[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5917-5924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3176]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

33 CFR Parts 404 and 407

RIN 2135-AA08


Seaway Regulations and Rules: Great Lakes Pilotage Rates

AGENCY: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) 
amends the Seaway Regulations and Rules by increasing Great Lakes 
Pilotage Rates by: 8% in District 1 (9% in Area 1; 6% in Area 2); 19% 
in District 2 (0% in Area 4; 31% in Area 5); 6% in District 3 (7% in 
Area 6; 6% in Area 7; 4% in Area 8); and 11% for mutual rates.
    The pilotage rate adjustments contained in this final rule are 
different from the rates proposed by the SLSDC in the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking published in the Federal Register (61 FR 50258) on 
September 25, 1996, (the NPRM), because adjustments have been made 
based on comments received in response to the NPRM. These adjustments 
are discussed in the section of this rule entitled ``Discussion of 
Comments and Changes.''
    The increase in Great Lakes pilotage rates is necessary because, 
after review, the SLSDC has determined that, in accordance with 33 CFR 
407.1(b), pilot compensation is not meeting pilot compensation targets 
established in 33 CFR Part 407, Appendix A, Step 2.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule becomes effective on March 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott A. Poyer, Chief Economist, Saint

[[Page 5918]]

Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, Office of Great Lakes 
Pilotage, United States Department of Transportation, 400 7th Street 
SW., Suite 5424, Washington, DC 20590, 1-800-785-2779, or Marc C. Owen, 
Chief Counsel, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, 400 
Seventh Street, S.W., Suite 5424, Washington, D.C. 20590, (202) 366-
6823.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

    On September 25, 1996, the SLSDC published a NPRM in the Federal 
Register (61 FR 50258) that proposed new pilotage rates in accordance 
with the Great Lakes Pilotage Ratemaking Methodology (33 CFR Part 407). 
The NPRM detailed the calculations involved in determining new pilotage 
rates and proposed increases in Great Lakes pilotage rates based on the 
results of these calculations. The NPRM announced a public hearing, 
which was held on October 22, 1996, in Romulus, MI. The original 
comment period for the NPRM was scheduled to end on November 12, 1996; 
however, four commenters requested an extension. In order to allow the 
public more time to prepare their responses to the proposals contained 
in the NPRM, the SLSDC published a notice in the Federal Register on 
November 15, 1996, (61 FR 58496), which extended the NPRM's comment 
period to November 27, 1996.

Background and Purpose

    On December 11, 1995, the Secretary of Transportation transferred 
responsibility for administration of the Great Lakes Pilotage Act from 
the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard to the Administrator of the 
SLSDC. This transfer was effected by a final rule published by the U.S. 
Department of Transportation (DOT) in the Federal Register on December 
11, 1995 (60 FR 63444). Among the responsibilities transferred by this 
final rule was the responsibility for setting Great Lakes pilotage 
rates. On May 9, 1996, the DOT published a final rule in the Federal 
Register (61 FR 21081), which was originated and initially drafted when 
Great Lakes pilotage functions were administered by the U.S. Coast 
Guard. The final rule made the Department's final changes to the 
methodology used to set Great Lakes pilotage rates.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to establish pilotage rates under 
the new Great Lakes Pilotage ratemaking methodology for the first time. 
This rulemaking also finishes the first full rate review since 1987 and 
implements the first U.S. rate adjustment since 1992.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    In response to the NPRM a total of 42 written and 13 oral comments 
were received. Many commenters did not limit themselves to the subject 
of proposals contained in the NPRM. In fact, nearly all the comments 
addressed one or more issues that were beyond the scope of this 
rulemaking. These comments can be divided into two major categories--
commenters who wanted a comprehensive study of the entire Great Lakes 
Pilotage system and commenters who wanted to reopen or redesign the 
Great Lakes Pilotage Ratemaking Methodology. Twenty-nine commenters 
representing every facet of the Great Lakes maritime community 
requested a study or comprehensive review of the pilotage system with 
the aim of making the Great Lakes pilotage system more efficient. 
Seventeen commenters requested either specific changes to the Great 
Lakes Pilotage Ratemaking Methodology or requested a wholesale redesign 
of the entire methodology.
    The SLSDC believes that the Great Lakes needs to maintain a safe, 
reliable, and efficient pilotage system and a sensible and reliable 
ratemaking methodology in order to stay competitive in world markets. 
This final rule can only address comments directly related to the NPRM 
and its implementation of the ratemaking methodology. However, it is 
clear that there is a considerable amount of public interest in a 
comprehensive review of the Great Lakes pilotage system as a whole. In 
order to give all stakeholders an equal opportunity to comment on this 
subject, on January 29, 1997, the SLSDC published a notice in the 
Federal Register (62 FR 4223) that announced a public meeting on the 
issue. The remainder of the comments discussed in this final rule deal 
with subjects proposed in the NPRM.
    Thirty-four commenters representing agriculture, labor, shipping 
and port interests objected to the rate increases proposed in the NPRM 
and nine commenters representing pilotage interests supported the rate 
increases. Commenters opposed to the rate believed the increases would 
be detrimental to agriculture, labor, ports or shipping on the Great 
Lakes. Almost all of these commenters requested a comprehensive review 
of the Great Lakes pilotage system (as discussed above), before new 
rates were set. Some of the commenters opposed to the NPRM also 
requested that the proposed increases either be rejected, delayed, or 
phased in over as much as a five-year period. The commenters in favor 
of the rate increases believed the proposed increases were necessary, 
reasonable and only fair to pilots who had not received a rate increase 
in many years. The SLSDC has reviewed existing pilotage rates as 
required by 33 CFR Sec. 407.1(b), and determined that pilot 
compensation is not meeting pilot compensation targets established in 
33 CFR Part 407, Appendix A, Step 2. Therefore, pilotage rates have 
been adjusted as required by Step 7 of Appendix A to 33 CFR.
    Four commenters believe the SLSDC's traffic projections were too 
low, and that vessel traffic and pilotage hours would increase more 
than the SLSDC predicted in the NPRM. Commenters requested that 
projections be reviewed using data updated through at least November 
30, 1996. In response to these comments, the SLSDC has reviewed its 
traffic projections using pilot hour data updated through November 30, 
1996. Based on this data, the SLSDC has revised its projection of pilot 
hours in each District.
    In District 1, actual pilot hours through November 30, 1996 were 
13.98% above 1995 levels, with December levels increasing. Therefore, 
the SLSDC has changed its projection to a 16% increase for District 1.
    In District 2, actual pilot hours through November 30, 1996 were 
11.04% above 1995 levels, with December levels increasing. Therefore, 
the SLSDC has changed its projection to a 16% increase for District 2.
    In District 3, actual pilot hours through November 30, 1996 were 
20.41% above 1995 levels, with December levels decreasing slightly. 
Therefore, the SLSDC has changed its projection to a 20% increase for 
District 3.
    The change in traffic projections has not affected pilotage rates 
in Districts 1 or 2 as much as District 3 because the change in traffic 
was not as great. District 3, which in the first three months of the 
navigation season was approximately 43% below 1995 levels, witnessed a 
significant surge in vessel traffic. By November 30, 1996, District 3 
was approximately 20% ahead of 1995 traffic levels. Under the 
ratemaking methodology this increase in traffic translated into an 
increase in the target number of pilots because more pilots are 
necessary to handle the increased workload. The increase in traffic 
also decreased pilotage rates because operating costs are spread out 
over more entities. Virtually all of the change in pilotage rates in 
District 3 is a result of the change in traffic projections that were 
requested by commenters from District 3 and elsewhere who correctly

[[Page 5919]]

alerted the SLSDC that vessel traffic was increasing in District 3. 
Some of these comments are discussed further below.
    Three commenters requested the Director allow 18 pilots in District 
3, including three pilots in the St. Mary's River, so that there will 
be enough pilots to handle the workload and none of the current 18 
pilots will be temporarily layed-off or terminated. As detailed above, 
the SLSDC has revised its traffic projections upward in District 3. 
Based on this revised projection, pilotage rates have been recalculated 
based on 23 pilots in District 3 with four of those pilots in the St. 
Mary's River.
    One commenter from the District 3 pilot association questioned 
whether the pilot hours calculated in the NPRM were correct for 
District 3 because the SLSDC's data showed pilot hours were down 
approximately 43% at the beginning of the year, while the commenter was 
working many hours in excess of 1995. As explained above, the SLSDC has 
reexamined its projections using data updated through November 1996, 
which shows that total pilot hours for District 3 had increased. 
However, further analysis of the data showed that the increase in the 
pilot hour workload was not spread evenly among all pilots, especially 
in District 3. Some disparity in workload between pilots should be 
expected in any district since no two pilots work exactly the same jobs 
at the same time, and some pilots have administrative responsibilities. 
Since some pilots work almost exclusively in designated waters where 
the target is 1000 hours per pilot per season, while other pilots work 
almost exclusively in undesignated waters where the target is 1800 
hours per season, it would be expected that the difference between the 
pilot with the most hours and the pilot with the least hours would be 
approximately 800 hours. As shown in Tables A, B and C below, for 
pilots who worked the entire year in Districts 1 and 2, the disparity 
between the pilot with the most hours and the pilot with the least 
hours was close to 800 hours (approximately 500 hours in District 1 and 
approximately 1000 hours in district 2). As can be seen in the tables, 
in both districts the pilot workload is divided fairly evenly. However, 
for pilots who worked the entire year in District 3, the disparity was 
twice as high (approximately 2,000 hours). Many pilots were 
significantly over targeted hours, while other pilots were below.

                    Table A.--District 1 Pilot Hours                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Pilot  
                            Pilot                                hours  
                                                               (Jan-Nov)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hickey.......................................................        843
Maclean, J...................................................        989
Menkes.......................................................        845
Metzger......................................................      1,072
Tetzlaff.....................................................        860
Maclean, M...................................................      1,362
Welch........................................................      1,357
Dorr.........................................................      1,309
Withington...................................................      1,265
Difference (Hi/Lo)...........................................        519
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table B.--District 2 Pilot Hours                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Pilot  
                            Pilot                                hours  
                                                               (Jan-Nov)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greene.......................................................        778
Kanaby.......................................................      1,007
Schnell......................................................        920
Waldrop......................................................      1,144
Knetchel.....................................................      1,598
Meyer........................................................      1,101
Ell..........................................................      1,298
Singler......................................................      1,348
Coppola......................................................      1,924
Loflin.......................................................      1,269
Coulston.....................................................      1,428
Difference (Hi/Lo)...........................................      1,146
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                    Table C.--District 3 Pilot Hours                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Pilot  
                            Pilot                                hours  
                                                               (Jan-Nov)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opack........................................................      1,778
Balanda......................................................      2,106
Brown........................................................      1,824
Madjiwita....................................................      1,884
Sciullo......................................................        835
Brennan......................................................      2,156
Halverson....................................................        963
Ojard........................................................      1,988
Derf.........................................................        784
Aho..........................................................      1,882
Skorich......................................................      1,552
Kolenda......................................................      2,491
Harris.......................................................      1,504
Hayes........................................................      2,921
Willecke.....................................................        911
Radtke.......................................................      1,226
Difference (Hi/Lo)...........................................      2,137
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two commenters believe that pilotage rates should allow for more 
than the 13 pilots proposed in the NPRM for District 2. As detailed 
above, the SLSDC has revised its traffic projections upward in District 
2. Based on this revised projection, pilotage rates have been 
recalculated based on 14 pilots in District 2.
    The revised traffic projections result in a revision of the target 
number of pilots for District 1. Pilotage rates have been recalculated 
based on 11 pilots in District 1.
    Two commenters, the president and controller of the District 3 
pilots association, believe the way the NPRM proposed to allocate 
expenses to each area resulted in a 1% overstatement of expenses in 
favor of District 3, and an inequitable allocation of revenues to Area 
7 (the St. Mary's River). The ratemaking methodology does not specify 
how expenses and revenues will be divided among the areas, only that a 
separate ratemaking calculation be made for each area (see 33 CFR 
Sec. 407.10(b)). The NPRM proposed that revenues and expenses be 
divided among the individual areas based on the number of pilots 
calculated for each area and that the area totals be added together for 
the District totals. However, the commenters are correct that in a 
District with three areas (i.e., District 3), if all fractions over .5 
are rounded up, as is the general rule, then it is possible to have 
total area expenses add up to 101% of the actual expenses for the 
district. The SLSDC agrees that this situation could upwardly bias 
pilotage rates in District 3, so the SLSDC has remedied the situation 
by changing the order of the calculations so that the district totals 
are done first and then this total is divided among the areas so that 
the area totals must equal 100% of the District total. The commenters 
also believe that district totals should not be apportioned to areas 
within a district based on the number of pilots calculated for that 
area, but instead should be apportioned to each area based on the 
actual revenue earned in that area in the previous year. The commenters 
believe this would lead to a more accurate projection for each area. 
For Districts 2 and 3, the SLSDC agrees with the commenters and has 
divided the district by area accordingly. In these districts all 
revenues and expenses from all areas are pooled together and then 
divided. So it is more accurate to divide district totals based on the 
actual division of revenue for each area. However, in District 1 two 
pools exist, one for Area 1 and one for Area 2. Revenues are accredited 
separately in each pool and expenses are assigned on a per capita 
basis. Following this system, in District 1 revenues have been 
apportioned to each area on the same basis as in Districts 2 and 3, but 
expenses and other calculations are divided based on the number of 
pilots in each area. The SLSDC believes this method gives a truer 
projection of how revenues and expenses are actually divided in each 
area.

[[Page 5920]]

    One commenter agrees with the above commenters that district 
revenues should not be apportioned based on the number of pilots. 
However, the commenter's suggested solution is to divide total district 
expenses into fixed and variable portions, adjust the variable portion 
by projected pilot numbers, and then adjust both the fixed and variable 
portions for inflation. As discussed in the previous comment above, the 
SLSDC believes that dividing revenues based on actual revenues earned 
is a more accurate method, and the SLSDC intends to retain this method 
for dividing revenues.
    Two commenters believe expenses that the independent auditor had 
recommended be disallowed because these expenses were reimbursed by 
other entities should not have been disallowed in ratemaking 
calculations because the expenses in question have already been 
deducted from association revenues reported as net revenues to the 
Director. After reviewing association reported revenues, the SLSDC 
agrees and $113,273 has been added back to the expense base of District 
2 and $112,812 has been added back to the expense base of District 3.
    One commenter believed that $53,971 should be added to the expense 
base for District 1 to account for unaudited travel expenses that are 
not reported in the pilot association's income statement. The SLSDC 
reviewed the District travel figures with the independent auditing firm 
that conducted an audit of all three pilot associations. The auditing 
firm, which had already added $21,624 to the expense base of District 1 
for pilot travel and per diem, did not believe additional funds were 
warranted. As a result, the SLSDC is not changing the independent 
auditing firm's recommended travel allowance for District 1.
    One commenter requested that the District 1 pilots be granted an 
immediate surcharge for the purpose of purchasing Electronic Chart 
Display Information Systems (ECDIS) units for all pilots in District 1. 
The SLSDC believes it is sound policy to evaluate the application of 
ECDIS technology to Great Lakes pilotage operations before wholesale 
adoption. Therefore, this requested change is not adopted.
    One commenter supports the Director's proposed allowance of funds 
for the test and evaluation of ECDIS equipment in each pilot 
association. However, the commenter suggests that the equipment should 
be leased before the decision is made to purchase. The SLSDC agrees 
that leasing would be a viable option for test and evaluation of the 
equipment, and this option will be allowed.
    Two commenters believe the expenses for test and evaluation of 
ECDIS should be amortized as a capital expenditure, rather than as an 
operational expense. Such a change would have virtually no impact on 
pilotage rates proposed in the NPRM because the expense is so small 
relative to the total rate (approximately six tenths of one percent). 
Therefore the SLSDC does not believe such a change would be worthwhile 
for this NPRM. If there are large-scale purchases of ECDIS equipment in 
future years, these expenses would be better candidates for 
capitalization.
    One commenter questioned the use of Internal Revenue Service 
guidelines for the recognition of expenses and argued that $49,500 in 
disallowed pilot boat lease expenses and $5,400 in disallowed property 
lease expenses should be reinstated into the District 2 expense base. 
The commenter believes that all disallowed expenses should qualify 
because they are reasonable and necessary for the provision of pilotage 
service. The SLSDC reviewed these expenses and has decided to accept 
the opinion of the independent audit firm hired for the purposes of 
this ratemaking. The independent audit firm believed the disallowed 
expenses were excessive based on the accepted auditing practice of 
comparison to expenditures of similar businesses in the same locality, 
and the SLSDC has left those expenses out of the rate base for District 
2.
    Two commenters believe that the NPRM did not account for increases 
in operating expenses (e.g., social security, medicare, etc.) that come 
with increases in the number of pilots and/or increases in pilotage 
operations. These commenters are incorrect, the NPRM did take these 
factors into account and an explanation of how operating expenses were 
adjusted for these factors was contained in the NPRM (see 61 FR 50261 
Step 1.D.).
    Three commenters disagreed that master compensation was 1.5 times 
all salary and benefits as proposed in the NPRM. Commenters provided 
detailed information, including W-2 tax information, showing that a 
more accurate approximation of master wages is 1.5 times mate salary, 
plus mate benefits. One commenter also provided a separate calculation 
that indicated master compensation should be approximately $106,000. 
After reviewing the available figures, the SLSDC believes that master 
salary is closest in comparison to 1.5 times mate salary, plus mate 
benefits. Using this method, the calculations in this final rule are 
based on a figure of $92,290 for mate compensation and $131,213 for 
master compensation (representing $116,767 for salary and $14,446 for 
benefits).
    One commenter believed mate compensation included funds for 
workmen's compensation, insurance and social security, and these 
expenses should be disallowed from pilotage district operating costs. 
The SLSDC disagrees because the figure used by the SLSDC for mate 
benefits does not include the ascribed items.
    One commenter believed that profits from related entities of each 
pilot association should be counted towards pilot compensation. In 
effect this is how such profits are counted after deduction for 
expenses and return on investment.
    Five commenters complimented the SLSDC and the Office of Great 
Lakes Pilotage on the NPRM, believing the SLSDC did a fair and 
equitable job of applying the ratemaking methodology. One commenter, 
however, believes the SLSDC applied the ratemaking methodology 
inconsistently and did not follow the published methodology. The 
commenter argues that the number of pilots were calculated without 
regard to federal regulations. The commenter believes the regulations 
require the Director to include mandatory rest hours when calculating 
the number of pilots. The SLSDC does not believe the NPRM was 
inconsistent or contradicted the ratemaking methodology. The federal 
regulations were followed as per Step 2.A. of Appendix A to part 407 of 
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations, which states that the number of 
pilots will be calculated based on projected bridge hours.
    One commenter believes the ratemaking methodology does not require 
pilotage rates to be set on an area by area basis. The commenter 
suggests that rates be set by district and divided evenly among areas 
within each district. The SLSDC believes the method proposed by the 
commenter is contradictory to the requirements of the ratemaking 
methodology (see 33 CFR Sec. 407.10(b) and Part 407, Appendix A, Step 
7). The suggested change is not adopted.
    One commenter believes that the proposed increase in rates would 
have a substantial impact on a significant number of small entities. 
However, the commenter only mentions twelve small entities that might 
be affected, with no details on how much these entities could be 
effected. Lacking any evidence to the contrary, the SLSDC disagrees 
that the proposed increases would have a substantial impact on a 
significant number of small entities.
    One commenter believes the Director should set pilotage rates 
separate from

[[Page 5921]]

the calculations detailed in the Great Lakes pilotage ratemaking 
methodology in order to arrive at a more fair and equitable rate. The 
SLSDC disagrees that the rate calculations are unfair or unreasonable 
and both this final rule and the Great Lakes Pilotage Ratemaking 
Methodology have been established by public rulemaking, with ample 
opportunity for public input. The ratemaking methodology was the 
subject of a separate rulemaking which took several years to develop 
and involved extensive public comment. The final changes to the Great 
Lakes Pilotage Ratemaking Methodology were published as a final rule in 
the Federal Register on May 9, 1996, (61 FR 21081). The time for 
commenting on the methodology is long expired. This rulemaking serves 
to implement the methodology, not reopen the methodology for comment 
and change.

Rate Calculations

    Based on the changes discussed above, the step-by-step calculations 
for each pilotage area are summarized in the following tables:

                                                     Table D                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Total District    Area 1, St.    Area 2, Lake 
                                                                         1        Lawrence River      Ontario   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Projection of operating expenses........................        $354,561        $226,919        $127,642
Step 2: Projection of target pilot compensation.................      $1,287,651        $918,491        $369,160
Step 3: Projection of revenue...................................      $1,532,401      $1,057,356        $475,045
Step 4: Calculation of investment base..........................        $232,890        $149,050         $83,840
Step 5: Determination of target rate of return on investment....           7.72%           7.72%           7.72%
Step 6: Adjustment determination................................      $1,660,191      $1,156,917        $503,274
Step 7: Adjustment of pilotage rates............................            1.08            1.09            1.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                     Table E                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Area 5, South
                                                                  Total District    Area 4 Lake    East Shoal to
                                                                         2             Erie       Port Huron, MI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Projection of operating expenses........................      $1,148,410        $447,880        $700,530
Step 2: Projection of target pilot compensation.................      $1,642,367        $461,450      $1,180,917
Step 3: Projection of revenue...................................      $2,371,548        $924,904      $1,446,644
Step 4: Calculation of investment base..........................        $265,488        $103,540        $161,948
Step 5: Determination of target rate of return on investment....           7.72%           7.72%           7.72%
Step 6: Adjustment determination................................      $2,821,272        $921,223      $1,900,049
Step 7: Adjustment of pilotage rates............................            1.19            1.00            1.31
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                                     Table F                                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Area 6, Lakes                                
                                                  Total District     Huron and      Area 7, St.    Area 8, Lake 
                                                         3           Michigan      Mary's River      Superior   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Step 1: Projection of operating expenses........      $1,159,099        $602,731        $266,593        $289,775
Step 2: Projection of target pilot compensation.      $2,278,362      $1,199,770        $524,852        $553,740
Step 3: Projection of revenue...................      $3,262,301      $1,696,396        $750,329        $815,576
Step 4: Calculation of investment base..........        $119,823         $62,308         $27,559         $29,956
Step 5: Determination of target rate of return                                                                  
 on investment..................................           7.72%           7.72%           7.72%           7.72%
Step 6: Adjustment determination................      $3,446,711      $1,807,311        $793,572        $845,828
Step 7: Adjustment of pilotage rates............            1.06            1.07            1.06            1.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As summarized in the tables A, B and C above, the SLSDC amends the 
pilotage rates found in 33 CFR Secs. 404.405-410 by increasing pilotage 
rates: 9% in Area 1; 6% in Area 2; 0% in Area 4; 31% in Area 5; 7% in 
Area 6; 6% in Area 7; and 4% in Area 8. For the pilotage rates in 33 
CFR Secs. 404.420, 404.425 and 404.428, which are paid in all pilotage 
areas, the SLSDC amends those sections by increasing these rates 11%, 
which is the aggregate increase for the pilotage rate increase in all 
areas.

Regulatory Evaluation

    This proposed regulation involves a foreign affairs function of the 
United States and therefore, Executive Order 12866 does not apply. The 
Great Lakes Pilotage Act (46 U.S.C. Sec. 9305) provides that the 
Secretary may make agreements with the appropriate agency of Canada to 
prescribe joint or identical pilotage rates and charges. The Secretary 
of Transportation and the Minister of Transport of Canada have signed a 
Memorandum of Agreement concerning Great Lakes Pilotage dated January 
18, 1977, section 7 of which provides that the Secretary and the 
Minister will provide for the establishment of identical rates, charges 
and any other conditions or terms. The terms of this rulemaking have 
been discussed with the cognizant agency of Canada, the Great Lakes 
Pilotage Authority, which has voiced no objections.
    This proposed regulation has also been evaluated under the 
Department of Transportation's Regulatory Policies and Procedures and 
the proposed regulation is considered to be substantive but 
nonsignificant under those procedures. All previous pilotage rate 
rulemakings have been considered nonsignificant except for the interim 
pilotage rate adjustment of June 5, 1992, (57 FR 23955). This interim 
adjustment was necessary because a new rate methodology was being 
designed and was significant because the interim rate

[[Page 5922]]

adjustment was put in before the methodology was completed. The rate 
methodology has now been completed and 33 CFR Sec. 407.1(b) requires 
that pilotage rates be reviewed annually.
    The economic impact of this rulemaking is expected to be minimal so 
that a full economic evaluation is not warranted. Fees for Great Lakes 
registered pilotage service are paid almost exclusively by foreign 
vessels. Therefore, the effect of the proposed increase in Great Lakes 
pilotage rates will be borne almost exclusively by foreign vessels 
operators, not U.S. entities.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Determination

    The SLSDC certifies that this proposed regulation, if adopted, 
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. In addition, this rule does not impose unfunded 
mandates or requirements that will have any impact on the quality of 
the human environment. The number of small entities that the SLSDC 
believes will be directly affected by this rule are three U.S. pilot 
associations. The pilot associations will be positively affected by 
this rulemaking, and as discussed above under ``Regulatory 
Evaluation,'' the SLSDC expects the impact of this proposed rule to be 
minimal for other small entities. Since the vast majority of pilotage 
fees are paid by foreign vessels, any resulting costs will be borne 
almost exclusively by foreign vessel operators. The alternative of not 
increasing pilotage rates would have a negative impact on the three 
small entity U.S. pilot associations.

Environmental Impact

    This proposed regulation does not require an environmental impact 
statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (49 U.S.C. 4321, 
et seq.) because it is not a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.

Collection of Information

    This rule contains no collection of information requirements under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Federalism

    The Corporation has analyzed this proposal under the principles and 
criteria in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that this proposal 
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the 
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Parts 404 and 407

    Administrative practice and procedure, Great Lakes, Navigation 
(water), Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seamen.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, the SLSDC amends Part 404 and 
407 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 404--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 404 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 6101, 7701, 8105, 9303, 9304; 49 CFR 1.45, 
1.52. 33 CFR 404.105 also is issued under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 
3507.

    2. Section 404.400 (a) and (c) are revised to read as follows:


Sec. 404.400  Calculation of pilotage units and determination of 
weighting factor.

* * * * *
    (a) Pilotage unit computation:

Pilot Unit=(Length x Breadth x Depth)/283.17 (measured in meters)
Pilot Unit=(Length x Breadth x Depth)/10,000 (measured in feet)
* * * * *
    (c) The charge for pilotage service is obtained by multiplying the 
weighting factor, obtained from paragraph (b) of this section by the 
appropriate basic rate specified in Secs. 404.405, 404.407, 404.410, 
404.420 and 404.425.
    3. Section 404.405 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 404.405  Basic rates and charges on the St. Lawrence River and 
Lake Ontario.

    Except as provided in Sec. 404.420, the following basic rates are 
payable for all services and assignments performed by U.S. registered 
pilots in the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario.
    (a) Area 1 (Designated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Service                        St. Lawrence River     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Pilotage............................  $8 per Kilometer or $13 per 
                                             Mile.\1\                   
Each Lock Transited.......................  $171.\1\                    
Harbor Movage.............................  $562.\1\                    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum basic rate for assignment of a pilot in the St. Lawrence
  River is $374 and the maximum basic rate for a through trip is $1,643.

    (b) Area 2 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Lake  
                            Service                              Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Hour Period...............................................      $294
Docking/Undocking.............................................      $280
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Section 404.407 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 404.407  Basic rates and charges on Lake Erie and the navigable 
waters from Southeast Shoal to Port Huron, MI.

    Except as provided in Sec. 404.420, the following basic rates are 
payable for all services and assignments performed by U.S. registered 
pilots on Lake Erie and the navigable waters from Southeast Shoal to 
Port Huron, MI.
    (a) Area 4 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Lake Erie          
                                                      (East of          
                      Service                        Southeast   Buffalo
                                                       Shoal)           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Hour Period....................................       $322      $322
Docking/Undocking..................................        248       248
Any Point on the Niagara River below the Black Rock                     
 Lock..............................................        N/A       633
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Area 5 (Designated Waters):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Toledo or                                        
                                                              any port on                                       
                                                  Southeast    Lake Erie     Detroit      Detroit     St. Clair 
                Any point on/in                     Shoal       west of       river      pilot boat     river   
                                                               Southeast                                        
                                                                 Shoal                                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toledo or any port on Lake Erie west of South-                                                                  
 east Shoal....................................         $988         $583       $1,282         $988          N/A
Port Huron Change Point........................     \1\1,720     \1\1,993        1,293        1,005         $715
St. Clair River................................    \1\1,7201          N/A        1,293        1,293          583
Detroit or Windsor or the Detroit River........          988        1,282          583          N/A        1,293
Detroit pilot boat.............................          715          988          N/A          N/A        1,293
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When pilots are not changed at the Detroit Pilot Boat.                                                      


[[Page 5923]]

    5. Section 404.410 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 404.410  Basic rates and charges on Lakes Huron, Michigan and 
Superior and the St. Mary's River.

    Except as provided in Sec. 404.420, the following basic rates are 
payable for all services and assignments performed by U.S. registered 
pilots on Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior and the St. Mary's River.
    (a) Area 6 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Lakes Huron
                          Service                                and    
                                                               Michigan 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Hour Period............................................         $269
Docking/Undocking..........................................          256
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) Area 7 (Designated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Area                   Detour      Gros Cap    Any Harbor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gros Cap.........................       $1,317          N/A          N/A
Algoma Steel Corporation Wharf at                                       
 Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.......        1,317         $496          N/A
Any point in Sault Ste. Marie,                                          
 Ontario except the Algoma Steel                                        
 Corporation Wharf...............        1,105          496          N/A
Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.......        1,105          496          N/A
Harbor Movage....................          N/A          N/A         $496
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Area 8 (Undesignated Waters):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Lakes   
                          Service                              Superior 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Six Hour Period............................................         $261
Docking/Undocking..........................................          249
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    6. Section 404.420 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 404.420  Cancellation, delay or interruption in rendition of 
services.

    (a) Except as provided in this section, whenever the passage of a 
ship is interrupted and the services of a U.S. pilot are retained 
during the period of the interruption or when a U.S. pilot is detained 
on board a ship after the end of an assignment for the convenience of 
the ship, the ship shall pay an additional charge calculated on a basic 
rate of $51 for each hour or part of an hour during which each 
interruption or detention lasts with a maximum basic rate of $807 for 
each continuous 24-hour period during which the interruption or 
detention continues. There is no charge for an interruption or 
detention caused by ice, weather or traffic, except during the period 
beginning the 1st of December and ending on the 8th of the following 
April. No charge may be made for an interruption or detention if the 
total interruption or detention ends during the 6-hour period for which 
a charge has been made under Secs. 404.405 through 404.410.
    (b) When the departure or movage of a ship for which a U.S. pilot 
has been ordered is delayed for the convenience of the ship for more 
than one hour after the U.S. pilot reports for duty at the designated 
boarding point or after the time for which the pilot is ordered, 
whichever is later, the ship shall pay an additional charge calculated 
on a basic rate of $51 for each hour or part of an hour including the 
first hour of the delay, with a maximum basic rate of $807 for each 
continuous 24-hour period of the delay.
    (c) When a U.S. pilot reports for duty as ordered and the order is 
cancelled, the ship shall pay:
    (1) A cancellation charge calculated on a basic rate of $305;
    (2) A charge for reasonable travel expenses if the cancellation 
occurs after the pilot has commenced travel; and
    (3) If the cancellation is more than one hour after the pilot 
reports for duty at the designated boarding point or after the time for 
which the pilot is ordered, whichever is later, a charge calculated on 
a basic rate of $51 for each hour or part of an hour including the 
first hour, with a maximum basic rate of $807 for each 24-hour period.


Sec. 404.425  [Amended]

    7. Section 404.425 is amended by revising the term ''Secs. 404.405, 
404.410, and 404.420'' to read ``Secs. 404.405, 404.407, 404.410 and 
404.420''.
    8. Section 404.428 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 404.428  Basic rates and charges for carrying a U.S. pilot beyond 
normal change point or for boarding at other than the normal boarding 
point.

    If a U.S. pilot is carried beyond the normal change point or is 
unable to board at the normal boarding point, the ship shall pay at the 
rate of $312 per day or part thereof, plus reasonable travel expenses 
to or from the pilot's base. These charges are not applicable if the 
ship utilizes the services of the pilot beyond the normal change point 
and the ship is billed for these services. The change points to which 
this section applies are designated in Sec. 404.450.

PART 407--[AMENDED]

    9. The authority citation for Part 407 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 8105, 9303, 9304; 49 CFR 1.52.

    10. Appendix A to Part 407, Step 1.C. and Step 5(2) are revised to 
read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 407--Ratemaking Analyses and Methodology

* * * * *

[[Page 5924]]

Step 1.C.--Adjustment for Inflation or Deflation
    (1) In making projections of future expenses, expenses that are 
subject to inflationary or deflationary pressures are adjusted. Costs 
not subject to inflation or deflation are not adjusted. Annual cost 
inflation or deflation rates will be projected to the succeeding 
navigation season, reflecting the gradual increase or decrease in costs 
throughout the year. The inflation adjustment will be based on the 
preceding year's change in the Consumer Price Index for the North 
Central Region of the United States.
* * * * *
Step 5: Determination of Target Rate of Return on Investment
* * * * *
    (2) The allowed Return on Investment (ROI) is based on the 
preceding year's average annual rate of return for new issues of high 
grade corporate securities.
* * * * *
    Issued at Washington, D.C. on February 4, 1997.

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Gail C. McDonald,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-3176 Filed 2-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-61-P