40617
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 
Environment 
We have considered the 
environmental impact of this rule and 
concluded that under figure 2–1, 
paragraph 34(g), of Commandant 
Instruction M16475.1D, this rule is 
categorically excluded from further 
environmental documentation. A 
‘‘Categorical Exclusion Determination’’ 
is available for inspection or copying 
where indicated under ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Security measures, 
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the 
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 
1. The authority citation for part 165 
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 
33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, 160.5; 49 
CFR 1.46.
2. Revise temporary § 165.T08–002 
paragraphs (b) and (d) to read as 
follows:
§ 165.T08–002
Security Zone; Missouri 
River, Mile Marker 532.9 to 532.5, 
Brownville, Nebraska.
* 
* 
* 
* 
*
(b) Effective dates. This section is 
effective from 12 p.m. on January 7, 
2002 through 8 a.m. on October 15, 
2002.
* 
* 
* 
* 
*
(d) Regulations. (1) Entry into this 
security zone by persons or vessels is 
prohibited unless authorized by the 
Coast Guard Captain of the Port St. 
Louis or his designated representative. 
(2) All vessels that can safely navigate 
outside of the channel are prohibited 
from entering the security zone without 
the express permission of the Captain of 
the Port St. Louis or his designated 
representative. Deeper draft vessels that 
are required to use the channel for safe 
navigation are authorized entry into the 
zone but must remain within the 
channel unless expressly authorized by 
the Captain of the Port St. Louis or his 
designated representative. 
(3) Vessels or persons requiring 
permission to enter into the security 
zone must contact the Captain of the 
Port, St. Louis at telephone number 
(314) 406–4629 or Marine Safety 
Detachment Quad Cities at telephone 
number (309) 782–0627 or Coast Guard 
Group Upper Mississippi River at 
telephone number (319) 524–7511 or on 
VHF marine channel 16 in order to seek 
permission to enter the security zones. 
If permission is granted, all persons and 
vessels must comply with the 
instructions of the Captain of the Port, 
St. Louis or his designated 
representative. 
(4) Designated representatives are 
commissioned, warrant, and petty 
officers of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Dated: June 7, 2002. 
E.A. Washburn, 
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of 
the Port St. Louis.
[FR Doc. 02–14964 Filed 6–12–02; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard 
33 CFR Part 165 
[CGD07–02–052] 
RIN 2115–AA97 
Security Zone; Regulations; St. Croix, 
U.S. Virgin Islands
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 
establishing temporary fixed security 
zone around all commercial tank and 
freight vessels moored at every dock at 
the HOVENSA refinery at St. Croix, U.S. 
Virgin Islands. All persons aboard 
commercial tank and freight vessels 
moored at the HOVENSA docks must 
remain on board for the duration of the 
port call unless escorted by designated 
HOVENSA personnel or specifically 
permitted to disembark by the U.S. 
Coast Guard Captain of the Port San 
Juan. This security zone is needed for 
national security reasons to protect the 
public and port of HOVENSA from 
potential subversive acts. This security 
zone is similar to the temporary rule 
removed on May 9, 2002.
DATES: This rule becomes effective at 5 
a.m. on May 25, 2002 and will terminate 
at 11:59 p.m. on October 31, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Comments and material 
received from the public, as well as 
documents indicated in this preamble as 
being available in the docket, are part of 
[CGD 07–02–052] and are available for 
inspection or copying at Marine Safety 
Office San Juan, RODVAL Bldg, San 
Martin St. #90 Ste 400, Guaynabo, PR 
00968, between 7 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. 
Monday through Friday, except Federal 
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Lieutenant Chip Lopez, Marine Safety 
Office San Juan, Puerto Rico at (787) 
706–2444.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
Regulatory Information 
We did not publish a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this 
regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the 
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists 
for not publishing a NPRM. Publishing 
a NPRM, which would incorporate a 
comment period before a final rule 
could be issued, and delaying the rule’s 
effective date would be contrary to the 
public interest since immediate action is 
needed to protect the public, ports and 
waterways of the United States. 
For the same reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 
553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that 
good cause exists for making this rule 
effective less than 30 days after 
publication in the Federal Register. The 
Coast Guard will issue a broadcast 
notice to mariners to advise mariners of 
the restriction. 
Background and Purpose 
Due to the highly volatile nature of 
the substances stored at the HOVENSA 
facility, there is a risk that subversive 
activity could be launched by persons 
aboard commercial tank and freight 
vessels calling at the HOVENSA facility 
in St Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The 
Captain of the Port San Juan is reducing 
this risk by prohibiting all persons 
aboard these vessels from disembarking 
while moored at the HOVENSA facility 
unless escorted by designated 
HOVENSA personnel or specifically 
permitted by the Captain of the Port San 
Juan. HOVENSA security personnel, in 
conjunction with local police 
department personnel, will be present to 
enforce this security zone. 
A security zone regulation for the 
same location, with the same regulation, 
was published in the Federal Register 
on September 28, 2001 (66 FR 49534). 
That rule was extended twice by a 
temporary rule issued in October 2001 
(that was sent to Washington, DC for 
publication in the Federal Register but 
was delayed in the mail [CGD07–01–
125; 67 FR 9194, 9197, February 28, 
2002]), and another issued in January 
2002 (67 FR 4911, February 1, 2002). 
However, this rule was removed in a 
final rule published in the Federal 
Register on May 9, 2002 (67 FR 31128) 
because the Captain of the Port 
determined there was no longer any 
need for this rule.
The Captain of the Port San Juan has 
identified the need to reinstate a 
security zone for national security 
reasons and to protect the public and 
the port of HOVENSA from potential 
subversive acts. The Captain of the Port 
VerDate May<23>2002 
10:28 Jun 12, 2002
Jkt 197001
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
pfrm17
PsN: 13JNR1
40618
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 
believes that additional temporary 
security procedures are needed to 
supplement the existing HOVENSA 
security procedures to protect this 
facility. 
Regulatory Evaluation 
This rule is not a significant 
regulatory action under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, and does not 
require an assessment of potential costs 
and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that 
Order. The Office of Management and 
Budget has not reviewed it under that 
Order. It is not significant under the 
regulatory policies and procedures of 
the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
(44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979) 
because this rule is in effect for a 
limited time and crewmembers may be 
allowed to disembark when escorted by 
designated HOVENSA security or 
authorized by the Captain of the Port of 
San Juan. 
Small Entities 
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 
(5 U.S.C. 601–612), the Coast Guard 
considered whether this rule would 
have a significant economic effect upon 
a substantial number of small entities. 
‘‘Small entities’’ include small 
businesses, not-for-profit organizations 
that are independently owned and 
operated and are not dominant in their 
fields, and governmental jurisdictions 
with populations of less than 50,000. 
The Coast Guard certifies under 5 
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have 
a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities 
because persons may be allowed to 
disembark the vessels on a case-by-case 
basis with the authorization of the 
Captain of the Port and this temporary 
rule is only in effect for a limited time. 
Assistance for Small Entities 
Under section 213(a) of the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–
121), we offer to assist small entities in 
understanding the rule so that they can 
better evaluate its effects on them and 
participate in the rulemaking process. If 
the rule will affect your small business, 
organization, or government jurisdiction 
and you have questions concerning its 
provisions or options for compliance, 
please contact the person listed under 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT for 
assistance in understanding this rule. 
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 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). 
Collection of Information 
This rule calls for no new collection 
of information requirements under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
3501–3520). 
Federalism 
A rule has implication for federalism 
under Executive Order 13132, 
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct 
effect on State or local governments and 
would either preempt State law or 
impose a substantial direct cost of 
compliance on them. We have analyzed 
this rule under that Order and have 
determined that it does not have 
implications for federalism. 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 
Federal agencies to assess the effects of 
their discretionary regulatory actions. In 
particular, the Act addresses actions 
that may result in the expenditure by a 
State, local, or tribal government, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of 
$100,000,000 or more in any one year. 
Though this rule will not result in such 
an expenditure, we do discuss the 
effects of this rule elsewhere in this 
preamble. 
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of 
private property or otherwise have 
taking implications under Executive 
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally 
Protected Property Rights. 
Civil Justice Reform 
This rule meets applicable standards 
in sections 3(a) and 3(b) (2) of Executive 
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to 
minimize litigation, eliminate 
ambiguity, and reduce burden. 
Environmental 
The Coast Guard has considered the 
environmental impact of this rule and 
will prepare a categorical exclusion as 
per Figure 2–1, paragraph 34(g) of the 
Coast Guard NEPA Implementing 
Procedures, Commandant Instruction 
M16475.1D. A ‘‘Categorical Exclusion 
Determination’’ is available in the 
docket for inspection or copying where 
indicated under ADDRESSES. 
Protection of Children 
We have analyzed this rule under 
Executive Order 13045, Protection of 
Children from Environmental Health 
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not 
an economically significant rule and 
does not create an environmental risk to 
health or risk to safety that may 
disproportionately affect children. 
Indian Tribal Governments 
This rule does not have tribal 
implications under Executive Order 
13175, Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments, 
because it does not have a substantial 
direct effect on one or more Indian 
tribes, on the relationships between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes. 
Energy Effects 
We have analyzed this rule under 
Executive Order 13211, Actions 
Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or use. We have 
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 
energy action’’ under Executive Order 
12866 and is not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy. It has not 
been designated by the Administrator of 
the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs as a significant energy action. 
Therefore, it does not require a 
Statement of Energy Effects under 
Executive Order 13211.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 
(water), Reports and recordkeeping 
requirements, Security measures, 
Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the 
preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 
CFR Part 165, as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 
1. The authority citation for Part 165 
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 
33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6 and 160.5; 
49 CFR 1.46.
2. A new temporary § 165.T07–052 is 
added to read as follows:
§ 165.T07–052
Security Zone; HOVENSA 
Refinery, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. 
(a) Regulated area. A temporary fixed 
security zone is established 20 yards 
around all commercial tank and freight 
vessels moored at every dock at the 
HOVENSA refinery at St Croix, U. S. 
Virgin Islands. 
(b) Regulations. In accordance with 
the general regulations in § 165.33 of 
this part, all persons aboard commercial 
VerDate May<23>2002 
10:28 Jun 12, 2002
Jkt 197001
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
pfrm17
PsN: 13JNR1
40619
Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 114 / Thursday, June 13, 2002 / Rules and Regulations 
tank and freight vessels moored at the 
docks in the regulated area must remain 
on board for the duration of the port call 
unless escorted by designated 
HOVENSA personnel or specifically 
authorized by the Captain of the Port 
San Juan, or a Coast Guard 
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer 
designated by him. The Captain of the 
Port will notify the public of any 
changes in the status of this zone by 
Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF 
Marine Band Radio, Channel 16 (157.1 
Mhz). 
(c) Dates. This section becomes 
effective at 5 a.m. on May 25, 2002, and 
will terminate at 11:59 p.m. on October 
31, 2002.
Dated: May 24, 2002. 
J.A. Servidio, 
Commander, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of 
the Port, San Juan.
[FR Doc. 02–14971 Filed 6–12–02; 8:45 am] 
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION 
47 CFR Part 52 
[CC Docket No. 95–116; FCC 02–16] 
Telephone Number Portability, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order on 
Reconsideration and Order on 
Application for Review
AGENCY: Federal Communications 
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC or 
Commission) addresses issues raised in 
petitions for reconsideration and 
clarification of the Commission’s Third 
Report and Order on long-term number 
portability (LNP) and affirms the 
Common Carrier Bureau’s Cost 
Classification Order. The document 
clarifies and affirms matters related to 
the recovery of carrier costs for LNP, 
which were decided in two prior 
Orders.
DATES: The rules adopted herein shall 
be effective July 15, 2002, except for 
§ 52.33(a)(3), which contains 
information collection requirements that 
have not been approved by the Office of 
Management and Budget. The Federal 
Communications Commission will 
publish a document in the Federal 
Register announcing the effective date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
Margaret Dailey (202) 418–2396, fax 
(202) 418–1567, or mdailey@fcc.gov. 
The address is: Pricing Policy Division, 
Wireline Competition Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, The 
Portals, 445 12th Street, SW, Suite 5–
A207, Washington, DC 20554.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 
summary of the Commission’s Order on 
Reconsideration and Order on 
Application for Review in CC Docket 
No. 95–116, FCC No. 02–16, in the 
matter of Telephone Number Portability, 
adopted January 23, 2002, and released 
February 15, 2002. The full text of this 
item is available for public inspection 
and copying during regular business 
hours at the FCC Reference Information 
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW, 
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC, 
20554. This document may also be 
purchased from the Commission’s 
duplicating contractor, Qualex 
International, Portals II, 445 12th Street, 
SW, Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 
20554, telephone (202) 863–2893, 
facsimile (202) 863–2898, or via e-mail 
qualexint@aol.com
Synopsis of the Order on 
Reconsideration and Order on 
Application for Review 
Section 251(b)(2) of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (the Act), seeks to remove one 
barrier to competition by requiring all 
local exchange carriers (LECs) ‘‘to 
provide, to the extent technically 
feasible, number portability in 
accordance with requirements 
prescribed by the Commission.’’ On 
May 5, 1998, the Commission adopted 
the Third Report and Order in this 
docket, implementing section 251(e)(2) 
of the Act with regard to the costs of 
providing long-term number portability 
(LNP). In the Third Report and Order, 
63 FR 35150, June 29, 1998, the 
Commission concluded that incumbent 
LECs may recover their carrier-specific 
costs directly related to providing LNP 
on a competitively neutral basis, 
through two federal charges: (1) A 
monthly number-portability charge 
applicable to end users; and (2) a LNP 
query-service charge, applicable to 
carriers on whose behalf the LEC 
performs queries. On December 14, 
1998, pursuant to authority delegated to 
it in the Third Report and Order, the 
Common Carrier Bureau issued the Cost 
Classification Order, 64 FR 2493, Jan. 
14, 1999, which specifically addressed 
issues related to the determination of 
costs eligible for cost recovery, the 
apportionment of costs between 
portability and non-portability services, 
and apportionment between end-user 
charges and query service charges. The 
Order on Reconsideration and Order on 
Application for Review (Order) 
responds to three types of issues raised 
in petitions for reconsideration and 
clarification and applications for 
review. 
First, it clarifies numerous points 
made in the Third Report and Order. 
Specifically, it clarifies that: (1) The 
LNP administrator may assess shared 
costs on all eligible telecommunications 
carriers, not just carriers with existing 
LNP contracts; (2) incumbent LECs must 
allocate their shared costs between the 
query service and end-user charges; (3) 
carriers may not recover LNP costs from 
other carriers through interconnection 
charges or resale prices; (4) an 
incumbent LEC may assess the LNP 
end-user charge on resellers and 
purchasers of switching ports as 
unbundled network elements as long as 
it provides LNP functionality; (5) 
commercial mobile radio service 
providers are co-carriers, not end users, 
and, therefore, are not subject to an end-
user charge; (6) carriers who offer 
Feature Group A access lines may assess 
an end-user surcharge on such lines; (7) 
small and rural incumbent LECs that do 
not yet provide LNP functionality but 
provide Extended Area Service (EAS) 
may recover their N minus one (N–1) 
query and LNP Administration costs 
through end-user charges; (8) incumbent 
LECs may not begin billing carriers for 
N–1 queries until a number has been 
ported from an NXX; and, (9) after the 
five-year recovery period for 
implementation costs of LNP through 
the end-user charge, any remaining 
costs will be treated as normal network 
costs. 
Second, it affirms several issues 
decided in the Third Report and Order 
and the Cost Classification Order. 
Specifically, it affirms that: (1) The 
Commission has exclusive jurisdiction 
over the distribution and recovery of 
costs associated with intrastate and 
interstate number portability; (2) 
carriers not subject to rate-of-return 
regulation or price caps may recover 
their carrier-specific costs in any lawful 
manner consistent with their obligations 
under the Communications Act; (3) 
Centrex lines may be assessed one end-
user LNP charge per line and a private 
branch exchange (PBX) trunk may be 
charged nine end-user LNP charges per 
PBX trunk; (4) Plexar may be assessed 
one LNP charge per line; (5) incumbent 
LECs may impose an end-user charge in 
service areas where the switch is 
number-portability-capable; (6) price 
cap LECs and rate-of-return LECs should 
treat the query services charge as a new 
service within the meaning of § 61.38 of 
the Commission’s rules; (7) carriers may 
only recover carrier-specific costs 
directly related to the provision of LNP; 
(8) carriers must distinguish clearly 
VerDate May<23>2002 
10:28 Jun 12, 2002
Jkt 197001
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\13JNR1.SGM
pfrm17
PsN: 13JNR1