Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70595 

recertifications every five years (the next 

being scheduled to begin in March 

2014), review of DOE reports on 

conditions and activities at WIPP, 

assessment of waste characterization 

and QA programs at waste generator 

sites, announced and unannounced 

inspections of WIPP and other facilities, 

and, if necessary, modification, 

revocation, or suspension of the 

certification. 

Although not required by the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 

the WIPP LWA, or the WIPP 

Compliance Criteria, EPA intends to 

continue docketing all inspection or 

audit reports and annual reports and 

other significant documents on 

conditions and activities at WIPP. 

EPA plans to conduct future 

recertification processes using a similar 

process to that completed by EPA for 

this recertification, as described in 

today’s action. For example, EPA will 

publish a Federal Register notice 

announcing its receipt of the next 

compliance application and our intent 

to conduct such an evaluation. The 

application for recertification will be 

placed in the docket, and at least a 30- 

day period will be provided for 

submission of public comments. 

Following the completeness 

determination, EPA’s decision on 

whether to recertify the WIPP facility 

will again be announced in a Federal 

Register notice (§ 194.64). 

Dated: November 9, 2010. 

Michael P. Flynn, 

Director, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28806 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 45 

[Docket No. USCG–1998–4623] 

RIN 1625–AA17 

Limited Service Domestic Voyage Load 

Lines for River Barges on Lake 

Michigan 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a special load line regime 

for certain unmanned dry-cargo river 

barges to be exempted from the normal 

Great Lakes load line assignment while 

operating on Lake Michigan. Depending 

on the route, eligible barges may obtain 

a limited domestic service load line 

assignment or be conditionally 

exempted from any load line assignment 

at all. This special load line regime 

allows river barges operating under safe 

conditions to directly transport nonhazardous cargoes originating at inland 

river ports as far as Milwaukee and 

Muskegon, resulting in significant cost 

savings. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

December 20, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and material 

received from the public, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, are part 

of docket USCG–1998–4623 and are 

available for inspection or copying at 

the Docket Management Facility (M–30), 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 

West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., 

Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. You may also 

find this docket on the Internet by going 

to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting 

USCG–1998–4623 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this rule, call or 

e-mail Mr. Thomas Jordan, Office of 

Design and Engineering Standards, 

Naval Architecture Division (CG–5212), 

Coast Guard; telephone 202–372–1370, 

e-mail Thomas.D.Jordan@uscg.mil. If 

you have questions on viewing or 

submitting material to the docket, call 

Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, 

Docket Operations, telephone 202–366– 

9826. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History 

III. Basis and Purpose 

IV. Background 

A. Initial Request From the Port of 

Milwaukee 

B. Risk Assessment of the Milwaukee 

Route 

C. Interim Rule and Conditional Exemption 

D. Subsequent Operational Experience 

E. Coast Guard Oversight and Concerns 

V. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

A. Discussion of Interim Rule (IR) Changes 

B. Discussion of Interim Rule (IR) 

Comments 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

B. Small Entities 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

D. Collection of Information 

E. Federalism 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

G. Taking of Private Property 

H. Civil Justice Reform 

I. Protection of Children 

J. Indian Tribal Governments 

K. Energy Effects 

L. Technical Standards 

M. Environment 

I. Abbreviations 

ABS American Bureau of Shipping 

COI Collection of Information 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

HazMat Hazardous Material 

HP Horsepower 

IR Interim Rule 

ITB Integrated tug/barge 

MarAd (United States) Maritime 

Administration 

MSO Marine Safety Office 

MSU Marine Safety Unit 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OCMI Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection 

SCA Small Craft Advisory 

Stons Short tons 

VHF Very High Frequency 

II. Regulatory History 

On May 29, 1992, the Coast Guard 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (57 FR 22663) establishing a 

limited service domestic load line route 

on western Lake Michigan between 

Chicago, IL (Calumet Harbor), and 

Milwaukee, WI, and authorizing the 

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) to 

issue load line certificates accordingly. 

The notice also requested public 

comment. On September 21, 1992, we 

published a follow-up notice (57 FR 

43479) discussing the public comments 

that we received, and making minor 

revisions to the requirements. 

On March 31, 1995, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 

16693) establishing a second route along 

the east side of Lake Michigan between 

Chicago, IL, and St. Joseph, MI. In the 

notice, we specified that the lead barge 

in the tow must have a raked bow, but 

allowed the initial load line survey of 

barges that were less than 10 years old 

to be conducted afloat. 

On September 28, 1995, we published 

a notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 

50234) removing the raked bow 

requirement. 

On August 26, 1996, we published a 

notice in the Federal Register (61 FR 

43804) extending the St. Joseph route 

farther up the east side of Lake 

Michigan to Muskegon, MI. 

On November 2, 1998, we published 

a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) in the Federal Register titled 

‘‘Limited Service Domestic Voyage Load 

Lines for River Barges on Lake 

Michigan’’ (63 FR 58679). This NPRM 

proposed to incorporate the abovedescribed Lake Michigan load line 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
70596 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

provisions into the Great Lakes load line 

regulations in 46 CFR part 45. 

On December 28, 1998, we published 

a follow-up notice that extended the 

comment deadline to March 4, 1999 (63 

FR 71411). We received 51 letters 

commenting on the proposed rule. No 

public hearing was requested and none 

was held. 

On April 23, 2002, we published an 

interim rule (IR) with request for 

comments (67 FR 19685), which 

established the load line regulations for 

river barges on Lake Michigan (i.e., the 

special service load lines for the St. 

Joseph and Muskegon routes, and the 

conditional exemption regime for the 

Milwaukee route) in 46 CFR 45.171 

through 45.197. These interim 

regulations have been in effect since 

2002 and are being finalized by this 

final rule. 

III. Basis and Purpose 

The origin of this rulemaking dates 

back to a request from the Port of 

Milwaukee in 1991 to establish a special 

load line provision that would allow 

river barges to transit on Lake Michigan 

between Chicago (Calumet Harbor) and 

Milwaukee. The Coast Guard 

subsequently received a request to 

establish a similar route on the eastern 

side of Lake Michigan to Muskegon, MI. 

The Coast Guard initially established 

these special routes via non-regulatory 

notices published in the Federal 

Register. However, it was eventually 

determined that these notices needed to 

be formally incorporated with the Great 

Lakes load line regulations of 46 CFR 

part 45. The rulemaking was initiated 

with publication of the NPRM on 

November 2, 1998. 

A vessel may be granted an exemption 

from load line requirements by 

alternative means under the provisions 

of 46 U.S.C. 5108. The exemptions in 

this rule are specifically authorized 

under 46 U.S.C. 5108(a)(2). The 

provisions require regulations and a 

finding of good cause for the exemption. 

As prescribed in 46 U.S.C. 5108(a)(2), 

the Coast Guard determines that good 

cause exists for granting a load line 

exemption for the Milwaukee route as 

specified in these final regulations. This 

determination is based on the relatively 

short transit, limitations on the distance 

offshore and forecasted weather 

conditions, the availability of nearby 

harbors to seek safe refuge, registration 

and self-examination by the barge 

owners and tow vessel operators, 

limitations on the number of barges in 

the tow, the requirement that the predeparture inspection must ensure that 

all weathertight and watertight closures 

are operating properly, and limitations 

on the age of the barges to be used on 

the route. 

IV. Background 

Before the establishment of this 

special load line regime for Lake 

Michigan, barge cargoes originating at 

inland river ports and destined for Lake 

Michigan ports had to be transferred to 

a Great Lakes load-lined vessel at 

Calumet Harbor in Chicago. This 

transshipment was necessary because 

the existing load line regulations did not 

allow vessels onto the Great Lakes 

without a Great Lakes load line; river 

barges typically do not meet all the 

requirements for unrestricted service on 

the Great Lakes. 

The only exception to this has been 

an exemption for certain river barges 

operating between Chicago, IL, and 

Burns Harbor, IN, as provided in 46 CFR 

45.171–45.177. 

A. Initial Request From the Port of 

Milwaukee 

In January 1991, the Port of 

Milwaukee asked the Coast Guard to 

explore the possibility of establishing a 

relaxed domestic load line that would 

allow river barges to operate along the 

western shore of Lake Michigan 

between Chicago and Milwaukee. Later 

that year, a barge company made a 

similar request for an eastern Lake 

Michigan route between Chicago, IL, 

and Muskegon, MI. The motivation for 

these route requests was economic: 

River barges offer relatively low costs 

per ton-mile to move cargo and can 

therefore deliver cargoes to the Lake 

ports less expensively than can other 

modes of transportation. 

The American Bureau of Shipping 

(ABS), the Coast Guard, and industry 

worked together to determine the 

appropriate operational restrictions and 

other requirements that would allow 

river barges to safely operate on Lake 

Michigan. In 1992, a special limited 

service domestic voyage load line 

regime was implemented for the 

Milwaukee route. A similar regime was 

established in 1996 for the Muskegon 

route. 

Initially, 30 barges obtained the 

special load line and began service 

between Chicago and Milwaukee. From 

1993 to 1996, more than 300 barge trips 

were made, delivering approximately 

502,000 tons of grain, animal feed, steel, 

machinery, graphite, aggregate, and 

other materials. However, the cost and 

logistics of managing a relatively small 

number of load-lined barges over a large 

river system worked against the 

economics of this service and, when the 

original barges were sold in 1996, the 

new owner discontinued the Milwaukee 

service. Over subsequent years, no other 

barge operators pursued this special 

load line regime. 

Meanwhile, the Coast Guard moved 

ahead with plans to formally 

incorporate the special load line regime 

into Federal regulations and, on 

November 2, 1998, published an NPRM 

(63 FR 58679). In its response to the 

NPRM, industry argued that the cost of 

obtaining the special load line was still 

prohibitive and discouraged barge 

operators from entering into this service. 

Industry representatives requested that a 

risk assessment be conducted to 

determine if a load line exemption 

could be developed for the Milwaukee 

route. 

B. Risk Assessment of the Milwaukee 

Route 

A risk assessment group was 

established, comprised of interested 

parties representing towboat and barge 

operators, port authorities, the Coast 

Guard, the U.S. Maritime 

Administration (MarAd), and portrelated businesses, such as terminal 

operators and shippers. The group met 

twice, once on September 21, 2000, and 

again on November 9, 2000, to discuss 

various issues. Stakeholders submitted 

additional comments to the risk 

assessment group. The group compiled 

its memos, letters, and other documents 

into a report, ‘‘Risk Assessment for River 

Barges Operating between Chicago, IL 

and Milwaukee, WI,’’ dated September, 

2001, which is available in the docket. 

Because the cost of the load line 

assigned by ABS was perceived as a 

major economic obstacle, the risk 

assessment group focused on how that 

cost could be reduced or eliminated in 

ways such as ‘‘self-certification’’ by a 

barge owner (similar to the existing selfregistration requirements for barge 

operators on the Burns Harbor route). 

The group made several important 

findings: 

• It is standard practice for the bargebuilding shipyards to build all new 

barges in accordance with ABS River 

Rules; 

• New barges are not likely to 

seriously deteriorate during the first 7 to 

10 years of service; 

• Marine weather forecasting for the 

Great Lakes has improved since the 

Milwaukee route was first established in 

1992; and 

• A towboat operator with extensive 

experience on the Chicago/Milwaukee 

route affirmed the viability of 

Waukegan, IL, and Kenosha, WI, as 

ports-of-refuge. 

On the basis of these findings, the 

group recommended that relatively new 

barges (those under 10 years of age) 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70597 

should be exempted from the load line 

requirement. 

C. Interim Rule and Conditional 

Exemption 

On the basis of the Risk Assessment, 

the Coast Guard published the IR on 

April 23, 2002 (67 FR 19685), that 

established the conditional load line 

exemption for the Chicago/Milwaukee 

route and the special service load lines 

for the St. Joseph and Muskegon routes. 

The conditional load line exemption 

regime principally relies on selfcompliance by the barge operators, who 

are allowed great flexibility in selecting 

non-load-lined river barges for service 

on that route, provided that the barges 

meet certain age and condition 

requirements and are registered with the 

Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit (MSU), 

Chicago. The tows are limited to ‘‘fair 

weather only’’ conditions. 

At this time, the IR has been in effect 

for 81⁄2 years, and has fostered a modest 

but economically beneficial level of 

commercial activity for Milwaukee 

(chiefly in grain shipments and 

transport of oversized industrial 

equipment). 

D. Subsequent Operational Experience 

On the afternoon of August 7, 2003, 

a two-barge tow loaded with wheat 

departed from Milwaukee and traveled 

southbound for Chicago. Although the 

48-hour weather forecast was within 

allowable limits, the tow encountered 

unexpectedly rough seas. Because the 

prevailing weather conditions were 

from the north, the towboat captain 

decided to continue southwards rather 

than turn back into rough seas, and 

shifted the barges to a towline. During 

the night, the barges were observed 

taking on water and listing. By morning, 

one barge was listing heavily with only 

a foot of freeboard. The captain decided 

to head to Waukegan for shelter, but as 

the tow was making the turn, one of the 

barges nosedived into the waves and 

broke free of the tow. This barge 

eventually sank in 117 feet of water 

approximately 4.7 miles offshore from 

Waukegan. The surviving barge was 

brought safely into Waukegan with 

significant flooding in several void 

compartments. The subsequent Coast 

Guard investigation determined that: 

• Each barge was operated by a 

different company. Although both barge 

operators submitted the required barge 

registrations prior to departing 

Milwaukee, there were no previous 

registrations on record for their original 

northbound voyages from Chicago. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard initiated 

civil penalty proceedings against both 

barge operators for operating the barges 

without a valid load line exemption; 

• Inspection of the surviving barge 

revealed that 44 of the 48 hatch securing 

devices (dogs) on the void hatch covers 

were either seized or broken. Not one of 

the barge’s 12 void spaces had a 

functioning weathertight cover. A 

flooded stability analysis of the barge 

that sank determined that its voids must 

have been similarly compromised, since 

the barge should not have sunk if its 

voids had been dry. Therefore, the Coast 

Guard initiated civil penalty 

proceedings against both barge operators 

for falsely declaring on the registrations 

that the barges met all the required 

conditions for the load line exemption; 

and 

• Although the towboat captain 

inspected the barges prior to departure 

(as required) and noticed that several of 

the covers were not operating properly, 

he proceeded with the voyage anyway. 

The Coast Guard initiated Suspension 

and Revocation proceedings against the 

captain’s license. 

Although the above-described 

incident resulted in a sunken barge and 

lost cargo, the Coast Guard views it as 

an overall confirmation of the 

environmental safety provisions 

incorporated in the exemption regime. 

The barge sank because it was clearly 

not up to the seaworthiness standard 

required by the regulations. Despite this, 

however, there was no adverse 

environmental impact since the grain 

cargo did not constitute a hazardous 

spill. Also, the tug and surviving barge 

found shelter in Waukegan as 

contemplated by the risk assessment 

(the three-barge tow limitation ensures 

that tows can be accommodated in the 

ports-of-refuge along the Milwaukee 

route). From this, the Coast Guard 

concludes that the current exemption 

requirements provide an adequate level 

of safety if properly complied with. 

E. Coast Guard Oversight and Concerns 

As discussed in the IR, the Coast 

Guard reviewed barge activity on Lake 

Michigan with three particular concerns 

in mind. These concerns, and our 

conclusions, are as follows: 

(1) Industry compliance with the 

conditions of the load line exemption 

(such as barge registration, predeparture inspections, logbook entries, 

etc.). 

The load line exemption regime 

depends on self-compliance by towboat 

operators and barge operators, with 

limited Coast Guard oversight. However, 

there is evidence that barge operators 

are not fully complying with the 

conditions of exemption, especially the 

registration requirements. As noted in 

the casualty discussion above, neither 

barge had been registered for its 

upbound voyage to Milwaukee. 

Conversely, MSU Chicago reported that 

some operators have ‘‘registered’’ their 

barges by submitting lengthy lists of 

dozens of barges in their fleet. Such 

wholesale submittals cannot accurately 

reflect a proper inspection of each barge 

on the list. The Coast Guard has 

conducted spot-checks of barge names 

in Milwaukee against registration 

records in Chicago, and will continue to 

monitor registration compliance. 

However, if self-compliance is found to 

be unreliable, we may implement other 

compliance measures, such as thirdparty verification. 

(2) The material condition of the 

barges. 

The interim regulations allow barges 

up to 10 years of age to participate in 

the load line exemption regime. This 

age limit is based on the assumption 

that barges in freshwater service will not 

deteriorate so badly in 10 years as to 

render them unseaworthy for Lake 

Michigan voyages under fair weather 

conditions. The 2003 casualty revealed 

that although this might be true for the 

hull structure, it is not necessarily true 

for weathertight closures (i.e., hatch 

covers, gaskets, and dogs). 

Consequently, we are revising the 

regulations to clarify that all 

weathertight and watertight closures 

must be verified to be in working 

condition as part of the barge 

registration (by the barge operator) and 

the pre-departure inspection (by the 

towboat operator). This clarification is 

intended to ensure that the towing 

vessel master is fully aware of his 

responsibilities, already in the 

regulations, to verify the watertight 

integrity of the barge(s) prior to 

departure. If these verification 

procedures still do not prove to be 

effective, we may review and revise 

these regulations in the future as 

necessary. 

(3) The number of tows on Lake 

Michigan at any given time. 

The Coast Guard is concerned that 

participation in the load line exemption 

regime might grow so large that the 

number of barges en route between 

Chicago and Milwaukee on any given 

day will exceed the capacity of the 

ports-of-refuge (Kenosha and Waukegan) 

to accommodate them, should weather 

conditions deteriorate unexpectedly. A 

review of vessel traffic data from the 

Port of Milwaukee indicates that 43 

river barges called at the port in 2002 

(the first year of the exemption regime). 

In 2004, the number peaked at 91 

barges. Since then, the level of activity 

has dropped: 36 barges in 2006 and 40 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
70598 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

barges in 2007 (the latest year for which 

data is available). The bulk of cargo 

movements has been outbound grain, 

although some industrial equipment has 

been transported as well. The current 

level of barge activity is not yet a 

concern; however, we may establish a 

voyage coordination program at some 

future time if we deem it necessary. 

(4) The use of Coast Guard resources. 

The amount of enforcement resources 

the Coast Guard has dedicated to 

investigations of oftentimes avoidable 

marine casualties and the resulting 

penalty proceedings, and to ensuring 

that operators are in compliance with 

the exemption regime, is considerable. 

The extent of our involvement in these 

efforts goes against our regulatory goal 

of relying on self-compliant operators. 

We will continue to monitor barge 

activity on Lake Michigan. However, we 

may further amend the exemption 

regime in the future if we feel it is 

necessary to do so. 

V. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

A. Discussion of Interim Rule (IR) 

Changes 

The Coast Guard has made the 

following changes to the regulations in 

46 CFR 45.171 through 45.197 

established in the IR based upon 

consideration of comments received 

during the rulemaking and to clarify 

existing requirements: 

Section 45.171 Purpose: In 

paragraph (c), Table 45.171 has been 

revised to reflect the changes in this 

final rule, discussed below. 

Paragraph (d) has been added to 

clarify that the provisions of this 

subpart pertain only to load line 

regulations, and do not exempt the 

participating barges from other 

applicable regulations (such as the 

documentation requirements of 46 CFR 

part 67). Although Certificates of 

Documentation are not required for 

barges operating on U.S. rivers, they are 

required for all vessels of 5 gross tons 

or more that operate on the Great Lakes. 

This requirement, therefore, applies to 

river barges operating under the 

provisions of 46 CFR part 45. 

Section 45.173 Eligible barges: 

Paragraph (e) has been added stating 

that weathertight and watertight 

closures must be in proper working 

condition. This addition clarifies the 

existing requirement in § 45.191(b)(5) 

that manhole covers be secured 

watertight as part of the pre-departure 

inspection. 

Section 45.175 Applicable routes: 

This section has been revised to clarify 

that intermediate ports are allowed on 

the applicable routes. 

Section 45.181 Load line exemption 

requirements for the Burns Harbor and 

Milwaukee routes: Paragraph (a) has 

been revised to reflect the Coast Guard’s 

organizational re-designation of Marine 

Safety Offices (MSOs), which includes 

the Officer in Charge, Marine Inspection 

(OCMI), as Marine Safety Units (MSUs). 

It also updates the MSU mailing 

address. 

Paragraph (b)(1) has been revised to 

require the official documentation 

number of the barge in order to provide 

better identification of the vessel. 

Section 45.185 Tow limitations: 

Paragraph (b) has been revised to 

emphasize the current requirement that 

the maximum number of barges on the 

Milwaukee, St. Joseph, and Muskegon 

routes is three. This limitation is 

necessary because of the limited 

dockage at the intermediate ports of 

refuge and the possibility that more than 

one tow might need to seek shelter at 

the same port. 

Paragraph (c) now clarifies that the 

5-mile limit applies to the tow as a 

whole, not just to the barges. 

Section 45.187 Weather limitations: 

Because hull construction of river 

barges is not robust enough to operate 

on Lake Michigan under all weather 

conditions, river barges cannot operate 

under adverse weather conditions. The 

weather limits as written in the interim 

regulations, however, were either 

subjective (i.e., ‘‘fair weather only’’ as 

decided by the towing vessel master) or 

a complex set of limiting wind speed/ 

directions and wave heights. These 

limits are now being simplified by 

establishing Small Craft Advisory (SCA) 

conditions as the limiting adverse 

weather condition. The National 

Weather Service issues special Great 

Lakes nearshore marine forecasts that 

cover all coastal lake waters within 5 

miles of shore (more information can be 

found at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/ 

marine/zone/usamz.htm). Lake 

Michigan nearshore SCAs are generally 

based on wind speeds of 20 knots and 

4-foot waves, but also take into account 

wave conditions that will develop 

during the forecast period based on 

wind direction. The Coast Guard 

believes that these nearshore forecasts 

provide a clear, unequivocal ‘‘fair 

weather’’ threshold to towing vessel 

captains when reviewing weather 

conditions along the route as they 

prepare to sail or while they are 

underway. The original weather 

regulations in this section have been 

revised accordingly: 

Paragraph (a) now establishes SCA 

conditions as the limiting adverse 

weather condition for all routes. 

Paragraph (b) establishes that ice 

conditions that imperil the tow or 

impede its access into a port of refuge 

are also considered to be adverse 

weather conditions. 

Section 45.191 Pre-departure 

requirements: Paragraph (a) has been 

revised by removing the original 

requirement to contact the dock 

operator at the destination port and 

replacing it with the requirement that 

the towing vessel master must check the 

Lake Michigan Nearshore Marine 

Forecast and confirm that adverse 

weather conditions (i.e., SCAs or ice 

conditions) are not developing. 

Paragraph (b)(5) has been revised to 

clarify that the pre-departure inspection 

must confirm that hatch and manhole 

dogs are in proper working condition 

and that all covers are closed and 

secured, as discussed above. 

Sections 45.183, 45.193, and 45.197 

have been revised for grammar and 

other non-substantive reasons. 

B. Discussion of Interim Rule (IR) 

Comments 

The IR requested public comment on 

the interim regulations. Only two 

comments were submitted, both from 

the same commenter. 

(1) The first comment opposed the 

Chicago/Milwaukee load line exemption 

because it eliminates third-party 

inspection and verification (such as by 

an ABS surveyor) of a barge’s material 

condition. 

The commenter also felt that there 

were other items in the interim 

regulations that should be changed; 

namely that the requirement for predeparture verification of sufficient 

docking space should include 

Waukegan and Kenosha harbors, and 

that the special equipment and 

operational plan requirements should 

also be applied to the Milwaukee route. 

With respect to the third-party 

verification issue, the Coast Guard 

recognizes the value of such 

verification, especially where the 

shipboard inspection is relatively 

infrequent (e.g., once a year) and 

involves numerous watertight and 

weathertight closures (e.g., piping 

penetrations of the hull, hatch and 

ventilation covers, doors, etc.). When 

inspecting such closures, professional 

judgment must be used when evaluating 

their fitness for service until the next 

annual inspection. However, river 

barges are simpler vessels, with fewer 

weathertight closures and watertight 

voids to inspect. We believe that the 

pre-departure inspection before each 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70599 

1Source for time and labor rate: Collection of 

Information, OMB Control Number 1625–0013, 

‘‘Plan Approval and Records for Load Lines.’’ 

voyage by the towboat master can 

provide sufficient verification of 

weathertight integrity for the short-haul, 

fair-weather transit on Lake Michigan. 

As explained elsewhere in this rule, we 

have increased certain inspection and 

material condition requirements in 

response to a marine casualty in 2003, 

and we reserve our right to revise the 

exemption regime, including imposition 

of third-party verification, if barge 

operators do not comply with these 

inspection measures. 

With respect to the commenter’s 

suggestion that pre-departure 

verification of sufficient docking space 

should include Waukegan and Kenosha 

harbors, we do not believe that this is 

necessary at this point, but we may 

implement it in the future if necessary. 

(2) The second comment (from the 

same commenter) included a summary 

from a casualty report involving an 

integrated tug/barge (ITB) on Lake 

Michigan in October 2000. This incident 

was separate from the sinking casualty 

discussed elsewhere in this rule. The 

incident occurred under storm 

conditions with 12- to 15-foot waves, 

during which two vessels bumped into 

each other during an emergency 

disconnect from the notch, causing 

serious hull damage to both vessels. The 

commenter cited this as an example of 

the ‘‘extreme variableness’’ of weather in 

lower Lake Michigan, and reiterated 

concern for the safety of tows with 

barges. 

The ITB mentioned above sailed 

under marginal weather conditions, 

even for load-lined vessels. As 

explained previously in this rule, we are 

now establishing SCA conditions, as 

issued in National Weather Service 

Nearshore Marine Forecasts for Lake 

Michigan, as the limiting weather 

condition. While establishing SCA 

conditions does not guarantee that 

weather conditions exceeding the 

forecast will not occur, we believe that 

the SCA forecast is the best and most 

consistent benchmark for weather 

prediction, and should generally keep 

the tow out of extreme conditions. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

executive orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on 13 of these statutes or 

executive orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

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. A final Regulatory Assessment 

follows: 

This rule finalizes the requirements of 

the interim rule where eligible barges 

may qualify for either a limited 

domestic service voyage load line 

(Burns Harbor route, St. Joseph route, 

and Muskegon route), or a conditional 

load line exemption (Milwaukee route). 

Under this final rule, river barge owners 

will continue to be able to take part in 

the load line regime. River barge owners 

that seek either a Great Lakes limited 

service load line or a conditionally 

exempted load line will continue to 

incur the minor costs associated with 

obtaining a certificate. 

This final rule also revises existing 

load line regulations in 46 CFR 45.171 

through 45.197 pertaining to certain 

dry-cargo river barges operating on Lake 

Michigan. The regulatory changes add 

clarifying language to the affected 

sections, including: 

• A requirement that weathertight 

and watertight closures must be in 

proper working condition and that predeparture inspection must confirm that 

hatch and manhole dogs are in proper 

working condition and that all covers 

are closed and secured. 

• The establishment of SCA 

conditions and ice conditions that 

imperil the tow or impede its access to 

a port of refuge as the limiting adverse 

weather condition for all routes. 

The applicable barges that operate on 

Lake Michigan are currently required 

under the IR to conduct a pre-departure 

inspection. This final rule clarifies that 

confirmation that hatch and manhole 

dogs are in proper working condition 

and that all covers are closed and 

secured should be part of the predeparture inspection. A thorough predeparture inspection should already 

include these activities. As such, the 

clarification should not result in new 

costs to barge owners who take part in 

the load line regime. 

The current IR restricts operation of 

barges during adverse weather 

conditions, but either leaves the 

determination to the towing vessel 

master or involves a complex set of 

limiting wind speed/directions and 

wave heights. This final rule simplifies 

the determination by establishing SCA 

conditions as the limiting adverse 

weather condition. We do not have any 

information to indicate that using the 

SCA will result in any additional costs 

to barge owners and may, in fact, reduce 

ambiguity. 

The remaining changes are 

administrative or clarifications and 

would not result in additional costs. 

Affected Population 

Based on industry information, about 

35 barges annually have taken part in 

the load line exemption regime since 

2002, and this number has remained 

fairly constant. 

Costs 

Barge owners who seek a conditional 

exemption must submit a one-time 

registration to the Coast Guard, and 

barge owners who seek a limited load 

line exemption must complete an initial 

survey letter and obtain a limited 

service certificate. 

Based on data in the existing 

collection of information, ‘‘Plan 

Approval and Records for Load Lines,’’ 

OMB Control Number 1625–0013, we 

estimate the preparation time for the 

application of conditional exemption 

and submission to the Coast Guard to be 

about 2 hours. We expect someone at 

the managerial level will prepare the 

conditional exemption application at a 

fully loaded labor rate of $83/hour. A 

managerial level employee of the barge 

company is necessary to perform this 

duty because this person must sign the 

application in order to certify the barge 

owner or operator will maintain the 

operational condition of its barges. We 

estimate the cost for a single barge 

owner or operator to prepare a 

conditional exemption application to be 

about $166 (2 hours × $83 fully loaded 

labor rate/hour).1 We estimate that 

owners or operators of about 30 barges 

annually will seek conditional 

exemptions for a continued annual cost 

of about $4,980 ((2 hours × $83 fully 

loaded labor rate/hour) × 30 barges 

annually). 

Also based on the existing collection 

of information mentioned above, for 

barge owners and operators who choose 

to seek a limited domestic service load 

line, we estimate it will take about 0.5 

hours to complete the application. We 

expect a mid-level employee will 

prepare the limited domestic service 

load line application at a fully loaded 

labor rate of $42/× hour. A mid-level 

employee can perform this duty because 

this application contains basic design 

information about the barge. The 

application is then submitted by the 

barge owner or operator to the 

authorized classification society, who 

then issues the load line certificate. We 

estimate the cost for a single barge 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
70600 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2The figure $5,000 is rounded from $5,085 = 

$4,980 + $105, for the conditional exemption and 

the limited domestic service load line. 

3The figure $140 is rounded from $143 = $5,000/ 

35 barges. 

owner or operator to prepare the limited 

domestic service load line application to 

be about $21 (0.5 hours × $42 fully 

loaded labor rate/hour). We estimate 

that owners or operators of about 5 

barges annually will seek the limited 

domestic service load line for a cost of 

about $105 ((0.5 hours × $42 fully 

loaded labor rate/hour) × 5 barges 

annually). We estimate the total annual 

cost of this final rule to be about 

$5,000.2

Benefits 

We expect the regulations to continue 

to have a positive economic impact on 

the local region because they will allow 

certain cargoes to be transported at a 

lower cost per ton-mile than by the 

alternative overland modes presently 

used. Also, the provisions offer 

increased flexibility to river barge 

operators that choose to operate on the 

Milwaukee route as well as the 

conditionally exempted route from the 

previously required limited service 

domestic voyage load line assignment. 

As a direct benefit, river barge owners 

and qualified river barge operators will 

likely gain business and commercial 

opportunities as a result of having the 

option of continuing to take part in this 

regime for the movement of certain 

cargoes. 

We also expect the regulatory changes 

in the affected CFR sections to have a 

safety benefit by reducing the risk of an 

accident for barge owners that take part 

in the load line regime as illustrated by 

the marine casualty incident that 

occurred August 7, 2003 on Lake 

Michigan (see the Background section of 

this preamble for further information on 

this marine casualty incident). This 

incident directly resulted in the 

regulatory changes in 46 CFR 

45.191(b)(5) that require manhole and 

hatch dogs to be in working condition 

and all covers to be closed and secured 

watertight. 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601–612), we have considered 

whether this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises 

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 has reviewed this 

final rule for its potential economic 

impact on small entities. This final rule 

affects unmanned dry-cargo river barge 

owners and operators who voluntarily 

choose to obtain a limited domestic 

service load line assignment or a 

conditional load line exemption while 

operating on certain routes on Lake 

Michigan. 

We expect the costs of this rule to 

small entities to be minimal for river 

barge owners who choose to take part in 

the Great Lakes load line regime. We 

estimate that 35 river barges use the 

Great Lakes load line regime annually at 

a cost of about $140 per barge.3

Furthermore, this rule conditionally 

exempts qualified barges operating on 

the Milwaukee route from the 

previously proposed limited service 

domestic voyage load line assignment. 

The estimated hour burden of preparing 

the submittal to the Coast Guard for 

exempting barges on the Milwaukee 

route from load line assignment is 

minimal for river barge owners who 

choose to take part in this regime. Small 

entities will likely choose to obtain 

limited domestic service load line 

assignments or conditional load line 

exemptions while operating on Lake 

Michigan only if they expect to gain an 

economic benefit by using the less 

costly form of water transportation as 

opposed to land transportation. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this final rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

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 the rule so that they 

could 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). We received no additional 

information to alter the existing 

collection of information. 

E. Federalism 

A rule has implications 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. It is well settled 

that States may not regulate in 

categories reserved for regulation by the 

Coast Guard. It is also well settled, now, 

that all of the categories covered in 46 

U.S.C. 3306, 3703, 7101, and 8101 

(design, construction, alteration, repair, 

maintenance, operation, equipping, 

personnel qualification, and manning of 

vessels), as well as the reporting of 

casualties and any other category in 

which Congress intended the Coast 

Guard to be the sole source of a vessel’s 

obligations, are within the field 

foreclosed from regulation by the States. 

(See the decision of the Supreme Court 

in the consolidated cases of United 

States v. Locke and Intertanko v. Locke, 

529 U.S. 89, 120 S.Ct. 1135 (March 6, 

2000).) 

This rulemaking concerns load line 

assignments for vessels under U.S. 

jurisdiction. This is a category in which 

Congress intended the Coast Guard to be 

the sole source of a vessel’s obligations. 

Because the States may not regulate 

within this category, preemption under 

Executive Order 13132 is not an issue. 

F. 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 (adjusted for inflation) 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. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule will not cause a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70601 

H. 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. 

I. 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. 

J. 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 relationship between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

K. 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 that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it as a significant 

energy action. Therefore, it does not 

require a Statement of Energy Effects 

under Executive Order 13211. 

L. Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

M. Environment 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01 and 

Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 

which guide the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that this action is one 

of a category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule is categorically 

excluded under section 2.B.2, figure 

2–1, paragraph (34)(d) of the Instruction 

and under section 6(a) of the ‘‘Appendix 

to National Environmental Policy Act: 

Coast Guard Procedures for Categorical 

Exclusions, Notice of Final Agency 

Policy’’ (67 FR 48244, July 23, 2002). 

Exclusion under paragraph (34)(d) 

applies because this rule pertains to 

regulations concerning inspection of 

vessels (i.e., load line requirements). 

Exclusion under 6(a) of the Federal 

Register Notice applies because this rule 

pertains to regulations concerning 

vessel operation safety standards. An 

environmental analysis checklist and a 

categorical exclusion determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. 

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 45 

Great Lakes, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Vessels. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 

CFR part 45 as follows: 

PART 45—GREAT LAKES LOAD LINES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 45 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 5104, 5108; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Amend § 45.171 to revise Table 

45.171 in paragraph (c) and add new 

paragraph (d) to read as follows: 

§ 45.171 Purpose. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
70602 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULESER18NO10.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 70603 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–C 

(d) The provisions in this subpart 

pertain only to load line regulations. 

Nothing here waives or exempts 

participating barges from other 

requirements for vessels operating on 

Lake Michigan, such as Certificate of 

Documentation requirements per 46 

CFR part 67. 

■ 3. Amend § 45.173 to revise 

paragraphs (c) and (d) and add new 

paragraph (e) to read as follows: 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULESER18NO10.001</GPH>
70604 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 45.173 Eligible barges. 

* * * * * 

(c) Barges with a length-to-depth ratio 

less than 22; 

(d) Barges on the Milwaukee route 

must not be more than 10 years old; and 

(e) All weathertight and watertight 

closures (dogs, gaskets, covers, etc.) 

must be in proper working condition. 

■ 4. Revise § 45.175 to read as follows: 

§ 45.175 Applicable routes. 

This subpart applies to the following 

routes, including intermediate ports, on 

Lake Michigan, between Calumet 

Harbor, IL, and— 

(a) Milwaukee, WI (the ‘‘Milwaukee 

route’’); 

(b) Burns Harbor, IN (the ‘‘Burns 

Harbor route’’); 

(c) St. Joseph, MI (the ‘‘St. Joseph 

route’’); and 

(d) Muskegon, MI (the ‘‘Muskegon 

route’’). 

■ 5. Amend § 45.181 to revise 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 45.181 Load line exemption 

requirements for the Burns Harbor and 

Milwaukee routes. 

* * * * * 

(a) Registration. Before the barge’s 

first voyage onto Lake Michigan, the 

owner or operator must register the 

barge in writing with the Commanding 

Officer, Marine Safety Unit Chicago, 

555A Plainfield Road, Willowbrook, IL, 

60527. The registration may be faxed to 

MSU Chicago in advance at (630) 986– 

2120, with the original following by 

mail. The registration may be in any 

form, but must be signed by the owner 

or operator. No load line exemption 

certificate will be returned. However, 

the registration will be kept on file. 

(b) * * * 

(1) Barge name and official 

documentation number; 

* * * * * 

§ 45.183 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend § 45.183 to read as follows: 

■ a. In paragraph (a)(2), remove the 

word ‘‘five’’ and add, in its place, the 

numeral ‘‘5’’; and 

■ b. In paragraph (b)(2)(vi), remove the 

words ‘‘and be fully’’ and add, in their 

place, the words ‘‘and fully’’. 

■ 7. Amend § 45.185 to revise 

paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as follows: 

§ 45.185 Tow limitations. 

* * * * * 

(b) No more than a total of three 

barges per tow may operate on the 

Milwaukee, St. Joseph, and Muskegon 

routes. A mixed tow of load-lined and 

exempted barges is still limited to three 

barges on those routes. 

(c) Tows must not be more than 5 

nautical miles from shore. 

■ 8. Revise § 45.187 to read as follows: 

§ 45.187 Weather limitations. 

(a) Tows may not operate under Small 

Craft Advisory (SCA) conditions or 

worse, as issued by the National 

Weather Service in Lake Michigan 

Nearshore Marine Forecasts. 

(b) Tows may not operate when 

adverse ice conditions may imperil the 

tow or impede its access to shelter. 

(c) If SCA conditions are forecasted to 

develop at any time during the voyage, 

the tow must not leave harbor or, if 

already underway, must proceed to the 

nearest appropriate harbor of safe 

refuge. 

■ 9. Amend § 45.191 to revise 

paragraphs (a) and (b)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 45.191 Pre-departure requirements. 

* * * * * 

(a) Weather forecast. Determine the 

Lake Michigan Nearshore Marine 

Forecast along the planned route, and 

confirm that adverse weather conditions 

(Small Craft Advisory or worse, or ice 

conditions) are not forecasted to 

develop. 

(b) * * * 

(5) All hatch and manhole dogs are in 

working condition, and all covers are 

closed and secured watertight; 

* * * * * 

§ 45.193 [Amended] 

■ 10. In § 45.193(a), add the text ‘‘(HP)’’ 

after the word ‘‘horsepower’’. 

§ 45.197 [Amended] 

■ 11. In § 45.197, in the introductory 

text, remove the word ‘‘aboard’’ and add, 

in its place, the words ‘‘on board’’. 

Dated: November 12, 2010. 

J.G. Lantz, 

Director of Commercial Regulations and 

Standards. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28993 Filed 11–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 20 

[PS Docket No. 07–114; FCC 10–176] 

Wireless E911 Location Accuracy 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission 

(Commission) amends its rules to 

require wireless licensees subject to 

standards for wireless Enhanced 911 

(E911) Phase II location accuracy and 

reliability to satisfy these standards at 

either a county-based or Public Safety 

Answering Point (PSAP)-based 

geographic level. The Commission takes 

this step in order to ensure an 

appropriate and consistent compliance 

methodology with respect to location 

accuracy standards. 

DATES: The rule is effective January 18, 

2011, except for §§ 20.18(h)(1)(vi), 

20.18(h)(2)(iii), and 20.18(h)(3), which 

contains information collection 

requirements that have not been 

approved by OMB. The Federal 

Communications Commission will 

publish a document in the Federal 

Register announcing the effective date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patrick Donovan, Policy Division, 

Public Safety and Homeland Security 

Bureau, (202) 418–2413. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Second 

Report and Order (Order) in PS Docket 

No. 07–114, FCC 10–176, adopted 

September 23, 2010, and released 

September 23, 2010. The complete text 

of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Information Center, Room CY–A257, 

445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 

20554. This document may also be 

obtained from the Commission’s 

duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 

Printing, Inc., in person at 445 12th 

Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, via telephone at 

(202) 488–5300, via facsimile at (202) 

488–5563, or via e-mail at 

FCC@BCPIWEB.COM. Alternative 

formats (computer diskette, large print, 

audio cassette, and Braille) are available 

to persons with disabilities by sending 

an e-mail to FCC504@fcc.gov or calling 

the Consumer and Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at (202) 418–0530, TTY (202) 

418–0432. This document is also 

available on the Commission’s Web site 

at http://www.fcc.gov. 

I. Introduction 

1. One of the most important 

opportunities afforded by mobile 

telephony is the potential for the 

American public to have access to 

emergency services personnel during 

times of crisis, wherever they may be. 

To ensure this benefit is realized, 

however, public safety personnel must 

have accurate information regarding the 

location of the caller. Without precise 

location information, public safety’s 

ability to provide critical services in a 


jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES