FR Doc 08-474

[Federal Register: February 1, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 22)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 6085-6099]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01fe08-27]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

46 CFR Part 401

[Docket No. USCG-2007-0039]
RIN 1625-AB23

2008 Rates for Pilotage on the Great Lakes

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to update the rates for pilotage
on the Great Lakes. Based on our review, we propose to adjust the
pilotage rates an average of 8.17% for the 2008 shipping season to
generate sufficient revenue to cover allowable expenses, target pilot
compensation, and returns on investment. We also are proposing a
clarification of the duty of pilots and pilot associations to cooperate
with lawful authority. This rulemaking promotes the Coast Guard
strategic goal of maritime safety.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Docket Management
Facility on or before March 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2007-0039 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
(1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
(3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is 202-366-9329.
(4) Fax: 202-493-2251.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions on this proposed rule,
call Mr. Michael Sakaio, Program Analyst, Great Lakes Pilotage Branch,
Commandant (CG-54122), U.S. Coast Guard, at 202-372-1538, by fax 202-
372-1929, or by e-mail at Michael.Sakaio@uscg.mil. For questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 6086]]

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments
A. Submitting Comments
B. Viewing Comments and Documents
C. Public Meeting
D. Privacy Act
II. Program History
III. Purpose of the Proposed Rule
A. Proposed Pilotage Rate Changes--Summarized
B. Calculating the Rate Adjustment
Step 1: Calculate total economic cost for the base period (cost
per bridge hour by area for the base period).
Step 2. Calculate the expense multiplier.
Step 3. Calculate annual projection of target pilot
compensation.
Step 4: Increase the projected target 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, and calculate projected total economic cost.
Step 6: Divide the result in Step 5 by projected bridge hours to
determine total unit costs (adjusted cost per bridge hour by area).
Step 7: Divide prospective unit costs in Step 6 by the base
period unit costs in Step 1.
Step 8: Adjust the base period rates by the percentage change in
unit costs in Step 7.
C. Amending 46 CFR 401.700 and 710
IV. Regulatory Evaluation
A. Small Entities
B. Assistance for Small Entities
C. Collection of Information
D. Federalism
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Taking of Private Property
G. Civil Justice Reform
H. Protection of Children
I. Indian Tribal Governments
J. Energy Effects
K. Technical Standards
L. Environment

I. Public Participation and Request for Comments

We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any

personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

A. Submitting Comments

If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2007-0039), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
For example, we may ask you to resubmit your comment if we are not able
to read your original submission. You may submit your comments and
material by electronic means, mail, fax, or delivery to the Docket
Management Facility at the address under ADDRESSES; but please submit
your comments and material by only one means. If you submit them by
mail or delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/
2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you
submit them by mail and would like to know that they reached the
Facility, please enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or
envelope. We will consider all comments and material received during
the comment period. We may change this proposed rule in view of them.

B. Viewing Comments and Documents

To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at

any time and click on ``Search for Dockets,'' and enter the docket
number for this rulemaking (USCG-2007-0039) in the Docket ID box, and
click enter. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.

C. Public Meeting

We do not plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

D. Privacy Act

Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov
.

II. Program History

This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) is issued pursuant to
Coast Guard regulations in 46 CFR Chapter III, Parts 401-404. Those
regulations implement the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 93, which requires foreign-flag vessels and U.S.-flag vessels
in foreign trade to use federally registered Great Lakes pilots while
transiting the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes system, and
which 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.'' 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 Director of Great Lakes
Pilotage to operate a pilotage pool. It is important to note that,
while the Coast Guard sets rates, it does not 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. These
waters were ``designated'' because they are difficult waters to
navigate. Areas 2, 4, 6, and 8 have not been so designated because they
are open bodies of water. Under the Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960,
pilots assigned to vessels in these areas are only required to ``be on
board and available to direct the navigation of a vessel at the
discretion of and subject to the customary authority of the master.''
46 U.S.C. 9302(a)(1)(A) and (B).
The Coast Guard pilotage regulations require annual reviews of
pilotage rates and the setting of new rates at least once every five
years, or sooner, if annual

[[Page 6087]]

reviews show a need. 46 CFR 404.1. To assist in calculating pilotage
rates, the pilotage associations are required to submit to the Coast
Guard annual financial statements prepared by certified public
accounting firms. In addition, every fifth year, in connection with the
mandatory rate adjustment, the Coast Guard contracts 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, the Coast Guard generates the pilotage rates
using Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404. Between the five-year full
ratemaking intervals, the Coast Guard annually reviews the pilotage
rates using Appendix C to Part 404, and adjusts rates when deemed
appropriate. Terms and formulas used in Appendix A and Appendix C are
defined in Appendix B to Part 404.
The last full ratemaking using the Appendix A methodology was
concluded on April 3, 2006 (71 FR 16501). Rates for the 2007 shipping
season were adjusted based on an Appendix C review (interim rule, 72 FR
8115, Feb. 23, 2007; final rule, 72 FR 53158, Sep. 18, 2007). The
present rulemaking proposes rate adjustments for the 2008 shipping
season, based once again on an Appendix C review.

III. Purpose of the Proposed Rule

The pilotage regulations require that pilotage rates be reviewed
annually. If the annual review shows that pilotage rates are within a
reasonable range of the base target pilot compensation set in the
previous ratemaking, no adjustment to the rates will be initiated.
However, if the annual review indicates that an adjustment is
necessary, then the Coast Guard will establish new pilotage rates
pursuant to 46 CFR 404.10 and applying either Appendix A or Appendix C.

A. Proposed Pilotage Rate Changes--Summarized

The Appendix C ratemaking methodology is intended for use during
the years between Appendix A full ratemaking reviews and adjustments.
This section summarizes the rate changes proposed for 2008, and then
discusses in detail how the proposed changes were calculated under
Appendix C. We are proposing an average increase of 8.17 percent across
all Districts over the last pilotage rate adjustment. Table 1
summarizes the rate increases proposed for each Area.

Table 1.--2008 Area Rate Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the percentage increases over the current rate
If pilotage service is required in: is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1 (Designated waters)................................. 7.78
Area 2 (Undesignated waters)............................... 8.41
Area 4 (Undesignated waters)............................... 8.50
Area 5 (Designated waters)................................. 7.98
Area 6 (Undesignated waters)............................... 8.37
Area 7 (Designated waters)................................. 7.83
Area 8 (Undesignated waters)............................... 8.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rates for ``Cancellation, delay or interruption in rendering
services (Sec. 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 (Sec. 401.428)'' have been increased by
8.17 percent. These changes are the same in every Area.

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 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 2007 Appendix C review. The Coast Guard also used the most recent
union contracts between the American Maritime Officers' (AMO) union and
vessel owners and operators on the Great Lakes to determine target
pilot compensation. Bridge hour projections for the 2008 season have
been obtained from historical data, pilots, and industry. Bridge hours
are the number of hours a pilot is aboard a vessel providing pilotage
service. 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.
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. Tables 2 through 4 summarize the Step
1 calculations:

[[Page 6088]]

Table 2.--Total Economic Cost for Base Period, District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1 St. Area 2 Lake Total
Lawrence River Ontario District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base operating expense.......................................... $431,313 $436,283 $867,596
Base target pilot compensation.................................. +$1,368,253 +$825,760 +2,194,013
Base return element............................................. +$8,802 +$13,493 +$22,295
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... =$1,808,368 =$1,275,536 =$3,083,904
Base bridge hours............................................... /5,661 /7,993 /13,654
Base cost per bridge hour....................................... =$319.44 =$159.58 =$225.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3.--Total Economic Cost for Base Period, District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area
Area 4 Lake Southeast Total
Erie Shoal to Port District Two
Huron, MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base operating expense.......................................... $499,328 $737,052 $1,236,380
Base target pilot compensation.................................. +$825,760 +$1,596,295 +$2,422,055
Base return element............................................. +$26,280 +$30,711 +$56,991
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... =$1,351,368 =$2,364,058 =$3,715,426
Base bridge hours............................................... /8,490 /6,395 /14,885
Base cost per bridge hour....................................... =$159.17 =$369.67 =$249.61
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 4.--Total Economic Cost for Base Period, District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 6 Lakes
Huron and Area 7 St. Area 8 Lake Total
Michigan Mary's River Superior District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base operating expense.......................... $810,612 $319,193 $511,262 $1,641,067
Base target pilot compensation.................. +$1,651,520 +$912,168 +$1,156,064 +$3,719,752
Base return element............................. +$33,776 +$9,872 +$15,812 +$59,460
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... =$2,495,908 =$1,241,233 =$1,683,138 =$5,420,279
Base bridge hours............................... /18,000 /3,863 /11,390 /33,253
Base cost per bridge hour....................... =$138.66 =$321.50 =$147.77 =$163.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. The expense multiplier expresses, in
percentage form, the relationship between all non-pilot compensation,
all expenses, and pilot compensation for the base period. Tables 5
through 7 show the Step 2 calculations.

Table 5.--Expense Multiplier, District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1 St. Area 2 Lake Total
Lawrence River Ontario District One
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base operating expense.......................................... $431,313 $436,283 $867,596
Base return element............................................. +$8,802 +$13,493 +$22,295
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................... =$440,115 =$449,776 =$889,891
Base target pilot compensation.................................. /$1,368,253 /$825,760 /$2,194,013
Expense multiplier.............................................. =.32166 =.54468 =.40560
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 6.--Expense Multiplier, District Two
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 5
Area 4 Lake Southeast Total
Erie Shoal to Port District Two
Huron, MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base operating expense.......................................... $499,328 $737,052 $1,236,380
Base return element............................................. +$26,280 +$30,711 +$56,991
-----------------------------------------------

[[Page 6089]]

Subtotal.................................................... =$525,608 =$767,763 =$1,293,371
Base target pilot compensation.................................. /$825,760 /$1,596,295 /$2,422,055
Expense multiplier.............................................. =.63651 =.48097 =.53400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 7.--Expense Multiplier, District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 6 Lakes
Huron and Area 7 St. Area 8 Lake Total
Michigan Mary's River Superior District Three
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base operating expense.......................... $810,612 $319,193 $511,262 $1,641,067
Base return element............................. +$33,776 +$9,872 +$15,812 +$59,460
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................... =$844,388 =$329,065 =$527,074 =$1,701,247
Base target pilot compensation.................. /$1,651,520 /$912,168 /$1,156,064 /$3,719,752
Expense multiplier.............................. =.51128 =.36075 =.45592 =.45716
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 3. Calculate annual projection of target pilot compensation.
In this step, which duplicates Step 2 from Appendix A, we determine the
new target rate of compensation and the new number of pilots needed in
each pilotage Area, in order to determine the new target pilot
compensation for each Area.
a. Determine new target rate of compensation. Target pilot
compensation for pilots is based on the average annual compensation of
first mates and masters on U.S. Great Lakes vessels. Compensation
includes wages and benefits. For pilots in undesignated waters, we
approximate the first mates' compensation, and in designated waters we
approximate the masters' 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 AMO union
contracts with the U.S. companies engaged in Great Lakes shipping.
Where different AMO union 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.
Our research for the 2007 ratemaking showed six companies operating
under contract with the AMO union. Three of the six operated under one
set of agreements and the other three operated under modified
agreements. Since the 2007 ratemaking, one of the six companies has
gone out of business, and a second no longer operates under an AMO
union contract.
On August 16, 2007, the Coast Guard received two new sets of
agreements that updated wage and benefit information for the four
companies now operating under AMO union contracts. The agreements
involved a 5% wage rate increase effective August 1, 2006 and a 3%
increase effective August 1, 2007. Under one set of agreements
(``Agreement A''), the daily wage rate increased from $226.96 to
$245.46, while under the other set of agreements (``Agreement B'') the
daily wage rate was raised from $279.55 to $302.33.
To calculate monthly wages, we apply the new Agreement A and
Agreement B monthly multiplier of 49.5 to the daily rate. The new
monthly multiplier is decreased from the multiplier of 54 that was
contained in the 2003 contracts. It represents 30.5 average working
days per month, 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.

Table 8.--Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilots on
Pilots on designated waters
Monthly component undesignated (undesignated x
waters 150%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEMENT A:
$245.46 daily rate x 49.5 days $12,150 $18,225
AGREEMENT A:
Monthly total x 9 months = 109,352 164,029
total wages..................
AGREEMENT B:
$302.33 daily rate x 49.5 days 14,965 22,488
AGREEMENT B:
Monthly total x 9 months = 134,688 202,032
total wages..................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benefits under Agreements A and B include a health contribution
rate of $66.69 per man-day and a pension plan contribution rate of
$33.35 per man-day under Agreement A, and $43.55 per man-day under
Agreement B. The AMO 401K employer matching rate remained at 5% of the
wage rate. A clerical contribution included in the 2003 contracts was
eliminated. Per the AMO union, the multiplier used to calculate monthly
benefits is 45.5 days.

[[Page 6090]]

Table 9.--Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilots on
Monthly component undesignated Pilots on
waters designated waters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEMENT A:
Employer contribution, 401(K) $607.51 $911.27
plan (Monthly Wages x 5%)....
Pension = $33.35 x 45.5 days.. $1,517.43 $1,517.43
Health = $66.69 x 45.5 days... $3,034.40 $3,034.40
AGREEMENT B:
Employer contribution, 401(K) $748.27 $1,122.40
plan (Monthly Wages x 5%)....
Pension = $43.55 x 45.5 days.. 1,981.53 1,981.53
Health = $66.69 x 45.5 days... $3,034.40 $3,034.40
AGREEMENT A:
Monthly total benefits........ =$5,159.33 =$5,463.09
AGREEMENT A:
Monthly total benefits x 9 =$46,434 =$49,168
months.......................
AGREEMENT B:
Monthly total benefits........ =$5,764.19 =$6,138.32
AGREEMENT B:
Monthly total benefits x 9 =$51,878 =$55,245
months.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 10 totals the wages and benefits under each agreement.

Table 10.--Total Wages and Benefits Under Each Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pilots on Pilots on
undesignated designated
waters waters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEMENT A: Wages.................. $109,352 $164,029
AGREEMENT A: Benefits............... +$46,434 +$49,168
AGREEMENT A: Total.................. =$155,786 =$213,196
AGREEMENT B: Wages.................. $134,688 $202,032
AGREEMENT B: Benefits............... +$51,878 +$55,245
AGREEMENT B: Total.................. =$186,566 =$257,277
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 11 shows that, for the four U.S. Great Lakes shipping
companies currently operating under AMO union contracts, approximately
29% of their total deadweight tonnage belongs to companies operating
under Agreement A, and approximately 71% belongs to companies operating
under Agreement B.

Table 11.--Deadweight Tonnage by AMO Union Agreement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Company Agreement A Agreement B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Steamship Company.......... ................ 664,215
Mittal Steel USA, Inc............... ................ 96,544
HMC Ship Management................. 12,656 ................
Key Lakes, Inc...................... 303,145 ................
Total tonnage, each agreement... 315,801 760,759
Percent tonnage, each agreement. 315,801 / 760,759 /
1,076,560 1,076,560
=29.3343% =70.6657%
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Undesignated Designated
waters waters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEMENT A: Total wages and $155,786 x $213,196 x
benefits x percent tonnage......... 29.3343% = 29.3343% =
$45,699 $62,540
AGREEMENT B: Total wages and $186,566 x $257,277 x
benefits x percent tonnage......... 70.6657% = 70.6657% =
$131,838 $181,807
-----------------------------------

[[Page 6091]]

Total weighted average wages and $45,699 + $62,540 +
benefits = projected target $131,838 = $181,807 =
rate of compensation........... $177,537 $244,346
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Determine number of pilots needed. Subject to adjustment by the
Director of Great Lakes Pilotage to ensure uninterrupted service, we
determine the number of pilots needed 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, the Coast Guard
projects that traffic for the 2008 navigation season will remain the
same as it did in 2007.
Table 13 shows the projected bridge hours needed for each Area, and
the total number of pilots needed after dividing those figures either
by 1,000 or 1,800 and rounding up to the next whole pilot:

Table 13.--Number of Pilots Needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divided by
1,000
Projected (designated Pilots
Pilotage area 2008 bridge waters) or needed
hours 1,800 (total =
(undesignated 44)
waters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1......................... 5,661 1,000 6
Area 2......................... 7,993 1,800 5
Area 4......................... 8,490 1,800 5
Area 5......................... 6,395 1,000 7
Area 6......................... 18,000 1,800 10
Area 7......................... 3,863 1,000 4
Area 8......................... 11,390 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 by the projected target rate of compensation for
pilots working in that Area. Table 14 shows this calculation.

Table 14.--Projected Target Pilot Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiplied by Projected target
Pilotage area Pilots needed target rate of pilot
(total = 44) compensation compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1.................................................... 6 x $244,346 $1,466,077
Area 2.................................................... 5 x $177,537 887,684
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District One................................... ................ ................ 2,353,761

Area 4.................................................... 5 x $177,537 887,684
Area 5.................................................... 7 x $244,346 1,710,424
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District Two................................... ................ ................ 2,598,108

Area 6.................................................... 10 x $177,537 1,775,368
Area 7.................................................... 4 x $244,346 977,385
Area 8.................................................... 7 x $177,537 1,242,758
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District Three................................. ................ ................ 3,995,511
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

[[Page 6092]]

Table 15.--Projected Pilot Compensation, Multiplied by the Expense Multiplier Equals Projected Operating Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected target Multiplied by Projected
Pilotage area pilot expense operating
compensation multiplier expense
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1.................................................... $1,466,077 x .32166 = $471,581
Area 2.................................................... 887,684 x .54468 = $483,505
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District One................................... 2,353,761 x .40560 = $954,685

Area 4.................................................... 887,684 x .63651 = $565,024
Area 5.................................................... 1,710,424 x .48097 = $822,655
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District Two................................... 2,598,108 x .53400 = $1,387,383

Area 6.................................................... 1,775,368 x .51128 = $907,709
Area 7.................................................... 977,385 x .36075 = $352,592
Area 8.................................................... 1,242,758 x .45592 = $566,600
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District Three................................. 3,995,511 x .45716 = $1,826,593
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, we have
multiplied the results in Step 4 by a 1.024 inflation factor,
reflecting an average inflation rate of 2.4% in ``Midwest Economy--
``Consumer Prices'' between 2005 and 2006, the latest years for which
data are available. Table 16 shows this calculation and the projected
total economic cost.

Table 16.--Projected Operating Expense, Adjusted for Inflation, and Added to Projected Target Pilot Compensation
Equals Projected Total Economic Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. increase,
A. projected multiplied by C. projected D. projected
Pilotage area operating inflation factor target pilot total economic
expense (= A x 1.024) compensation cost (= B+C)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1.................................. $471,581 $482,899 $1,466,077 $1,948,977
Area 2.................................. 483,505 495,109 887,684 1,382,793
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, District One................. 954,685 977,597 2,353,761 3,331,359

Area 4.................................. 565,024 578,584 887,684 1,466,268
Area 5.................................. 822,655 842,399 1,710,424 2,552,822
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, District Two................. 1,387,383 1,420,680 2,598,108 4,018,788

Area 6.................................. 907,709 929,494 1,775,368 2,704,862
Area 7.................................. 352,592 361,054 977,385 1,338,439
Area 8.................................. 566,600 580,198 1,242,758 1,822,956
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, District Three............... 1,826,593 1,870,432 3,995,511 5,865,942

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Step 6: Divide the result in Step 5 by projected bridge hours to
determine total unit costs. Table 17 shows this calculation.

Table 17.--Prospective (Total) Unit Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prospective
A. projected B. projected (total) unit
Pilotage area total economic 2008 bridge costs (A divided
cost hours by B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1.................................................... $1,948,977 5,661 $344.28
Area 2.................................................... 1,382,793 7,993 173.00
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District One................................... 3,331,359 13,654 243.98

Area 4.................................................... 1,466,268 8,490 172.71
Area 5.................................................... 2,552,822 6,395 399.19
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District Two................................... 4,018,788 14,885 269.99

Area 6.................................................... 2,704,862 18,000 150.27
Area 7.................................................... 1,338,439 3,863 346.48
Area 8.................................................... 1,822,956 11,390 160.05
-----------------------------------------------------

[[Page 6093]]

Total, District Three................................. 5,865,942 33,253 176.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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, Prospective vs. Base Period Unit Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. percentage
change from base
Pilotage area A. prospective B. base period (A divided by B;
unit costs unit costs result expressed
as percentage)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1.................................................... $344.28 $319.44 7.78
Area 2.................................................... 173.00 159.5 8.41
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District One................................... 243.98 225.86 8.02

Area 4.................................................... 172.71 159.17 8.50
Area 5.................................................... 399.19 369.67 7.98
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District Two................................... 269.99 249.61 8.16

Area 6.................................................... 150.27 138.66 8.37
Area 7.................................................... 346.48 321.31 7.83
Area 8.................................................... 160.05 147.77 8.31
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, District Three................................. 176.40 163.00 8.22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. percentage
A. base period change in unit C. increase in D. adjusted rate
Pilotage area rate costs (multiplying base rate (A x B%) (A + C, rounded to
factor) nearest dollar)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area 1.......................... .................. 7.78 (1.0778) .................. ..................
Basic pilotage.............. $13/km, $23/mi .................. $1.01/km, $1.79/mi $14/km, $25/mi
Each lock transited......... 288 .................. 22.41 310
Harbor movage............... 943 .................. 73.37 1,016
Minimum basic rate, St. 629 .................. 48.94 678
Lawrence River.............
Maximum rate, through trip.. 2,761 .................. 214.81 2,976
Area 2.......................... .................. 8.41 (1.0841) .................. ..................
6-hr. period................ 477 .................. 40.12 517
Docking or undocking........ 455 .................. 38.27 493
Area 4.......................... .................. 8.50 (1.0850) .................. ..................
6 hr. period................ 641 .................. 54.49 695
Docking or undocking........ 494 .................. 41.99 536
Any point on Niagara River 1,261 .................. 107.19 1,368
below Black Rock Lock......
Area 5 between any point on or .................. 7.98 (1.0798) .................. ..................
in:............................
Toledo or any point on Lake 1,004 .................. 80.12 1,084
Erie W. of Southeast Shoal.
Toledo or any point on Lake 1,699 .................. 135.58 1,835
Erie W. of Southeast Shoal
& Southeast Shoal..........
Toledo or any point on Lake 2,206 .................. 176.04 2,382
Erie W. of Southeast Shoal
& Detroit River............
Toledo or any point on Lake 1,699 .................. 135.58 1,835
Erie W. of Southeast Shoal
& Detroit Pilot Boat.......
Port Huron Change Point & 2,959 .................. 236.13 3,195
Southeast Shoal (when
pilots are not changed at
the Detroit Pilot Boat)....

[[Page 6094]]

Port Huron Change Point & 3,428 .................. 273.55 3,702
Toledo or any point on Lake
Erie W. of Southeast Shoal
(when pilots are not
changed at the Detroit
Pilot Boat)................
Port Huron Change Point & 2,223 .................. 177.40 2,400
Detroit River..............
Port Huron Change Point & 1,729 .................. 137.97 1,867
Detroit Pilot Boat.........
Port Huron Change Point & 1,229 .................. 98.07 1,327
St. Clair River............
St. Clair River............. 1,004 .................. 80.12 1,084
St. Clair River & Southeast 2,959 .................. 236.13 3,195
Shoal (when pilots are not
changed at the Detroit
Pilot Boat)................
St. Clair River & Detroit 2,223 .................. 177.40 2,400
River/Detroit Pilot Boat...
Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit 1,004 .................. 80.12 1,084
River......................
Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit 1,699 .................. 135.58 1,835
River & Southeast Shoal....
Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit 2,206 .................. 176.04 2,382
River & Toledo or any point
on Lake Erie W. of
Southeast Shoal............
Detroit, Windsor, or Detroit 2,223 .................. 177.40 2,400
River & St. Clair River....
Detroit Pilot Boat & 1,229 .................. 98.07 1,327
Southeast Shoal............
Detroit Pilot Boat & Toledo 1,699 .................. 135.58 1,835
or any point on Lake Erie
W. of Southeast Shoal......
Detroit Pilot Boat & St. 2,223 .................. 177.40 2,400
Clair River................
Area 6.......................... .................. 8.37 (1.0837) .................. ..................
6 hr. period................ 479 .................. 40.09 519
Docking or undocking........ 455 .................. 38.08 493
Area 7 between any point on or .................. 7.83 (1.0783) .................. ..................
in:............................
Gros Cap & De Tour.......... 1,718 .................. 134.52 1,853
Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf, 1,718 .................. 134.52 1,853
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. & De
Tour.......................
Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf, 647 .................. 50.66 698
Sault Ste. Marie, Ont. &
Gros Cap...................
Any point in Sault Ste. 1,440 .................. 112.75 1,553
Marie, Ont., except the
Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf &
De Tour....................
Any point in Sault Ste. 647 .................. 50.66 698
Marie, Ont., except the
Algoma Steel Corp. Wharf &
Gros Cap...................
Sault Ste. Marie, MI & De 1,440 .................. 112.75 1,553
Tour.......................
Sault Ste. Marie, MI & Gros 647 .................. 50.66 698
Cap........................
Harbor movage............... 647 .................. 50.66 698
Area 8.......................... .................. 8.31 (1.0831) .................. ..................
6 hr. period................ 464 .................. 38.56 503
Docking or undocking........ 441 .................. 36.65 478
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rates for ``Cancellation, delay or interruption in rendering services ( Sec. 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 (Sec. 401.428)'' are not reflected in this table but have been increased by 8.17% across all
areas.

C. Amending 46 CFR 401.700 and 710

The Coast Guard also proposes to amend 46 CFR 401.700 and 401.710
to clarify the obligation imposed on Great Lakes registered pilots and
authorized pilotage pools to fully and professionally cooperate in the
course of performing their duties with U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard
units and personnel, vessel traffic service personnel, and other lawful
authority.
This amendment is required because foreign trade vessels piloted by
U.S. pilots on the St. Lawrence Seaway and Great Lakes system routinely
cross and re-cross the international boundary between the U.S. and
Canada. Frequently numerous crossings are made in a single voyage with
both sovereigns exercising authority at various points of a transit.
The post 9/11 period of heightened security makes it imperative to
clearly state the obligation of U.S. Great Lakes pilots and their
associations to immediately and professionally comply with any legal
directions received, and requests for information, from both U.S. and
Canadian law enforcement authority and with those administrative
personnel responsible for ensuring the safety and security of the
system.

IV. Regulatory Evaluation

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 will not be reviewed by OMB.
The Coast Guard is required to conduct an annual review of pilotage
rates on the Great Lakes and, if necessary, adjust these rates to align
compensation levels between Great Lakes pilots and industry. (See the
``Background'' section for a detailed explanation of the legal
authority and requirements for the Coast Guard to conduct an annual
review and provide possible adjustments of pilotage rates on the Great
Lakes.) Based on our review, we are proposing an adjustment to the
pilotage rates for the 2008 shipping season to generate sufficient
revenue to cover allowable expenses, target pilot compensation, and
returns on investment.
This proposed rule would implement an 8.17 percent average rate
adjustment

[[Page 6095]]

per area for the Great Lakes system over the rate adjustment found in
the 2007 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.
The increase in pilotage rates will be an additional cost for
shippers to transit the Great Lakes system. This proposed rule would
result in a distributional effect that transfers payments (income) from
vessel owners and operators to the Great Lakes' pilot associations
through Coast Guard regulated pilotage rates.
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
proposed 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 reviewed a sample of pilot source forms, which are the forms
used to record pilotage transactions on vessels, and discovered very
few cases of U.S. Great Lakes vessels (i.e., domestic vessels without
registry operating only in the Great Lakes) that purchased pilotage
services. There was one case where the vessel operator purchased
pilotage service in District One to presumably leave the Great Lakes
system. We assume some vessel owners and operators may also choose to
purchase pilotage services if their vessels are carrying hazardous
substances or were navigating the Great Lakes system with inexperienced
personnel. Based on information from the Coast Guard Office of Great
Lakes Pilotage, we have determined that these vessels voluntarily chose
to use pilots and, therefore, are exempt from pilotage requirements.
We updated our estimates of affected vessels for the proposed rule
by using recent vessel characteristics, documentation, and arrival
data. We used 2005-2006 vessel arrival data from the National Vessel
Movement Center (NVMC) and the Coast Guard's Marine Inspection, Safety,
and Law Enforcement (MISLE) system to estimate the average annual
number of vessels affected by the rate adjustment to be 217 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 217 vessels, there were approximately 917 annual U.S. port arrivals
before the vessels left the Great Lakes system, based on 2005-2006
vessel data from the NVMC and MISLE.
We used district pilotage revenues from the independent
accountant's reports of the Districts' financial statements to estimate
the additional cost to shippers of the rate adjustments in this
proposed rule. These revenues represent the direct and indirect
pilotage costs that shippers must pay for pilotage services in order to
transit their vessels in the Great Lakes. Table 1 shows historical
pilotage revenues by District.

Table 1.--District Revenues
[$U.S.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year District one District two District three Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1998............................ 2,127,577 3,202,374 4,026,802 9,356,753
1999............................ 2,009,180 2,727,688 3,599,993 8,336,861
2000............................ 1,890,779 2,947,798 4,036,354 8,874,931
2001............................ 1,676,578 2,375,779 3,657,756 7,710,113
2002............................ 1,686,655 2,089,348 3,460,560 7,236,563
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Annual independent accountant's reports of the Districts to the Coast Guard's Office of Great Lake
Pilotage.

While the revenues have decreased over time, the Coast Guard
adjusts pilotage rates to achieve a target pilot compensation similar
to masters and first mates working on U.S. vessels engaged in the Great
Lakes trade. Pilotage rates are set by the Coast Guard for revenues to
equal the estimated costs of pilotage. Table 2 displays projected costs
from the 2006 and 2007 final rules and the 2002 revenue from Table 1.

Table 2.--Revenues and Costs Through the 2007 Rate Adjustment
[$U.S.]\1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District District one District two District three Total \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 District Revenues.......... 1,686,655 2,089,348 3,460,560 7,236,563
2006 Total Projected Economic 2,692,426 3,238,337 4,722,162 10,652,925
Cost...........................
2007 Total Projected Economic 3,083,904 3,715,426 5,420,279 12,219,609
Cost...........................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For the calculation of the 2006 and 2007 projected economic costs, see the ``Discussion of Rule'' sections
of the 2006 and 2007 final rules published in the Federal Register.
\2\ Some values may not total due to rounding.

We estimate the additional cost of the rate adjustment in this
proposed rule to be the difference between the total revenue needed to
cover costs based on the 2007 rate adjustment and the total projected
economic cost in this

[[Page 6096]]

proposed rule. Table 3 compares projected economic costs in 2007 and
costs of the proposed rule to industry by district.

Table 3.--Rate Adjustment Factors and Additional Cost of This Proposed Rule
[$U.S.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
District District one District two District three Total \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Projected Economic Cost in 3,083,904 3,715,426 5,420,279 12,219,609
2007...........................
Proposed Rate Adjustment \2\.... 1.0802 1.0816 1.0822 1.0817
Total Projected Economic Cost in 3,331,359 4,018,788 5,865,942 13,216,089
2008...........................
Additional Revenue Required or 247,455 303,362 445,663 996,480
Cost of this Rulemaking \3\....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Some values may not total due to rounding.
\2\ See steps 5(b) and 7 of the ``Calculating the Rate Adjustment'' section of this proposed rule for the
``Proposed Rate Adjustment'' and the ``Total Projected Economic Cost in 2008''.
\3\ Additional revenue or cost of this rule = ``Total Projected Economic Cost in 2008''--``Total Projected
Economic Cost in 2007''.

After applying the rate change in this proposed rule, the resulting
difference between the adjusted economic cost in 2007 and the projected
economic cost in 2008 is the annual cost to shippers from this proposed
rule. This figure will be equivalent to the total additional payments
that shippers will make for pilotage services from this proposed rule.
The annual cost of the rate adjustment in this proposed rule to
shippers is approximately $1.0 million (non-discounted). 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 will pay more and some will 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 proposed rule.
In addition to the annual reviews and possible partial rate
adjustments, the Coast Guard is required to determine and, if
necessary, perform a full adjustment of Great Lakes pilotage rates at a
minimum of once every five years. Due to the frequency of the full rate
adjustments, we estimated the total cost to shippers of the rate
adjustments in this proposed rule over a five-year period instead of a
ten-year period. The total five-year (2008-2012) present value cost
estimate of this proposed rule to shippers is $4.4 million discounted
at a seven percent discount rate and $4.7 million discounted at a three
percent discount rate.
For the calculation of the total five-year present value cost
estimate, we chose not to discount first-year costs and instead began
discounting in the second year, because we anticipate that industry
would most likely begin to incur costs immediately upon publication of
this proposed rule during the 2008 Great Lakes shipping season which is
generally less than a calendar year. We also considered a middle-of-
year discounting process to account for the payments occurring over the
course of the year but the difference was small considering the overall
cost of the proposed rule.

A. Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed 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.
We expect entities affected by the proposed rule would 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.
For the proposed rule, we reviewed recent company size and
ownership data from 2005-2006 Coast Guard MISLE data and business
revenue and size data provided by reference USA and Dunn 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 proposed rule that
would receive the additional revenues from the rate adjustment. These
are the three pilot associations that are the only entities providing
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. However, they are not adversely impacted with the
additional costs of the rate adjustments, but instead receive the
additional revenue benefits for operating expenses and pilot
compensation.
Therefore, the Coast Guard has found that this proposed rule would
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of U.S. small
entities under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). If you think that your business,
organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity
and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on
it, please submit a comment to the Docket Management Facility at the
address under ADDRESSES. In your comment, explain why you think it
qualifies and how and to what degree this proposed rule would
economically affect it.

B. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small
entities in understanding the proposed rule so that they could better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking.

[[Page 6097]]

If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please call Mike Sakaio, Great
Lakes Pilotage Branch, (CG-54122), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 202-372-
1538 or send him e-mail at Michael.Sakaio@uscg.mil. 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).

C. Collection of Information

This proposed 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.

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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.

G. 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.

H. 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.

I. 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.

J. Energy Effects

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

K. 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.

L. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case
that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2
of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be
categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(a), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. 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 Check
List'' is available in the docket where indicated under the ``Public
Participation and Request for Comments'' section of this preamble.
Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final
decision on whether this rule should be categorically excluded from
further environmental review.

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 proposes
to amend 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 Sec. 401.405, revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 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............................ $14 per Kilometer or $25 per
mile. \1\

[[Page 6098]]

Each Lock Transited....................... $310. \1\
Harbor Movage............................. $1,016. \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum basic rate for assignment of a pilot in the St. Lawrence
River is $678, and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is
$2,976.

(b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Lake Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period......................................... $517
Docking or Undocking.................................... 493
------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. In Sec. 401.407 revise paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as
follows:

Sec. 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):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake Erie
(East of
Service Southeast Buffalo
Shoal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period......................... $695 $695
Docking or Undocking.................... 536 536
Any Point on the Niagara River below the N/A $1,368
Black Rock Lock........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Area 5 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toledo or any
point on Lake
Any point on or in Southeast Erie west of Detroit River Detroit Pilot St. Clair
Shoal Southeast Boat River
Shoal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toledo or any port on Lake Erie $1,835 $1,084 $2,382 $1,835 N/A
west of Southeast Shoal........
Port Huron Change Point......... \1\ 3,195 3,702 2,400 1,867 $1,327
St. Clair River................. \1\ 3,195 N/A 2,400 2,400 1,084
Detroit or Windsor or the 1,835 2,382 1,084 N/A 2,400
Detroit River..................
Detroit Pilot Boat.............. 1,327 1,835 N/A N/A 2,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat.

4. In Sec. 401.410, revise paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) to read as
follows:

Sec. 401.410 Basic rates and charges on Lakes Huron, Michigan, and
Superior, and the St Mary's River.

* * * * *
(a) Area 6 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lakes Huron
Service and Michigan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period......................................... $519
Docking or Undocking.................................... 493
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(b) Area 7 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area De Tour Gros Any Cap harbor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gros Cap........................................................ $1,853 N/A N/A
Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario..... 1,853 698 N/A
Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, except the Algoma Steel 1,553 $698 N/A
Corporation Wharf..............................................
Sault Ste. Marie, MI............................................ 1,553 698 N/A
Harbor Movage................................................... N/A N/A $698
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Lake Superior
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six-Hour Period......................................... $503
Docking or Undocking.................................... 478
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 401.420 [Amended]

5. In Sec. 401.420--
a. In paragraph (a), remove the number ``$86'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$93''; and remove the number ``$1,349'' and add, in
its place, the number ``$1,459''.
b. In paragraph (b), remove the number ``$86'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$93''; and remove the number ``$1,349'' and add, in
its place, the number ``$1,459''.
c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the number ``$510'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$552''; in paragraph (c)(3), remove the number
``$86'' and add, in its place, the number ``$93''; and, also in
paragraph (c)(3), remove the number ``$1,349'' and add, in its place,
the number ``$1,459''.

Sec. 401.428 [Amended]

6. In Sec. 401.428, remove the number ``$520'' and add, in its
place, the number ``$562''.
7. Revise Sec. 401.700 to read as follows:

Sec. 401.700 Operating requirements for U.S. registered pilots.

Each U.S. registered pilot shall--
(a) Provide pilotage service when dispatched by his pool;
(b) Comply with the dispatching orders of the Director under Sec.
401.720(b);
(c) Comply immediately and professionally, consistent with the safe
navigation of the vessel, with all lawful requests and directions
received from U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard units and personnel, vessel
traffic service personnel, and other lawful authority; and
(d) A violation of any of these provisions may be punished in
accordance with 46 CFR 401.500 and be grounds for the suspension or
revocation of a pilots registration pursuant to 46 CFR 401 subpart F.
8. In Sec. 401.710, revise paragraphs (f) and (g) and add
paragraphs (h) and (i) to read as follows:

[[Page 6099]]

Sec. 401.710 Operating requirements for holders of Certificates of
Authorization

* * * * *
(f) Comply with all accounting procedures and the reporting
requirements in this chapter;
(g) Make available to the Commandant all of its financial and
operating records;
(h) Comply immediately and professionally with all lawful requests
and directions received from U.S. and Canadian Coast Guard units and
personnel, vessel traffic service personnel, and other lawful
authority; and
(i) A violation of any of these provisions may be punished in
accordance with 46 CFR 401.500 and be grounds for the suspension or
revocation of a pilot association's certificate of authorization to
operate a pool pursuant to 46 CFR 401.335.

Dated: January 29, 2008.
Brian M. Salerno,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Marine Safety,
Security & Stewardship.
[FR Doc. 08-474 Filed 1-30-08; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P