[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 5, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14315-14316]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0003]

Notice of Chargeable Rates Under the National Flood Insurance
Program for Non-Primary Residences

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is publishing
the chargeable rates under the National Flood Insurance Program for
non-primary residences.

DATES: The rates announced in this notice are effective January 1,
2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this notice is available at
www.regulations.gov under Docket ID FEMA-2013-0003. You may also view
the docket at the Office of Chief Counsel, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Room 835, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Hayes, Actuary, FEMA, 1800 South
Bell St., Arlington, VA 20598-3010, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
(202) 6463419.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 100205 of the Biggert-
Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (BW12), Public Law 112-141,
42 U.S.C. 4015, FEMA is authorized to prescribe by notice chargeable
premium rates for any residential property which is not the primary
residence of an individual. These chargeable premium rates are for
coverage which is at or below the following limits:
    (1) For dwelling properties in States other than Alaska, Hawaii,
the Virgin Islands and Guam (i) $35,000 aggregate liability for any
property containing only one unit, (ii) $100,000 for any property
containing only one unit, and (iii) $10,000 liability per unit for any
contents related to such unit.
    (2) For dwelling properties in Alaska, Hawaii, the Virgin Islands,
and Guam (i) $50,000 aggregate liability for any property containing
only one unit, (ii) $150,000 for any property containing only one unit,
and (iii) $10,000 aggregate liability per unit for any contents related
to such unit.
    (3) For churches and other properties (i) $100,000 for the
structure and (ii) $100,000 for the contents of any such unit.
    The chargeable premium rates for residential property which is not
the primary residence of an individual effective on or after January 1,
2013 are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   A Zone \1\ rates per year per   V Zone \2\ rates per year per
                                                         $100 coverage on:               $100 coverage on:
                Type of structure                ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Structure       Contents        Structure       Contents
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Basement or Enclosure........................             .95            1.20            1.24            1.54
With Basement or Enclosure......................            1.02            1.20            1.33            1.54
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A-zones are zones A1-A30, AE, AO, AH, and unnumbered A-zones.
\2\ V-zones are zones V1-V30, VE, and unnumbered V-zones.

    Pursuant to section 100205 of BW12, rates for any residential
property that is not the primary residence of an individual must
increase by 25 percent per year until the average risk premium rate is
equal to the actuarial rate. See 42 U.S.C. 4015(e). FEMA will publish
future increases to these rates by a notice in the Federal Register.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4014, 4015.

Edward L. Connor,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Federal Insurance, Federal Emergency
Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-04981 Filed 3-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-11-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73652-73653]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29812]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-17-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Request Under
Blanket Authorization

    Take notice that on November 20, 2012, Southern Natural Gas
Company, L.L.C. (Southern), 569 Brookwood Village, Suite 749,
Birmingham, Alabama 35209, filed in Docket No. CP13-17-000, an
application pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208, 157.213, and 157.216
of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA) as
amended, to make certain modifications to facilities at Southern's
Muldon Gas Storage Field (Muldon Field) in Monroe County, Mississippi,
in order to convert 5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of natural gas capacity
in the Muldon Field from cushion gas to working gas, under Southern's
blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-406-000,\1\ all as more
fully set forth in the application which is on file with the Commission
and open to the public for inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Southern Natural Gas Company, 20 FERC ] 62,414 (1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Southern proposes to convert 5 Bcf of natural gas capacity at the
Muldon Field from cushion gas to working gas and to make certain
facilities modifications. Southern asserts that the total capacity of
the Muldon Field would remain at the currently maximum certificated
level of 92.82 Bcf.\2\ Southern states that the propose facilities
modifications would take place over a two-year period. Southern also
states that in 2013 it would add separators, heaters, regulators, salt
water storage tanks, and associated piping and controls to the existing
plant; work on seven existing wells; install approximately 3,200 feet
of 8-inch diameter pipe and associated valves; and remove approximately
200 feet of abandoned pipe. Southern further states that in 2014 it
would make additional modifications to existing, including minor
adjustments and modifications to the new facilities; work on four
existing wells, drill one new well; and install approximately 650 feet
of 8-inch diameter pipe for the new well. Southern estimates that it
would cost $16,000,000 to modify and construct the proposed facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Southern Natural Gas Company, 46 FPC 813 (1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to the standard conditions for a certificate issued under
the Commission's Blanket Certificate

program, Part 157, Subpart F of the Commission's Regulations, section
157.206(c) states that ``any authorized construction, extension, or
acquisition shall be completed and made available for service by the
certificate holder and any authorized operation, or service, shall be
available within one year of the date the activity is authorized''. As
described above, Southern's proposed project will span two years given
the nature of the changes proposed for the operation of its Muldon
storage field. Thus, pursuant to section 157.206(c), Southern must seek
an extension of that one year deadline for the activities not completed
during that first year just prior to the beginning of the second year
of the project and describe progress of the project at that point.
    Any questions concerning this application may be directed to Tina
A. Hardy, Regulatory Manager, Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., 569
Brookwood Village, Suite 749, Birmingham, Alabama 35209 or via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or via email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    This filing is available for review at the Commission or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number filed to access the document. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or, for
TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Comments, protests and interventions may
be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages
intervenors to file electronically.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 60 days after
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to section 157.205 of
the regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to the
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefore, the
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and
not withdrawn within 30 days after the allowed time for filing a
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the NGA.

    Dated: November 30, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29812 Filed 12-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1284-1286]
[FR Doc No: 2016-294]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2015-0056]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

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

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 59 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs). They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions will enable these individuals to
operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce without
meeting the prescribed vision requirement in one eye. The Agency has
concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level of safety maintained
without the exemptions for these CMV drivers.

DATES: The exemptions were granted November 3, 2015. The exemptions
expire on November 3, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-113,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., e.t.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions
regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Docket
Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Electronic Access

    You may see all the comments online through the Federal Document
Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov and/or 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., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the
system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.dot.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On October 1, 2015, FMCSA published a notice of receipt of
exemption applications from certain individuals, and requested comments
from the public (80 FR 59230). That notice listed 59 applicants' case
histories. The 59 individuals applied for exemptions from the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), for drivers who operate CMVs in
interstate commerce.
    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
for a 2-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 statute also allows the
Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 2-year period.
Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated the 59 applications on their merits
and made a determination to grant exemptions to each of them.

III. Vision and Driving Experience of the Applicants

    The vision requirement in the FMCSRs provides:
    A person is physically qualified to drive a commercial motor
vehicle if that person has distant visual acuity of at least 20/40
(Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual acuity
separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with corrective
lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen) in both
eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at least
70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability to
recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red, green,
and amber (49 CFR 391.41(b)(10)).
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their vision
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 59
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, aphakia, bullous keratopathy, cancerous
tumor, cataract, central pigment epithelial atrophy, central retinal
detachment, central serous retinopathy, central vision loss,
chorioretinal scar, Coat's exudative, complete loss of vision, corneal
scar, decreased vision, glaucoma, Lasik surgery complication, macular
degeneration, macular hole, macular scar, optic atrophy, optic
neuropathy, optic nerve coloboma, phthisis bulbi, prosthetic eye,
refractive amblyopia, retinal detachment, retinal scar, traumatic
cataract, and vein occlusion. In most cases, their eye conditions were
not recently developed. Thirty-five of the applicants were either born
with their vision impairments or have had them since childhood.
    The 24 individuals that sustained their vision conditions as adults
have had it for a range of 3 to 39 years.
    Although each applicant has one eye which does not meet the vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10), each has at least 20/40 corrected
vision in the other eye, and in a doctor's opinion, has sufficient
vision to perform all the tasks necessary to operate a CMV. Doctors'
opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of valid
commercial driver's licenses (CDLs) or non-CDLs to operate CMVs. Before
issuing CDLs, States subject drivers to knowledge and skills tests
designed to evaluate their qualifications to operate a CMV.
    All of these applicants satisfied the testing requirements for
their State of residence. By meeting State licensing requirements, the
applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a CMV, with their
limited vision, to the satisfaction of the State.
    While possessing a valid CDL or non-CDL, these 59 drivers have been
authorized to drive a CMV in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. They have
driven CMVs with their limited vision in careers ranging for 0 to 55
years. In the past three years, 2 drivers were involved in crashes, and
3 drivers were convicted of moving violations in a CMV.
    The qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each
applicant were stated and discussed in detail in the October 1, 2015
notice (80 FR 59230).

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the vision requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) if the exemption is
likely to achieve an equivalent or greater level of safety than would
be achieved without the exemption. Without the exemption, applicants
will continue to be restricted to intrastate driving. With the
exemption, applicants can drive in interstate commerce. Thus, our
analysis

focuses on whether an equal or greater level of safety is likely to be
achieved by permitting each of these drivers to drive in interstate
commerce as opposed to restricting him or her to driving in intrastate
commerce.
    To evaluate the effect of these exemptions on safety, FMCSA
considered the medical reports about the applicants' vision as well as
their driving records and experience with the vision deficiency.
    To qualify for an exemption from the vision requirement, FMCSA
requires a person to present verifiable evidence that he/she has driven
a commercial vehicle safely with the vision deficiency for the past 3
years. Recent driving performance is especially important in evaluating
future safety, according to several research studies designed to
correlate past and future driving performance. Results of these studies
support the principle that the best predictor of future performance by
a driver is his/her past record of crashes and traffic violations.
Copies of the studies may be found at Docket Number FMCSA-1998-3637.
    FMCSA believes it can properly apply the principle to monocular
drivers, because data from the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA)
former waiver study program clearly demonstrate the driving performance
of experienced monocular drivers in the program is better than that of
all CMV drivers collectively (See 61 FR 13338, 13345, March 26, 1996).
The fact that experienced monocular drivers demonstrated safe driving
records in the waiver program supports a conclusion that other
monocular drivers, meeting the same qualifying conditions as those
required by the waiver program, are also likely to have adapted to
their vision deficiency and will continue to operate safely.
    The first major research correlating past and future performance
was done in England by Greenwood and Yule in 1920. Subsequent studies,
building on that model, concluded that crash rates for the same
individual exposed to certain risks for two different time periods vary
only slightly (See Bates and Neyman, University of California
Publications in Statistics, April 1952). Other studies demonstrated
theories of predicting crash proneness from crash history coupled with
other factors. These factors--such as age, sex, geographic location,
mileage driven and conviction history--are used every day by insurance
companies and motor vehicle bureaus to predict the probability of an
individual experiencing future crashes (See Weber, Donald C.,
``Accident Rate Potential: An Application of Multiple Regression
Analysis of a Poisson Process,'' Journal of American Statistical
Association, June 1971). A 1964 California Driver Record Study prepared
by the California Department of Motor Vehicles concluded that the best
overall crash predictor for both concurrent and nonconcurrent events is
the number of single convictions. This study used 3 consecutive years
of data, comparing the experiences of drivers in the first 2 years with
their experiences in the final year.
    Applying principles from these studies to the past 3-year record of
the 59 applicants, 2 drivers were involved in crashes, and 3 drivers
were convicted of moving violations in a CMV. All the applicants
achieved a record of safety while driving with their vision impairment,
demonstrating the likelihood that they have adapted their driving
skills to accommodate their condition. As the applicants' ample driving
histories with their vision deficiencies are good predictors of future
performance, FMCSA concludes their ability to drive safely can be
projected into the future.
    We believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and
history provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive
safely in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate
operations, involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate
system and on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover,
driving in congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian
and vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster
reaction to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because
distances between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual
capacity and driver response just as intensely as interstate driving
conditions. The veteran drivers in this proceeding have operated CMVs
safely under those conditions for at least 3 years, most for much
longer. Their experience and driving records lead us to believe that
each applicant is capable of operating in interstate commerce as safely
as he/she has been performing in intrastate commerce. Consequently,
FMCSA finds that exempting these applicants from the vision requirement
in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) is likely to achieve a level of safety equal to
that existing without the exemption. For this reason, the Agency is
granting the exemptions for the 2-year period allowed by 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315 to the 59 applicants listed in the notice of October
1, 2015 (80 FR 59230).
    We recognize that the vision of an applicant may change and affect
his/her ability to operate a CMV as safely as in the past. As a
condition of the exemption, therefore, FMCSA will impose requirements
on the 59 individuals consistent with the grandfathering provisions
applied to drivers who participated in the Agency's vision waiver
program.
    Those requirements are found at 49 CFR 391.64(b) and include the
following:
    (1) That each individual be physically examined every year (a) by
an ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the requirement 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 provide 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, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must have a copy of the
certification when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

V. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received 6 comments in this proceeding. Samuel Byler, Andrea
Gonzalez, and an anonymous commenter are in favor of all drivers on the
notice receiving vision exemptions. An anonymous commenter stated that
the requirements for a vision exemption should be more stringent. Steve
Riney is in favor of granting a vision exemption to Richard Parker and
Steve Wilson is in favor of granting a vision exemption to Harjot
Aujla.

IV. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 59 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement in 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above (49 CFR
391.64(b)):
    Steven B. Anderson (ID), Harjot S. Aujla (WA), Thomas B. Berger
(PA), Jay E. Biggers (ID), Timothy A. Bohling (CO), Brian M. Bowman
(TN), Gary Bozowski (NJ), Timothy V. Burke (CO), Timothy J. Burleson
(IL), Robert J. Burns (KY), Richard A. Congdon, Jr. (OR), James E. Copp
(PA), Jose C. Costa (WA), Thomas P. Davidson (NJ), Mark Davis (ME),
Stephen W. Deminie (TX), Brad M. Donald (MI), Robert L. Ecker (MD),
John A. Gartner (MN), Brian W. Gillund

(MN), Glenn F. Gorsuch (OH), Keith N. Hall (UT), Steven E. Hayes (IN),
Francisco Hernandez, Jr. (NM), Mervin M. Hershberger (WI), Dean M.
Hobson (IL), Timmy R. Holley (PA), David E. Hopson (TX), Amos S.
Hostetter, Jr. (OH), Isadore Johnson, Jr. (NY), William J. Kelly (CT),
Stephen C. Linardos (FL), Daniel C. Linares (CA), Ray J. Liner (LA),
Robert E. Mayers (MN), Kraig P. Middleton (MI), James G. Miles (TN),
Rogelio Rocha Monjaraz (MD), Pablo R. Murillo (TX), Wayne Nicolaisen
(PA), John R. Ogno (NJ), Richard A. Parker II (KS), Vincent E. Perkins
(MA), John R. Price (AR), Francis D. Reginald, Jr. (NJ), Juan A.
Rodriguez (CT), Roger D. Rogers (PA), Robert E. Rohrer (PA), David L.
Roth (SD), James O. Russell, Jr. (OH), Ronald B. Salter (MS), Michael
J. Schmelzle (KS), Ralph J. Schmitt (CO), Charles D. Theademan (WA),
Dwight Tullis (IL), Arnulfo J. Valenzuela (TX), Danny L. Watson (TN),
Lorenzo A. Williams (DE), William E. Zezulka (MN).
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption
will be valid for 2 years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The
exemption will be revoked 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 and 31315.
    If the exemption is still effective at the end of the 2-year
period, the person may apply to FMCSA for a renewal under procedures in
effect at that time.

    Issued on: December 30, 2015.
 Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-294 Filed 1-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P