80 FR 29975 - Great Lakes Pilotage Rates-2015 Annual Review and Adjustment
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Coast Guard Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 100 (May 26, 2015)
Coast Guard
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 100 (May 26, 2015)
| Page Range | 29975-29978 | |
| FR Document | 2015-12734 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 26, 2015)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 29975-29978] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-12734] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Coast Guard 46 CFR Part 401 [Docket No. USCG-2014-0481] RIN 1625-AC22 Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2015 Annual Review and Adjustment AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. ACTION: Final rule; change in effective date. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is advancing the effective date for the 2015 final rule which published on February 26, 2015, adjusting rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes in accordance with a full ratemaking procedure. The rate adjustments made by the February 2015 final rule are unchanged, but instead of taking effect on August 1, 2015, the rates will take effect June 2, 2015. This rulemaking rule promotes the Coast Guard's strategic goal of maritime safety. DATES: The effective date for the final rule published February 26, 2015 (80 FR 10365), is changed from August 1, 2015, to June 2, 2015. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email [email protected], or fax 202-372-1914. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents for Preamble I. Abbreviations II. Regulatory History III. Background IV. 2014 Litigation V. Good Cause VI. Regulatory Analyses A. Regulatory Planning and Review B. Small Entities C. Assistance for Small Entities D. Collection of Information E. Federalism I. Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations E.O. Executive Order FR Federal Register MISLE Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement NAICS North American Industry Classification System NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking OMB Office of Management and Budget Sec. Section symbol U.S.C. United States Code II. Regulatory History On September 4, 2014, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2015 Annual Review and Adjustment'' in the Federal Register.\1\ On December 1, 2014, we published revenue audits of the pilot associations and reopened the public comment period in the Federal Register.\2\ On February 26, 2015, we published a final rule entitled ``Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2015 Annual Review and Adjustment.'' \3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ 79 FR 52602 (Sept. 4, 2014). \2\ 79 FR 71082 (Dec. 1, 2014). \3\ 80 FR 10365 (Feb. 26, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Background The vessels affected by this rulemaking are those engaged in foreign trade upon the U.S. waters of the Great Lakes. United States and Canadian ``lakers,'' \4\ which account for most commercial shipping on the Great Lakes, are not affected.\5\ For further background information, please see the February 26, 2015 final rule at 80 FR 10365 at 10366. For further information summarizing the February final rule, see pages 10368 through 10383 of that document. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ A ``laker'' is a commercial cargo vessel especially designed for and generally limited to use on the Great Lakes. \5\ 46 U.S.C. 9302. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The basis of this rule is the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (``the Act'') (46 U.S.C. Chapter 93), which requires U.S. vessels operating ``on register'' \6\ and foreign vessels to use U.S. or Canadian registered pilots while transiting the U.S. waters of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes system.\7\ The Act requires the Secretary to ``prescribe by regulation rates and charges for pilotage services, giving consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing the services.'' \8\ Rates must be established or reviewed and adjusted each year, not later than March 1. Base rates must be established by a full ratemaking at least once every 5 years, and in years when base rates are not established, they must be reviewed and, if necessary, adjusted.\9\ The Secretary's duties and authority under the Act have been delegated to the Coast Guard.\10\ Coast Guard regulations implementing the Act appear in parts 401 through 404 of Title 46, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Procedures for use in establishing base rates appear in 46 CFR part 404, appendix A, and procedures for annual review and adjustment of existing base rates appear in 46 CFR part 404, appendix C. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ ``On register'' means that the vessel's certificate of documentation has been endorsed with a registry endorsement, and therefore, may be employed in foreign trade or trade with Guam, American Samoa, Wake, Midway, or Kingman Reef. 46 U.S.C. 12105, 46 CFR 67.17. \7\ 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1). \8\ 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). \9\ Id. \10\ Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, paragraph (92)(f). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This final rule advances the effective date of the 2015 final rule published on February 26, 2015, which established new base pilotage rates, using the methodology found in 46 CFR part 404, appendix A. IV. 2014 Litigation The Coast Guard published its ``Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2014 Annual Review and Adjustment'' final rule on March 4, 2014. Rates set in that rule took effect on August 1, 2014, and have remained in effect since then.\11\ Shortly after publication, the three Great Lakes pilot associations filed suit \12\ under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),\13\ challenging the manner in which the Coast Guard applied American Maritime Officers Union wage and benefit data. Under the Coast Guard ratemaking methodology, that data significantly affects rate adjustments. On March 27, 2015, the court issued a memorandum opinion holding that the Coast Guard [[Page 29976]] had not properly applied the union data, and was therefore arbitrary and capricious in setting the 2014 rates, which consequently were set lower than they should have been. The court ordered the parties to brief the appropriate remedy, recognizing that the normal remedy of vacating and remanding the 2014 rule would be counterproductive because the 2013 rates are lower than the rates set in the 2014 rule. Given that the usual remedies are impractical, the parties have discussed a remedy that advances the effective date for 2015 rates set in our 2015 final rule.\14\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ 79 FR 12084 (Mar. 4, 2014). \12\ The case is St. Lawrence Seaway Pilots Association, Inc., et al., v. United States Coast Guard, Civil Action No. 14-cv-392 (TSC), (D.D.C. March 27, 2015). \13\ 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq. \14\ Under this final rule, some vessels will pay higher rates prior to August 1, 2015 than they otherwise would have. Under the 2014 final rule. Note, however, that Canadian rates for 2015 took effect upon the opening of the shipping season in early spring 2015 and are higher than 2014 Canadian rates. Vessels are assigned either a U.S. or a Canadian pilot when they enter the Great Lakes, and therefore cannot know in advance whether they will be subject to U.S. or Canadian rates. With advancement of the 2015 effective date, henceforth all vessels will pay 2015 rates regardless of whether they are assigned a U.S. or Canadian pilot, rather than a 2014 rate if assigned a U.S. pilot and a 2015 rate if assigned a Canadian pilot. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Good Cause The Coast Guard is advancing the August 1, 2015 effective date of the 2015 final rule without following the usual APA procedures for prior notice and public opportunity to comment, and for thirty days to elapse between publication of a rule and the effective date of that rule. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d), the Coast Guard finds that it has good cause to depart from these procedures because to follow those procedures would be impracticable and contrary to public interest. Standard APA procedures would require publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, taking and considering public comments on that notice, publishing a second document actually advancing the effective date, and then waiting thirty days before that advancement could take effect. However, effective implementation of the remedy depends on acting as soon as practicable to advance the current August 1, 2015 effective date for the 2015 rates. The effectiveness of the remedy is reduced by each day that advancement of the effective date is delayed, thereby leaving the 2014 rates invalidated by the court in place and reducing the additional compensation that the pilots receive from advancement. Delay in order to follow standard APA notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures is therefore impracticable, because any delay would largely, if not wholly, defeat the remedy's purpose.\15\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ Good cause is ``. . . appropriately invoked when the timing and disclosure requirements of the usual procedures would defeat the purpose of the proposal.'' Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 95 (D.C. Cir. 2012). A good cause ``impracticability'' finding may be upheld where quick action is needed to fulfill the goal of a court- ordered deadline. Asiana Airlines, 134 F.3d 393, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Delaying the implementation of this rule to follow standard APA notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures is also contrary to public interest. The Coast Guard is statutorily required to set Great Lakes pilotage rates ``giving consideration to the public interest and the costs of providing services.'' \16\ The Coast Guard's goal in setting pilotage rates is to serve the public interest in assuring ``safe, efficient, and reliable'' pilotage service on the Great Lakes.\17\ The court has accepted the pilot associations' argument that the 2014 rates inadequately compensate them for the cost of providing service. Inadequate compensation reduces the funds that the plaintiff pilot associations need to provide safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage, because it weakens their ability to operate, attract and retain qualified pilots, and maintain pilot boats and other infrastructure, all of which are essential to providing current and future pilotage services. The intended effect of the remedy of advancing the effective date of the 2015 rates is to mitigate the impact of the inadequate compensation provided by the invalidated 2014 rates. Therefore any delay in implementing the remedy, diminishes the Coast Guard's ability to mitigate the inadequate compensation of the 2014 rates and would harm the public interest in assuring safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage.\18\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). \17\ See 80 FR 10365 (Feb. 26, 2015). \18\ See Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 95 (D.C. Cir. 2012); Asiana Airlines, 134 F.3d 393, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1998). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VI. Regulatory Analyses We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and E.O.s related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on these statutes or E.O.s. A. Regulatory Planning and Review Executive Orders 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866 as supplemented by E.O. 13563. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed it under E.O. 12866. Below is our analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule; this analysis assists in ascertaining the probable impacts of this rule on industry. The Coast Guard is advancing the effective date for the February 26, 2015 final rule adjusting rates for pilotage services on the Great Lakes in accordance with a full ratemaking procedure. The rate adjustments made by the February 2015 final rule are unchanged, but instead of taking effect on August 1, 2015, the rates will take effect June 2, 2015. We estimate that shippers will experience an increase in payments of approximately $283,761 across all three districts as a result of this rulemaking. A regulatory assessment follows. The Coast Guard is advancing the effective date of the final rule published on February 26, 2015, which established new base 2015 pilotage rates. This action leads to an increase in the cost per unit of service to shippers in all three districts for the additional period that the 2015 rates will be in effect. The calculations of the rates in the 2014 ratemaking \19\ and the 2015 ratemaking \20\ remain unchanged. The shippers affected by these rate adjustments are those owners and operators of domestic vessels operating on register (employed in foreign trade) and owners and operators of foreign vessels on a route within the Great Lakes system. These owners and operators must have pilots or pilotage service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. There is no minimum tonnage limit or exemption for these vessels. The statute applies only to commercial vessels and not to recreational vessels. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \19\ 79 FR 12084 (Mar. 4, 2014). \20\ 80 FR 10365 (Feb. 26, 2015). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Owners and operators of other vessels that are not affected by this final rule, such as recreational boats and vessels operating only within the Great Lakes system, may elect to purchase pilotage services. However, this election is voluntary and does not affect our calculation of the rate and is not a part of our estimated national cost to shippers. [[Page 29977]] We used 2011-2013 vessel arrival data from the Coast Guard's Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) system to estimate the average annual number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment. Using that period, we found that approximately 114 different vessels journeyed into the Great Lakes system annually. These vessels entered the Great Lakes by transiting at least one of the three pilotage districts before leaving the Great Lakes system. These vessels often made more than one distinct stop, docking, loading, and unloading at facilities in Great Lakes ports. Of the total trips for the 114 vessels, there were approximately 353 annual U.S. port arrivals before the vessels left the Great Lakes system, based on 2011-2013 vessel data from MISLE. We estimate the additional impact (cost increases) of the rate adjustment in this rule to be the difference between the 2014 and 2015 pilotage rates, multiplied by the additional bridge hours resulting from advancing the 2015 rate effective date. For this analysis, we assumed the earliest practicable effective date the 2015 rates could be advanced to is June 1, 2015. This would add an additional two months of bridge hours from the August 1, 2015 effective date set in the February 26, 2015 final rule. Table 1 details the additional cost increases by area and district as a result of this rulemaking. Table 1--Impact of the Rule by Area and District ($U.S.; Non-discounted) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Additional 2014 Pilotage 2015 Pilotage 2014 Total Difference in bridge hours Area rate \21\ rate \22\ bridge hours 2014 and 2015 (June and July Total cost \23\ rates 2015) \24\ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Area 1.................................................. $472.50 $519.74 5,116 $47.24 1,137 $53,707 Area 2.................................................. 291.96 321.15 5,429 29.19 1,206 35,216 Total, District One..................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 88,923 Area 4.................................................. 210.40 231.44 5,814 21.04 1,292 27,184 Area 5.................................................. 521.64 573.80 5,052 52.16 1,123 58,558 Total, District Two..................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 85,742 Area 6.................................................. 204.95 225.45 9,611 20.50 2,136 43,783 Area 7.................................................. 495.01 544.52 3,023 49.51 672 33,260 Area 8.................................................. 191.34 210.47 7,540 19.13 1,676 32,053 Total, District Three................................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 109,097 System Total............................................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 283,761 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * Some values may not total due to rounding. We estimate that shippers will experience an increase in payments of approximately $283,761 across all three districts as a result of this rulemaking. The resulting increase in costs is the change in payments from shippers to pilots from advancing the effective date of the 2015 rates. This figure is equivalent to the total additional payments that shippers would incur for pilotage services. This figure, however, is dependent on a June 1, 2015 effective date for this rulemaking. Any delays in the effective date will result in a lower cost impact to the shippers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ 2014 rates are from 2014 final rule, ``Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2014 Annual Review and Adjustment'', 79 FR 12084 (Mar. 4, 2014). \22\ 2015 rates are from 2015 final rule, ``Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2015 Annual Review and Adjustment'', 80 FR 10365 (Feb. 26, 2015). \23\ Bridge hours are from 2015 final rule, ``Great Lakes Pilotage Rates--2015 Annual Review and Adjustment'', 80 FR 10365 (Feb. 26, 2015). \24\ Bridge hours were calculated by dividing the 2014 bridge hours by the number of months in the shipping season (nine), and the multiplying by two months. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To calculate an exact cost per vessel is difficult because of the variation in vessel types, routes, port arrivals, commodity carriage, time of season, conditions during navigation, and preferences for the extent of pilotage services on designated and undesignated portions of the Great Lakes system. Some owners and operators would pay more and some would pay less, depending on the distance and the number of port arrivals of their vessels' trips. This rulemaking provides the pilots with additional compensation that will partially offset revenue losses due to the lower 2014 rates, during the months when those rates would otherwise remain in effect. This rulemaking helps assure safe, efficient, and reliable pilotage by increasing the pilot compensation that is artificially low due to the the 2014 rates invalidated by the court. B. Small Entities In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601- 612), rules that are exempt from APA notice and comment requirements are also exempt from the Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements when the agency for good cause finds that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. As discussed previously, Coast Guard for good cause finds that notice and comment are impracticable and contrary to public interest. Consequently, no regulatory flexibility analysisis is required. C. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). D. Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520. This rule does not change the burden in the collection currently approved by the OMB under Control [[Page 29978]] Number 1625-0086, Great Lakes Pilotage Methodology. E. Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained below. Congress directed the Coast Guard to establish ``rates and charges for pilotage services.'' 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). This regulation is issued pursuant to that statute and is preemptive of state law as specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a ``State or political subdivision of a State may not regulate or impose any requirement on pilotage on the Great Lakes.'' As a result, States or local governments are expressly prohibited from regulating within this category. Therefore, this rule is consistent with the principles of federalism and preemption requirements in E.O. 13132. Dated: May 20, 2015. Gary C. Rasicot, Director, Marine Transportation Systems, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. 2015-12734 Filed 5-22-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110-04-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 29975
EPA-APPROVED REGULATIONS IN THE WEST VIRGINIA SIP—Continued
State citation [Chapter 16–20 or State effective Additional explanation/cita-
Title/Subject EPA Approval date
45 CSR ] date tion at 40 CFR 52.2565
* * * * * * *
* * * * * I. Abbreviations Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes
[FR Doc. 2015–12486 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am]
CFR Code of Federal Regulations system.7 The Act requires the Secretary
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P E.O. Executive Order to ‘‘prescribe by regulation rates and
FR Federal Register charges for pilotage services, giving
MISLE Marine Information for Safety and consideration to the public interest and
Law Enforcement the costs of providing the services.’’ 8
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND NAICS North American Industry
SECURITY Rates must be established or reviewed
Classification System and adjusted each year, not later than
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Coast Guard OMB Office of Management and Budget
March 1. Base rates must be established
§ Section symbol by a full ratemaking at least once every
46 CFR Part 401 U.S.C. United States Code 5 years, and in years when base rates are
not established, they must be reviewed
[Docket No. USCG–2014–0481] II. Regulatory History and, if necessary, adjusted.9 The
On September 4, 2014, we published Secretary’s duties and authority under
RIN 1625–AC22 a notice of proposed rulemaking the Act have been delegated to the Coast
(NPRM) titled ‘‘Great Lakes Pilotage Guard.10 Coast Guard regulations
Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2015
Rates—2015 Annual Review and implementing the Act appear in parts
Annual Review and Adjustment
Adjustment’’ in the Federal Register.1 401 through 404 of Title 46, Code of
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. On December 1, 2014, we published Federal Regulations (CFR). Procedures
ACTION: Final rule; change in effective revenue audits of the pilot associations for use in establishing base rates appear
date. and reopened the public comment in 46 CFR part 404, appendix A, and
period in the Federal Register.2 On procedures for annual review and
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is advancing February 26, 2015, we published a final adjustment of existing base rates appear
the effective date for the 2015 final rule rule entitled ‘‘Great Lakes Pilotage in 46 CFR part 404, appendix C.
which published on February 26, 2015, Rates—2015 Annual Review and This final rule advances the effective
adjusting rates for pilotage services on Adjustment.’’ 3 date of the 2015 final rule published on
the Great Lakes in accordance with a III. Background February 26, 2015, which established
full ratemaking procedure. The rate new base pilotage rates, using the
adjustments made by the February 2015 The vessels affected by this methodology found in 46 CFR part 404,
final rule are unchanged, but instead of rulemaking are those engaged in foreign appendix A.
taking effect on August 1, 2015, the rates trade upon the U.S. waters of the Great
Lakes. United States and Canadian IV. 2014 Litigation
will take effect June 2, 2015. This
rulemaking rule promotes the Coast ‘‘lakers,’’ 4 which account for most The Coast Guard published its ‘‘Great
Guard’s strategic goal of maritime safety. commercial shipping on the Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2014 Annual
Lakes, are not affected.5 For further Review and Adjustment’’ final rule on
DATES: The effective date for the final
background information, please see the March 4, 2014. Rates set in that rule
rule published February 26, 2015 (80 FR February 26, 2015 final rule at 80 FR
10365), is changed from August 1, 2015, took effect on August 1, 2014, and have
10365 at 10366. For further information remained in effect since then.11 Shortly
to June 2, 2015. summarizing the February final rule, see after publication, the three Great Lakes
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If pages 10368 through 10383 of that pilot associations filed suit 12 under the
you have questions on this rule, call or document. Administrative Procedure Act (APA),13
email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, The basis of this rule is the Great challenging the manner in which the
Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG– Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (‘‘the Act’’) Coast Guard applied American Maritime
WWM–2), Coast Guard; telephone 202– (46 U.S.C. Chapter 93), which requires
Officers Union wage and benefit data.
372–2037, email U.S. vessels operating ‘‘on register’’ 6
Under the Coast Guard ratemaking
Todd.A.Haviland@uscg.mil, or fax 202– and foreign vessels to use U.S. or
methodology, that data significantly
372–1914. Canadian registered pilots while
affects rate adjustments. On March 27,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: transiting the U.S. waters of the St.
2015, the court issued a memorandum
Table of Contents for Preamble 1 79
opinion holding that the Coast Guard
FR 52602 (Sept. 4, 2014).
2 79
FR 71082 (Dec. 1, 2014).
I. Abbreviations 7 46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1).
3 80 FR 10365 (Feb. 26, 2015).
II. Regulatory History 8 46 U.S.C. 9303(f).
4 A ‘‘laker’’ is a commercial cargo vessel
III. Background
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
9 Id.
IV. 2014 Litigation especially designed for and generally limited to use
10 Department of Homeland Security Delegation
on the Great Lakes.
V. Good Cause 5 46 U.S.C. 9302. No. 0170.1, paragraph (92)(f).
VI. Regulatory Analyses 6 ‘‘On register’’ means that the vessel’s certificate 11 79 FR 12084 (Mar. 4, 2014).
A. Regulatory Planning and Review of documentation has been endorsed with a registry 12 The case is St. Lawrence Seaway Pilots
B. Small Entities endorsement, and therefore, may be employed in Association, Inc., et al., v. United States Coast
C. Assistance for Small Entities foreign trade or trade with Guam, American Samoa, Guard, Civil Action No. 14–cv–392 (TSC), (D.D.C.
D. Collection of Information Wake, Midway, or Kingman Reef. 46 U.S.C. 12105, March 27, 2015).
E. Federalism 46 CFR 67.17. 13 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:03 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30075/page/1.svg)
![29978 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 26, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Number 1625–0086, Great Lakes implementing area code relief for their choose the best means of implementing
Pilotage Methodology. citizens. area code relief for their citizens. An
DATES: Effective June 25, 2015. area code ‘‘split’’ occurs when the
E. Federalism
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: geographic area served by an area code
A rule has implications for federalism Sanford Williams, Wireline Competition is divided into two or more geographic
under E.O. 13132, Federalism, if it has Bureau, Competition Policy Division, parts. An area code overlay occurs when
a substantial direct effect on the States, (202) 418–1580, or send an email to a new area code is introduced to serve
on the relationship between the national sanford.williams@fcc.gov. the same geographic area as one or more
government and the States, or on the existing area codes. In both scenarios,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
distribution of power and callers must dial a ten-digit telephone
summary of the Commission’s Order in
responsibilities among the various number (three-digit area code, plus
WC Docket No. 07–244; CC Docket Nos.
levels of government. We have analyzed seven-digit number) to reach end users.
95–116, 99–200; DA 14–482 adopted
this rule under that order and have
and released on June 20, 2014. The full II. Background
determined that it is consistent with the
text of this document is available for 3. In May 2010, the Commission
fundamental federalism principles and
public inspection during regular adopted various provisioning flows in
preemption requirements described in
business hours in the FCC Reference its LNP Standard Fields Order.
E.O. 13132. Our analysis is explained
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th However, the Commission recognized
below. Congress directed the Coast
Street SW., Room CY–A257, that industry developments would
Guard to establish ‘‘rates and charges for
Washington, DC 20554. It is available on likely require changes to these flows. It
pilotage services.’’ 46 U.S.C. 9303(f).
the Commission’s Web site at http:// also acknowledged that ‘‘the NANC is
This regulation is issued pursuant to
www.fcc.gov. best situated to monitor the continued
that statute and is preemptive of state
law as specified in 46 U.S.C. 9306. I. Order effectiveness of the provisioning process
Under 46 U.S.C. 9306, a ‘‘State or flows, and make recommendations
1. In this Order, we adopt several when changes are needed.’’ Thus, the
political subdivision of a State may not recommendations of the NANC, a
regulate or impose any requirement on Commission decided that the
federal advisory committee for provisioning flows adopted in that order
pilotage on the Great Lakes.’’ telephone number administration,
As a result, States or local would remain in effect until the
pertaining to LNP. The Communications Commission approves revised
governments are expressly prohibited Act defines number portability as ‘‘the
from regulating within this category. provisioning flows based on
ability of users of telecommunications recommendations from the NANC. The
Therefore, this rule is consistent with services to retain, at the same location,
the principles of federalism and Commission delegated authority to the
existing telecommunications numbers Chief of the Wireline Competition
preemption requirements in E.O. 13132. without impairment of quality, Bureau (Bureau) to approve such
Dated: May 20, 2015. reliability, or convenience when recommended revisions and directed
Gary C. Rasicot, switching from one telecommunications the NANC to make the revised
Director, Marine Transportation Systems, carrier to another. This means that provisioning flows, once approved,
U.S. Coast Guard. customers have the ability to keep their available to the public on the NANC
[FR Doc. 2015–12734 Filed 5–22–15; 8:45 am] telephone numbers if they change Web site.
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P service providers, with a few 4. Flows for Cancellations and
exceptions. This process is called Disconnections. On January 2, 2013, the
telephone number ‘‘porting.’’ These NANC submitted a letter to the Bureau
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS recommendations all involve changes to recommending revisions to the
COMMISSION the LNP ‘‘provisioning flows’’ and are provisioning flows for port
intended to improve the telephone cancellations, termed by the NANC as
47 CFR Part 52 number porting process. Telephone the ‘‘Cancel Flows.’’ These flows apply
number porting is accomplished by the when a customer asks a new service
[WC Docket No. 07–244; CC Docket Nos. old and new service providers working provider to port his or her number, and
95–116, 99–200; DA 14–842] together and following a uniform set of then subsequently decides to cancel that
Local Number Portability Porting flow charts, referred to as the ‘‘LNP request and remain with his or her
Interval and Validation Requirements; provisioning flows.’’ These flows current provider. The customer must
Telephone Number Portability; consist of diagrams and accompanying notify one of the providers of the
Numbering Resource Optimization narratives which explain the processes cancellation. The NANC recommended
service providers follow in specific three revisions to these flows. The first
AGENCY: Federal Communications porting scenarios. The revision clarifies the responsibilities of
Commission. recommendations addressed in this the current and new service providers.
ACTION: Final rule. Order are changes to the narratives that It states that if the customer contacts the
accompany the diagrams. current provider, that provider may
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 2. These improvements include choose to advise the customer to call the
Communications Commission revising existing processes for new provider to cancel the port request.
(Commission) adopted several cancelling a number port request, If the customer contacts the new
recommendations of the North clarifying the timeline for re-using provider, that provider must cancel the
wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
American Numbering Council (NANC) disconnected ported numbers, and port. The second revision states that if
pertaining to local number portability stopping new service providers from the current provider decides to cancel
(LNP). Also, the Commission clarified prematurely activating ports. Also in the port request, it must obtain
that, notwithstanding the NANC’s this Order, we clarify that, verifiable authority from the customer,
preference for area code overlays over notwithstanding the NANC’s preference such as a Letter of Authorization, dated
area code splits, the states still have the for area code overlays over area code after the initial port request. The new
option to choose the best means of splits, the states still have the option to provider must then process the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:03 May 22, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\26MYR1.SGM 26MYR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_30075/page/4.svg)
Document Created: 2018-02-21 10:31:04
Document Modified: 2018-02-21 10:31:04
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule; change in effective date. | |
| Dates | The effective date for the final rule published February 26, 2015 (80 FR 10365), is changed from August 1, 2015, to June 2, 2015. | |
| Contact | If you have questions on this rule, call or email Mr. Todd Haviland, Director, Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant (CG-WWM-2), Coast Guard; telephone 202-372-2037, email [email protected], or fax 202-372-1914. | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 29975 | |
| RIN Number | 1625-AC22 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR