80 FR 38153 - Organization and Functions; Rules of Practice and Procedure; Attorney Fees
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 127 (July 2, 2015)
Federal Register Volume 80, Issue 127 (July 2, 2015)
| Page Range | 38153-38158 | |
| FR Document | 2015-16260 |
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 127 (Thursday, July 2, 2015)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 38153-38158] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2015-16260] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION 46 CFR Parts 501 and 502 [Docket No. 15-06] RIN 3072-AC61 Organization and Functions; Rules of Practice and Procedure; Attorney Fees AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime Commission proposes to amend its Rules of Practice and Procedure governing the award of attorney fees in Shipping Act complaint proceedings, and its regulations related to Commissioner terms and vacancies. The proposed regulatory changes would implement statutory amendments made by the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014. DATES: Comments are due on or before: August 6, 2015. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 15-06, by the following methods:Email: [email protected]. Include in the subject line: ``Docket No. 15-06, Comments on Proposed Attorney Fee and Term Limit Regulations.'' Comments should be attached to the email as a Microsoft Word or text-searchable PDF document. Only non-confidential comments and public versions of confidential comments should be submitted by email. Comments containing confidential information should not be submitted by email. Mail: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents and comments received, go to the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at: http://www.fmc.gov/15-06. Confidential Information: If your comments contain confidential information, you must submit the following: A transmittal letter requesting confidential treatment that identifies the specific information in the comments for which protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the complete filing with a cover page marked ``Confidential-Restricted,'' and the confidential material clearly marked on each page. You should submit the confidential copy to the Commission by mail. A public version of your comments with the confidential information excluded. The public version must state ``Public Version-- confidential materials excluded'' on the cover page and on each affected page, and must clearly indicate any information withheld. You may submit the public version to the Commission by email or mail. The Commission will provide confidential treatment for the identified confidential information to the extent allowed by law. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding submitting comments or the treatment of confidential information, contact Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. Phone: (202) 523-5725. Email: [email protected]. For all other questions, contact William H. Shakely, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. Phone: (202) 523-5740. Email: [email protected]. [[Page 38154]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Background A. Attorney Fees B. Commissioner Terms and Vacancies III. Proposal A. Conforming Amendments 1. Attorney-Fee Provision 2. Terms and Vacancies Provisions B. Implementing the Amended Attorney-Fee Provision 1. Who is eligible to recover attorney fees? 2. How will the commission exercise its discretion? 3. How will the commission apply the provision to pending proceedings? IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices I. Executive Summary Title IV of the Howard Coble Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, Public Law 113-281 (Coble Act), enacted on December 18, 2014, made amendments to the Shipping Act of 1984 and the statutory provisions governing the general organization of the Commission. Specifically, section 402 of the Coble Act amended the statutory provision governing the award of attorney fees in Shipping Act complaint proceedings. Attorney fees may now be awarded to the prevailing party in any complaint proceeding. See 46 U.S.C. 41305(e). Section 403 of the Coble Act established term limits for future Commissioners, limited the amount of time that future Commissioners will be permitted to serve beyond the end of their terms, and established conflict-of-interest restrictions for current and future Commissioners. See 46 U.S.C. 301(b). In response to these statutory amendments, the Commission is proposing to amend affected regulations to conform the regulatory language to the revised statutory text.\1\ In addition, the Commission is seeking comment on an appropriate framework for determining attorney fee awards under the amended fee-shifting provision. The Commission is considering providing additional guidance on this issue in the final rule and, where appropriate, incorporating that guidance into the Commission Rules of Practice and Procedure. To that end, this proposal discusses three general questions on which the Commission's guidance would focus: --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The Coble Act amendments to 46 U.S.C. 301(b) establishing conflict-of-interest restrictions for Commissioners are outside the scope of this rulemaking. The Commission is currently evaluating the need for regulatory action in response to these amendments. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Who is eligible to recover attorney fees? How will the Commission exercise its discretion to determine whether to award attorney fees to an eligible party? How will the Commission apply the new attorney-fee provision to proceedings that were pending before the Commission when the Coble Act was enacted on December 18, 2014? Although the Commission recognizes that the application of the fee- shifting provision will depend on the specific facts in individual complaint proceedings, the Commission believes that general guidance on these broader issues will reduce uncertainty and simplify the disposition of attorney-fee issues. II. Background A. Attorney Fees Section 11(a)-(b) of the Shipping Act of 1984, currently codified at 46 U.S.C. 41301, establishes a procedure by which a person may file a complaint with the Commission alleging a violation of the Shipping Act.\2\ Prior to the enactment of the Coble Act, 46 U.S.C. 41305(b) (section 11(g) of the Shipping Act) provided that ``[i]f the complaint was filed within . . . [three years after the claim accrued], the Federal Maritime Commission shall direct the payment of reparations to the complainant for actual injury caused by a violation of this part, plus reasonable attorney fees.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The Shipping Act also authorizes the Commission to initiate investigations of possible violations of the Shipping Act on its own motion. 46 U.S.C. 41302. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- To implement the statutory provision in section 11(g) mandating the award of attorney fees, the Commission added a sentence to Rule 253 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure. Final Rules To Implement the Shipping Act of 1984 and To Correct and Update Regulations, 49 FR 16994 (Apr. 23, 1984). After determining that more comprehensive regulations were needed, the Commission established Rule 254 (46 CFR 502.254) in 1987. Attorney's Fees in Reparation Proceedings, 52 FR 6330 (Mar. 3, 1987). The Commission interpreted section 11(g) as providing for attorney fees only to prevailing complainants in reparation proceedings, and Rule 254 reflects this limitation. See Attorney's Fees in Reparation Proceedings, 51 FR 37917 (Oct. 27, 1986); 46 CFR 502.254. In subsequent decisions, the Commission specified three conditions for recovering attorney fees pursuant to Rule 254: ``(1) a violation of the 1984 Act; (2) actual injury caused by such violation; and (3) payment of reparations to compensate for such injury.'' A/S Ivarans Rederi v. Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd Brasileiro, 25 S.R.R. 1061, 1063 (FMC 1990). Complainants who prevailed on the merits of the complaint, but who did not obtain a reparations award, were not eligible to recover attorney fees. See id. at 1064; 51 FR 37917. Section 402 of the Coble Act deleted the portion of 46 U.S.C. 41305(b) pertaining to attorney fees and added a new subsection (e), which reads as follows: ``Attorney Fees.--In any action brought under section 41301, the prevailing party may be awarded reasonable attorney fees.'' These amendments appear to affect the award of attorney fees in three significant ways. First, the revised language expands the categories of persons eligible to recover attorney fees to include any ``prevailing party,'' not merely prevailing complainants. Second, the award of attorney fees is no longer conditioned on an award of reparations; under the amended language, attorney fees are recoverable ``[i]n any action brought under section 41301.'' Finally, whereas 46 U.S.C. 41305(b) directed the Commission to award reasonable attorney fees to an eligible party, the new provision in subsection (e) states that such fees ``may be awarded,'' thus granting the Commission discretion to determine the circumstances under which eligible parties are entitled to attorney fees. There is limited legislative history for section 402. An informational brochure about the Coble Act issued by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee states only that ``th[e] section clarifies that in actions filed with the FMC alleging a violation of law pertaining to ocean shipping, the prevailing party in the proceeding may be awarded reasonable attorney fees.'' \3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, The Howard Coble Coast Guard & Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, at 20 (2014), available at http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/coastguardreauthsenateagreement.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Commissioner Terms and Vacancies The statutory provisions governing the general organization of the Commission are codified at 46 U.S.C. 301. Prior to the enactment of the Coble Act, there was no statutory limit on the number of terms a Commissioner could serve. In addition, when a Commissioner's term ended, the Commissioner could continue to serve until a successor was appointed, without any prescribed time limitation. The Commission's regulations at 46 CFR 501.2(c) reflect these statutory provisions. Section 403 of the Coble Act amended 46 U.S.C. 301(b) and established term limits for [[Page 38155]] Commissioners appointed and confirmed by the Senate on or after the date of enactment, i.e., December 18, 2014. Specifically, future Commissioners will be limited to two terms, in addition to the remainder of any term for which the Commissioner's predecessor was appointed. See 46 U.S.C. 301(b)(2) and (3). Section 403 also limited the amount of time future Commissioners will be permitted to serve beyond the end of their terms, to a period not to exceed one year. See 46 U.S.C. 301(b)(2). III. Proposal A. Conforming Amendments Given the amendments made by the Coble Act to 46 U.S.C. 301 and 41305, the Commission is proposing amendments to its regulations to implement the revised statutory text. 1. Attorney-Fee Provision The Commission proposes to amend Rule 254 of its Rules of Practice and Procedure to conform the regulatory text to the revised language of 46 U.S.C. 41305. The proposed amendments include: replacing references to ``complainant'' with ``prevailing party''; replacing references to ``respondent'' with ``opposing party''; replacing references to reparations awards with references to complaint proceedings more generally; and amending the language to clarify that the Commission now has discretion regarding the award of fees, and that fee petitions may be denied. The Commission is also proposing to delete the clause stating that recoverable attorney fees include compensation for services in related federal court proceedings. The Commission originally included this language based on the text of the previous statutory fee-shifting provision and its legislative history. 52 FR 6330 (Mar. 3, 1987). Given the textual differences between that provision and the fee-shifting provision added by the Coble Act, combined with the absence of any legislative history regarding the applicability of the new fee-shifting provision to services performed in other proceedings, the Commission has tentatively determined to remove this language. Under the amended Rule 254 as proposed below, the Commission would resolve any issues related to compensation for services performed in other proceedings on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with relevant federal case law. The Commission requests comment on these proposed amendments and any other amendments necessary to reflect the amended statutory language. In addition to the substantive amendments to its Rules of Practice and Procedure described above, the Commission is proposing a number of minor changes to improve the clarity and organization of Rule 254. For example, the Commission is proposing to add cross-references to relevant provisions governing formal and informal small claims. Although the Commission Rules state that Rule 254 applies to such claims, see 46 CFR 502.305, 502.321, the requirements for filing fee petitions inadvertently omit relevant references to these claims. Likewise, the Commission is proposing conforming edits to these rules to reflect the proposed amendments to Rule 254. The Commission is also proposing to replace the term ``presiding officer'' in Rule 254 with the phrase, ``administrative law judge or small claims officer.'' As used in Rule 254, the term ``presiding officer'' is meant to include these officials but not members of the Commission. This could create confusion because, as defined in Rule 25, ``presiding officer'' can mean an administrative law judge or one or more members of the Commission, and small claims officers are not expressly included in the definition. See 46 CFR 502.25(a). 2. Terms and Vacancies Provisions The Commission proposes to amend 46 CFR 501.2(c) to conform the regulatory text to the revised language of 46 U.S.C. 301(b). Specifically, the Commission proposes dividing paragraph (c) into several subparagraphs addressing the length of Commissioner terms, removal of Commissioners, vacancies on the Commission, and term limits for both current and future Commissioners. B. Implementing the Amended Attorney-Fee Provision The Commission seeks comment on an appropriate framework for determining attorney fee awards under the amended fee-shifting provision. Specifically, the Commission would like to provide general guidance in the final rule on the following questions: Who is eligible to recover attorney fees? How will the Commission exercise its discretion to determine whether to award attorney fees to an eligible party? How will the Commission apply the new attorney-fee provision to proceedings that were pending before the Commission when the Coble Act was enacted on December 18, 2014? This proposal discusses various options to address these issues that are currently being considered. We request comment on these options. 1. Who is eligible to recover attorney fees? As discussed in the Background section, prior to the enactment of the Coble Act, the Shipping Act provided for the award of attorney fees to prevailing complainants in reparation proceedings. The new attorney- fee provision added by the Coble Act provides for the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in any action brought under section 41301. This raises several questions including: What types of actions are covered by the attorney-fee provision? Who is considered a ``party''? When will a ``party'' be considered to have ``prevailed'' in a covered action? Examining the first question, section 41301 permits a person to file a complaint with the Commission alleging a violation of the Shipping Act. 46 U.S.C. 41301(a). The Commission is required to provide a copy of the complaint to the person named in the complaint, and, if the complaint is not satisfied, the Commission is directed to investigate the complaint in an appropriate manner and make an appropriate order. 46 U.S.C. 41301(b)-(c). Based on the wording of the Coble Act's attorney-fee provision and the wording of section 41301, it appears that attorney fees may now be awarded in any complaint proceeding. The Commission requests comment on this interpretation. Regarding the second question, the Commission's Rules define the term ``party'' in Commission proceedings to include any natural person, corporation, association, firm, partnership, trustee, receiver, agency, public or private organization, or government agency (including a unit representing the agency). 46 CFR 502.41. The Commission requests comment on any reasons why the existing definition would not be appropriate to use in applying the new attorney-fee provision. When a party will be considered to have ``prevailed'' in a complaint proceeding is a more complex issue because of the number of different possible outcomes. The Commission notes, however, that a number of fee-shifting provisions in other statutes also provide for the award of fees to the ``prevailing party,'' and there is abundant case law interpreting the term. See, e.g., 17 U.S.C. 505; 42 U.S.C 1988(b); 42 U.S.C 2000a-3(b); 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k). Therefore, the Commission proposes to rely on relevant federal case law to the extent practicable in determining whether a party has [[Page 38156]] ``prevailed'' in a particular complaint proceeding and is thus eligible to recover attorney fees under the new fee-shifting provision. The Commission requests comment on this approach and any alternative approaches. 2. How will the commission exercise its discretion? The text of the new attorney-fee provision is silent as to how the Commission should exercise its discretion in awarding fees to an eligible party. The provision neither describes a standard of entitlement nor lists any factors for consideration, and the sparse legislative history provides little guidance. Therefore, the Commission has examined the standards used by federal courts in determining entitlement to attorney fees under provisions with language similar to 46 U.S.C. 41305(e), i.e., those provisions that allow for, but do not require, the award of attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action. The Commission has identified two prevalent standards used by the federal courts in determining fee entitlement under this type of provision. The first is the standard used by federal courts applying the fee- shifting provision in the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. 505. The Supreme Court has cited with approval a nonexclusive list of factors for courts to consider when determining entitlement, including ``frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and in the legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.'' Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994) (quoting Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc., 788 F.2d 151, 156 (3rd Cir. 1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). In addition, the courts use the same standard for prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing defendants when making such determinations. See Fogerty, 510 U.S. at 534-35. The second standard identified by the Commission is used in determining entitlement to attorney fees under the Civil Rights Act, e.g., 42 U.S.C 2000a-3(b), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k). Under this standard, prevailing plaintiffs are treated more favorably than prevailing respondents when determining entitlement to attorney fees. While prevailing plaintiffs ``ordinarily recover an attorney's fee unless special circumstances would render such an award unjust,'' Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968), prevailing defendants are awarded attorney fees only ``upon a finding that the plaintiff's action was frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.'' Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). The Commission requests comment on these two standards and whether either standard would be appropriate to use in applying the new attorney-fees provision in complaint proceedings. In particular, the Commission requests comment on the factors considered under each standard in determining entitlement and whether the same standard should apply to prevailing complainants and prevailing respondents. The Commission further requests comment on any other standards the Commission should consider. The Commission also seeks feedback on the following questions: Should the Commission decline to adopt any framework as part of this rulemaking and, instead, address all entitlement issues through the formal adjudication process? If the Commission decides to adopt one of the standards used by the courts, should any additional criteria be added? For example, if the Commission were to adopt the nonexclusive list of factors used in Copyright Act attorney-fee determinations, are there additional factors the Commission should consider in light of the purpose of the Shipping Act and the nature of complaint proceedings brought under the Act? Should the standard for entitlement used by the Commission depend on the type of proceeding? For example, should the Commission use a standard more favorable to complainants in small claims proceedings, which often, though not always, involve individuals who file complaints against businesses with greater resources? 3. How will the commission apply the provision to pending proceedings? The effective date of the Coble Act was December 18, 2014, and given the differences between 46 U.S.C. 41305(e) and the previous attorney-fee provision, the Commission will likely need to address whether and how section 41305(e) applies to complaint proceedings that were initiated prior to December 18, 2014, and are still pending before the Commission. In determining the applicability of a newly enacted statute to pending cases, the courts first look to ``whether Congress has expressly prescribed the statute's proper reach.'' Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30, 37 (2006) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the statute's reach cannot be determined from the text and the application of the normal rules of statutory construction, the court must ``determine whether the application of the statute to the conduct at issue would result in a retroactive effect,'' Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343, 352 (1999), i.e., ``whether it would impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.'' Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280; see also Fernandez-Vargas at 548 U.S. at 37. ``If the answer is yes,'' the courts then apply the traditional ``presumption against retroactivity by construing the statute as inapplicable to the event or act in question owing to the `absen[ce of] a clear indication from Congress that it intended such a result.' '' Fernandez-Vargas at 548 U.S. at 37-38 (quoting Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 316 (2001)); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. In cases in which the statute would not have a ``genuinely `retroactive' effect,'' the general rule is that a court ``should `apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision,' even though that law was enacted after the events that gave rise to the suit.'' Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 273, 277 (quoting Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711 (1974)) (citation omitted). One option for addressing attorney-fee determinations in pending proceedings would be to analyze the specific facts of individual cases under the framework above and determine whether application of the new provision would have a retroactive effect. If it would not, the Commission would apply the new provision to determine entitlement to attorney fees. The Commission requests comment on this approach and any alternative approaches. Would a bright line rule be preferable? For example, the Commission could establish a rule stating that it will apply the previous entitlement standard in all complaint proceedings initiated before a certain date, such as the enactment date of the Coble Act. IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601-612) provides that whenever an agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603. An agency is not required to [[Page 38157]] publish an IRFA, however, for the following types of rules, which are excluded from the APA's notice-and-comment requirement: interpretative rules; general statements of policy; rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice; and rules for which the agency for good cause finds that notice and comment is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to public interest. See 5 U.S.C. 553. Although the Commission has elected to seek public comment on its proposed regulatory amendments and the application of the Coble Act's new attorney-fee provision, these matters concern the organization of the Commission, its practices and procedures, and its interpretation of statutory provisions. Therefore, the APA does not require publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking in this instance, and the Commission is not required to prepare an IRFA. Paperwork Reduction Act The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) requires an agency to seek and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. 44 U.S.C. 3507. The agency must submit collections of information in proposed rules to OMB in conjunction with the publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking. 5 CFR 1320.11. The Commission is not proposing any collections of information, as defined by 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), as part of this proposed rule. Regulation Identifier Number The Commission assigns a regulation identifier number (RIN) to each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions (Unified Agenda). The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda in April and October of each year. You may use the RIN contained in the heading at the beginning of this document to find this action in the Unified Agenda, available at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain. List of Subjects 46 CFR Part 501 Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies), Seals and insignia. 46 CFR Part 502 Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Equal access to justice, Investigations, Lawyers, Maritime carriers, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Commission proposes to amend 46 CFR parts 501 and 502 as follows: PART 501--THE FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION--GENERAL 0 1. The authority citation for part 501 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 551-557, 701-706, 2903 and 6304; 31 U.S.C. 3721; 41 U.S.C. 414 and 418; 44 U.S.C. 501-520 and 3501-3520; 46 U.S.C. 301-307, 40101-41309, 42101-42109, 44101-44106; Pub. L. 89- 56, 70 Stat. 195; 5 CFR part 2638; Pub. L. 104-320, 110 Stat. 3870. 0 2. Amend Sec. 501.2 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows: Sec. 501.2 General. * * * * * (c) Terms and vacancies--(1) Length of terms. The term of each member of the Commission is five years and begins when the term of the predecessor of that member ends (i.e., on June 30 of each successive year). (2) Removal. The President may remove a Commissioner for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. (3) Vacancies. A vacancy in the office of any Commissioner is filled in the same manner as the original appointment. An individual appointed to fill a vacancy is appointed only for the unexpired term of the individual being succeeded. (4) Term Limits--(i) Commissioners appointed and confirmed before December 18, 2014. When a Commissioner's term ends, the Commissioner may continue to serve until a successor is appointed and qualified. (ii) Commissioners appointed and confirmed on or after December 18, 2014. (A) When a Commissioner's term ends, the Commissioner may continue to serve until a successor is appointed and qualified, limited to a period not to exceed one year. (B) No individual may serve more than two terms, except that an individual appointed to fill a vacancy may serve two terms in addition to the remainder of the term for which the predecessor of that individual was appointed. * * * * * PART 502--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 0 3. The authority citation for part 502 continues to read as follows: Authority: 5 U.S.C. 504, 551, 552, 553, 556(c), 559, 561-569, 571-596; 5 U.S.C. 571-584; 18 U.S.C. 207; 28 U.S.C. 2112(a); 31 U.S.C. 9701; 46 U.S.C. 305, 40103-40104, 40304, 40306, 40501-40503, 40701-40706, 41101-41109, 41301-41309, 44101-44106; E.O. 11222 of May 8, 1965. Subpart O--Reparation; Attorney Fees 0 4. Revise the heading of Subpart O to read as set forth above. 0 5. Revise Sec. 502.254 to read as follows: Sec. 502.254 Attorney fees in complaint proceedings. (a) General. In any complaint proceeding brought under section 11(a) of the Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. 41301), the Commission may, upon petition, award the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees. (b) Definitions. Attorney fees means the fair market value of the services of any person permitted to appear and practice before the Commission in accordance with subpart B of this part. Decision means: (1) An initial decision or dismissal order issued by an administrative law judge; (2) A final decision issued by a small claims officer; or (3) A final decision issued by the Commission. (c) Filing petitions for attorney fees. (1) In order to recover attorney fees, the prevailing party must file a petition within 30 days after a decision becomes final. For purposes of this section, a decision is considered final when the time for seeking judicial review has expired or when a court appeal has terminated. (2) The prevailing party must file the petition with either: (i) The administrative law judge or small claims officer, if that official's decision became administratively final under Sec. 502.227(a)(3), Sec. 502.227(c), Sec. 502.304(g), or Sec. 502.318(a); or (ii) The Commission, if the Commission reviewed the decision of the administrative law judge or small claims officer under Sec. 502.227, Sec. 502.304, or Sec. 502.318. (d) Content of petitions. The petition must specify the number of hours claimed by each person representing the prevailing party at each identifiable stage of the proceeding, and must be supported by evidence of the reasonableness of the hours claimed and the customary rates charged by attorneys and associated legal representatives in the community where the person practices. The petition may request additional compensation, but any such request must be supported by [[Page 38158]] evidence that the customary rates for the hours reasonably expended on the case would result in an unreasonably low fee award. (e) Replies to petitions. The opposing party may file a reply to the petition within 20 days of the service date of the petition. The reply may address the reasonableness of any aspect of the prevailing party's claim and may suggest adjustments to the claim under the criteria stated in paragraph (d) of this section. (f) Rulings on petitions. (1) Upon consideration of a petition and any reply thereto, the Commission, administrative law judge, or small claims officer will issue an order granting or denying the petition. (i) If the order awards the prevailing party attorney fees, the order will state the total amount of attorney fees awarded, specify the compensable hours and appropriate rate of compensation, and explain the basis for any additional adjustments. (ii) If the order denies the prevailing party attorney fees, the order will explain the reasons for the denial. (2) The Commission, administrative law judge, or small claims officer may adopt a stipulated settlement of attorney fees. (g) Timing of rulings. An order granting or denying a petition for attorney fees will be served within 60 days of the date of the filing of the reply to the petition or expiration of the reply period, except that in cases involving a substantial dispute of facts critical to the determination of an award, the Commission, administrative law judge, or small claims officer may hold a hearing on such issues and extend the time for issuing an order by an additional 30 days. (h) Appealing rulings by administrative law judge or small claims officer. When an administrative law judge or small claims officer issues an order granting or denying a fee petition, Sec. 502.227 governs the appeal of that order and Commission review of that order in the absence of appeal. [Rule 254.] 0 6. Amend Sec. 502.305 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 502.305 Applicability of other rules of this part. * * * * * (b) The following sections in subparts A through Q of this part apply to situations covered by this subpart: Sec. Sec. 502.2(a) (Requirement for filing); 502.2(f)(1) (Email transmission of filings); 502.2(i) (Continuing obligation to provide contact information); 502.7 (Documents in foreign languages); 502.21-502.23 (Appearance, Authority for representation, Notice of appearance; substitution and withdrawal of representative); 502.43 (Substitution of parties); 502.101 (Computation); 502.117 (Certificate of service); 502.253 (Interest in reparation proceedings); and 502.254 (Attorney fees in complaint proceedings). [Rule 305.] 0 7. Amend Sec. 502.318 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 502.318 Decision. * * * * * (b) Attorney fees may be awarded to the prevailing party in accordance with Sec. 502.254. [Rule 318.] 0 8. Amend Sec. 502.321 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: Sec. 502.321 Applicability of other rules of this part. * * * * * (b) The following sections in subparts A through Q apply to situations covered by this subpart: Sec. Sec. 502.2(a) (Requirement for filing); 502.2(f)(1) (Email transmission of filings); 502.2(i) (Continuing obligation to provide contact information); 502.7 (Documents in foreign languages); 502.21-502.23 (Appearance, Authority for representation, Notice of appearance; substitution and withdrawal of representative); 502.43 (Substitution of parties); 502.253 (Interest in reparation proceedings); and 502.254 (Attorney fees in complaint proceedings). [Rule 321.] By the Commission. Karen V. Gregory, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2015-16260 Filed 7-1-15; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE P
![Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules 38153
subsequent final rule based on this 1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@ and Term Limit Regulations.’’
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a epa.gov. Comments should be attached to the
second comment period on this SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This email as a Microsoft Word or text-
document. Any parties interested in document extends the public comment searchable PDF document. Only non-
commenting on this document should period established in the Federal confidential comments and public
do so at this time. Register document of April 6, 2015 (80 versions of confidential comments
Dated: June 18, 2015. FR 18330) (FRL–9920–90). In that should be submitted by email.
Heather McTeer Toney, document, EPA proposed reporting and Comments containing confidential
recordkeeping requirements for certain information should not be submitted by
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
chemical substances when they are email.
[FR Doc. 2015–16078 Filed 7–1–15; 8:45 am]
manufactured or processed at the • Mail: Karen V. Gregory, Secretary,
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Federal Maritime Commission, 800
nanoscale. EPA is hereby extending the
comment period, which was set to end North Capitol Street NW., Washington,
on July 6, 2015, to August 5, 2015. DC 20573–0001.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Docket: For access to the docket to
AGENCY To submit comments, or access the
docket, please follow the detailed read background documents and
40 CFR Part 704 instructions provided under ADDRESSES comments received, go to the
in the Federal Register document of Commission’s Electronic Reading Room
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2010–0572; FRL–9929–70] April 6, 2015. If you have questions, at: http://www.fmc.gov/15-06.
consult the technical person listed Confidential Information: If your
Chemical Substances When under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION comments contain confidential
Manufactured or Processed as CONTACT. information, you must submit the
Nanoscale Materials, TSCA Reporting following:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(a). • A transmittal letter requesting
and Recordkeeping Requirements;
Extension of Comment Period List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 704 confidential treatment that identifies the
specific information in the comments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Environmental protection, Chemicals,
for which protection is sought and
Agency (EPA). Hazardous substances, Reporting and
demonstrates that the information is a
recordkeeping requirements.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of trade secret or other confidential
comment period. Dated: June 23, 2015. research, development, or commercial
Maria J. Doa, information.
SUMMARY: EPA published a proposed Director, Chemical Control Division, Office • A confidential copy of your
rule in the Federal Register of April 6, of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. comments, consisting of the complete
2015 at 80 FR 18330, concerning [FR Doc. 2015–16051 Filed 7–1–15; 8:45 am] filing with a cover page marked
proposing reporting and recordkeeping BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ‘‘Confidential-Restricted,’’ and the
requirements for certain chemical confidential material clearly marked on
substances when they are manufactured each page. You should submit the
or processed at the nanoscale. This confidential copy to the Commission by
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
document extends the comment period mail.
for 30 days, from July 6, 2015 to August 46 CFR Parts 501 and 502 • A public version of your comments
5, 2015. A commenter requested with the confidential information
additional time to submit written [Docket No. 15–06]
excluded. The public version must state
comments for the proposed rule. EPA is RIN 3072–AC61 ‘‘Public Version—confidential materials
therefore extending the comment period excluded’’ on the cover page and on
in order to give all interested persons Organization and Functions; Rules of each affected page, and must clearly
the opportunity to comment fully. Practice and Procedure; Attorney Fees indicate any information withheld. You
DATES: Comments, identified by docket AGENCY: Federal Maritime Commission. may submit the public version to the
identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– Commission by email or mail.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
OPPT–2010–0572, must be received on The Commission will provide
or before August 5, 2015. SUMMARY: The Federal Maritime confidential treatment for the identified
ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed Commission proposes to amend its confidential information to the extent
instructions provided under ADDRESSES Rules of Practice and Procedure allowed by law.
in the Federal Register document of governing the award of attorney fees in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
April 6, 2015 (80 FR 18330) (FRL–9920– Shipping Act complaint proceedings, questions regarding submitting
90). and its regulations related to comments or the treatment of
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For Commissioner terms and vacancies. The confidential information, contact Karen
technical information contact: Jim proposed regulatory changes would V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime
Alwood, Chemical Control Division, implement statutory amendments made Commission, 800 North Capitol Street
Office of Pollution Prevention and by the Howard Coble Coast Guard and NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Toxics, Environmental Protection Maritime Transportation Act of 2014. Phone: (202) 523–5725. Email:
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., DATES: Comments are due on or before: secretary@fmc.gov.
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone August 6, 2015. For all other questions, contact
number: 202 564–8974; email address: ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, William H. Shakely, Office of the
alwood.jim@epa.gov. identified by Docket No. 15–06, by the General Counsel, Federal Maritime
For general information contact: The following methods: Commission, 800 North Capitol Street
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 • Email: secretary@fmc.gov. Include NW., Washington, DC 20573–0001.
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY in the subject line: ‘‘Docket No. 15–06, Phone: (202) 523–5740. Email:
14620; telephone number: (202) 554– Comments on Proposed Attorney Fee generalcounsel@fmc.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:02 Jul 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00135 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM 02JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_38280/page/1.svg)
![38154 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: • How will the Commission exercise Brasileiro, 25 S.R.R. 1061, 1063 (FMC
its discretion to determine whether to 1990). Complainants who prevailed on
Table of Contents
award attorney fees to an eligible party? the merits of the complaint, but who did
I. Executive Summary • How will the Commission apply the not obtain a reparations award, were not
II. Background new attorney-fee provision to eligible to recover attorney fees. See id.
A. Attorney Fees proceedings that were pending before at 1064; 51 FR 37917.
B. Commissioner Terms and Vacancies the Commission when the Coble Act Section 402 of the Coble Act deleted
III. Proposal was enacted on December 18, 2014? the portion of 46 U.S.C. 41305(b)
A. Conforming Amendments Although the Commission recognizes pertaining to attorney fees and added a
1. Attorney-Fee Provision
2. Terms and Vacancies Provisions
that the application of the fee-shifting new subsection (e), which reads as
B. Implementing the Amended Attorney- provision will depend on the specific follows: ‘‘Attorney Fees.—In any action
Fee Provision facts in individual complaint brought under section 41301, the
1. Who is eligible to recover attorney fees? proceedings, the Commission believes prevailing party may be awarded
2. How will the commission exercise its that general guidance on these broader reasonable attorney fees.’’ These
discretion? issues will reduce uncertainty and amendments appear to affect the award
3. How will the commission apply the simplify the disposition of attorney-fee of attorney fees in three significant
provision to pending proceedings? issues. ways. First, the revised language
IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices expands the categories of persons
II. Background
I. Executive Summary eligible to recover attorney fees to
A. Attorney Fees include any ‘‘prevailing party,’’ not
Title IV of the Howard Coble Coast merely prevailing complainants.
Guard and Maritime Transportation Act Section 11(a)–(b) of the Shipping Act
of 1984, currently codified at 46 U.S.C. Second, the award of attorney fees is no
of 2014, Public Law 113–281 (Coble longer conditioned on an award of
Act), enacted on December 18, 2014, 41301, establishes a procedure by which
a person may file a complaint with the reparations; under the amended
made amendments to the Shipping Act language, attorney fees are recoverable
of 1984 and the statutory provisions Commission alleging a violation of the
Shipping Act.2 Prior to the enactment of ‘‘[i]n any action brought under section
governing the general organization of 41301.’’ Finally, whereas 46 U.S.C.
the Commission. Specifically, section the Coble Act, 46 U.S.C. 41305(b)
(section 11(g) of the Shipping Act) 41305(b) directed the Commission to
402 of the Coble Act amended the award reasonable attorney fees to an
statutory provision governing the award provided that ‘‘[i]f the complaint was
filed within . . . [three years after the eligible party, the new provision in
of attorney fees in Shipping Act subsection (e) states that such fees ‘‘may
complaint proceedings. Attorney fees claim accrued], the Federal Maritime
Commission shall direct the payment of be awarded,’’ thus granting the
may now be awarded to the prevailing Commission discretion to determine the
party in any complaint proceeding. See reparations to the complainant for
actual injury caused by a violation of circumstances under which eligible
46 U.S.C. 41305(e). Section 403 of the parties are entitled to attorney fees.
Coble Act established term limits for this part, plus reasonable attorney fees.’’
To implement the statutory provision There is limited legislative history for
future Commissioners, limited the section 402. An informational brochure
amount of time that future in section 11(g) mandating the award of
attorney fees, the Commission added a about the Coble Act issued by the House
Commissioners will be permitted to Transportation and Infrastructure
serve beyond the end of their terms, and sentence to Rule 253 of its Rules of
Committee states only that ‘‘th[e]
established conflict-of-interest Practice and Procedure. Final Rules To
section clarifies that in actions filed
restrictions for current and future Implement the Shipping Act of 1984
with the FMC alleging a violation of law
Commissioners. See 46 U.S.C. 301(b). and To Correct and Update Regulations,
pertaining to ocean shipping, the
In response to these statutory 49 FR 16994 (Apr. 23, 1984). After
prevailing party in the proceeding may
amendments, the Commission is determining that more comprehensive
be awarded reasonable attorney fees.’’ 3
proposing to amend affected regulations regulations were needed, the
to conform the regulatory language to Commission established Rule 254 (46 B. Commissioner Terms and Vacancies
the revised statutory text.1 In addition, CFR 502.254) in 1987. Attorney’s Fees The statutory provisions governing
the Commission is seeking comment on in Reparation Proceedings, 52 FR 6330 the general organization of the
an appropriate framework for (Mar. 3, 1987). Commission are codified at 46 U.S.C.
The Commission interpreted section 301. Prior to the enactment of the Coble
determining attorney fee awards under
11(g) as providing for attorney fees only Act, there was no statutory limit on the
the amended fee-shifting provision. The
to prevailing complainants in reparation number of terms a Commissioner could
Commission is considering providing
proceedings, and Rule 254 reflects this serve. In addition, when a
additional guidance on this issue in the
limitation. See Attorney’s Fees in Commissioner’s term ended, the
final rule and, where appropriate,
Reparation Proceedings, 51 FR 37917 Commissioner could continue to serve
incorporating that guidance into the
(Oct. 27, 1986); 46 CFR 502.254. In until a successor was appointed,
Commission Rules of Practice and
subsequent decisions, the Commission without any prescribed time limitation.
Procedure. To that end, this proposal
specified three conditions for recovering The Commission’s regulations at 46 CFR
discusses three general questions on
attorney fees pursuant to Rule 254: ‘‘(1) 501.2(c) reflect these statutory
which the Commission’s guidance
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
a violation of the 1984 Act; (2) actual provisions. Section 403 of the Coble Act
would focus:
injury caused by such violation; and (3)
• Who is eligible to recover attorney amended 46 U.S.C. 301(b) and
payment of reparations to compensate established term limits for
fees?
for such injury.’’ A/S Ivarans Rederi v.
1 The Coble Act amendments to 46 U.S.C. 301(b) Companhia de Navegacao Lloyd 3 House Committee on Transportation &
establishing conflict-of-interest restrictions for Infrastructure, The Howard Coble Coast Guard &
Commissioners are outside the scope of this 2 The Shipping Act also authorizes the Maritime Transportation Act of 2014, at 20 (2014),
rulemaking. The Commission is currently Commission to initiate investigations of possible available at http://transportation.house.gov/
evaluating the need for regulatory action in violations of the Shipping Act on its own motion. uploadedfiles/
response to these amendments. 46 U.S.C. 41302. coastguardreauthsenateagreement.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:02 Jul 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM 02JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_38280/page/2.svg)
![38156 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
‘‘prevailed’’ in a particular complaint frivolous, unreasonable, or without normal rules of statutory construction,
proceeding and is thus eligible to foundation.’’ Christiansburg Garment the court must ‘‘determine whether the
recover attorney fees under the new fee- Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity application of the statute to the conduct
shifting provision. The Commission Comm’n, 434 U.S. 412, 421 (1978). at issue would result in a retroactive
requests comment on this approach and The Commission requests comment effect,’’ Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343,
any alternative approaches. on these two standards and whether 352 (1999), i.e., ‘‘whether it would
either standard would be appropriate to impair rights a party possessed when he
2. How will the commission exercise its use in applying the new attorney-fees
discretion? acted, increase a party’s liability for past
provision in complaint proceedings. In conduct, or impose new duties with
The text of the new attorney-fee particular, the Commission requests respect to transactions already
provision is silent as to how the comment on the factors considered completed.’’ Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280;
Commission should exercise its under each standard in determining see also Fernandez-Vargas at 548 U.S. at
discretion in awarding fees to an eligible entitlement and whether the same 37. ‘‘If the answer is yes,’’ the courts
party. The provision neither describes a standard should apply to prevailing then apply the traditional ‘‘presumption
standard of entitlement nor lists any complainants and prevailing against retroactivity by construing the
factors for consideration, and the sparse respondents. The Commission further statute as inapplicable to the event or
legislative history provides little requests comment on any other act in question owing to the ‘absen[ce
guidance. Therefore, the Commission standards the Commission should of] a clear indication from Congress that
has examined the standards used by consider. it intended such a result.’ ’’ Fernandez-
federal courts in determining The Commission also seeks feedback Vargas at 548 U.S. at 37–38 (quoting
entitlement to attorney fees under on the following questions: Should the Immigration & Naturalization Serv. v.
provisions with language similar to 46 Commission decline to adopt any St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 316 (2001)); see
U.S.C. 41305(e), i.e., those provisions framework as part of this rulemaking also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280. In cases
that allow for, but do not require, the and, instead, address all entitlement in which the statute would not have a
award of attorney fees to the prevailing issues through the formal adjudication ‘‘genuinely ‘retroactive’ effect,’’ the
party in an action. The Commission has process? If the Commission decides to general rule is that a court ‘‘should
identified two prevalent standards used adopt one of the standards used by the ‘apply the law in effect at the time it
by the federal courts in determining fee courts, should any additional criteria be renders its decision,’ even though that
entitlement under this type of provision. added? For example, if the Commission law was enacted after the events that
The first is the standard used by were to adopt the nonexclusive list of gave rise to the suit.’’ Landgraf, 511 U.S.
federal courts applying the fee-shifting factors used in Copyright Act attorney- at 273, 277 (quoting Bradley v. Sch. Bd.
provision in the Copyright Act, 17 fee determinations, are there additional
U.S.C. 505. The Supreme Court has of City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711
factors the Commission should consider
cited with approval a nonexclusive list (1974)) (citation omitted).
in light of the purpose of the Shipping One option for addressing attorney-fee
of factors for courts to consider when Act and the nature of complaint determinations in pending proceedings
determining entitlement, including proceedings brought under the Act? would be to analyze the specific facts of
‘‘frivolousness, motivation, objective Should the standard for entitlement individual cases under the framework
unreasonableness (both in the factual used by the Commission depend on the above and determine whether
and in the legal components of the case) type of proceeding? For example,
and the need in particular application of the new provision would
should the Commission use a standard have a retroactive effect. If it would not,
circumstances to advance more favorable to complainants in small
considerations of compensation and the Commission would apply the new
claims proceedings, which often, though provision to determine entitlement to
deterrence.’’ Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., not always, involve individuals who file
510 U.S. 517, 534 n.19 (1994) (quoting attorney fees.
complaints against businesses with The Commission requests comment
Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc., 788 greater resources? on this approach and any alternative
F.2d 151, 156 (3rd Cir. 1986)) (internal
3. How will the commission apply the approaches. Would a bright line rule be
quotation marks omitted). In addition,
the courts use the same standard for provision to pending proceedings? preferable? For example, the
prevailing plaintiffs and prevailing The effective date of the Coble Act Commission could establish a rule
defendants when making such was December 18, 2014, and given the stating that it will apply the previous
determinations. See Fogerty, 510 U.S. at differences between 46 U.S.C. 41305(e) entitlement standard in all complaint
534–35. and the previous attorney-fee provision, proceedings initiated before a certain
The second standard identified by the the Commission will likely need to date, such as the enactment date of the
Commission is used in determining address whether and how section Coble Act.
entitlement to attorney fees under the 41305(e) applies to complaint IV. Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Civil Rights Act, e.g., 42 U.S.C 2000a- proceedings that were initiated prior to
3(b), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k). Under this December 18, 2014, and are still Regulatory Flexibility Act
standard, prevailing plaintiffs are pending before the Commission. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
treated more favorably than prevailing In determining the applicability of a (codified as amended at 5 U.S.C. 601–
respondents when determining newly enacted statute to pending cases, 612) provides that whenever an agency
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
entitlement to attorney fees. While the courts first look to ‘‘whether is required to publish a notice of
prevailing plaintiffs ‘‘ordinarily recover Congress has expressly prescribed the proposed rulemaking under the
an attorney’s fee unless special statute’s proper reach.’’ Fernandez- Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
circumstances would render such an Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U.S. 30, 37 U.S.C. 553), the agency must prepare
award unjust,’’ Newman v. Piggie Park (2006) (quoting Landgraf v. USI Film and make available for public comment
Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994) an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
(1968), prevailing defendants are (internal quotation marks omitted). If (IRFA) describing the impact of the
awarded attorney fees only ‘‘upon a the statute’s reach cannot be determined proposed rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.
finding that the plaintiff’s action was from the text and the application of the 603. An agency is not required to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:02 Jul 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM 02JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_38280/page/4.svg)
![38158 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 127 / Thursday, July 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
evidence that the customary rates for the 502.21–502.23 (Appearance, Authority microphones. The Commission
hours reasonably expended on the case for representation, Notice of appearance; recognizes that, following the Incentive
would result in an unreasonably low fee substitution and withdrawal of Auction and repacking of the television
award. representative); 502.43 (Substitution of bands, there will likely be fewer unused
(e) Replies to petitions. The opposing parties); 502.101 (Computation); television channels available for use by
party may file a reply to the petition 502.117 (Certificate of service); 502.253 either unlicensed white space devices or
within 20 days of the service date of the (Interest in reparation proceedings); and wireless microphones. These devices
petition. The reply may address the 502.254 (Attorney fees in complaint are important to businesses and
reasonableness of any aspect of the proceedings). [Rule 305.] consumers, and the Commission
prevailing party’s claim and may ■ 7. Amend § 502.318 by revising therefore seeks to ensure their
suggest adjustments to the claim under paragraph (b) to read as follows: continued viability.
the criteria stated in paragraph (d) of DATES: Comments due on or before
§ 502.318 Decision.
this section. August 3, 2015; reply comments due on
(f) Rulings on petitions. (1) Upon * * * * * or before August 31, 2015. Written
consideration of a petition and any (b) Attorney fees may be awarded to
comments on the proposed information
reply thereto, the Commission, the prevailing party in accordance with
collection requirements, subject to the
administrative law judge, or small § 502.254. [Rule 318.]
■ 8. Amend § 502.321 by revising
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
claims officer will issue an order 1995, Pub. L. 104–13, should be
granting or denying the petition. paragraph (b) to read as follows:
submitted on or before August 31, 2015.
(i) If the order awards the prevailing § 502.321 Applicability of other rules of ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
party attorney fees, the order will state this part. identified by MB Docket No. 15–146,
the total amount of attorney fees * * * * * GN Docket No. 12–268 and/or FCC 15–
awarded, specify the compensable hours (b) The following sections in subparts 68, by any of the following methods:
and appropriate rate of compensation, A through Q apply to situations covered • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://
and explain the basis for any additional by this subpart: §§ 502.2(a) www.regulations.gov. Follow the
adjustments. (Requirement for filing); 502.2(f)(1) instructions for submitting comments.
(ii) If the order denies the prevailing (Email transmission of filings); 502.2(i) • Federal Communications
party attorney fees, the order will (Continuing obligation to provide Commission’s Web site: http://
explain the reasons for the denial. contact information); 502.7 (Documents www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
(2) The Commission, administrative
in foreign languages); 502.21–502.23 instructions for submitting comments.
law judge, or small claims officer may
(Appearance, Authority for • Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or
adopt a stipulated settlement of attorney
representation, Notice of appearance; messenger delivery, by commercial
fees.
substitution and withdrawal of overnight courier, or by first-class or
(g) Timing of rulings. An order
representative); 502.43 (Substitution of overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
granting or denying a petition for
parties); 502.253 (Interest in reparation (although we continue to experience
attorney fees will be served within 60
proceedings); and 502.254 (Attorney delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
days of the date of the filing of the reply
fees in complaint proceedings). [Rule mail.) All filings must be addressed to
to the petition or expiration of the reply
321.] the Commission’s Secretary, Office of
period, except that in cases involving a
By the Commission. the Secretary, Federal Communications
substantial dispute of facts critical to the
Commission.
determination of an award, the Karen V. Gregory,
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
Commission, administrative law judge, Secretary.
FCC to request reasonable
or small claims officer may hold a [FR Doc. 2015–16260 Filed 7–1–15; 8:45 am] accommodations (accessible format
hearing on such issues and extend the BILLING CODE P documents, sign language interpreters,
time for issuing an order by an
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
additional 30 days.
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
(h) Appealing rulings by FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 418–0432.
administrative law judge or small claims COMMISSION For detailed instructions for
officer. When an administrative law
submitting comments and additional
judge or small claims officer issues an 47 CFR Parts 73 and 74 information on the rulemaking process,
order granting or denying a fee petition,
[MB Docket No. 15–146; GN Docket No. 12– see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
§ 502.227 governs the appeal of that
268; FCC 15–68] section of this document.
order and Commission review of that In addition to filing comments with
order in the absence of appeal. [Rule Preserving Vacant Channels in the the Secretary, a copy of any PRA
254.] UHF Television Band for Unlicensed comments on the proposed collection
■ 6. Amend § 502.305 by revising
Use requirements contained herein should
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
AGENCY: Federal Communications be submitted to the Federal
§ 502.305 Applicability of other rules of Commission. Communications Commission via email
this part. to PRA@fcc.gov and to Cathy.Williams@
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ACTION: Proposed rule.
* * * * * fcc.gov and also to Nicholas A. Fraser,
(b) The following sections in subparts SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Office of Management and Budget, via
A through Q of this part apply to Communications Commission email to Nicholas_A._Fraser@
situations covered by this subpart: (Commission) provides notice and an omb.eop.gov or via fax at 202–395–5167.
§§ 502.2(a) (Requirement for filing); opportunity to comment on its plan to FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
502.2(f)(1) (Email transmission of preserve one vacant television channel Shaun Maher, Shaun.Maher@fcc.gov of
filings); 502.2(i) (Continuing obligation in the UHF television band in each area the Media Bureau, Video Division, (202)
to provide contact information); 502.7 of the United States for shared use by 418–2324, and Paul Murray,
(Documents in foreign languages); white space devices and wireless Paul.Murray@fcc.gov of the Office of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:02 Jul 01, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\02JYP1.SGM 02JYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/80_FR_38280/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2015-12-15 13:14:55
Document Modified: 2015-12-15 13:14:55
| 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 | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Notice of proposed rulemaking. | |
| Dates | Comments are due on or before: August 6, 2015. | |
| Contact | For questions regarding submitting comments or the treatment of confidential information, contact Karen V. Gregory, Secretary, Federal Maritime Commission, 800 North Capitol Street NW., Washington, DC 20573-0001. Phone: (202) 523-5725. Email: [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 80 FR 38153 | |
| RIN Number | 3072-AC61 | |
| CFR Citation | 46
CFR
501 46 CFR 502 | |
| CFR Associated | Administrative Practice and Procedure; Authority Delegations (government Agencies); Organization and Functions (government Agencies); Seals and Insignia; Claims; Equal Access to Justice; Investigations; Lawyers; Maritime Carriers; Penalties and Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR