Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8115 

APPENDIX A OF PART 1611—LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION 2006 POVERTY GUIDELINES * 

Size of household 

48 Contiguous 

States and the 

District of 

Columbia 

Alaska Hawaii 

1 ............................................................................................................................................. $12,763 $15,963 $14,688 

2 ............................................................................................................................................. 17,113 21,400 19,688 

3 ............................................................................................................................................. 21,463 26,838 24,688 

4 ............................................................................................................................................. 25,813 32,275 29,688 

5 ............................................................................................................................................. 30,163 37,713 34,688 

6 ............................................................................................................................................. 34,513 43,150 39,688 

7 ............................................................................................................................................. 38,863 48,588 44,688 

8 ............................................................................................................................................. 43,213 54,025 49,688 

For each additional member of the household in excess of 8, add: .................................... 4,350 5,438 5,000 

*The figures in this table represent 125% of the poverty guidelines by household size as determined by the Department of Health and Human 

Services. 

REFERENCE CHART—200% OF DHHS FEDERAL POVERTY GUIDELINES

Size of household 

48 Contiguous 

States and the 

District of 

Columbia 

Alaska Hawaii 

1 ............................................................................................................................................. $20,420 $25,540 $23,500 

2 ............................................................................................................................................. 27,380 34,240 31,500 

3 ............................................................................................................................................. 34,340 42,940 39,500 

4 ............................................................................................................................................. 41,300 51,640 47,500 

5 ............................................................................................................................................. 48,260 60,340 55,500 

6 ............................................................................................................................................. 55,220 69,040 63,500 

7 ............................................................................................................................................. 62,180 77,740 71,500 

8 ............................................................................................................................................. 69,140 86,440 79,500 

For each additional member of the household in excess of 8, add: .................................... 6,960 8,700 8000 

Victor M. Fortuno, 

Vice President for Legal Affairs, General 

Counsel & Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–3074 Filed 2–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

46 CFR Part 401 

[USCG–2006–24414] 

RIN 1625–AB05 

Rates for Pilotage on the Great Lakes 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Interim rule with request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is updating 

the rates for pilotage service on the 

Great Lakes for the 2007 navigation 

season. This increases pilotage rates an 

average of 22.62% across all three 

pilotage districts over the last 

ratemaking that was completed in April 

of 2006. Annual reviews of pilotage 

rates are required by law to ensure that 

sufficient revenues are generated to 

cover the annual projected allowable 

expenses, target pilot compensation, 

and returns on investment of the pilot 

associations. The Coast Guard requests 

public comment on its calculation of 

these rate increases. 

DATES: This interim rule is effective 

March 26, 2007. Comments and related 

material must reach the Docket 

Management Facility on or before April 

24, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by Coast Guard docket 

number USCG–2006–24414 to the 

Docket Management Facility at the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. To avoid 

duplication, please use only one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Web site: http://dms.dot.gov. 

(2) Mail: Docket Management Facility, 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 

20590–0001. 

(3) Fax: 202–493–2251. 

(4) Delivery: Room PL–401 on the 

Plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

The telephone number is 202–366–

9329. 

(5) Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions on this interim rule, call Mr. 

Michael Sakaio, Program Analyst, Office 

of Great Lakes Pilotage, Commandant 

(CG–3PWM), 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, Chief, Dockets, Department of 

Transportation, telephone 202–493–

0402. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

II. Background 

III. Discussion of Comments and Changes 

IV. Discussion of the Interim Rule 

A. Pilotage Rate Changes—Summarized 

B. Calculating the Rate Adjustment 

Step 1: Calculating the Base Period Total 

Economic Cost (Cost per Bridge Hour by 

Area for the Base Period) 

Step 2. Calculating the Expense Multiplier 

Step 3. Calculating the new annual 

‘‘projection of target pilot compensation’’

using the same procedures found in Step 

2 of Appendix A to 46 CFR part 404 

Step 4: Increase the new total target pilot 

compensation in Step 3 by the expense 

multiplier in Step 2 

Step 5(a): Adjust the result in Step 4, as 

required, for inflation or deflation 

Step 5(b): Calculate Projected Total 

Economic Costs 

Step 6: Divide the Result in Step 5(b) by 

Projected Bridge Hours to Determine 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
8116 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

V. 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 

VI. Regulatory Text 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation and Request for 

Comments 

We invite public comment on our 

calculation of the rate increases made in 

this interim rule, specifically with 

respect to Step 3 of the methodology. 

All comments received will be posted, 

without change, to http://dms.dot.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. 

Submitting comments: If you submit a 

comment, please include your name and 

address, identify the docket number for 

this rulemaking (USCG–2006–24414), 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and give the reason for each 

comment. 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 81⁄2 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 rule in view of them. 

Viewing comments and documents: 

To view comments, as well as 

documents mentioned in this preamble 

as being available in the docket, go to 

http://dms.dot.gov at any time, click on 

‘‘Simple Search,’’ enter the last five 

digits of the docket number for this 

rulemaking, and click on ‘‘Search.’’ You 

may also visit the Docket Management 

Facility in room PL–401 on the Plaza 

level of the Nassif Building, 400 

Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC, 

between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

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://dms.dot.gov. 

Public Meeting: We do not now 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. 

II. Background 

The Great Lakes Pilotage Act of 1960, 

codified in Title 46, Chapter 93, of the 

United States Code (U.S.C.), requires 

foreign-flag vessels and U.S.-flag vessels 

in foreign trade to use federal Great 

Lakes registered pilots while transiting 

the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great 

Lakes system. 46 U.S.C. 9302, 9308. The 

Coast Guard is responsible for 

administering this pilotage program, 

which includes setting rates for pilotage 

service. 

The Coast Guard pilotage regulations 

require annual reviews of pilotage rates 

and the creation of a new rate at least 

once every five years, or sooner, if 

annual reviews show a need. 46 CFR 

part 404. 46 U.S.C. 9303(f) requires 

these reviews and, where deemed 

appropriate, adjustments be established 

by March 1 of every season. 

To assist in calculating pilotage rates, 

the three Great Lakes 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 full 

ratemaking, the Coast Guard contracts 

with an independent accounting firm to 

conduct audits of the accounts and 

records of the pilotage associations and 

to 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 46 CFR Part 404, 

and adjusts rates as appropriate. 

The last full ratemaking was 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 3, 2006 (71 FR 16501). On July 13, 

2006, we published a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM; 71 FR 

39629), thus beginning the first annual 

review and adjustment following that 

full ratemaking. By law, this review 

must be completed by March 1, 2007. 

III. Discussion of Comments and 

Changes 

The Coast Guard received four 

comments in response to the July 2006 

NPRM. One comment was received from 

the American Maritime Officers’ (AMO) 

union, two comments were received 

from the Lakes Pilots’ Association 

(LPA), and one comment was received 

from the legal representative of the 

pilots’ associations. This last commenter 

prefaced his discussion of several issues 

by stating that ‘‘the pilots are willing to 

have the Coast Guard defer action on 

[these issues] to the earliest possible 

time at which they will not delay the 

issuance of the updated rate pursuant to 

the current NPRM proceeding.’’ We 

agree that timely completion of this 

annual rate update is of paramount 

importance. 

Contract modifications. All four 

comments stated that AMO union 

contracts with one or more of the 

shipping companies on the Great Lakes 

had changed prior to the publication of 

the NPRM on July 13, 2006, and 

requested that the final rule reflect this 

change. After reviewing the submissions 

and researching the issue to confirm the 

accuracy of the comments, the Coast 

Guard has concluded that these 

comments are partially correct. 

The AMO union contracts with six 

shipping companies on the Great Lakes. 

On August 1, 2003, the union negotiated 

collective bargaining agreements with 

these six companies establishing, among 

other things, wages and benefits for 

mariners effective until July 31, 2006. 

Three of those companies, based on our 

research, have subsequently entered 

into Memorandums of Understanding 

dated July 23, 2004, March 11, 2005, 

and May 1, 2005, extending the 

termination dates of these collective 

bargaining agreements to July 31, 2007, 

and modifying the wage and benefit 

portions of the underlying collective 

bargaining agreements. These 

modifications initially became effective 

May 1, 2005, with additional 

modifications becoming effective 

August 1, 2005. The remaining three 

companies have not signed 

Memorandums of Understanding 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8117 

extending and modifying the collective 

bargaining agreements. Accordingly, 

they continue to operate under the 

terms of the original 2003 contracts 

previously used by the Coast Guard to 

approximate first mates wages and 

benefits. 

The Coast Guard agrees that, since 

these contract modifications went into 

effect prior to the date the NPRM was 

published, weight should be given to 

these updated contracts. However, the 

Coast Guard also believes that to 

properly approximate current first mates 

wages and benefits, we must also give 

consideration to the August 1, 2003, 

AMO union contracts that remain in 

effect with three of the six shipping 

companies. Accordingly, we have 

calculated first mates wages and 

benefits under both versions of the 

AMO union contracts and, using the 

deadweight tonnage (mid-summer 

capacity tonnage) of vessels operating 

under each of these contracts, 

apportioned target pilot compensation 

based on the percentage of tonnage 

represented by each of the contracts to 

arrive at a weighted average target pilot 

compensation. This calculation is 

discussed in greater detail under Step 3 

of this Appendix C Ratemaking 

Methodology. We specifically request 

public comment on this calculation. 

Calculation of projected bridge hours. 

One commenter pointed out that we 

rounded up the bridge hour projections 

shown in Step 2.B of the Appendix A 

calculations for the 2006 final rule and 

in Step 3 of the Appendix C calculations 

for this rulemaking’s NPRM. The 

commenter stated, correctly, that this 

was a departure from our past practice, 

and that the resulting artificial 

overstatement of traffic projections 

lowers rates. Because we now agree 

with this comment, we have corrected 

Step 3 in our Appendix C computations, 

to show actual projected bridge hours 

rather than rounded-up projections. 

This affects subsequent computations 

made under Appendix C, and raises 

rates an average of 3% over what we 

proposed in the NPRM. We also note by 

this commenter’s remark that the impact 

of our error was most notable in District 

One, which has suffered the cessation of 

fast ferry service that accounted for 

1,144 projected bridge hours in the 2006 

ratemaking. This interim rule removes 

those hours from the District One 

projection. 

Delay and detention. One commenter 

alleged that our 2006 ratemaking 

‘‘changes, without explanation’’ our 

‘‘longstanding practice’’ of counting 

‘‘delay and detention’’ hours in the 

pilots’’ workload, and that this 

rulemaking’s NPRM perpetuates this 

alleged error. 

The comment is incorrect. 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. The 

Appendix A, Step 2.B definition of 

bridge hours as the ‘‘number of hours a 

pilot is aboard a vessel providing basic 

pilotage service’’ has never changed. We 

have consistently and publicly stated 

that this excludes detention, delay, or 

travel time: See, for example, 65 FR 

55206 at 55208 (Sep. 13, 2000), 66 FR 

36484 (Jul. 12, 2001). In 2002, we 

reiterated this policy at the same time as 

we acknowledged a possible inadvertent 

departure from the policy in 2001. 67 

FR 47464 (Jul. 19, 2002). The policy has 

been expressed and followed in all our 

ratemaking documents since 2002. 

The commenter further cited Rear 

Admiral J. Timothy Riker’s March 4, 

2003 report on Great Lakes pilotage, in 

which he recommended including delay 

and detention in calculating bridge 

hours. The commenter expressed 

concern over the ‘‘slow pace’’ of the 

Coast Guard’s response to the Riker 

report and asked us to implement its 

recommendations promptly. The report 

can be found at http://dms.dot.gov, 

under Docket USCG–2002–13191 where 

it appears as item 85. 

The Riker report presented a series of 

recommendations for Coast Guard 

consideration. We are, and have been, 

actively engaged in reviewing these 

recommendations. This will be the 

subject of a separate Federal Register 

notice. 

150% factor for designated waters. 

One commenter alleged that we have 

improperly calculated target pilot 

compensation for pilots servicing 

designated waters. The Coast Guard’s 

standard practice under Appendix A, 

Step 2.A(1) and (2), is to calculate this 

compensation by multiplying first mates 

wages by 150%, and then adding 

benefits. The commenter believes that, 

instead, we should multiply the total of 

first mates wages and benefits by 150%. 

The rationale for the Coast Guard’s 

method of calculation was given in the 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation’s 1997 final rule (62 FR 

5917, 5920; Feb. 10, 1997). Further 

discussion can be found in the docket 

for the 1997 rule; see http:// 

www.dms.dot.gov, Docket SLSDC–

1996–1781, item 22. 

This issue was the subject of litigation 

between the Lakes Pilots Association 

and the Coast Guard. In an unpublished 

Memorandum Opinion (Lakes Pilots’

Association v. United States Coast 

Guard, Civil Action No. 01–1721(RBW); 

Apr. 4, 2003), which we have placed in 

the docket for this rulemaking, the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia upheld the Coast Guard’s 

interpretation of the applicable 

regulations and the method used to 

calculate target pilot compensation for 

pilots servicing designated waters. It is 

the Coast Guard’s view that this matter 

has been resolved by the court’s 

decision. 

Rate adjustment with Canada. One 

commenter stated that U.S. pilotage 

rates must be identical to rates charged 

by the Canadian pilotage authority, in 

keeping with provisions of the January 

18, 1977 Memorandum of Arrangements 

(MOA) regarding Great Lakes pilotage, 

which was signed by the U.S. Secretary 

of Transportation and the Canadian 

Minister of Transport, and which 

remains in effect. Paragraph 7 of the 

MOA states that ‘‘the Secretary and the 

Minister will arrange for the 

establishment of regulations imposing 

identical rates, charges and any other 

conditions or terms being annexed 

hereto from time to time as a Rate 

Supplement and to be deemed as part of 

this Memorandum of Arrangements’’

(emphasis added). The MOA is 

enforceable only between the two 

sovereign nations that are party to it. No 

private right of action is created by 

which individuals might seek to enforce 

the MOA for their own benefit. 

This comment is beyond the scope of 

this rulemaking, which merely applies 

existing U.S. regulations. Those 

regulations reflect the MOA, in that they 

allow for rate adjustment after U.S. 

consultation with Canada, but they do 

not automatically adjust U.S. rates to 

reflect Canadian rates, nor do they 

require U.S. rates to be identical to 

Canadian rates. We infer that the 

commenter’s intent is to encourage 

consultation between the U.S. and 

Canada so that rates will be made 

identical. Due to vast differences in the 

pilotage systems and ratemaking 

methodologies of the two nations, and 

to frequent economic fluctuations that 

affect the two nations dissimilarly, it 

may not be practicable, or desirable 

from the perspective of the U.S. pilots, 

to set identical rates. However, we have 

been discussing with the Canadian 

Great Lakes Pilotage Authority ways to 

achieve rate parity. 

IV. Discussion of the Interim Rule 

A. Pilotage Rate Changes—Summarized 

This interim rule adjusts the rates for 

Federal pilots on the Great Lakes, 

contained in 46 CFR 401.405, 401.407, 

and 401.410, in accordance with 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
8118 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Appendix C of 46 CFR part 404. Using 

this methodology, the rate adjustment 

results in an average increase of 22.62% 

across all Districts over the last pilotage 

rate adjustment. Fourteen and seventenths percent (14.7%) of the increase is 

attributable to increases in wages and 

benefits contained in the most recent 

American Maritime Officers’ union 

contracts that were not included in the 

NPRM; 5% of the increase is attributable 

to increased traffic projections based 

upon changes in traffic levels between 

2005 and 2006; 3% of the increase is 

attributable to adjustments made in the 

rate computation returning projected 

bridge hours to unrounded values; and 

0.5% of the increase is attributable to 

non-wage inflation. 

2007 AREA RATE CHANGES

If pilotage service is required in: 

Then the 

percentage 

increases 

over the 

current rate 

is: 

Area 1 (Designated waters) ..... 21.04 

Area 2 (Undesignated waters) 29.51 

Area 4 (Undesignated waters) 22.07 

Area 5 (Designated waters) ..... 25.32 

Area 6 (Undesignated waters) 14.97 

Area 7 (Designated waters) ..... 18.33 

Area 8 (Undesignated waters) 27.08 

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)’’ have been 

increased by 22.62%. These changes are 

the same in every Area. 

B. Calculating the Rate Adjustment 

The ratemaking analyses and 

methodology contained in Appendix C 

to 46 CFR part 404 comprises eight 

steps. These steps are: 

1. Calculating the Base Period Total 

Economic Cost (Cost Per Bridge Hour by 

Area for the Base Period); 

2. Calculating the Expense Multiplier; 

3. Calculating the Annual Projection 

of Target Pilot Compensation; 

4. Increasing the Projected Pilot 

Compensation in Step 3 by the Expense 

Multiplier; 

5. Adjusting the Result for Inflation or 

Deflation; 

6. Dividing the Result in Step 5 by 

Projected Bridge Hours to Determine 

Total Unit Costs (Adjusted Cost per 

Bridge Hour by Area); 

7. Dividing Prospective Unit Costs 

(Total Unit Cost) in Step 6 by the Base 

Period Unit Costs in Step 1; and 

8. Adjusting 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 last 

full ratemaking, as indicated in the 

April 3, 2006 final rule. Target pilot 

compensation is calculated based upon 

the most recent contracts between the 

American Maritime Officers’(AMO) 

union and vessel owners and operators 

on the Great Lakes. Bridge hour 

projections for the 2007 season are 

based on historical data and data 

provided by the St. Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation. Bridge hours 

are the number of hours a pilot is aboard 

a vessel providing pilotage service and 

do not include delay, detention, or 

travel time. All documents and records 

used in this rate calculation mentioned 

in this preamble as being available in 

the docket 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: Calculating the Base Period 

Total Economic Cost (Cost per Bridge 

Hour by Area for the Base Period) 

The base period numbers used in all 

calculations are those that were set by 

the last full ratemaking in 2006. The 

data used for this first step is obtained 

from the 2006 final rule’s tables 

containing the base operating expense, 

base target pilot compensation, and base 

return element computations. This first 

step requires that we calculate the total 

economic cost for the base period by 

taking from these tables, and adding 

together, the recognized expenses, the 

total cost of target pilot compensation, 

and the return element in each Area. We 

then take this sum and divide it by the 

total bridge hours used in each Area in 

setting the base period rates. This 

calculation gives us the cost of 

providing pilotage service per bridge 

hour by Area for the base period. 

The following tables summarize the 

Step 1 computations: 

TABLE 1.—BASE PERIOD TOTAL ECONOMIC COST (COST PER BRIDGE HOUR)—DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 St. 

Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 Lake 

Ontario 

Total district 

one 

Base Operating Expenses ........................................................................................................... $368,186 $372,911 $741,097 

Base Target Pilot compensation ................................................................................................. +$1,207,209 +$725,848 +1,933,057 

Base Return Element 1 ................................................................................................................ +$8,087 +$10,185 +$18,272 

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ =$1,583,482 =$1,108,944 =$2,692,426 

Base Bridge Hours ...................................................................................................................... ÷6,000 ÷9,000 ÷15,000 

Base Cost per Bridge Hour ......................................................................................................... =$263.91 =$123.22 =$179.50 

1The return element is defined at Appendix B to 46 CFR part 404 as the sum of net income and interest expense. The return element can be 

considered the sum of the return to equity capital (net increase), and the return to debt (the interest expense). 

TABLE 2.—BASE PERIOD TOTAL ECONOMIC COST (COST PER BRIDGE HOUR)—DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 Lake 

Erie 

Area 5 Southeast Shoal to 

Port Huron, MI 

Total district 

two 

Base Operating Expenses ........................................................................................................... $427,333 $632,117 $1,059,450 

Base Target Pilot compensation ................................................................................................. +$725,848 +$1,408,410 +$2,134,258 

Base Return Element .................................................................................................................. +$20,354 +$24,275 +$44,629 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8119 

TABLE 2.—BASE PERIOD TOTAL ECONOMIC COST (COST PER BRIDGE HOUR)—DISTRICT TWO—Continued 

Area 4 Lake 

Erie 

Area 5 Southeast Shoal to 

Port Huron, MI 

Total district 

two 

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ =$1,173,535 =$2,064,802 =$3,238,337 

Base Bridge Hours ...................................................................................................................... ÷9,000 ÷7,000 ÷16,000 

Base Cost per Bridge Hour ......................................................................................................... =$130.39 =$294.97 =$202.40 

TABLE 3.—BASE PERIOD TOTAL ECONOMIC COST (COST PER BRIDGE HOUR)—DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 Lakes 

Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 St. 

Mary’s River 

Area 8 Lake 

Superior 

Total district 

three 

Base Operating Expenses ............................................................................... $693,924 $271,563 $433,484 $1,398,971 

Base Target Pilot compensation ..................................................................... +$1,451,696 +$804,806 +$1,016,187 +$3,272,689 

Base Return Element ...................................................................................... +$25,283 +$9,768 +$15,451 +$50,502 

Subtotal ............................................................................................................ =$2,170,903 =$1,086,137 =$1,465,122 =$4,722,162 

Base Bridge Hours .......................................................................................... ÷18,000 ÷4,000 ÷12,600 ÷34,600 

Base Cost per Bridge Hour ............................................................................. =$120.61 =$271.53 =$116.28 =$136.48 

Step 2. Calculating the Expense 

Multiplier 

The expense multiplier is the ratio of 

both the base operating expenses and 

the base return element to the base 

target pilot compensation by Area. This 

step requires that we add together 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 following tables show the 

calculations: 

1. EXPENSE MULTIPLIER FOR DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 St. 

Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 Lake 

Ontario 

Total district 

one 

Base Operating Expense ............................................................................................................. $368,186 $372,911 $741,097 

Base Return Element .................................................................................................................. +$8,087 +$10,185 +$18,272 

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ =$376,273 =$383,096 =$759,369 

Base Target Pilot Compensation ................................................................................................. ÷$1,207,209 ÷$725,848 ÷$1,933,057 

Expense Multiplier ....................................................................................................................... =.31169 =.52779 =.39283 

2. EXPENSE MULTIPLIER FOR DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 Lake 

Erie 

Area 5 Southeast Shoal to 

Port Huron, MI 

Total district 

two 

Base Operating Expense ............................................................................................................. $427,333 $632,117 $1,059,450 

Base Return Element .................................................................................................................. +$20,354 +$24,275 +$44,629 

Subtotal ........................................................................................................................................ =$447,687 =$656,392 =$1,104,079 

Base Target Pilot Compensation ................................................................................................. ÷$725,848 ÷$1,408,410 ÷$2,134,258 

Expense Multiplier ....................................................................................................................... =.61678 =.46605 =.51731 

3. EXPENSE MULTIPLIER FOR DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 Lakes 

Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 St. 

Mary’s River 

Area 8 Lake 

Superior 

Total district 

three 

Base Operating Expense ................................................................................. $693,924 $271,563 $433,484 $1,398,971 

Base Return Element ...................................................................................... +$25,283 +$9,768 +$15,451 +$50,502 

Subtotal ............................................................................................................ =$719,207 =$281,331 =$448,935 =$1,449,473 

Base Target Pilot Compensation ..................................................................... ÷$1,451,696 ÷$804,806 ÷$1,016,187 ÷$3,272,689 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
8120 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

3. EXPENSE MULTIPLIER FOR DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 Lakes 

Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 St. 

Mary’s River 

Area 8 Lake 

Superior 

Total district 

three 

Expense Multiplier ........................................................................................... =.49543 =.34956 =.44178 =.44290 

Step 3. Calculating the New Annual 

‘‘Projection of Target Pilot 

Compensation’’ Using the Same 

Procedures Found in Step 2 of 

Appendix A to 46 CFR Part 404 

Step 2 of Appendix A requires the 

Director of Great Lakes Pilotage to: 

1. Determine the new target rate of 

compensation; 

2. Determine the new number of 

pilots needed in each pilotage Area; and 

3. Multiply new target compensation 

by the new number of pilots needed to 

project total new target pilot 

compensation needed in each Area. 

Each step is detailed as follows: 

1. Determination of New Target Pilot 

Compensation 

Target pilot compensation for pilots 

providing services in undesignated 

waters approximates the average annual 

compensation for first mates on U.S. 

Great Lakes vessels. Target pilot 

compensation for pilots providing 

services in designated waters 

approximates the average annual 

compensation for masters on U.S. Great 

Lakes vessels. The Office of Great Lakes 

Pilotage has consistently calculated 

compensation for masters on the Great 

Lakes by first multiplying first mates’

salaries by 150% and then adding 

benefits, since this is the best 

approximation of the average annual 

compensation for masters. 

For this interim rule, the average 

annual compensation for first mates has 

been partially revised, based on 

comments to the docket, and confirming 

research performed by the Coast Guard, 

to reflect changes in the AMO union 

contracts on the Great Lakes. The AMO 

union contracts with six shipping 

companies on the Great Lakes. On 

August 1, 2003, the union negotiated 

collective bargaining agreements with 

these six companies establishing, among 

other things, wages and benefits for 

mariners effective until July 31, 2006. 

Three of those companies, based on our 

research, have subsequently entered 

into Memorandums of Understanding 

dated July 23, 2004, March 11, 2005 and 

May 1, 2005, extending the termination 

dates of these collective bargaining 

agreements to July 31, 2007, and 

modifying the wage and benefit portions 

of the underlying collective bargaining 

agreements. These modifications 

initially became effective May 1, 2005, 

with additional modifications becoming 

effective August 1, 2005. The remaining 

three companies have not signed 

Memorandums of Understanding 

extending and modifying the collective 

bargaining agreements and they, 

accordingly, continue to operate under 

the terms of the original 2003 contracts 

the Coast Guard previously used to 

approximate first mates’ wages and 

benefits. 

In light of the foregoing and to 

effectuate these changes, the Coast 

Guard has calculated target pilot 

compensation under both versions of 

the AMO union contracts and, using the 

deadweight tonnages (mid-summer 

capacity) of vessels operating under 

each of these contracts, apportioned 

target pilot compensation based on the 

percentage of tonnage represented by 

each of the contracts, to arrive at a 

weighted average target pilot 

compensation accurately approximating 

compensation of first mates on the Great 

Lakes. We specifically request public 

comment on this calculation. 

The following tables (1, 2, and 3) 

summarize how target pilot 

compensation is determined for 

undesignated and designated waters 

based on the AMO union contracts in 

effect on August 1, 2003. Data from 

these AMO union contracts were used 

in the NPRM published on July 13, 

2006. 

TABLE 1.—WAGES

Monthly component 

(First mate) 

pilots on 

undesignated 

waters 

(Master) pilots 

on designated 

waters 

$226.96 (Daily Rate) × 54 (Days) ........................................................................................................................... $12,256 N/A 

Monthly Total × 9 Months = Total Wages ........................................................................................................ 110,303 N/A 

Wages: $226.96 (Daily Rate) × 54 × 1.5 ................................................................................................................ N/A 18,384 

Monthly Total × 9 Months = Total Wages ........................................................................................................ N/A 165,454 

TABLE 2.—BENEFITS

Monthly component 

(First mate) 

pilots on 

undesignated 

waters 

(Master) pilots 

on designated 

waters 

Employer Contribution—401(K) Plan ...................................................................................................................... $612.79 $919.19 

Clerical ..................................................................................................................................................................... +$340.44 +$340.44 

Health ....................................................................................................................................................................... +$2,512.51 +$2,512.51 

Pension .................................................................................................................................................................... +$1,283.10 +$1,283.10 

Monthly Total Benefits ...................................................................................................................................... =$4,748.84 =$5,055.24 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8121 

TABLE 2.—BENEFITS

Monthly component 

(First mate) 

pilots on 

undesignated 

waters 

(Master) pilots 

on designated 

waters 

Monthly Total Benefits × 9 months ........................................................................................................... =$42,740 =$45,497 

TABLE 3.—WAGES AND BENEFITS

(First Mate) 

pilots on 

undesignated 

waters 

(Master) 

pilots on 

designated 

waters 

Wages ...................................................................................................................................................................... $110,303 $165,454 

Benefits .................................................................................................................................................................... +$42,740 +$45,497 

Total Wages and Benefits ................................................................................................................................ =$153,042 =$210,951 

Under the AMO union contracts in 

effect on August 1, 2003, the monthly 

component for wages is derived by 

multiplying the daily rate of pay by 54 

days, instead of 30 days, based upon the 

following formulation provided by the 

AMO union: 

a. Average Working Days per month—

30.5. 

b. Vacation Days per month—15.0. 

c. Weekend Days per month—4.0. 

d. Holidays per month—1.5. 

e. Bonus per month—3.0. 

Monthly Multiplier—54.0. 

Additionally, we use a nine-month 

multiplier in computing annual wages 

and benefits because the season is nine 

months in duration, not 12 months. 

Effective August 1, 2002, the 

matching benefit increased to 50% for 

each participating 401(k) employee up 

to a maximum of 5% of a participating 

employee’s compensation. For purposes 

of this benefit, the AMO union contracts 

interpret ‘‘employee compensation’’ to 

mean base wages. District Two has a 

pension plan, while District Three has 

a 401(k) plan. District One does not 

provide either a 401(k) or pension plan 

for its members. Therefore, to conform 

to the 401(k) matching benefit provision 

under the AMO union contracts, pilot 

compensation for Districts Two and 

Three is increased. The increase in 

undesignated waters is $5,515.20 and 

for designated waters is $8,272.80 per 

pilot. These increases are 5% of 

compensation, respectively. 

District One does not administer any 

form of 401(k) or retirement plan. At the 

recommendation of the independent 

accountant, the Coast Guard has 

determined that the District One pilots 

should receive the same employer 

matching benefits as Districts Two and 

Three. 

Accordingly, the compensation base 

of District One is adjusted to include an 

amount equivalent to an employer’s 

contribution under the AMO 401(k) 

matching plan, which increases pilot 

compensation in undesignated waters 

by $5,515.20 and for designated waters 

by $8,272.80 per pilot. 

The following tables (4, 5, and 6) 

summarize how target pilot 

compensation is determined for 

undesignated and designated waters 

under the modified AMO union 

contracts effective August 1, 2005: 

TABLE 4.—WAGES

Monthly component 

(First Mate) 

pilots on 

undesignated 

waters 

(Master) 

pilots on 

designated 

waters 

$279.55 (Daily Wage Rate) × 49.5 (Days) .............................................................................................................. $13,838 N/A 

Monthly Total × 9 Months = Total Wages ........................................................................................................ 124,540 N/A 

$279.55 (Daily Wage Rate) × 49.5 (Days) X 1.5 .................................................................................................... N/A $20,757 

Monthly Total × 9 Months = Total Wages ........................................................................................................ N/A 186,809 

TABLE 5.—BENEFITS

Monthly component 

(First Mate) 

pilots on 

undesignated 

waters 

(Master) 

pilots on 

designated 

waters 

Employer Contribution—401(K) Plan ...................................................................................................................... $691.89 $1,037.83 

Clerical ..................................................................................................................................................................... N/A N/A 

Health ....................................................................................................................................................................... 2,512.51 2,512.51 

Pension .................................................................................................................................................................... 1,981.53 1,981.53 

Monthly Total Benefits ...................................................................................................................................... 5,185.92 5,531.86 

Monthly Total Benefits × 9 ........................................................................................................................ 46,673 49,787 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
8122 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6.—TOTAL WAGES AND BENEFITS

(First Mate) 

pilots on 

undesignated 

waters 

(Master) 

pilots on 

designated 

waters 

Wages ...................................................................................................................................................................... $124,540 $186,809 

Benefits .................................................................................................................................................................... 46,673 49,787 

Total Wages and Benefits ................................................................................................................................ 171,213 236,596 

Under the modified AMO union 

contracts effective August 1, 2005, the 

daily wage rate was a flat $279.55. This 

daily wage rate is multiplied by a new 

monthly multiplier component of 49.5, 

instead of the 54 days used under the 

August 1, 2003, AMO union contracts, 

based upon the following formulation 

provided by the AMO union: 

a. Average Working Days per month—

30.5. 

b. Vacation Days per month—16.0. 

c. Bonus per month—3.0. 

Monthly Multiplier—49.5. 

Additionally, we use a nine-month 

multiplier in computing annual wages 

and benefits because the season is nine 

months in duration, not 12 months. 

Benefits under the modified AMO 

union contracts include a health 

contribution rate of $55.22 per man-day 

and a pension plan contribution rate of 

$43.55 per man-day. The AMO 401K 

employer matching rate remained at 5% 

of compensation (wages) while the 

clerical contributions were eliminated. 

To accurately reflect the 

compensation received by masters and 

mates serving on the Great Lakes, we 

have taken a weighted average of wages 

and benefits under the two sets of AMO 

union contracts. The following tables (7, 

8, 9, and 10) show how this operation 

was performed. 

TABLE 7.—TOTAL WAGES AND BENEFITS BY AMO UNION CONTRACTS

Unmodified 

AMO union 

contracts eff: 

August 1, 

2003 

Modified 

AMO union 

contracts eff: 

August 1, 

2005 

Total Wages and Benefits for Designated Waters .................................................................................................. $210,951 $236,596 

Total Wages and Benefits for Un-Designated Waters ............................................................................................ 153,042 171,213 

TABLE 8.—DEADWEIGHT TONNAGE BY AMO UNION CONTRACT

Great Lakes vessel operators 

Unmodified 

AMO union 

contracts eff: 

August 1, 

2003 

Modified 

AMO union 

contracts eff: 

August 1, 

2005 

American Steamship Company ............................................................................................................................... ........................ 664,215 

Central Marine Logistics (Formerly Inland/ISPAT, Inc) ........................................................................................... ........................ 96,544 

Oglebay Norton Marine Services ............................................................................................................................ ........................ 0 

HMC Ship Management .......................................................................................................................................... 12,656 ........................

Key Lakes, Inc (Formerly USS Great Lakes Fleet) ................................................................................................ 303,145 ........................

Interlake Leasing III ................................................................................................................................................. 64,960 ........................

Total Tonnage by each AMO contract ............................................................................................................. 380,761 760,759 

Percent Tonnage by each AMO contract ................................................................................................................ 380,761 ÷ 

1,141,520 = 

33.3556% 

760,759 ÷ 

1,141,520 = 

66.6444% 

TABLE 9.—WEIGHTED AVERAGE WAGES AND BENEFITS BASED ON AMO UNION CONTRACTS

Unmodified 

AMO union 

contract eff: 

August 1, 

2003 

Modified 

AMO union 

contract eff: 

August 1, 

2005 

Weighted Wages and Benefits (Designated Waters) .............................................................................................. $210,953 

× .333556 

= $70,364 

$236,600 

× .666444 

= $157,678 

Weighted Wages and Benefits (Un-Designated Waters) ........................................................................................ $153,042 

× .333556 

= $51,048 

$171,213 

× .666444 

= $114,104 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8123 

TABLE 10.—TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE WAGES AND BENEFITS

Designated 

waters 

Un-designated 

waters 

August 1, 2003 Contract .......................................................................................................................................... $70,364 $51,048 

August 1, 2005 Contract .......................................................................................................................................... 157,678 114,104 

Total Weighted Wages and Benefits ................................................................................................................ 228,042 165,152 

In calculating the average wages and 

benefits used in determining target pilot 

compensation, we first determine the 

total wages and benefits for designated 

and undesignated waters under each of 

the two sets of AMO union contracts 

(Table 7). Next, we add the total gross 

deadweight tonnage of vessels under 

each version of the AMO contracts and 

calculate the percentage of tonnage 

represented under each version (Table 

8). Based on these calculations, we have 

estimated current total tonnage at 

approximately 1.2 million. Of this total, 

approximately 66% of the tonnage is 

controlled by shipping companies 

operating under the modified AMO 

union contracts, and approximately 

33% of the tonnage is controlled by 

shipping companies operating under the 

unmodified AMO union contracts. 

Next, we take the total wages and 

benefits for designated and 

undesignated waters under the 

unmodified AMO union contracts 

(Table 3) and multiply by approximately 

33% and we take the total wages and 

benefits for designated and 

undesignated waters under the modified 

AMO union contract (Table 6) and 

multiply these by approximately 66%. 

The results of these computations are 

added together to arrive at the weighted 

average target pilot compensation (Table 

10). 

2. Determination of New Number of 

Pilots Needed 

The number of pilots needed in each 

Area of designated waters is established 

by dividing the total projected number 

of bridge hours for that Area by 1,000. 

The number of pilots needed in each 

Area of undesignated waters is 

established by dividing the total number 

of projected bridge hours for that Area 

by 1,800. Under the ratemaking 

methodology, a pilot in designated 

waters must work 1,000 bridge hours 

per season to earn projected target pilot 

compensation. In undesignated waters a 

pilot must work 1,800 bridge hours to 

earn target pilot compensation. A bridge 

hour is defined as an hour of time in 

which a pilot is aboard a vessel 

providing basic pilotage service. 

Dividing the total projected number of 

bridge hours per Area by the number of 

bridge hours a pilot needs to work to 

earn target pilot compensation yields 

the number of pilots that will be needed 

in each area to service vessel traffic. 

Projected bridge hours are based on the 

vessel traffic that pilots are expected to 

serve. 

As previously discussed, the Coast 

Guard has adjusted the bridge hour 

calculations contained in the NPRM to 

reflect actual projected hours for each 

Area as opposed to the rounded bridge 

hours previously used to correct for 

overestimations of projected revenue, 

expenses, and returns on investment. 

The Coast Guard has also revised 

upward its projection of traffic for the 

2007 navigation season based upon data 

received showing an upward trend in 

tonnage moved within the system, and 

increases in both vessel transits and 

bridge hours between 2004 and 2006. 

The revised projections are made based 

upon historical data, recent data 

obtained from the St. Lawrence Seaway 

Development Corporation, and relevant 

information provided by pilots and 

industry. 

The data analyzed by the Coast Guard 

has been conflicting. It consists of 

changes in annual tonnage throughput, 

numbers of vessel transits, and changing 

bridge hour requirements from 1999 

through 2006. Despite the conflicting 

data, measurable increases in traffic 

have occurred between 2004 and 2006 

in Area 1 (St. Lawrence Seaway), Area 

2 (Lake Ontario), and Area 4 (Lake Erie). 

No discernable increases have occurred 

in the remaining Areas. Depending how 

the data is analyzed the results vary 

significantly. A regression analysis 

performed for the period 1999 to 2006 

shows that while traffic has fluctuated 

over this period of time, current levels 

of traffic are about equal to average long 

term traffic loads. If just recent bridge 

hour data is analyzed, however, it 

appears that traffic has increased 

approximately 13% in Area 1, 19% in 

Area 2, and 4% in Area 4 between 2005 

and 2006. Based upon the data available 

to us, we project that these traffic levels 

will continue into the 2007 season. 

Accordingly, we have adjusted 

projected bridge hour totals to reflect 

these recent trends in traffic. 

As previously indicated, the bridge 

hour projection appearing in the NPRM 

for Area 2 of District One was reduced 

to reflect unrounded projected bridge 

hour numbers and reduced again by 

1144 bridge hours reflecting the loss of 

traffic due to the fast ferry going out of 

business. After performing these 

adjustments, the 19% projected increase 

in traffic was applied. 

The following table, ‘‘Number of 

Pilots Needed,’’ shows the projection of 

bridge hours by area and the calculation 

of the number of pilots needed in each 

Area for the 2007 navigation season 

rounded to the next whole pilot: 

NUMBER OF PILOTS NEEDED

Pilotage area 

Projected 

2007 bridge 

hours 

Divided by 

bridge-hour 

target 

Pilots needed 

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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
8124 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

NUMBER OF PILOTS NEEDED—Continued 

Pilotage area 

Projected 

2007 bridge 

hours 

Divided by 

bridge-hour 

target 

Pilots needed 

Total Pilots Needed .............................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 44 

3. Projection of New Total Target Pilot 

Compensation 

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 target pilot 

compensation for pilots working in that 

Area. 

The results for each pilotage Area are 

set out as follows: 

DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 St. 

Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 Lake 

Ontario 

Total district 

one 

Projection of target pilot compensation ....................................................................................... $1,368,253 $825,760 $2,194,013 

DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 Lake 

Erie 

Area 5 Southeast Shoal to 

Port Huron, MI 

Total district 

two 

Projection of target pilot compensation ....................................................................................... $825,760 $1,596,295 $2,422,055 

DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 Lakes 

Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 St. 

Mary’s River 

Area 8 Lake 

Superior 

Total district 

three 

Projection of target pilot compensation ........................................................... $1,651,520 $912,168 $1,156,064 $3,719,752 

Step 4: Increase the New Total Target 

Pilot Compensation in Step 3 by the 

Expense Multiplier in Step 2 

The increase in Step 4 refers to the 

proportional increase of operating 

expense when new total target pilot 

compensation is multiplied by the 

expense multiplier. The calculations for 

Step 4 appear as follows: 

DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 St. 

Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 Lake 

Ontario 

Total district 

one 

Pilot Compensation ...................................................................................................................... $1,368,253 $825,760 $2,194,013 

Expense Multiplier ....................................................................................................................... × 31169 × 52779 × 39283 

Projected Increase in Operating Expense ........................................................................... =$426,468 =$435,829 =$861,881 

DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 Lake 

Erie 

Area 5 southeast Shoal to 

Port Huron, MI 

Total district 

two 

Pilot Compensation ...................................................................................................................... $825,760 $1,596,295 $2,422,055 

Expense Multiplier ....................................................................................................................... × 61678 × 46605 × 51731 

Projected increase in Operating Expense ............................................................................ =$509,310 =$743,956 =$1,252,960 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8125 

DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 Lakes 

Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 St. 

Mary’s River 

Area 8 Lake 

Superior 

Total district 

three 

Pilot Compensation .......................................................................................... $1,651,520 $912,168 $1,156,064 $3,719,752 

Expense Multiplier ........................................................................................... × 49543 × 34956 × 44178 × 44290 

Projected Increase in Operating Expense ................................................ =$818,205 =$318,861 =$510,730 =$1,647,478 

Step 5(a): Adjust the Result in Step 4, 

as Required, for Inflation or Deflation 

The calculations for Step 5(a) appear 

below. Inflation rates were obtained 

from the U.S. Department of Labor, 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, ‘‘Midwest 

Economy—Consumer Prices,’’ using the 

years 2004 to 2005 annual average in the 

amount of 3.2% per year. 

DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 St. 

Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 Lake 

Ontario 

Total district 

one 

Projected Increase in Operating Expense ................................................................................... $426,468 $435,829 $861,881 

Inflation Rate ................................................................................................................................ × 1.032 × 1.032 × 1.032 

Adjusted Projected Increase in Operating Expense ............................................................ =$440,115 =$449,776 =$889,461 

DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 Lake 

Erie 

Area 5 Southeast Shoal to 

Port Huron, MI 

Total district 

two 

Projected Increase in Operating Expense ................................................................................... $509,310 $743,956 $1,252,960 

Inflation Rate ................................................................................................................................ × 1.032 × 1.032 × 1.032 

Adjusted Projected Increase in Operating Expense ............................................................ =$525,608 =$767,763 =$1,293,055 

DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 Lakes 

Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 St. 

Mary’s River 

Area 8 Lake 

Superior 

Total district 

three 

Projected Increase in Operating Expense ....................................................... $818,205 $318,861 $510,730 $1,647,478 

Inflation Rate .................................................................................................... × 1.032 × 1.032 × 1.032 × 1.032 

Adjusted Projected Increase in Operating Expense ................................ =$844,388 =$329,065 =$527,074 =$1,700,197 

Step 5(b): Calculate Projected Total 

Economic Costs 

After the inflation adjustments are 

made to the Operating Expenses in Step 

5(a), the adjusted amount (Adjusted 

Projected Increase in Operating 

Expense) is added to the New Total 

Target Pilot Compensation, as 

determined in Step 3, to arrive at a 

Projected Total Economic Cost. The 

Total Economic Cost is necessary to 

determine the Total Unit Cost in Step 6. 

The calculations for Step 5(b) appear as 

follows: 

DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 St. 

Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 Lake 

Ontario 

Total district 

one 

Adjusted Projected Increase in Operating Expense ................................................................... $440,115 $449,776 $889,461 

Projected Target Pilot Compensation .......................................................................................... +$1,368,253 +$825,760 +$2,194,013 

Projected Total Economic Cost ............................................................................................ =$1,808,368 =$1,275,535 =$3,083,474 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
8126 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 Lake 

Erie 

Area 5 Southeast Shoal to 

Port Huron, MI 

Total district 

two 

Adjusted Projected Increase in Operating Expense ................................................................... $525,608 $767,763 $1,293,055 

Projected Target Pilot Compensation .......................................................................................... +$825,760 +$1,596,295 +$2,422,055 

Projected Total Economic Cost ............................................................................................ =$1,351,368 =$2,364,058 =$3,715,109 

DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 Lakes 

Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 St. 

Mary’s River 

Area 8 Lake 

Superior 

Total district 

three 

Adjusted Projected Increase in Operating Expense ........................................ $844,388 $329,065 $527,074 $1,700,197 

Projected Target Pilot Compensation .............................................................. +$1,651,520 +$912,168 +$1,156,064 +$3,719,752 

Projected Total Economic Cost ................................................................ =$2,495,907 =$1,241,233 =$1,683,138 =$5,419,949 

Step 6: Divide the Result in Step 5(b) by 

Projected Bridge Hours to Determine 

Total Unit Costs (Adjusted Cost per 

Bridge Hour by Area) 

DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 St. 

Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 Lake 

Ontario 

Total district 

one 

Projected Total Economic Costs ................................................................................................. $1,808,368 $1,275,535 $3,083,474 

Projected Bridge Hours ............................................................................................................... ÷5,661 ÷7,993 ÷13,654 

Total Unit Costs .................................................................................................................... =$319.44 =$159.58 =$225.83 

DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 Lake 

Erie 

Area 5 Southeast Shoal to 

Port Huron, MI 

Total district 

two 

Projected Total Economic Costs ................................................................................................. $1,351,368 $2,364,058 $3,715,109 

Projected Bridge Hours ............................................................................................................... ÷8,490 ÷6,395 ÷14,885 

Total Unit Costs .................................................................................................................... =$159.17 =$369.67 =$249.59 

DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 Lakes 

Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 St. 

Mary’s River 

Area 8 Lake 

Superior 

Total district 

three 

Projected Total Economic Costs ..................................................................... $2,495,907 $1,241,233 $1,683,138 $5,419,949 

Projected Bridge Hours ................................................................................... ÷18,000 ÷3,863 ÷11,390 ÷33,253 

Total Unit Costs ........................................................................................ =$138.66 =$321.31 =$147.77 =$162.99 

Step 7: Divide Prospective Unit Costs in 

Step 6 by the Base Period Unit Costs in 

Step 1 

This step calculates the percent 

change in unit cost from the base period 

to the prospective unit cost. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8127 

DISTRICT ONE

Area 1 St. 

Lawrence 

River 

Area 2 Lake 

Ontario 

Total district 

one 

Prospective Unit Cost (Total Unit Cost) ...................................................................................... $319.44 $159.58 $225.83 

Base Period Unit Cost ................................................................................................................. ÷$263.91 ÷$123.22 ÷$179.50 

Percentage Change in Unit Cost (Rate Adjustment) ........................................................... =1.2104 =1.2951 =1.2581 

DISTRICT TWO

Area 4 Lake 

Erie 

Area 5 Southeast Shoal to 

Port Huron, MI 

Total district 

two 

Prospective Unit Cost (Total Unit Cost) ...................................................................................... $159.17 $369.67 $249.59 

Base Period Unit Cost ................................................................................................................. ÷$130.39 ÷$294.97 ÷$202.40 

Percentage Change in Unit Cost (Rate Adjustment) ........................................................... =1.2207 =1.2532 =1.2332 

DISTRICT THREE

Area 6 Lakes 

Huron and 

Michigan 

Area 7 St. 

Mary’s River 

Area 8 Lake 

Superior 

Total district 

three 

Prospective Unit Cost (Total Unit Cost) .......................................................... $138.66 $321.31 $147.77 $162.99 

Base Period Unit Cost ..................................................................................... ÷$120.61 ÷$271.53 ÷$116.28 ÷$136.48 

Percentage Change in Unit Cost (Rate Adjustment) ............................... =1.1497 =1.1833 =1.2708 =1.1943 

Step 8: Adjust the Base Period Rates by 

the Percentage Change in Unit Costs in 

Step 7 

The ‘‘Percentage Change in Unit Cost’’

in Step 7 represents the percentage 

change or rate adjustment that will be 

applied to existing base period rates and 

charges in Subpart D of 46 CFR part 401. 

The average increase in rates overall 

three Districts is 22.62% above the 2006 

final rule. The rate adjustments are 

summarized by Areas in the following 

table. The actual adjustments are shown 

in the proposed amendments to 

regulatory text that follow this 

preamble. Each of the Area rates listed 

in part 401 has been adjusted according 

to this table. Results are rounded to 

nearest whole dollar. 

2007 AREA RATE CHANGES

If pilotage service is required in: 

Then the 

percentage 

increases 

over the 

current rate 

is: 

Area 1 (Designated waters) ..... 21.04 

Area 2 (Undesignated waters) 29.51 

Area 4 (Undesignated waters) 22.07 

Area 5 (Designated waters) ..... 25.32 

Area 6 (Undesignated waters) 14.97 

Area 7 (Designated waters) ..... 18.33 

Area 8 (Undesignated waters) 27.08 

V. 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 has been 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 adjusting the pilotage rates for 

the 2007 shipping season to generate 

sufficient revenue to cover allowable 

expenses, target pilot compensation, 

and returns on investment. 

This interim rule implements a 

22.62% average rate adjustment for the 

Great Lakes system over the rate 

adjustment found in the 2006 final rule. 

This adjustment has increased from the 

proposed 6% published in the NPRM 

due to changes made to address public 

comments. (See the ‘‘Discussion of 

Comments and Changes’’ section for a 

discussion of the changes made from 

public comments.) The additional 

consideration of the wage and benefit 

increases under three of six union 

contracts, updating the inflation index, 

and modifying the projected bridge 

hours all added to the increased rate 

adjustment. Changes to AMO union 

contracts contributed the largest part of 

the change by increasing the target pilot 

compensation, resulting in the higher 

rate adjustment for the interim rule. (See 

the ‘‘Calculating the Rate Adjustment’’

section of this rulemaking for a detailed 

explanation of the ratemaking 

methodology). 

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 interim 

rule results 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 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
8128 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 interim 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 interim rule by using 

recent vessel characteristics, 

documentation, and arrival data. We 

used 2004–2005 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 269 

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, 

offloading, and onloading at facilities in 

Great Lakes ports. Of the total trips for 

the 269 vessels, there were 

approximately 1,040 annual U.S. port 

arrivals before the vessels left the Great 

Lakes system, based on 2004–2005 

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 interim 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. Table 

2 details the revenue adjustment from 

the 2006 full rate adjustment final rule 

(71 FR 16501). This interim rule uses 

the total adjusted revenue from the 2006 

final rule as a baseline to estimate the 

revenue needed for the 2007 shipping 

season. 

TABLE 2.—REVENUES FROM THE 2006 FULL 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 Projected Revenue ................................................................................. 2,231,940 2,375,920 3,908,363 8,516,223 

2006 Total Adjusted Revenue ......................................................................... 2,643,732 3,125,036 4,722,162 10,490,930 

1For the calculation of the 2006 projected and adjusted pilotage revenues, see the ‘‘Discussion of Rule’’ section of the 2006 final rule published in the Federal Register (71 FR 16501). 2Some values may not total due to rounding. 

We estimate the additional cost of the 

rate adjustment in this rule to be the 

difference between the total revenue 

needed based on the 2006 rate 

adjustment and the rate adjustment 

(change) revenue in this interim rule. 

These revenue values and adjustments 

are described and calculated in the 

‘‘Calculating the Rate Adjustment’’

section of this rulemaking. Table 3 

compares projected and adjusted 

revenues and costs of the rule to 

industry by district. 

TABLE 3.—REVENUES, RATE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS AND ADDITIONAL COST OF THIS RULE ($U.S.) 

District District one District two District three Total 1

Total Adjusted Revenue 2 ................................................................................ 2,643,732 3,125,036 4,722,162 10,490,930 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8129 

TABLE 3.—REVENUES, RATE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS AND ADDITIONAL COST OF THIS RULE ($U.S.)—Continued 

District District one District two District three Total 1

Proposed Rate Change 3 ................................................................................. 1.2581 1.2332 1.1943 1.2262 

Revenue Needed 4 ........................................................................................... 3,326,079 3,853,794 5,639,678 12,819,552 

Additional Revenue or Cost of this Rulemaking 5 ........................................... 682,347 728,758 917,516 2,328,622 

1Some values may not total due to rounding. 

2Total adjusted revenue = ‘2002 base revenue’ + ‘2006 final rule rate adjustment revenue’. 3See step 7 of the ‘‘Calculating the Rate Adjustment’’ section of this rule. We used the districts’ percent change in unit costs for the rate 

change. 4 Revenue needed = ‘total adjusted revenue’ × ‘proposed rate change’. 5Additional revenue or cost of this rule = ’revenue needed’¥‘total adjusted revenue’. 

After applying the rate change in this 

interim rule, the resulting difference 

between the revenue projected and the 

revenue needed is the annual cost to 

shippers from this interim rule. This 

figure will be equivalent to the total 

additional payments that shippers will 

make for pilotage services from this 

interim rule. 

The annual cost of the rate adjustment 

in this interim rule to shippers is 

approximately $2.3 million (nondiscounted). 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 interim rule. 

In addition to the annual reviews and 

possible partial rate adjustment, 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 rate 

adjustments, we estimated the total cost 

to shippers of the rate adjustments in 

this interim rule over a five-year period 

instead of a ten-year period. The total 

five-year (2007–2011) present value cost 

estimate of this interim rule to shippers 

is $10.2 million discounted at a 7% 

discount rate and $11.0 million 

discounted at a 3% discount rate. 

For the calculation of the total fiveyear 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 will most likely begin to incur 

costs immediately upon publication of 

this interim rule during the 2007 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 

interim rule. 

The cost to shippers of this interim 

rule is minimal compared with the 

travel cost shippers save when they use 

the Great Lakes system. The alternative 

to Great Lakes waterborne 

transportation is to choose coastal 

delivery, such as East Coast and Gulf 

Coast ports that are more expensive, and 

extra-modal transportation overland, 

which is far less practical and has 

additional transportation costs for all 

commodity groups. See the docket for 

this rulemaking, USCG–2006–24414, for 

an assessment of alternatives to Great 

Lakes waterborne transportation and the 

associated costs entitled ‘‘Analysis of 

Great Lakes Pilotage Costs on Great 

Lakes Shipping and the Potential Impact 

of Pilotage Rate Increases’’ (October 1, 

2004). 

A. Small Entities 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

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

whether this interim rule has 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 

interim 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 interim rule, we reviewed 

recent company size and ownership 

data from 2004–2005 Coast Guard 

MISLE data and public and proprietary 

business revenue and size data. We 

found that large foreign-owned shipping 

conglomerates or their subsidiaries 

owned or operated all vessels engaged 

in foreign trade on the Great Lakes. We 

found one U.S. company operating 

vessels engaged in foreign trade in the 

Great Lakes system that was owned by 

a large foreign company between 2004–

2005. 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 interim rule that will 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 certifies 

under 5 U.S.C. § 605(b) that this interim 

rule does not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of U.S. small entities. If you 

think that your business, organization, 

or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as 

a small entity and that this interim rule 

will 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 rule will economically affect it. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
8130 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

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 interim rule so that 

they could better evaluate its effects on 

them and participate in the rulemaking. 

If the interim rule affects your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please call Mike Sakaio, 

Office of Great Lakes Pilotage, (CG–

3PWM–2), U.S. Coast Guard, telephone 

202–372–1538 or send him e-mail at 

Michael.Sakaio@uscg.mil. The Coast 

Guard will not retaliate against small 

entities that question or complain about 

this interim 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). 

C. Collection of Information 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C.3501–3520), the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) reviews 

each rule that contains a collection of 

information requirement to determine 

whether the practical value of the 

information is worth the burden 

imposed by its collection. Collection of 

information requirements include 

reporting, record keeping, notification, 

and other similar requirements. 

This interim rule calls for no new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). It 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 interim 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 interim rule will not result 

in such expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this rule elsewhere in this 

preamble. 

F. Taking of Private Property 

This rule does not effect a taking of 

private property or otherwise have 

taking implications under Executive 

Order 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights. 

G. Civil Justice Reform 

This interim 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 interim rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. It 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 interim 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 interim 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 interim rule does 

not use technical standards. Therefore, 

we did not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

L. Environment 

We have analyzed this interim rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, 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 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, this 

interim rule is 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 interim rule 

adjusts rates in accordance with 

applicable statutory and regulatory 

mandates. 

List of Subjects in 46 CFR Part 404 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation 

(water), Penalties, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Seamen. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends part 

401 of title 46 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 8131 

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 ........................................................................................... $13 per Kilometer or $23 per mile 1

Each Lock Transited ................................................................................. $288 1

Harbor Movage ......................................................................................... $943 1

1The minimum basic rate for assignment of a pilot in the St. Lawrence River is $629, and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is $2,761. 

(b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters): 

Service Lake Ontario 

Six-Hour Period ............................................................................................................................................................................. $477 

Docking or Undocking ................................................................................................................................................................... 455 

■ 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 Docking or ......................................................................................................................... $641 $641 

Undocking .................................................................................................................................................... 494 494 

Any Point on the Niagara River below the Black Rock Lock ...................................................................... N/A 1,261 

(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. Port Huron 

Change ................................................................................................. $1,699 $1,004 $2,206 $1,699 N/A 

Point ......................................................................................................... 1 2,959 1 3,428 2,223 1,729 1,229 

St. Clair River ........................................................................................... 1 2,959 N/A 2,223 2,223 1,004 

Detroit or Windsor or the Detroit River .................................................... 1,699 2,206 1,004 N/A 2,223 

Detroit Pilot Boat ...................................................................................... 1,229 1,699 N/A N/A 2,223 

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 ............................................................................................................................................................................. $479 

Docking or Undocking ................................................................................................................................................................... 455 

(b) Area 7 (Designated Waters): 

Area De Tour Gros cap Any harbor 

Gros Cap ................................................................................................................................................. $1,718 N/A N/A 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES
8132 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 36 / Friday, February 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Area De Tour Gros cap Any harbor 

Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at Sault Ste. Marie Ontario ................................................................ 1,718 $647 N/A 

Any point in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, except the Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf ............................ 1,440 647 N/A 

Sault Ste. Marie, MI ................................................................................................................................. 1,440 647 N/A 

Harbor Movage ........................................................................................................................................ N/A N/A $647 

(c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters): 

Service Lake Superior 

Six-Hour Period ............................................................................................................................................................................. $464 

Docking or Undocking ................................................................................................................................................................... 441 

§ 401.420 [Amended] 

■ 5. In § 401.420—

■ a. In paragraph (a), remove the 

number ‘‘$70’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$86’’; and remove the number 

‘‘$1,100’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$1,349’’. 

■ b. In paragraph (b), remove the 

number ‘‘$70’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$86’’; and remove the number 

‘‘$1,100’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$1,349’’. 

■ c. In paragraph (c)(1), remove the 

number ‘‘$416’’ and add, in its place, 

the number ‘‘$510’’; in paragraph (c)(3), 

remove the number ‘‘$70’’ and add, in 

its place, the number ‘‘$86’’; and, also 

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

‘‘$1,100’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$1,349’’. 

§ 401.428 [Amended] 

■ 6. In § 401.428, remove the number 

‘‘$424’’ and add, in its place, the 

number ‘‘$520’’. 

Dated: February 7, 2007. 

C.E. Bone, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant 

Commandant for Prevention. 

[FR Doc. E7–3061 Filed 2–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket No. 98–153; FCC 03–33] 

Ultra-Wideband Transmission Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule; announcement of 

effective date. 

SUMMARY: The Commission adopted 

new rules on the labeling of digital 

television receivers and other consumer 

electronics receiving devices. Certain 

rules contained new modified 

information collection requirements and 

were published in the Federal Register 

on October 27, 2000. This document 

announces the effective date of these 

published rules. 

DATES: The amendment to § 15.525 (b) 

and (e) published at 68 FR 19746, April 

22, 2003, became effective on April 5, 

2006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nancy J. Brooks, Office of Engineering 

and Technology, Policy and Rules 

Division, (202) 418–2454. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

5, 2006, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) approved the information 

collection requirements contained in 

Section 15.525 (a) and (e), pursuant to 

OMB Control No. 3060–1015. 

Accordingly, the information collection 

requirements contained in these rules 

became effective on April 5, 2006. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. E7–3060 Filed 2–22–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 679 

[Docket No. 060216044–6044–01; I.D. 

022007A] 

Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic 

Zone Off Alaska; Pollock in Statistical 

Area 630 of the Gulf of Alaska 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; modification of 

a closure; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS is reopening directed 

fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 

630 of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA) for 48 

hours. This action is necessary to allow 

full harvest of the A season allowance 

of the 2007 total allowable catch (TAC) 

of pollock specified for Statistical Area 

630 of the GOA. 

DATES: Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local 

time (A.l.t.), February 20, 2007, through 

1200 hrs, A.l.t., February 22, 2007. 

Comments must be received at the 

following address no later than 4:30 

p.m., A.l.t., March 7, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue 

Salveson, Assistant Regional 

Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries 

Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn: 

Ellen Sebastian. Comments may be 

submitted by: 

• Mail to: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 

99802; 

• Hand delivery to the Federal 

Building, 709 West 9th Street, Room 

420A, Juneau, Alaska; 

• Fax to 907–586–7557; 

• E-mail to 630pollock1@noaa.gov and 

include in the subject line of the e-mail 

comment the document identifier: 

‘‘g63plkro3’’ (E-mail comments, with or 

without attachments, are limited to 5 

megabytes); or 

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Follow the instructions at that site for 

submitting comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jennifer Hogan, 907–586–7228. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NMFS 

manages the groundfish fishery in the 

GOA exclusive economic zone 

according to the Fishery Management 

Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of 

Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North 

Pacific Fishery Management Council 

under authority of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act. Regulations governing 

fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance 

with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 

CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679. 

NMFS closed the directed fishery for 

pollock in Statistical Area 630 of the 

GOA under § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) on 

January 22, 2007 (72 FR 2793, January 

23, 2007). The fishery was subsequently 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with RULES