Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 5235 

significantly or uniquely affect the 

communities of the Indian tribal 

governments and does not impose 

substantial direct compliance costs, the 

funding and consultation requirements 

of Executive Order 13175 do not apply. 

E. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains no information 

collection requirements under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Department of Transportation has 

determined that the requirements of 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 do not apply to this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 331 

Air carriers. 

Authority: Section 185, Transportation, 

Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, 

the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and 

Independent Agencies Appropriation Act, 

2006, Public Law 109–115, 119 Stat. 2396 

(2005); 49 U.S.C. 322(a). 

■ Accordingly, under the authority of 

119 Stat. 2396 (2005) and 49 U.S.C. 

322(a), the Department of 

Transportation amends 14 CFR chapter 

2 by removing part 331: 

PART 331—PROCEDURES FOR 

REIMBURSEMENT OF GENERAL 

AVIATION OPERATORS AND SERVICE 

PROVIDERS IN THE WASHINGTON, DC 

AREA 

PART 331—[REMOVED AND 

RESERVED] 

■ Remove and reserve Part 331, 

consisting of subparts A through C. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 25, 

2010. 

Susan Kurland, 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 

International Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2134 Filed 2–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Navy 

32 CFR Part 706 

Certifications and Exemptions Under 

the International Regulations for 

Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972 

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DoD. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy 

is amending its certifications and 

exemptions under the International 

Regulations for Preventing Collisions at 

Sea, 1972 (72 COLREGS), to reflect that 

the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (Admiralty and Maritime Law) 

has determined that USS BUNKER HILL 

(CG 52)) is a vessel of the Navy which, 

due to its special construction and 

purpose, cannot fully comply with 

certain provisions of the 72 COLREGS 

without interfering with its special 

function as a naval ship. The intended 

effect of this rule is to warn mariners in 

waters where 72 COLREGS apply. 

DATES: This rule is effective February 2, 

2010 and is applicable beginning 

January 21, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lieutenant Commander Ted Cook, 

JAGC, U.S. Navy, Admiralty Attorney, 

(Admiralty and Maritime Law), Office of 

the Judge Advocate General, Department 

of the Navy, 1322 Patterson Ave., SE., 

Suite 3000, Washington Navy Yard, DC 

20374–5066, telephone number: 202– 

685–5040. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant 

to the authority granted in 33 U.S.C. 

1605, the Department of the Navy 

amends 32 CFR Part 706. 

This amendment provides notice that 

the Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate 

General (Admiralty and Maritime Law), 

under authority delegated by the 

Secretary of the Navy, has certified that 

USS BUNKER HILL (CG 52)) is a vessel 

of the Navy which, due to its special 

construction and purpose, cannot fully 

comply with the following specific 

provisions of 72 COLREGS without 

interfering with its special function as a 

naval ship: Annex I, paragraph 3(a), 

pertaining to the horizontal distance 

between the forward and after masthead 

lights. The Deputy Assistant Judge 

Advocate General (Admiralty and 

Maritime Law) has also certified that the 

lights involved are located in closest 

possible compliance with the applicable 

72 COLREGS requirements. 

Moreover, it has been determined, in 

accordance with 32 CFR Parts 296 and 

701, that publication of this amendment 

for public comment prior to adoption is 

impracticable, unnecessary, and 

contrary to public interest since it is 

based on technical findings that the 

placement of lights on this vessel in a 

manner differently from that prescribed 

herein will adversely affect the vessel’s 

ability to perform its military functions. 

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 706 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), and 

Vessels. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Navy amends part 706 of 

title 32 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 706—CERTIFICATIONS AND 

EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE 

INTERNATIONAL REGULATIONS FOR 

PREVENTING COLLISIONS AT SEA, 

1972 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 706 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1605. 

■ 2. Section 706.2 is amended in Table 

Five by revising the entry for USS 

BUNKER HILL (CG 52) to read as 

follows: 

§ 706.2 Certifications of the Secretary of 

the Navy under Executive Order 11964 and 

33 U.S.C. 1605. 

* * * * * 

TABLE FIVE

Vessel No. 

Masthead light 

not over all 

other lights and 

obstructions 

Annex I, 

section 2(f) 

Forward masthead light not in 

forward quarter 

of ship. Annex I, 

section 3(a) 

After masthead 

light less than 1⁄2

ship’s length aft 

of forward masthead light Annex 

I, section 3(a) 

Percentage horizontal separation 

attained 

* * * * * * * 

USS BUNKER HILL ................... CG 52 ......................................... X X 36.8 

* * * * * * * 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with RULES
5236 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 21 / Tuesday, February 2, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1Request of United States Postal Service to Add 

Canada Post-United States Postal Service 

Contractual Bilateral Agreement for Inbound Market 

Dominant Services to the Market Dominant Product 

List, Notice of Type 2 Rate Adjustment, and Notice 

of Filing Agreement (Under Seal), November 19, 

2009; and United States Postal Service Notice of 

Erratum to Application for Non-Public Treatment, 

November 20, 2009 (Request). 

2Type 2 rate adjustments involve negotiated 

service agreements. See 39 CFR 3010.5. 

3To elaborate, the Bilateral Agreement covers 

Letter Post, including letters, flats, packets, bags, 

containers, and International Registered Mail 

service ancillary thereto. Request at 3–4. 

4Attachment 1 to the Request. 

5Attachment 2 to the Request. 

6Attachment 3 to the Request. 

7Attachment 4 to the Request. The Postal Service 

filed United States Postal Service Notice of Erratum 

to Application for Non-Public Treatment, November 

20, 2009 (Erratum). It explained that due to a 

drafting error, the application contained an 

erroneous reference to a nonexistent page of the 

Agreement and provided a corrected page. 

8The Postal Service maintains that the instant 

Bilateral Agreement is functionally comparable to 

the agreement in Docket Nos. MC2009–7 and 

R2009–1. Id. 

9The Postal Service included Xpresspost in its 

Request to Add Canada Post-United States Postal 

Service Contractual Bilateral Agreement for 

Inbound Competitive Services to the Competitive 

Product List. See Docket Nos. CP2010–13 and 

MC2010–14. 

10See PRC Order No. 346, Notice and Order 

Concerning Bilateral Agreement with Canada Post 

for Inbound Market Dominant Services, November 

25, 2009 (Order No. 346). 

* * * * * 

Approved: January 21, 2010. 

M. Robb Hyde, 

Commander, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy 

Assistant Judge Advocate General (Admiralty 

and Maritime Law). 

Certified to be a true copy of the original 

document. 

Dated: January 22, 2010. 

A.M. Vallandingam, 

Lieutenant Commander, Office of the Judge 

Advocate General, U.S. Navy, Alternate 

Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–2121 Filed 2–1–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 

39 CFR Part 3020 

[Docket Nos. MC2010–12 and R2010–2; 

Order No. 375] 

New Postal Product 

AGENCY: Postal Regulatory Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commission is adding a 

bilateral agreement between the U.S. 

Postal Service and Canada Post for 

inbound market dominant services. This 

action is consistent with a postal reform 

law. Republication of the Market 

Dominant List and Competitive Product 

List is also consistent with statutory 

provisions. 

DATES: Effective February 2, 2010 and is 

applicable beginning December 30, 

2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, 

202-789-6820 or 

stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory 

History, 74 FR 64771 (December 8, 

2009). 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Background 

III. Comments 

IV. Commission Analysis 

V. Ordering Paragraphs 

I. Introduction 

The Postal Service seeks to add a new 

product identified as Canada PostUnited States Postal Service Contractual 

Bilateral Agreement for Inbound Market 

Dominant Services to the Market 

Dominant Product List. For the reasons 

discussed below, the Commission 

approves the Request. 

II. Background 

On November 19, 2009, the Postal 

Service filed a request pursuant to 

39 U.S.C. 3622(c)(10) and 3642, and 

39 CFR 3010.40 et seq. and 3020.30 et 

seq. to add the Canada Post–United 

States Postal Service Contractual 

Bilateral Agreement for Inbound Market 

Dominant Services (Bilateral Agreement 

or Agreement) to the Market Dominant 

Product List.1 This Request has been 

assigned Docket No. MC2010–12. 

The Postal Service 

contemporaneously filed notice that the 

Governors have authorized a Type 2 rate 

adjustment to establish rates for 

inbound market dominant services as 

reflected in the Bilateral Agreement.2

More specifically, the Bilateral 

Agreement, which has been assigned 

Docket No. R2010–2, governs the 

exchange of inbound air and surface 

letter post (LC/AO).3

Request. In support of its Request, the 

Postal Service filed the following 

materials: (1) Proposed Mail 

Classification Schedule (MCS) 

language;4 (2) a Statement of Supporting 

Justification as required by 39 CFR 

3020.32;5 (3) a redacted version of the 

agreement;6 and (4) an application for 

non-public treatment of pricing and 

supporting documents filed under seal.7

Request at 2. 

In the Statement of Supporting 

Justification, Lea Emerson, Executive 

Director, International Postal Affairs, 

reviews the factors of section 3622 and 

concludes, inter alia, that the revenues 

generated will cover the attributable 

costs of the services offered under the 

Bilateral Agreement; that the rates are 

preferable to default rates set by the 

Universal Postal Union; and that the 

rates represent a modest increase over 

those reflected in the existing bilateral 

agreement with Canada Post. Id., 

Attachment 2, at 2–3. 

In its Request, the Postal Service 

provides information responsive to part 

3010, subpart D, of the Commission’s 

rules. To that end, it addresses the 

requirements of section 3622(c)(10) as 

well as certain details of the negotiated 

service agreement. Id. at 2–7. The Postal 

Service asserts that the Bilateral 

Agreement satisfies all applicable 

statutory criteria. Id. at 6–8. 

The Postal Service filed much of the 

supporting materials, financial analysis, 

and the Bilateral Agreement under seal. 

Id. at 2. In its Request, the Postal Service 

maintains that the Bilateral Agreement 

and related financial information should 

remain under seal. Id. 

The Postal Service has an existing 

bilateral agreement with Canada Post, 

which is set to expire December 31, 

2009.8 Id., Attachment 3, at 7. The 

instant Bilateral Agreement is a twoyear agreement comparable to the 

existing agreement, with some 

modifications. The modifications 

include differences in specific 

operational details and the Postal 

Service’s decision to classify Canada 

Post’s ‘‘Xpresspost-USA’’ as a 

competitive product instead of a market 

dominant product as in the existing 

bilateral agreement.9 The Agreement 

states it has an effective date of January 

1, 2010. Id. at 3. The Request states that 

the inbound market dominant rates are 

scheduled to become effective on 

January 4, 2010. Id. 

The Postal Service urges the 

Commission to act promptly to add this 

product to the Market Dominant 

Product List to allow rates to be 

implemented under 39 CFR 3010.40. Id. 

at 7. 

In Order No. 346, the Commission 

gave notice of the docket, appointed a 

Public Representative, and provided the 

public with an opportunity to 

comment.10

On December 4, 2009, Chairman’s 

Information Request No. 1 (CHIR No. 1) 

was issued, which sought clarification 

of various elements related to the 

proposed Bilateral Agreement. A 

response was due from the Postal 

Service by December 10, 2009. The 

Postal Service filed its responses to 


erowe on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with RULES