections. 

Subsequent to this Service Level EIS, 

project level assessment(s) will address 

component projects to be implemented 

within the selected general corridor and 

where appropriate will incorporate by 

reference the data and evaluations 

included in the Service Level EIS. 

Subsequent evaluations will concentrate 

on the issues specific to the component 

of the alternative selected with the 

Service Level EIS, identify the Project 

alternatives that meet the purpose and 

need for each component project, and 

analyze the specific environmental 

consequences and measures necessary 

to mitigate environmental impacts at a 

site-specific level of detail. This Service 

Level EIS process will be coordinated 

with the ongoing preliminary 

engineering and environmental 

planning efforts for the Dallas/Fort 

Worth—Houston passenger rail corridor. 

II. Project Background 

The 850-mile Texas Oklahoma 

Passenger Rail Study Corridor extends 

from Oklahoma City in the north 

through Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and 

San Antonio to destinations in south 

Texas including Laredo, Corpus Christi, 

and Brownsville. Existing passenger rail 

service includes intercity service on the 

Heartland Flyer (Oklahoma City to Fort 

Worth), Texas Eagle (Fort Worth to San 

Antonio), and Sunset Limited (Los 

Angeles to New Orleans via San 

Antonio) operated by Amtrak, and 

regional/commuter rail service on the 

Trinity Railway Express (Dallas to Fort 

Worth) and Capital MetroRail (Austin) 

operated by Texas operators. Intercity 

passenger rail between Oklahoma City 

and San Antonio provides service to 

cities and communities generally along 

the Interstate 35 (I–35) corridor. The 

purpose of Study is to evaluate 

alternatives to provide higher speed 

passenger rail service to meet future 

intercity travel demand and to improve 

rail facilities, reduce journey times, and 

improve connections with regional 

public transit services. These 

improvements are needed because of the 

current and forecast population and 

business growth within the study area 

that has resulted in growing congestion 

on highways and rail services along the 

Interstate 35 (I–35) corridor. 

The I–35 corridor, running from 

Duluth, Minnesota, to Laredo, Texas, is 

a congressionally identified corridor of 

national significance and is one of the 

fastest growing regions in the U.S., 

running through six of the largest urban 

areas and nine of the 50 largest cities in 

the U.S. International truck traffic 

demand, intercity truck traffic demand, 

and passenger travel demand compete 

for highway capacity, creating 

substantial congestion inside the urban 

areas through which the highway runs. 

Projections for the Dallas/Fort Worth to 

San Antonio portion of the corridor 

show average speeds along I–35 would 

drop from 55 to 15 miles per hour by 

2035. 

Transportation plans for Texas and 

Oklahoma have identified substantial 

population growth and population aging 

within the Study corridor. Texas 

population is expected to grow by 39% 

from 2010 to 2035. The population of 

the Texas Triangle (a region of Texas 

bounded by Dallas, Houston, and San 

Antonio) has been growing rapidly over 

the last several decades, with growth 

rates in some areas as high as 27%. 

Texas’ population has grown making it 

the second most populous state in the 

U.S. with most of the state’s population 

centered in the eastern half of the state, 

along and east of the I–35 corridor. 

Oklahoma City is expected to see a 

population increase of 25% from 2000 

to 2035, with intensified population 

densities in the metropolitan area. 

Populations within the Study area are 

also aging, with the percentage of 

people who are 65 years old or older 

expected to grow from about 13% to 

nearly 20% by 2030 in Oklahoma and 

from 10% to over 17% in Texas, with 

the aging population expected to rely 

more heavily on public transportation 

such as intercity rail. Long range 

transportation plans in Texas and 

Oklahoma have identified the need to 

improve passenger rail services to meet 

the future demand brought on by these 

changes in population. 

While a common need exists for 

increased passenger rail service across 

the 850-mile Study corridor, the 

corridor has been divided into three 

sections where the passenger rail needs 

and opportunities within each section, 

while interdependent, are distinct. Each 

section will both be evaluated 

separately by section and as parts of the 

overall rail corridor in the Service Level 

EIS. 

The north section between Oklahoma 

City and Dallas/Fort Worth has existing 

intercity passenger rail service 

(Heartland Flyer) with one train in each 

direction per day, where annual 

ridership has increased by as much as 

10% within the last three years. In this 

section, over 60% of train passengers 

would otherwise have taken private 

vehicles and up to 29% of passengers 

would otherwise have not made the 

journey. This passenger rail service is 

constrained by operation on a busy 

freight railroad line resulting in delays 

and schedules with inconvenient 

layovers for connecting with other rail 

or transit services in Fort Worth. Rail 

improvement planning in this section 

has identified the need for enhanced 

railroad facilities and better 

coordination with other connecting 

passenger rail services to increase the 

attractiveness of rail as a travel mode 

choice. Additional needs in this section 

include direct connection to the City of 

Dallas and the Dallas/Fort Worth airport 

(DFW), improved train control systems 

to increase train speed and allow safe 

operation of increased numbers of 

freight and passenger trains within the 

existing rail corridor, and additional 

roadway/railroad grade separations to 

enhance safety where rail and roadways 

cross. 

The central section between Dallas/ 

Fort Worth and San Antonio via Austin 

has existing intercity passenger rail 

service in the form of the Texas Eagle, 

the southernmost portion of daily 

Amtrak service between Chicago and 

San Antonio. From Fort Worth, there are 

daily connections with the Heartland 

Flyer providing intercity rail service 

north to Oklahoma City. From San 

Antonio, there are connections with the 

Sunset Limited running three times 

weekly east to New Orleans and west to 

Los Angeles. Approximately 23% of 

Amtrak train trips ending in Texas 

originate within the state. 

The central section is characterized by 

the highest level of intercity travel 

demand within the state. This is, in 

part, a result of its linking three of the 

four largest metropolitan areas within 

the state, all of which are projected to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 49 / Wednesday, March 13, 2013 / Notices 16039 

continue to grow in the future. The 

central section, via existing I–35, is 

characterized by substantially higher 

automobile and truck volumes than any 

other intercity corridor in the state. 

These volumes are projected to increase 

steadily through 2035, by which time 

traffic volumes are projected to result in 

freeway speeds as low as 15 miles per 

hour, contributing to very substantial 

delays. Air travel between the central 

section termini (i.e., Dallas/Fort Worth 

and San Antonio) is characterized by 

higher passenger volumes than any 

other intrastate connection. With the 

exception of the Dallas/Fort Worth-toHouston connection, air travel demand 

between Dallas/Fort Worth and San 

Antonio is more than twice the demand 

of any other intrastate intercity 

connection. Enhanced passenger rail 

service in the central section would 

serve a clear need for additional 

transportation capacity and options. It 

would assist in meeting the strong 

demand for intercity travel in this 

highly populated corridor, thereby 

diverting some of the heavy automobile 

and truck volumes occurring at present 

and projected for the future. 

The southern section between San 

Antonio and the cities of Laredo, Corpus 

Christi, and Brownsville does not have 

passenger rail services. Instead, Amtrak 

provides passenger service south of San 

Antonio by motor coach. The border 

areas of Brownsville and Laredo have 

heavy commercial truck traffic on the 

highways and freight traffic along 

existing freight railroad lines. The 

growing congestion in the border cities 

is affecting the economic viability of the 

region. Other intercity public 

transportation, including transportation 

to other destinations in the U.S. and 

Mexico, is provided by motor coaches 

operated by an assortment of Mexican 

and U.S. operators. A need exists to 

provide travel mode options to address 

future passenger travel demand in this 

area and reduce roadway congestion 

resulting from the passenger buses 

combined with commercial truck traffic. 

Rail service in this section would 

provide an efficient, safe, equitable, and 

affordable alternative to highway, bus, 

or air travel. In this section, cross-border 

travel demand to Mexican destinations 

such as Monterrey, a major business 

hub, results in strong potential 

passenger rail demand. 

III. Scoping and Public Involvement 

FRA encourages broad participation 

in the Service Level EIS process during 

scoping and subsequent review of the 

resulting environmental documents. 

Comments and suggestions are invited 

from all interested agencies and the 

public at large to ensure the full range 

of issues related to the proposed action 

and all reasonable alternatives are 

addressed and all significant issues are 

identified. In particular, FRA is 

interested in determining whether areas 

of environmental concern exist where 

the potential may exist for significant 

impacts identifiable at a corridor level. 

Appropriate Federal, State, and local 

agencies and appropriate railroads are 

being notified of the proposed Project 

and comments are being solicited. 

Public agencies with jurisdiction are 

requested to advise the FRA and TxDOT 

of the applicable permit and 

environmental review requirements of 

each agency and the scope and content 

of the environmental information that is 

germane to the agency’s statutory 

responsibilities in connection with the 

proposed improvements. 

An iterative public involvement/ 

information program will support the 

process. The program will involve 

stakeholder workshops, newsletters, a 

Web site, public open houses, small 

group and community meetings, and 

other methods to solicit and incorporate 

public input throughout the Service 

Level EIS process. To ensure that the 

full range of issues relating to the 

proposed action is addressed, comments 

and suggestions are invited from all 

interested parties. Comments and 

questions concerning the proposed 

action should be directed to TxDOT or 

to the FRA at the addresses provided 

above. Additional information can be 

obtained by visiting the web site at 

www.txokrail.org, or sending an email 

using the link on the Web site. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 7, 

2013. 

Corey Hill, 

Director, Passenger and Freight Programs. 

[FR Doc. 2013–05732 Filed 3–12–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

[U.S. DOT Docket Number NHTSA–2011– 

0169] 

Reports, Forms, and Record Keeping 

Requirements 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Notice and request for comment 

on obtaining vehicle information for the 

general public; Correction. 

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency can 

collect certain information from the 

public, it must receive approval from 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). In compliance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice 

announces that the Information 

Collection Request (ICR) abstracted 

below is being forwarded to OMB for 

review and comments. A Federal 

Register notice (77 FR 11621) with a 60- 

day comment period soliciting 

comments on the proposed information 

collection for the agency’s new 

consumer Vehicle-child restraint system 

(CRS) Fit program and consolidation of 

existing collection of vehicle safety 

information (OMB Control Number 

2127–0629) was published on February 

27, 2012. The February 2012 ‘‘Request 

for comments’’ notice described a new 

collection of information for which 

NHTSA intend to seek OMB approval 

concerning recommendations from 

vehicle manufacturers regarding child 

restraint systems (CRSs) that fit in their 

individual vehicles. Furthermore, 

NHTSA planned to combine the new 

information collection with an existing 

collection for obtaining vehicle 

information for consumer information 

purposes. The agency received 

comments from the public on the new 

and existing collection of information. 

However, since the agency has not 

published its final decision on the new 

consumer information program, it is not 

able at this time to address comments 

received from the public regarding the 

new provisions for the collection of 

information on vehicle-CRS matchups 

from vehicle manufacturers. Thus, this 

‘‘Correction’’ notice now focuses on 

renewing the existing collection of 

vehicle safety information and only 

addresses comments received from that 

information collection. Comments 

pertaining to the new Vehicle-CRS Fit 

Program will be addressed at a later 

time in a new submission, when the 

agency publishes its final decision on 

the new program. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before April 12, 2013. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Complete copies of each request for 

collection of information may be 

obtained at no charge from Johanna 

Lowrie, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, NHTSA, Room W43– 

410, 1200 New Jersey Ave SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Lowrie’s 

telephone number is (202) 366–5269. 

Please identify the relevant collection of 

information by referring to its OMB 

Control Number. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES