7958 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

State and county Location and Case 

No. 

Date and name of newspaper 

where notice was published Chief executive officer of community Effective date of modification 

Community 

No. 

Rutherford ........ Unincorporated 

areas of Rutherford County (09– 

04–3370P).

July 8, 2009; July 15, 2009; 

Daily News Journal.

The Honorable Ernest Burgess, Mayor, 

Rutherford County, County Courthouse, 

Room 101, Murfreesboro, TN 37130.

November 12, 2009 ........ 470165 

Rutherford ........ Town of Smyrna 

(09–04–2810P).

July 8, 2009; July 15, 2009; 

Daily News Journal.

The Honorable Bobby G. Spivey, Mayor, 

Town of Smyrna, 315 South Lowry 

Street, Smyrna, TN 37167.

November 12, 2009 ........ 470169 

Wilson ............... Unincorporated 

areas of Wilson 

County (09–04– 

3370P).

July 8, 2009; July 15, 2009; 

Wilson Post.

The Honorable Robert Dedman, County 

Mayor, Wilson County, 228 East Main 

Street, Lebanon, TN 37087.

November 12, 2009 ........ 470165 

Texas: 

McLennan ......... Unincorporated 

areas of 

McLennan County 

(09–06–0597P).

June 26, 2009; July 3, 2009; 

Waco Tribune Herald.

The Honorable Jim Lewis, McLennan 

County Judge, P.O. Box 1728, Waco, 

TX 76701.

November 2, 2009 .......... 480456 

McLennan ......... City of Waco (09– 

06–0597P).

June 26, 2009; July 3, 2009; 

Waco Tribune Herald.

The Honorable Virginia DuPuy, Mayor, 

City of Waco, P.O. Box 2570, Waco, 

TX 76702.

November 2, 2009 .......... 480461 

Travis ................ City of Pflugerville 

(09–06–1373P).

July 23, 2009; July 30, 2009; 

Pflugerville Pflag.

The Honorable Jeff Coleman, Mayor, City 

of Pflugerville, P.O. Box 589, 

Pflugerville, TX 78691.

November 30, 2009 ........ 481028 

Virginia: Loudoun .... Town of Leesburg 

(08–03–1561P).

June 24, 2009; July 1, 2009; 

Loudoun Times Mirror.

The Honorable Kristen C. Umstattd, 

Mayor, Town of Leesburg, P.O. Box 88, 

Leesburg, VA 20178.

October 29, 2009 ........... 510091 

Wyoming: Sweetwater.City of Rock Springs 

(09–08–0320P).

July 14, 2009; July 21, 2009; 

Rock Springs Daily Rocket 

Miner.

The Honorable Timothy A. Kaumo, 

Mayor, City of Rock Springs, 212 D 

Street, Rock Springs, WY 82901.

November 18, 2009 ........ 560051 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 

97.022, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’) 

Sandra K. Knight, 

Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3440 Filed 2–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 401 

[Docket No. USCG–2009–0883] 

RIN 1625–AB39 

2010 Rates for Pilotage on the Great 

Lakes 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is increasing 

the rates for pilotage service on the 

Great Lakes by an average of 5.07% to 

generate sufficient revenue to cover 

allowable expenses, target pilot 

compensation, and return on 

investment. This increase reflects an 

August 1, 2010, increase in benchmark 

contractual wages and benefits and an 

adjustment for inflation. This 

rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard 

strategic goal of maritime safety. 

DATES: This final rule is effective August 

1, 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–2009–0883 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–2009–0883 in the ‘‘Keyword’’ 

box, and then clicking ‘‘Search.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on this final rule, please call 

Mr. Paul Wasserman, Chief, Great Lakes 

Pilotage Branch, Commandant (CG– 

54122), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202–372– 

1535, by fax 202–372–1909, or e-mail 

Paul.M.Wasserman@uscg.mil. For 

questions on viewing or submitting 

material to the docket, call Renee V. 

Wright, Chief, Dockets, Department of 

Transportation, telephone 202–493– 

0402. 

Table of Contents for Preamble 

I. Abbreviations 

II. Regulatory History 

III. Background 

IV. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

V. Discussion of the Final Rule 

A. Summary 

B. Calculating the Rate Adjustment 

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 

AMOU American Maritime Officer Union 

GLPAC Great Lakes Pilotage Advisory 

Committee 

MISLE Coast Guard Marine Inspection, 

Safety, and Law Enforcement system 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

II. Regulatory History 

On October 30, 2009, we published a 

notice of proposed rulemaking entitled 

Great Lakes Pilotage Rates—2010 

Annual Review and Adjustment in the 

Federal Register (NPRM, 74 FR 56153). 

We received five comments on the 

proposed rule. No public meeting was 

requested and none was held. 

III. Background 

We published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking on October 30, 2009 (NPRM, 

74 FR 56153). The NPRM proposed an 

average 5.07% rate increase. 

This rulemaking increases Great Lakes 

pilotage rates in accord with the 

methodology contained in Coast Guard 

regulations in 46 CFR parts 401–404. 

Our regulations implement the Great 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7959 

Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960 (‘‘the Act’’), 

46 U.S.C. Chapter 93, which requires 

foreign-flag vessels engaged in foreign 

trade to use U.S. registered pilots while 

transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway and 

the Great Lakes system. The Act also 

requires the Secretary of Homeland 

Security to ‘‘prescribe by regulation rates 

and charges for pilotage services, giving 

consideration to the public interest and 

the costs of providing the services,’’ and 

requires annual rate reviews to be 

completed by March 1 of each year, 

with a ‘‘full ratemaking’’ to establish 

new base rates at least once every five 

years. 46 U.S.C. 9303(f). 

The U.S. waters of the Great Lakes 

and the St. Lawrence Seaway are 

divided into three pilotage districts. 

Pilotage in each district is provided by 

an association certified by the Coast 

Guard Director of Great Lakes Pilotage 

to operate a pilotage pool. It is 

important to note that, while we set 

rates, we do not control the actual 

number of pilots an association 

maintains, so long as the association is 

able to provide safe, efficient, and 

reliable pilotage service, nor do we 

control the actual compensation that 

pilots receive. This is determined by 

each of the three District associations, 

which use different compensation 

practices. 

District One, consisting of Areas 1 and 

2, includes all U.S. waters of the St. 

Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. 

District Two, consisting of Areas 4 and 

5, includes all U.S. waters of Lake Erie, 

the Detroit River, Lake St. Clair, and the 

St. Clair River. District Three, consisting 

of Areas 6, 7, and 8, includes all U.S. 

waters of the St. Mary’s River, Sault Ste. 

Marie Locks, and Lakes Michigan, 

Huron, and Superior. Area 3 is the 

Welland Canal, which is serviced 

exclusively by the Canadian Great Lakes 

Pilotage Authority and, accordingly, is 

not included in the U.S. rate structure. 

Areas 1, 5, and 7 have been designated 

by Presidential Proclamation, pursuant 

to the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, 

to be waters in which pilots must at all 

times be fully engaged in the navigation 

of vessels in their charge. Areas 2, 4, 6, 

and 8 have not been so designated 

because they are open bodies of water. 

Under the Act, pilots assigned to vessels 

in these areas are only required to ‘‘be 

on board and available to direct the 

navigation of the vessel at the discretion 

of and subject to the customary 

authority of the master.’’ 46 U.S.C. 

9302(a)(1)(B). 

Our pilotage regulations implement 

the Act’s requirement for annual 

reviews of pilotage rates and a full 

ratemaking at least once every five 

years. 46 CFR 404.1. To assist in 

calculating pilotage rates, the 

regulations require pilotage associations 

to submit annual financial statements 

prepared by certified public accounting 

firms. In addition, every fifth year, in 

connection with the full ratemaking, we 

contract with an independent 

accounting firm to conduct a full audit 

of the accounts and records of the 

pilotage associations and prepare and 

submit financial reports relevant to the 

ratemaking process. In those years when 

a full ratemaking is conducted, we 

generate the pilotage rates using 

Appendix A to 46 CFR part 404. The 

last Appendix A review was concluded 

in 2006 (71 FR 16501, Apr. 3, 2006). 

Between the five-year full ratemaking 

intervals, we annually review the 

pilotage rates using Appendix C to part 

404, and adjust rates when deemed 

appropriate. We conducted Appendix C 

reviews in 2007, 2008 and 2009 and 

increased rates in each year. The 2009 

final rule was published on July 21, 

2009 (74 FR 138), and took effect on 

August 1, 2009. We define the terms and 

formulas used in Appendix A and 

Appendix C in Appendix B to part 404. 

This final rule concludes the annual 

Appendix C rate review for 2010, and 

increases rates by an average of 5.07% 

over the rates that took effect August 1, 

2009. 

IV. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

Five comments were submitted 

during the NPRM public comment 

period. 

Ratemaking methodology. One 

commenter recommended that we 

suspend any further action on this 

rulemaking until full consideration can 

be given to comments received in 

response to our July 21, 2009, request 

for public comments (‘‘Great Lakes 

Pilotage Ratemaking Methodology,’’ 74 

FR 35838). In July, we requested 

comments on the adequacy of our 

current ratemaking methodology in light 

of the realities of Great Lakes 

commercial shipping and the need to 

fairly balance competing considerations. 

We noted that any comments would be 

referred to the Great Lakes Pilotage 

Advisory Committee (GLPAC), a group 

created by the Great Lakes Pilotage Act 

to advise us on significant issues 

relating to Great Lakes pilotage. GLPAC 

will review our methodology and the 

comments received in response to our 

notice, and may recommend changes. If 

we accept their recommendations, any 

changes would require regulatory 

action. GLPAC has just begun reviewing 

comments. As yet there is no timeline 

for any GLPAC recommendations and 

no rulemaking underway to modify the 

methodology. Therefore, we cannot 

complete the ‘‘full consideration’’ 

mentioned by the commenter before 

March 1, 2010, the Act’s deadline for 

establishing any annual rate adjustment 

for 2010. The Act provides no exception 

to the March 1 deadline for 

consideration of possible changes to the 

existing rate review process. Thus, we 

cannot suspend work on this 

rulemaking without violating the law. 

Another commenter reiterated 

comments the commenter made during 

the 2007 and 2009 rate reviews. In 2007, 

we explained our reasons for 

disagreeing with this commenter’s 

analysis of the ‘‘150% factor’’ for 

designated waters; 2007 interim rule, 72 

FR 8115 at 8117 (Feb. 23, 2007) and 

2007 Final Rule, 72 FR 53158 at 53159 

(July 18, 2007). In the 2009 final rule, 

we explained our reasons for 

disagreeing with this Commenter on the 

‘‘Riker Report’’ on bridge hour 

calculations; 74 FR 35812 at 35814. As 

no new substantive information has 

been added, we will not repeat those 

earlier explanations. The commenter’s 

suggestion that we amend the vessel 

weighting factor table in 46 CFR 401.400 

is beyond the scope of this ratemaking. 

Two commenters reiterated past 

comments about our use of rounding in 

bridge hour calculations, without 

adding new information. We fully 

discussed our use of rounding in the 

2009 final rule, specifically with 

reference to Area 4, which is of 

particular concern to one of these 

commenters, and we will not repeat that 

discussion; 74 FR 35812 at 35813. The 

Area 4 calculations have not changed 

since the 2009 final rule. 

A commenter said that our ratemaking 

is arbitrary and capricious because we 

count delay and detention in calculating 

bridge hours for Areas 6, 7, and 8, but 

not in Areas 4 and 5. No information 

was provided to substantiate this claim, 

which runs counter to our discussion of 

bridge hour calculations in ratemaking 

documents over many years, and which 

repeats an allegation made in 2007 and 

refuted in that year’s interim rule: ‘‘The 

Coast Guard has never considered delay, 

detention, or travel time to be included 

in the definition of bridge hours and has 

never knowingly included these items 

in its bridge hour computations’’; 72 FR 

8115 at 8117, Feb. 23, 2007. Coast Guard 

did not consider delay, detention, or 

travel time in its bridge hour 

computations in this final rule. 

Effective date. Another commenter 

stated that the Act requires any 2010 

rate adjustment to take effect by March 

1, 2010. The comment acknowledged 

that this is not the Coast Guard’s 

interpretation of the Act. In our view, 46 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

7960 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

U.S.C. 9303(f) only requires us to 

publish a rule announcing the 2010 rate 

adjustment by March 1, 2010; the rule’s 

effective date should be delayed until 

the event triggering the need for 

adjustment actually takes place. In this 

case, the triggering event will be the 

benchmark contract changes that do not 

take effect until August 1, 2010. This 

commenter also said that, even under 

the Coast Guard’s interpretation of the 

Act, some relevant rate factors have 

already changed. The commenter 

mentions bridge hour projections 

(discussed subsequently) and cost of 

living (which is determined using 2007 

and 2008 data). However, the inflation 

factor is merely one of three 

components that make up projected 

total economic costs and has a minimal 

effect on the rate calculation. We 

decline to adjust the rates to reflect only 

minimal changes. 

Supporting data. One commenter 

found it impossible to verify the 

calculations made in our NPRM. He 

mentioned the absence from the docket 

of two benchmark contracts and the 

absence of supporting documentation 

for the inflation factor used in our 

calculations. The two contracts were 

placed in the docket maintained by the 

Docket Management Facility on 

November 25, 2009, prior to the close of 

the public comment period. The NPRM, 

74 FR 56153 at 56156, identified the 

parties to both contracts and accurately 

represented their terms. This enabled 

the commenter to verify the accuracy of 

our data, prior to November 25, 2009, by 

contacting any of the contractual 

parties. The data supporting the 

inflation factor did not appear in the 

docket maintained by the Docket 

Management Facility until December 2, 

2009, after the close of the public 

comment period. However, the NPRM, 

74 FR 56153 at 56159, identified Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS) Midwest 

consumer price data as the source of our 

calculations, and this data was at all 

times available from the BLS Web site, 

http://www.bls.gov. 

This same commenter also said that 

projected bridge hours for 2010 should 

be based on actual bridge hours for 2009 

to date, along with results of 

consultations with stakeholders, 

including the shipping industry. 

Another commenter asked why we did 

not use 2009 actual hours. As stated in 

the NPRM, 74 FR 56153 at 56158, our 

2010 projections are based on historical 

data (by which we mean actual figures 

for complete past shipping seasons) and 

information provided both by pilots and 

industry. To meet the Act’s March 1 

deadline for completion of each year’s 

rate review, with a final rule that meets 

all applicable requirements of the 

Federal regulatory process, Coast Guard 

data collection for the following year’s 

review typically begins in the early 

spring of the preceding year. Given that 

reality, it is impracticable for the Coast 

Guard to base NPRM projections for the 

next year on actual results from the 

preceding year. The commenter’s 

estimate of a 25% drop in shipping 

traffic between 2008 and 2009 does not 

provide us with sufficiently detailed 

data on which to base a revision of our 

2010 projections in this final rule. We 

do expect verified and complete 2009 

actual data to inform our 2011 

ratemaking. 

District One pilot boat. Another 

commenter expressed a desire to have 

District One’s purchase of a new pilot 

boat reflected in the 2010 rate 

adjustment, or as soon as possible. This 

comment is beyond the scope of this 

ratemaking, which is being conducted 

pursuant to our Appendix C 

methodology, because it asks for action 

that can be taken only under an 

Appendix A full ratemaking. The next 

Appendix A review is already in 

progress. It will be based on a 2008 

audit of pilot association expenses. This 

could present a timing problem from 

District One’s perspective, because their 

boat expenses did not begin until 2009 

and therefore would not be captured in 

the 2008 audit data. Presumably to 

address that timing problem, in March 

2009, District One petitioned the Coast 

Guard for a ‘‘modified’’ Appendix A 

review that could focus specifically on 

the pilot boat purchase. We could not 

grant that petition because there are no 

provisions for ‘‘modifying’’ Appendix A 

without conducting a rulemaking to 

make the modifications. However, we 

are mindful of the importance of this 

issue for District One, and we will ask 

GLPAC for its recommendations on how 

best to proceed, as part of GLPAC’s 

consideration of public comments 

received in response to our July 2009 

ratemaking methodology notice. 

Miscellaneous. A commenter asked us 

to refer to ‘‘U.S. registered pilots’’ 

instead of ‘‘federally registered Great 

Lakes pilots’’ and we have done so. 

V. Discussion of the Final Rule 

A. Summary 

We are increasing pilotage rates in 

accordance with the methodology 

outlined in Appendix C to 46 CFR part 

404, by increasing rates an average 

5.07% over the 2009 final rule, effective 

August 1, 2010. The new rates are 

unchanged from what we proposed in 

the NPRM. Table 1 shows the new rates 

for each Area. 

TABLE 1—2010 AREA RATE CHANGES

If pilotage service is required in: 

Then the proposed 

percentage increases 

over the current rate is: 

Area 1 (Designated waters) ............................................................................................................................................. 4.65 

Area 2 (Undesignated waters) ......................................................................................................................................... 5.33 

Area 4 (Undesignated waters) ......................................................................................................................................... 5.47 

Area 5 (Designated waters) ............................................................................................................................................. 4.96 

Area 6 (Undesignated waters) ......................................................................................................................................... 5.27 

Area 7 (Designated waters) ............................................................................................................................................. 4.73 

Area 8 (Undesignated waters) ......................................................................................................................................... 5.17 

Overall Rate Change (percentage change in overall prospective unit costs/base unit costs; see Table 18) ................ 5.07 

Rates for cancellation, delay, or 

interruption in rendering services (46 

CFR 401.420), and basic rates and 

charges for carrying a U.S. pilot beyond 

the normal change point, or for boarding 

at other than the normal boarding point 

(46 CFR 401.428), have been increased 

by 5.07% in all Areas. 

B. Calculating the Rate Adjustment 

The Appendix C ratemaking 

calculation involves eight steps: 

Step 1: Calculate the total economic 

costs for the base period (i.e. pilot 

compensation expense plus all other 

recognized expenses plus the return 

element) and divide by the total bridge 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7961 

hours used in setting the base period 

rates; 

Step 2: Calculate the ‘‘expense 

multiplier,’’ the ratio of other expenses 

and the return element to pilot 

compensation for the base period; 

Step 3: Calculate an annual 

‘‘projection of target pilot compensation’’ 

using the same procedures found in 

Step 2 of Appendix A; 

Step 4: Increase the projected pilot 

compensation in Step 3 by the expense 

multiplier in Step 2; 

Step 5: Adjust the result in Step 4, as 

required, for inflation or deflation; 

Step 6: Divide the result in Step 5 by 

projected bridge hours to determine 

total unit costs; 

Step 7: Divide prospective unit costs 

in Step 6 by the base period unit costs 

in Step 1; and 

Step 8: Adjust the base period rates by 

the percentage changes in unit cost in 

Step 7. 

The base data used to calculate each 

of the eight steps comes from the 2009 

Appendix C review. The Coast Guard 

also used the most recent union 

contracts between the American 

Maritime Officers Union (AMOU) and 

vessel owners and operators on the 

Great Lakes to determine target pilot 

compensation. Bridge hour projections 

for the 2010 season have been obtained 

from historical data, pilots, and 

industry. All documents and records 

used in this rate calculation have been 

placed in the public docket for this 

rulemaking and are available for review 

at the addresses listed under ADDRESSES. 

Some values may not total exactly due 

to format rounding for presentation in 

charts and explanations in this section. 

The rounding does not affect the 

integrity or truncate the real value of all 

calculations in the ratemaking 

methodology described below. Also, 

please note that in previous rulemakings 

we calculated an expense multiplier for 

each District. This was unnecessary 

because Appendix C calculations are 

based on area figures, not district 

figures. District figures, where they are 

shown in the following tables, now 

reflect only the arithmetical totals for 

each of the district’s areas. 

Step 1: Calculate the total economic 

cost for the base period. In this step, for 

each area, we add the total cost of target 

pilot compensation, all other recognized 

expenses, and the return element (net 

income plus interest). We divide this 

sum by the total bridge hours for each 

area. The result is the cost in each area 

of providing pilotage service per bridge 

hour for the base period. Tables 2 

through 4 summarize the Step 1 

calculations: 

TABLE 2—TOTAL ECONOMIC COST FOR BASE PERIOD (2009), AREAS IN DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 

St. Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 

Lake Ontario 

Total * 

District One 

Base operating expense (less base return element) ...................................................... $538,155 $547,489 $1,085,644 

Base target pilot compensation ....................................................................................... + $1,617,955 + $981,589 + $2,599,544 

Base return element ........................................................................................................ + $10,763 + $16,425 + $27,188 

Subtotal * ................................................................................................................... = $2,166,873 = $1,545,503 = $3,712,376 

Base bridge hours ........................................................................................................... ÷ 5,203 ÷ 5,650 ÷ 10,853 

Base cost per bridge hour ............................................................................................... = $416.47 = $273.54 = $342.06 

* As explained in the text preceding Step 1, District totals have been expressed differently from previous rulemakings. This accounts for slight 

differences between the District totals shown in Table 16 of the 2009 final rule and the District totals shown in this table. 

TABLE 3—TOTAL ECONOMIC COST FOR BASE PERIOD (2009), AREAS IN DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 

Lake Erie 

Area 5 

Southeast Shoal 

to Port Huron, MI 

Total * 

District Two 

Base operating expense .................................................................................................. $502,087 $789,202 $1,291,289 

Base target pilot compensation ....................................................................................... + $785,271 + $1,617,955 + $2,403,226 

Base return element ........................................................................................................ + $25,104 + $31,568 + $56,672 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................... = $1,312,463 = $2,438,725 = $3,751,188 

Base bridge hours ........................................................................................................... ÷ 7,320 ÷ 5,097 ÷ 12,417 

Base cost per bridge hour ............................................................................................... = $179.30 = $478.46 = $302.10 

* See footnote to Table 2. 

TABLE 4—TOTAL ECONOMIC COST FOR BASE PERIOD (2009), AREAS IN DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 

Lakes Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 

St. Mary’s River 

Area 8 

Lake Superior 

Total * 

District Three 

Base operating expense .................................................................. $814,358 $398,461 $641,580 $1,854,399 

Base target pilot compensation ....................................................... + $1,570,542 + $1,078,637 + $1,374,224 + $4,023,403 

Base return element ........................................................................ + $32,574 + $11,954 + $19,247 + $63,776 

Subtotal ..................................................................................... = $2,417,474 = $1,489,052 = $2,035,052 = $5,941,578 

Base bridge hours ........................................................................... ÷ 13,406 ÷ 3,259 ÷ 11,630 ÷ 28,295 

Base cost per bridge hour ............................................................... = $180.33 = $456.90 = $174.98 = $209.99

* See footnote to Table 2. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

7962 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Step 2. Calculate the expense 

multiplier. In this step, for each Area, 

we add the base operating expense and 

the base return element. Then, we 

divide the sum by the base target pilot 

compensation to get the expense 

multiplier for each area. Tables 5 

through 7 show the Step 2 calculations. 

TABLE 5—EXPENSE MULTIPLIER, AREAS IN DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 

St. Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 

Lake Ontario 

Total 

District One 

Base operating expense ..................................................................................................... $538,155 $547,489 $1,085,644 

Base return element ........................................................................................................... + $10,763 + $16,425 + $27,188 

Subtotal ....................................................................................................................... = $548,918 = $563,914 = $1,112,832 

Base target pilot compensation .......................................................................................... ÷ $1,617,955 ÷ $981,589 $2,599,544 

Expense multiplier .............................................................................................................. 0.33927 0.57449 Not applicable 

(n/a) 

TABLE 6—EXPENSE MULTIPLIER, AREAS IN DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 

Lake Erie 

Area 5 

Southeast Shoal 

to Port Huron, MI 

Total 

District Two 

Base operating expense .................................................................................................. $502,087 $789,202 $1,291,289 

Base return element ........................................................................................................ + $25,104 + $31,568 + $56,672 

Subtotal ..................................................................................................................... = $527,192 = $820,770 = $1,347,962 

Base target pilot compensation ....................................................................................... ÷ $785,271 ÷ $1,617,955 $2,403,226 

Expense multiplier ........................................................................................................... 0.67135 0.50729 n/a 

TABLE 7—EXPENSE MULTIPLIER, AREAS IN DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 

Lakes Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 

St. Mary’s River 

Area 8 

Lake Superior 

Total 

District Three 

Base operating Expense ................................................................. $814,358 $398,461 $641,580 $1,854,399 

Base return element ........................................................................ + $32,574 + $11,954 + $19,247 + $63,776 

Subtotal ..................................................................................... = $846,932 = $410,415 = $660,828 = $1,918,175 

Base target pilot compensation ....................................................... ÷ $1,570,542 ÷ $1,078,637 ÷ $1,374,224 $4,023,403 

Expense multiplier ........................................................................... 0.53926 0.38049 0.48087 n/a 

Step 3. Calculate annual projection of 

target pilot compensation. In this step, 

we determine the new target rate of 

compensation and the new number of 

pilots needed in each pilotage area, to 

determine the new target pilot 

compensation for each area. 

(a) Determine new target rate of 

compensation. Target pilot 

compensation is based on the average 

annual compensation of first mates and 

masters on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. For 

pilots in undesignated waters, we 

approximate the first mates’ 

compensation and, in designated 

waters, we approximate the master’s 

compensation (first mates’ wages 

multiplied by 150% plus benefits). To 

determine first mates’ and masters’ 

average annual compensation, we use 

data from the most recent AMOU 

contracts with the U.S. companies 

engaged in Great Lakes shipping. Where 

different AMOU agreements apply to 

different companies, we apportion the 

compensation provided by each 

agreement according to the percentage 

of tonnage represented by companies 

under each agreement. 

As of May 2009, there are two current 

AMOU contracts, which we designate 

Agreement A and Agreement B. 

Agreement A applies to vessels operated 

by Key Lakes, Inc., and Agreement B 

applies to all vessels operated by 

American Steamship Co. and Mittal 

Steel USA, Inc. 

Both Agreement A and Agreement B 

provide for a 3% wage increase effective 

August 1, 2010. Under Agreement A, the 

daily wage rate will be increased from 

$262.73 to $270.61. Under Agreement B, 

the daily wage rate will be increased 

from $323.86 to $333.57. 

To calculate monthly wages, we apply 

Agreement A and Agreement B monthly 

multipliers of 54.5 and 49.5, 

respectively, to the daily rate. 

Agreement A’s 54.5 multiplier 

represents 30.5 average working days, 

15.5 vacation days, 4 days for four 

weekends, 3 bonus days, and 1.5 

holidays. Agreement B’s 49.5 multiplier 

represents 30.5 average working days, 

16 vacation days, and 3 bonus days. 

To calculate average annual 

compensation, we multiply monthly 

figures by 9 months, the length of the 

Great Lakes shipping season. 

Table 8 shows new wage calculations 

based on Agreements A and B effective 

August 1, 2010. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7963 

TABLE 8—WAGES

Monthly component 

Pilots on 

undesignated 

waters 

Pilots on designated waters 

(undesignated × 150%) 

AGREEMENT A: 

$270.61 daily rate × 54.5 days ......................................................................................... $14,748 $22,123 

AGREEMENT A: 

Monthly total × 9 months = total wages ........................................................................... 132,735 199,103 

AGREEMENT B: 

$333.57 daily rate × 49.5 days ......................................................................................... 16,512 24,768 

AGREEMENT B: 

Monthly total × 9 months = total wages ........................................................................... 148,608 222,912 

Both Agreements A and B include a 

health benefits contribution rate of 

$88.76 effective August 1, 2010. 

Agreement A includes a pension plan 

contribution rate of $33.35 per man-day. 

Agreement B includes a pension plan 

contribution rate of $43.55 per man-day. 

Both Agreements A and B provide a 

401K employer matching rate, 5% of the 

wage rate. Neither Agreement A nor 

Agreement B includes a clerical 

contribution that appeared in earlier 

contracts. Per the AMOU, the multiplier 

used to calculate monthly benefits is 

45.5 days. 

Table 9 shows new benefit 

calculations based on Agreements A and 

B, effective August 1, 2010, and Table 

10 totals the figures in Tables 8 and 9. 

TABLE 9—BENEFITS

Monthly component Pilots on undesignated waters Pilots on designated waters 

AGREEMENT A: 

Employer contribution, 401(K) plan (Monthly Wages × 5%) ............................................ $737.42 $1,106.13 

Pension = $33.35 × 45.5 days ......................................................................................... 1,517.43 1,517.43 

Health = $88.76 × 45.5 days ............................................................................................ 4,038.58 4,038.58 

AGREEMENT B: 

Employer contribution, 401(K) plan (Monthly Wages × 5%) ............................................ 825.60 1,238.40 

Pension = $43.55 × 45.5 days ......................................................................................... 1,981.53 1,981.53 

Health = $88.76 × 45.5 days ............................................................................................ 4,038.58 4,038.58 

AGREEMENT A: 

Monthly total benefits ....................................................................................................... = 6,293.42 = 6,662.13 

AGREEMENT A: 

Monthly total benefits × 9 months .................................................................................... = 56,641 = 59,959 

AGREEMENT B: 

Monthly total benefits ....................................................................................................... = 6,845.71 = 7,258.51 

AGREEMENT B: 

Monthly total benefits × 9 months .................................................................................... = 61,611 = 65,327 

TABLE 10—TOTAL WAGES AND BENEFITS

Pilots on undesignated waters Pilots on designated waters 

AGREEMENT A: Wages ......................................................................................................... $132,735 $199,103 

AGREEMENT A: Benefits ....................................................................................................... + 56,641 + 59,959 

AGREEMENT A: Total ..................................................................................................... = 189,376 = 259,062 

AGREEMENT B: Wages ......................................................................................................... 148,608 222,912 

AGREEMENT B: Benefits ....................................................................................................... + 61,611 + 65,327 

AGREEMENT B: Total ..................................................................................................... = 210,219 = 288,239 

Table 11 shows that approximately 

one third of U.S. Great Lakes shipping 

deadweight tonnage operates under 

Agreement A, with the remaining two 

thirds operating under Agreement B. 

TABLE 11—DEADWEIGHT TONNAGE BY AMOU AGREEMENT

Company Agreement A Agreement B 

American Steamship Company ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 815,600 

Mittal Steel USA, Inc. .............................................................................................................................................. ........................ 38,826 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

7964 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 11—DEADWEIGHT TONNAGE BY AMOU AGREEMENT—Continued 

Company Agreement A Agreement B 

Key Lakes, Inc. ........................................................................................................................................................ 361,385 ........................

Total tonnage, each agreement ....................................................................................................................... 361,385 854,426 

Percent tonnage, each agreement .......................................................................................................................... 361,385 ÷ 

1,215,811 = 

29.7238% 

854,426 ÷ 

1,215,811 = 

70.2762% 

Table 12 applies the percentage of 

tonnage represented by each agreement 

to the wages and benefits provided by 

each agreement, to determine the 

projected target rate of compensation on 

a tonnage-weighted basis. 

TABLE 12—PROJECTED TARGET RATE OF COMPENSATION, WEIGHTED

Undesignated 

waters 

Designated 

waters 

AGREEMENT A: 

Total wages and benefits x percent tonnage ................................................................................................... $189,376 x 

29.7238% = 

56,290 

259,062 x 

29.7238% = 

77,003 

AGREEMENT B: 

Total wages and benefits x percent tonnage ................................................................................................... 210,219 x 

70.2762% = 

147,734 

288,239 x 

70.2762% = 

202,563 

Total weighted average wages and benefits = projected target rate of compensation ................................... 56,290 + 

147,734 = 

204,024 

77,003 + 

202,563 = 

279,566 

(b) Determine number of pilots 

needed. Subject to adjustment by the 

Coast Guard Director of Great Lakes 

Pilotage to ensure uninterrupted service, 

we determine the number of pilots 

needed for ratemaking purposes in each 

area by dividing each area’s projected 

bridge hours, either by 1,000 

(designated waters) or by 1,800 

(undesignated waters). 

Bridge hours are the number of hours 

a pilot is aboard a vessel providing 

pilotage service. Projected bridge hours 

are based on the vessel traffic that pilots 

are expected to serve. Based on 

historical data and information 

provided by pilots and industry, we 

project that vessel traffic in the 2010 

navigation season, in all areas, will 

remain unchanged from the 2009 

projections noted in Table 13 of the 

2009 final rule. 

Table 13, below, shows the projected 

bridge hours needed for each area, and 

the total number of pilots needed for 

ratemaking purposes after dividing 

those figures either by 1,000 or 1,800. 

As in 2008 and 2009, and for the same 

reasons, we rounded up to the next 

whole pilot except in Area 2 where we 

rounded up from 3.14 to 5, and in Area 

4 where we rounded down from 4.07 to 

4. 

TABLE 13—NUMBER OF PILOTS NEEDED

Pilotage area 

Projected 

2010 

bridge hours 

Divided by 

1,000 

(designated 

waters) or 

1,800 

(undesignated 

waters) 

Pilots needed 

(total = 40) 

Area 1 .................................................................................................................................... 5,203 1,000 6 

Area 2 .................................................................................................................................... 5,650 1,800 5 

Area 4 .................................................................................................................................... 7,320 1,800 4 

Area 5 .................................................................................................................................... 5,097 1,000 6 

Area 6 .................................................................................................................................... 13,406 1,800 8 

Area 7 .................................................................................................................................... 3,259 1,000 4 

Area 8 .................................................................................................................................... 11,630 1,800 7 

(c) Determine the projected target 

pilot compensation for each area. The 

projection of new total target pilot 

compensation is determined separately 

for each pilotage area by multiplying the 

number of pilots needed in each area 

(see Table 13) by the projected target 

rate of compensation (see Table 12) for 

pilots working in that area. Table 14 

shows this calculation. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7965 

TABLE 14—PROJECTED TARGET PILOT COMPENSATION

Pilotage area Pilots needed 

(total = 40) 

Multiplied by 

target rate of 

compensation 

Projected 

target pilot 

compensation 

Area 1 ...................................................................................................................................... 6 x $279,566 $1,677,397 

Area 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 5 x 204,024 1,020,120 

Total, District One ............................................................................................................. 11 n/a 2,697,517 

Area 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 4 x 204,024 816,096 

Area 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 6 x 279,566 1,677,397 

Total, District Two ............................................................................................................. 10 n/a 2,493,493 

Area 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 8 x 204,024 1,632,191 

Area 7 ...................................................................................................................................... 4 x 279,566 1,118,265 

Area 8 ...................................................................................................................................... 7 x 204,024 1,428,167 

Total, District Three .......................................................................................................... 19 n/a 4,178,623 

Step 4: Increase the projected pilot 

compensation in Step 3 by the expense 

multiplier in Step 2. This step yields a 

projected increase in operating costs 

necessary to support the increased 

projected pilot compensation. Table 15 

shows this calculation. 

TABLE 15—PROJECTED OPERATING EXPENSE

Pilotage area 

Projected 

target pilot 

compensation 

Multiplied by 

expense 

multiplier 

Projected 

operating 

expense 

Area 1 ...................................................................................................................................... $1,677,397 × 0.33927 = $569,084 

Area 2 ...................................................................................................................................... 1,020,120 × 0.57449 = 586,050 

Total, District One ............................................................................................................. 2,697,517 n/a = 1,155,134 

Area 4 ...................................................................................................................................... 816,096 × 0.67135 = 547,886 

Area 5 ...................................................................................................................................... 1,677,397 × 0.50729 = 850,924 

Total, District Two ............................................................................................................. 2,493,493 n/a = 1,398,810 

Area 6 ...................................................................................................................................... 1,632,191 × 0.53926 = 880,177 

Area 7 ...................................................................................................................................... 1,118,265 × 0.38049 = 425,493 

Area 8 ...................................................................................................................................... 1,428,167 × 0.48087 = 686,767 

Total, District Three .......................................................................................................... 4,178,623 n/a = 1,992,438 

Step 5: Adjust the result in Step 4, as 

required, for inflation or deflation, and 

calculate projected total economic cost. 

Based on data from the U.S. Department 

of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics 

available at http://www.bls.gov/ 

xg_shells/ro5xg01.htm, we have 

multiplied the results in Step 4 by a 

1.037 inflation factor, reflecting an 

average inflation rate of 3.7% between 

2007 and 2008, the latest years for 

which data are available. Table 16 

shows this calculation and the projected 

total economic cost. 

TABLE 16—PROJECTED TOTAL ECONOMIC COST

Pilotage area 

A. Projected 

operating 

expense 

B. Increase, multiplied 

by inflation factor 

(= A × 1.037) 

C. Projected 

target pilot 

compensation 

D. Projected 

total economic 

cost 

(= B + C) 

Area 1 .............................................................................................. $569,084 $590,140 $1,677,397 $2,267,537 

Area 2 .............................................................................................. 586,050 607,733 1,020,120 1,627,853 

Total, District One ..................................................................... 1,155,134 1,197,874 2,697,517 3,895,390

Area 4 .............................................................................................. 547,886 568,158 816,096 1,384,253 

Area 5 .............................................................................................. 850,924 882,408 1,677,397 2,559,805 

Total, District Two ..................................................................... 1,398,810 1,450,566 2,493,493 3,944,058

Area 6 .............................................................................................. 880,177 912,744 1,632,191 2,544,935 

Area 7 .............................................................................................. 425,493 441,236 1,118,265 1,559,501 

Area 8 .............................................................................................. 686,767 712,178 1,428,167 2,140,345 

Total, District Three .................................................................. 1,992,438 2,066,158 4,178,623 6,244,781 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

7966 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Step 6: Divide the result in Step 5 by 

projected bridge hours to determine 

total unit costs. Table 17 shows this 

calculation. 

TABLE 17—TOTAL UNIT COSTS

Pilotage area 

A. Projected 

total economic 

cost 

B. Projected 

2009 bridge 

hours 

Prospective (total) 

unit costs 

(A divided by B) 

Area 1 .................................................................................................................................... $2,267,537 5,203 $435.81 

Area 2 .................................................................................................................................... 1,627,853 5,650 288.12 

Total, District One ........................................................................................................... 3,895,390 10,853 358.92 

Area 4 .................................................................................................................................... 1,384,253 7,320 189.11 

Area 5 .................................................................................................................................... 2,559,805 5,097 502.22 

Total, District Two ........................................................................................................... 3,944,058 12,417 317.63 

Area 6 .................................................................................................................................... 2,544,935 13,406 189.84 

Area 7 .................................................................................................................................... 1,559,501 3,259 478.52 

Area 8 .................................................................................................................................... 2,140,345 11,630 184.04 

Total, District Three ........................................................................................................ 6,244,781 28,295 20.70 

Overall .................................................................................................................................... 14,084,230 51,565 273.14 

Step 7: Divide prospective unit costs 

(total unit costs) in Step 6 by the base 

period unit costs in Step 1. Table 18 

shows this calculation, which expresses 

the percentage change between the total 

unit costs and the base unit costs. The 

results, for each Area, are identical with 

the percentage increases listed in Table 

1. 

TABLE 18—PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN UNIT COSTS

Pilotage area A. Prospective 

unit costs 

B. Base period 

unit costs 

C. Percentage 

change from base 

(A divided by B; 

result expressed as 

percentage) 

Area 1 .......................................................................................................................... $435.81 $416.47 4.65 

Area 2 .......................................................................................................................... 288.12 273.54 5.33 

Total, District One ................................................................................................. 358.92 342.06 4.93 

Area 4 .......................................................................................................................... 189.11 179.30 5.47 

Area 5 .......................................................................................................................... 502.22 478.46 4.96 

Total, District Two ................................................................................................. 317.63 302.10 5.14 

Area 6 .......................................................................................................................... 189.84 180.33 5.27 

Area 7 .......................................................................................................................... 478.52 456.90 4.73 

Area 8 .......................................................................................................................... 184.04 174.98 5.17 

Total, District Three .............................................................................................. 220.70 209.99 5.10 

Overall .......................................................................................................................... 273.14 259.97 5.07 

Step 8: Adjust the base period rates by 

the percentage change in unit costs in 

Step 7. Table 19 shows this calculation. 

TABLE 19—BASE PERIOD RATES ADJUSTED BY PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN UNIT COSTS* 

Pilotage A. Base period 

rate 

B. Percentage 

change in unit 

costs 

C. Increase in 

base rate 

(A × B%) 

D. Adjusted 

rate (A + C, 

rounded to 

nearest dollar) 

Area (Multiplying 

Factor) 

Area 1: ....................................................................................................... 4.65 (1.0465) 

—Basic pilotage .................................................................................. $16.95/km, 

29.99/mi 

$0.78/km, 

1.39/mi 

$17.73/km, 

31.38/mi 

—Each lock transited ......................................................................... 375.47 17.44 393 

—Harbor movage ............................................................................... 1,229.41 57.11 1,287 

—Minimum basic rate, St. Lawrence River ........................................ 820.04 38.09 858 

—Maximum rate, through trip ............................................................. 3,599.58 167.20 3,767 

Area 2: ....................................................................................................... 5.33 (1.0533) 

—6-hr. period ...................................................................................... 817.63 43.56 861 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7967 

TABLE 19—BASE PERIOD RATES ADJUSTED BY PERCENTAGE CHANGE IN UNIT COSTS*—Continued 

Pilotage A. Base period 

rate 

B. Percentage 

change in unit 

costs 

C. Increase in 

base rate 

(A × B%) 

D. Adjusted 

rate (A + C, 

rounded to 

nearest dollar) 

Area (Multiplying 

Factor) 

—Docking or undocking ..................................................................... 779.92 41.55 821 

Area 4: ....................................................................................................... 5.47 (1.0547) 

—6 hr. period ...................................................................................... 722.05 39.49 762 

—Docking or undocking ..................................................................... 556.46 30.44 587 

—Any point on Niagara River below Black Rock Lock ...................... 1,420.45 77.69 1,498 

Area 5 between any point on or in: ........................................................... 4.96 (1.0496) 

—Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal .............. 1,299.46 64.51 1,364 

—Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal & 

Southeast Shoal .............................................................................. 2,198.99 109.16 2,308 

—Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal & Detroit River ......................................................................................... 2,855.20 141.74 2,997 

—Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of Southeast Shoal & Detroit Pilot Boat ................................................................................. 2,198.99 109.16 2,308 

—Port Huron Change Point & Southeast Shoal (when pilots are not 

changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat) .................................................. 3,829.80 190.12 4,020 

—Port Huron Change Point & Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. 

of Southeast Shoal (when pilots are not changed at the Detroit 

Pilot Boat) ....................................................................................... 4,436.82 220.26 4,657 

—Port Huron Change Point & Detroit River ....................................... 2,877.20 142.83 3,020 

—Port Huron Change Point & Detroit Pilot Boat ............................... 2,237.82 111.09 2,349 

—Port Huron Change Point & St. Clair River .................................... 1,590.68 78.97 1,670 

—St. Clair River .................................................................................. 1,299.46 64.51 1,364 

—St. Clair River & Southeast Shoal (when pilots are not changed 

at the Detroit Pilot Boat) ................................................................. 3,829.80 190.12 4,020 

—St. Clair River & Detroit River/Detroit Pilot Boat ............................ 2,877.20 142.83 3,020 

—Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River .................................................... 1,299.46 64.51 1,364 

—Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River & Southeast Shoal .................... 2,198.99 109.16 2,308 

—Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River & Toledo or any point on Lake 

Erie W. of Southeast Shoal ............................................................ 2,855.20 141.74 2,997 

—Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit River & St. Clair River ........................ 2,877.20 142.83 3,020 

—Detroit Pilot Boat & Southeast Shoal .............................................. 1,590.68 78.97 1,670 

—Detroit Pilot Boat & Toledo or any point on Lake Erie W. of 

Southeast Shoal .............................................................................. 2,198.99 109.16 2,308 

—Detroit Pilot Boat & St. Clair River .................................................. 2,877.20 142.83 3,020 

Area 6: ....................................................................................................... 5.27 (1.0527) 

—6 hr. period ...................................................................................... 622.93 32.84 656 

—Docking or undocking ..................................................................... 591.72 31.20 623 

Area 7 between any point on or in: ........................................................... 4.73 (1.0473) 

—Gros Cap & De Tour ....................................................................... 2,442.98 115.57 2,559 

—Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. & De Tour ....... 2,442.98 115.57 2,559 

—Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf, Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. & Gros Cap .... 920.03 43.52 964 

—Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., except the Algoma Steel 

Corp. Wharf & De Tour ................................................................... 2,047.67 96.87 2,145 

—Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ont., except the Algoma Steel 

Corp. Wharf & Gros Cap ................................................................ 920.03 43.52 964 

—Sault Ste. Marie, MI & De Tour ...................................................... 2,047.67 96.87 2,145 

—Sault Ste. Marie, MI & Gros Cap .................................................... 920.03 43.52 964 

—Harbor movage ............................................................................... 920.03 43.52 964 

Area 8: ....................................................................................................... 5.17 (1.0517) 

—6 hr. period ...................................................................................... 549.44 28.42 578 

—Docking or undocking ..................................................................... 522.20 27.02 549 

*Rates for ‘‘Cancellation, delay or interruption in rendering services (§ 401.420)’’ and ‘‘Basic Rates and charges for carrying a U.S. pilot beyond 

the normal change point, or for boarding at other than the normal boarding point (§ 401.428)’’ are not reflected in this table but have been increased by 5.07% across all areas. 

VI. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this final 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 

Executive Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory 

Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993, requires a 

determination whether a regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and 

subject to the requirements of the 

Executive Order. This rulemaking is not 

significant under Executive Order 12866 

and has not been reviewed by OMB. 

Public comments on the NPRM are 

summarized in Part IV of this 

publication. We received no public 

comments that would alter our 

assessment of the impacts discussed in 

the NPRM. We have adopted the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

7968 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

assessment in the NPRM as final. See 

the ‘‘Regulatory Analyses’’ section of the 

NPRM for more details. A summary of 

the assessment follows. 

This final rule would implement a 

5.07 percent overall rate adjustment for 

the Great Lakes system over the current 

rate as adjusted in the 2009 final rule. 

These adjustments to Great Lakes 

pilotage rates meet the requirements set 

forth in 46 CFR part 404 for similar 

compensation levels between Great 

Lakes pilots and industry. They also 

include adjustments for inflation and 

changes in association expenses to 

maintain these compensation levels. 

In general, we expect an increase in 

pilotage rates for a certain area to result 

in additional costs for shippers using 

pilotage services in that area, while a 

decrease would result in a cost 

reduction or savings for shippers in that 

area. 

The shippers affected by these rate 

adjustments are those owners and 

operators of domestic vessels operating 

on register (employed in the foreign 

trade) and owners and operators of 

foreign vessels on a route within the 

Great Lakes system. These owners and 

operators must have pilots or pilotage 

service as required by 46 U.S.C. 9302. 

There is no minimum tonnage limit or 

exemption for these vessels. However, 

the Coast Guard issued a policy position 

several years ago stating that the statute 

applies only to commercial vessels and 

not to recreational vessels. 

Owners and operators of other vessels 

that are not affected by this final rule, 

such as recreational boats and vessels 

only operating within the Great Lakes 

system, may elect to purchase pilotage 

services. However, this election is 

voluntary and does not affect the Coast 

Guard’s calculation of the rate increase 

and is not a part of our estimated 

national cost to shippers. 

We used 2006–2008 vessel arrival 

data from the Coast Guard’s Marine 

Information for Safety and Law 

Enforcement (MISLE) system to estimate 

the average annual number of vessels 

affected by the rate adjustment to be 208 

vessels that journey into the Great Lakes 

system. These vessels entered the Great 

Lakes by transiting through or in part of 

at least one of the three pilotage districts 

before leaving the Great Lakes system. 

These vessels often make more than one 

distinct stop, docking, loading, and 

unloading at facilities in Great Lakes 

ports. Of the total trips for the 208 

vessels, there were approximately 923 

annual U.S. port arrivals before the 

vessels left the Great Lakes system. 

The impact of the rate adjustment to 

shippers is estimated from the district 

pilotage revenues. These revenues 

represent the direct and indirect costs 

(‘‘economic costs’’) that shippers must 

pay for pilotage services. The Coast 

Guard sets rates so that revenues equal 

the estimated cost of pilotage. 

We estimate the additional impact of 

the rate adjustment in this final rule to 

be the difference between the total 

projected revenue needed to cover costs 

based on the 2009 rate adjustment and 

the total projected revenue needed to 

cover costs in this final rule for 2010. 

Table 20 details additional costs by area 

and district. 

TABLE 20—RATE ADJUSTMENT AND ADDITIONAL IMPACT OF FINAL RULE

[$U.S.; non-discounted] 1

Total projected 

expenses in 

2009 

Proposed rate 

change 

Total projected 

expenses in 

2010 2

Additional revenue or 

cost of this 

rulemaking 3

Area 1 .................................................................................................. $2,166,873 1.0465 $2,267,537 $100,664 

Area 2 .................................................................................................. 1,545,503 1.0533 1,627,853 82,350 

Total, District One ......................................................................... 3,712,376 ........................ 3,895,390 183,014 

Area 4 .................................................................................................. 1,312,463 1.0547 1,384,253 71,791 

Area 5 .................................................................................................. 2,438,725 1.0496 2,559,805 121,080 

Total, District Two ......................................................................... 3,751,188 ........................ 3,944,058 192,870 

Area 6 .................................................................................................. 2,417,474 1.0527 2,544,935 127,461 

Area 7 .................................................................................................. 1,489,052 1.0473 1,559,501 70,449 

Area 8 .................................................................................................. 2,035,052 1.0517 2,140,345 105,293 

Total, District Three ...................................................................... 5,941,578 ........................ 6,244,781 303,203 

All Districts .................................................................................... 13,405,142 ........................ 14,084,230 679,088 

1Some values may not total due to rounding. 

2 Rate changes are calculated for areas only. District totals reflect arithmetic totals and are for informational and discussion purposes. See discussion in final rule for further details. 3Additional Revenue or Cost of this Rulemaking = ‘Total Projected Expenses in 2010’—‘Total Projected Expenses in 2009’. 

After applying the rate change in this 

final rule, the resulting difference 

between the projected revenue in 2009 

and the projected revenue in 2010 is the 

annual impact to shippers from this 

final rule. This figure will be equivalent 

to the total additional payments that 

shippers will incur for pilotage services 

from this rule. 

The impact of the rate adjustment in 

this final rule to shippers varies by area 

and district. The annual non-discounted 

costs of the rate adjustments in Districts 

1, 2 and 3 would be approximately 

$183,000 and $193,000, and $303,000. 

To calculate an exact cost per vessel is 

difficult because of the variation in 

vessel types, routes, port arrivals, 

commodity carriage, time of season, 

conditions during navigation, and 

preferences for the extent of pilotage 

services on designated and 

undesignated portions of the Great 

Lakes system. Some owners and 

operators would pay more and some 

would pay less depending on the 

distance and port arrivals of their 

vessels’ trips. However, the annual cost 

reported above does capture all of the 

additional cost the shippers face as a 

result of the rate adjustment in this rule. 

As Table 20 indicates, all areas will 

experience an increased annual cost due 

to this final rule. The overall impact of 

the final rule would be an additional 

cost to shippers of just over $679,000 

across all three districts, due primarily 

to an increase in benchmark contractual 

wages and benefits and an inflation 

adjustment. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7969 

B. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this final 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 people. 

In the NPRM, we certified under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b) that the proposed rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We received no public 

comments that would alter our 

certification in the NPRM. We have 

found no additional data or information 

that would change our findings in the 

NPRM. We have adopted the 

certification in the NPRM for this final 

rule. See the ‘‘Small Entity’’ section of 

the NPRM for additional details. A 

summary of the NPRM analysis follows. 

We found entities affected by the rule 

to be classified under the North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code subsector 483– 

Water Transportation, which includes 

one or all of the following 6-digit NAICS 

codes for freight transportation: 483111– 

Deep Sea Freight Transportation, 

483113–Coastal and Great Lakes Freight 

Transportation, and 483211–Inland 

Water Freight Transportation. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration’s definition, a U.S. 

company with these NAICS codes and 

employing less than 500 employees is 

considered a small entity. 

We reviewed company size and 

ownership data from 2006–2008 Coast 

Guard MISLE data and business revenue 

and size data provided by Reference 

USA and Dun and Bradstreet. We were 

able to gather revenue and size data or 

link the entities to large shipping 

conglomerates for 22 of the 24 affected 

entities in the United States. We found 

that large, mostly foreign-owned, 

shipping conglomerates or their 

subsidiaries owned or operated all 

vessels engaged in foreign trade on the 

Great Lakes. We assume that new 

industry entrants will be comparable in 

ownership and size to these shippers. 

There are three U.S. entities affected 

by the rule that receive revenue from 

pilotage services. These are the three 

pilot associations that provide and 

manage pilotage services within the 

Great Lakes districts. Two of the 

associations operate as partnerships and 

one operates as a corporation. These 

associations are classified with the same 

NAICS industry classification and small 

entity size standards described above, 

but they have far fewer than 500 

employees: Approximately 65 total 

employees combined. We expect no 

adverse impact to these entities from 

this final rule since all associations 

receive enough revenue to balance the 

projected expenses associated with the 

projected number of bridge hours and 

pilots. 

Therefore, the Coast Guard has 

determined that this final rule would 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Assistance for Small Entities 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we offer to assist small entities in 

understanding the final 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 final rule would call for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). This rule does not 

change the burden in the collection 

currently approved by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

OMB Control Number 1625–0086, Great 

Lakes Pilotage Methodology. 

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. We have analyzed 

this rule under that Order and have 

determined that it does not have 

implications for federalism because 

there are no similar State regulations, 

and the States do not have the authority 

to regulate and adjust rates for pilotage 

services in the Great Lakes system. 

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 or more in any one year. 

Though this rule would not result in 

such expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

G. Taking of Private Property 

This rule would not affect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

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 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

7970 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 which 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)(a) of the Instruction. 

Paragraph 34(a) pertains to minor 

regulatory changes that are editorial or 

procedural in nature. This rule adjusts 

rates in accordance with applicable 

statutory and regulatory mandates. 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 401 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation 

(water), Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 46 

CFR part 401 as follows: 

PART 401—GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE 

REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 401 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 46 U.S.C. 2104(a), 6101, 7701, 

8105, 9303, 9304; Department of Homeland 

Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 46 CFR 

401.105 also issued under the authority of 44 

U.S.C. 3507. 

■ 2. In § 401.405, revise paragraphs (a) 

and (b), including the footnote to Table 

(a), to read as follows: 

§ 401.405 Basic rates and charges on the 

St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. 

* * * * * 

(a) Area 1 (Designated Waters): 

Service St. Lawrence River 

Basic Pilotage ........... $17.73 per kilometer 

or $31.38 per mile 1

Each Lock Transited 393 1

Harbor Movage ......... 1287 1

1The minimum basic rate for assignment of 

a pilot in the St. Lawrence River is $858, and 

the maximum basic rate for a through trip is 

$3,767. 

(b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters): 

Service Lake Ontario 

Six-Hour Period .................... $861 

Docking or Undocking .......... 821 

* * * * * 

■ 3. In § 401.407, revise paragraphs (a) 

and (b), including the footnote to Table 

(b), to read as follows: 

§ 401.407 Basic rates and charges on Lake 

Erie and the navigable waters from 

Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI. 

* * * * * 

(a) Area 4 (Undesignated Waters): 

Service 

Lake Erie 

(East of 

Southeast 

Shoal) 

Buffalo 

Six-Hour Period .... $762 $762 

Docking or 

Undocking ......... 587 587 

Any Point on the 

Niagara River 

below the Black 

Rock Lock ......... N/A 1,498 

(b) Area 5 (Designated Waters): 

Any point on or in Southeast 

Shoal 

Toledo 

or any 

Point on 

Lake Erie 

west of 

Southeast 

Shoal 

Detroit 

River 

Detroit 

Pilot 

Boat 

St. Clair 

River 

Toledo or any port on Lake Erie west of Southeast Shoal ............................... $2,308 $1,364 $2,997 $2,308 N/A 

Port Huron Change Point .................................................................................. 1 4,020 1 4,657 3,020 2,349 1,670 

St. Clair River ..................................................................................................... 1 4,020 N/A 3,020 3,020 1,364 

Detroit or Windsor or the Detroit River .............................................................. 2,308 2,997 1,364 N/A 3,020 

Detroit Pilot Boat ................................................................................................ 1,670 2,308 N/A N/A 3,020 

1When pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. In § 401.410, revise paragraphs (a), 

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

§ 401.410 Basic rates and charges on 

Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior, and 

the St. Mary’s River. 

* * * * * 

(a) Area 6 (Undesignated Waters): 

Service Lakes Huron 

and Michigan 

Six-Hour Period .................... $656 

Docking or Undocking .......... 623 

(b) Area 7 (Designated Waters): 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 35 / Tuesday, February 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 7971 

Area De Tour Gros Cap Any 

harbor 

Gros Cap ............................................................................................................................................................. $2,559 N/A N/A 

Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at Sault Ste. Marie Ontario ............................................................................ 2,559 $964 N/A 

Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, except the Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf ........................................ 2,145 964 N/A 

Sault Ste. Marie, MI ............................................................................................................................................. 2,145 964 N/A 

Harbor Movage .................................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A $964 

(c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters): 

Service Lake Superior 

Six-Hour Period .................. $578 

Docking or Undocking ........ 549 

* * * * * 

§ 401.420 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 401.420— 

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the 

number ‘‘$113’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$119’’; and remove the number 

‘‘$1,777’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$1,867’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the 

number ‘‘$113’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$119’’; and remove the number 

‘‘$1,777’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$1,867’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the 

number ‘‘$671’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$705’’; in paragraph (c)(3), 

remove the number ‘‘$113’’ and add, in 

its place, the number ‘‘$119’’; and, also 

in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number 

‘‘$1,777’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$1,867’’. 

§ 401.428 [Amended] 

■ 6. In § 401.428, remove the number 

‘‘$684’’ and add, in its place, the number 

‘‘$719’’. 

Dated: February 4, 2010. 

Kevin S. Cook, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Director of 

Prevention Policy. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3396 Filed 2–19–10; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 0, 2, and 23 

[IB Docket No. 05–216; FCC 10–7] 

Elimination of the Commission’s Rules 

Governing International Fixed Public 

Radiocommunication Services 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) 

adopts the proposal in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking in this 

proceeding, to eliminate that portion of 

the Commission’s rules governing 

International Fixed Public 

Radiocommunication Services (IFPRS). 

The elimination of these rules is to 

facilitate coordination of facilities and 

services in the C-band (3700–4200 MHz 

and 5926–6425 MHz). 

DATES: Effective March 25, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Steven Spaeth (202) 418–1539, 

International Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in IB Docket 05–216, adopted 

January 6, 2010, and released January 

14, 2010. The full text of the Report and 

Order 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 20054. 

This document may also be purchased 

from the Commission’s duplicating 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone 202–488–5300, facsimile 

202–488–5563, or via e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.com. It is also available 

on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.fcc.gov. 

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis: 

The actions taken in the Report and 

Order have been analyzed with respect 

to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 

3501–3520), and found to impose no 

new or modified requirements. 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Certification: 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, as amended, 5 USC 601 et seq., 

(RFA) requires that a regulatory 

flexibility analysis be prepared for 

rulemaking proceedings, unless the 

agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.’’ 

The RFA generally defines ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term 

‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning 

as the term ‘‘small business concern’’ 

under the Small Business Act. A small 

business concern is one which: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of operation; 

and (3) satisfies any additional criteria 

established by the Small Business 

Administration (SBA). 

In the Report and Order, the 

Commission decides to eliminate the 

part 23 rules applicable to International 

Fixed Public Radio Service (IFPRS) 

licensees, because there are no IFPRS 

licensees in operation. Therefore, we 

certify that the actions in this Report 

and Order will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The 

Commission will send a copy of the 

Report and Order, including a copy of 

this certification, in a report to Congress 

and the Government Accountability 

Office pursuant to the Congressional 

Review Act, see 5 USC 801(a)(1)(A). In 

addition, the Report and Order and this 

certification will be sent to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration, and will be 

published in the Federal Register. See 

5 USC 605(b). 

Summary of Report and Order 

In the Report and Order, the 

Commission observed that there are no 

licensees currently offering IFPRS, and 

there is no basis in the record for 

assuming that anyone will apply for a 

license to operate facilities to provide 

this service in the future. Accordingly, 

the Commission found that there is no 

need for part 23, and removed it from 

the Commission’s rules. In addition, the 

Commission found that issues related to 

the regulation of IFPRS and the 

transition from part 23 to part 101 raised 

in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 

this proceeding, 70 FR 56620 (Sept. 20, 

2005), are moot. Finally, the 

Commission eliminated the allocations 

for IFPRS in the Table of Frequency 

Allocations, 47 CFR 2.106, in order to 

simplify the planning and coordination 

of facilities in services that have a coprimary allocation in the C-band. 

Ordering Clauses 

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to 

sections 4(i), 7(a), 11, 303(c), 303(f), 

303(g), and 303(r) of the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES